116.240.179.172 (talk) →colonial maps before Wotp: new section |
m Signing comment by 116.240.179.172 - "→colonial maps before Wotp: " |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
== colonial maps before Wotp == |
== colonial maps before Wotp == |
||
In a Bolivian newspaper called "pagina siete" they published historical maps of colonial South America in where those maps seem to contradict Bolivian claims that the nation was born with the sea. In that map it does seem to show that Chile had a border with colonial Peru and Bolivia was landlocked. Even Bolivian president Evo morales criticized the publishing of the maps as being unpatriotic. Even more astonishing the VP of Bolivia made a press conference days later outing the editor of Pagina siete of having partial Chilean ancestry with a copy of the editors family tree. Anyway Is it possible to post those maps published by pagina siete on this article? |
In a Bolivian newspaper called "pagina siete" they published historical maps of colonial South America in where those maps seem to contradict Bolivian claims that the nation was born with the sea. In that map it does seem to show that Chile had a border with colonial Peru and Bolivia was landlocked. Even Bolivian president Evo morales criticized the publishing of the maps as being unpatriotic. Even more astonishing the VP of Bolivia made a press conference days later outing the editor of Pagina siete of having partial Chilean ancestry with a copy of the editors family tree. Anyway Is it possible to post those maps published by pagina siete on this article? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/116.240.179.172|116.240.179.172]] ([[User talk:116.240.179.172|talk]]) 08:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:The issue belongs more to "Atacama dispute" than to the war, but it is an interesting one. Can you post the link to the article?. --<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">[[User:Keysanger|Keysanger]] <small>([[User talk:Keysanger|talk]])</small></span> 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::It's difficult to find the article on the pagina siete. As soon as the maps were published the newspaper suddenly changed its views and become more Bolivian nationalist than a objective news source therefore that article link doesn't work anymore. But you if you search Google hard enough you might find the article or reporting of the article. BTW the map i attempted to delete is not a professional map but a very feeble amateur drawing and it clearly doesn't follow the protocols for maps. I won't bother to pursue the issue but take in mind what I said before about pagina siete. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/116.240.179.172|116.240.179.172]] ([[User talk:116.240.179.172|talk]]) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 12:32, 26 January 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Consequences : Bolivia
Please stop the write and rewrite of proposals and lets look for a NPOV.
I don't see many or insurmountable differences between both proposals:
item | Proposal 1 | Proposal 2 |
---|---|---|
1 | anti-Chilean sentiments runs deep in Bolivian society | (no replace) |
2 | Political propaganda have often attributed Bolivia's problems with its landlocked condition | Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition; |
3 | recovering the seacoast is often seen as the solution to repair historical injustices in addition to other difficulties | recovering the seacoast is often seen as the solution to these difficulties |
References |
item 1
I think that must be said anti-Chilean sentiments runs deep in Bolivian society. IMO, that doesn't need even a reference. --Keysanger (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Negative sentiments arising from the war and its consequences run deep in the three countries, so to save repetition, a reference to this fact should be placed in the section introduction, not in the country subsections, let alone in only one of them. Windroff (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the three countries likewise?, Have you a RS that corroborate it?.
- I didn't say likewise. Here's a source for Bolivia and Peru: Henderson, P., The Course of Andean History, University of New Mexico Press, p. 193-194. Discord between Bolivia and Peru, and the less antagonist Chile could be left for the Consequences article, for brevity's sake.
- In the three countries likewise?, Have you a RS that corroborate it?.
item 2
Let see number 2:
@58.178.202.160: Can we accept "are attributed" instead of "Political propaganda", do we need a subject? --Keysanger (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Windroff: Who is the subject in "are attributed". If not the "Political propaganda, who then? --Keysanger (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The lack of a sovereign coast and its neighboring territory is quite obviously an economical and geopolitical disadvantage for Bolivia. Demeaning the problems arising from such limitations (in place over a 130 years period) as the mere creation of "political propaganda" is blatant POV. If the lack of a subject is seen as a problem, then the paragraph could be replaced with something akin to "Some authors have attributed many of the country's problems to its landlocked condition;", which is both accurate and generic enough for an introduction; a more in-depth discussion could be added to the "Consequences" article. Windroff (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think it isn't obvious that the lack of a sovereign coast and its neighboring territory is quite obviously an economical and geopolitical disadvantage. Switzerland, Austria and Czechoslovakia seem to do it right well. --Keysanger (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- On to the discussed paragraph, here are a few books supporting my wording: Child, J., Regional Cooperation for Development and the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Latin America, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 109; Morales, W., A Brief History of Bolivia, Infobase Publishing, pp. xxix-xxxx; IBRD staff, Strengthening Bolivian Competitiveness: Export Diversification and Inclusive Growth, World Bank Publications, p. 106)
- I think it isn't obvious that the lack of a sovereign coast and its neighboring territory is quite obviously an economical and geopolitical disadvantage. Switzerland, Austria and Czechoslovakia seem to do it right well. --Keysanger (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- To address your claim: outside of the compact, wealthy and trade-intensive Europe, most nations lacking a seashore are not doing so well. In fact, more than a half of all landlocked developing countries are on the UN's "least developed countries list"
- There is plenty of bibliography demonstrating how being landlocked makes countries economically uncompetitive on a large scale (e.g.: Uprety, K., The Transit Regime for Landlocked States: International Law and Development, World Bank Publications, p. 3; Glassner, M., The United Nations at Work, Greenwood, pp. 136, 149, 151-152; IBRD staff, Reshaping Economic Geography', World Bank Publications, p. 101) Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I found following in a German study [1]:
- Bolivia's drive towards the sea is based in several motivations which drive the latently as well as vehemently issued demands:
- processing a collective trauma,
- projection space for the Bolivian nationalism,
- outlet for the individual, collective and national problems of the country,
- effective political tool in election campaings,
- not to accept Bolivia's territorial losses without resistance
- to overcome the socio-economical problems of the country --Keysanger (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Moreover, also the link to Bolpress states that "El gobierno del Presidente, Evo Morales, y la alcaldía paceña, preparan varios actos de recordación que tienen el objetivo de reavivar el patriotismo, forjar la unidad nacional y mostrar al mundo la existencia de un tema pendiente entre Bolivia y Chile que debe ser encarado y solucionado". What is "reavivar el patriotismo, forjar la unidad nacional" if not propaganda?. Also the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (WP: "It has a reputation as a quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record, the newspaper is known for its detailed reports on international affairs, stock exchange, and the intellectual, in-depth style of its articles") comment the use of the issue [2]: "Many critics presume that the government pursuit mainly also purposes in the day to day politics ..." ("Viele Kritiker vermuten, dass die Regierung mit ihren Bemühungen vor allem auch innenpolitische Ziele verfolgt, indem sie mit dem Thema nationalistische Gefühle schürt".). There is a long list of sources but you probably know them.
- Actually, I am not keen to write every of the items, it is not the duty of this article and here isn't enough place. But some words about or a hint to the "use" of the problem should be done. Can you write a better proposal? --Keysanger (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's no need to use the loaded term "propaganda" when "encouragement of nationalism and national union" accurately reflects the reference content. The newspaper article alludes to "critics" suggesting that the government is pursuing "nationalist sentiments with purposes of internal politics". This is what should be added.
- By the way, the article also underscores that economic motivations outweigh political ones, again recalling Sachs' paper and his estimation of 1.5% of GDP lost annually for lack of a sovereign shore.
- I agree to add a line with a sociological approach to the issue, as long as it stays neutral, i.e. that it's not worded in such a way as to conceal the underlying factual handicap of staying landlocked, referenced above.
- Just one more thing: since you asked us to "Please stop the write and rewrite of proposals and lets look for a NPOV", please do not edit the article yourself until a consensus is reached. You can add your proposals right here. Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see a difference between to revert and to propose a new wording. But I agree it is better to do it in the talk page.
- What do you think about my proposal:
- After the 1904 treaty, which put an end to a war between Bolivia and Chile, Bolivia became a landlocked nation with the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports. Since the 1920s, when she sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to revert the treaty and regain a sovereign port at the Pacific Ocean in order to resolve many of the country's problems that are attributed to its landlocked condition. This quest has been the dominant goal of its foreign policy but has been also selectively manipulated by their politicians to enhance their domestic political support. Chile offered 1975 a sovereign strip north of Arica but Peru, with power of veto over any further territorial changes, refused. --Keysanger (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I made some changes to better reflect the sources, and expanded upon the failed 1975 agreement, the economic significance of becoming landlocked, and the socio-political interpretations of Bolivia's demands, to put its motives into a wider perspective:
- After the 1904 treaty, which put an end to a war between Bolivia and Chile, Bolivia became a landlocked nation with the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports. Since the 1920s, when she sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to revert the treaty and regain a sovereign port at the Pacific Ocean in order to resolve many of the country's problems that are attributed to its landlocked condition. This quest has been the dominant goal of its foreign policy but has been also selectively manipulated by their politicians to enhance their domestic political support. Chile offered 1975 a sovereign strip north of Arica but Peru, with power of veto over any further territorial changes, refused. --Keysanger (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just one more thing: since you asked us to "Please stop the write and rewrite of proposals and lets look for a NPOV", please do not edit the article yourself until a consensus is reached. You can add your proposals right here. Windroff (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.[1]
- Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians.[2] Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition, whose negative economic impact has been estimated to be between 1.5% and 2% of its GDP, annually.[3][4]
- Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union. Critics denounce it as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.[5][4]
- In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica, but requested compensations that were deemed as unacceptable by Bolivia. Having been granted veto power over any further territorial changes, Peru objected and submitted instead a counterproposal for tripartite administration of the coastal town, that Chile refused to consider.[6] Windroff (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding such flights of fancy like "what could have occurred if they had borne the palm after the war they provoked" doesn't help us. It only adds more conflicts to the discussion. My proposal:
- The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.[1]
- Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians.[2] Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition.
- Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union, as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.[5][4]
- In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica. Bolivia and Peru (veto power over any further territorial changes) refused.[6]--Keysanger (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comments on your proposal:
- The 1904 treaty formally ended the war between Bolivia and Chile. Therein Bolivia recognized Chilean ownership of Atacama in exchange for the right to tax-free transport of goods, and duty-free access to northern Chilean ports.[1]
- Despite these and other trade concessions, the loss of the seashore remains a deeply emotional and practical issue for Bolivians.[2] Many of the country's problems are attributed to its landlocked condition.
- The primary purpose of this is not to avoid conflicts, but to produce a neutral text, covering the notable facts according to what reliable sources say about them.
- Far from being a "flight of fancy", a scientific estimation of the very tangible economic consequences of staying landlocked has a central place in a section dealing, precisely, about the consequences of the war.
- In fact, the two German-language references that you brought to this discussion do emphasize the actual economic burden caused by isolation, along with the sociological interpretations and the criticisms that we have agreed to include in the subsection.
- Comments on your proposal:
- Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union, as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.[5][4]
- The original provided a more neutral phrasing by avoiding the jumbling of political science scholars' arguments (subject to peer review) with critics' opinions (not necessarily under academic scrutiny, and thus more exposed to politically induced commentaries); "critics" is also the word used by the Swiss newspaper. What is your rationale for removing the word?
- Since the 1920s, when it sought to be included in the negotiations over Tacna and Arica, Bolivia has attempted to regain a sovereign port in the Pacific Ocean. Some authors view this quest, the dominant goal of its foreign policy, as a mechanism to process collective traumas and foster national union, as a manipulation of nationalist sentiments and as a domestic political campaign tool.[5][4]
- In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica. Bolivia and Peru (veto power over any further territorial changes) refused.[6]--Keysanger (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- This oversimplification of the actual events hides the reciprocative essence of Chile's proposal. Also, the rejected Peruvian counteroffer paragraph introduced the tripartite entanglement that has been an obstacle for Bolivia's ambitions; there's no need to omit it. Windroff (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you that we have to produce a neutral text. But, in this subsection we can only "touch" the most important ideas and wikilink to the main article Consequences of the War of the Pacific. There is a lot of themes that "could" be listed here, with a lot of views: use of the war consequences as day to day propaganda, use of the issue to link the Falklands and Beagle conflict with Bolivia, end of the caudillos after the war, treaties with Peru, Brasil and Argentina for export, the 1904 treaty, etc, etc. There's a need to omit less relevant themes. --Keysanger (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- This oversimplification of the actual events hides the reciprocative essence of Chile's proposal. Also, the rejected Peruvian counteroffer paragraph introduced the tripartite entanglement that has been an obstacle for Bolivia's ambitions; there's no need to omit it. Windroff (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- In 1975 Chile offered a sovereign strip north of Arica. Bolivia and Peru (veto power over any further territorial changes) refused.[6]--Keysanger (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c Farcau 2000, p. 196.
- ^ a b c Child 1987, p. 109.
- ^ Winter 2007, p. 14.
- ^ a b c d Brühwiller 2014.
- ^ a b c Winter 2007, pp. 13–14.
- ^ a b c Oelsner 2013, p. 94.
item 3
in addition to other difficulties IMO, that can be dropped. The other difficulties don't belong to the scope of the article. --Keysanger (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
RSN for "History of patriotism, bravery and heroism"
I brought the case to WP:RSN#War of the Pacific. You are encouraged to participate in the discussion. --Keysanger (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Infobox Military conflict
Hi folks,
The current infobox contains a lot of data without references or arbitrarily changed. I propose to make following changes:
New infobox
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
If any one complains, please do it now and deliver the proposed data and the references. --Keysanger (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do not need refs in the infobox if the same is reffed in the article, which specific bits are you on about changing? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Economic crisis/Causes of the War
Hi DS,
I give you the reason I moved/deleted some sentences. Can you tell me why did you revert the changes? --Keysanger (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Bolivia-Peru alliance
I noticed in the right hand pane of the article that there're three belligerents listed BUT in my opinion it should only list two belligerents; Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance. I only put this up because in the Bosnian war article there're also three belligerents listed but in that case all three groups were fighting against each other with each group having their own individual causes. Unless I'm missing something I propose the belligerent section should only list Chile and the Bolivia-Peru alliance with a format consistent with the WW2 article. Any thoughts?58.178.167.246 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
About the "former soldiers of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" issue
The cited paper in the sentence (reference 135) did not talk about Taiping soldiers coming to South America at all. Instead, I suspect that the editor of this issue was misled by a faked text made up by some Chinese in the 2000s or earlier (the text and its falsification: http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-458569-1-1.html , in Chinese).
I removed the related description here; if any of you have record of this issue in language other than Chinese, please leave me a message as I will be happy to know.
Yogomove (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I found the original addition of the issue described above by ip user 123.202.92.184, and double-confirmed that it is irrelevant to the noted reference. Yogomove (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
colonial maps before Wotp
In a Bolivian newspaper called "pagina siete" they published historical maps of colonial South America in where those maps seem to contradict Bolivian claims that the nation was born with the sea. In that map it does seem to show that Chile had a border with colonial Peru and Bolivia was landlocked. Even Bolivian president Evo morales criticized the publishing of the maps as being unpatriotic. Even more astonishing the VP of Bolivia made a press conference days later outing the editor of Pagina siete of having partial Chilean ancestry with a copy of the editors family tree. Anyway Is it possible to post those maps published by pagina siete on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The issue belongs more to "Atacama dispute" than to the war, but it is an interesting one. Can you post the link to the article?. --Keysanger (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's difficult to find the article on the pagina siete. As soon as the maps were published the newspaper suddenly changed its views and become more Bolivian nationalist than a objective news source therefore that article link doesn't work anymore. But you if you search Google hard enough you might find the article or reporting of the article. BTW the map i attempted to delete is not a professional map but a very feeble amateur drawing and it clearly doesn't follow the protocols for maps. I won't bother to pursue the issue but take in mind what I said before about pagina siete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.179.172 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)