This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

• its incomes had been the support[clarification needed] of the Peruvian Guano Era

its incomes had financed the Peruvian Guano Era

• bought[does this mean they did or they didn't?] the Bolivian licenses

that means 1) the gov couldn't get the money in Europa needed for the expropriation but 2)they had money enough to buy Bolivian licences (actually, it seems that Gibbs & Sons paid for the licences)

• instigated the Bolivian government to withdraw from the 1874 border treaty with Chile that fixed for 25 years the tax on the Chilean saltpeter company.[clarification needed]->

the 1874 border treaty between Bo-Ch prohibited further taxes or tax increase upon Chilean companies working in the Bolivian Litoral

• to impose a 10 cents[10 cents per what? and which currency cents?]

10 cents Bolivian Peso per quintal metrico, = 100 kg (I will look for the rate Bo. Peso-Pfund

• confiscate[nationalise?]

No. The company refused to pay and then its property was confiscated, seized by the Bolivian gov as payment for the unpaid tax

[6] Jorge Basadre respecto a este problema económico crucial dice Al realizar el estado peruano con la ley del 28 de marzo de 1875, la expropiación y monopolio de las salitreras de Tarapacá, era necesario evitar la competencia de las salitreras del Toco [in Bolivia].... Aquí es donde se internacionalizaba el conflicto, pues estas salitreras, económicamente estaban en poder de chilenos y británicos

[6] Jorge Basadre states regarding this crucial economic issue: "As the Peruvian state, through the law of 28 March 1875, expropriated and monopolized the nitrate fields of Tarapaca, because it was necesary avoid the competence of the Toco's nitrate fields [in Bolivia], ... In this moment the [internal Peruvian debt] problem became international, because the nitrate fields were property of Chileans and British.

[7] El ... salitre expropiado ... produjo para el Estado peruano sólo 4 peniques por tonelada sobre un precio de venta de 14 libras esterlinas y 6 chelines por el mismo volumen. Más bien, la cuestión del salitre, añadido a la cuestión de la deuda externa, se convertirá en un poderoso factor en el desencadenamiento de la guerra de 1879.

[7] [first sentence deleted] the saltpeter affair/issue/problem, added to the problem of the external debt became rather a mighty factor of unleashing the war

[8] "El deseo de controlar también la producción del litoral boliviano condujo al Perú a una política de alianzas internacionales que desembocó en la guerra de 1879"

[8] The wish to control also the production of the Bolivian litoral, led Peru to a policy of alliances the led to the 1879 war -- Keysanger ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I copy the sandbox content into the mainspace (with Gerda and Ehrenkater's first amendments) in order to obtain Brianboulton's cooperation. But he meant to copyedit an full featured article without so many {{ clarify}}'s. That is something like to change the horse middle in the river. Sorry. Don't look back, adelante!. -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This article is slanted towards the Chilean perspective of the causes for the War of the Pacific. As Robert N. Burr writes:

Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war.

— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), p. 138.

This demonstrates that it is a Chilean point of view that Peru was attempting to achieve domination over the nitrate fields. This article presents the Chilean perspective as a fact. Not only that, but Burr actually considers another economic factor to be the primary reason for the war—Chile's economic ambition over the minerals in Bolivia's desert. A few further lines down, Burr adds:

A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.

— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.

This quote demonstrates that Burr's view of the primary reason for war (casus belli) was Chile's ambition over the mineral deposits in the poorly-defended Bolivian littoral (coast).

Given this situation, this article is in serious need of a rewrite to balance perspectives.-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Which part of the text is "slanted"? -- Keysanger ( talk) 19:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay, let's pretend that you're not missing the point. Anything that this article does to present the fringe idea that Peru was attempting to expand its monopoly is inherently slanted. This includes the first sentence of this article.-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I have been made aware that my edit on December 25, 2016, cited the incorrect text from Carlos Contreras ( [1]). I actually meant to cite Carlos Contreras' 2014 book Historia Minima del Peru, in which the Peruvian historian writes the following:

Bolivia and Peru had signed in 1873, the same year in which Peru created its state monopoly on nitrates, a treaty of defensive alliance. This treaty was invoked by Bolivia, dragging Peru into the war. Regardless, Peru had a vivid interest in the resolution of the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, because the success of its nitrate state monopoly depended on the competition proposed by its neighboring country, whether it be Bolivia or Chile. According to Chilean historians, Peru thought it would be much easier to force the Bolivian government than the Chilean in association with its monopoly of fertilizers. The Peruvian historians tend to sustain, on the contrary, that Peru became involved in a war that did not concern it, due to its desire to fulfill its word committed to a treaty, and because it could not abandon Bolivia at the mercy of Chile without its own security being affected.

— Carlos Contreras and Marina Zuloaga, Historia Minima del Peru (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 2014), ch. 16.

Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will promptly make the corrections.-- MarshalN20 ^✉ 🕊 19:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Just to prove that the book is real, here is an Amazon.com link to the 2014 copy that I own ( [2]) and a link to the 2016 paperback reprint ( [3]). It's an excellent book; highly recommend it.-- MarshalN20 ^✉ 🕊 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC) reply