Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific

Editor activity

It seems to me that a lot of the editors placed as "part of the dispute" are currently not very active. I don't understand the long list of names. Also, given their background with the situation, I think it would help to ask Robert and KDS if they'd like to be a part of the process (or at least let them know that their perspectives would be welcome). Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Any listed party can add additional parties (and, also, any interested editor can list him/herself as a party if they've been involved in the recent discussion and have not been listed). Feel free to list them if they've been involved in the recent discussion. The Committee retains — but rarely exercises — the right to determine if listed parties are or are not necessary and/or appropriate for the mediation. At the end of the day, the proper parties are those editors who have (a) been involved in the dispute, (b) been involved in the talk page discussion about the dispute, and (c) who might disregard or challenge any consensus reached in the mediation, noting that's an "and" not an "or". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Chairperson's note: Robert and KDS clarified their position as prior providers of dispute resolution, no further discussion or response is needed or appropriate. If their summaries become important in any mediation resulting from this application, response may be made at that time. Further responses or discussion here before that time, however, will be removed. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

My only involvement in the case has been an unsuccessful effort to mediate. I do not want to complicate things by trying to help, and will let a more experienced mediator handle the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC) The long list of involved editors has been posted by MarshalN20 in his Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#Problematic Academic Dishonesty by Keysanger. I am sure Robert will help us any time we need an intelligent advice. --Keysanger (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC) What? I haven't "posted" any lists. We haven't even started the mediation and you're already providing false information.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Really?, you didn't post it?. --Keysanger (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You're really coming off as a troll here. Please stop trying to irritate me. And, no, I have not "posted" any lists of "involved editors".--MarshalN20 Talk 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Comment from KDS4444 I attempted to assist with this case through DRN, and was unsuccessful. I will give here a summary of what I believe the situation to be, and my thoughts on it. It appears that some time back, Chile, Peru, and Bolivia got themselves into a bit of a squabble over a large deposit of Bolivian guano. Bolivia and Peru had secretly agreed to aid each other in case Chile came to take it, which Chile eventually did, and so Bolivia told Peru and Peru said, "Yeah, Ok", at which point Chile said, "What? You guys have a secret treaty with each other!?" and Peru admitted that they did, and so the war was on. Peru and Bolivia did not fare so well, and Bolivia is today a landlocked country because of it. Anyhow! Fast forward to 2016. One one side of the coin is what looks like a legitimate and reliably sourced desire to maintain the article lead as a neutral description of the treaty; on the other side is an equally correct though less neutral and not quite as well sourced emphasis on the treaty's secret and anti-Chilean nature. Any reading of the article on the treaty or the war will make clear who the national players were and the nature of their intentions. At stake is to what degree the lead of the article on the treaty should lay out its less-savory qualities ("secret" and "against Chile"). (I encourage any of those involved to correct that interpretation, however, as any interpretation is by its very nature flawed at some level.) KDS4444 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Hi KDS4444, thanks for your contribution. You are right, conceived in general terms. But there are several points that have to be said clear and at the right moment in this question. It was not a peace-and-happiness-meeting as Marshall try to describe the pact, and the best question we can ask is why was signed as a secret pact?. The real intentions of the signers have been unanimously outlined by historians. I like the words of the former Prime Minister of Peru Edgardo Mercado Jarrín who described in his book "Politica y Estrategia en la Guerra de Chile" the real intentions of the pact in following words: The plan of Peru's Government, on condition that Argentina joint the alliance, was this: "to intervene with our good services in case of breach and to propose that the dispute were brought to arbitration. If the good offices weren't accepted, then let them understand that we were mediators and that we were bound by a treaty and therefore we had to help them by force in case they don't accept the arbitration. — Edgardo Mercado Jarrín, President of the Council of Ministers of Peru Mercado Jarrín 1979, p. 28 This information has been deleted by MarshalN20 here We may ask to intervene in what?. It was about the saltpeter fields in Antofagasta, then a province of Bolivia. MarshalN20 deleted this information: here. It wasn't a defense pact. This biased opinion has been added on 29 March 2016 by MarshalN20 here although he agreed on 17 August 2009 that it wasn't: here It was forged against Chile and only against Chile and was one of the reasons of the war. This information has been deleted by MarshalN20 here MarshalN20's attempts to soften the importance of the treaty goes further and try to conceal the name of the treaty in the English literature about the war. And he doesn't admit it as an alternative name in the text of the LEDE and delete it: here. The case is also about the reasons of the war. Historians agree about several reason for the war: economic interests (of the three countries), geopolitical reasons of Peru and Chile, internal politics of Peru and Chile (the presidents were unable to stop warmongering of the opposition parties), etc. See for example the page 37 and following in the book of William Sater, Professor of History at the California University, Andean Tragedy Why also to blame only the "Chilean Expansionism"?. They have to explain it. I'm curious about to read in the project page why this facts have been deleled resp. challenged. An important point is that we have to keep the Wikipedia rules: No personal attacks. Reliable sources. No original research. No fringe theories. I admit that we are exposing themes that for the most readers of Wikipedia are of less importance. We can accept to give a neutral and balanced scope of the most important information, but to give false information or desinformation is unacceptable for me. --Keysanger (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC) @KDS4444: I think that you were only expecting a brief response, not a wall of text. To answer your question, your analysis is on point. Nonetheless, I disagree with the idea that the other side is "equally correct". The historiography of the war indicates that it was, basically, a shifting of the regional balance of power. Peru had been the dominant actor of the South Pacific since the colonial era (i.e., the Viceroyalty of Peru), and it managed to retain a degree of continued prosperity due to the Guano Era after independence. Chile benefited from institutional stability, a relatively more egalitarian society, and significant military strength (a tradition perhaps coming from the Arauco War); this provided Chile the opportunity to declare war on Peru and invade it twice, first during the War of the Confederation and then during the War of the Pacific. As a result of Chile's victories, particularly its annexation of the nitrate-rich lands of the Atacama (which also happened to be rich with copper and other minerals), Chile became the dominant power in the South Pacific (see ABC Powers). Keysanger's position is that Chile was an innocent actor that was bullied by Peru and forced into war by an evil "secret" alliance, and also because Peruvians had a saltpeter conspiracy (a viewpoint that is not only clearly fringe, but also presented as such by mainstream historians).--MarshalN20 Talk 16:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Books in English language about the War of the Pacific William Sater, Andean Tragedy, Fighting in the War of the Pacific, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2007, 442 pages. Chapter "Seeking the origin of the war" on page 37 W. Farcau, The Ten Cents War. --Keysanger (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)