Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV or NPOV?

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

Another sad example of ultra-nationalism. Trying to justify the war with such a lame argument show us that people that praise this war are still out there, trying to impose their POV in Wiki. Messhermit 16:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed we should try to work to not allow POV "contributions" in sensitive articles like wars, especially from participants of countries, which are native of one of the parties. Francisco is obiously chilean and not hiding it, but as I could see in the last revert of Messhermit, you are deleting or modifing the article in a similar way from the peruvian POV, but just on a more subtile kind of way, by omiting information, which might not show the clear tendence of agressor-vicitm in this article.

The points are:

-In 1878 the Bolivian government of President Hilarión Daza, decreed a backdated 1874 tax increase on Chilean companies

why do you delete such a detail, which did have a very big impact on the situation? The fact, that the tax was backdated to 1874 probably made it impossible to the chilean companies, to pay the tax. So one could interprete (or not, thats the reader to decide, he should finally judge), that the higher aim of the bolivian president was that he was "forced" to confiscate the chilean mining companies, due that they were not able to pay. He would have finally solved the issue to his favour, and getting rid of the competitors from the south. At least, it was a fact that this tax was backdated and I do not see any reason to omit this information.

Chilean companies refused to pay any type of taxes, no matter what condition. Their government defended that position. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that was the position of the companies and the chilean government, due they relied to the agreement of the 1866 and 1874 treaties between Bolvia and Chile, where it was stated, that no taxes at all should be raised for a period of 25 years, no matter to what reason. Bolivia violated this in 1878 and then not only asked for a tax begining 1878, but even backdated this tax to 1874, which obviously even brought more angriness into the situation. The violation of the treaty prior to escalation of war should not be omited. --CapHoorn 16:05, 11 January 2006 (CET)

-Argentina was invited to join the Alliance. Since it had a territorial dispute with Chile regarding the region of Patagonia, and was also wary of Chilean expansion/position

Some time ago I have tried to investigate the situaton of the Patagonia, and the questions would be here: is it adaquate to use the word Expansion or was it rather a poisition they tried to defend. It's is rather unclear, who really had the rights over this territory. The Argentinan side did rely on the spanish rule set during the colonies, that the andes was the natural border between Argentina and Chile, so that they were own the rights for western Patagonia. The Chilean side relies several other spanish maps and spanish decretes by the crown, where Patagonia was seen as chilean territory. They also claim, that they were the first to settle, while argentinans started the campaign to the south in late 1860's. So far I investigated, i come to the conclusion that none of the parties was right, as this territory was not ocuppied by the spainards, and that it was a place only inhabited by several indian tribes like tehulches, mapuches and other ones. Due to that, we cannot talk about a chilean expansions towards Argentina, as it was a disputed territory.

Actually, before the War with Peru and Bolivia, Chile and Argentina were really close to war for Patagonia. In these sence, with the Chilean Government of that time having so many conflicts with it's border ( Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina ), the word expasion is fairly accurate. Also, the fact that still some Hardcore Chilean nationalist see the lost of Patagonia as a burden contributes to this fact. Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you here, "conflict" is not equal to "expansionism". First means only confrontation about an issue, this implies 2 point of views. "Expansionism" is rather one sided and is always easily detectable. As I have detailed before, the patagonia was rather a disputed territory, due that it was rather a uninhabited territory, borders were not clearly defined between the 2 new independent states yet. Also Argentina claimed parts of the western Patagonia. There is no agressor-victim situation in this specific conflict. Therefore expansionism is definitely the wrong word here.--CapHoorn 16:20, 11 January 2006 (CET)

-With little effective Peruvian central government remaining, Chile pursued a brutal/ambitious campaign throughout Peru, especially on the coast and the central Sierra, penetrating as far north as Cajamarca

Brutal or ambitious, the word to define the chilean campaign in Peru. I think no one exactly matches it, as both are kind of extremes and POV, but I think that ambitious is lesser POV, as it does not put any party in a kind of guilt position. Again, It must be cleared, that this is an historic page, we should reflect only facts and no individual value interpretations. The reader himself should be able to decide if there is a white/black good/evil situation, and he will.

Unfortunatelly, The Occupation of Peru is itself crowded with this type of atrocities. The Repase of fallen Peruvian and Bolivian soldiers in the battlefield, the destruction of Chorrillos, the looting of the Peruvian National Library, and the actions of Chilean Gral. Patricio Linch in the northern coast of Peru are some proof of the brutality of the Chilean Army (condemned by several foreign ambassadors), and the fact that the Chilean Army was facing a Guerrilla campaing instead of a organized army inside the country is also proof that the invadors were not soft at any rate. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to be a "soft" war as you named it, as far as I know, it was the war with the 2nd most casualties on the continent, after the Chaco war. Wars are never "soft". I have searched for this information you named and found something... especially about Chorillos where the chileans landed. But I think this was quite "normal" for these kind of wars in that times, especially when guerillas are involded. You name the guerilla kind of war, which did take place. Armies which occupy other territories and are attacked by guerillas mostly tend to react harder, as they claim this to be out of the war rules, especially when there is no oficial government anymore, the guerillas officially could be defined as bandits and criminals according to international war law. In this case we should maybe leave "brutal", or even replace it by "hard-fought", last one would relate to the hard resistance of the guerillas. But then we also would have to delete the sentence "With little effective Peruvian central government remaining", as there wasn't any anymore...--CapHoorn 16:40, 11 January 2006 (CET)

- The remnants of the Peruvian Army led by Cáceres defeated Chilean Army units on several occasions, but after the loss in the Battle of Huamachuco

again omition of valuable facts, messhermit. Why do you delete the outcome of this last battle? Don't see the point...

My rv was general. Also, another important battle is omited, the one that prevented Cajamarca from falling to Chilean Control: Battle of San Pablo. It was due to this battle that peruvian Gral Miguel Iglesias was able to negotiate for Peace with the Chileans . The defeat of Caceres was more like a moral defeat rather than a tactical one. Messhermit 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

my first suggestion would then be: add the battle of San Pablo, if you think it was important. But don't delete the outcome of these battles. My opinion is, that San Pablo was rather less important. First, beacause it was a complete year before the last battle of Caceres, and secondly, it was a minor battle: 420 Peruvians faced and defeated 600 Chileans in the north of the country in July 1882. And last but not least, Caceres was without any doubt the head of resistance. The last battle from Caceres was in July 1883, where he sent the complete force left of 1500 men against 2000 chileans. It was the last battle before the peace treaty, so the conclusion is exactly the opposite: The battle of San Pablo was a moral victory, the battle of Huamachuco is the final and decesive battle, therefore very tactical.--CapHoorn 16:56, 11 January 2006 (CET)

I am sure that some of the points I adressed might be reviewable, as I am not the owner of truth, like nobody is. But some of the information I added shouldn't be missing, like the backdating of tax and outcome of a specific battle. Cheers! --CapHoorn 14:20, 06 January 2006 (CET)

As you may have seen, I attempted to explain the reasons for my rv. As a peruvian, I try to be as neutral as posible, and rest assure that I will use nationalism as a tool (like those Viva (Country)!) to support my claims on this page. Messhermit 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I see and hope that you are open to additional or contrary , but also agreeing perspectives. I have added my comments in the upper text, let me know what you think about it. Cheers. --CapHoorn 16:02, 1 January 2006 (CET)

Victim?

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)

No, definitely Peru was not a victim, this might be you POV perspective, probably you have been tought this version (in school?). Fact is that Peru was the mighter country in the 19th century, Peru was the economic and cultural centre of the spanish empire in Southamerica. Mostly they despectively judged their neighbours of being poor and miserable, in a very arrogant way. Peru pretended to fool the chilean Goverment, playing the role of the independent mediator between Bolivia and Chile, but due to the secret war alliance they had with Bolivia against Chile, they were trying to help Bolivia and trying to prepare for war. Chile got to know about this alliance, and because Chile was declared war by Bolivia previously, Peru being the offical ally of Bolivia, was declared war too. Not Chile decided Peru to be the enemy, but peruvians themselves when they signed the secret war alliance against Chile, and not to forget, the alliance to declare war to Chile first (by Bolivia).

I also have evidence of this arrogant, false and perfidious behaviour of peruvian position. You are quoting the opinion of 1 individual person to let this look like Victim-Agressor case, I quote you the opinion of the peruvian masses, distributed by the main newsletter of your country in that time:

"La Patria, Lima 12 de enero de 1880.

Chile, Aquel pueblo raquítico, pobre, arrojado al extremo del mundo, tenía y tiene vida prestada; su preponderancia, como granero es efímera y poco duradera; su preponderancia marítima comercial se debe al paso del estrecho y del Cabo, y vacila a los anuncios de la apertura del canal de Panamá, su preponderancia minera cae sin esperanza día a día y su agricultura no se acrecienta porque ha dado cuanto dar puede aquella tierra angosta y estropical. Chile esta predestinado a la oscuridad, a la mediania; su estrella ha llegado a su mayor culminación y se opaca por la fuerza misma de las cosas, porque el progreso de las naciones sus vecinas y el progreso general de América es su muerte!!!!"

Sorry, this is the original news in spanish, I will translate this to english later on.

I have rarely read anything more arrogant and rabidly envious in my life than this news, except the hate speeches of Hitler and Fundamentalists... So if you want to proceed moving this article into a Victim-Agressor or Good-Bad construction, be sure that people will not tolarate it. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Thanks for your understanding. RapaNui 15:27, 17 January 2006 (CET)

Unrealistic and terrible example of ultra-nationalist chilean revisionism. Are you trying to sell the idea that Chile was forced to war against Bolivia? Mmm... I wonder how any civilized country would react if another one invades part of it's territory. Chile invaded Antofagasta, wich was an integral part of Bolivia. Peru was dragged into the conflict because of the Alliance that was made in order to respond against this type of situation.

Also, your pathetic attemp to use that newspaper (without sources, btw) to claim that the peruvian people were willing to go in war, it's simple ludicrous. you can check in the spanish Wikipedia and realice that the quote made by that Chilean Senator, actually exist.

And yes, Wikipedia is not a propaganda site, rest assure that I will rv your nationalistic-baseless claims. Your Hate speeches will not be tolerated. Messhermit 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be childish Messhermit, you yourself brought up this "Peru = Victim" issue, and I have shown the other side, added the reasons and the real origins for the issue, which are being permanenty hidden by Peruvian POV defenders, so whats your problem? Nobody is allowed to critizize or even doubt this "thesis" which only blames one party(chile) to be the guilty without any profound analisis, because you feel hurted in your nationalistic honour? Sorry I did, and gosh... was it easy to let this card house fall appart! You call others ultra nationalistic, but then publish demagogic propaganda histories and don't allow anybody to even think of doubting the construct...

Also I see a strong problem of yours with comprehension. How many uncountable times has it been proved, that Antofagasta was not sovereign territory of Bolivia to that time, as the cease of this territory from Chile to Bolivia was bounded to STRICT regulatory rules to be hold by both parties in the frontier treaty of 1874, which Bolivia did not fulfill and misrespected on purpose in a very aggressive way ? I suggest you to read this same history article "war of the pacific"! Peru accepted this violation of international law and contract and even supported it, so its not possible to put Peru in the Victim role. RapaNui 01:56, 18 January 2006 (CET)

Keep dreaming that Antofagasta was part of Chile before the War of the Pacific. That only show us the kind of education that unfortunately the right-wing gobernment of Pinochet has teach to the chilean society. Antofagasta was part of Bolivia. And, just wondering, if only Antofagasta was in dispute... why Tarapaca, Tacna and Arica were annexed? Don't you think that there was already a political agenda por those territories? Find the answer to that question, and come back to talk in a civilized way. Messhermit 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not a dream, Antofagasta was a city founded by Chileans, try to search who founded it, and you will face Jose Santos Ossa, a chilean chango. If Antofagasta was supposedly not in dispute, how do you explain that Bolivians made more than one international treaty with chileans, which allowed "supposed" chilean intromission in souverign internal national affairs like tax handling, for example?!? This would have been something unbearable if it would have been like you described your point of view. Why would they have signed this, when this action meant nothing else than admitting the unclear/uncertain definition of the territory ?!? Because if it was really theirs, all these territory treaties wouldn't have been necessary! I don't expect you to answer this point, probably this question has too much depth in theme, doubt you can handle this, same like you didn't face any of the points I listed you. Concerning your point of Tarpaca, yes... it was peruvian and there is no doubt about that, no problem with saying that, because its the truth. Tarpaca was annexed to Chile as a war reperation. I don't think that before the war, there was such kind of agenda, this is pure supposition from your side, unless you have any kind of prove??? (I doubt it) Last but not least, don't talk to me about education, there is a german phrase I like, traduced it would be: You should throw stones at somebody, while you're sitting in a glasshouse. You are critizizing chilean educaction, which by the way has one of the highest reputation in Latinamerica, while Peru is known for its high illiteracy with a rate of I think even over 10 %? If education is so excellent in Peru, how do you explain that candidates like Humala Ollanta are so popular (such a bad educated charlatan wouldn't even become mayor of the smallest mountain village in Chile) in your country and probably will become president, without having any government program, but wide spread demagogic hate speeches against the southern neighbour Chile? That explains it all! Furthermore I don't see to continue arguing with you, as this is quite useless, I guess. RapaNui 00:26, 24 January 2006 (CET)

To settle this, once and for all:

• Antofagasta WAS NOT part of Chile before the War. Go ahead and keep thinking in that way, I'm not the one that is dreaming. And regarding the treaties, as any civilized country, a settle is prefered rather than full scale war. I wonder, if the disputes only involved Bolivia and the some private enterprises, why then, the chilean government of that time decided to become involved?
• Curious indeed that Tarapaca was annexed because of Saltpeter. I wonder if, just as Antofagasta, there was a hidden agenda of the Chilean government of that time to annex the area. You just don't annex territories because you feel like it. Ah! and history never forgets that Arica and Tacna were Chilenized, wich technically means that Arica was gived to Chile because it was colonized.
• You are a perfect example that even chilean education (wich you claim to be one of the best) produce lumpen. Go ahead and critizise Peruvian Education, since it's a perfect way to evade discussin about the topic.
• Regarding Ollanta, does Lavin and Piñera make you feel proud of being chilean, the heirs of the Pinochetista legacy? Ollanta is nothing more that one of the actors of the peruvian elections, and (honestly speaking) don't think that it has chances to win.

When you read a real and serious history book, feel welcome to come back. Messhermit 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"No, definitely Peru was not a victim, this might be you POV perspective, probably you have been tought this version (in school?)". Hey hey, it is well known in human history that Peru was attacked by Chile.

"Fact is that Peru was the mighter country in the 19th century, Peru was the economic and cultural centre of the spanish empire in Southamerica. Mostly they despectively judged their neighbours of being poor and miserable, in a very arrogant way.". Peru has economic power because of the guano, in that time, my country was divided in "people from Lima" and "people form the andes".

"Peru pretended to fool the chilean Goverment, playing the role of the independent mediator between Bolivia and Chile, but due to the secret war alliance they had with Bolivia against Chile". Excuse me??? secret alliance against Chile?? For god sake, that is complety false!. Peru and Bolivia suscribed a mutual defense treaty (same all southamericans states signed with the USA during Worl War II).

"they were trying to help Bolivia and trying to prepare for war. Chile got to know about this alliance, and because Chile was declared war by Bolivia previously, Peru being the offical ally of Bolivia, was declared war too". Hahahaha, lier lier lier...Chile declared the war (don't you read history books?) and Peru helped Bolivia.

" Not Chile decided Peru to be the enemy, but peruvians themselves when they signed the secret war alliance against Chile, and not to forget, the alliance to declare war to Chile first (by Bolivia)". Please, Peru has been always a peaceful country.

Also you should know that Peru helped his ally Bolivia. Opss! i remember now that Chile has no allies!!!!, that country is so arrogant, that has no friends in South America (only Ecuador is his "ally").

Please, in the article in spanish about this war, it is clearly said that Antofagasta was part of Bolivia. I can't just understand that you're making your own conclusions when oficially, this article was written by peruvians, chileans and bolivians!!!. Come on!, think!. Gonzalo 03:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Long time not visited here and he see all going mad. To messhermit: the treaties are always better than wars, there is no doubt in it. But they are useless, if they are not being respected and then violated, like in this war. Bolivia didn't fulfill the treaty, which was a treaty on NATIONAL basis, not between business entities, I repeat... it was a treaty beween the Chilean and the Bolivian Government, signed by both presidents, and not like you are trying to suggest, on business or company level. You both are talking like Bolivia and Peru were saints, but they knowingly provoked the war, and lets be rational, of COURSE Peru and Bolivia also had economic interest in this, especially Peru who was losing pace due to the situation where guano got worthless, so don't lets be hypocrates... Tarpaca by the way wasn't just suddenly annexed from day to night... it was done as a consecuence of the ongoing war which was bweing lost by the alliance, a reperation, that was a use in that times... so what?

Lavin and Piñera, eventhough they are not of my political taste, are far from being stupid war demamgogues like Ollanta is, nowerdays puppet of Chavez. Piñera is a man that only treated national themes during his campaign, he never mentioned or used revanchism to neighbour countries in his programs, like Ollanta or even the right wing candidate Lourdes in Peru does recently. Lavin also did not focus on Peru, Bolivia neither any hate speach against anything which was not chilean, Ollanta did focus on that. The comments and insults you further made on my contributions I will not comment, they lack of any kind of rational arguementation and show kind of despair. The other kid called gonzalo, before you even start to give "lessons" about war historic facts, just verify that Bolivia was the first one to declare war on march the 1st. Chile did answer this the 5th of April. Peru a Peaceful country??? that says it all...--RapaNui 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the guys that runs www.soberaniachile.com believe that they have the truth in their hands. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not accepts warmongers like you. Messhermit 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this page, even tried to open that... but it does not exist. When somebody lacks of arguementation, he starts with "childish games". I understand you. --RapaNui 11:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why you keep writing non-sences here. Messhermit 17:08, 5 March 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.

little apart

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Simoes 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is being modify by several wikipedist (Peruvians, Bolivians and Chileans), and most of the information is being selected for being NPOV. Messhermit 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brazilian wikipedist, you are quite right... due to mayor part of Peruvian Wikipedist dealing this page, this article strongly tends to Peruvian POV. Any modification somebody does, not being the Peruvian and Bolivian POV, gets reverted in shortest time, mostly just 1 or 2 hours later, and without real arguementation. Unfortunately very few of my (chilean) countrymen enter this page, as in Chile, this past war is not that present in today's society, like in Peru, Because on Chile, people rather focus on improving the present and future of the country. Per/Bol remind the war almost every day and keep the revanchism alive, examples are numerous, just verify the sea territory claim launched by Peru end of last year, the hate speaches of their current President candidate Humala Ollanta, etc...sometimes it looks really hopeless.--RapaNui 11:39, 5 March 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)

Another evidence... one gets attacked and insulted by this Peruvian Wikipedist each time, by only explaining that contributions are being reverted n shoertest time, without real argumentation.--RapaNui 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And you are as Saint as Pinochet. Messhermit 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

this is why i say wiskipedia is a bunch of childlish trolls

Argentina

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)

Peru, Bolivia and Chile before the 1879 War

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)

It has been proved that Bolivia did have a coastline before the war. Also, that map already states that Arica and Tarapaca are in chilean control. As far as I know those two things are totally biased and historical lies. What are you talking about? Messhermit 02:13, 15 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)

The map should show disputed territories as disputed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute here is due to the fact that there are still some people that "believe" that Bolivia did not have a coastline even before this war. That has been already refuted by historians and those comments are now regarded as mere chilean irredentism. Messhermit 04:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1874 Treaty established the border between Bolivia and Chile at 24th parallel of south latitude, which is not shown on the maps. If Bolivia had sea in compliance with international laws, it was during the period of validity of the treaties of 1866 and 1874. The last of which was violated by Bolivia. Jespinos 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument that you mention was already debated here and in Wikipedia/ES. The result: there is no single paragraph in that treaty that stated Antofagasta as a chilean province before the signature of that treaty. It also fails to prove that in case the treaty was violated, Antofagasta was going back to Chile. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Bolivia did not have a coastline before the war. Messhermit 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What debate?, you try to impose your POV. Jespinos 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV. Please go an check the article on Wikipedia/ES and some other articles that involve Bolivia and Chile here in Wikipedia EN. Messhermit 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. In the same way that it was done in Wikipedia/ES, I will remove the maps. Jespinos 16:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The maps are not in Wikipedia/ES because they only use pictures from Wikipedia Commons. They have nothing to do with the accuracy of the map. So far, the only thing that you are doing is figthing with Ip's regarding the "POV" tag. You have not presented a single piece of evidence of why do you dispute the neutrality, and that definetely does not help the article. Messhermit 17:35, 25 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:

• Given controversy over the status of the territory, it is very important to understand who drew the map at what date. Ideally, I'd want pre-1879 maps, and if there are conflicting ones, I'd want to accurately represent the gamut.
• On a rights basis, it is very important to sort out whether the map is in the public domain and, if it is not, who holds copyright. Without that, it seems to me that the presence of the map on Wikipedia is liable to be a violation of policy (for straight out fair-use policy reasons). If the map is here on a fair use rather than a PD basis, we need to say who holds copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I appreciate your efforts to mediate in this unfortunate dispute:

• The issue here is that Jespinos "believes" that Bolivia did not have a coast before 1879. He states that a treaty in 1874 specifies that.
• The treaty, as far as I know, did not include any clause stating that if Bolivia violates the treaty, Atacama goes back to chilean control. It did state, however, that Bolivia could not raise taxes on several chilean-owned enterprises.
• Regarding the maps, this one has already being present in the article for a long time, and there has never being any problem with it (even Orphanbot recognizes that, I think so). The other map, as you can read, was made by another user for another wikipedia, and that map does not have anything inaccurate on it. Messhermit 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

At start of this thread, I posted a link to a map indicating Chilean Point of View. I do not said that it was my POV or a NPOV. With respect to the Treaty of 1874, I was not understood. I recognize that my english level is low, but even so I think that said the contrary. Jespinos 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

LOC map of territories involved in the War of the Pacific

Now available on commons as a PNG: Image:War of the Pacific LOC map.png. Someone might also want to do a JPG.

Chilean map

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)

I'm not sure what (if anything) the last sentence of your latest comment has to do with the rest of it: the lower two shaded areas on the map are captioned, respectively, "Awarded to Chile by Bolivia, 1883" and "Awarded to Chile by Bolivia, 1874". Obviously, if Bolivia awarded the land to Chile, it was previously part of Bolivia. So this map clearly says that Bolivia did have access to the sea before the war.

What, precisely, are your doubts about the accuracy of the map? And what map do you think has a better claim on scholarship and neutrality? - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit answer three questions:

• Is your map a scan of a mimeograph copy (using roneo paper) of a nationalist pamphlet?
• Why LOC map is included on a Bolivian website (boliviamar.org)? If the map is POV, at least it is not Chilean POV.
• The edit made by 74.225.16.93 was yours?

Jespinos 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can easily find this map on the net. The fact that the map has that particular color doesn't mean that it was part of a "pamphlet", so if you are going to attack its accuracy there are better arguments against it.
• I reviewed the website that you mentioned and I have not find any map similar to the one that is currently in the main article. The map that you preciously provided as the Chilean Point of View has clearly being edited to portray an irredentist claim to then Bolivian province of Litoral and the Argentinean territory of Patagonia.

Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Messhermit 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I watch it on TV, in a video of a Peruvian or Bolivian protest, maybe is not the same.
• The second question is in relation to the map uploaded by Jmabel, which according to you is Chilean POV.
• The third question was done to avoid a checkuser process.

The following are true antique maps, although not necessarily accurate maps. Jespinos 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Antique map of South America from 1790

Antique map of South America from 1794

Antique map of South America from 1808

Peace treaty

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)

History of Peru template

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)

Border Dispute

• The whole recent border dispute between Peru and Chile is regarding the limits of the new Arica-Parinacota Region. Since the legislation creating this new Region was declared unconstitutional, ignoring this as part of the history of the region is not wise at all.
• This whole paragraph doesn't belong to the War of the Pacific at all. It might be included in the Treat of Ancon and the Treaty of Lima (both regarding the frontier between Peru and Chile) that deals with the demarcation of the border. This has nothing to do with the history of the war itself.

Messhermit 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maritime Dispute Reignited

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

Finally. To answer that, it doesn't belong the article at all. The dispute was closed in the late 1990's when Chile finally complaied with the last parts of the Treaty of Lima in the City of Arica. Messhermit 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a reply. Messhermit 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User Bdean1963 still refuses to discuss in a civilized way any change on the article. Messhermit 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Messhermit

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

Please stick to the topic and avoid making this a personal dispute. I have being involve in the edition of this page ever since 2004. I have already exposed my arguments for deleting your recent changes in the article:

• It has nothing to do with the War itself, but rather another separate settlement. The Treaty of Ancon (the one that effectively ended the war) and the Treaty of Lima (the one that solved the problem of Arica and Tacna) are separated for at least 40 years of difference.
• The recent dispute deals more with the maritime sovereignty of both countries, rather than a territorial question. This issue was already addressed during Alejandro Toledo's presidency, and even though it continues to be a source of friction between both countries, it traces its origins to a proclamation issued by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in the early 1950’s.
• Also, the article doesn't have accurate information, claiming that the Peruvian Government recalled his ambassador from Santiago or that the article has to deal more with a law defining the boundaries of a new Chilean region rather than unilaterally modify its international borders
• Looking at the history of the talk page, it is more than clear that Bdean1963 unilaterally decides what belongs here and what doesn't. He refused to discuss this topic more than once in the "Talk Page".

Instead of focusing on my "record" (I wonder how "impartial" can a self-proclaimed "Human Right Activist" that uses Wikipedia for selling his own T-shirts on Amazon.com), user Bdean1963 should be more concerned about the accuracy of its sources and about what Wikipedia is about. If he wants to make this a personal dispute, then I believe that he is undermining the real purpose and nature of this project. Messhermit 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Bdean's twisted quote: "I like the majority of the scholarly community, feel is part of a longer national rivalry between the two countries", then maybe we should include in this article also the long standing dispute between Chile and Peru regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer. It doesn't matter if neither country likes the other, but attempting to justify every single disagreement with this war is politically absurd. Messhermit 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, to inform Bdean about the good relations that Peru and Chile have enjoyed so far is the FACT that Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was the only head of state present in the last Military Parade held Peru, and that Peru and Chile are currently in negotiations to create a joined battalion for UN Peace troops. Messhermit 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And once again Bdean1963 is refusing to discuss and keeps his disruptive behavior, avoiding a civilized discussion in this "Talk Page". Messhermit 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

For someone that loves to start personal dispute with anybody that disagree with your POV, launch baseless accusations and invent stories, you surely are bold. Anyways, so far you have not provided anything to support your claims (namely, facts) beyond your "feelings" that "this is part of a national rivalry". If you keep insulting me, I'll be force to call a RFA against your person. Avoid this, and understand that opinions and feelings are not good arguments to support an edition. Messhermit 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already initiate a Request for Comment in the History & Geeography section. Bdean, please avoid disrupting the article until this issue is settled. Messhermit 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

LOL, talking about lies. It is you the one that keeps pushing this dispute further and further by not discussing anything and keeping with that "my way or the highway" attitude. Hopefully, Wikipedia will put an end to your illegal actions here. Messhermit 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The paragraph above is just another proof of Bdean's intolerance towards any other POV. Also Bdean, protection does not mean that Wikipedia is endorsing "your" POV. Hopefully, this will put an end to his destructive behavior. Messhermit 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Please comment on content, not on the contributor.

There seems to be no basis for the dispute that I can see. The recent events are sufficiently well-reported to justify a separate article. The disputed material, minus any context and introduction, etc, is already quite large enough to stand alone. With the necessary supporting text it would probably be around 10K in size, well above average. This is based on google alone; current affairs journals should soon be analysing this dispute, doubtless at length.

Considered from the perspective of the primary subject, there is a great that could be said about the War of the Pacific that has not been. I'm woefully ignorant of any political or economic or military results globally, but I am fairly well read on the naval aspects, and it is fair to say that the War of the Pacific had a considerable impact on naval thinking far beyond South America. Allow that that should be included, and consider that referencing the article to a decent standard adds greatly to the size. As a result, the article is likely to grow beyond the recommended 30-40K maximum size quite easily.

So, I am puzzled. Why do you object, assuming that you do, to the creation of a separate article, either on modern Peruvian-Chilean relations, or on the narrower topic of the recent dispute? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There has always being tension between Peru and Chile. That's an historical fact. But assuming that everything goes back to this war is not being serious and it only helps ultra-nationalism in both countries. This was not the first time that Chile and Peru went to war (the war against the Peru-Bolivian Confederation was the first one), and hopefully it would remain as the last one. As explained in my previous editions the Treaty that is currently contested (or at least surrounded by this controversy) was signed almost 40 years after the end of the war and when the frontier between both countries was already settled. I don't understand User:Bdean1963 motives behind his editions, but it is clear that "assuming good faith", I can conclude that he is not well informed about the historical background. Messhermit 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Angus McLellan, I appreciate your efforts to mediate, but I think that the new content is more appropiate for a "peruvian-chilean controversies" article than something directly related with this war. Messhermit 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why recent editions do not belong to this article

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)

And apparently, I'm not getting any answer. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the maritime dispute between Chile an Peru doesn't belong to this article?

• Neither the Treaty of Ancon or the Treaty of Lima addressed the issue of maritime sovereignty.
• After the United Stated announced its decision to establish certain territorial rights regarding the sea, many Latin American nations followed the same example. Chile proclaimed sovereignty over its adjacent sea in 1947, followed immediately by Peru the same year.
• Ecuador, Chile and Peru issued a join declaration ("Declaración de Zona Marítima") in 1952.

As exposed here, this has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this "has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific" but the article should anyway have a litle reference about sea borders and a link to an article such as List of Chilean-Peruvian controversies where such information can be exposed under the right topic. Dentren | ^Talk 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a link that will lead the reader to the List of Chilean-Peruvian controversies its more than enough. Tracing this dispute to this war (or to the war against the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy) it's forcing history to accept only a nationalistic and impartial used by radical parts of both Chilean and Peruvian society. That should not be allowed. Messhermit 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that he is currently active [2] [3] [4] and busy trying to get me into troubles, but so far no excuse regarding how to solve this articles. User:Bdean1963 has not responded to any of these arguments despite being asked several times to do so. If this trend continues, I will revert the article to its original state. Messhermit 20:05, 8 February 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

Please avoid advertising yourself and/or your opinions. Stick to the topic and please state with accurate sources why is that the recent maritime dispute belongs here. Thanks. Messhermit 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So far more than 2 other wikipedians have agreed with my position that the maritime dispute has nothing to do with the War or the Region. Messhermit 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take note that User:Bdean1963 was blocked for 1 day because of this [9] type of disruptive behavior. As of today he still refuses to talk. Since its being more than 10 days ever since this dispute started and User:Bdean1963 has not responded to any attempt to discuss this issue, I'm reverting the article once again. Messhermit 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has "nothing to do with the War". The two things are connected, just like all the various disputes between Ecuador and Peru, or Argentina and Chile, or <other examples here>, are connected. You can't entirely separate these things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 13

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

• Thank you Angus McLellan for posting [10] which gives further support to the historical links between the War of the Pacific and the contemporary maritime dispute between Chile and Peru User:Bdean1963 13 February, 2007

Eventhough I do not always agree on every perspective of historic facts with Messhermit, in this case I fully agree with him. The current "conflict" about the maritime border between Chile and Peru can't be added to this Article, otherwise it would be necessary to add all disputes between both countries, which are quite numerous. But the Article then would not be called "war of the pacific" but "conflicts between Chile and Peru". I think there is no reason to continue discussing about this, as it is quite obvious. Regards --RapaNui 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, and not less important, The War of the Pacific is not an article which should only fix on evolution and consecuences of 2 specific countries (Peru and Chile) but 3. Bolivia was also part of this history, and a contious and centric listing of issues between the only 2 first countries would disfigure/distort the article.--RapaNui 10:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My recent edit

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)

I have reworded the last paragraph in order to avoid taking sides on this dispute. Messhermit 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The map regarding the pre-war borders between Bolivia, Chile and Peru is accurate and non-controvertial. I don't see any point in changing it for another picture. Messhermit 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

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

There doesn't seem to be any activity here. If there is no discussion there can be no mediation. I will close the case; if it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Too pro Peru

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.

• The Peruvians did have Chinese "semi"-slaved workers, who were released from their chains by the Chilean Army and for this reason they started to work as cargo and spies for them. It's not odd, it's quite logical. There is even a statue in Tarapaca about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.37.120.18 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tarapaca.jpg is erroneus

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)

No Neutral

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)

why the peruvian thing at the top of this discussion

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

Well Mr.Genious, the "Peruvian thing at the top" means that people working within the Peruvian scope (Which doesn't mean people from Peru, just people that are working closely with Peruvian articles) are trying to help fix the article. As far as I've read for what Messehermit has been doing, he has actually rightfully defended the fact that Bolivia had a coastline before the war. And don't worry, calling Peruvians "whiners" shouldn't really affect them (It's not really insulting), it just goes to show how cheap your insults can be (I mean, if I'm not going to post again on Wiki, I'd go for a worser insult...lol). Well, I hope this article can be further improved. Cheers to all who are working to better it. MarshalN20 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate: "The Nitrates War"

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)

==

MAP

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.

Translation

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)

Peru-Bolivia Alliance: Defensive not Aggresive

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)

You are right that it was defensive but even so it has been viewed as a hostile alliance in traditional chilean history. In the 19th century Diego Portales and others created the idea of that an union or long standing between Bolivia and Peru would threaten Chiles economic interest and stability. Chile fought in the War of the Confedaration to separe these countries.

Marsha wrote:

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

Honnestly I dont think that Peru got involved in a war just to "honor its alliance", the war nos not fought between noble knights. I they would have knew that they would lose, peru would never got involved in the war. Howerever, I agree of that the alliance was defensive, BUT it was seen as threat by Chileans. Dentren | ^Talk 16:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peru did not expect for Chile to be so well-armed for the conflict. That's not to say that the Peruvians did not also have decent weaponry, but it wasn't a match to Chile's superior armament (which had been provided by Great Britain and other European nations some years earlier). Peru also did have a choice not to honor the defensive alliance they had with Bolivia, but you should take into account that this is an era when not honoring an alliance was a major diplomatic insult on any nation. Remember that these nations represent the ideal that "it is best to die with honor than to live without it." Moreover, the early war saw highly honorful actions, such as those taken by Miguel Grau and the several times Chilean officers offered a peaceful surrender to battered Peruvian and Bolivian armies that could barely continue the fight. It was during the late war that both sides "went dirty," with Chileans destroying Peruvian cities and Peruvians resorting to violent guerrilla tactics.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)