Jump to content

Talk:Atacama Desert border dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

Like this? [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|250px]] Big Adamsky 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute?

[edit]

removed the "neutrality disputed" until someone gives a reason. Dentren | Talk 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the above map? Is it neutral? I think is a monument to the POV-pushing. You can see my arguments in the talk page of War of the Pacific. Also you can see the talk page of the Spanish version of the article: es:Discusión:Guerra_del_Pacífico#Imagen:Pacific_War_Map.jpg. Jespinos 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This map is erroneous: the border between Bolivia-Chile before the 1879 is the 24th parallel (south of Antofagasta and north of Taltal)... --Yakoo 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection or Violation ?

[edit]

It seems that the word violation is not being accepted by some wikipedians here, probably do to it's strong negative and agressive sound, I guess. Nevertheless, I think that violation in this treaty context is the more adequate word than rejection. The treaty between Bolivia and Chile included different aspects which on one side favoured Bolivia (borders) and on others Chile (taxation). My understanding is, that a treaty can only be rejected, if it is not signed yet (example: a treaty proposal can be rejected) or if its being completely overthrown afterwards in a kind of annulation (including all aspects of the treaty). None of this both options was the case in Bolivia. Bolivia did not reject the treaty itself, as it was aware of the positive border aspects, but only did not meet the taxation clause. So they did not fullfill the treaty, which means a clear violation in my understanding and probably many other people. Cheers --194.203.215.254 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine

[edit]

"At some time the dispute also involved Argentina that annexed Bolivian territory controlled by Chile. "

The map included the area, but the text? Matthew_hk tc 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty 1874

[edit]

Arafael states:

"On November 27 of 1873 the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company signed a contract with the Bolivian government in which it would have authorized to extract saltpeter duty-free for 15 years"

The problemes arised (mainly) not because a private "contract" between Bolivia and ANRC but a Border treaty of 1874 between Chile and Bolivia.

--Keysanger (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of land mines

[edit]

Recommend a section on the distribution of land mines near all borders. 22:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.150 (talk)

Simon Boliva over claimed

[edit]

Many historians have noted that Simon boliva Deliberately claimed additional land for this mountain country even though he knew bolivia will always be a land of mountain people, why is this not mention in the article, its historical facts!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.121.60 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atacama border dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atacama border dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atacama_Desert_border_dispute&oldid=1217790775"