Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Issue 6: defensive/ofensive secret pact

Resolved

{{POV}}, {{OR}}

The current version [1] of the article states that:

• Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

As Alex already said for the case of the Bdow "That suggests that what is the orthodox view in most reliable sources (Bolivia declared war) is a Chilean POV, for which there is no evidence.". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed with:

• Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence., which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 8: Cobija

Resolved

{{fringe}} {{facts}} {{POV}}

The current version [2] of the article states that:

• On March 1, 1879, after Chile's violent expulsion of Bolivian residents and authorities from the department of Cobija (Bolivia's main port),

There are no references for violent. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Considering: That the Chilean government has factually invaded national territory, without observing the laws of the Rights of Nations, or the practices of the civilized peoples, violently expulsing the resident authorities and Bolivians of the Cobija department." from Guillermo Lazos Carmona, History of the borders of Chile, page 65.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are citing a primary source, Daza's decree on 1. March 1879, 1. paragraph "Considerando: ...", see page 65. Do you think, it is a good reference?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a more reliable reference which contests the source, then you can by all means remove it. However, remember that this is the paragraph which will get changed with the proposal discussions currently going on.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a cite from WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material..--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided my evidence. The burden now falls upon you, not me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is the only evidence - a primary source which is Daza himself - then Keysanger would be right. Even if we were allowed to do original research, it would not be a good argument. You would need more evidence that just what Daza asserted. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• La Reforma Social (Page 82): "The arrival of minister Reyes Ortiz and the violent occupation of Antofagasta radically changed opinions."
• Nicanor Aranzaes (Page 317): "The violent occupation of Antofagasta by Chilean troops on February 14 of 1879, exhalted Bolivian patriotism which took to arms in defence of the homeland."
• Victor Mantilla, Ernesto A. Rivas, Nicolás Augusto González (Page 361): "In effect, Mr. Lavalle went to his destination on February 22 of 1879, eight days after the violent occupation of Antofagasta by Chilean forces."

Should I also repeat that this is the paragraph which will get changed by the information currently discussed over Bolivia's DoW?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Violent... if there is some source speaking about which kind of "violence" happened it would be much easier to decide the wording of these events in the article. So if you Marshal, or somebody else, have details on what constituted the violence it would help a lot. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole "issue" is non-existant given that this paragraph is the one that will get deleted upon the end of the other discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole "issue" is existent until the wording has been deleted or mended. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the wording? *sighs*--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording "violent" is no longer in the article and no one is proposing to put it back in. I am marking this as resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex, the battle of Tópater was fought near Calama cannot be considered a violent action? That's why many authors affirm than the occupation of Antofagasta was violent, there was a Bolivian armed opposition and was the begin of a series of small encounters until the end of 1879, when the Chilean Army finally takes total control over the entire department. This issue never exists because the sole act of armed resistance implies a violent reaction (a battle) by the Chilean forces. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course all "battles" are "violent" - by definition. We do not need to tell our readers that battles are "violent". Likewise we do not need to tell our readers that "occupations" are preceded by "invasions". This is again true by definition. If I may use your words - there was "a series of small encounters until the end of 1879". That is what the reader needs to know. That is all the reader needs to know. Whether these skirmishes were "violent" or "brutal" or "ugly" or "illegal" or "atrocious" - this is a layer of interpretation added on top of the facts that we need to resist in an encyclopaedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

OK Alex, you are right. But this encourages me to write an article expanding the Litoral invasion, to introduce more details than the summary accounted here. Please add the line "a series of small encounters until the end of 1879". I'm going to close this issue. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 11: Peruvian victory in Iquique und Punta Gruesa

Resolved

{{confusing}}, {{contradict}} The current version [3] of the article states that:

• The naval battles of Iquique and Punta Gruesa gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and the Chilean ships retreated or were sunk. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow.

What means tactical victory? a defeat?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The mission of the Huascar and Independencia was to end the blockade of Iquique. They succeeded in their mission, therefore achieving a tactical victory. The loss of the Independencia made it a pyrrhic victory. Simple as that.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do any of the sources refer to this as a "tactical victory"? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jose Tamayo Herrera ([4]): "The battle of Iquique was a tactical victory."

Rex Hudson ([5]): "Peru gained a Pyrrhic victory in the first naval action of the war."

Anything else?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's probably enough to establish that it was a "tactical victory" and a "pyrrhic victory". Are there sources that say otherwise? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There were two fights, one in Iquique where the Chilean Esmeralda was sunk and other fight in Punta Gruesa where the Peruvian Independencia went aground persueing a Chilean ship. The current text confuse both battles: The naval battles of Iquique and Punta Gruesa gave a tactical victory to Peru: .... That is non-sense. As MarshallN20 source states: El combate de IQUIQUE fue una victoria táctica but not Punta Gruesa. Correct is : The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: .... Respectively, Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. is misleading. Correct is : Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia in Punta Gruesa, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So can't we just fix this? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Iquique and Punta Gruesa are generally regarded as one, especially since no actual battle went on in Punta Gruesa.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal:

• ''The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. .

References aren't needed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Forget it. It is already fixed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 12: War crimes

{{non-sense}}

Resolved

The current version [6] has a new chapter "War Crimes" including subsections "Lynch's expedition", "Plunder of Lima" and "Repaso".

Neither Sater nor Farcau have a "war crimes" chapter and this is understandable because as stated in War crime [7] Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Hague Conventions define concepts like "war crime" in 1899 yes, but this do not imply than this acts do not exist prior its definition in that year, and also the fact than Farcau and Sarter do not mentioned as such in their books does not means than the war crimes aren't exists, and this concepts are defined and existed today, therefore, its use to describe the atrocities commited by the Chilean Army in Peruvian soil is necessary, because the article is being written today, no prior 1899. We are not forced to only use the terms and language of that time to describe the facts as they were. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's laughable that "war crimes" only exist after a certain date. As far as it concerns the current definition, killing the wounded (Repaso), vandalizing civilian property and comitting murder (Lynch's expedition), and plundering cities (Plunder of Lima) are considered war crimes. Another term which could be used is "Barbarities", which was the term most commonly used prior to "war crimes." I assume Keysanger wouldn't want a section titled "Chilean barbarism"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So should we have a section discussing the "war crimes" of Julius Caesar? We would need reliable sources to establish "war crimes". Alex Harvey (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you find laughable that neither Farcau nor Sater have that chapter, then you should go out from Wikipedia and write that in the newspaper "La Razon". And you would get money for!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is serious? We are talking about acts committed less than a two hundred years ago, not two thousand years ago, the concepts involving acts like "war crime" do not exist as such, because the modern world who define it do not exist at that time, also, this definitions have its origins in the moral introduced into the Roman Empire by the Christian Church, several hundred years later than Caesar, therefore your affirmation is anachronic by definition. Besides, there is a lot of reliable sources which details the barbarism of the Chilean troops during the course of the war, and some of them are cited in this article. Keysanger, the author of the article published by La Razon is a well-know Peruvian historian, and cannot be discarded because the newspaper than published is its article is -at least- "polemical". Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is half serious. Of course 2000 years ago is very different from 150 years ago but the idea of a "crime" without reference to the existence of an actual "law" that it violates is still strange to me. In any case what really matters - as always - is not our own thoughts but what the reliable sources say. We also need a neutral structure and we need to use neutral language - even when sources don't always use neutral language. But first, let's see what the reliable sources do say. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "La Razon", it's really funny how Keysanger seems to dislike it. La Razon is known for being a reliable newspaper, and Ramiro Prudencio Lizon is a notable historian and diplomat. In any case, sources are not necessary to know that murdering civilians and vandalizing their property, plundering cities, and killing the wounded are war crimes. However, since that is what Alex suggests:

Primary Sources

• Dámaso Uriburu (Page 100): "[The civilized world] opposes conquest, whether by title or through reinvindication, whether as compensation of wealth and blood, according to what Chile has pretended and realized carelessly. The most rigurous law of modern rights is written over the foundations of the natural law: to not make more harm than what necessity justifies. [...] No justification exists for the cruelties of an army following its victory: the plunder, the murders, the firings, the death sentences, the flagellations, the rapes and robberies of victims, these all are crimes against humanity."
• Ernesto Rivas ([8]): "We not only can accuse Chile of treacherous, for surprisingly declaring war on us in '79, in moments in which we most trusted in the fraternal love which they pretended, but also to the cruelty it made us suffer throught its hours in power. From its cowardly murder of sailors in the Independencia--while this sunk in Punta Gruesa at the same time the Huascar provided aid to the men of the Esmeralda--until its army left our territory throught he peace treaty of 1883, [...] it was a chain of the most abominable and horrifying crimes. [...] In the cities which they entered, they treated them with the ferocity of Medieval warriors, killing the inhabitants, destroying buildings and fields. Pisagua, Iquique,Tacna, Arica, Chorrillos, Barranco, Concepcion, Huancayo etc. to this day lie in ruins as a result of Chile's hate. Lima, the most beautiful capital of Peru, owes its salvation to the intervention of the foreign Diplomatic Corps [...] In the battlefields neither the wounded or the field hospitals were respected, which the rights of people and the laws of humanity place in safety from any attack."
• Félix Lajouane (Page 65): ""[Chile], ever courageous with its unpunished crimes, pretends to distract the strong [...] El Mercurio wrote in its frontpage--we have fun destroying their ports, in messing up their commerce, and making them die of hunger."

Secondary Sources

• Alfonso Klauer (Page 99): "The Chilean armed forces annihilated the Peruvian military, and comitted in our territory innumerable crimes, robberies, repressions and larceny of all kinds."
• Luis Humberto Delgado ([9]): "It weighs on Bolivians and Peruvians the punishment of losing the War of the Pacific, which they did not promote, but which Chileans conceived and won with the purpose of obtaining wealth, and unhappy with the fruits of its crimes comitted during the war [...]."
• Isidora Aguirre (Page 171): "A detail: Leaving Chile prior to the coup, Frenchman Regis Debray commented that the situation was grave, but that 'it was more Chilean than grave.' At this point his appreciation was valid. We all make mistakes. We attribute the unleashed violence to a strong change in our idiosincracy. Perhaps it was due to the ignorance of our past. Do you no think our people hold potential violence? All we need is to read the crimes in the news: "friends, true friends, and within the depths of alcohol a stab", or "crazy farmer kills with a hatchet his wife and kids." And let's not forget the savagery done against Peru and Bolivia during the War of the Pacific."
• Carlos Alberto Yrigoyen Forno ([10]): "To my understanding, under judgement of my most profound faith in my religious creed and personal feelings, I believe that the crimes and destructions committed by Chile during the war of the Pacific have marked us forever, with a before and after [...]."

Given these sources, Chile has been accused of war crimes both during the war (primary sources) and aftewards (secondary sources). In any case, if Keysanger seeks to further argue against this point, then it is now up to him to bring forth evidence in favor of his point. Sater and Farcau not including a war crimes section does not justify Keysanger's position; and his explanation of their decision is, once more, another example of his apologetic argument. Perhaps Keysanger has the ability to read minds?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly piece about the War of the Pacific with a chapter "War Crimes"?. Isidora Aguirre's "Santiago de diciembre a diciembre" is is a book of long narrative in literary prose, usually called Novel. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isidora Aguirre is a well-known social rights writer. Discarding her as a source leaves plenty of others. Once again, if you have no valid counter-argument to present, then this discussion is over.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are reasons for having a section for the war crimes but shouldn't it better be called something like War crimes and atrocities which widens the concepts? Secondly I don't understand what makes Lynch expedition a war crime, is the illegal taxation by Lynch a war crime? What is a sort of crime that should absolutely be included is the handing over of coolies that helped Chileans to the Peruvians who than killed many of them and plundered Chinese shops. Because of the existence of events things like this (the coolies) that aren't nesesarily war crimes but still terrorific I propose to expand the section from War crimes to War crimes and atrocities. Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Lynch's expedition is a war crime as he used military force to attack civilians (including robbery, property destruction, and murder). "Taxation" is the term used in excuse by Lynch, as at that point Chile did not control the territory or Lima and, therefore, no "taxation" could actually take place.

Coolies existed throughout the globe, and their mistreatment happened prior, during, and after the War of the Pacific. In that sense, they are only notable to this article when taking into consideration that they attacked and stole from Peruvian plantations after being "released" by the Chilean military. How to include this in the article? No idea really. Perhaps following your suggestion of expanding the "War Crimes" section to include other events could work, and we could include a section on the coolies' role in the war. We really should work on the naming first...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I examinated following en:WP articles about wars before 1899:

• Siege_of_Hamburg
• Napoleonic_Wars
• Second_Schleswig_War
• Franco-Prussian_War
• American_Civil_War
• Seven_Years'_War
• Thirty_Years'_War

No one of them has a section or chapter "War crimes".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not have a section "war crimes". The facts included in the section should be presented in the text, not in their own section. This section gives the article a very anti-Chilean top level structure. To me, this appears to be a quite serious POV problem. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, the articles about the war crimes committed by the Nazi Germany also should not use that name because that term gives each article a very anti-German meaning, isn't? The same rule do not apply to them, or not? The facts are the facts, no more and no less. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out a few things:

1. Just because other articles don't have sections on them doesn't mean that this article should not have it either. All of the information present in the section is cited with reliable sources.
2. The events presented in the "War Crimes" section are all factual. The section is not named "Chilean war crimes". In fact, if information regarding any military wrong-doings in part of Bolivians or Peruvians is found, no reason exists as to why it cannot be included in the section.
3. This conflict didn't take place at the start of the 19th century or earlier. By the time of this conflict, notions of morality within the battlefield already existed, and the non-belligerent position of civilian populations was accepted. The acts committed by Chile during the war don't even fit into the idea of "Total War", as killing wounded soldiers after having defeated them, mudering and stealing from civilian populations, and plundering cities after attaining victory is not even part of the "Total War" strategy.

Given these points, the section should not be deleted. I do think that the title could be something better.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't find any of these points persuasive. Here are the problems as I see them:

1. we can not do original research. We must take our cue from reliable secondary sources. If leading historians like Sater and Farcau do not have a section or chapter devoted to "war crimes" then we probably shouldn't either.
2. the above point is probably the only observation required here, but even if we allowed original research, the identification of Chilean crimes during the War of the Pacific as "war crimes" seems anachronistic to me for the reason Keysanger gave. Further, I have done some searching on 'history of war crimes' and each piece I find begins at the beginning of the 20th century and I can't find any scholarly piece referring to the War of the Pacific.
3. the sources that Marshal has adduced in support of his position refer just to "crimes" in the ordinary sense - not "war crimes". I don't think "crimes" and "war crimes" are necessarily the same thing.
4. finally, all of Marshal's quotes use an outraged, partisan tone suggesting that they are probably not scholarly histories.

I suspect there are probably other reasons too why this section is completely inappropriate but this is surely enough. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. I have moved the information to other sections.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We close this section without prejudice to other provisions (specially references, due weight, pov, etc) regarding the moved statements.

Issue 14: Celae?

Resolved

{{copy edit}} --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The current version [11] of the article states that:

• Celae planned to retain the territories of Moquegua, Tacna, and Arica until all peace treaty conditions were satisfied

Do you mean "Chile"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of problems surely don't need to be discussed - see WP:BRD. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue 15: Unbalanced narrative of battles

Resolved

{{POV}}, {{Weasel words}} The current version [12] of the article states for the Naval Battle of Iquique and PG that:

• In the May 21, 1879 Battle of Iquique, Captain Miguel Grau Seminario (known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry) commanded the Huáscar, and managed to sink the Esmeralda. Esmerelda's commander, Commander Arturo Prat Chacón, died in combat and became Chile's greatest naval hero. At around the same time, the Independencia, led by Captain Juan Guillermo More, chased the Chilean schooner Covadonga (Lieutenant Commander Carlos Condell) into shallow coastal waters which eventually caused the heavier Independencia to wreck at the Punta Gruesa

The Battle of Topater is reported:

• This Battle of Topáter was the war's first. Bolivian troops under the command of Dr. Ladislao Cabrera refused to surrender prior to or during the battle. Outnumbered and low on ammunition, the Bolivian force withdrew except for a small group of civilians led by Colonel Eduardo Abaroa, who fought to the end

We see that the Knight of the Seas (Grau) is much better than a dead in combat (Prat), he is a hero only in Chile. Grau is "of the seas". Moreover, the Bolivians fought Outnumbered and low on ammunition and refused to surrender. And the Chileans?. Outnumbered the Peruvian monitor Huascar the Chilean wooden ship Esmeralda?. Yes. Did the Chileans refused to surrender?. Yes. Why is it mentioned in one case and not in the other?. Moreover, More (or Moore) led the Peruvian ship in contrast to (Condell, in brackets), probably he slept only in the Chilean ship. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the Bolivians are lead by Colonel Eduardo Abaroa and Dr. Ladislao Cabrera. Chileans aren't lead, the are a formless mass. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

fixed. About "The lord of the seas" see issue 10. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 16: Occupation/Invasion

Resolved

{{POV}}, {{Weasel words}} The current version of the article [13] states that

• when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta

The English histography of the War of the Pacifis uses "occupation" for the deployment of Chilean forces in Antofagasta:

• A history of South America, 1854-1904, Charles Edmond Akers [14]
• A history of Chile, 1808-1994, Simon Collier,William F. Sater, [15]
• Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the Western ..., Vo 1, David Marley, [16]
• The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert, David Newman,Ronald Bruce St. John , [17]

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't know what a weasel word is (surprising, since you like to use them constantly).
2. Nothing wrong exists with the term "invasion." Do you want us to say that Chile went to sell ice cream in Antofagasta and play a happy jingle in the background?

Seriously Keysanger, this "issue" is ridiculous. Why don't you focus on resolving the other disputes first?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I think that Keysanger is systematically pushing War of the Pacific things in favour of Chile, I think that in this specific case occupation seems more adecuate than invasion since that was hardly any military was defending the city.

Wikipedias own reads like following:

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

If this definition is acepted then it should be noted that 500 soldiers is not a large part of the army of Chile so I would not qualify as an invasion due to its size. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chiton, thank you for joining the discussion. It would be great if you could stay and provide your input on other points as well.

As much as it hurts me to say it...Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To be more specific, non GA-class or FA-class articles are unreliable. GA and FA articles have gone under actual review, so I like to give them credibility. The invasion article you cite has no references for its definition of the term invasion. In other words, some user (or users) have arbitrarily decided what invasion means without consulting reliable sources (at least not that we know of since they don't even have a bibliography).

According to Dictionary.com:

"Invasion - An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army."

"Invade - to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home."

Based on the sources, Chile took possession of Bolivian territory with an army, therefore (by definition) they invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta.

Agree, disagree, or comments? Best of wishes.-MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I DO not participate in interpretations. I use reliable sources only. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how and when to use reliable sources? This is a language discussion. stating that Chile invaded Bolivian territory is a correct usage of the English language.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally we should use terms that convey as little emotion as possible while communicating the same meaning (see WP:YESPOV, point 4). From various dictionaries I am surprised that the meaning of "invade" actually varies somewhat from dictionary to dictionary. The Free Dictionary has for invasion, "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." It's not certain - from what I can see - that Chile's initial intention was to "conquer". Of course, "invasion" can also simply mean to send an army into someone else's territory (and thus we have historians in Australia arguing over whether the original arrival of British settlers was an "invasion" or not). I am inclined to think that, all things considered, Keysanger's suggestion might be a minor improvement. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile's intention is not in question here. From a retrospective analysis, Chile ultimately conquered the territory, therefore they invaded Bolivian territory. There was no "Battle of Antofagasta", but the Chilean invasion of Bolivia's litoral was not peaceful (let's not forget the Battle of Topater). Similarities can be drawn to the retrospect analysis of Germany in World War II. In retrospect, the Germans did not conquer the French, but are considered as having occupied the territory (as well as Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc). The term "occupation" is used when a territory is administered by a foreign country but ultimately returned to its legal owner. This did not happen in Antofagasta.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile's initial intention is in question. We can't argue that because the historical outcome was that Chile conquered Bolivia that it was therefore also Chile's intention at the outset to conquer Bolivia. In fact my impression from what I've read so far is the opposite. As for occupation, it is defined simply as "the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force". There is nothing in the meaning of the term "occupation" that it is "ultimately returned to its legal owner". Alex Harvey (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The historical outcome is indeed part of the discussion as we are not living in 1879. The Battle of Topater is a clear example that Chile did use military force to take over the Bolivian litoral. What gives you the impression that Chile did not want to conquer the Bolivian coast? Per the Wiki article on Occupied territory (This one has sources):

Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.

Based on this, my understanding is the following: The military invades (attacks) territory which it then occupies (takes charge). This can be contrasted to the "raiding and plundering" tactics of some military forces (which invade but do not occupy). Therefore, Chile invaded the Bolivian litoral (Antofagasta) and then went on to occupy it (take control over it).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Invade or occupy, it seems to me that are more less equaly positively/negatively charge and I don't see the point of arguing about it since both words can be applied to describe the events. Chiton magnificus (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The definition provided the Fourth Hague Convention (at least according to the information above) is that "occupation" happens "when [territory] is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Based on this definition, an "occupation" can only take place after a military invasion. It's a matter of sequential order. Chile invaded the Bolivian litoral and then went on to occupy it for the remainder of the war. Therefore, the phrase "when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta", is correct.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: no our interpretation of the history or words is deciding. We have to use what the historians use for the event. And they use "occupation". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of language usage (nothing requiring historic sources).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #1

While we're on the subject, I suppose we could also discuss improving the first paragraph based on the information we have discussed.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Chile began the armed conflict by occupying Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, and invading the Bolivian Litoral without a prior declaration of war. Peru notified Bolivia of the situation, and entered the affair as a mediator to the dispute. Nonetheless, Peru's mediation became compromised by Bolivia's announcement of a state of war with Chile and its desire to activate their "Treaty of Mutual Defense." Chile demanded Peru's immediate neutrality, but Peru suggested its congress should first debate the matter. Disatisfied with the response, Chile formally declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

I bolded the sentence which deals with this topic. We use "occupation" for Antofagasta and "invasion" for the litoral. I propose this compromise.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree . Only (biased) traditinal Chilean historiography may possibly avoid or reject the term invasion since Litoral would have according to (biased) Chilean historiography legally Chilean from the point Bolivia broke the treaty according to Chilean authorities. This view is clearly a round-about justification for the conquest and annexation of this department. Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Is quite absurd to pretend sustain than the Chilean landing on Antofagasta wasn't an invasion, that was Bolivian territory, ruled by Bolivian authorities and Bolivian law, and if some sources didn't explicitly states than was an invasion, this didn't mean than it wasn't. That kind of argument is a complete fallacy. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a few days to answer your proposal. I will see the wording of Sater and Farcau before responding. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal included a lot of controversial concepts (invasion, started, without DOW, etc) into the discussion. Your attitude is not convenient to resolve the issue. Please, reconsider your behaviour.

Neither Farcau nor Sater use the wording "invade" or "invasion" for the Chilean deployment of troops in the region of Antofagasta. And Farcau says the reason: there was scarcely Bolivian presence.

They use following wording to describe the events:

Farcau, "Ten Cents..", p.60

By this time the Chilean army of occupation had grown to approximately 4000 men including local recruits, and the Chilean government had made the desicion to occupy the whole of the Bolivian littoral, not just the portion south of the 23rd parallel, in order to provide security for the "Chilean" portion of the Atacama. Since there was virtually no Bolivian military presence in the area, a number of columns were sent out to take formal posession of the area.

Sater, Andean Tragedy, p.28

The Chilean contingent commanded by Col. Emilio Sotomayor quickly occupied Antofagasta, the principal port of Bolivia's littoral. Within hours of landing, the Blanco Encalada and the O'Higgins took up posesion off Bolivias ports of Cobija, Tocopilla and Mejillones. By the end of the month, two thousand Chilean soldiers, some of them militiamen from newly mobilized guards units, garrisoned Antofagasta, Cobija, and Tocopilla.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the source. "Since there was virtually no Bolivian military presence in the area" is the antecedent to "a number of columns were sent out to take formal posession of the area". Farcau at no point explains his reasoning. Based on the sources I have precented, the difference between "occupation" and "invasion" has been clarified.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue is probably not unlike the "DoW" issue in that both wordings are correct but the question is which is more appropriate. Which sources, Marshal, do you think suggest "invasion" is the better word? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No Alex, both are correct but do not mean the same, the invasion preceeds the ocuppation, it happen first, I don't understand how a fact so clear as the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta can be put in doubt because a couple of authors do not call it "invasion" in its books, even the newspapers of that time call it an "invasion", the same term was used by the own Bolivian government, but if you say than "occupation" means "invasion", therefore, the article titled Invasion of Poland can (and must, as this one) be renamed to "Occupation of Poland", doesn't? How is possible accept an absurd and so elemental "reason" or "logic" like this? Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

All that should matter is that both terms accurately describe what happened. Calling it an "occupation" doesn't put in doubt that there was an invasion - does it? If not, why should you have a problem with that term? It is the same with "announce a state of war" and "declare war". Both describe what happened - the former connotes that Bolivia's announcement was in response to a state of war created by Chile, the latter sounds more aggressive and resolute. Saying "announce a state of war" doesn't call into doubt - in my mind - that Bolivia declared war - at least not until I see compelling legal opinion that there is a difference. To me, the term "invasion" conjures images of armed resistance - but since there was no resistance I feel "occupation" is more appropriate. Of course, every occupation implies an "invasion". The best thing to do generally is follow the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Armed resistance did take place during the Battle of Topater. Hence why I proposed writing about the occupation of Antofagasta, and the invasion of the Litoral Department. I asked the professor about this issue as well, just for the sake of hearing his opinion on it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex, as you can see, there was an armed resistante during the invasion of Antofagasta, and I completely reject your insinuation about than I have a problem with the word "occupation", I'm not Keysanger sir, and I would appreciated than you carefully check the information about the issue on discuss before launch accusations like that one. Topater wasn't the only armed encounter fought in Antofagasta, in December 9, 1879 an encounter was fought in Tambillo between the small Chilean garrison of San Pedro de Atacama (24 in strenght, commanded by the Lieutenant Emilio A. Ferreira) and a Bolivian detachment (70 in strenght, commanded by the Colonel Rufino Carrasco), which result in a Bolivian victory, an irrelevant one for the course of the war, but still a victory. Here is the small article in the spanish Wikipedia about this encounter: Batalla del Tambillo. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cloudaoc, Alex lives in Australia and much of the material in this discussion is probably new to him. The best thing to assume in this situation is that Alex does not know certain events and is open to hear about them. Regarding the comparisson to Keysanger, for whatever is left of the WP:GF concept, all I can add is that Alex probably did not mean to compare you with him in any way. Of course, I cannot speak on his behalf, but I do know that Alex has been the most civil user in this whole "heated" discussion, and by precedent he has not done or said anything insulting to anyone.

Back to the topic. The situation analyzed at this point is the invasion of the Litoral. I agree that, due to the lack of resistance in Antofagasta, the best term to use would be "occupation" for that particular place. However, when looking at the full picture, Chile invaded all of Bolivia's Litoral department (not just Antofagasta, an important city in the department), and met at least one armed resistance group. That one group is enough to justify the term "invasion" over "occupation" when speaking about the whole Litoral. At least that is my perspective on the issue.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cloudaoc, you must have misunderstood me here. I make no accusations or insinuations. You're right that I don't know all the details as well as you do but I do know that the basic Wikipedia procedure is the same - we generally follow the wording in reliable sources. If both Sater & Farcau describe this as an "occupation" then it could be that this is the best word.

@Marshal, I find your proposal to be too wordy. It also reads as if the editor is trying to make a point - perhaps split hairs too. Given we agree that an "occupation" implies an "invasion" and vice versa, the reader's going to wonder why you're making a distinction. I think the subtext will come across - "well if the occupation of Antofagasta wasn't an invasion, the attack on the Litoral was". I think just calling the whole thing an "invasion" is preferrable to this proposal. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What about sources?. Do you have neutrale reliable sources to support the wording?. Or you "interprete" the events like in issue 2?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is directed at me or Marshal/Cloudaoc, but if me, I already said we need to follow the reliable sources. My point is I find the present wording better than Marshal's suggested compromise. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK Keysanger, occurs than Farcau, in the same book from you extracted the cite (page 60) to "sustain" than there is no use of the word "invasion", is written the following text:

Farcau, "Ten Cents..", p.48

... The initial army of 'invasion' landed at Antofagasta consisted in a mixed force of five hundred man under Colonel Emilio Sotomayor.

...

How can I assume good faith if you deliberately choose a paragraph written just 12 pages after the word than you don't want to include, because you don't want to show the acts of Chile in the war as they was. And this is not the first time than you do this, previously in the BDoW issue, you stated than the Corvo declaration was the official Bolivian DoW, and if I do not notice it, that would be included as a fact in the article. This has been enough gentleman's, is obvious than Keysanger's intentions are not improve, keep this article accurate and balanced, but to align it to the official Chilean PoV, seeking to make Chile look as the "victim" of this conflict. I hope than you understand my indignation, truly... Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to separate two phases of the conflict. The occupation of Antofagasta, Mejillones, Caracoles and the invasion of the undisputed Bolivian territory (north of the 23°S). We call it occupation or invasion according where it occured. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So, this is not longer an "issue" (it never was), but a proposal for improvement, doesn't? And reading the article, this states than Antofagasta was occupied without any resistance, and this is inaccurate, I'm going to expand this section -perhaps in a new article- to include the antecedents, the invasion itself, the subsequent occupation and finally, as an aftermath, the annexation of the Bolivian Litoral to Chile. Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is still a issue. What is your proposal?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, is not longer an issue, you can´t continue denying than the landing of Chilean troops in Antofagasta was an invasion, the sources prove it. I'm not going to repeat this again, I put the evidence than even the neutral sources call it an invasion. You must prove the opposite or keep this so called "issue" closed. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 22:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I repeat it for you:

Farcau, "Ten Cents..", p.60

By this time the Chilean army of occupation had grown to approximately 4000 men including local recruits, and the Chilean government had made the desicion to occupy the whole of the Bolivian littoral, not just the portion south of the 23rd parallel, in order to provide security for the "Chilean" portion of the Atacama. Since there was virtually no Bolivian military presence in the area, a number of columns were sent out to take formal posession of the area.

Sater, Andean Tragedy, p.28

The Chilean contingent commanded by Col. Emilio Sotomayor quickly occupied Antofagasta, the principal port of Bolivia's littoral. Within hours of landing, the Blanco Encalada and the O'Higgins took up posesion off Bolivias ports of Cobija, Tocopilla and Mejillones. By the end of the month, two thousand Chilean soldiers, some of them militiamen from newly mobilized guards units, garrisoned Antofagasta, Cobija, and Tocopilla.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ian, I had a look at a number of sources and came to the conclusion that most writers prefer to say "Chile occupied Antofagasta". I can assure you that there is no way anyone can read "occupy" and not know that every "occupation" is simultaneously an "invasion". They are almost synonyms. I also don't recall any sources using the word "invasion" to describe the occupation of Antofagasta. Because the occupation was quick and obtained with little resistance it is just a simpler, clearer word to describe what happened.

If it is your concern that the reader is going to be unaware of resistance in the Litoral, it would be better to simply add this reliably sourced material in the body of the article. Again, I assure you, there is no Chilean bias in the words "occupation of Antofagasta". Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose accepting this is good if all Keysanger wants to change is the sentence he mentioned. "Occupation" is already understood to take place after an invasion, as explained by Alex and the professor.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I said than there is not longer an issue (it never was), besides, I'm working in a more extensive article about the Bolivian Litoral Campaign, which includes the landing and the action of Topater. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 02:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! I hope we get to see it soon.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Great!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 17: repeated

Resolved

{{copy edit}} The current version [18] of the article states that:

• Chilean naval power was based on the twin armored frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, each of 3,560 tons and equipped with 6x250 pound muzzle-loading guns, 2x70 pound guns, 2x40 pound guns, and an armored belt with a maximum thickness of 9 inches (23 cm). The ships' maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga.
• Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia and the monitor Huáscar. The Independencia weighed 3,500 tons, with 4.5 inches (11 cm) armor, 2x150 pound guns, 12x70 pounders, 4x32 pounders, and 4x9 pound guns. Her maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The monitor Huáscar weighed 1,745 tons, had 4.5 inch armor and possessed 2 muzzle-loading 300 pound guns located in a revolving turret. She had a maximum operating speed of 10–11 knots.[38][39] The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac.

This stuff is already given in the table under "Military strenght comparison".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to build consensus - or make a point about how terrible the article is? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole article including the military strength of the parties should be understood even without looking at the tables. I found hower this text too technical. But this issue is more a matter of style than a controversial point to be discussed here (unless Keysanger and Marshall want again to have a clash on this issue). Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that the "technical terms" can be removed if that's what bothers Keysanger. However, explaining the ship classes is important. By this I mean explaining whic ships are corvettes, gunboats, schooners, fluvial monitors (which are by no means the same as normal monitors), monitors, etc. I propose the following the combination of both paragraphs:

Chilean naval power was based on the twin frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, each of 3,560 tons and equipped with muzzle-loading guns and an armored belt with a maximum thickness of 9 inches (23 cm). The ships' maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia and the monitor Huáscar. The Independencia weighed 3,500 tons, with guns and 4.5 inches (11 cm) of armor. Her maximum operating speed was about 12 knots. The monitor Huáscar weighed 1,745 tons, had 4.5 inch armor and possessed 2 muzzle-loading guns located in a revolving gun turret. She had a maximum operating speed of 10–11 knots.[38][39] The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac.

Better? I only kept the weight, armor, and speed for the main ships.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Chilean naval power was based on the twin frigates, Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, (3,560 tons, armor of 9 inches and 12 knots). The fleet included the corvettes Chacabuco, O'Higgins, and Esmeralda, the gunboat Magallanes, and the schooner Covadonga. Peruvian naval power relied on the armored frigate Independencia (3,500 tons, armor of 4.5 inches, 12 knots.) and the monitor Huáscar (1,745 tons, armor of 4.5 inch, 10–11 knots). The fleet was completed by the corvette Unión, the gunboat Pilcomayo, and the fluvial monitors BAP Atahualpa and BAP Manco Cápac. (See section Comparison below).

Shorter, easier to read and includes the same information. O.K.?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how this was an issue to begin with (nobody would have contested your edit).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree my proposal?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't create consensus over non-controversial material. You can edit the part as you see fit, but that does not mean that in the future some other editor will not be able to change it on his consideration for improvement.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, please follow the process in WP:BRD. Issues should never be raise here until you have tried to fix them yourself. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, MarshallN20,

I understand your contribs as agreement and fixed the stuff. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 20: failed/refused

{{POV}}

Resolved

Regarding the current version of the article [19],

• After the company failed to pay the tax,...

The use of the word "failed" means that the company was wrong as it didn't pay the tax. That is POV. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up the wording of this section. [20] I have removed some repetition and in the process removed the word "failed". Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the new version by Alex. Great.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why this is an issue? Keysanger, why don't just make the correction by yourself? Why you need to "discuss" every single word than you considered "weasel" or "wrong" according your ver personal PoV? This is not your article, and you must know than I'm not going to get bored and just give up the control of the edition to you, do you understand? You can put a hundred of issues in this article but I'm going to keep it free from your obviously intention to convert it in your own personal version of the facts, which, not by coincidence, it's quite similar to the official Chilean PoV.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Keysanger did try to fix this and you reverted him: [21]. You may not have noticed. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue 21: (declared war/ declared the casus foederis) on Chile

Resolved

{{POV}}

Regarding the current version of the article [22],

• Peru acknowledged casus foederis

That is POV. The main fact is that Peru declared war on Chile, that is the relevant fact for the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue is duplicated in the thread below. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am sure that this is something worth discussing. The recent massive edits done by Keysanger, [23], when carefully analyzed are all systematically pushing a non-neutral POV in the article. Removing several bits of information for no good reason. I would like to revert to the previous state of the article, but first I would like to know the opinions of others.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To avoid wasting anyone's time, here are the edits:

• Removals done by Keysanger

1. "On April 5, after Peru resisted this demand, Chile declared war on both nations."
2. "After the War of the Pacific, Peru was left without saltpeter production, the Chilean production decreased to 15%, and Great Britain's production rose to 55%."
3. "In 1874, Chile and Bolivia replaced the 1866 boundary treaty with a treaty granting Bolivia the authority to collect all tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, fixing the tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up." (bold is removed text)

• Changes done by Keysanger

1. "Peru acknowledged casus foederis" (with citation) changed to "Peru declared war on Chile" (without citation)
2. "the treaty" changed to "a secret treaty known as"

This is without mentioning all of the references he has deleted. I don't know why he is doing this, but would like to believe these are not edits done in response to the past discussions which he is still arguing despite yet another editor is recommending him to stop ([24]). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the editions, and reverse the last one. This has been enough, there is nothing to discuss; we must do something to stops his intentions to turn this article not to his POV, but to the official Chilean POV. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "Chilean POV", since his edits are merely promoting his own point of view. There is no reason as to why he should delete sourced material and references. All of this because he didn't get his way on one discussion? I suggest we return the article to the last version edited by Alex. As to what should be done with Keysanger, I am not sure what steps to take at this point. The ball is in his side of the court.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to made the reversion. And I'll do it so many times as necessary to keep the article free from his "truth". Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking a good initiative. I still would like to hear Keysanger's reasoning.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, there is nothing wrong with Keysanger making bold edits - and there is nothing wrong with others reverting them. It's better than raising "issues" that he hasn't firstly tried to fix himself. Now that the edits have been reverted we can discuss them. For my part, I agree with the reverts. We should not be asserting that he is "pushing a POV" - even if it appears that way - per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been reviewing Keysanger's edits carefully. In this edit [25] I am also puzzled why we have a footnote here. Are we simply establishing the fact that Chile occupied Antofagasta? If so, I would move it to the end of the sentence or paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also restored this edit [26] which I agreed with. @Keysanger, if you don't want people to revert your changes it would help if you added edit summaries. If it was me I would have simply reverted all your changes in a single go based on the fact that you'd made contentious edits without edit summaries. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Antofagasta footnote. I have tried to remove that as well in the past, but (if I'm not mistaken) it was Keysanger the one that kept placing it back in. That now he is trying to remove it as well...I suppose it's a good move on his part. I also agree that it is best for Keysanger to make edits and then be challenged about them, but making such large changes in the controversial article really does require some sort of explanation (edit summaries). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The end of the Peruvian Navy

The previous version of this article states the following text:

"Chile set the Peruvian fleet on fire and destroyed or appropriated Callao's coastal defense material."

Having as a reference:

• Basadre 1964, p. 2538
• Calero y Moreira, Jacinto (1794). Mercurio peruano. Peru: Biblioteca Nacional del Perú. pp. 44–46. Retrieved July 22, 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

But this line is false, is well know fact than the Peruvian Navy officers scuttled their remaining ships after the fall of San Juan and Miraflores, the Chilean navy never put "on fire" the remaining ships because they found it already burning and sunken. I'll remove it and replaced with a proper text, and about the sources, the Basadre books don't stated that (I have the entire collection). I'll proper source this in a few days. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a proper source:

• Paz Soldán, Juan Pedro (1919). "El hundimiento de la Escuadra Peruana - 16 de enero de 1881". El Mercurio Peruano - Revista Mensual de Ciencias Sociales y Letras. III (13). Lima, Perú: 44–47. Retrieved 2011-09-24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).

Who cites "El Mercurio Peruano" of 1794 obviously ignores than existed more than one publication entitled with that name. I'm reading the entire article again, just in case. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting information. Nonetheless, perhaps it would be best to find a much more stable source than the blog?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source is the hardcopy of the journal stored in our National Library and in the UNMSM, the blog provides to the readers a copy of text from the source itself, if they can't obtain access to the original source. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 01:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking around

Hi Alex, Cloudac, MarshalN20, Chiton,

Allow me to congratule you and myself for the work we are doing. I think we all have done a good job until now. A lot of controversial issues have been resolved, not as good as every one of us would like but we have reached amicable and acceptable agreements.

Article improvement has been slowed by disagreements, seemingly endless debates and careless changes and reverts. I have learnt a lot about this "Andean Tragedy" and I hope you did also.

The attitude of some editors (me included) has been far from perfect but at least we have kept the discussion in the talk page and averted stupid edit wars.

I still can't understand how Alex is still there, dealing with a group of unflexible editors, some of them with low English skills in a theme that he never had heard and probably never was interested and despite strong critisism from over all sides. Thank you, Alex. Stay there.

You may have noted that issues are becoming less controversial and easier to resolve. I ask you all for a continued effort of patient and comunicative research, cautious changes and exhaustive edit summaries, and above all, an exact following of the Wikipedia rules in order to get a better article. I may remind you that an agreement doesn't mean the extirpation of our brain but an extension of our mind.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nice Keysanger. Please just finish the "issues" so that we can remove the article's "problem tags" and all get on with our lives.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MarshalN20. We remember that our aim is not to finish the issues but to improve the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Keysanger, but, to improve the article we need to close the pending issues. Besides, who of us have a "low English skills", because if are you speaking to me, you're right, this is not my native language, but I must say than my english is far from "low", ok? Thanks a lot for your words, really. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Keysanger. Let's hope we can just get on with fixing the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 22: Chile declared war, Peru announced the casus foederis or are not mentioned

{{POV}}

Resolved

Extended content

Regarding the current version of the article [27], and subject to the provisions of the ongoing discussion about the Bolivian Declaration of War, the lede doesn't mention that Peru declared war on Chile, (besides use the Euphemism "to announce the state of war" to hide the Bolivian Beclaration of War) and in the section "Peruvian mediation" again doesn't mention the Peruvian Declaration of War. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) As far as the lead is concerned, it is a trivial detail that Peru reciprocated the declaration of war and I would suggest keeping it out for the sake of not cluttering the lead. For the body, I suggest, "The next day, Peru reciprocated and declared war, acknowledging casus foederis". Alex Harvey (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Peru did not declare war. Can Keysanger please provide the text of the Peruvian declaration of war? I can and have already provided (in the link within the article) the text of the Peruvian casus foederis.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Good heavens, don't tell me we're now going to argue about whether or not Peru declared war! Alex Harvey (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This really depends on Keysanger. Peru did not declare war. The text of the casus foederis actually exists, and can be read within the link I presented in the article. Declaring the casus foederis replaces the declaration of war. The question goes back as to why Keysanger wants to include the text "Peru declared war"?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This is never going to stop, right? Alex, Peru did not declare war to Chile, there is not a single reference about this, and there is nothing to argue because never exists. This issue only exists to Keysanger and you Alex, as I say before, must be aware about the facts "in dispute" before give an opinion and just give up to Keysanger's "truth". Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Okay, I admit I can't find any reference to Peru declaring war either. Keysanger? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I wrote as MarshalN20 said. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, MarshallN20 doesn't agree his own proposal. Please, do not delete the "multiple issues"-tag until all issues are resolved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) You are right MarshallN20, we live and learn. There is no PDOW. Hence my proposal is Peru reciprocated acknowledging casus foederis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Text Should Identify the Problems

To all interested editors: The box at the beginning of this article says:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Tagged since August 2011.
• It may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Tagged since August 2011.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since June 2011.
• It contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Tagged since August 2011.

I am simply an editor randomly requested to help. As I look over the article, I see no specific citations boxes to guide an editor to an area of concern. In particular, please identify, if it is possible, the following:

1. Where are these inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text?
2. Where are the paragraphs (sentences) that may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable informatio?
3. Which statements are said to be POV instead of NPOV?
4. Where are the "weasel words"? the "vague phrasing".

If these cannot be identified by markers in the text, then the box should be removed from the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I realize that discussions have been ongoing. That is okay with this editor. But, the article begins with a critical box. This topic is new to me. I look it over to learn as well as to help. Some editors consider this article one of their interests. They want the article to be a model article. If problems are not identified then why state the problem at the beginning of the article. Discuss on the talk pages and agree to make changes. Why draw attention to the articles problems without giving helpful specifics? In the talk page Issues are idendified. How many have been resolved? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are asking the same questions other users have asked, but Keysanger insists on keeping the box up there and the several of the issues unresolved. That being said, we have been able to resolve some of them, but the majority are still unresolved. Alex has been kindly helping out resolve many of the issues, and has been an effectively neutral voice to the discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Grau honored in Chile

I am not sure where to put this, so I have opened a new section. This part of history, the War of the Pacific, is new to me. The kindness of Miguel Grau to the widow Prat made an impact on the minds of all, it seems. It is understandable that Grau is a hero of Peru. But, he is also honored in Chile. Santiago has a street named after him and in a city park Prat and Grau share a monument. The focus on Grau is on his letter to Prat's widow. Chile seems to have won the war, yet their enemy receives honor because he is kind to the widow. (The issue has been declared resolved.) If a person behaves commendably, is it a neutral point of view to mention it? A "neutral" fact leading to honor is still just a "neutral" fact. Grau's actions toward the widow of Prat seems rather unique in military history. Consider this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carta_de_Grau_a_viuda_de_Prat_en_monumento_chileno.JPG

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have is whether this information is relevant to the war or to Grau's biography. Certainly, the material should appear in Grau's biography - but does it belong here? Several editors have said that it doesn't. I made the observation that although Winston Churchill was a remarkable person, there is no discussion of his character in our article on WWII. Likewise, there is no discussion of Hitler's or Stalin's - in the article on WWII. Just what sort of a person so-and-so was isn't something, in my view, that belongs in an encyclopaedic article that chronicles a war. By insisting that it should go in we achieve a more romantic history - we become more Herodotus than Thucydides. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Alex, but there is a factor (for both Grau and Prat) extremely relevant to the war. Prat's death, in Chile, caused a major nationalist uproar similar to how Diego Portales' death impacted Chile during the War of the Confederation. In Peru, Grau's deeds ("Correrias del Huascar") and "chivalry" (regardless of what he did later on in the war, his behavior toward Prat's crew and wife made him a national hero even before his death) kept a high sense of moral within Peru. Both of these factors are important to the war itself. Grau symbolized Peru, to the point that one of the sources explains that the war seemed to be solely between Grau and Chile. The "Grau cult" developed during the war is not something to be ignored.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Another unique feature. It seems that Grau's body was taken first to Santiago where he received a hero's welcome. Santiago is now part of Chile. Was it part of Chile then? If so, the hero's welcome is strange. Did Grau's courtesy affect the war as it progressed? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Grau's body being taken to Chile since he was blown up during the Battle of Angamos. There's a bit of a controversy as to whether the Chilean ships purposely fired on the commander's box to kill Grau, or if it was done by accident. Apparently, it was customary in naval battles to avoid directly killing the officers, but the first shot fired from the Chilean warships went straight to Grau's box (killing him and the guy that drove the ship instantly). All that was left of Grau (not sure if this is true or folklore) was a part of his leg.

Santiago is Chile's capital. They probably could have taken his belongings and held an honorary burial. Thank you for taking so much interest in this topic. This morning there was a ceremony in Grau's honor in Peru.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Hi MarshalN20,

It is not fair that an editor edits the article so many times and so intensive as he likes but he don't allow other editors to do the same. Since begin of the discussions to improve the article you have made multiple changes to the article despite my and Alex's concerns. You did it and we accepted it. Now I added a paragraph referenced with one of the best sources about the war in the English language and you deleted it. Please, read WP:OWN and let my contribution in the article and open a new issue with your objections. I did it so and that averted edit wars.

Let us discuss what is the best or possible solution for the issue 10.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are including a whole section based on a single author. That not only goes against WP:NPOV, but also falls into WP:PLAGIARISM.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All wars have causes, so a section for them is always needed. Trivial issues do not need military responses, so if there is a war, there are reasons for that war. Which are the reasons is another thing: if historians at each country name different causes for the war, include them as well, and point who says what. Cambalachero (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's false, as can be noted on articles such as World War II (GA), Nagorno-Karabakh War (FA), Polish–Soviet War (FA), War of the Fifth Coalition (FA). What they all have in common is a "background" or "prelude" section which describes the situation leading up to the conflict. The "causes" section in this article is plain plagiarism from Sater's work, and conflicts with the background section. If Keysanger wishes to add Sater's view, he should use the background section to elaborate on the points presented by Sater, not simply list them.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two books in English language about the "War of the Pacific", both are reliable sources written and published by recognized historians W.F.Sater ("Andean Tragedy") and Farcau ("The Ten Cents War"). The four causes given by Sater are a compilation of rationale you can find by many other authors. I think to compare my simple English with Sater's fine work is a offense to the Sater. This section doesn't conflicts with the "Background" section because the later doesn't include the causes of the war. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex has already explained to you that Sater and Farcau are not the only reliable sources available for this war, and yet you keep treating them like gods. Sater obviously has a pro-Chilean bias in his "causes" (the list you present makes Chile the victim and everyone else the aggressors), hence the NPOV problem. A "causes" section is not necessary as that is the purpose of the "Background" section (to explain the causes which led up to the conflict). The part about Peru's monopoly doesn't even make economic sense as Peru already held 58.8% of the saltpeter production (see market power). Chile/Bolivia/Britain could sell their saltpeter at market price, but their lower output and high demand meant that the buyers eventually would need to get the saltpeter from Peru at their monopoly price (Peru obtaining most of the benefits). Peru did not need to control the other saltpeter regions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this section shouldn't be there and I deleted it. If the background section doesn't treat the causes of the war adequately then the background section needs to be improved. Creating a second "background" section and calling it "causes" and then presenting the official Chilean history in that section just creates a POV fork. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 10: Grau

{{peacock}} {{POV}} {{undue weight}}

Unresolved

The current version [28] of the article states that:

• Captain Miguel Grau Seminario (known as the "Knight of the Seas" due to his chivalry)

What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. Should we also add that Patricio Lynch was called "Red Prince"?. That is Folklore and doesn't belong to the en:WP. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The fix is simple. All that is needed is an explanation: (1) how Grau ordered the saving of surviving members of the Esmeralda instead of killing them with bayonets (which several navies, including the Chilean Navy, took as practice), (2) how Grau set the Chilean sailors back on their land instead of taking them as PoW, (3) how Grau sent the property of the Chilean captain that made a suicide jump on his ship back to the captain's wife, (4) how Grau ordered the protection of the water towers in the desert populations of the Atacama for the sake of protecting the civilians (destroying the water towers would have hurt both the Chilean soldiers and the civilian population), etc. Hence why he is a notable military figure in the conflict for all three sides involved. How does Lynch compare to Grau?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the battle of Iquique article Keysanger? Its full of that you called "useless information", and even worst, unsourced phrases attributed to some of its protagonists, like Grau. Why you don't edit it with the same "intensity" than this one?. The title "Knight of the Seas" is not only wide know but also well sourced, and there is no point of comparaton between Lynch, a well-proven merciless looter, and Grau.Cloudaoc (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the question: What is the encyclopedic worth of this information?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 08:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote before, the fix is simply to explain why Miguel Grau is called the "Knight of the Seas". Miguel Grau is one of the most notable figures of the war due to his achievements during the naval campaign, that is his encyclopedic worth. Neither Lynch or Pratt did anything comparable to what Grau achieved in terms of military conduct and strategy.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes good idea. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bad idea. I don't want to present the reader Peruvian or Chilean folklore. If you must write it then you can use the page of Grau for. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of what you want to present, and much less is it a matter of folklore. Grau's deeds are verifiable and of outstanding notability in a military perspective (a single ship holding off an entire invasion is quite remarkable). His chivalry is also of notability; after all, he could have killed civilians or defeated soldiers (akin to Chile's decision-making), but instead played by the book. Grau is honored by all militaries in the conflict (including Chile), and that alone demonstrates his notability.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

May be or may be not. But that is not the point.

The point is that this is an article about the WotP and many persons involved in the events had an outstanding perfomance and/or an outstanding failure. Do we want to write the perfomance/failure of Pierola, Prado, Daza, Buendia, Bolognesi, Caceres, Montero, Iglesias, Moore, Lavalle, etc?

If you want to do that, do it in the article about this person, not in the article about the War of the Pacific. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is without foundation. The proper weight must be provided to the notable figures in the conflict. Bolognesi, Avaraoa, and Prat all notably sacrificed their lives in the conflict, and a proper mention to their deed is mentioned within the article.

It's not my fault that Miguel Grau happens to be Peruvian (which is what obviously bothers you), and that his actions during the war are so important. Let us remember that it was not until Grau's defeat at Angamos that Chile was finally able to begin "the end" of the conflict. All major history books hold Grau's defeat as a major point in the conflict.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, show us the reliable sources that give this material weight in the context, not of Miguel Grau's biography, but of the War of the Pacific. It seems you have made a good argument but haven't supported it with reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide a whole article ([29]). It's from the Spanish Wikipedia, but it has bibliography and citations. There's even this awesome image from the time ([30]), where the news bulletins all show Miguel Grau's "Huascar" being cited in different places at the same time. The image is from 1879, and it captures the hype over Miguel Grau's deeds in the war. Not many people take it into account, but the actions of Huascar and its defeat by Chile's renewed naval strategy had much impact on The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.

• Here is one source: "'The Gentleman fo the Seas', is a glorious phrase which eternally accompanies Admiral Miguel Grau, and which is recognized not only by Peruvians and Chileans but also by other nations which have seen in Don Miguel the supreme teaching of loving those who are your "enemies", save those fallen in the seas as a product from an conflict which had no reason to exist, because they were fulfilling their role in life" ([31]).
• Here is another source: "The Huascar, under the command of Admiral Miguel Grau, became a serious problem for Chile. Three times it entered Antofagasta firing at Chilean ships; captured two merchant ships in Cobija (27 May); faced the Blanco Encalada and Magallanes on June 3rd; the 10th of that month captured the Matias Cousiño in Iquique; the 23rd of July captured the Rimac transport which held the "Escudaron de Carabineros de Yungay", nearby Antofagasta. The runs of the monitor kept the entire Chilean navy in alert and filled with indignation the public opinion. [...] The 1st of October [the Chilean navy] went to Arica in search of the Huascar whose capture was made indispensable to initiate the land campaign" ([32])

I can provide some more if that will appease Keysanger. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We know from others discussion that Farcau, Sater are the best neutral authors regarding the War of the Pacific. Can you bring some citations from them?, or at least citations from aoutside Chile-Peru-Bolivia?. They are always so, so, how can I say ... Folkloric?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your disdain for scholarly work is both an insult to the field and to the Wikipedia project.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While Keysanger's superior tone is - once again - unhelpful, I agree that it is preferrable to find sources that are not from Chile-Peru-Bolivia since that removes the nationalist bias. To that end, I have searched 'miguel grau "gentleman of the seas"' in Google Books and can't find any references except in two travel guides. Searching for 'Miguel Grau "knight of the seas"' leads to four hits, none specifically on this nickname. Is there another English translation I should consider? This might suggest we should not include the nickname in this article - although Miguel Grau himself is obviously an important historical figure in the War of the Pacific. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I found sources in Google Books when I searched [Miguel Grau "Knight"] (140 results) and [Miguel Grau "Gentleman"] (54). The English sources mention his nickname ("Gentleman of the Seas") and explain why he is given the nickname. Here are a few:

Pam Barret (Peru, Page 176): "Admiral Grau was known as "Gentleman Grau" because of his attempts to get more supplies for his men, and his determination to rescue the Chilean sailors who were left floundering in the water after each battle."

Luna Guinot Dolores' (Page 320): "Peruvian Commander, Mr. Miguel Grau, showing signs of chivalry, after the battle, he transferred into his ship the Chileans rescued alive, and to those fell in action for their being buried in Iquique. [...] Grau deserved recognition and general appreciation of the Chileans because of this act of noble character."

Grau's chivalric deeds in the naval campaign are of high notability. I am only proposing to include one sentence on it, nothing more.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

M20 has given us the source of the sentence. It is this book [33]. It is a Peruvian Childrenbook, no pagenumbers. Zou have to search for "Caballero de los mares". It is approx. in the middle.

Alex, do you think that it is correct to present such reference in a highly controverted article?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a children's book. Better sources exist in Spanish, but I took this one since it had a good explanation of who and what Miguel Grau did during the conflict (his importance). The book is an autobiography of the author, and the section which I take took the quote from focuses on his understanding of the events which took place during the War of the Pacific (especifically the Battle of Arica).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to say given Keysanger's attitude that he only needs to consider outside input if it agrees with him I am somewhat reluctant to say anything here, but in the interests of the project, I still agree that weight for the nickname in the context of the War of the Pacific hasn't been established. I am sure that Grau is a hero to the Peruvian people but adding the nickname gives an appearance of Peruvian bias. Unless, that is, some scholarly non-Peruvian sources have also noted the nickname. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the nickname be better it is mentioned only on Graus own article or the naval campaign article? since this is the main article on the war we have to be selective and leave less important information for other articles. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to know if anyone can bring up another person who is respected and honored by all three sides of the conflict? As I said, that is notable enough to be explained in at least one sentence...and that sentence should include the nickname.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But do all three sides use the nickname? If it helps you might like to consider the article on World War II and consider the portrayal of Winston Churchill. Of course Churchill was an extraordinary person - but there is no reliably sourced praise for Churchill in the article - just facts relevant to the war. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Alex. Yes, I do believe all three sides of the conflict use the nickname. Perhaps it would be best if we worked around a proposal to replace the current text? I propose the following:

On 21 May 1879, during the Battle of Iquique the Huáscar sank the Esmeralda and ended Chile's blockade of the Peruvian port. Meanwhile, while chasing away the Covadonga, the Peruvian Independencia wrecked near the shallow coastal waters of Punta Gruesa. The naval battle of Iquique gave a tactical victory to Peru: the blockade was defeated and one Chilean ship was sunk and the other retreated. Nevertheless, it was a pyrrhic victory; losing the Independencia, one of Peru's most important ships, was a fatal blow. When news of the defeat reached Santiago, the Esmeralda's crew and commander Arturo Prat became national heroes for their bravery. Captain Miguel Grau's decision to save shipwrecked Chilean sailors and send his formal condolences to Prat's wife earned him widespread recognition to all sides of the conflict, dubbing him the "Gentleman of the Seas".

I would appreciate comments for improvement.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue, even the Prat's widow call Grau a "Knight" (not a "gentleman") in the letter written by her in gratitude for the returning of the Captain Prat personal belongings after the battle. Can you deny that? In fact, I'm going to put this fact in the Battle of Iquique article, in the aftermath section. What is wrong with mentioning here? Just because you don't like it? I repeat Keysanger, what do you want is irrelevant, this is not your article. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Granting Grau that litle extra attention in the article opens up for adding info on the Red Prince, the last viceroy of Peru, "Pratiotism", Etnocacerism and so on. Lets have a less redundant clean cut article with details (yes, Grau's knight hood is a detail in a war that left tens of thousand of dead and have political and economic consequences up to this day) left to other article to specify on. Chiton magnificus (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The factor being left out is Grau's significance in comparisson to the other "heroes" of the conflict. While people such as Bolognesi (Peru), Abaroa (Bolivia), and Lynch (Chile) are only recognized in their own countries for their actions, Miguel Grau is the only figure out of the whole conflict who is widely revered by all sides involved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have understandably asked for a expeditious solution for the open issues. In order to get the cases resolved we need to address the basic conditions imposed by the Wikipedia rules for article's content.

Miguel Grau was a tragical protagonist of the war. Despite his profesional experience in the merchant marine, the Peruvian Navy lost its two most powerful ships under his command. First the "Independencia" run over a rock and then the "Huascar" was involved and captured in a combat with (almost) the whole Chilean fleet. W.F. Sater call him "Peru's preeminent naval figure" but neither "Knight of the Seas" nor "Gentleman of the Seas" and Farcau also never calls it.

In no way the inclusion or delete of the sentence "Knight of the Seas" add or dimish the name of Grau. I think that Prat and Grau are correctly venerated in Chile and Peru, but any attempt to impose this understanding to other countries is wrong, most notably in countries like England or the USA with a rich navy tradition.

In the case of the motto "Lord of the seas" the editor who wrote the sentence has to deliver the reliable sources that support the thesis. Cloudac has delivered 6 English language books that contain the sentence "Knight of the Seas" or "Gentleman of the Seas".

Lets analyse the list in deep.

• The most simple is "Gentleman of the seas". It contains 2 hits, but both are the same tourism book about Peru describing some room with the painting of Grau. No more.
• The next is "Knight of the seas" containing 4 hits. The first is a book based on Wikipedia text, the second is about the place where Grau was born, the third is a simple entry in a catalog. The last of them is a post stamp catalog.

No one of the hits is a historical, military, social or political analisys of Grau's life or about the war of the Pacific. They are simple replications of Peruvian places, stamps or rooms appeared in Peruvian books.

Our article wants to describe the event at a closer level of detail and as long as we are not able to find reliable English language sources stating this name for Grau we are commited to add the adverb "in Peru" to the sentence or better to delete the sentence.

If you insist to write it despite the lacking sources for English, then in order to obtain the required neutrality we have to delete the adverb "in Chile" for Prat.

But that is not all. What is the encyclopedic worth of the name? I don't see any information that could help the reader to understand the war. Of course neither Farcau nor Sater mention such name. Can you explain it?. There are a lot of personalities who fought the war, nationalists, idealists, internationalists, incompetents, etc. Have we to add the respective comments to every of the fighter?. Why?

In order to obtain a quick solution for this issue, I beg you to address the question of the verifiability, neutrality and encyclopedic worth of the controversial sentence.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to attain a solution for these many issues, you must accept the general consensus. You conveniently ignore those issues which editors have expressed their position against yours, and continue beating a dead horse over topics that have already been thoroughly discussed. I have provided sources which clearly demonstrate that Grau is honored in Bolivia, Peru, and Chile. On the other hand, you have been unable to provide any source which supports your position. Google's 43,200 results of Grau "Knight of the Seas" ([34]) clearly demonstrate the term's usage in English and the notability of the term. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarshalN20,

I agree with you that Grau is honored in Chile, Peru and (probably) Bolivia and if you insist I would not refuse a noun phrase asserting conveniently (short and direct) that fact ("he is honored ..." or something like that).

In my opinion such "flowers" belong more to the personal article "Miguel Grau" than to the "War of the Pacific". "Knight of seas" is frivolous, inadmissible, unverifiable, biased and unencyclopedic.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to throw "flowers" on Grau, but simply bring out a fact that is indeed notable as Grau is the only person out of this war honored by the three nations involved, and during his lifetime that honor rallied up moral for the Peru-Bolivia troops. I also believe it is important to mention the effect of Prat's death on Chilean morale (which had a similar effect to the death of Portales) and national pride. Both men were particularly influential in the course of the war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Albeit Grau might have more fame in Chile than Prat in Peru the significance of this "chivalry" is much less than Prat's last moments. Albeit difficult to measure I would doubt that Grau's chivarly have more relevance that Prat's death. This arguing is not to include details on Prat and play down Grau's legacy but to make it clear that 1) Grau does not reserve a special treatment as there are many "heroes", "villains" and notable men in the war and 2) to point out that thigs like Graus condolence letters or Prats last words are redundant in such a large article like this and do rather belong in other articles acceses from here. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Grau's chivalry had significance for the Peru-Bolivia side of the conflict as he (and, really he alone) was the only military commander doing anything notable to stop the Chilean invasion. No other military commander from the Peru-Bolivia side had that kind of effect until the resistance movement led by Andres Caceres. Both men ultimately are honored as "heroes," but the purpose of mentioning them in this article is to explain how they were important to the war. These people were not irrelevant to the conflict itself, but rather they were the lead force driving their sides of the war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bragging and base flattery

I agree with Chiton that the article "War of the Pacific" is not the place for explain the importance of every commander. The right place for is the article of Miguel Grau.

Bragging and base flattery is not the right way to honor Grau. Also to compare Prat and Grau is viperish. There are subjective factors in our appreciation that will never be the same: education level, family, friends, custom, etc.

The best solution is to concentrate this article to the events of the war and in "Miguel Grau" to explain the Grau's influence in Peru.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The solution here is to explain the importance of Grau and Prat in relation to the war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)