Talk:Occupation of Lima

Not a speedy candidate

This article can be substantially expanded. I just haven’t had the time to translate it from its Spanish counterpart. Please see it here; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C3%B3n_de_Lima

Chilean biased?

I see somebody added a tag claiming this article to be Chilean sided.

Please explain what is Chilean bias within the article so it can be corrected...

In the meantime I will remove the tag. Likeminas (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased mainly because its based not in the Spanish article but in War of the Pacific articles previously controlled by Keysanger, in fact the text in this article is EXACTLY the same as a previous version of the mentioned article. Please read more carefully before remove a tag, this article was also heavely edited by Keysanger and therefore, must be balanced. And you must asume than my editions in this articles are with good intentions. This topic has been discussed previously in the War of the Pacific talk page between you and me Likeminas, an as you know, the content of this article is Chilean-sided, unbalanced and therefore, unnaceptable.

Please read your own comments about this issue in the Issue #35 In the War of the Pacific archives before remove this tag again. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, like I always do. But it's evident that you haven't taken a look at the editing history of this article.

I know you and others have a personal vendetta against Keysanger, and that's none of my business but I will respectfully ask you to leave that nonsense out of this article.

I will once again remove that template as you have failed to name or list what is biased in the article. Likeminas (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'beg you pardon? I'll don't have any personal issue against Keysanger or any other wikipedian, and I'll demand than you retract of such accusation because I'll found very offensive against me. I'm a professional and a gentleman sir, and you don't have the right or motive to accuse me of such ridiculous behavior.

I'll read the entire history of the article, this was created by you, and is based in the questioned version of the War of the Pacific article, which was obviously Chilean-sided, and this article is barely similar to its Spanish counterpart, mainly because talk about the same topics, is similar; but isn't based in the Spanish one. The biased part is the Looting section, than still includes the words War booty and confiscated which don't explains with clarity the dimension of the acts committed by the Chilean Army, this issue was disccused previously in the War of the Pacific talk page, and I'll copy the conclusion of such discussion, because its seems than you forget your own words:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Here’s a proposal for the disputed sentence (bold text by me);

• Delete the sentence:

...

• Reword and insert claim with attribution:

Nevertheless, while the occupation in Lima lasted, Chilean troops systematically[citations needed] pillaged Peruvian public buildings, turned the old University of San Marcos into a barracks, raided medical schools and other institutions of education, and stole a series of monuments and artwork that had adorned the city.[100] As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru in Lima and transported thousands of books (including many centuries-old original Spanish, Peruvian, and Colonial volumes) to Santiago de Chile, along with much capital stock.[citation needed] It took 3,000 wagons to take the plunder back to Chile that hadn't already been taken by sea.[100]However, In the view of Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos some of the looting was also carried out by Peruvians who saw under the chaos of the occupation an opportunity to acquire and sell valuable objects. On the other hand, the Peruvian historiography has no such accounts and reaffirms that the looting was done solely by Chilean forces.

• Move the following sentence to the section Aftermath: Chile

In November 2007 3,778 books were returned to the National Library of Peru.[101]

Please let me know what you guys think. Likeminas (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'll agree mostly, except for two lines, the first is this one:

As war booty, Chile ‘plundered’ the contents of the National Library of Peru

The cultural heritage is not included in the concept of war-booty of that time and even today, and this is supported by the letter of Odriosola to the Chilean Government, war booty is about any item which can be used in warfare, by example, artillery, rifles and of course, warships, the best examples of this are the Huascar and the Pilcomayo both captured in combat, and the Grieve light artillery captured in San Juan and Miraflores. The word "plundered" should not be placed between apostrophes, and I`still think than is too soft, an euphemism, but OK, its better than the previous word.

The second is than we must show the dimension of the Peruvian collection of books at the time of the war, its an important fact which must be included in the article. Odriosola in his letter mentions the amount of books (around 50000). Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of Likeminas. Nonetheless, Cloudaoc has a point, per Wiki's War Booty article, and the definition of the term, the taking of books is not war booty: it is plunder. Also, plunder should not be in apostrophes. I also agree that the amounts should be mentioned, but it should be done in a manner that makes the article flow correctly. For instance: "Chile transported thousands of books out of the national library, which held about [amount] books, to Santiago..."--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we remove war booty for the time being. In regards to plunder it was a typo, I meant to put it in bold as it was a substitution for the word confiscate.

As for the number of books, let's find some sources, place them here so they can be evaluated for accuracy and later work out another sentence. Other than that, it seems to me we're in agreement. Likeminas (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

... _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As you can see, the issue is clear, the Looting section of this article is biased, you propose in the main article a solution to the issue than was found acceptable by the other editors (me among them) and that's why i'll put the banner of "unbalanced" in the article, because I'll don't have time to rewrite it. You cannot accuse me of being irresponsible, because even you accept than the present version of the facts in this article is unbalanced. I'll will include this solution in the article but removing the reference to Villalobos, because this author cannot be taken as a reliable source because is also Chilean-sided and its version contradicts many primary sources. I'll hope than you cool down and retracts from that absurds accusations against me. Greetings and I'll see you in the main article. We have a lot of work to do there. --Cloudaoc (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is futile. Instead of taking the time to gather, type, and argue with me, why didn't you just make the changes? You could have saved more time by doing that. Likeminas (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that you don't like Villalobos is not enough to make him unreliable, I posted regarding that on the main article. Likeminas (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)