Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Original synthesis issues

The way the references are used to support the text in the section "Causes of the War" indicates this contains original research and/or an original synthesis. This is not allowed (Wikipedia:No original research)). Dentren | ^Talk 09:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dentren, we know that since three days. It is the content of the tag template. We need your concrete arguments to improve the article. Would you be so kind to elaborate your claims?. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous cases in the text. Example 1: Pike writing in 1963 "refuting" sources from 1992 and 2002. Dentren | ^Talk 09:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I insist: you have to elaborate in detail all your claims in the talk page, failing this we can't find solutions for it. --Keysanger (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I will discuss/point out each issue separately. Experience tells it best to do so. Dentren | ^Talk 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Now explain what is the problem in example 1. --Keysanger (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That Pike (1963) can't be refuting authors and interpretations dating to 1992 and 2002. Dentren | ^Talk 11:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all?. --Keysanger (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your proposal to resolve the issue?. --Keysanger (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am divided about what to do. Because even if these individual synthesis/WP:OR problems are solved (of which I have brought one into the light yet), what remains is an underlying structure ("Saters four reasons") that is itself original and undue weight. I page 37 of Andean Tragedy I can't see Sater make these 4 distinctions. In page 37 (and 38) he essentially discuss the economic view, being somewhat critical of it. Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't copy word for word the text of Sater, it isn't allowed because of copyright law. So we have to do a synthesis, that is we read the text and summarize it. But you don't want to do so because it is synthesis. How do you want to explain what Sater says in Wikipedia?. Do it!. --Keysanger (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There are alternatives: for example employing quotes or rewording. Dentren | ^Talk 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done it and you put the tag "OR". Do it better then. --Keysanger (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Good! your edits are definitely an improvement. Now lets continuing fixing the section. Dentren | ^Talk 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I deleted your tag until you inform us about your problems. You have to explain in detail what are your claims, what is the reason for, what is your proposal. Wikipedia can't guess your thoughts. --Keysanger (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As you should know, the bizarre theory about a Chilean premedited war isn't original from Salazar. In 1879, in its Memory of the Ministerio de RR.EE. of Peru, Peruvians invented such conspiracy theory that had been debuked by so many historians: "... abriendo nuevos cauces a su politica usurpadora y vastisimo campo a sus industrias y comercio quebrantados por terribles fracasos financieros abrumadora crisis mercantil y agotamiento de las principales fuentes naturales de vida de aquella republica". (pág. VIII)

--Keysanger (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue Sater?. Are you kidding me?. If I cite Pike, you say "OR" because Sater was cited first. But you claim other autors aren't cited!. Do you want to cite other authors or not? which one? Salazar?, really?. He is already cited there!. --Keysanger (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Havent even mentioned Salazar and accuse me of supporting what is to you a "bizzarre theory". Clearly the section positions Sater as "the authority" and therefore conveys him undue weight in flagrant disregard of other scholars like L. Ortega (not just Salayar and Pinto). Dentren | ^Talk 13:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please finally come to the point?. What do you want?, what is your proposal? What does Ortega say that Sater doesn't say?. Please, elaborate your claims before you put the tag!. --Keysanger (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To base the whole origins section on single author is ridiculous and contrary to a neutral point of view. The article as it is now places Saters views in the middle and construct a an original narrative. Dentren | ^Talk 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And which is your proposal?. --Keysanger (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reduce Sater content and/or compensate with more content from other authors. Deconstruct the original research (or original synthesis) narrative so that authors not referring explicitelly to others are presented separately. Dentren | ^Talk 18:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dentren, Sorry but I can't understand you. Would you be so kind to present a proposal that resolve your, in my opinion unfounded, claims?. --Keysanger (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The claims are founded as explained above. The issue to resolve is not easy because I will probably require plenty of editing and a lot of research into the sources. I wonder what you have thought about the problem? I suggest we should invite editors from the Spanish Wikipedia to take a look on this problem. Dentren | ^Talk 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The claims aren't founded above, this is the reason I invited you to participate in the solution but you are trying to sidestep. Please, simply say:

1. What says other historians what Sater doesn't says or consider?
2. Which other causes of the war would you like to see here?
3. What do you think is overdue in the list?
4. Why is it ridiculous to base (and to say it) the section in Sater's book?
5. Where is the original research to summarize Sater's text?
6. Do you still sustain that Pike (1963) can't rebuke the reasons given by the Peruvian gov in 1879?
7. Have you found the places where Sater tells about the 4 reasons given in the subsection?

I refuse to have a discussion in Spanish Language in a talk page of a English Wikipedia article and remember that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Please, don't be vindicative. --Keysanger (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated before the issues I have raised are about weight, point of view and violation of WP:OR. I not, at this point singled out other theories/causes to be incorporated. The way the narrative of Sater is coopted and consturcted upon it in an original way is what troubles me. Pike (1963) certainly cant be rebuking things said by historians in the 1990s and 2000s. Also, nobody has proposed a discussion in Spanish, plase read again my comment above. –Dentren | ^Talk 11:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Original synthesis issues

A third opinion has been requested concerning original synthesis issues. Unfortunately, due to the length of the above discussion, it isn't entirely clear what statement or statements are claimed to be synthesis amounting to original research. Can one of the two editors state the question concisely as to what is said to be original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't do it. Dentren, it is your turn. --Keysanger (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If the question is properly framed, I will try to answer. However, in view of how long disputes about this article have been going on, including an inconclusive stop at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I think that a request for formal mediation might be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 116#Talk:Economic history of Chile.23Causes of the War of the Pacific was about the economic causes of the war and I solicited a formal mediation, also about the economic causes, which was refused, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Description of the causes of a war. We need help here and I support your engagement as far as I can. But the other side has to explain his claims, I can't speak for Dentren. --Keysanger (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So Keysangger asked for a 3O but wanted me to state the question? That's not how WP:3O works. Dentren | ^Talk 12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dentren, nice that you are again there. Now, please, substantiate your claims and answer @Robert McClenon:'s question: what is said to be original research?. Of course, as I stated before, I can't talk for your claims. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The mediation request was declined due to the lack of a mediator in the northern summer. Maybe a new request for mediation might be more successful. I am willing to try to provide a third opinion, but only if the question about original research is worded concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I requested again a third opinion and hope for a successful and happy end. Lets continue the conversation in "Third Opinion: Original synthesis issues (2. Attempt)". --Keysanger (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Original synthesis issues (2. attempt)

I will leave the Third Opinion request up in case maybe another volunteer can figure out what the question is. I still think that the question is too long and complicated for a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A third opinion

Well, I've given a third opinion before that turned into an internminable, months-long mediation. I'll give this one a shot and hope that doesn't happen!

@Keysanger, Dentren, and Robert McClenon: I've skimmed through the "background" section of this article and your discussions on this page. As far as I understand, the issue is essentially this: can we, as Wikipedia editors, contrast the arguments of different authors when they do not explicitly mention each other?

For example, can we write the following, if none of the four authors mentioned each other by name? "Smith (2009) argues that the sky is blue, citing spectrographical studies done in the 1980s. However, other authors like Johnson (2010) and Abdul-Majid (1998) have described the sky as green instead. Wong (2000) has rejected the debate entirely, saying that color is a meaningless notion.

I think that yes, we can. As long as we present the authors' views and their level of acceptance accurately, we can place them side by side in whatever way would be most helpful for readers. We can't combine two arguments to make a third argument of our own (for example, we can't say that "the scholarly consensus is that the sky is blue-green"), but we can certainly compare and contrast. We should be careful to avoid implying that Johnson explicitly referred to Smith if she didn't, and we should indicate they year each author wrote in (because there's a general presumption in scholarship that later scholars are more likely to be correct), but otherwise, we as editors have a fair bit of freedom.

Let me know if this doesn't address the issue, or if you have more specific questions you'd like me to give an opinion on.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn:

Thanks Neil. I agree with you. There is nothing more to be said on issue. --Keysanger (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no reasong to elevate one authors writings to prima scriptura, as it attempted to do with William Sater here. Authors statements should be independent and not embedded in an original way (specially when they do not even mention each other!). Embedding other authors in Saters anaytical framework is WP:OR and undue favoritism towards one author. Dentren | ^Talk 07:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dentren: regarding specific paragraphs, I might agree with you. But in general, I don't. There's no requirement that we present each author's argument in clearly separated and non-referential sections. In addition, from a quick look at the bibliography, Slater seems to have written much of the most recent work on the war, so it doesn't particularly concern me that he gets more attention than other authors.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn:, I agree with your point of view in non-controversial articles. As with most articles of wars and deaths of contemporary political significance we need to take caution here. Wikipedia should not favor any particular view or use that view as framework to present the other views. By the way that Sater has many references in the article can be cretied to Keysanger and to the fact that there is preference in English Wikipedia for English-language sources (which of course does not mean views expressed in English-language material should hold a priviledged place). Dentren | ^Talk 09:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several Chilean, Bolivian, and Peruvian authors that have also tackled various topics regarding the War of the Pacific. The views of these authors need to be introduced (or re-introduced) into the article. I'd like to be able to further contribute here, but I am busy with things in real life (plus, I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe). The only reason I am messaging here is because I see that Rob and Neil are falling for the idea that this article is an easy one to understand; this is possibly one of the most (if not the most) controversial topic in the history of west South America. Even now Bolivia and Chile are disputing a case directly related to this war at the International Court of Justice. As this article has been under constant editing by Keysanger since over half a decade, I recommend for this editor to step aside and allow other contributors to improve the material.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Keysanger, Dentren, and MarshalN20: It sounds like this case is more complex that I realized. It still doesn't sound like there's a problem with original research; as I said earlier, I'm not inclined to think that "embedding other authors' statements in William Sater's analytical framework" is a big problem, although in specific cases I could be convinced otherwise.

However, it does sound like there could be real issues with undue weight. Keysanger, if you deleted valid sources without a good reason (and their being in Spanish wouldn't be a good reason, of course), that's very concerning.

I'm not sure how to help beyond diving into the substance of the article and checking sources for myself. However, given how fraught the issue is, I imagine it would take me quite a long time to get up to speed. I may try to do that, but if any of you have other suggestions about what I can do, feel free to suggest them. I do speak Spanish.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As matter of context it might be insightful to take a look on the archive of this talk page. The article has a history of edit conflicts that actually never was solved. I would welcome some new faces to be involved here to help loose the trenches. –Dentren | ^Talk 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A fourth opinion

User:Neil P. Quinn has broken the code of a question that I was unable to understand. User:Dentren turns out to be saying (as he has now explained) that he means that using Sater's analysis as the reference framework for presenting the views of other authors is synthesis amounting to original research. I agree with Quinn and disagree with Dentren that contrasting the analyses of other historians with that of Sater is original research. I would suggest that Dentren would have a stronger case, although still not a persuasive case, for saying that this presentation gives undue weight to the analysis of Sater. However, if Sater is one of the most recent and most thorough historians of the war, I don't consider it undue to use him as the reference framework as long as other scholars are compared and contrasted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If Dentren still insists that use of Sater as a reference for comparison of other historians is undue weight, he can either use a Request for Comments or make another request for formal mediation. In view of the length and complexity of the discussions here, and of the fact that the previous request for mediation met all of the requirements for mediation, but that a mediator was not available in the northern summer, I would suggest refiling at Requests for Medication. Those are my opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'm fine with your amendment to the case, if that is the best way to addres current bias (Anyways using a 1963 paper [Pike] to refute a 2002 publication [Salazar & Pinto] still accounts to WP:OR). Dentren | ^Talk 09:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Tags

There is slow-motion edit-warring over the applying of tags to sections of this article. Please stop edit-warring. Edit-warring is likely to result in either or both of two admin actions. First, the edit-warriors may be blocked. Second, the article may be locked (page-protected). A third opinion has been requested, which is better than edit-warring; however, there hasn't been a concise statement of what the question is. Please either state what the issues are clearly enough for a third opinion, or take this dispute back to the dispute resolution noticeboard or to requests for formal mediation, or take it to the original research noticeboard. Tagging in itself won't solve a problem; it only identifies it, and tagging without describing the problem concisely is unhelpful. Edit-warring over tags won't solve a problem. Read the dispute resolution policy again and follow a dispute resolution procedure rather than edit-warring over tags. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Neil P. Quinn has attempted to answer this above. My concern is that it is undue weight and WP:OR to embed other authors statements in William Saters analytical framework, in particular when they are not referring to each other. Dentren | ^Talk 07:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A long time and no explanation of the tag has been delivered. I deleted the tag and the editor who reinsert it again has to explain what he means. --Keysanger (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The explanation has been given multiple times. Read above. Dentren | ^Talk 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing tags is not going to solve editing disputes. A "failed mediation" does not entitle anyone to remove the tags. Please discuss to avoid revert wars. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Caution

I am aware that different editors have different opinions. However, if I see any more complaints about this article, I am likely to request that the Arbitration Committee impose a motion to expand the current Argentina sanctions to the rest of South America. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We know that there has been a finding of bad conduct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Robert, I consider MarshalN20 and Dentren's conduct fulfill the elements of disruptive editing according to WP:MC/P:

However, editors who refuse to take part in mediation and refuse to properly discuss their position on content may be edit warring or disruptively editing, to which the response is usually blocking by an administrator or sanctioning by the community.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have not doubted your behavior in this matter in the past. It surprises me that you are resorting to threats. It further surprises me that you are using an unrelated case on Argentine history for this subject—which I caution you will be reported if it is again used to threaten me. Consider yourself warned. Thank you and have a nice day.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

war of pacific ? in ww2 maybe - COASTal battle is not a war of a whole ocean!!!!!

Did Chile even fight in ww1 or ww2? Juror1 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The name of the article reflects that which is mostly used in the sources. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am going to try to fix the grammatical errors/partisanship

I am going to try to devote my time to cleaning up this article. If you notice any edit-warring/horrible grammar please tell me. Also, make sure we don’t bring our biases into this article. Dogblock (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)