Talk:Iquique Naval Combat

Lets discuss: The Information as it stands now is not bad, but it is also not complete.

• If its not complete, please put here what is missing

1st of the territory called Antofagasta region was at the start of the War neither Bolivian neither Chilean. The reason for that is the following:

Both, Chile & Bolivia claimed that the territory was their own. After the treaty of 1866 y the one of 1874, that replaced the one of 1866. The border between Chile & Bolivia was established to be the parallel 25th.

Parallel 24th for being more accurate. Also, Bolivia had jurisdiction over the territory.

Chile, who received half of the taxes obtained from the export of minerals & guano according to the treaty of 1866, dropped that right. On the counterpart Bolivia was forbidden to raise or implement tax on any Chilean company in the region for the time of 25 years.

When Bolivia imposed that tax in 1879 Chile considers that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874. By that & according to Chilean view the territory passed back to be part of Chile.

• The territory of Atacama was, before the "War of the Pacific", under Bolivian administration. There is no question about that. Please take a look at the maps of the Time and you would realize that important fact. Also, for being honest, it is the first time that I heard that Chilean view of the treaty.

• The Covadonga was a Gunboat not a Corvette. Also I added the date of construction to show that they weren’t the newest ships either

• Nobody have said that the Convadonga was a "New Ship". That is a poor claim. Also, it is considerated by some as a Corvette.

• Adding some more detailed information about the Battle it self beside of (then he rammed it & the Esmeralda sunk)

Basically I added more details to the events that happened. All info is backed up. If you whish I can post several Bibliography.

• PLease state your sources here, but let me warn you that info from right-wing pages like "Soberania Chile" are not good arguments. Wikipedia is for NPOV only, and not to glorify military actions of neither side.

Forestin

I have answer most of your opnions. Feel free to contact me before any change. Messhermit 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well. The Description of hte Battle of Iquique is very very poor as it is now. Also You will notice that the inputs that I have made are in no way right wing ones, but beutrals that only descirbe more the vents. Further I don´t have the need to get to sources like "Soberania Chilena" since I have, s statted on the other page "Pacific War" acces to a lot of contemporary information from that time, + several books from Chile, Peru & Bolivia.

• I realy appretiate that, since webpages like that are the ones that clearly shows perfect examples of distortioned history.

Regarding the maps: In fact, the territory was under Bolivan administration before the war. To be more exactly in the time between 1866 and 1879. Before the treaty of 1866 Chile & Bolivia considert it to be there territory.After the treaty of 1866 & then the one of 1874 the border was established at the 24th parallel (look above). Well, with the incidents Chile considert that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874 by which the territory passed back to be Chilean.

• About "passed back to Chile", it is quite confusing. I have never read a clause that stated any chilean sovereign over the territory, just marking its borders. I don/t believe that is strong enough to declare the teritory under chilean control.

For that I can show you just as many maps that show the territory, prior to 1866, to be Chilean as to be Bolivian.

As for the Covadonga: it is classefied by the Chilean Navy as a Gunboat. It was classefied by the Peruvian Navy as a Gunboat. So why should we classefie it as a Corvette? No, the Covadonga is a Guboat.

• I took my info from several english pages that stated that. I will made futher research for it.

Sources: -Testimonios de la Guerra del Pacifico -La Campaña de Tarapaca -El combate Naval de Iquique -Conemporary documents from the regetries of the Chilean Military

Those are just somethat come into my mind right now. I will add the rest & the authors of the books.

• Indeed, those are reasonable sources. I also have mines.

Again, I haven´t added nothing nationalistic. The information is copletly neutral & only reflects the events that took place.

Please indicate me what you think that is wrong or inapropiated in the information I have putted. I would realy apretiate it. forestin

• Much more discussion is needed before modifying the article. Wiki must be made base on concepts, rather than POV. Thanks. Messhermit 03:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)