Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

crisis and war

Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a valid source?

1*On march 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property.

- It was not a declaration of war.

2*Peruvian decision-makers feared that if they did not honor the secreat treaty, Bolivia might join with Chile and seize Tarapaca nitrate fields.

- It's a personal opinion from the author.

3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt....

- It's wrong: Jose Arnaldo Marquez was a writer not a diplomat. [1]
Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was in Buenos Aires and met with the Argentine president. Is the Argentine president who asked about the alliance [2]
On 26 asked me a conference the President and having been understood that its purpose had been to know the attitude taken in the matter was ventilated between Chile and Bolivia, and perhaps even be prepared to render assistance to Argentina in the event of a break with Chile. At that conference told me that he had news that the mediation of Peru would not be admitted. As I had not received instructions of any kind, I had to evade the answer he expected, again losing the opportunity that I had to get the alliance, without asking.. Aníbal Víctor de la Torre
In 1878 and 1875 Peru avoided the alliance with Argentina [3]

4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april).

- It's wrong: Peru did not declare any war.
Peru declared the casus foederis of Defensive Alliance treaty. On April 6 was also consummated the act more serious and far-reaching alliance of war between Peru and Bolivia, or the enactment of the casus foederis, pursuant to the established in the secret treaty of February 6, 1873, is Lima signed in the respective protocol and issue the president of Peru following the decree that legally constituted the outbreak of hostilities against Chile. [4]

Arafael (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A response to the points and source that you posted.

1*It was not a declaration of war -Considering all the sources provided it's been concluded that it was an informal declaration of war in the form of a decree.

2*It's a personal opinion from the author. -Valid argument and should be discussed because the source is reliable.

3*President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina in an attempt.

-Jose Arnaldo Marquez is indeed a writer. Scheina writes that he was sent to Argentina and should be discussed. As for the source you provide it states that (Since the days of the Lavalle mission in Chile, Peru wanted to seek an alliance with Argentina that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation). This source supports the idea that Peru was openly seeking an alliance with Argentina.

4*Peru declared war on Chile the same day (5 april). -Regretfully, at this time I am unable to view the document that you link. Hopefully other editors may participate. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arafael, could you please provide the page numbers with the citations you make? That way I'll be able to check them with more efficiency.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that the March 18th date is incorrect. Consensus has been achieved that March 1st was the day of the declaration, and that it was an informal declaration of war in the eyes of Chile (just like the invasion of Antofagasta was an informal declaration of war by the eyes of Bolivia). The second statement sounds like PoV from the author, but I need to see the exact page so that I may know if it is cited in the book (there is a works cited part of it in the last pages of it; which makes the book verifiable and therefore reliable). The third statement, about the diplomat, should really be checked (Jose Arnaldo seems incorrect as he is a writer, not a diplomat). The part about the support of alliance from Peru and Argentina, there is a difference between ongoing past attempts from Peru and the current situation during the War of the Pacific. Essentially, Peru may have indeed tried various other past times to seek an alliance with Argentina, but at the moment of the war the Peruvian diplomat did not have any mission to propose an alliance to Argentina. Yet, if that was not the purpose of the Peruvian diplomat, then what was he doing in Argentina? This matter has to be further investigated too. Remember the

WP:OR rule, however, and look for verifiable sources that already state the information and not for primary sources where you have done your own research.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk
) 11:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1.it was an informal declaration of war, for Chile.
Only the bolivian congress could declare war, not the president.
2. Page 376 [5] "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina". I think that the source is not reliable. It has mistakes.
3.
- Are there any other source about "Jose Arnaldo Marquez" in BsAs as a envoy?
Page 33. [6] This policy placed in a difficult situation to minister in Buenos Aires, Anibal Victor de La Torre.
- Since March 8, 1878; Anibal Victor de La Torre was a peruvian minister in BsAs. www.rree.gob.pe
- Selecciones de la Vida : "that put the Argentine government in Buenos Aires into a difficult situation". It is incorrect. Peruvian minister Anibal Victor de La Torre was in difficult situation.
- When Chilean President Pinto, explain of the origin of the war, he did not include anything about Argentina. New York Times, Aug 1, 1879.
4. Peru did not declare any war. Peru declared casus foederis of Defensice Alliance treaty.
(El 6 de abril quedó asimismo consumado...) Page 342. Vicuña Mackena. Chilean historian . Also in Declaration of casus foederis
Arafael (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Here we go again.
In all honesty, I haven't read all the sources presented by Arafael, but from a quick glance at some of them I can say that they seem to be reliable, and so far he's made valid objections.
When I have more spared time (which I think will be tomorrow night) I will read carefully the disputed points, I will try to find additional sources and after I’m done I will post my thoughts and findings here.
Likeminas (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gallery?

Why is it better to have a picture gallery than to have the pictures under their relevant sections? Please explain this to me. Likeminas (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are too many images about the same issue or images that doesn't fit the section or images with different size but equal importance or images that "break" the layout of the page, etc, then can be better to gather the images in a gallery and wait for a selection or better distribution of the images. I think now it is OK.


--Keysanger (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All images are of the same size now. Likeminas (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "The War"

Hi Arafael,

Can you explain me why did you tagged following text?

During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca[neutrality disputed]. Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile.[neutrality disputed][12]Argentina was invited to join the Defensive Alliance since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia.[13][clarification needed]''

Why did you delete my added references?.

Thanks,

--Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a small discussion above under Crisis and War I believe Arafael explains there why he added the tags.
Why your references were deleted I don't know.
Likeminas (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this statement that Arafael tagged as POV

During this time Peru acquiesced to Bolivia's request of secret alliance fearing that Bolivia would join with Chile and seize Peru's nitrate field in Tarapaca

I will only add that most books, journals and even encyclopedias have an editorial stance. However, Wikipedia doesn't require that the sources use a NPOV language, it is how we write it in the article that must adhere to the policy of neutrality not the source per se.

Likeminas (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Excuse me, I've unintentionally deleted it. My intention was to return to the previous version where there are a discusion [7]. Arafael (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we finish this [8]? Arafael (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Point 1) was already settled.
point 2) I’ve explained why your objection is incorrect. But in case I was not clear, let me reiterate it. It is us, as contributors that must comply with NPOV, not the source.
3) doesn’t mention any names but rather an envoy, which may I add, has been corroborated by at least two sources and explained in detail by the last reference provided by Keysanger
4)No comment.
Likeminas (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


The question was Is "Latin America's wars. Robert L. Scheina" a reliable source?. Arafael (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And the answer is yes.
but in case you want to get a second opinion, I'd recommend you to take your question to the the RSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN) and see what people say.
Likeminas (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile.[neutrality disputed][12]

is tagged with neutrality disputed.

The argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico

"En parte, el cambio de actitud del gobierno argentino [to neutrality in war 1879] hacia Chile se debió a los resultados de las negociaciones entabladas con Perú. El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile."

Can Arafael tell me what should be no-neutral there?

Your reference :

In 1878 and 1875 Peru avoided the alliance with Argentina http://www.unjbg.edu.pe/basadre/pdf/0103.pdf

is about 1878 and 1875 and not about 1879.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Likeminas
Robert L. Scheina said : "Peru acquiesed to Bolivia's request and began to prepare for war. President Prado sent Jose Arnaldo Marquez to Argentina. in an attempt to draw that nation..." [9] It make mistakes.
Jose Arnaldo Marquez was not a diplomat, he is a writer. Are there any other source about "Jose Arnaldo Marquez" in BsAs as a envoy?
About: "Peru acquiesed to Bolivia's request and began to prepare for war" It's a personal opinion. MarshalN20 : "...sounds like PoV from the author". Selecciones: "Valid argument..."
Keysanger
about "Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was not an envoy. He was in BsAs as peruvian minister since 1875.
You are writing only one version. Aníbal Víctor de la Torre was in Buenos Aires and met with the Argentine president. Is the Argentine president who asked about the alliance [10]
el 26 me pidió una conferencia S. E. el Presidente y habiendo tenido lugar comprendí que su objeto había sido conocer la actitud que adoptaríamos en la cuestión que se ventilaba entre Chile y Bolivia y quizás aun si estaríamos dispuestos al fin a prestar auxilio a la Argentina en caso de un rompimiento con Chile. En esa conferencia me dijo que tenía noticia de que la mediación del Perú no sería admitida. Como ya no había recibido instrucciones de ninguna clase, bien a mi pesar tuve que eludir la respuesta que él esperaba, perdiendo de nuevo la oportunidad que se me presentaba para conseguir la alianza, sin solicitarla, lo que a mi juicio habría sido muy fácil entonces.
When Chilean President Pinto, explain of the origin of the war, he did not include anything about Argentina. New York Times, Aug 1, 1879.
Arafael (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's cricial that you read

WP:NPOV

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.

Arafael, it's not enough that

you claim
it makes mistakes. If it makes mistakes, you must point out how and
provide another
reliable source that contradicts the statement you're disputing. MarshalN20 and you might think it sounds like POV from the author but let me say this again, and hopefully this one will be clear enough to be understood. Sources do not have to be NPOV, our statments in the article do.
I beg other users to intervene, because I fail to understand what part of what I have been repeatedly saying isn't clear! Likeminas (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem 1

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina in an attempt to draw that nation into a military alliance against Chile

We are talking about the time after on February 14, 1879.

  • It is irrelevant although X was a writer, a embassador or minister. He was the envoy of the Peru in Argentina. If any one does not agree, then we make a quotation of the source, in this case the Argentine Site http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm:
El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile.
  • Arafael means Argentina wanted to join the Alliance. Right!. Add the the text with a source (reference). He can use something like (pleaase dont repeat it!) :
In 1873 and 1879, Argentina began talks to join the Defensive Alliance since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia.\<ref\>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2510820?seq=6\</ref\>

I think that is all. There are only sourced text and no one can feel pissed.

--Keysanger (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where in [11] said that "Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy... "?.Arafael (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I deleted "prepared for war". --Keysanger (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
About 24º and 27º: It was a vague formulation, that do not deserve consideration. Is it a "preparation of war"? "tan vago en la formulación que...no merecía consideración".
I deleted "prepared for war". Now there should be no problem. --Keysanger (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not remove tags until we reach a consensus.
What is the Problem now?? --Keysanger (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Arafael (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Problem solver: Delete the word Envoy and replace it with this:

Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado exhorting his representative in Argentina, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, to offer that nation Bolivian territories in exchange of military alliance against Chile .

Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your text without paragraph "...Peru prepared for war with President Mariano Prado sending an envoy to Argentina...". Arafael (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arafael,

You deleted a second time my references to the peruvian offer to Argentina after the beginning of the war:

http://www.argentina-rree.com/6/6-081.htm La misión Balmaceda: asegurar la neutralidad argentina en la guerra del Pacífico]:

"En parte, el cambio de actitud del gobierno argentino [to neutrality in war] hacia Chile se debió a los resultados de las negociaciones entabladas con Perú. El gobierno del último país había instruido inicialmente a su ministro en Buenos Aires, Aníbal Víctor de la Torre, a ofrecer a la Argentina los territorios bolivianos situados entre los 24º y 27º de latitud en la costa oeste, a cambio del ingreso argentino en el conflicto contra el gobierno de Chile."

That is a good reference (from a third party). I write it again as a full text with translation, that you can improve.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


2 new sections

I added the sections "Argentine Position" and "Diplomatic efforts" in order to clarify the article. Also I moved to the new sections the paragraph the needed text.

No offense but the sections are poorly written, and so are the translations.
I also think that the newly created section Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted, as I'm quite sure that it will lead to more disputes of neutrality.
Perhaps, if you post the the changes you have in mind here first, we could then help with redaction and translation.
Likeminas (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

--Keysanger (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Likeminas,
I am surprised!, You work long enough in Wikipedia to know the principle that YOU, LIKEMINAS are responsible for every article apeared in Wikipedia, therefore Wikipedia:Be bold.
Thank you for saying that my english is poorly written, I think it is lesser than poorly (right written?).
But I am very disappointed of you because you critizied me instead of correct my awful english, therefore Wikipedia:Be bold.
Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted?. Delete it and I will find the reference for the statement in less than 1 day! (after I know of your delete). Or you want to be famous and Wikipedia:Be bold yourself?
At least, please don't break the postings of other wikipedians, write your posting after the end of the last users's posting.
Don't worry to critize my writtings but it is better you correct it and forget it.
best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Keysanger:
First off, don't take it personally. Please note, that I'm criticizing your new additions to the article. Not you as an editor.
I previously said that singling out the fact that Chile requested neutrality from Peru is unwarranted because it mainly gives
undue weight
to that particular position and not because it is unreferenced.
In any case, Chile requesting neutrality from Peru does not need to have a separate section as it is not an extensive discussion that cannot be included into another section.
Finally, yes, you can and perhaps should be bold. But considering the slow progress, sensitivity and the recent inclination to quickly raise flags of [neutrality is disputed] it might advisable that we all to discuss major changes to the article before implementing them.
By the way, I'm responding here because I'm addressing this section, and not your post below.
Regards
Likeminas (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have again a problem with the images, because the section "The war" is (still) too short. Should we delete or move an image? which? Do we need 2 images of the Huascar?

--Keysanger (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

About "Chile requested neutrality from Peru" is incorrect. Why not "Peru request to Chile deoccupied Antofagasta". Arafael (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I put already the reference to "Chile requested neutrality from Peru", it is absolutly correct.

Why do you say that it is incorrect?

If you have a seriously reference to what Peru requested from Chile, I ask you to put it, more, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT or we will be writting a biased article.

But, please, be carefull by your edits, yesterday you write twice the same paragraph.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger. See? That's what I meant.
Controversial articles are not easy, I lernt a lot about the issue but Arafael will lernt a lot more than me. --Keysanger (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Arafael you conveniently or perhaps unintentionally (again?) deleted this sourced statement:

When war broke out Argentina sent a naval squadron to

Straits of Magellan.[1] However, it has been argued that the Chilean naval superiority was the main factor preventing Argentina from taking part in the war.[2]

Please stop. I want to assume good faith from you, but it seems that you're here to push your Peruvian POV instead of improving the article.
Likeminas (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if I push Peruvian Pov (or other) instead of improving the article. Arafael (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP DELETING MY REFERENCES!!

HI ARAFAEL,

YOU DELETE MY REFERENCES FOR A THIRD TIME!

If you delete my references againg you will be banned of the english wikipedia.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger: Take it easy. And Please lose the 'ALL CAPS'
You did not understand what I said about the section Chile requested neutrality from Peru Let me say it again; It's unwarranted not because it lacks sources, it is unwarranted because it gives
undue weight
to that particular fact.
And no, Arafael will not be banned, at most he will be blocked.
I think I will request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.
Likeminas (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keysanger: Texts are in history and you could rewrite them.
  • About "the treaty". Could we write "the treaty of alliance" instead of "the defensive treaty" or "the secret treaty"?
Arafael (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing Arafael is that it was, indeed, a secret treaty. There's nothing biased about calling it what it was.
With respect to the treaty being defensive, yes, it was. But only from a Bolivian and Peruvian POV. Chile did not see it as defensive.
Likeminas (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It was a "Treaty of Defensive Alliance with an aditional article that kept it secret".
Read [12] It said. "The Republics of Bolivia and Peru, seeking to strengthen a solemn way the links between them, thereby increasing their strength and mutually guaranteed certain rights, stipulated in this Defensive Treaty of Alliance..."
It does not said "...in this Secret Treaty of Alliance".
Is this text necesary "On March 14 the Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Alejandro Fier..". It was not an immediate request.
Arafael (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it easy and use the shift keys because it seems to me that Arafael ignores the basic rules of wikipedia.

I warned Arafael three times and he continued to delete my references. He told about other themes but he didn't apologize. We shouldn't accept such behavior and the most of the wikipedia writers see it also so.

References are the connection with the sources and wikipedia is nothing without sources. If we begin to delete the references to the sources then we will lost wikipedia.

We should request to have this page protected, so that we can settle some issues here before implementing any changes in the article.

Likeminass, given that your english is better than mine, please talk to a admin about this issue.

I recognize Arafael's work to improve the article, but he should take more time by his edits.

--Keysanger (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Toward war

  • Crisis and Main article: Treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873? It do not talk about treaty.
Anti:The secret treaty was part of the war. The link and some considerations must be included
  • Ok, but do not repeat texts.
  • Occupation of Antofagasta? Toward war is better. It includes diplomatic efforts.
Anti:Not every occupation leads to war. See Perejil Island, Snipe incident and others. So "Toward war" is wrong. You have deleted my "Diplmatic efforts" chapter. Do you remember it?
  • Occupation was not neutral. According bolivian POV it was an invasion.
  • About "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike..." Read [13] "Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984"
Anti:POV because it gives
undue weight
to that particular fact.
  • It is a realiable source. It shows references. Telegrams and newspapers.
  • "...the military balance between Chile..." It is a personal opinion.
Anti:???
  • About "Bolivia requested to Peru to activate the Secret alliance treaty of 1873...".
  • Include in your text first part of the treaty. It said "Republics of Bolivia and Peru...formulate the present treaty of Defensive Alliance...Article I. The High Contracting Parties...obliging themselves...to defend themselves against all foreign aggression".
Anti:DEFENSIV is POV because ... you know why, Likeminas told you already. Secret is not POV because ...
  • Defensive Treaty of Alliance (Peruvian POV).
  • Secret Treaty of Alliance (Chilean POV).
  • Treaty of Alliance (NPOV)
  • "...the defensive alliance treaty of 1873. It had an article that kept it secret..." This sets a time that is defensive and is secret. Also links to
    Treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873
  • Is this text necesary "On March 14 the Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Alejandro Fier..". It was not an immediate request.
Anti:right, if you say, but write the reference.
  • It was on March 17.
  • Keysanger :
  • If you consider that I acted with malicious intent, please tell me. I will explain my reasons or correct my edition.
Anti:I dont consider your edits malicious, not yet, but you aren't accurate enough.
  • Also remember: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view". Then please read also peruvian and bolivian sources.
Anti:for example "defensiv" or "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike" are POVs
  • About "Chilean government officials and vested interests alike". The source is a chilean book.
Anti:Read it, but not POV-Read
--Keysanger (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2510820?seq=6 The role of Jose Balmaceda in preserving Argentine neutrality]
  2. ^ Crow, The Epic of Latin America, p. 182-183

NPOV

1. POV Map. Puna de atacama incorrect. Without parallels. Previous map was designed among colaborators from Chile and Peru in [14] and [15]

Please tell us what is incorrect.
Puna de atacama is incorrect. Do not show parallels.

2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance.

Please tell me what do you mean with "2. Only one POV about 1873 alliance."
only shows "secret" POV not "defensive" POV

3. twice "On 6th February 1873 Peru and Bolivia..."

Please tell me what do you mean with 3..."
doubled paragraph, but 79.224.215.3 removed

4. Only one POV : Occupation of Antofagasta; Other POV: Invasion of Antofagasta

Please tell me what do you mean with "4..."
Invasion is the other POV

5. This reference was removed http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0000309.pdf Los empresarios, la politica y la Guerra del Pacifico. Luis Ortega. Santiago de Chile. 1984. (Page 18. File Antony Gibbs & Sons AGA. Valparaiso to Londres. Private N 25. March 6, 1878)

You know why
It is a Telegram from Valparaiso to Londres (March 6, 1878)

Arafael (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

None of your reasons justify a POV-tag. --Keysanger (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree.

I placed the clause about the secret pact within the reference. Leaving it in italic and under a separate paragraph might come across as Chilean POV. Likeminas (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also add first article and preamble, not only the additional article.
Keysanger:
Please do not remove NPOV message until the dispute is resolved. Arafael (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove NPOV message again. It is not "vandalism" [16] Arafael (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again. Arafael (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)



Arafael I didn't remove your tag.

Regarding the issues you raise; 1) I agree. The other map seems to be better. So I would have no objection in reinstating that one.

2)If to Peru and Bolivia the treaty was "defensive" and to Chile was "secret and/or offensive" then the article should display ALL POV's.

4)This point is just petty. Nonetheless, I should say that invasion might be somewhat weasel. So I would just leave as it is.

Likeminas (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, other user removed it.
1) Agree 2) Agree, We could include All POV's once, and the rest only as an "alliance" 4)Other: Could we join crisis+antofagsta as "crisis". Arafael (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
We're in agreement.
go ahead and implement the changes
Likeminas (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Review, a first version. Arafael (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BOLD

1) No one had said WHY the new map is wrong.

I say the map File:Pacifico1879.svg is wrong

  • because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
  • because Argentina has a shorter typesize
  • because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia

the new map in contrast is better because:

Please say WHY do you find your map better! (Keysanger.)

I agree with whoever wrote this. The new map is better. However, it could and should be improved. It has two major errors:

1. It lacks the parallels. If you haven't noticed, this war heavily revolves around the parallels as one of the war disputes and border peace treaties. 2. The "Chilean territories before war" color looks confusing. I don't know if it is pointing to Argentina or to Chile. Also, there is no explanation if whether the territories in brown were disputed between Argentina and Chile (which I think they were).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

- Only Chile has "black color" boundary after war
- Puna de Atacama area in File:MPazSoldan.1888-2xChile.djvu is greater than File:Wotp.en.svg
- It lacks the parallels
- Ok. use the Generic Mapping Tools border database
- Ok. has many cities and rivers
- "because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war".
It is a personal opinion
The border was verified by many colaborators in [17]
- "because Argentina has a shorter typesize".
Then increase it.
- "because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia".
Incorrect. Please see [18] Para establecer el límite entre Perú y Bolivia es ha utilizado este mapa: Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafael (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a personal opinion. It is the Generic Mapping Tools border database. Many colaborators is warrant for nothing, if they don't use a good method. And they didn't use it. The today boundary in Puna de Atacama is actually very diferent as showed in the "Many colaborators" map.

The Bolivia-Argentina Boundary was modified after the war, but not directly because the war, it was complicated, Tarija, etc.. Therefore we can't use the black line, reserved for the "after war and because of war boundary". I used red. Your "Many colaborators" map also makes a diference between the Chile-Peru-Bolivia boundary (black line and no line) and the Peru-Bolivia and Bolivia-Argentina boundary (no line). Why is this method good in the collaborators-map and wrong in the GMT-map? Can you explain that?

Then increase it.: I increased the typesize of the "ARGENTINA" string and made another map. So, I did it. Accept it.

About the sources of the "Many colaborators" map File:Pacifico1879.svg:

In the description page we read:

Basado en [19]

We follow the link and find File:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png and there is finally the source of the map: File:Borders_Chile_1879_and_2006.png. But there is the note:

This map is erroneus, use Image:Borders-Bolivia-Chile-Peru-Before and after Pacfic War of 1879 SP.png

So, someone shares partially my opinion about the map. But there are three other links:

  1. http://grflib.svnt.com/banners/personales2.gif
  2. File:Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg
  3. File:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG

The first link leads to a private website, there is no map.

The second link leads to Guerra-del-pacifico-01-a.svg. I took the colors from this map, but the map shows only the boundary before the war, and the Puna the Atacama zone is, I think, to big southwards.

The third map is the same I used to define the Peru-Bolivia Boundary before the war.

So, allegedly both maps should be the same. They are not, because the File:Pacifico1879.svg doesn't show the Rio Loa (and many others), also it doesn't show a scale.

All things considered, I repeat:

  • because the showed Chile-Bolivia doesn't fit the real border after the war
  • because Argentina and Bolivia has a shorter typesize
  • because the map doesn't have any sources for the border Peru-Bolivia
  • because it doesn't show the scale

the new map in contrast is better because:

I think, this issue is finished. If anyone wants, we can call a Mediation about. --Keysanger (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The improvements of the map are much better now. The color of Chile is now more visible, and the parallels have been noted. However, if some opposition is still going on about the map, please do post your comments and state your opinion why the map could still be wrong. In the meantime, thanks should go to Keysanger's contribution in this case.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SECRET

We agree that there were at least 3 Parties: Chile, Bolivia and Peru. For these three parties apply that the Treaty was secret. So, the treaty was secret. there is no doubt about that.

What about defensive?

May be that the pact was defensiv for Bolivia and Peru. But, was defensive for Chile? No, in no way. For Chile the pact was no defensive.

Every wiki editor can write "the pact was secret" because it was.

Please explain me WHY the pact was defensive for Chile, before you delete my text.

--Keysanger (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be a little agitated, so please read this message as a peaceful statement. Surely, it is important to mention that Chile (now pay attention to this) misunderstood the "secret treaty" (You're right in saying that secret is standard) as aggresive. The word misunderstood is a key word whenever it is associated with "aggresive" as it is incorrect to mention the defensive treaty as agressive. For, the treaty was developed between Peru and Bolivia; therefore, if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive. Any other interpretation of this treaty as non-defensive is a misunderstanding, and should always be noted as such for correctness.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Let's leave our

interpretations aside for a moment
.

If the treaty was purely defensive from the viewpoint of Peru and Bolivia then references need to be provided stating just that. On the other hand, if the treaty was seen as secretive and/or offensive by Chile, then, the same rule applies. If we end up with both claims being verifiable by reliable sources (which I think we will) then, we should present both of them.

Likeminas (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in the treaty said: "is offensive" to someone?
It was a defensive treaty with an aditional article that kept it secret.
Arafael (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me once again re-state (and re-word) what I pointed out on my past statement. There is no way that something can be two opposites at the same time. A treaty cannot be defensive and offensive at the same time. It's an illogical statement, just like saying that something can be sweet and sour at the same time (
Sweet and sour chicken
, which is good, can also be only one thing at a time).
As Arafael has noted, since the treaty makes no mention of an offensive action towards any particular country, nor does it make it an aggressive statement towards a normal alliance (non-defensive); and clearly only speaks about a defensive pact: The treaty is a defensive alliance. What's more, Peru's actions during the start of the war makes it even more obvious that the treaty was defensive: Peru set the defensive alliance active only when Chile declared war upon it and Bolivia (Chile was the first country to formally declare war).
As such, since the treaty is legally a "Secret defensive alliance," any other mention of it as anything different is incorrect. Therefore, if you want to include that Chile saw the treaty as offensive, it should be noted that it was a misunderstanding from Chile.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Take note, though, that I agree that the misunderstanding of Chile should be noted in the article. It is important to show that Chile made the mistake of thinking the secret defensive alliance was offensive against it.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again. This article seems to be doomed to go in déjàvu cycles.
Please go back to my previous post and re-read it. I thought I was quite clear. But perhaps, I'm mistaken in my assumption so me let say this as simple as I can:
That the treaty omits to name or mention a third country (i.e.; Chile) does not mean the treaty per se was not intended or directed to a third country.
Having said that, if a reliable source explicitly states that the treaty was, indeed, seen, understood or thought as offensive, aggressive or whatever other adjective you want to call it, then, we have meet Wikipedia's requirement of
neutrality
. The exact same thing goes for the defensive claim. And please note, that omissions are by no means proof of anything.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
In any case, I urgue all parties involved to
avoid bringing their own personal opinions or theories
into this discussion as they're technically worthless in terms of inclusion.
Likeminas (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Read in [20] Republic of Chile. Foreign Ministry. Archive 1884: "Copia Tratado de Alianza Defensiva Perú-Bolivia (1873)"
  • Read in [21] Chilean newspaper : "Perú (quien intervino producto de un tratado defensivo..."
Arafael (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are good sources Arafael. We have positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive and Secret.
I've deleted (in bold) the unsourced part Chile acknowledging its awareness of the Bolivia-Peru alliance was offensive to Chile.
Likeminas (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marschall wrote:

if Peru and Bolivia viewed it as defensive, the treaty is therefore upon the eyes of the international community as legally defensive

That is false. Iran says that they don't want to build the bomb. Do the international comunity believe that? Someone yes, others no. In our case Bolivia and Peru say the pact is defensive. That is a fact: they say that, the defensive character of the pact is not the fact.

Marschall wrote:

it is important to mention that Chile misunderstood the secret treaty as aggresive

That is your personal POV. You say misunderstood, correct is:

it is important to mention that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive

I can see now that the problem is bigger than I supposed at the beginning of my contributions to this article. We have to begin with the finding of the facts and then write about the interpretation and consequences of the facts in the three countries. I considerer essential to describe following FACTS:

  1. the business competition between
    Valparaiso
    after the independence of Peru and Chile, the Peruvian tax for ships entering Valparaiso
  2. the Boundary treaty of 1866, 24°S and the 50%-50% tax, and his failure
  3. the nationalization of the guano in Peru at the beginnig of the 1870s and the desolate Peruvian budget
  4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)
  5. the Chilean order for two ironclads in UK
  6. the secret alliance treaty, called defensive, the attempt to bring Argentina, the Peruvian fear that Brasil joints Chile.
  7. the Boundary treaty of 1874 and the prohibition to raise the tax
  8. the arrival of the first
    ironclad
    to Chile and the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to pospone the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty
  9. the Bolivian raise of Tax, the occupation of Antofagasta
  10. the Peruvian attempt to stop the war and after the war, the change in the foreign policy of Peru tending to bring the Argentine sign of the alliance treaty

I will bring the references to this facts as soon as posible. If you think that there some issues needless, redundant or other needed facts, let us know.

Please, be cool, do not use so much bold in your comments.

Marschall: Who has said that Chile    understood the secret treaty as aggresive? . Where did you read that?

--Keysanger (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Read in [22] page 252. "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia"
lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.
Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile
Arafael (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, how have you positively established that the treaty was at least Defensive? --Keysanger (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairly easy Keysanger; I clicked the realiable sources provided by Arafael and read them. I suggest you do the same.
Likeminas (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That don't change the fact that that is what they say. --Keysanger (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, you are writing only one POV text (Bulnes). Include all POV in order to reach NPOV. Arafael (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Keysanger;
if you took your time to read the source from the Chilean Foreign Ministry archive[23], then, we wouldn’t be having this rather unworthy and unconstructive discussion of saying "they say that", and most importantly you wouldn't be blindly reverting other people’s edits.
As far as I can tell, sources from all sides (Peru, Chile and Bolivia) seem to agree that it was Defensive.
If you claim otherwise, then, the burden of proof is now on you.
Likeminas (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas,

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")

If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The

Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush
. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.

Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

So, I think, I have explained my reasons why I reverted your changes. I apologize for my english and request you urgently to correct it if you have time for.

Arafael,

stay cool. In my last contribution to the discussion, I put a list of issues I wanted to expand. Among others I wrote:

4. the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the Mejillones incident (Quiroga-Putsch intent)

If you think that is incorrect, then explain first why do you think so. Wich issues should be assigned to an article, that is a controversial theme. I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia.

By the way, the superiority of the Peruvian navy at the beginnig of the 1870s and the census of Antofagasta are not controversial. You find it overall.

May I move this discussion page to archive and open a new one?. We have advanced a lot at the last days, and the discussion is exciting but my DSL-provider will go bankrupt.

--Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger, who in the world do you think you are? You have no right to move this ACTIVE discussion into an archive just because you feel like it. Seriously, this is a blatant example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuning the discussion, all I see here from your part Keysanger is a highly biased POV. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases such as: "I promise you, you will ignite the war again if you try to coerce my freedom to cooperate with Wikipedia." Come on gentlemen! Wake up, we're not having a "mini war of the pacific" here. Three users, Likemina, Arafael, and me (MarshalN20), all agree that the neutral third party sources (from Peru, Bolivia, and Chile) demonstrate that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. However, it will be impossible to work with people who will only respond: "I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." If you don't want to contribute to this article in a peaceful manner, please do go play your little war games elsewhere Keysanger.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how

Wikipedia works
. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is

verifiable
. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

5 Pillars of Wikipedia (Random addition by Keysanger)

|

source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects
. |- |  |- |
talk page, and follow dispute resolution
. |- |  |- |
no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing
. |- |  |- |
three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,821,959 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming
. |- |  |- | || Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. |}

Third opinion [24]

well done Marschall!

But what you told there is again not the truth. You wrote:

one user who claims an alliance pact to be aggressive (with no use of a reliable source)

I think, you mean me, but I didn't say the pact was aggressive. I said/say, that defensive/ofensive are interpretations of the pact and request to put it as that, interpretations: they called it defensive. I repeat for the third opinion my arguments given to Likeminas:

I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact. The pact says this is a defensive alliance and I corrected your contribution ("it was a defensive pact") with they called it a defensive alliance. You have to proof that the pact was defensive and you can't do it because that is, as Arfael contribution states, (lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo) come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili. ("how they interpret")
If you say "defensive", that is a interpretation of the history, it is not a fact and if you want to publish that in english Wikipedia, you have to say "Diego says it was a defensive pact". Don't get confused with the name and the content of a idea. The
Mission Accomplished said George W. Bush
. Would you write an article and say "the mission was accomplished". No!, you would write, Bush said: Mission Accomplished.
Do you actually mean that is a proof?. For God's sake!. That is any thing but a historical study of the War of the Pacific, That is a list of documents kept in the Chilean Foreign Officce. Your Italian "proof" is a proof for me: That are interpretations of the pact, says the text.

About your next statement:

while three other users (with reliable sources) who claim it to be defensive

I state only that we have to take care not to insult the intelligence of other people.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't need any proof, because I use the source of the pact." This statement is a clear example of
WP:OR, which is a rule you're breaking. You cannot simply interpret something upon your point of view. As of now, you have accepted that Peru and Bolivia saw the alliance as defensive; and that Peru, Bolivia, and Chile accepted the pact as a secret alliance. However, the main point of argument remains when you claim that Chile saw the alliance as offensive and not defensive.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk
) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, once a reliable source is provided from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is of "restricted" information regarding the War of the Pacific, you deem it as unreliable because you claim it to be a "list of documents." In that particular document you wish to ignore, it clearly presents that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. In other words, the Chilean government agreed that the Peru-Bolivia alliance was defensive. How exactly is this an insult to intelligence?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)



Keysanger:

I’m afraid you do not understand how

Wikipedia works
. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it.

Look, it is a fairly simple process.

If there’s a reliable source that states (in this case) that the treaty was defensive, then, the claim that the treaty was, indeed, defensive is

verifiable
. Wikipedia not as concerned with this statement being “the truth” as much as it is concerned with it being verifiable.

Now, if you dispute the claim that the treaty was defensive, then, you need to provide another reliable source that contradicts it.

The documents from the Chilean Foreign ministry are reliable sources whether you like it or not.

Finally, you should know that your interpretations, analogies and snippy remarks won’t get you anywhere here. Only reliable sources will.

Likeminas (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

Likeminas, Marshal,

you continue to ignore my arguments and instead use Ad hominem.

Under the title Continuning the discussion Marshall contributed with [25]:

  • Keysanger is a highly biased POV
  • Come on gentlemen! Wake up
  • You seem to think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender with idiotic little phrases
  • please do go play your little war games elsewhere

Likeminas violates the

Wikipedia works
. Or perhaps you "do not want to understand it".

That aren't the appropriate terms for for a discussion under wikipedians. I am not accustomed to that.

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're taking my phrases out of context in order to benefit your own strange little POV. Now, about Likeminas, he has been the one that has given you the best
WP:OR, and Wikipedia:Gaming the system). I'll repeat my words again: You're not a heroic defender of Chile, we're not going to have a "mini war" (as you threatened in your past post), and we're most certainly not going to stand for weak referenced POV to be included in an article that has been heavily improved through the peaceful collaboration of several users.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk
) 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You continue attacking me [27]:

  • Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions

I see you have problems

to strike the right note. Please, inform yourself about the Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you Marshal, --Keysanger (talk
) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I find it amusing that you're
Wikihounding me, and continue to game the system in order to ignore the discussion concerning the defensive alliance. Oh, and please don't try to teach me about civility; I've had enough of that in the past and have not done nothing uncivil as of right now.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk
) 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret

Do you agree that the pact was secret regards Chile?. Please answer this question without personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The pact was secret to all nations in the planet, except for Peru and Bolivia. There was no specific nation targeted. Why are you trying to make Chile seem a victim?--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you affirm that Argentina was not informed about the pact? Do you have reliable sources for? --Keysanger (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina was notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes. Prior to that, only Peru and Bolivia knew about the alliance. It was secret to Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, Mongolia, China, Honduras, etc. Chile was not targeted.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Argentina notified of the secret alliance only after Chile and Bolivia began to increment on their border disputes, or was intended in the text of the pact to invite other countries? --Keysanger (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_the_Pacific/Archive_4&oldid=1190252091"