Talk:Arica y Parinacota Region

Border Dispute
Please avoid erasing. Messhermit 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole recent border dispute between Peru and Chile is regarding the limits of this new Region. Before that, the only other mayor dispute between both countries involved their territorial waters. 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).
 * Under what type of arguments are you removing this information?


 * I have also removed sympathetic claims towards the Peruvian side for the sake of neutrality. Hopefully, this will end the dispute. Messhermit 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "creating this new Region was declared unconstitutional" This is absolutely wrong. The creation of the region was not declared unconstitutional,

but the act of having defined border limits, because this is only entitled to national entities. Nevertheless, these borders defined by the region do not differ from the chilean national position. It's a mere bureaucractic issue --94.79.133.102 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully aggree with User 94.79.133.102, the whole text included as Arica-Parinacota Border dispute does not have a relevant meaning to the region, because the context of it's meaning has been falsfied by the peruvian Media to use it as a supposed argument in the ongoing maritime dispute between Chile and Peru. The reason why there was an issue was not due to changed borders incorrectly mentioned, but due to an old law that does not allow regions to define international borders at all. The maritime border definition initially included into the Region demarcation did and does not differ AT ANY POINT from the international border definition Chile had and has. Chile always officially stated that it recognizes Hito 1 as the end demarcation of the territorial border, according to the Treaty of Lima 1929/30 with geographical cordinates (!) signed by both countries. Peru is not willing to accept this Hito 1 as demarcation and is breaching the valid treaty. So I rather advise to delete this misleading and POV text, or at least mark very CLEARLY that Peru has misused/changed it's context in favor of their interests. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean up of typos, grammar, and some suggested reference
Hi, Could the author/maintainer of this page clean up a little:
 * there are some typos (for example "aproved" vs. "approved")
 * some of the grammar could be improved for readability (for example: change "A possible border dispute was averted when the Chilean Constitutional Court ruled on January 26th, 2007 formally unconstitutional legislation, that Peru said could be seen as a move by Chile to encroach on its maritime territorial sovereignty." into "Peru has maintained that this could be seen as a move by Chile to encroach on its maritime territorial sovereignty. A possible border dispute was averted on January 26, 2007, when the Chilean Constitutional Court formally ruled this legislation unconstitutional."
 * add a reference to "The Chilean deputies and senators that aproved the law said they didn't notice this error" as this not something from the Xinhua reference.

I haven't make these changes myself since I'm just an "incidental" visitor to the page :). Thanks! Ramonk 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move the article to Arica y Parinacota Region

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) isnt the real name of this new region Arica y Parinacota? The naming of all regions in Chile should follow the same logic. If using Arica-Parinacota, Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region should be Magallanes and Antartica Chilena Region or Magallanes-Antártica Chilena Region. Dentren |  Ta lk  19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are only 2 other regions that could have English names. On is Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region which has been at Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region in the past.  The other is the Santiago Metropolitan Region which has always been at its English name. —   AjaxSmack   02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the Spanish language sources very often refer to it as "Arica-Parinacota", with or without hyphen, so I guess it's safer to leave it as it is: it's not incorrect, and it's arguably more in line with WP:UE. Duja ► 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The origin of the "Arica-Parinacota" name is the proposed name for the region while it was in discussion in the Senate. But the approved law says "Región de Arica y Parinacota" without the hyphen... and that's the official name. But the hyphenated version is still used widely. --B1mbo 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Move denied. No consensus and evidence that current name is also used in Spanish . Physchim62 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this was an attempt to close; moving the comment here from RM. Dekimasu よ! 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ARTICLE REFERS TO REGION OR TO BORDER DISPUTE?
This is an article about the Arica and Parinacota Region, but 90% of it refers to a Border dispute, what the parties think about it and including all links to this issue listed. Seems definitely exagerated to me. 1 Sentence to this issue should be enough and set a link to the Border issue link! --94.79.133.102 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This article is lame. Or to paraphrase Eric Clapton, "If it wasn't for the border dispute, there wouldn't be no article at all." Troglo (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arica y Parinacota Region. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114052159/http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/territorio/division_politico_administrativa/pdf/DPA_COMPLETA.pdf to http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/territorio/division_politico_administrativa/pdf/DPA_COMPLETA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arica y Parinacota Region. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419202659/http://www.munitel.cl/ to http://www.munitel.cl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828203858/http://www.municipiocamarones.cl/ to http://www.municipiocamarones.cl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225121606/http://www.municipalidadgenerallagos.cl/ to http://www.municipalidadgenerallagos.cl/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Copied content from Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute
-- Janitoalevic  (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)