Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of

sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision

page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Case scope

Case scope:
The case will examine:

Whether MarshalN20 and/or Keysanger have, or continue to be, engaged in personal attacks and/or disruptive editing;
If so, how this is affecting productive editing at War of the Pacific or related topics; and
If so, what action is required to bring this disruption to an end.

Notes:

Per
arbitration policy
, admissible evidence includes all Wikipedia activity, no matter how old. However, case participants should note that the Committee is likely to give greater weight to evidence of current or ongoing disputes.
Should new evidence suggest the case scope needs amending, this amendment will be published in this section and community input invited on the /Evidence talkpage -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC) (on behalf of case drafters)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1) In order to facilitate the work of the ArbCom I classify MarshalN20 evidence:

Misuse of Sources

Nr 1) See first sentence of Rory Millers passage given in Workshop: The background to Chile's war with Peru and Bolivia was a severe economic crisis in Peru, due largely to the decline of its huano resources and economic mismanagement ...

Nr 2) See the complete cite of Ronald Bruce St. John in Workshop: Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru.

Nr 3) Sater's Book is mainstream published in Spanish and English.

Nr 4) I am not IP 211.26.218.11

Nr 5) This is content dispute, and he "declined" my invitation to work it out.

Nr 6) This is content dispute, and he "declined" my invitation to work it out.

Nr 7) See my Evidence 3

Battleground behavior

Nr 1) To delete good references can be interpreted as vandalism. No battleground behavior.

Nr 2) Ibid.

Nr 3) Darkness shines is now blocked by sockpupptry and "Eddy" is still a

WP:SPA

Nr 4) The deleted "sources" were unreliable sources, partisan, biased, only snippets are shown

(for 5 see Keysanger's Evidence 11)

Nr 6) A mediator has to obtain the trust of all parties. He didn't get it.

Nr 7) A failed mediation doesn't imply bad intentions. I didn't insulted Dentren nor Kharkiv.

Trolling, Baiting, Insults

Nr 1) There is no insult in the sentence

Nr 2) Ibid.

Nr 3) Ibid.

Nr 4) Ibid.

Nr 5) Ibid.

Nr 6) Ibid.

Nr 7) Ibid.

Nr 8) a fact supported by a diff respective a page isn't an insult

Nr 9) I think that my English is bad and your is ramshackle. Is it an insult or a matter of taste?

Nr 10) it is a sandbox and it was deleted

Anti-Consensus, POV Editing

Nr 1) Content dispute (whether the use of primary sources is appropriate, etc) is out of the ArbCom's competence

Nr 2) Content dispute. There were no consens about the inclusion of a section "Causes of the war". No edit war.

Nr 3) It is really heavy to believe that a Village Pump question can break the Wikipedia rules.

Nr 4) Reference desk?. It is the Talk page:War of the Pacific.

Nr 5) Every one is free to think what s/he wants. Also Chiton Magnificus.

Nr 6) Neither Anti-Consensus nor POV Editing. It is a conversation with Robert McClenon in his talk page.

Nr 7) Yes, it is from W. Sater, author of "Andean Tragedy" a book about the war published in English and now also in Spanish.

Nr 8) I wish I could write so good English. It is not me, it is IP 211.26.218.11.

Nr 9) First diff belong to Windroff. Second diff is a POV-Tag. Third diff is a content issue.

Nr 10) Yes, I prefer that photos instead of romantic, nationalistic, which glorifies war or violence like the fotos that I removed.

Tendentious editing, Refusal to Get the Point

Nr 1) Again, a gratuitous accusation without any diff.

Nr 2) This is a tipical MarshalN20 accusation: 520 words but no one diff, no one prove for that what he says.

Nr 3) Yes, there is no need for reducing the article quality because of bits and bytes.

Nr 4) Yes. RPA was right appropriated and MarshalN20 knew it.

Nr 5) See Keysanger's Evidence 16

Nr 6) See Keysanger's Evidence 14

Disrupting article to make a point

Nr 1) Yes, the reader has to be warned.

Nr 2) Yes, the reader has to be warned.

Nr 3) This was the edit war Keysanger and Dentren were correctly blocked by EdJohnson.

Nr 4) Yes, we disagree.

Article ownership

Nr 1) Accusation is gratis, without any diff.

Nr 2) A romantic, heroic view of the war with beautiful oil paintings isn't my thing. There are enough photographs about the war, the real war.

Nr 3) See Keysanger's Evidence 1

Edit warring

Nr 1) Dentren as well as MarshalN20 refused to discuss: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific

False accusations

Nr 1) The problem was acknowledged and resolved minutes later [1].

Nr 2) That is not a false accusation, it is an exhortation.

Nr 3) See Keysanger's Evidence 16

Nr 4) See Keysanger's Evidence 16

Abuse of the Argentine History topic ban

Nr 1) Yes I asked L135 and then I posted the case to ANI [2]. Shouldn't I do it?.

Nr 2) Yes, I warned the readers of the talk page that MarshalN20 had violated the tban [3], [4]. MarshalN20 begrudgingly deleted his comments [5] but he continued to advice Darkness Shines and to deliver him with links and advice. See further consequences in [6].

Nr 3) This is a Spanish idiom similar to English people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Nr 4) WP:ANI is the place to inform the community about that issues.

Nr 5) WP:ANI is the place to inform the community about that issues.

Additional points for consideration (or, to recap)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

To MarshalN20's Misuse of Sources item Nr. 2

Ronald Bruce St John, The Foreign Policy of Peru, Lynne Rienner Publishers - Boulder and London, 1992, page 105

Black: cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2
green: not cited by MarshalN20 in his Evidence Misuse of Sources, item 2

Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru.

To Keysanger's Evidence 1

Carlos Contreras and Marina Zuloaga (2014). Historia Mínima del Peru, page 197 (In Spanish Language)

Black: cited by MarshalN20 in Talk page of Peruvian nitrate monopoly
green: not cited by MarshalN20 in in Talk page of Peruvian nitrate monopoly

The Saltpeter War

Finally, the Peruvian attempt to convert the nitrate into a substitute of guano regarding fiscal funds provoked an international conflict known as the nitrate war or the war of the Pacific between 1879 and 1883.
...(ca. 70 words)...
Bolivia and Peru had signed in 1873, the same year in which Peru created its state monopoly on nitrates, a treaty of defensive alliance. This treaty was invoked by Bolivia, dragging Peru into the war. Regardless, Peru had a vivid interest in the resolution of the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, because the success of its nitrate state monopoly depended on the competition proposed by its neighboring country, whether it be Bolivia or Chile. According to Chilean historians, Peru thought it would be much easier to force the Bolivian government than the Chilean in association with its monopoly of fertilizers. The Peruvian historians tend to sustain, on the contrary, that Peru became involved in a war that did not concern it, due to its desire to fulfill its word committed to a treaty, and because it could not abandon Bolivia at the mercy of Chile without its own security being affected.

(Orig. Spanish) ...

To Keysanger's Evidence 3 (added on 2017 Jan 26)

The 1873 Treaty contains an article that makes it secret and the wording of the treaty is non-aggressive. But most historians agree that it was not secret (except during a short time after its signing) and not only defensive. We can ask, for example, if it was secret, why asked the Chilean gov. the Peruvian envoy about the existence of "a" treaty. And if it was defensive, why was declared secret. How much secret and defensive it was, is a content dispute.

But to call it defensive and to delete the adjective "secret" in the name and the LEDE is an unacceptable POV.

To Keysanger's Evidence 5 (added on 2017 Jan 31)

In RSN I asked MarshalN20 why he had deleted the appreciation of the 1873 Treaty according to Luis Edgardo Mercado Jarrín from the LEDE which I had taken from his book Política y estrategia en la Guerra de Chile. As its name announces, the book deals with strategy, policies, objectives of the Peruvian and Chilean governments before and during the War of the Pacific.

MarshalN20 response was:

It's wrong to give undue weight to the opinion of a minister who served in the mid-20th century. The treaty was signed in 1873, decades before the minister was even born. Why is his opinion so important? Also, the proposed alteration is against the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Edgardo Mercado Jarrin was a well known Peruvian politician of the 1970s, Peruvian Army general, Director de Inteligencia de la Escuela Mayor del Ejército, Comandante General del Centro de Instrucción Militar del Perú and profesor de Inteligencia y de Estrategia Nacional en la Escuela de Investigaciones, Foreign Minister of the Military Government of Juan Velasco Alvarado, later Chief Commander of the Peruvian Army and later Defense Minister. According to TEORÍAS GEOPOLÍTICAS , page 22, Mercado Jarrin is El mayor autor de los estudios de geopolítica del Perú es el General Edgardo Mercado Jarrín. (Engl.: The most important author of geopolitical Studies in Perú is Edgardo Mercado Jarrín.)

According to the es:WP he was author of

El Perú y su política exterior (1971), compilación de los discursos pronunciados en su calidad de Ministro de RR.EE.
Seguridad, política, estrategia (1974)
Ensayos (1974)
Política y estrategia en la Guerra de Chile (1979)
Un sistema de seguridad y defensa sudamericano (1989)
Consecuencias y enseñanzas de la guerra del Golfo Pérsico (1991)
Perú: perspectivas geopolíticas (1993)
La geopolítica en el tercer milenio (1995)

He is cited in:

I ask the ArbCom to compare this author, despised by MarshalN20, with the unknown authors of his google-search-string-books.

To Keysanger's Evidence 10

Text of Rory Miller, Britain and Latin America in the 19th and 20th Centuries, page 64-65

Rory's personal page
google books page 64-65

Text of MarshalN20 about the Role of Great Britain, added on 26 July 2009 [7]

War of the Pacific

The background to Chile's war with Peru and Bolivia was a severe economic crisis in Peru, due largely to the decline of its huano resources and economic mismanagement. This led to default on its external debt in 1876, which primarily affected british and French bondholders. Just before this, over-supply and falling prices in the nitrate industry had led to its partial nationalization. Peru paid the ownwers, many of whom were British, with certificates which it also defaulted in 1877. During the war there was a strong public support for Chile among British merchants, and the easy with which British firms came to dominate the booming nitrate industry in the 1880s after the Chileans had captured and privatised it added to the prima facie case for British involvement.

In fact the first allegations against Britain came from the US Secretary of State, James Blaine, in 1882 when he stated that "it [was] a perfect mistake to speak of this as a Chilean war on Peru. It [was] a English war on Peru, with Chili as its instrument' There is little in the British Government archives to support this. V. G. Kierman, after a meticulous study of the documents, concluded that the Foreign Office was always calm and correct, usually alert, and sometimes notably at masterly inactivity. He found no case against either the Foreign office or its representatives in South America.

If the evidence absolves the British Government, it again leaves open the role of private interests. The key firm was Anthony Gibbs & Sons, the leading merchants on the west coast [of South America] who, after making their fortune in the guano trade, had become successful nitrate entrepreneurs. Beside administering Peru's state nitrate company between 1875 and 1878, Gibbs were also minority partners in the Antofagasta Nitrates and Railroad Company (then in Bolivia), the taxation of which provided the casus belli. Fortunately the house left a massive archive in London, research in which has shown that Gibbs themselves had little control over the Santiago government and indeed much reason to quarrel with it. Instead, it seems, the close connexion between the Antofagasta Company's Chilean shareholders and their government, coupled with the adroit use of propaganda, propelled Chile into a war in which the results, for British interests, seemed far from clear until 1882.

Role of Great Britain

After the begin of war the government of Great Britain declared its neutrality and refused to allow Peru, Bolivia, and Chile to take delivery of military or naval material on English soil.[40] In the book Influencia británica en el salitre, Chilean historian Alejandro Soto argues that although throughout the war Great Britain presented itself as a neutral viewer of the matter, in reality Great Britain had great influence and domination over Chilean saltpeter, nitrate, and iodine companies in the region.[41] At first, the British positioned its saltpeter production in the zone as a small commercial venture, but soon the investments began to serve as a guarantee for the payment of Chile's external debt, in which large amounts of British capital were stocked.[42] Between 1860 and 1870, Great Britain financed Chile a loan of £1,000 pounds.[43] British saltpeter production in the region increased from 13.5% on 1879 to 55% by 1901.[44] In order to protect its interests, Great Britain intervened in Chilean internal and external matters, which influenced the country at various points throughout its history.[45][46] During the War of the Pacific, Chile was backed morally and financially by the British Empire.[47] During the Chilean invasion of the Atacama desert, British businessman John Thomas North provided support for the Chilean army during its occupation of Antofagasta and Iquique.[43][dubious – discuss][48] North, taking advantage of the chaos caused by the war, was able acquire the Peruvian certificates of the saltpeter companies that operated within its territories, and was later given by the Chilean government a monopoly of the saltpeter production in the region, which North later used to finance investments in Europe and Egypt.[49] In the early years of the war (1879-1881), Chile acquired a series of ships from the British shipyard company Yarrow Poplar.[50][51] Also, Chilean soldiers were said to be equipped with English uniforms and rifles.[52][53] Throughout the conflict, Britain had seven battleships stationed at the front of Peruvian and Chilean coasts, which were a menace for Peru.[54] However, while Peru was attempting to buy armament for the war, Britain sent a series of diplomatic missions across Europe in order to prevent Peruvians from acquiring weaponry. In the Ottoman Empire, Peru sought to acquire the battleship Fehlz-Bolend by using a Greek banker as an intermediary,[55] but a British sailor working for the Turkish government warned the Chilean delegation in London of the event, which resulted in the cancellation of the buy.[55] Britain also thwarted Peru's acquisition of German warships Sócrates and Diógenes, both which were stopped at the English port of Southampton after Chilean agents warned the British government of the Peruvian acquisitions of the ships.[56]

Causes of the war

This is a personal conduct investigation, but I consider appropriated to inform the ArbCom an issue that appears repeatedly in the discussion.

The causes of the war were economical, geopolitical, and of internal politics. See William Sater's Andean Tragedy page 37ff, section Seeking the origin of the war. This book has been edited in Spanish and English, it is mainstream, we like it or not. Also, for example, Luis Ortega, a Chilean historian that advocated the Chilean interests as main cause, accepts in the Conclusiones of his work Los empresarios, la politica, y los origenes de la Guerra del Pacifico, page 61, that: No hay una explicación unilateral y total para 1os orígenes de la Guerra del Pacífico, y la motivación central detras del esfuerzo de guerra chileno es, todavia objeto de controversia. Ciertament 1os factores que incidieron en el desencadenamiento del conflicto fueron variados e incluyeron aspectos jurídicos, geopolíticos y económicos (Transl.:There is no general explanation for the origins of the war. The main cause is controversial. Factors were juridical, geopolitical and economical).

Keysanger thinks that all causes have to be proportionately present in the description of the causes: [8]

Other means that only the Chilean economical interest should be represented. Peruvian and Bolivian economical interests should not be mentioned: [9]

About MarshalN20's contribution in Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly (added 2017 Jan 25)

In diff MarshalN20 wrote 8 sentences that we transcribe complete and numered in the following list:

This article is slanted towards the Chilean perspective of the causes for the War of the Pacific.
As Robert N. Burr writes: Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), p. 138.
This demonstrates that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields.
This article presents the Chilean perspective as a fact.
Not only that, but Burr actually considers another economic factor to be the primary reason for the war—Chile's economic ambition over the minerals in Bolivia's desert.
A few further lines down, Burr adds: A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.
This quote demonstrates that Burr's view of the primary reason for war (casus belli) was Chile's ambition over the mineral deposits in the poorly-defended Bolivian littoral (coast).
Given this situation, this article is in serious need of a rewrite to balance perspectives.-

Sentences 1 and 2 present the introduction, a thesis (slanted towards the Chilean) and a cite.

Sentence 3 gives the interpretation of the cite, the reasoning: it is said by Chileans that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields and presented in the article as a fact.

First of all, the historiography has today reached a state that doesn't allow words like "Chile" or "Peru". In Peru as well as in Chile are different tendencies and interpretations of the facts within the historians. But ~~in order not to confuse MarshalN20~~ we continue to talk about Chile and Peru as monolithic entities, which they aren't.

In fact, Burr states that the Chilean gov saw Peru as mastermind behind the Bolivian tax and confiscation. The Ch. government told it officially to friendly powers in a statement short after the beginning of the war.

The question is: Is it only a Chilean view? Does Burr say that only the Chileans think so?. No. It is not said by Burr that only Chilean think so, it is not in his sentences. I can see that, the ArbCom can see that. From a particular case (the Chilean gov) MarshalN20 concluded a general consequence. We are obligated to WP:AGF. So, let's believe that is only a little error of MarshalN20.

What do say other about the domination over the nitrate fields?

In 1873 the Peruvian gov created a state monopoly over the production and sales of nitrate Peruvian law of 1873. In 1875 the Peruvian gov nationalized the nitrate industry. See a Legislación sobre salitre y boráx en Tarapacá written by

Guillermo E. Billinghurst

(later President of Peru) about the Peruvian laws about the nitrate. In page 69 you will find it: "La Expropiación".

What does St John say about that? MarshalN20 cited him incomplete. We repeat the complete cite as given by Keysanger above:

Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavo tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war. At the end of the 1870s, the Peruvian government had a near-monopoly on the nitrate trade, and Bolivia's 1878 tax supported its position. In turn the consolidation of Chilean control over Antofagasta promised ruinous competition for Peru.

I ask the Arbitration Committee, is it possible that an editor of that article doesn't know that Peru wanted to control the world price of the nitrate in the 1870s? Please, see the bibliography of the article, all of them write about the nationalization, the 7.000.000 British Pound the Peruvian gov. needed to expropriate and didn't get, the purchase of Bolivian licenses by the Peruvian government, the antagonism between the Peruvian nitrate producers and the guano traders, the problems of the Chilean gov with the holders of the Peruvian debts certificates after the occupation of Tarapaca, etc, etc, etc. And MarshalN20 denies all that and states that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields. We are obligated to WP:AGF. So, let's believe that is is only another little error of MarshalN20.

Sentence 4 is half correct: it is a fact that existed a Peruvian attempt to control the nitrate trade and production. It is supported by all historians. But it is not only a Chilean view.

Sentence 5 Chilean companies were interested in make money. There is no difference with today and other countries.

Sentence 6 is a cite.

Sentence 7 pretend to interpret Burr's words as blaming Chile for the cause of the war despite the fact that the author self refuses to determine the causes of the war: A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. He says that Chilean consider the region almost a their own, that they had a predominant role in economy and work. Furthermore, that the Bolivians were unable to develop the region and feared the Chilean domination.

Where does MarshalN20 read that Burr's view of the primary reason for war (casus belli) was Chile's ambition is nowhere to be founded. At least, it is not direct said in Burr's text as required by WP:RS. ::Another MarshalN20 little error?.

No. They are not errors.

To make wrong inferences AND to ignore the basic bibliography about the article AND to blur the statements of an author AND to make incomplete cites isn't an error.

It is MarshalN20 incapacity to abide the rules of Wikipedia.

I have to emphasize that all my statements don't regard the content of the article. It is all over logic, correct cites, and correct understanding of English language sentences.

The standard reading for the theme is The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade, 1873-1879 by Robert G. Greenhill and Rory M. Miller, Journal of Latin American Studies © 1973 Cambridge University Press. (in jstor.org)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Keysanger, it seems clear to me that you don't understand the definition of a state monopoly. It seems to me that you think that a state monopoly is the same as a true, total monopoly. As Greenhill and Miller indicate in "The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade", a state monopoly specifically refers to an "attempt to extend control over [a country's] natural resources" (p. 107). State monopolies occur solely within the borders of a particular nation. You confuse (purposefully or inadvertently) Peru's attempts to consolidate its state nitrate monopoly with the alleged attempts it had to acquire a total monopoly of nitrates. Burr calls this extension of the state monopoly an alleged conspiracy and St. John is clear in indicating that there is no concrete evidence of Peru manipulating the Bolivian nitrate market, even if Peru was interested in the outcome of the dispute between Bolivia and Chile (according to Contreras). Greenhill and Miller are also clear to point out the causes of the War of the Pacific under the economic context that you so often seek to minimize:

"By now war between Chile and the alliance of Peru and Bolivia ended any possibility of normal commerce. The conflict was ostensibly caused by Bolivia's imposition of duties upon Chilean entrepeneurs around Antofagasta contrary to her treaty obligations. It had, of course, wider implications; an aggressive desire on Chile's part for nitrate fields and hegemony upon the west coast, Peru's 'secret' treaty with Bolivia and jealousy of her powerful neighbour to the south, the international ineptitude of the Government at La Paz." (Greenhill & Miller, "The Peruvian Government and the Nitrate Trade," Page 128).

Did you read the article before deciding to share it? Regardless, thank you for sharing it and further helping prove the validity of my position on this matter.--

🕊 15:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

Case scope

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:MarshalN20

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Decorum

Consensus building

Mediation

Reference desk

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

Keysanger: Tendentious editing and battleground conduct

Keysanger: Dispute resolution gaming

Proposed remedies

Keysanger topic banned

Keysanger 1RR restriction

War of the Pacific article permanent semi-protection

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Keysanger

Proposed principles

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Nature of underlying dispute

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by Iazyges

Proposed principles

Tag-bombing

Purpose of template

Fringe theories

Proposed findings of fact

Campaigning

Personal attacks

Source manipulation

Proposed remedies

Interaction ban

Source manipulation warning

Revisiting

Proposed enforcement

Interaction ban

Source manipulation block

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion