Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:42, 17 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War of the Pacific article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2011, and March 23, 2012.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South America: Bolivia / Chile / Peru Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (assessed as Top-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.

Untitled / unsigned

== I read the article with fascination. In the section titled "Land War" it states: Peruvians fell back to Tiliviche. But the map in this section identifies a town named Tiviliche. Which one is correct? Thank you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lytsar (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There is an article in Spanish wikipedia on Tiliviche - https://es.wikipedia.org/Tiliviche - but that also mentions "La Hacienda de Tiviliche". -- Beardo (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties in the infobox need work. The Chilean casualties were wrong due to a bizarre misreading where lines such as "434-58" for the killed at Alianza/Tacna were interpreted as "between 434 and 58" instead of "between 434 and 458". The situation for Peru and Bolivia is even worse because the source gives "killed in action" and "wounded" separately for some battles, only the sum for others, and for yet others both separate figures and the sum, where the sum given by the source doesn't agree with the sum of the separate numbers given by the same source (I assume that's due to conflicting information on which the source's casualty figures is based). Also, for many of the battles the numbers are clearly rounded to the nearest 100 (or possibly even 1000) whereas for smaller skirmishes two dead might get mentioned. The proportion of dead to wounded for Peru/Bolivia seems off throughout; for example, at San Francisco (19 November 1879) they are said to have suffered 135-500 dead, but only 88 wounded - and a total of 400-6,000 "Killed in action and wounded". For another battle, the "Killed in action" outnumber the "Killed in action and wounded". The Peruvian/Bolivian figures given by the source are, in sum over all listed battles:

• Killed in action: 12.934-18.213 (no estimate for one of the twelve considered battles)
• Wounded: 7.891-7.896 (no estimates for two of the battles)
• Killed in action and wounded: 4.367-10,467 (no estimates for seven of the twelve considered battles)
• POWs: 8.103-9.103 (no estimates for two of the battles)

The article currently makes it appear as if the "Killed in action and wounded" were the total casualties Bolivia and Peru suffered, which they're not due to both battles for which the source gives no such value at all and to the inconsistency between these figures and the others for the battles for which the source gives both kinds of data. I'll do the following:

• Correct the misinterpretation for Chile.
• For Bolivia and Peru, go with "about 25,000 killed and wounded, about 9,000 prisoners of war". This ballpark estimate avoids giving a false sense of accuracy.

Details should be covered in the body of the article. Huon (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Map of Chilean claims

The image used shows the Falkland Islands as Argentina's territory even though it was occupied by Great Britain at the time. Regardless of opinions of who should and should not own these islands, showing them as being Argentinean at the time is incorrect and should be amended or the map replaced with another colour scheme to show claimed British territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.59.96 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Over half of the lede is about the origin of the war

I have noticed that over half of the lede is about the origin of the war. Some issues are also almost repeated in the lead. While I think the lede is balanced regarding the views on the origin, this is not place to discuss it at such lenght. There are more important things to include in the lead, like the phases of the war or its societal and political consequences. Any thoughts on this? Dentren | 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that more is needed on the phases and consequences. The entire article needs to follow the WP:SUMMARY guidelines more accordingly.--MarshalN20 🕊 18:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a proposal to shorten the origins in the lead.

The war originated from a dispute over taxation of nitrate between Bolivia and Chile with Peru being drawn in by virtue of its 1873 treaty of alliance with Bolivia. Historians and commentators have however pointed out at deeper origins for the war including Chilean interest in taking over a resource-rich area, a long-running rivalry between Chile and Peru, as well as the unstable politics and troubled economies of Peru and Bolivia. On February 14, 1879 Chile's armed forces occupied the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta, subsequently war between Bolivia and Chile was declared on March 1, 1879, and between Chile and Peru on April 5, 1879.

I find the quote of Ronald Bruce St. John still very valuable so its should be kept among the footnotes. The secrecy and "anti-Chilean" nature of the 1873 treaty is irrelevant at this point. Also, I want to preventively state that whether Chile's actions were justified or not can be discussed elsewhere in detail. I find that the leghty origins section in the lead right now is just an unwarranted reminder that the origins were complex and that it was not just a war of aggression. Dentren | 20:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Ronald Bruce St. John states in The Bolivia–Chile–Peru Dispute in the Atacama Desert:

   Even though the 1873 treaty and the imposition of the 10 centavos tax proved to be the casus belli, there were deeper, more fundamental reasons for the outbreak of hostilities in 1879. On the one hand, there was the power, prestige, and relative stability of Chile compared to the economic deterioration and political discontinuity which characterised both Peru and Bolivia after independence. On the other, there was the ongoing competition for economic and political hegemony in the region, complicated by a deep antipathy between Peru and Chile. In this milieu, the vagueness of the boundaries between the three states, coupled with the discovery of valuable guano and nitrate deposits in the disputed territories, combined to produce a diplomatic conundrum of insurmountable proportions.

@Dentren: Instead of writing "originated", perhaps it would suit better to indicate that "The war began over a nitrate taxation dispute between Bolivia and Chile, with Peru being drawn in due to its secret defense pact with Bolivia"? --MarshalN20 🕊 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

MarshalN20, I added most of your suggestions but not the secretive nature of treaty since it would misslead the reader into thinking Chile was fought off-guard by an unexpected alliance. Regarding the defensive nature of the treaty I omitted it also for now as I recall som old arguments here about it and the Spanish version of the treaty article , which is well-crafted, problematizes it. Dentren | 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Salitre / salitrera

The article frequently uses the word salitre, which is the Spanish for saltpeter. Shouldn't it use the English word ?

Also salitrera - is there an English word for that ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Beardo, saltpeter is the word that should be used here. Caliche, the source rock of saltpeter, however should not be translated. Judginf from that article Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works a salitrera is a "saltpeter work". Dentren | 23:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"and Peru was defeated by the Chilean Navy"

This sentence which are apparently sourced (have not fact-checked these offline sources) is not completely correct. Peru as a political entity was not defeated by Chile's victory at sea. The Arica, Lima and Sierra campaigns show that the Peruvian state was unwillingly to accept the outcome of the naval war as its definitive defeat. By the time Chile had gained naval supremacy there was still a long way to go before a real victory. I therefore propose to remove the sentence "The Chilean Army took Bolivia's nitrate-rich coastal region, and Peru was defeated by the Chilean Navy." from the lead. Apart from not being completely correct it duplicates information already provided in the lead or that can be inferred from it, such as the fact the Chile won, that there was a naval war and that Chile occupied territories of the allies. Dentren | 23:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

1. St. John, Ronald Bruce; Schofield, Clive (1994). The Bolivia–Chile–Peru Dispute in the Atacama Desert. University of Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit. pp. 12–13. ISBN 1897643144.

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class South America articles
• Top-importance South America articles
• B-Class Bolivia articles
• Top-importance Bolivia articles
• WikiProject Bolivia articles
• B-Class Chile articles
• Top-importance Chile articles
• WikiProject Chile articles
• B-Class Peru articles
• Top-importance Peru articles
• WikiProject Peru articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles