This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think you should include a very important fact: 80% of the people living in the former bolivian territory was CHILEAN, however authorities were bolivan. Therefore, the Chilean government had the responsability of defending its people whose rights were not respecet by these bolivian authorities. Also, I see no point on pointing out "what could have happened if" Peru had done this or that, Chile won the war, and the territories in dispute have been Chilean for more than a century and will continue to be. Viva Chile!!!
Francisco
War was declared to Peru for its attemp to mediate in the Chilean-Bolivian conflict. Also, I will put a quotation from the Spanish Wikipedia that clearly show the aggresiveness of the Chilean Government:
Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna, Chilean writer and Senator, declared that the chilean "people" were prepared and willing to go to war:
El pueblo quería la guerra con el Perú porque la veía, porque la palpaba, porque estaba consumada, porque la ocupación de Antofagasta era un hecho positivo de agresión armada. / The people desired war with Peru because they saw it comming, because it was a fact, and because the occupation of Antofagasta (the fact that Bolivia was in control of the territory) must be considerated an armed agression
Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How sad to find people who think the way RapaNui does (by the way, the isle of Rapa Nui is another example of Chilean expansionism -including the killing of the isle's natives, and you proudly choose that nickname . Why don't you tell the history of Rapa Nui, how the British and Chilean killed the people there, instead of bothering serious people who is trying to write an article about a war that made so many people unhappy? -sad, really). Ollanta Humala an example of Peruvian education? God, not! you are obviously -and totally- confused and misinformed because of your Chilean ultra-nationalism or your ignorance. Ollanta Humala -and not Humala Ollanta as you *again wrongly* say- was a student of the French-Peruvian school, a rather exclusive and prestigious private school. And he went to continue his higher education to France. And the guy had no options of being a Peruvian president, as you can now see. But what can we expect from a person like RapaNui, who appears in public sites like Wikipedia to express hatred and frustration, to try to confuse people with statements regarding education and politics of a country which s/he doesn't know and to talk about facts that s/he doesn't even know and that above all do not belong into the points of discussions of this page? S/He talks about Ollanta Humala, a minor Peruvian politician who doesn't even have 5% of support now (as of Feb 2007), having Pinochet in Chile, who killed so many of his *OWN* people. Is that what we are discussing here? I think not. Sheesshh... and s/he claims to be neutral. I am reading this with my neighbors -they're a Chilean couple with three beautiful and intelligent girls who are now wondering why people like you behave like you- here and we'd like you to know that we feel sorry for you. You are completely confused. Like "Condorito" would say: requeteplop! I encourage Chileans, Peruvians, Bolivians and everyone else to continue with the objective of writing a good unbiased article, do not let persons like RapaNui bother you.
I don't mean to be rude at all, but I'd like to make a little apart about this article. I'm translating it to portuguese, and noticed that it tends to peruvian side. I haven't read all your threads, but it clearly makes Peru and Bolivia the big victims of this war. Just an opinion from a neutral brazilian
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ignorance is bold. That's all that I can say in responce of this clear and ignorant attack. Messhermit 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
an anon changed the text about involvement of Argentina: [1] can this be verified? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that Argentina was invited to the Alliance with Peru and Bolivia (due to the fact that Chile was also having a territorial dispute with them), but didn't accept it. The rest is POV. Messhermit 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The maps included on the main article do not represent a neutral point of view.
See
Chilean Point of View
Jespinos 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look well, you notice that the Loa river is indicated as historical border between Perú and Chile. Please stop editing the main article. Jespinos 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide information that support your claim (and by information I mean historical documents and not some ultranationalistic claim from soberianiachile.com). Wikipedia is not a place to state a "Peruvian" or "Bolivian" or "Chilean" POV. Messhermit 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This would all be clarified (and considerably de-POV'd) if someone would be overt about the provenance of the map at the start of the article. Messhermit, you uploaded it: where does it come from?
Why is this a concern? Because:
I don't really care that OrphanBot isn't complaining: I look at the image page, and I can't tell who made the map, which on a controversial subject is inappropriate.
This PDF is linked from the U.S. Library of Congress Studies on both on Peru and Chile; I would think it would constitute a neutral view of the matter, and it is public domain. As I'm sure you know, a PDF is a bit of a pain; I'll transform it to another format and make it available. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Now available on commons as a PNG: Image:War of the Pacific LOC map.png. Someone might also want to do a JPG.
Also, when uploading that, I came across Image:Territorio ocupado en Tarapacá por el ejército chileno (1879).jpg. This appears to be a Chilean map, dated at the start of the conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are some imprecisions and omissions in the map, but in general, I accept it. In special, had been interesting some mention of the Treaty of 1866, indicating territories awarded to Bolivia by Chile.
On the maps appearing in the main article, there is a huge gap between the parallel 24° south latitude and the parallel 26° south latitude, which is not shown as chilean territory. I think that it cannot be considered accurate. Jespinos 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have my doubts regarding the accuracy of the American map that you find Jmabel, since it is fairly common to find (In U.S History or World History books) maps that are not accurate at all. To even think that Bolivia did not have access to the sea before the war is unbelievable. Messhermit 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit answer three questions:
Jespinos 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The following are true antique maps, although not necessarily accurate maps. Jespinos 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Peace treaty section's opening paragraph is a direct cut and paste from onwar.com...
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr75/fpacific1879.htm
Super Jedi Droid 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved this template to the bottom. It doesn't look good down there, but it certainly doesn't belong where it was before. I was about to edit the template to make it fit here, but it is used (more fittingly, I might add) in other articles. Do we need this template here? Can we get a better template? Ufwuct 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the Recent Development (Maritime Dispute Reignited) section is historically related to the long term consequences of the War of the Pacific. Bdean1963 January 2007
I look forward to discussing the recent maritime dispute between Peru and Chile, which I like the majority of the scholarly community feel is part of a longer national rivalry between the two countries (as reflected in the War of the Pacific). This rivalry has also shaped the current political and popular climates regarding the legal charges facing former President Alberto Fujimori, who is currently detained in Chile. User:Messhermit is disingenuous with his commentary. I recommend Wikipideians review User;Messhermit’s poor record of editing Wikipedia. His recent behavior (including edit warring and personal attacks) led to unsuccessful mediation and User:Messhermits eventual banning from editing the Alberto Fujimori essay. Bdean1963 January 2007
Messhermit thank you for your commentary. While I defend your right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree with you, not to mention your slapdash slander. In our collective endeavor to advance knowledge about the controversial, yet consequential historical consequences of the War of the Pacific, I trust you will provide sourced facts that will be able to substantiate your opinion. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 October 2007
Many thanks User:Messhermit for your efforts at resolving this editing dispute. In the meantime, could you please refrain from removing credible open sourced published material useful for understanding the legacy of the War of the Pacific you summarily removeed without discussion. Regards, [User:Bdean1963} 28 January 2007
Thank you User:Cbrown1023 for your helpful intervention regarding the War of the Pacific editing dispute I have had with User:Messhermit. I look forward to resolving the content dispute. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 January 2007
Given User:Messhermits remedial understanding of scholarship and his prior pattern of deceptive behavior on Wikipedia, his comments pasted above are not surprising, albeit profoundly confused and filled with vitriol. Nevertheless, I reiterate my “good faith” effort at resolving the content dispute over the War of the Pacific and look forward to resolving our different points of view. User:Bdean1963 00:30 29 January 2007
I'm going to ignore the previos post, a clear sign of lack of respect toward people that don't agree with Bdean's POV. Let's proced with the topic:
The center of this dispute is not about the Peru and Chile historical rivalry, but rather a matter of POV. The last Peruvian-Chilean dispute was already solved before they even became know in their respective countries, and it was more a local dispute (the constitutionality of a Chilean law creating a new region) than an international controversy. At this point, there is no such thing as a border dispute between both countries because each one recognizes the established frontier as demarked in the Treaty of Lima, a totally different from the Treaty of Ancon (the one that actually ended the war). Both Treaties are recognized by International Law and both are totally different documents, legally speaking. Messhermit 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The War of the Pacific ended in 1884 and the Treaty of Lima (that dealed with Arica) was signed in 1929, 40 years later. Stating that the current dispute can be directly related to (as of 2007) an incident that happened more than 150 years ago is not accurate at all, and at is best is irredentist and alarmist with the sole purpose of undermining friendly relations between both countries. Such a broad argument can be used to include the dispute that both countries have regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer, just to name a few. Should we also include those disputes in the article about the war? Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, the inclusion of this "supposed territorial dispute" as presented by the other party involved in this controversy is merely based on POV. Chile doesn't have to ask whether it can create a new province or not in its own territory, and neither Peru can unilaterally declare part of the new Chilean XV Region as part of its territory. The Constitutional Tribunal of Chile already addressed that the law defining the borders of the Chilean XV Region was unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn't follow the proper procedure that are needed for the creation of a Region, and at any moment ordered or asked the Chilean Government to define its frontier with Peru. It was simply a chilean judicial controversy solved by chileans. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Issues like the mentioned above can happen at any moment and had indeed happened before. It just need a badly written law (in either Peru or Chile) to once again invoke nationalism. The same can happen in Bolivia, and in many other parts around the world. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Why the maritime dispute between Chile an Peru doesn't belong to this article?
As exposed here, this has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I provided User:Messhermit with a good faith effort at resolving an editorial dispute regarding the Alberto Fujimori entry. Unsuccessful mediation resulted in User:Messhermit’s temporary ban on editing the Alberto Fujimori entry, which as I have noted on the Alberto Fujimori talk page, has been disregarded by User:Messhermit. I welcome civil, non-threatening dialogue regarding the editorial/content dispute over the War of the Pacific and Tacna Region entries. I will let User:Messhermit’s recent contributions speak for themselves [5] , [6] [7], [8]. I stand by my assertion that the historical record of the War of the Pacific and the Tacna Region have shaped the recent maritime dispute between Chile and Peru. User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007
February 2007 (UTC)
In the dispassionate interest of the advancement of knowledge free from censorship, I respectfully request that User:Messhermit reverts recent edits I have made on the War of the Pacific to accommodate alternative yet balanced points of view to reflect the historical record. User:Bdean1963 13 February, 2007
My recent edit does not endorse any particular version of the article. It is a process-oriented reversion of an anonymous edit that made substantive and apparently POV changes, with no citation or summary. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this case still active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I request that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific remain active, particularly in light of recent editorial changes. Regards, User:Bdean1963 26 February 2007
Its a tad obvious, its wildly POV in some cases, the article forgets that perubians had chinese slaves?, how come they appear on the chilean side instead?... how odd.
This map is erroneous: the border between Bolivia-Chile before the 1879 is the 24th parallel (south of Antofagasta and north of Taltal... -- Yakoo 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but clearly this article is not neutral, enclosed up to in the Wikipedia in Spanish is more veraciously that here, I believe that When it has time I will put some references and it will erase the wrong thing. PD: Hello Yakoo MILO 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
i think that POV stuff. clearly demostrates the non-parcial redaction of the article, and the article is also controlled by this Messhermit and i found it not aproppiate. at the end i must state, and i knows this decreace the seriousness of my comment but i have to say it. peruvians are a bunch of whiners. bye. peace for latinoamerica. maybe someday we can make things together. but with this whinery all day. i doub it
I have seen other references to this war as The Nitrates War. Could a disambiguation be added. I am not sure how to do this and also not very sure of the regulations surrounding it. -- Superbock 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
==
The current map at the begingn of the article does not consider former Bolivian territory that was hanlded over to argentina due to the war. 200px|thumb|right|This map consider the parts of Puna de Atacama that was once bolivias and are now part of Argentina. Dentren | Talk 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but please consider bolivian territory that was hanlded over to Peru.-- 190.22.3.99 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What would be great is a map that's animated showing boundaries at different times.
Shouldn't "patria" be translated to "motherland"? I think it's a more appropiate translation than the one we currently have in the article. I know, patria sounds more like "fatherland", but a better translation for me would be "motherland". I think I heard Russians saying "motherland" instead of "fatherland", although the concept is very ambiguous. To clarify, I think patria is "your land", or "my land", meaning "the nation".-- J.C. ( talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
the word "patria" has a conection with "pater", that means "father"-- 190.22.81.52 ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've read some sections of the article that discuss the alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia, but only once read something pointing towards the alliance being defensive. I know the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was a defensive one, which means that Peru would defend Bolivia in case of an invasion from any country, and viceversa for Bolivia. Yet, as past discussions here in the Talk Page show, several people (mainly people from Chile) seem to think that the alliance was not defensive but rather an aggresive alliance. By this I mean that they think that Peru simply allied with Bolivia for no reason other than to declar war on Chile. Yet, this is false due to that Peru was drawn into a war that they were not too happy to fight; especially since Peru and Chile had formerly had an alliance versus Spain in the Chincha Islands War. Therefore, I'm posting this here so that future contributors know that the alliance between Bolivia and Peru was defensive. MarshalN20 ( talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think you should include a very important fact: 80% of the people living in the former bolivian territory was CHILEAN, however authorities were bolivan. Therefore, the Chilean government had the responsability of defending its people whose rights were not respecet by these bolivian authorities. Also, I see no point on pointing out "what could have happened if" Peru had done this or that, Chile won the war, and the territories in dispute have been Chilean for more than a century and will continue to be. Viva Chile!!!
Francisco
War was declared to Peru for its attemp to mediate in the Chilean-Bolivian conflict. Also, I will put a quotation from the Spanish Wikipedia that clearly show the aggresiveness of the Chilean Government:
Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna, Chilean writer and Senator, declared that the chilean "people" were prepared and willing to go to war:
El pueblo quería la guerra con el Perú porque la veía, porque la palpaba, porque estaba consumada, porque la ocupación de Antofagasta era un hecho positivo de agresión armada. / The people desired war with Peru because they saw it comming, because it was a fact, and because the occupation of Antofagasta (the fact that Bolivia was in control of the territory) must be considerated an armed agression
Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How sad to find people who think the way RapaNui does (by the way, the isle of Rapa Nui is another example of Chilean expansionism -including the killing of the isle's natives, and you proudly choose that nickname . Why don't you tell the history of Rapa Nui, how the British and Chilean killed the people there, instead of bothering serious people who is trying to write an article about a war that made so many people unhappy? -sad, really). Ollanta Humala an example of Peruvian education? God, not! you are obviously -and totally- confused and misinformed because of your Chilean ultra-nationalism or your ignorance. Ollanta Humala -and not Humala Ollanta as you *again wrongly* say- was a student of the French-Peruvian school, a rather exclusive and prestigious private school. And he went to continue his higher education to France. And the guy had no options of being a Peruvian president, as you can now see. But what can we expect from a person like RapaNui, who appears in public sites like Wikipedia to express hatred and frustration, to try to confuse people with statements regarding education and politics of a country which s/he doesn't know and to talk about facts that s/he doesn't even know and that above all do not belong into the points of discussions of this page? S/He talks about Ollanta Humala, a minor Peruvian politician who doesn't even have 5% of support now (as of Feb 2007), having Pinochet in Chile, who killed so many of his *OWN* people. Is that what we are discussing here? I think not. Sheesshh... and s/he claims to be neutral. I am reading this with my neighbors -they're a Chilean couple with three beautiful and intelligent girls who are now wondering why people like you behave like you- here and we'd like you to know that we feel sorry for you. You are completely confused. Like "Condorito" would say: requeteplop! I encourage Chileans, Peruvians, Bolivians and everyone else to continue with the objective of writing a good unbiased article, do not let persons like RapaNui bother you.
I don't mean to be rude at all, but I'd like to make a little apart about this article. I'm translating it to portuguese, and noticed that it tends to peruvian side. I haven't read all your threads, but it clearly makes Peru and Bolivia the big victims of this war. Just an opinion from a neutral brazilian
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ignorance is bold. That's all that I can say in responce of this clear and ignorant attack. Messhermit 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
an anon changed the text about involvement of Argentina: [1] can this be verified? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that Argentina was invited to the Alliance with Peru and Bolivia (due to the fact that Chile was also having a territorial dispute with them), but didn't accept it. The rest is POV. Messhermit 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The maps included on the main article do not represent a neutral point of view.
See
Chilean Point of View
Jespinos 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look well, you notice that the Loa river is indicated as historical border between Perú and Chile. Please stop editing the main article. Jespinos 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide information that support your claim (and by information I mean historical documents and not some ultranationalistic claim from soberianiachile.com). Wikipedia is not a place to state a "Peruvian" or "Bolivian" or "Chilean" POV. Messhermit 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This would all be clarified (and considerably de-POV'd) if someone would be overt about the provenance of the map at the start of the article. Messhermit, you uploaded it: where does it come from?
Why is this a concern? Because:
I don't really care that OrphanBot isn't complaining: I look at the image page, and I can't tell who made the map, which on a controversial subject is inappropriate.
This PDF is linked from the U.S. Library of Congress Studies on both on Peru and Chile; I would think it would constitute a neutral view of the matter, and it is public domain. As I'm sure you know, a PDF is a bit of a pain; I'll transform it to another format and make it available. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Now available on commons as a PNG: Image:War of the Pacific LOC map.png. Someone might also want to do a JPG.
Also, when uploading that, I came across Image:Territorio ocupado en Tarapacá por el ejército chileno (1879).jpg. This appears to be a Chilean map, dated at the start of the conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are some imprecisions and omissions in the map, but in general, I accept it. In special, had been interesting some mention of the Treaty of 1866, indicating territories awarded to Bolivia by Chile.
On the maps appearing in the main article, there is a huge gap between the parallel 24° south latitude and the parallel 26° south latitude, which is not shown as chilean territory. I think that it cannot be considered accurate. Jespinos 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have my doubts regarding the accuracy of the American map that you find Jmabel, since it is fairly common to find (In U.S History or World History books) maps that are not accurate at all. To even think that Bolivia did not have access to the sea before the war is unbelievable. Messhermit 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit answer three questions:
Jespinos 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The following are true antique maps, although not necessarily accurate maps. Jespinos 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Peace treaty section's opening paragraph is a direct cut and paste from onwar.com...
http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr75/fpacific1879.htm
Super Jedi Droid 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved this template to the bottom. It doesn't look good down there, but it certainly doesn't belong where it was before. I was about to edit the template to make it fit here, but it is used (more fittingly, I might add) in other articles. Do we need this template here? Can we get a better template? Ufwuct 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the Recent Development (Maritime Dispute Reignited) section is historically related to the long term consequences of the War of the Pacific. Bdean1963 January 2007
I look forward to discussing the recent maritime dispute between Peru and Chile, which I like the majority of the scholarly community feel is part of a longer national rivalry between the two countries (as reflected in the War of the Pacific). This rivalry has also shaped the current political and popular climates regarding the legal charges facing former President Alberto Fujimori, who is currently detained in Chile. User:Messhermit is disingenuous with his commentary. I recommend Wikipideians review User;Messhermit’s poor record of editing Wikipedia. His recent behavior (including edit warring and personal attacks) led to unsuccessful mediation and User:Messhermits eventual banning from editing the Alberto Fujimori essay. Bdean1963 January 2007
Messhermit thank you for your commentary. While I defend your right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree with you, not to mention your slapdash slander. In our collective endeavor to advance knowledge about the controversial, yet consequential historical consequences of the War of the Pacific, I trust you will provide sourced facts that will be able to substantiate your opinion. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 October 2007
Many thanks User:Messhermit for your efforts at resolving this editing dispute. In the meantime, could you please refrain from removing credible open sourced published material useful for understanding the legacy of the War of the Pacific you summarily removeed without discussion. Regards, [User:Bdean1963} 28 January 2007
Thank you User:Cbrown1023 for your helpful intervention regarding the War of the Pacific editing dispute I have had with User:Messhermit. I look forward to resolving the content dispute. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 January 2007
Given User:Messhermits remedial understanding of scholarship and his prior pattern of deceptive behavior on Wikipedia, his comments pasted above are not surprising, albeit profoundly confused and filled with vitriol. Nevertheless, I reiterate my “good faith” effort at resolving the content dispute over the War of the Pacific and look forward to resolving our different points of view. User:Bdean1963 00:30 29 January 2007
I'm going to ignore the previos post, a clear sign of lack of respect toward people that don't agree with Bdean's POV. Let's proced with the topic:
The center of this dispute is not about the Peru and Chile historical rivalry, but rather a matter of POV. The last Peruvian-Chilean dispute was already solved before they even became know in their respective countries, and it was more a local dispute (the constitutionality of a Chilean law creating a new region) than an international controversy. At this point, there is no such thing as a border dispute between both countries because each one recognizes the established frontier as demarked in the Treaty of Lima, a totally different from the Treaty of Ancon (the one that actually ended the war). Both Treaties are recognized by International Law and both are totally different documents, legally speaking. Messhermit 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The War of the Pacific ended in 1884 and the Treaty of Lima (that dealed with Arica) was signed in 1929, 40 years later. Stating that the current dispute can be directly related to (as of 2007) an incident that happened more than 150 years ago is not accurate at all, and at is best is irredentist and alarmist with the sole purpose of undermining friendly relations between both countries. Such a broad argument can be used to include the dispute that both countries have regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer, just to name a few. Should we also include those disputes in the article about the war? Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, the inclusion of this "supposed territorial dispute" as presented by the other party involved in this controversy is merely based on POV. Chile doesn't have to ask whether it can create a new province or not in its own territory, and neither Peru can unilaterally declare part of the new Chilean XV Region as part of its territory. The Constitutional Tribunal of Chile already addressed that the law defining the borders of the Chilean XV Region was unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn't follow the proper procedure that are needed for the creation of a Region, and at any moment ordered or asked the Chilean Government to define its frontier with Peru. It was simply a chilean judicial controversy solved by chileans. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Issues like the mentioned above can happen at any moment and had indeed happened before. It just need a badly written law (in either Peru or Chile) to once again invoke nationalism. The same can happen in Bolivia, and in many other parts around the world. Messhermit 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Why the maritime dispute between Chile an Peru doesn't belong to this article?
As exposed here, this has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I provided User:Messhermit with a good faith effort at resolving an editorial dispute regarding the Alberto Fujimori entry. Unsuccessful mediation resulted in User:Messhermit’s temporary ban on editing the Alberto Fujimori entry, which as I have noted on the Alberto Fujimori talk page, has been disregarded by User:Messhermit. I welcome civil, non-threatening dialogue regarding the editorial/content dispute over the War of the Pacific and Tacna Region entries. I will let User:Messhermit’s recent contributions speak for themselves [5] , [6] [7], [8]. I stand by my assertion that the historical record of the War of the Pacific and the Tacna Region have shaped the recent maritime dispute between Chile and Peru. User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007
February 2007 (UTC)
In the dispassionate interest of the advancement of knowledge free from censorship, I respectfully request that User:Messhermit reverts recent edits I have made on the War of the Pacific to accommodate alternative yet balanced points of view to reflect the historical record. User:Bdean1963 13 February, 2007
My recent edit does not endorse any particular version of the article. It is a process-oriented reversion of an anonymous edit that made substantive and apparently POV changes, with no citation or summary. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this case still active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I request that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific remain active, particularly in light of recent editorial changes. Regards, User:Bdean1963 26 February 2007
Its a tad obvious, its wildly POV in some cases, the article forgets that perubians had chinese slaves?, how come they appear on the chilean side instead?... how odd.
This map is erroneous: the border between Bolivia-Chile before the 1879 is the 24th parallel (south of Antofagasta and north of Taltal... -- Yakoo 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but clearly this article is not neutral, enclosed up to in the Wikipedia in Spanish is more veraciously that here, I believe that When it has time I will put some references and it will erase the wrong thing. PD: Hello Yakoo MILO 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
i think that POV stuff. clearly demostrates the non-parcial redaction of the article, and the article is also controlled by this Messhermit and i found it not aproppiate. at the end i must state, and i knows this decreace the seriousness of my comment but i have to say it. peruvians are a bunch of whiners. bye. peace for latinoamerica. maybe someday we can make things together. but with this whinery all day. i doub it
I have seen other references to this war as The Nitrates War. Could a disambiguation be added. I am not sure how to do this and also not very sure of the regulations surrounding it. -- Superbock 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
==
The current map at the begingn of the article does not consider former Bolivian territory that was hanlded over to argentina due to the war. 200px|thumb|right|This map consider the parts of Puna de Atacama that was once bolivias and are now part of Argentina. Dentren | Talk 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but please consider bolivian territory that was hanlded over to Peru.-- 190.22.3.99 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What would be great is a map that's animated showing boundaries at different times.
Shouldn't "patria" be translated to "motherland"? I think it's a more appropiate translation than the one we currently have in the article. I know, patria sounds more like "fatherland", but a better translation for me would be "motherland". I think I heard Russians saying "motherland" instead of "fatherland", although the concept is very ambiguous. To clarify, I think patria is "your land", or "my land", meaning "the nation".-- J.C. ( talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
the word "patria" has a conection with "pater", that means "father"-- 190.22.81.52 ( talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've read some sections of the article that discuss the alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia, but only once read something pointing towards the alliance being defensive. I know the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was a defensive one, which means that Peru would defend Bolivia in case of an invasion from any country, and viceversa for Bolivia. Yet, as past discussions here in the Talk Page show, several people (mainly people from Chile) seem to think that the alliance was not defensive but rather an aggresive alliance. By this I mean that they think that Peru simply allied with Bolivia for no reason other than to declar war on Chile. Yet, this is false due to that Peru was drawn into a war that they were not too happy to fight; especially since Peru and Chile had formerly had an alliance versus Spain in the Chincha Islands War. Therefore, I'm posting this here so that future contributors know that the alliance between Bolivia and Peru was defensive. MarshalN20 ( talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)