Talk:War of the Pacific: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:12, 13 August 2015 editDentren (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers37,577 editsm →Original synthesis issues ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:09, 13 August 2015 edit undoKeysanger (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,876 edits →Original synthesis issues Next edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:

	:::::::::I am divided about what to do. Because even if these individual synthesis/WP:OR problems are solved (of which I have brought one into the light yet), what remains is an underlying structure ("Saters four reasons") that is itself original and undue weight. I page 37 of ''Andean Tragedy'' I can't see Sater make these 4 distinctions. In page 37 (and 38) he essentially discuss the economic view, being somewhat critical of it. ] \| ] 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)		:::::::::I am divided about what to do. Because even if these individual synthesis/WP:OR problems are solved (of which I have brought one into the light yet), what remains is an underlying structure ("Saters four reasons") that is itself original and undue weight. I page 37 of ''Andean Tragedy'' I can't see Sater make these 4 distinctions. In page 37 (and 38) he essentially discuss the economic view, being somewhat critical of it. ] \| ] 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
			::::::::::You can't copy word for word the text of Sater, it isn't allowed because of copyright law. So we have to do a '''synthesis''', that is we read the text and summarize it. But you don't want to do so because it is '''synthesis'''. How do you want to explain what Sater says in Misplaced Pages?. Do it!. --<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">] <small>(])</small></span> 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

	==What happened to the lead?==		==What happened to the lead?==

Revision as of 18:09, 13 August 2015

Template:Vital article

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

War of the Pacific received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2011 and March 23, 2012.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

South America: Bolivia / Chile / Peru High‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peru (assessed as Top-importance).

Military history: South America

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	South American military history task force

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Bolivia-Peru alliance

I noticed in the right hand pane of the article that there're three belligerents listed BUT in my opinion it should only list two belligerents; Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance. I only put this up because in the Bosnian war article there're also three belligerents listed but in that case all three groups were fighting against each other with each group having their own individual causes. Unless I'm missing something I propose the belligerent section should only list Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance with a format consistent with the WW2 article. Any thoughts?58.178.167.246 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I did it and the result isn't ugly. --Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About the "former soldiers of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" issue

The cited paper in the sentence (reference 135) did not talk about Taiping soldiers coming to South America at all. Instead, I suspect that the editor of this issue was misled by a faked text made up by some Chinese in the 2000s or earlier (the text and its falsification: http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-458569-1-1.html , in Chinese).

I removed the related description here; if any of you have record of this issue in language other than Chinese, please leave me a message as I will be happy to know.

Yogomove (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I found the original addition of the issue described above by ip user 123.202.92.184, and double-confirmed that it is irrelevant to the noted reference. Yogomove (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

colonial maps before Wotp

In a Bolivian newspaper called "pagina siete" they published historical maps of colonial South America in where those maps seem to contradict Bolivian claims that the nation was born with the sea. In that map it does seem to show that Chile had a border with colonial Peru and Bolivia was landlocked. Even Bolivian president Evo morales criticized the publishing of the maps as being unpatriotic. Even more astonishing the VP of Bolivia made a press conference days later outing the editor of Pagina siete of having partial Chilean ancestry with a copy of the editors family tree. Anyway Is it possible to post those maps published by pagina siete on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue belongs more to "Atacama dispute" than to the war, but it is an interesting one. Can you post the link to the article?. --Keysanger (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to find the article on the pagina siete. As soon as the maps were published the newspaper suddenly changed its views and become more Bolivian nationalist than a objective news source therefore that article link doesn't work anymore. But you if you search Google hard enough you might find the article or reporting of the article. BTW the map i attempted to delete is not a professional map but a very feeble amateur drawing and it clearly doesn't follow the protocols for maps. I won't bother to pursue the issue but take in mind what I said before about pagina siete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Original synthesis issues

The way the references are used to support the text in the section "Causes of the War" indicates this contains original research and/or an original synthesis. This is not allowed (Misplaced Pages:No original research)). Dentren | 09:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dentren, we know that since three days. It is the content of the tag template. We need your concrete arguments to improve the article. Would you be so kind to elaborate your claims?. Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous cases in the text. Example 1: Pike writing in 1963 "refuting" sources from 1992 and 2002. Dentren | 09:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I insist: you have to elaborate in detail all your claims in the talk page, failing this we can't find solutions for it. --Keysanger (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I will discuss/point out each issue separately. Experience tells it best to do so. Dentren | 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Now explain what is the problem in example 1. --Keysanger (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That Pike (1963) can't be refuting authors and interpretations dating to 1992 and 2002. Dentren | 11:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all?. --Keysanger (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your proposal to resolve the issue?. --Keysanger (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am divided about what to do. Because even if these individual synthesis/WP:OR problems are solved (of which I have brought one into the light yet), what remains is an underlying structure ("Saters four reasons") that is itself original and undue weight. I page 37 of Andean Tragedy I can't see Sater make these 4 distinctions. In page 37 (and 38) he essentially discuss the economic view, being somewhat critical of it. Dentren | 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't copy word for word the text of Sater, it isn't allowed because of copyright law. So we have to do a synthesis, that is we read the text and summarize it. But you don't want to do so because it is synthesis. How do you want to explain what Sater says in Misplaced Pages?. Do it!. --Keysanger (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the lead?

I don't visit this article much often. I can see many aspects that have deteriorated over months ans years. Some others have obviously improved. I find the current lead unbearable. I is way too long and include long quotes, which is not the best way of summarizing things. I suggest shortening it to half its size and to give it stability avoid controversial stuff, opinion and interpretations altogether (this can be explained with due detail) and focus on well established facts. Dentren | 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure?. here you say the opposite. Which one is your serious opinion? --Keysanger (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you understood it wrong the comment you mention was mean for a apparently inexperienced newcomer that might have thought he could re-write the whole article. Dentren | 11:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories: