202.67.121.57 (talk) No edit summary |
|||
Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
i looked at your edits, they were quite reasonable, the rationale for removing them was rather odd. one of the editors called you a vandal... jesus christ that is harsh... I hope there's nothing sinister involved in his article because that will be a shame, I personally question editors who openly declare their bias in their user pages and then allow obvious one sided opinions in this article. --[[User:MarceloPR|MarceloPR]] ([[User talk:MarceloPR|talk]]) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
i looked at your edits, they were quite reasonable, the rationale for removing them was rather odd. one of the editors called you a vandal... jesus christ that is harsh... I hope there's nothing sinister involved in his article because that will be a shame, I personally question editors who openly declare their bias in their user pages and then allow obvious one sided opinions in this article. --[[User:MarceloPR|MarceloPR]] ([[User talk:MarceloPR|talk]]) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
i think 'the two' that Iggy is referring are CloudAOC and MarshalN20, i could be wrong, but them two are always undoing other peoples work--[[Special:Contributions/202.67.121.57|202.67.121.57]] ([[User talk:202.67.121.57|talk]]) 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:04, 5 February 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Pending issues
Issue 3: Repase references
For the "repase"-Theory are shown two references. The first one is a unknown page (HTTP 404) and the second one is a primary source of Andres Caceres and as such non-available for Wikipedia. Moreover, the section dont mention the given promise of not to fight against the Chilean government. --Keysanger (what?) 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The information provided by Caceres is backed up by secondary sources, therefore his primary account stands. Added that the "Repaso" is not a theory, but a fact.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:10, 22 July 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?) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have already provided the evidence. You're trying to make me do your work.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:19, 20 September 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?) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, all that is required of me is to provide the source and page in which you can find the information. Anything else you want to do is up to you. I will not do the work for you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- You HAVE to do the work. And through reliable sources and not a lot of biased "testimonies". Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will not do the work for you. I have done enough by providing the sources and page number. If you wish to improve the citations, feel free to do so on your own.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please, write the complete paragraph that you mean support your sentences and delete the tag only when the discussion is finished. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the issue here is reliably sourced mention of repaso (the material definitely should be included) but the non neutral way the material is placed and presented.
The following paragraph appears at the end of the 'strategy' section:
The three nations claimed to adhere to the Geneva Red Cross Convention to protect the war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.[96] However, during the war, Chile commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefied.[97] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[98][99] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[100] In the aftermath of the Battle of Huamachuco, Chilean Colonel Alejandro Gorostiaga ordered a repase under the pretext that they formed part of an irregular army and could therefore not be considered prisoners of war.[101][102] Peruvian Colonel Leoncio Prado was among the few soldiers who were not killed during the Huamachuco repase,[103] but was executed shortly thereafter.
It seems the facts are selected here to promote a view that Chile's conduct was barbaric. The facts should be included, but there needs to be a deeper analysis of the repaso. Why did Chile do this? Whose idea was it? What were they trying to achieve? And so on. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of how much explanation is made, the repaso will continue to be a sad story in the course of the war.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alex, again are you making comments like "the facts are selected", again if you don't know about the facts of this war you can't give a opinion like this... If the facts seem "barbaric" is because they were barbaric, can you understand that? Can you understand than the Chilean troops came to Peru to burn, loot and rape every town and city in its way? This is not about your opinion or our opinion about the facts of the war, is about the facts itself. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ian, what I'm saying is this paragraph doesn't begin to satisfy my historical interest - it is plain that it has been written by someone with an anti-Chilean axe to grind. If I was the reader, I would flag this paragraph as probably unreliable and do my own investigation. That's not good for you if you want the reader to regard this as accurate. I am not suggesting that the Chilean acts weren't "barbaric". I am sure that some Peruvian actions were barbaric too - this is normal in all wars. It just isn't a serious analysis. So I'm suggesting, go deeper & improve the article. Perhaps I'll look into it further if I get time. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alex, again are you making comments like "the facts are selected", again if you don't know about the facts of this war you can't give a opinion like this... If the facts seem "barbaric" is because they were barbaric, can you understand that? Can you understand than the Chilean troops came to Peru to burn, loot and rape every town and city in its way? This is not about your opinion or our opinion about the facts of the war, is about the facts itself. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
seriously there's nothing sinister about my edits, im just correcting the english and just mentioning who wrote what about the repaso. regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out, in order to protect the integrity of this article. You --Ian (CloudAOC) labelling my edits as vandelism is very obnoxious and makes me think you just want to protect a certain point of view. Since im not disputing the information or making any deletions, my edits are justified--IggyAU (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Again sir, this is not a historiographic article, it's an historic one, therefore, the addition of the origin of the repaso sources can be interpreted than the repaso is just a "theory" sustained only by Peruvian authors and not a fact, registered not only by Peruvian accounts but also by neutral witnesses. In fact, this has been objected before for several other issues, and the consensus was than the article must contain only facts, not points-of-view by nation. And the repaso was a fact, it happens. Denying this is like denying the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi Germany. I reject all your insinuations about my behavior, and I suggest than you must start sustaining your additions to the articule than questioning the editions by other editors involved in its improvement. Greetings --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Iggy, your edits are disruptive to the article in the sense that you are making personal claims on matters which, up to know, you have not demonstrated as actually controversial in the historical community. When you write that "Peruvian historians...claim," you are casting doubt on the fact that the repaso was used by Chilean troops during the war. If you can provide a reliable source which argues that the repaso did not happen, then and only then will it be necessary to identify what can be considered a Peruvian perspective on matters. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 24: Topater
{{disputed}}
This battle was on 23 March 1879, also during the "Peruvian Mediation". I moved the passage to the right sub-section but it was reverted. I moved it again and hope the reverter gives his reasons at this place. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Battle of Topater took place during the Chilean invasion of the Bolivian coastline. It does not fit in with Peru's mediation.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Battle of Topater was on 1879, not 1884.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is the chronology of the battles, normally the War actions are divided as follows:
- Bolivian Litoral Campaign (February 1879 - December 1879), from Topater to Tambillo.
- Naval Campaign (April 1879 - October 1879) from Chipana to Angamos.
- Tarapacá Campaign (November 1879) from Pisagua to Tarapacá
- Tacna - Arica Campaign (December 1879 - June 1880) from Ilo to Arica
- Lima Campaign (November 1880 - January 1881) from Lurin to Miraflores
- Breña Campaign (February 1880 - July 1884) from Miraflores to Huamachuco
- As you can see, the campaigns are not subsequent, and even some battles aren't mentioned, like Pisagua. I suggest a complete revision of the dates and the campaigns articles. What do you think? Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The battle simply doesn't fit in the section that deals with Peru's mediation. It's completely random. It fits in better with the "Crisis" section since (A) It's the first battle of the war and (B) What effect did it have on Peru's mediation?--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We can't "re"-write the history. If occured during the PM then we tell it in the PM subsection. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rewrite history? haha. Are you joking? The current version is correct. We have explained why it is correct. If you change it, we will report your edit as disruptive. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on what section this belongs in but the argument that because "section X covers dates A to B therefore anything that happened between A and B needs to be in section X" doesn't make sense to me. By this logic the battle should also appear in our article on the Anglo-Zulu War simply because the dates coincide. Is there some other reason, apart from the dates, that Keysanger wants this in the PM section? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dates overlap in both sections. The difference is that while one section focuses on the events taking place in the Litoral Department, the other focuses on the Peruvian Mediation. I am guessing this is something Keysanger can easily understand.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Issue 28: After war
The article states that
- 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%. That has nothing to do with the war. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- It relates to the section and is relevant to the "Saltpeter War". Perhaps it should be best for it to be in the "consequences" section?--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree This paragraph is better suited for the "Consequences" section. And again, there is no need to make an issue of such a simple thing. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Issue 36: Grau's gallantry
That has nothing to do with the war. It is Peruvian folklore and most of the editors have seen it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Resolved issues
Issue 19: Secret treaty
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Regarding the current version of the article [1], the so-called treaty of mutual defense was secret and the article has to state this fact. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is an interesting issue, and I'm glad you finally raised it. Let's take a close analysis to the matter:
- The treaty is not titled "secret".
- That the treaty was signed in secrecy is true, but does that make it secret?
- Dates' : The Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in 1873. Chile had a copy of the treaty since 1874. Argentina and Brazil already knew about it by then as well.
- If everyone involved in the situation (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru in the short spectrum; Brazil and Argentina in the wide spectrum) already knew about the treaty for nearly 5 (five) years prior to the start of the war, is the treaty actually secret?
- Conclusion: The Mutual Defense Pact of 1873 was signed in secrecy, but it was not a secret treaty as everyone knew about it by 1874 (a mere year later). Chile pretended not to know about the treaty, and that's a completely different story. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really agree that because all parties knew about it that stops a treaty which was concluded in secret from being a "secret treaty". The trick would be to word it in such a way that the reader isn't confused into believing that Chile didn't know about it at the time it was activated. I can't see myself that simply omitting this detail from the lead doesn't makes a huge difference. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could use the term "secretly-signed" where appropiate?--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think than the term "secretly-signed" is more appropiate. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really agree that because all parties knew about it that stops a treaty which was concluded in secret from being a "secret treaty". The trick would be to word it in such a way that the reader isn't confused into believing that Chile didn't know about it at the time it was activated. I can't see myself that simply omitting this detail from the lead doesn't makes a huge difference. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The secret Alliance is a very complicated issue, hence I created a new sub-section with 3 paragraphs. I hope that will help us to find a solution. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop disrupting the article for the saking of making a WP:POINT. The Background section is already in summary-style, per WP:SUMMARY, and no necessity exists to create stub sub-sections within it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
my edits on this section is also being edited out and labeled as vandalism. regrettably by the same person over and over again. To repeat again, im editing in good faith, im just mentioning the authors on the treaty section, im NOT altering the context, i find the lack of transparency about where the sources come from very disturbing and for me being personally chastised very obnoxious--IggyAU (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your edits in this part of the article, you fail to notice that not everyone mentioning Chile's knowledge of the treaty is Peruvian. Hence, your claim that "Peruvian authors such and such" is erroneous. Given this situation, Ian's revertions are actually justified. Please analyze the sources before making edits to the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- This issue don't really exists, because the treaty itself is named "Tratado de Alianza Defensiva" in its first paragraph, therefore, the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is not only correct but valid, I'll made the correction in the article and close this issue. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 23: References
{{cite check}}
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
There are a lot of unnedded references, for example:
- Peru and Chile signed a treaty of alliance against Spain on December 5, 1865.[4]
- The treaty established the 24th parallel south as their mutual boundary.[5]
- An additional clause kept the treaty secret.[8]
- Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence.[9]
- for 25 years and calling for Bolivia to open up.[5]
- etc, etc.
Perhaps I am wrong but no one disputes such facts. I think we should erase such references. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- List every single sentence whose references you want to delete (Don't just write "etc", because nobody knows what you are thinking). Otherwise a proper analysis cannot be made.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Deleting references is not WP:BOLD. Sourced statements and the sources themselves must first be analyzed prior to being deleted.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you going to provide the sources you are challenging?--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Deleting references is not WP:BOLD. Sourced statements and the sources themselves must first be analyzed prior to being deleted.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Since this "issue" is not clearly defined by the editor who started it, I'm going to declare it resolved for lack of purpose and arguments. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 25: Despite cooperation
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The article tries to present the pre-war situation in words of peace and cooperation. There were strong contrary interests between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Before and during the war, Peru feared that Bolivia could move to the Chilean side. Peru wanted to control the whole commerce of guano and salpeter and, hence they nationalized the salitreras and wanted the help of Bolivia to control the price of the products. That is one of the reasons given by Sater in the contribution I did and was deleted. Please, read again what you deleted. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keysanger, your POV about the description of pre-war situation is not enough to rise an issue about it, you must provide more arguments than WP:OR or this issue must be resolved or disregarded as the others.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 06:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- No more arguments has been added to sustain this "issue" besides an editor's POV. This issue is closed by lack of sense and arguments. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Issue 26: and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
In the lede there is no mention that the 10 cents tax was completly illegal. That is confirmed by Sater and Farcau. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keysanger, again this is an repeated issue (5: the 10 cent tax) already archived, and allow me to remind you what was your "sustain" for it:
- The article must say what both sides thought about the new tax. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Must say what both sides thought". Keysanger, I must remind you than the article must remain neutral, and -again- the illegallity of the tax is mentioned in the article but in the Crisis section, so, there is no need to repeat it. This issue do not exist.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 03:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 27: On April 5, after Peru resisted both demands
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
In reality, Peru declared the casus confederis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is actually a good observation, I'm going to check the sources to revise this issue. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the sources explained that Daza (i.e. Bolivia) early on asked for Peru to declare the casus foederis, but the Peruvian government instead sent Lavalle to Chile and tried to prevent (or stall, depending on the point of view) such a situation. Afterwards you have Chile asking Peru's neutrality, and Peru again resisted to make a decision. So, the statement "Peru resisted both demands" is correct.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I already checked some books and Marshall is right, perhaps the section needs more details about this fact, but -again- this is not an issue, not even a controversial point. I'm going to close it. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the sources explained that Daza (i.e. Bolivia) early on asked for Peru to declare the casus foederis, but the Peruvian government instead sent Lavalle to Chile and tried to prevent (or stall, depending on the point of view) such a situation. Afterwards you have Chile asking Peru's neutrality, and Peru again resisted to make a decision. So, the statement "Peru resisted both demands" is correct.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 29: Mutual Defense System 1
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I never read such name for the secret alliance between Peru and Bolivia. It is pure WP:OR That has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific, what is after the war?, 1885? 1905? 1955?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Resolved by removing the unaccurate phrase from the article with a single and simple edit. There is no need to make an issue, because is not an issue, just a mistake, Can't you do this edition by yourself? Why make an issue of such obvious error?--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 30: Mutual Defense System 2
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
The whole paragraph presents the setcret treaty as a harmless alliance, but in reality the treaty was one of the causes of the war and during the Lackawamma conference Peru and Bolivia refused to deactivate the pact. It must be said that Chile saw pact as a aggressive one. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- This issue is invalid because the secret pact was not signed explicitely against Chile, not a single article affirm directly or even indirectly such perception, your POV is irrelevant and is also your original research. The treaty wasn't one of the causes of the war, as you know. Greetings.----Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 31: Mutual Defense System 3
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
Nonetheless, Chile, ... knew. This is presented as a fact. It is not. It is a conjecture. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- This issue is also invalid because this affirmation is well sourced and cited in the article itself (References 11 to 13). Please, avoid the raise of issues without a proper sustainment. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- In fact Keysanger, the Treaty existence was known by the Chilean Chancellery almost inmediatly after its signing, as its stated in the page 313 of the book "Historia diplomatica de chile 1541-1938" (2º Edition) by Mario Barros Van Buren, which confirms the text in the article (Minister Walker knowing the existance of the treaty since 1874, and even before). In fact, I'm going to improve that section with this new source, and as you can see, your "issue" never existed. Please be more careful when you made a statement like this. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 32: Mutual Defense System 4
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
No where in the paragraph appears that Argentina was informed and invited to joint the pact against Chile. It must be said. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article says: "Chile once again received notification of the treaty through another minister in 1877, when Argentina's senate discussed the invitation to join the Peru-Bolivia defensive alliance", as you can see, the article clearly says than Argentina was invited to join the Alliance, but not "against Chile", again, the Treaty was not an offensive alliance against Chile, as was clearly stated in its articles. Regards.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 33: Bolivian declaration of war
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
Nowhere is stated about the Bolivian declaration of war that is a fact in all history books, except 2 or 3 Peruvians and Bolivians books. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keysanger this issue has been already discussed, closed and archived, as you know, with the current text as result of a consensus of the involved editors, as can be verified in the archive 10 of this talk page, and the issue was closed by Alex Harvey as it follows:
@Ian above, the article has already been updated so I'm marking this as "resolved" as you say. @Keysanger, if you decide to raise your RFC please create a new thread for it (as you would have to do anyway). This discussion - as all parties agree aside from Keysangers - has well and truly run its course. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Therefore, this issue is -again- invalid because it was already discussed and closed.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 34: Peruvian mediation 1
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The article states:
- However, not only did Peru hold a poorly equipped military
That is misleading the reader. WP wanrs about However. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how this phrase can mislead the reader (besides the "however")?. And also, did you try to fix it by yourself? Regards.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, "however" is being properly used as a contrast to the claim that Peru was making war preparations. The reader is not being misled.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, and because Keysanger don't provide any other argument to this issue besides a technicism ("however") , this issue is closed. Regards.----Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, "however" is being properly used as a contrast to the claim that Peru was making war preparations. The reader is not being misled.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how this phrase can mislead the reader (besides the "however")?. And also, did you try to fix it by yourself? Regards.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Issue 35: Peruvian mediation 2
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
Nowhere is said that Peru was not obligated to declare the causus federis, that president Prado didn't want the war and taht he was bulldozed to the war by the Peruvian populace and politicians. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide any neutral source which states than Prado was "bulldozed" by the "Peruvian politicians and population" to declare war against Chile? I see just another case of WP:OR, and if you don't provide any sustain for this issue, it will be ignored. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Other discussions / comments
Disputed neutrality
Someone has tagged this article as: neutrality is disputed. No arguments are offered, why should the tag remain? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Will delete the tag for now. Please reinsert it if some serious NPOV issue is found. Dentren | Talk 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I reinserted the tag. The issues must be cleared first. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keysanger, I agree with Dentren, the tag is not longer necessary until some relevant NPOV issue appears, remember than all decisions are taken here by consensus, and nobody disagree with the tag removal, just you, and that's not enough. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keysanger, remember that this project is a continuous process. Right now we are all busy doing other things (for your part, you seem to be quite involved in another matter here at Wikipedia), and so it is not correct to leave tags hanging around articles if no actual discussion is being made on them. Added that, for the most part, consensus agreed that the article was already in a good state. Dentren, as an uninvolved editor, has every right to remove the tags and I (as well as Ian, and surely Alexh) support his decision.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The tag is neccesary as long as the article doesn't represent a neutral point of view according to the Wikipedia rules. The reader has to be warned about striking disruption of neutrality.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- When only one editor, in this case you Keysanger, argues that the article is non-neutral, and everyone else (Cloud, me, Dentren, and Alex) disagrees with your POV; can you guess where consensus shifts?--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since many of the issues stated by Keysanger has been solved or discarded for lack of arguments or validity, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag until some serious and valid issue about its neutrality has been established and properly sustained. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- When only one editor, in this case you Keysanger, argues that the article is non-neutral, and everyone else (Cloud, me, Dentren, and Alex) disagrees with your POV; can you guess where consensus shifts?--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Mahan
This should be placed in a trivia section: The USS Wachusett (1861) commanded by Alfred Thayer Mahan, was stationed at Callao, Peru, to protect American interests during the war's final stages. Mahan formulated his concept of sea power while reading history in an English gentlemen's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History.[113][114]84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Which is hereby done. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
repaso
Most of the information about the repaso seems to come from one source, i've added the author's name to the small piece just to add some clarity about how genuine these claims are, i know there's been an edit war about this issue, --MarceloPR (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Farce, don't bother editing
Its official this article is controlled by 2 individuals who show absolutely no respect for neutrality. To the other editors who which to contribute to this article...forget it, you will be vilified then threaten then get banned for editing. A side note, just look at the edit history and you'll see two common names pop up who are constantly undoing revisions. Just look at their user pages and you'll see what side they wish to display on this article.... an absolute farce...i hope them two are happy for themselves, because what they're doing goes against wikipedia. One of the two individuals even had the audasity to declare everything written for the peruvian view is FACT!!!!!!this happen when i tried to edit a paragraph that clearly was trying to declare an opinion as fact....thats the one with Peruvian military photos on their user page.--IggyAu (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
i looked at your edits, they were quite reasonable, the rationale for removing them was rather odd. one of the editors called you a vandal... jesus christ that is harsh... I hope there's nothing sinister involved in his article because that will be a shame, I personally question editors who openly declare their bias in their user pages and then allow obvious one sided opinions in this article. --MarceloPR (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
i think 'the two' that Iggy is referring are CloudAOC and MarshalN20, i could be wrong, but them two are always undoing other peoples work--202.67.121.57 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)