Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Several Historical facts edited & information added

I only have edited some historical facts, erased some false and non neutral affirmations, such as “...Chile's imperialist ambitions in the region.”

Also I have added some more detailed information. If you whish I can post the Bibliographic sources from which I have got the information

Forestin

Fell free to make any sugestion on this page. But also you must have consideration about what is false and what is not:

• Chile did have problems with Argentina and Bolivia over its borders, so the claim of "Imperialistic Ambitions" can be justified in that sence.

• I have read the article myself and I don't find anything false. Maybe it needs to be more detailled, but at any moment anything wrong has been stated.Messhermit 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Messhersmit, how come you want to have a NPOV article, if it is almost the 100% peruvian perspective written on this page?(logical, you are peruvian) There is no sense of discussing the only correct view, as this is only possible by defining general historical points where both parties agree. EVERY JUDEGMENT DONE BY YOU (Chilean Imperialists, shameful etc...) on this page is not appopiate and will cause people to change it, this is not the sense of this page, but reproduce historic events and show historical titles. Historical events on this page should always be done without any characterization. Thanks Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Forestin, it would be very useful if you could state clearly here what in the article you are contesting. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK I will specify the parts:

Messhermit, from you profile I see that you understand Spanish. So I would like to invite you to join or at least take a look at the Spanish discussion about the Pacific War since it is much more advanced then this one.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Pacifico

• I will.

Before I go into details about the article I would like to respond to one of Messhermit comments:

If we look at the definition about "Imperialistic behavior" we will find that it is related to Imperialism it self.

"Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire."

Chile had sever border issues with Argentina & Bolivia. But Chile didn’t had any ambitions over those territories.

• A bold claim, certainly. Atacama and Patagonia are clear examples of those disputes wih Argentina and Bolivia.

• • A bold claim? this is a very subjective judgment from your side, Messher. Fact is that The Atacama and Patagonia were the last "corners" of southamerican Continent to define exact borderlines between the new independent nations, mainly because these territories were less populated, also called "despoblado", and they were of less interest in the beginning of the 19th century. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Finally the borders between Chile & Argentina couldn’t have been established more fair since that was the border that had been established between the Vireinato de la Plata & the Capitania de Chile, at the time where they still where Colonies.

• If those borderlines would have been defined as you are saying, then Chile have no right over the Patagonia or the Atacama Territories, since the "Capitania General de Chile" was a small dependency of the Viceroyalty of Peru.

• • Fact is that Patagonia was not officially belonging to the spanish colonies before independence of LA countries. Spaniards had fought a long time the "Guerra del Arauco" against Mapuche/Araucanian tribes in the Patagonia, and they lost, which was finalized with the recognizing of the southern Patagonia as the borderland. Spaniards therefore called the region of BioBio "la Frontera". Patagonia was later seized by the 2 newly independent countries. The dispute between Argentina and Chile are based on "virtual" souvereignity of the spanish crown over this territory, which was never under complete spanish control. The "dependency" of Chile from the Viceroyalty of Peru is of no interest, as Chile as Capitania had its own authority. Furthermore, Chile, already as an independent nation in 1817 claimed the Atacama region, while Peru and Bolivia were still spanish colonies for a long time after that point. Last, but not least, even the spanish based "Utis Possidetis" does not give Bolivia the right over the coastal region, as this was defined by the "Leyes de India" promulgated in 1680 and in force until 1810, by the spanish crown under S.M. Carlos de España, seeing the "Audencia of Charcas", the initial Bolivia before it's independece, as a mediterranean country without access to the pacific, which had to pass territory belonging to the Audiencia of Lima ,in order to reach the Ocean. This is an unmovable fact, on which Chile bases its rights over coastal area during the beginning of 19th century, and which is later claimed by Bolivia over already existing chilean rights. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

If Chile would have had an Imperialistic ambition it never would have ceased the territory neither to Argentina nor to Bolivia.

• Chile and Argentina were on the brink of war, and the issue about the Patagonian territory was settled without a direct comfrontation. Patagonia was divided (Something that still outrage some hard-line chilean politicians). About the issue with Bolivia, it evolved in to full scale war and the territory was conquered and annexed. Chile did not gave up any claim, but rather expanded its borders. Most Historians will agree with this statement.

On the other side there are theories that Bolivia & Peru where the ones with an Imperialistic attitude.

• Unfortunately, that is another bold claim. Bolivia (until 1980) was in constant political caos, wich prevented it to claim any important position on the Balance of Power. Peru on the other side, attempted a mediation in the conflic, sending diplomatics in peace missions. Chile declare war on April 5th, 19879. As you can see, Peru was reluctant to follow the secret alliance with Bolivia, since its government known that it was in no position to face war.

• • Peru played the role of the "independent" mediator between Bolivia and Chile: Chile was first not aware of the secret alliance of both northern countries. This was discovered, and the the reaction was natural and obvious. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Prior to the war & the discovery of saltpeter minerals in the region Peru was biggest Guano exporting country. But with the appearance of the Saltpeter the price of the guano dropped & over the night Peru had 600000 tones of Guano stored in its Harbors. Of course this leaded to a major economical crisis. Bolivia on the other side wasn’t very pleased with the situation in the region either since they couldn’t tax Chilean Corporations. Bolivia, encouraged by its Military alliance with Peru, decided to impose the tax since it was sure that in case of war the Alliance would be superior to Chile, defeating them.

• That could be a claim against the Hilarion Daza Administration. About the guano, it is true that saltpeter indeed appeared on Tarapaca and Atacama, but at any moment those territories (at least the Peruvian Province) were a recognised part of the Chilean State. Also, you must remember that at those times, Guano prices could have dropped, but at any time there were wortless. Saltpeter was indeed going to totaly replace Guano, but in a couple of years more.

That of course is only a theory, just like the one of the Imperialistic ambitions of Chile over the region.

But now to the article it self.

Basically I have structured the Text a little more understandable.

For example I cutted out:

"The government of Bolivia wanted to levy taxes on the commercial operators exploiting the area, who happened to be Chilean and British."

I cutted it out because it give a false view of the events of the war from the beginning. But I left that not just that way but specified the causes of the War with details about the treaties between Chile & Bolivia which where the cause of the war.

• Are you denying that there were British investors on most of the Chilean companies working at Atacama? That is indeed a baseless argument. The Chilean Civil War was product of this influence.

After that cutout I putted an inside view of that Chile & Bolivia even up today disagree on the issue if Bolívar had or had not an exit to the Pacific.

• The argument about Bolivian coastline does not have place on this article. Bolivia indeed have a recognised coastline. And as you have said, Chile invaded the Atacama Territory.

• • Bolivia indeed had a recognised coastline for some years only, being more accurate, between 1874 and 1879. But this souverignity was bounded with contractual mandatory rules, which Bolivia had to respect. This treaty was signed by both parties, Bolivia and Chile. Breaking one of these regulations meant the annulation of the treaty, meaning that Chile would recover its old titles over the territory, which indeed happened.Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Following that I got into the treaties between Chile & Bolivia, which are a vital part for the war. Basically I putted in more details

For example:

"In 1878, Bolivia, under President Hilarión Daza, tried to increase the taxes of the Chilean Antofagasta Nitrate Company, over the protests of the Chilean government of President Aníbal Pinto. When Bolivia threatened to confiscate the company's property, Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta on February 14 1879."

That part doesn’t even mention the treaty of 1874, which is a vital cause for the war & the reason why Chile decided to intervene.

• Please stated a Neutral Page that can show the entire document. As far as I am concern, there is no clause stating that Chile had indeed any sovereign over the territory. Also, In internationals affais, I find that claim baseless and caotic.

• • The treaty itself did not include any clause, where it is stated that this territory was under chilean sovereignity before, as Bolivia did not recognize it. Neither it was included that it was under Bolivian sovereignity before! Both parties would then never have defined a treaty, because both parties claimed this territory, that was the final aim of this treaty, to solve the issue. Chile in that time saw its main interest in protecting its mining industry in the disputed region, and this was cleared by the rules setup in the treaty, concerning taxation. Any rule defined on this treaty was important, and any break meant a violation of this treaty. My personal comment/opinion appart: I think those treaties (1866 and 1874) were signed by both parties under faithful perspectives and hopes, in order to solve pending issues solidarily. Between 1860 and 1870, Pacific countries had fought against spanish ambitions to reconquer the "old colonies" starting with Peru. The Pacfic nations were victorious and in in an euphoric atmosphere did also not think about consequences. Therefore from the chilean perespective, it was a major perfidy from its northern neighbours, that this treaty, signed with chiles good will, was violated by Bolivia on chiles back. (secret alliance with Peru and then following the violation and provocation, having in mind that Chile would snap the bait, and include mecanism of Peru as shield again Chileans.)Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

The 1874 Treaty stated that no new taxes could be levied in the region for 10 years. That was the official reason given by Chile to intervene in Antofagasta.

Then we have:

"Argentina was invited to be a member of this Alliance, since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the whole region of Patagonia. A settlement was arranged, but Argentina never fulfilled its obligations."

That is completely FALSE. The Argentinean parlament rejected from the beginning to be a member in a Secret Alliance. One of the reasons was that would have caused an immediate war with Brazil.

• You are right, it is not arranged in an accurate way. The settlement was between Chile and Argentina, and Argentina droped to its intentions to join the Peru/Bolivian Alliance. But at any moment anything FALSE its stated. Brazil was probably more concern about the danger that is having as neighbors 3 countries in alliance, not about the war thar Chile was going to start.

So what where the obligations that Argentina didn't fulfilled?

Then we have that the Peruvian Navy was unable to face war. Well, the Peruvian Navy was just as unable to face such a war, as the Chilean vessels were.

• Mmmm... I wonder if the "Blanco Encalada" and the "Cochrane" were not considerated state-of-the-art vessels for its times. "Huascar" was from 1865, "Manco Capac" and "Atahualpa" since the American Civil War. As you can see, the Peruvian Navy was in no position to defy the Chilean one. Since the Guano Boom, no money was left to the military or the navy, in part also becouse of the rise of the first civilian government in Peru.

• • Even if Peru might have been in economic trouble, there was no comparison like jowerdays. Chile is nowerday a powerful nation in the region compared to Peru, but in those times, Chile was a poor country compared with Peru, last "recently" was released into independence by the spanish as their main and central colony of Southmaerica. Even a weak Peru was wealthier then an intermediate Chile. You also forget the other peruvian steel monitor Independencia, which meant peruvian advantage over chilean wooden and old vessels in the seas Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Then we have:

"In contrast, the Chileans (encouraged by British interests) had well-prepared armed forces: a modern navy supplemented a well-trained and equipped army."

The Chilean army wasn’t well trained & equipped because it had ambition to go to war, but because they had faced continues war in the south of Chile since the Colonization of the territories. That is something that should be added.

• I totally disagree on the latest statement. Any military analist will say that the Chilean Army was indeed prepare for war. Peru and Bolivia were in shamefull conditions. Also, what "colonization" are we talking about? Patagonia was a disputed territory, so Colonization would mean that it was a recognized part of the Republic of Chile, wich was not. I find hard to believe also that the chilean army was in shape just for those "colonizations".

• • Chile was definitely not in shape for military adventures, I even go further: The chileans didn't give much attention to this war until the heroic appereance of Arturo Prat. Fascinated by his heroic defence of his positions and his heroic death, Chileans were motivated to fight for their rights. Concerning colonisation: there WAS colonisation in the south of Chile, and also the resistance of tribes. Eventhough there were ongoing disputes between Argentina and Chile about "spanish map heritage" over this territory, you have to remember that this part of Southamerica was not settled by spanish/criollos, but Mapuches/Araucanos and other wary tribes. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Goes on:

"Two of the newest and most powerful Chilean battleships - Blanco Encalada and Cochrane - had already started blockading the Bolivian coast."

For Chile, who considered that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874, that Coast passed back to be Chilean. For that the ships where Guarding Chilean territory. But since Bolivia Considered it to be there territory they where blocking Bolivian territory. For that & since both nation claimed that territory to be there’s it would be much better to denominate it as the "territory in dispute". That way it keeps neutral, between Chile & Bolivia.

• Another Mistake is made, since it shows the "Chilean POV", wich is precicely what Wiki is pretending to avoid. In the eyes of the world, a blockade was stablished, and once again, I ask for a document that can state that Chile was sovereing on Atacama. Once again, Bolivia indeed have a coastline that even the chilean government recognize, that is a fact that should not be distortionated.

• Easy one! Again, check the "Leyes de India" promulgated by the SPANISH crown in 1680, where the "Audience of Charcas" was defined as mediterranean ! Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005. "Disputed territory" is the absolute correct formulation, any different definition means taking part of one side.Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Then, in the ground campaign I added more details. For example at that time Tarapaca was no city. Hell even today it is no city but a very small village. Also the battle was not at the village of Tarapaca but in the whole valley.

• Another mistake, since you are considering the demographic factor. Tarapaca can be a small town in Chile now in our days, but Tarapaca can be considerate a city on standars of the Time. Also, The troops that retreated from Pisagua indeed march toward the city. Lima did not have more than 300.000 habitants at that time.

Also the numbers indicated as now are absolutely wrong. It happens to be that I have direct access to military documents from that time of the Chilean army. Those documents include official communications, orders & battle information. Also detailed information about the composition of the Peruvian army, documents obtained by the Chilean Military during the Occupation of Lima. The numbers & information that I putted regarding that is for that correct since I obtained it directly from Chilean & Peruvian reports.

• Documents on the peruvian side state my point on Tarapaca. The Chileans have supperiority both on terrain and manpower, and they lose. Figures can differ, but that is the truth. Also, During the ocupation of Lima the city was vandalized and most of the info could have been lost. So I don't believe that having documents that could have been forged (not stating that indeed they were) on the chilean side can actually show an accurate view of the Peruvian Army.

After that, the decisive battle was at Tacna & not Arica.

• "Alto de la Alianza" was an important battle, but the Battle of Arica is not forgotten. A would-be Argentinian President (Roque Saenz Peña) participate on the defence of the city, as well as other officials that refuse to surrender to the Chilean army. It it was not important, then why the Chilean Army send at least 3000 soldiers to take it?. Both battlesare important.

Yep, but the battle of Tacna is not that developed in the article. After all, Arica was more or less a mopping-up operation, and 3000 soldiers was a relatively small number after Tacna (fought by forces 3 times that size IIRC) Tacna was a decisive battle: Bolivian forces abandoned the war effort, Arica was more or less doomed (if not taken by assault it could had sieged).

But Arica is for both sides often more remembered. By Chile because they took the hill in les then an hour. By Peru because the defenders fought until the last man.

• It appears that your point is to prove that the Chilean version is accurate? Peruvians have a deep respect for the Battle of Arica. It looks like you are trying to minimize the defenders.

Same goes for the campaign in the Sierra. I added just more detailed information.

• "Campaña de la Breña was a failure for the Chilean Army. That is true, and I see no point in stated the contrary.

Well, in that failure the last battle (Huamachuco) ended with the destruction of the peruvian army of Caceres. After that (and an sucessful expedition to take Arequipa), Peru signed the treaty of Ancon. In the present redaction the development makes no sense: After Peruvian forces successful defend their land and inflict defeats in the invaders, they sign a treaty that meant losing territory. The campaign of the Breña was strategically a chilean army success -although very costly: Peru was forced to sign a treaty ceding land.

Well, I didn’t change the meaning of the article, just added & corrected some information. Feel free to ask questions.

The thing is that as it is now, it is neither complete or correct.

I would apretiate if you could indicate me which parts you think are inapropiated for for the article or wrong.

Of course sources & reasons for that woul be great.

Forestin

• I have answer most of your question. As a compliment, It worries me that your work is to shape the article in a chilean way, and not a NPOV one. Neutrality above all.

Messhermit 03:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Messhermit, you now have my response on you point of view. Regards! Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

• At your request, I have read the article in spanish. It seems to me that the article in question is in the same state, and that the disscussion is almost in the same place. As you can se, there are other chilean users that have tried to modify the article in some disrespectfull ways, and that is clearly what I'm trying to prevent. Let us work toguether in order to make this a NPOV page, and that Peruvian, Bolivians and Chileans views of this shamefull war can be properly stated and none of them minimize. Messhermit 14:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Agree that we should find a common point for all, but I think that disrespectful judgements and incorrect interpretations against Chile are also out of place and should not be tolerated. Upsala 16:28, 18 Jul 2005

Major revert

I just did something I rarely do, and reverted this back about a week. Could this article be improved? Sure. But this was not improvement. I would love to see perspectives from the three countries involved, identified as such, and decently cited. Although I'm not putting a ton of time on Wikipedia these days, I'll try to stay active here and facilitate. In particular, I strongly suggest that edits that claim to be factual corrections be discussed here on the talk page: I have no reason to believe that the article is it stood/stands has its basic facts wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Although the different perspectives of the war are important to show, the point is that it's more important to show factual information rather than simple POV. MarshalN20 (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Casualties"

"Chile had 474 casualties": does this mean dead, or dead and wounded? "Casualties" is actually mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid precisely because of this ambiguity. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is controvertial. Mostly because in this battle, both versions (chilean and peruvian) are different. Messhermit 20:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The box on the page right top lists 30,000 casualties on each side, however, linked documentation uses figures 1/10th that. Does this include civilian casualties not indicated? It is several times the size of the engaged forces, so highly suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.82.76 (talk • contribs) 2 January 2007.

Political edit; I'd like to revert

The recent edits by User:194.203.212.214 look to me to be deliberately (Chilean) POV; some of the deletions seem egregious, the writing is uneven, and some passages are made obscure in an effort to avoid any wording that suggests that Bolivia ever may have had a claim to any coastal regions. I'd be inclined to go back to the version before this (although there may be some passages worth keeping and I'm open to discussion). I'll give at least 24 hours for others to weigh in before I do anything.

• I agree. Messhermit 15:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi, Jmabel, I think it is rather egregious to completely delete a work like you did, without even giving argumentation on each case. For you it might look like a Chilean POV, but you maybe don't know, this page was originally created from peruvian POV (at least I guess you haven't overseen this gigantic peruvian flag in the beginning)This article is describes oviously Bolivia and Peru as victims of the war. Can't you at least debate the points with real arguments? 24 hours left for somebudy to react, (so that nobody can read this?) is quite a short termed period, don't you think? I hope you do not try to take part of any non-NPOV.

Anyway, I am willing to discuss this with you, let's get started:

1."Chile gained substantial mineral-rich territory in the conflict, leaving Bolivia a land-locked country AGAIN and annexing the formerly Peruvian province of Tarapacá and the formerly TEMPORARILY Bolivian province of Litoral."

• • According to the Utis Possidetis agreed by all Latinamerican countries, all dependent nations from spain would keep its borders in the day of independence. In the "leyes de Indias", promulgated by the spanish King S.M Carlos II in 1680, the "Audiencia de Charcas", the former Bolivia, was defined without any sovereign access to the pacfic ocean. It even defined that, in case of transport of goods via the sea-way, coming from the A. d. Charcas, it had to pass the port of Arica, then belonging to the the Audiencia de Lima. This law was in force until 1810.

The first time that the coast of Atacama combined with the A. d. Charcas/Bolivia was mentioned, was in 1825, the day of independence of Bolivia, whereas Simon Bolivar defined it's border over already existing and independent (1817) chilean teritory (which was not accpeted by chilean government), last one defined by the "Utis Possidetis" in force until 1810. This region firstly became legaly bolivian in 1866 (!), after the treaty between Chile and Bolivia defined the cease of territory towards Bolivia, in order that last land would have access to the ocean for the first time. You must consider that the war between Spain on one side and Peru, Chile and Bolivia on the other side (Guerra de España 1865-66) had finshed recently with victory on the side of the latinamerican allies, and in an euphoric atmosphere of bolivarism, this treaty was signed, and Chile accepted this cease. Nevertheless, this treaty included regulations, which Bolivia had to held for a period of transicion (25 years), don't forget that this region was inhabited by 95% of chilean population and same counts for companies settled there. You can verify all this information by your side.

2. "The government of Bolivia wanted to levy taxes on the commercial operators exploiting the area, who happened to be Chilean and British, BUT THIS MEANT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE TREATY SIGNED bY BOLIVIA AND CHILE, WHICH DEFINED THE CESSATION OF THE DISPUTED TERRITORY TOWARDS BOLIVIA."

• • Why do you delete this very important sentence? It is even the most important sentence in combination with the war of the pacific ! It is the cause of the war! Not even peruvians or bolivians would delete it...

3. "National borders in the region had never been definitively established; the two countries negotiated a treaty that recognized the 24th parallel as their boundary in 1874... "

• • Do you doubt this year? which year is the right then? Why trying to desinform? It's just the year, where both parties signed the last border treaty before the war! Do you really want to debate this? The only thing you could debate, is adding the treaty of 1866

• • in work**

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.215.26 (talk • contribs) 29 Aug 2005

I'm open to discussion on any specific changes to the article, and it is quite possible that the majority of your edits are good ones. But you seem to want to know why I reverted, so here goes.

For starters, it's one thing to take an article that you think is one-sided and indicate where historians from different countries disagree (which really should be done with citation, although I'd have to say that at the moment this article is pretty lacking in citation all around); it's another entirely to remove one view and simply replace it with another. Clearly there is disagreement among historians over the legitimacy of Bolivia's littoral claims. As far as I can tell, the article before you got there didn't take sides on this point. You edited it to simply say that the Chilean claim was correct and the Bolivian one not. That was the first edit in sequence, and I will readily admit that it got me off to a start of being very suspicious of your edits.

For another thing, some of what was added was really poorly written. Take, for example, "but this meant to be a violation of the treaty signed by Bolivia and Chile, which defined the cesation of the disputed territory towards Bolivia." I would guess (but guess is an operative word here) that the first phrase means something like "but this was a violation...", and I can't even confidently guess what word is meant by "cesation". Clearly not "cessation" (termination). Possibly "cession", an uncommon word meaning to surrender one's claim to a piece of land? Possibly something else entirely.

I also find it suspicious when someone new to an article removes, without comment and without pasting the removed content to the discussion page, a statement like "Huáscar rescued the survivors from Esmeralda, who gave its captain, Miguel Grau, the nickname of "Knight of the Seas". In contrast, the survivors of the Independencia wreck were shot while still in the water by the Chilean Navy." I am not defending the merit of this passage: quite likely it doesn't belong in the article, at least not as it is written. But it had been there for some time, and you don't remove substantive material by deleting it silently: you remove it by explaining what is wrong with it.

I could go on, but I won't. The point is, I made a process-based decision that someone (you) had come in here more with the agenda of pushing a point of view than of improving the article; I may well have been wrong. I raised my doubts here, giving an opportunity to defend the edit; 24 hours later the only person who had chimed in was Messhermit agreeing with me. So I reverted.

Again, I'm open to discussion on any specific changes to the article, and it is quite possible that the majority of your edits are good ones. In any case, when making substantive changes where there has not been anything like a consensus reached on the talk page, I strongly suggest that you give coherent edit summaries; when you cut substantive material, typically you should bring it to the talk page (I am probably myself guilty for not bringing your material item by item to the talk page); and you really ought to cite sources, but, again, this article is very weak in that respect.

By the way, please if you are doing substantive work here, open an account, sign your posts, etc., instead of editing from a shifting IP address. I would certainly have gotten hold of you to discuss before reverting your work, but with no account for you, I had no way to do so.

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I see that meanwhile someone else has made a set of what appear to be more evenhanded edits, incorporating some of these issues; I also see that this is all still being done without any real citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• That would be me, TopQuark. I do regret the lack of citations and will provide whenever I am able to and, by all means, please feel free to set me straight. Some issues in my mind:

• Capt. Grau was indeed nicknamed el Caballero de los Mares (Knight of the Seas or Gentleman of the Seas - same spanish word) by opponents. No english citation available. This fact is not disputed, but IMHO detracts from the war timeline; I shall include it in Grau's wiki entry (from which it is oddly missing).

• I don't find

• A section on notable war commanders is probably needed on this wiki to the same effect - this war did see the elevation of several of them (Bolognesi, Carrera, Grau, Prat) in their home countries and their status lasts to date.

• I agree.

• Huáscar's exploits should probably be removed (at least replaced with a comprehensive list of battles). I have already included and expanded a bit at the Huáscar (ship) wiki.

• I Disagree with that statement. Huascar exploits were extremely important in the campaing, since it was because of those actions that the Chilean Navy was in a constant check mate. They were unable to advance or invade Peru at least 6 months.

• Have not seen documents (Peruvian nor Chilean) citing Covadonga firing on the swimming crew of Independencia. Some accounts (attributed to Peruvian Capt. Moore) do mention Independencia and Covadonga trading cannon and gunfire after the wreck; that Independencia actively kept its colors up; that crew abandoned ship in a disorderly manner. Other accounts (attr. Capt. Grau) describe Independencia as motiontess but not sunk and that extent of damage was only evident after close inspection. It is likely that Covadonga fired on a ship perceived as hostile, not surrendering and possibly disabled temporarily.

• Covadonga fired against the Independencia once it realice that it was unable to continue with the battle. Once it distinguished the figure of Huascar, it ran away.

• I am digging through spanish wikisource for letters and reports to cite. Some statements by M. Grau (from other sources) are quite interesting (rallying speech, after action reports, letter to Prat's widow, warning to skipper of Magallanes) and mostly point to a chivalric view of war. These probably do not belong here but to M. Grau's or a new wiki entry.

• Those are important military actions that Admiral Grau did during the Pacific Campaing, proved by prominent historians. I don't see any POV in including them.

• I regard History of Peru infobox as non-neutral, I am looking forward to replace it as soon as I can put together a suitable war infobox with basic stats on all three combatants.

• I believe that ignoring the War of the Pacific as an important part of Peruvian (or Chilean or Bolivian) History is a terrible mistake, and the fact that the peruvian template is the only one in the page does not mean any POV. If a Chilean and Bolivian Template can go there, it would be a nice addition to the article.

• Looking for material documenting the British and US involvement in the war, through commercial or political pressure.

• As it will be proved, even the Chilean Civil War was result of British interest.

In short, I am in for the long haul. I appreciate the opportunity to help, and am grateful if any inaccurate comment on my part is pointed out.

- Cheers, TopQuark 09:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - Cheers, Messhermit 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• In regard to your latest comments

• On additions to Admiral Grau's wiki. It will be there, worry not :-)
• Regarding his speeches and letters, you may misunderstand me, all these documents reveal the character of a great officer, gentleman and warrior on any side of the whole war -I do not think there was another so praised by friend and foe. I believe however that this is a lot of future material, and that much of this gives better insight into the man rather than the war. Probably the right way to address this (especially if translation of letters is provided) is beyond scope of this single article. Admiral Grau's wiki entry does not, as a matter of fact, do full justice to this.
• I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of Huáscar's exploits, this is undisputed. I wonder (thus, am not sure) whether there is a better way to show them all. I have included this list at the Huáscar (ship) wiki and expanded, but have not removed from here.
• Covadonga indeed retreated at the sight of Huascar, this is undisputed. Confusion seems to be as to whether Covadonga fired on "survivors [...] still in the water" (the original entry), or fired on "Independencia once it realized it was unable to continue with the battle" (your comment) or fired on "a ship perceived as hostile, not surrendering and possibly disabled temporarily" (my comment). I may add that Covadonga did take advantage of the situation (opponent's biggest ship beached within cannon range!), the fact is undisputed that she did fire on Independencia after it beached. But it is unclear whether Independencia was helpless or surrendered , and whether this was evident from a distance. It is said that Captain Moore would not surrender and still put up a fight, and that Huáscar had to come up close to learn her true status. It would therefore be unfair to present any of the original comment, or yours, or mine, as neutral, beyond the fact that firing took place after beaching.

In short, some of my comments are about presentation rather than content. If detailed information is included for one side, same level of detail will eventually be demanded by all sides. Including all the detail for all sides will probably result in an article with three flags side-by-side, three infoboxes mentioning their long history and, among others, the Aymara, Chavín and Mapuche cultures, all letters significant to the war, all pictures and paintings, etc. It would also probably be a very long and difficult article to read (although perhaps a good book).

Note also that I am just commenting on this, as I do not have a good answer right now. I will submit any new idea if I think it improves or neutralizes the article.

- Cheers, TopQuark 10:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Attemp against my contributions

As something curious, I recieve a treat from someone that didn't like my contributions to this article. I recieve this in my E-mail:

• hola q tal... una sugerencia..

intenta no postear mucho, ni re-escribit cosas en la wikipedia. tus intenciones son muy buenas, pero a veces no es muy POV. mas datos duros, fuentes serian mejor.

I'm a serious person who does not post irrelevant text or false information. Each one of my contributions is carefully reserched and consulted with several books. I WILL NOT stop posting in Wikipedia. Messhermit 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't publish your e-mail YOU STUPID--190.22.8.78 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Structural changes

Hi all. A great deal of care has clearly gone into this article in the past, and there is room for additional information and improvement. I feel, however, that the current structure does not fully support some additions (i.e. where adding info would not improve the article) and would therefore like to adjust it, organizing existing content slightly different way and adding a couple of new sections.

Now, I realize this may be a sensitive issue, as significant effort seems to have gone already into writing, neutralizing (and fighting over) the article so far, hence I would like to gather comments and ideas in advance before unknowingly stepping on anyone's toes.

The plan is:

• Origins of the war
• The War

• Naval Campaign
• Land Campaign
• Occupation (or Sierra campaign?)

• Aftermath

• Peace terms
• Long-term consequences

• Characteristics of the war (new section)

• Strategy (describe the theatre of operations, the importance of naval operations on communication and supply, the influence of navies on the war, etc. basically why the war fas fought as it was)
• Gaining popular support (describe how this is the one of the first wars where the sense of patria trumps the sense of caudillo, how countries showcased war actions to achieve this)

• Prominent military commanders (new section) (one-liners listing the main actors and countries)
• See also
• References
• External links

All existing content would be left in place for this change (although some of it moved around). Two new sections would be included as described.

Any comments? TopQuark 16:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Given your edits so far, I trust your judgment. All I'd add to that is that there should probably be more emphasis on the effect on the civilian population, especially of the countries on the losing side. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• The structure is basically the same as the old one (but if we can improve it, it would be great). Also, I believe that Occupation of Peru would be a more accurate name (since Bolivia didn't suffer the same fate). Anyways, It is a good idea to add about the Military Leaders. Messhermit 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the trust and feedback; expect the changes soon (taken me a while to fill the new sections). I will include some notes on technology (been looking up some of these and, incidentally, goes right on the issues below!) but may be at loss on the impact on civilians. TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

About the ships

It's stated that "Bolivia had no navy and Peru faced an economic collapse that left its navy and army without proper training or budget." (true) "Most of its warships were old and unable to face battle, leaving only the ironclads Huáscar and Independencia ready." (almost true. Perú still had several ships in somewhat good conditions, SPECIALLY when you consider chilean ships) "In contrast, the Chileans (encouraged by British interests) had well-prepared armed forces: a modern navy supplemented a well-trained and equipped army." (almost not true. Armed forces were well prepared (due to the war in the south against Mapuches) but all armed forces in Chile were short on supplies (we had to buy provisions urgently)) "Two of the newest and most powerful Chilean battleships - Blanco Encalada and Cochrane - had already started operating on the Bolivian and Peruvian coast." (true) It's true that they where the newest but there should be an statement that says that they where no match against the peruvian ships: Huáscar and Independencia. This two ships where fast but if you remember when they won against Huascar (Independencia was lost... let's say... stupidly...) they had to round it several times shooting at it and they only won when they hit the rudder of Huascar. If Independencia had been there too, probably the war would've been very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• • Independencia and Huascar were no match for Blanco Encalada and Cochrane. In the first place, both ships were (at least) 10 years old by the time of the war. Independencia as a wooden ship, and Huascar was a battleship modeled after the USS Monitor that was active during the American Civil war. on the Other hand, both Blanco and Cochrane were relatevely new, and both can be classified as Dreadnoughts. Independencia and Huascar were no match for them. Messhermit 00:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • One more thing, about how Independencia was lost, why don't you research a little bit about how Covadonga and Loa were sunk? I believe that those two examples clearly beat the one of Independencia. Messhermit 00:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• A major factor during the Battle of Agnamos was the Chilean Navy's use of Palliser armour-piercing shells; these rounds gave it an edge that Huáscar did not have - shots from Huáscar would bounce off, while shots from Blanco Encalada would cut right through Huáscar. This was not a secret weapon: Admiral Grau repeatedly asked his chain of command for his own load of armour-piercing shells (which never arrived); the US was extremely interested in studying the effects of Palliser shells on Huáscar after the battle. (Heck, if Esmeralda had been equipped to use these at Iquique... an impossible what-if, but do not underestimate the true ironclad-killer here)

• Minor detail, it is claimed that Bolivia lost its (seagoing) navy early during the war as Antofagasta was captured - this seems credible as Antofagasta was the major Bolivian port and was taken by surprise. I seem to have read that they offered privateering licenses or something like that, but have lost track of the citation. TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

modern rifles in chile??? ha!

This made me laugh: "Chile had superiority on land as well, having the advantage of modern artillery and better rifles." Chile still used old rifles from the colony and independence. Peru had bought new weapons for their soldiers and I think that Bolivia used old rifles (either way, Bolivia retired early from the war because of political problems). The advantage of Chile wasn't in its weapons it was on the soldiers who where better trained (and most of them had gained experience fighting against terrorists and indians). I doubt if Peru had training for most of their soldiers at all... Well I remember that when the war started peruvian armed forces had to deal with a great problem: most higher-ranked officers and instructors where chileans who returned to Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• • • I want to ask to add a note about Captain Miguel Grau. If there is something that's not being disputed is that he was a gentleman. And PLEASE remove Perú's history fact box from the article. It just doesn't belong to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.177.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005

• The Chilean Army had recently received put in service a version of the Belgian-made Comblain No.2 rifle. This was a breech-loading rifle (you crack it open, reload, close and fire) as opposed to a muzzle-loading rifle (turn the rifle, reload, compact, turn, fire). This enables the troops to fire at a higher rate, and from protected positions (crouching or lying down) - the effect is better fire and protection. These did have a shorter range though. Note that Peru also had these rifles available (although in smaller quantities) as well as the Chassepot breech-loading and some muzzle-loaders.

• None of these armies had standardized ammo, which could lead to logistic issues during battle (now, what if you get the wrong kind of cartridge?) - in logistical terms, the army with the smaller "rifle zoo" had an advantage. I am still unsure how much had Chile standardized on the Comblain, but seems to have been further along than the Allies' use of any single rifle.

• The Chilean Army also had greater quantities of Krupp field artillery, which was transportable and had better range than Allied field artillery.

TopQuark 13:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The above supports the statement on "modern artillery and better rifles". This means, on one hand, that Chile had an objective advantage on land weaponry, regardless of troop quality (which is a different and often subjective matter); on the other, and this is quite telling, it indicates that Chile was better prepared before the war.

Cheers, TopQuark 12:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how much of both camps' opinions are biased for political reasons? Very much I'm sure, by the fact that the historians above seem to be affiliated with the military. I'm sure there is a greater motive toward a bias on the side of the Peruvian historian as the Pacific war is a deep wound in that nation's national pride and military history. Remember that the Cenepa war was never really resolved because outside parties were never able to see that both nations disagreed about Peru and Ecuador's borders for different reasons and could not see eye to eye. I'm afraid this situation is exactly the same and demonstrates that History is being revised to fit one party over another because the liberal atmosphere of today's politics is pro-victim; and Peru's defeat in the Pacific war can be used to give them victim status and serve to vindicate them. You want an unbiased opinion my friend? Take the two accounts and average them out. Remember also the author has worked from biased information (since no other information exists). Messerschmitt - Disrespectful war? Is that what the men who died in that war amount to? Would you have a different opinion if your side had won? ---Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.20.64 (talk • contribs) 15 Sept 2005

• I don't see any point in talking about the Cenepa
• Most of the info that is present on this article is not based on a biased opinion (or even my opinion). It's research made by myself (and other Peruvian and recently Chilean Wikipedist) to achieve a NOPV article.
• Peru's defeat in the War of the Pacific indeed was a serious wound in peruvian society, just as the lost of Patagonia is for Chilean society and the lost of Atacama is for Bolivians.
• Also, if you look around the Internet you will find internet webpages dedicated to glorify a just war made by fascist and pinochetist chileans that believe that they are right because they won the war.
• Chile, Peru and Bolivia were only pawns in the big Chess game that the British Empire had during the late XIX Century.
• There is no glory in a war. So let's skip the romanticism about that. Peru and Bolivia lost the war, but nothing would have change even if they have won. Bolivia would have been in the same political caos (ruled by the military) and Peru would have lost once again the opportunity to industrialise the nation.

At the end, dear Anonymous, my opinion would have been the same. Messhermit 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous, I would personally be a bit suspect of military-affiliated POV. Apparently each national bias tends to focus on the bravery of its own soldiers rather than on subtler points of warfare (probably due to this, I find more online Allied accounts on Chilean Comblain, Krupp and Palliser weaponry than Chilean accounts). While troop quality has an impact, it does not explain the outcome of a war by itself.

Anyway, POV seems to be allright on the talk page, as long as it does not spill over into the main article. I would agree with Messhermit that biased sources, if cooperating carefully, can craft an unbiased article.

For me, it works as follows: POV is written (i.e. "the advantage of Chile wasn't its weapons but its soldiers") and seems inaccurate. We need to verify: look references up and do some research. Aha! It turns out that there is documentary evidence in support of the "modern rifle" statement [1] [2] [3] [4], as well as a nice wiki article on breech-loading weapons. So the statement is verifiably inaccurate - Chile did have an advantage on matériel after all. Well, go back to the talk page and explain. If editing the main article, reference as well -the result is a better article.

I am sure you guys have already realized what a learning opportunity this is. We get to see differing views of the war, correct our own POV and maybe even contribute to someone else's understanding. In doing this, we get to research and learn a bit more as well.

We are, in other words, on a journey of discovery. Cheers, TopQuark 12:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

it's a fact that the bolivian side was equiped whit stone-shooters rifles...! the chilean side was equiped even whit a primitive machine gun. It's a fact and everyone who is seriously interested should know this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.87.7.100 (talk • contribs) 17 April 2006.

History of Peru table, Peruvian POV

I'm very concerned about the fact that is article, as controversial as it is, has a "History of Peru" table which, at first sight, gives the reader an insight as if all the focus is on Peru. Being a war-related article, readers must obtain a completely non-POV sequence of events right from the beginning. I'm not the only one in favor of removing such table, as it is evident in this talk page. The war involved three nations - Peru, Chile, and Bolivia - yet we're not going to include history tables of all three nations, are we? As the current article stands, there are very contentious points and arguments which have yet to be resolved and sourced. Such fact makes the "History of Peru" table irrefutable right at the beginning; I suggest we create a more proper table which states the name of the conflict, date, place, and the strength and casualties of both sides.

• The table is there because the ´´War of the Pacific´´ is an important and integral part of the History of Peru. I see no POV in leaving it like that. Also, if Chile and Bolivia have similar timelines, theirs can be there too. Messhermit 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lets see what others think about this, and from there create an independent and article-related table.

• If you have that opinion from the beggining, you wouldn'd have started all this rv war, right? Messhermit 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I did not start this "rv war", quite on the contrary: you did. Every war-related article has an independent table with information about that war, not the history of the country where it happened. The War of the Pacific was a very significant conflict where three of South America's most historical countries were involved, and this article places excessive focus in Peru as if Bolivia and Chile took no part. I am in no way trying to create a higher antagonism here, but simply letting others decide what is best for the entire article. I'm pretty sure others will state their opinions as to what is right and make the article completely impartial and free of POVs.

• Unfortunately, you are wrong in the aspect about the rv war: the fact that you took your time to erase things that you considerated as POV withouth a proper explanation can be considerated as POV pushing. Also, as you may see on this talk page, the issue was discused but no action was taken against that template because of the simple fact that, as an integral part of Peruvian History, it belongs here. Also, Chilean Wikipedist are welcome to discuss the issues of the article IN THE TALK PAGE, and not starting and absurd rv war. If you could create a USER name, insted of using an IP number, we can discuss things in an appropiated an civilised way. Messhermit 20:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Other people who read and wrote this article will see what is right and create a non-POV, war-related table for this article. While I will register soon, I don't have to create a username if I don't want to, since Wikipedia allows anyone to edit as long as it is constructive editing and non-vandalizing material thats added to any articles. (There are tons of great articles created and edited by IP users). Yet I'm happy to have raised this issue and hope the rest of the editors of this article will take their stances and decide on its fate. And I believe I am being "civilized" enough since I am not publicly offending or cursing anyone on this talk page. By the way, I'm not a Chilean Wikipedist, but a student of Latin American studies who saw this article and called my attention right off. I can see why you think I'm Chilean since I'm proposing something that should be fair and convey a clear, non-POV message to English-speaking readers of a Latin American historical war. That is why I propose a war of the pacific related table with specific information such as date, place, and the strength and casualties of both sides.

I think it would make perfect sense to add similar boxes for the histories of Chile and Bolivia; I think it would make perfect sense to add (before any of them) the usual box to describe a war. I don't think it particularly makes sense to remove the box about the history of Peru. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Jmabel. That's pat of what I have been saying. Messhermit 04:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the war is an important, integral part of all three countries' histories; I now think that the current table contents about History of Peru is not POV as it stands, but that its presence does frequently lead to claims of POV. I do however have a number of concerns about having country-specific tables, and do not agree that having all three enhances the article - I will elaborate later on these concerns as soon as I have the time.

In short, I believe that having all three tables (Bolivia, Chile, Peru) would detract from the article - balance will not lead to readability; having a single table may be perceived as POV by some readers. In my opinion we should aim not to remove, but to replace the table with a single war-related table as opposed to three country-related ones.

Cheers! TopQuark 10:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

War with Mapuche connection?

Hi, here's another perspective on this issue - I've often heard that the war of the pacific was also the time when the war with the Mapuches in the south came to an end with a lot of bloodshed, and, I think - with the chilean soldiers returning from the war. Is this true, or how are these events connected? -and should this connection be included in this page, or perhaps in the Mapuche page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.34.132 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2005

Mmmm... I have heard about that, but I don't see the connection with the War of the Pacific. Maybe that Idea could be explained in the Chilean Civil War that came after? Messhermit 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely, the Chilean Civil War seems to have been an issue sparked within the Chilean ruling class (President and Army vs. Congress and Navy); if ethnic Mapuche did fight, it was not likely for a Mapuche cause; hence the Mapuche war was probably unrelated to the Civil War.

Now regarding the War of the Pacific, my guess (read: I have no evidence, no citation) is that the only connection is that a large number of returning, veteran troops in 1883-1884 would have had an impact in bringing the conflict to an end. If this can be verified somewhere, it probably deserves a passing mention (no longer than a couple of lines, just like the Chaco War) as one of the consequences to the War of the Pacific. I will look up some material on this, see what I can come up with.

I would suggest that further detail on Chile vs. Mapuche war, beyond a few lines, is better placed at the Mapuche page or a "Mapuche war" page. Cheers, TopQuark 09:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Bergasse Dupetit-Thouars

Kudos to the latest contributors, I personally like the direction this article is moving in. As noted by Messhermit, much work remains to be done.

Now to business: there may be some confusion (which I share ;-) in regard to the name of the French Admiral in charge of the neutral fleet at Callao.

• Some french sources name him as Abel-Nicolas Bergasse-Dupetit-Thouars [5]Googling for this will further yield Abel Nicolas Georges Henri Bergasse Dupetit-Thouars

• Google will yield results with Dupetit-Thouars, Du Petit-Thouars, Du Petit Thouars, du Petit Thouars and Petit Thouars.

• The Dupetit-Thouars name has, apparently, some extensive maritime tradition. Some examples are Aristide Aubert Dupetit-Thouars, Abel Aubert Dupetit-Thouars; and the cruiser Dupetit-Thouars of the French navy [6].

• At last one of the sources indicates that a childless Abel Aubert Dupetit-Thouars adopted Abel Nicolas Bergasse; the latter would have taken the family name.

• There is an avenue in Lima named Du Petit Thouars after him. This is possibly a correct Spanish form of the name.

Based on this, I have taken the liberty to change the reference to what seems to be the closest to the original French form of the name. Please feel free to add, correct of discuss if I'm missing something. Cheers, TopQuark 11:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

El nombre real del almirante francés fue: Abel Nicolas Bergasse du Petit Thouars, como tal se encuentra en Wikipedia en español. Un abrazo. Arístides Herrera Cuntti

Next steps, and breaking up the article

The recent additions provide quite a bit of additional information on the war. We have a fuller list of battles and leaders, some interesting info on the fall of Lima, the submarine reference, a possible reference to the Mapuche war, and so on.

I agree with Messhermit, there is so much more to be done. I would like to share what is on my mind as per the future direction of the article:

• Pictures. Yes, we seem to need some additional thumbnails along the article. The Naval Campaign probably needs pics of Grau and Williams (both fleet commanders) or Grau and Prat (both heroes)
• Main picture.
• The list of battles with a brief description of each (but avoid going into too much detail) is almost complete; Tacna needs to be added.
• A mention should be made of government changes (Pierola, Campero), the diplomatic corps intervention, the Lynch expedition. Not battles exactly but important events.
• Spinning off articles dedicated to specific battles. The next obvious choice would be the Battle of Arica, due to significance and the level of detail available in the article. We already have articles for Iquique and Angamos, lets do the same for Arica.
• Comparison of forces
• Quotes
• A long-owed short section on Impact on the civilian population, under characteristics of the war

Unfortunately, and this brings me to a major sticking point, we seem to be running out of space. Adding to the article would be at the expense of two things: a) technical readability; b) subjective readability (we do not want to scare readers off). In this regard, Wikipedia recommends a limit of 32K per article.

This article needs to be shorter; at the same time, all of the material in there is already a valuable contribution to the subject. In order to keep adding, and to keep the material, I'll suggest that we need to start additional related articles. Some of these would be the result of breaking off and moving some of the existing sections:

1. Technology of the War of the Pacific. This has the most potential for growth: from the torpedo boats used by Peru, to the landing craft used by Chile, the remote controlled mines, boats laden with explosives. The breech-loading vs. muzzle-loading issue applied not only to rifles, but to the ironclads as well; the use and study of Palliser shells is a story unto itself. I could go on. The point is, each one of these has a story behind to be told.

2. Origins of the War of the Pacific. This section has been pretty quiet of late, but is long already. If we need to make the main article shorter, this would be my second candidate for spinoff.

3. Comparison of forces of the War of the Pacific. I intended to start writing a section on this; I now believe that this material should not go into a section but to an article by itself.

4. Quotes from the War of the Pacific. This subject has been barely touched, I now believe we should avoid doing so within the main article. There is a wealth of material ranging from Avaroa's "Que se rinda su abuela, carajo!", Bolognesi's "Tengo deberes sagrados que cumplir ..." and Prat's "Muchachos, la contienda es desigual ...". Grau's mail exchange with Prat's widow would be included here.

These kind of spin-off articles has been done for other, similar articles (i.e. American Civil War). It only indicates that there is a large quantity of quality material. If we seem to be approaching an unmanageable limit once again, we can revisit the article and say, spin off both campaigns into articles and replace with summaries on the main article while we develop the subject to its fullest on the spinoff articles.

I will be grateful for your comments on this proposal. In a few days, if everything is OK, I would expect to start off with the technology section. Cheers! TopQuark 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to have it temporarily too long, then break it up later. It's probably simpler to do the major work all in one place. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks Messhermit for your comments on my userpage. So, with one exception, I'll put the big knife away. We will grow the article and revisit breaking it up in the future, if necessary.

The one exception: I am still inclined to move the submarine story to its own, detailed article. Good story, a lot of material, possibly more detail than any other single section; I think it deserves its own place.

In any case, additional related articles are coming up! Cheers, TopQuark 21:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed something funny. Messhermit asks Why did IP user remove the references? Well, the version prior to IP user's edit is 33K long; IP user's version is exactly 32K long; the rv puts its back at 33K.

It is possible that IP user may have wanted to contribute, but actually had his old browser eat up part the article because of the 32K limit. TopQuark 21:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more that the article needs to be broken up. Most encyclopedia articles are more than 32 kb long. For example, the article "China" on Encyclopaedia Britannica Online is 1.3 MB long. Most people who want to learn about the Battle of Tacna will not type in Battle of Tacna in the search box. Instead, they will type War of the Pacific. The strength of an Encyclopedia is that it contains information all in one place. Even the World Book Online Reference Center article "United States" is 405 kb long. (World Book is an encyclopedia designed for people of all ages.) I find your insistance on cutting up the article especially troubling given that it's only 33 kb long right now. Primetime 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)