Talk:History of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute/Archive 2

Flame War, Part One

The reader should be aware that much of this flame war, like the dispute between Ecuador and Peru, has been resolved. No conclusions about the state of the article should be drawn from the contents below.

Opinion

The fact that another ecuadorian wikipedist is capable of discussing without a nationalistic POV is something that greatly improves this article. However, I must say something in this talk page before doing the modifications:

  • The Greater Colombia, as a republic, ceased to exist once the federation was dissolved. The country was no longer using the name Colombia, but New Granada. It was only natural that the Peruvian Republic of that time no longer recognised any treaty with the dissolved federation and attempted to solve each problem with each republic.
This appears to be a misconception. I'm basing that on copies I've actually looked at of various treaties before 1830, and the name 'Gran Colombia' never appears there. Also, if you look at the Gran Colombia article it clearly states that there never actually was a country named 'Gran Colombia' -- that's a term conceived in modern times. At one point I think Colombia was either considering using or briefly changed its name to Nueva Granada, but it was Colombia before that and Colombia after that. 200.63.231.224 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article does note the Peruvian position that the Gran Colombia ceased to exist, voiding all treaties with it. 200.63.231.224 05:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm.. you didn't get my point. Historicaly, the Republic of New Granada was created once Colombia (as you correctly stated, not great) seased to exist. The department of Cundinamarca was rename it in that way, and a new set of institutions were created to run the country. It lasted until 1856 ( I believe ), where the country was reorganized into a loose Confederation that resurrected the name of Colombia. Messhermit 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, at this point I think the article exhausts all arguments by each side on this issue. It's point-complete so to speak. 200.63.231.224 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that another ecuadorian wikipedist is capable of discussing without a nationalistic POV is something that greatly improves this article The most pathetic case of "the pot calling the kettle back" that I have seen in quite some time. Go an see how you reacted to my very first edit in Wikipedia regarding the losses of the Cenepa War. Andres C. 00:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I believe that you have the wrong talk page, because if you want to point something to me, that's why I have my talk page. I see no point in adding those words during the discussion of one point that can improve this article. If you have something more important to say, feel free to write about the topic. thanks. Messhermit 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andres is right in that your editing has shown consistent one-sidedness. That would be mostly fine if it was limited to adding and contributing Peruvian POVs in the interest of balance. But it has also included deleting Ecuadorian POVs that have been notable and citable simply because they disagreed with your position. Plus Andres has pointed out that some of the information you have added is not citable, and you have not replied. 200.63.231.224 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Messerchmitt: Talking to you "about the topic" is useless for all intents and purposes. Anyone can look at the talk page of Cenepa war or Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and see just how my very first contributions to Wikipedia were written off by YOU, accusing me of "pushing Ecuadorian POV". Where are your sources for the Ecuadorian losses during the Cenepa War? Nowhere. Where are the results of your so-called research about the Ecuadorian invasion of Zarumilla in 1941? Nowhere.
You imposed the tone of the discussion, you deleted external links, you accussed, you lied. Everything is there for everyone to see. It seems you are in a tight spot my friend.
Now, "about the topic", look at the end of the page, and try to answer the question: Give the date of the Cedula Real that decreed that the administration of the Province of Azuay was to be tranfered from Quito to Lima. I gave you dates, look at the end of this page. Stop blurting out nonsense, stop accussing people of being "ultranationalist" (instead, look at your schooltext versions of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, thankfully deleted now), and bring forward some quality information about this issue. At the beginning, I tried to approach you directly to solve the disputes in a peaceful manner. You didn't even care to answer, and when you did, it was only to accusse me of vandalism. You are the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, Messerschmitt.
Andres C. 02:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have a talk page if you have not yet realice. What you did in my personal page is not an approach, but rather an example of vandalism.
Also, an aproach does not mean that you can tear appart an article for the sake of doing it. There is a talk page.
If you wanna take all this as a personal dispute by me against you, that's fine with me. It clearly shows that unfortunately, wisdom not always come with age, and that you are a perfect example of that.
Nowhere is the word that you to talk about the information described in my so-called texts-books articles. I wonder, are Ecuadorian text-books on History of Borders far better than peruvian ones? We, in contrary to more fascist (and fortunately not all) ecuadorians did not create such attention to explaining to our children how the division of our country has affected our development (even thou we have lost 60% of our territory since independence).
Your lack of respect towards my person only reflect that you are another POV pusher. If you wanna speak more trash about me, I would be more than glad to recieve it in my talk page rather than wasting the space in this article talk page. If you don't have anything interesting (and Important) to add to this topic, please restrain yourself from using this space. Messhermit 03:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Messerschmitt, seriously: I suggest you better stick to Spanish. I can hardly understand what you write!

Also, an aproach does not mean that you can tear appart an article for the sake of doing it.

What article did I tear apart!?!? Mention it. Prove it. I corrected your figures for the losses during the Cenepa War, and when you reverted the changes, I asked you to produce sources. Finally, a mediator had to come in to tell you to stop reverting the figures. You know perfectly well that you were acting like the OWNER of the Cenepa war article and Ecuadorian-Peruvian War article. That is clear for everyone to see in the talk pages of these two articles. Heck, for a kid that deletes external links, so sure are the living example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The article that has been teared apart has been this one...gladly. Your previous version was, as you like to say "POV pushing". It very well deserved to go right to the garbage, which is where it went. The present version is way better.

Nowhere is the word that you to talk about the information described in my so-called texts-books articles.

I don't really understand your English here.

It clearly shows that unfortunately, wisdom not always come with age, and that you are a perfect example of that.

Indeed. How did you guess it?

We, in contrary to more fascist (and fortunately not all) ecuadorians did not create such attention to explaining to our children how the division of our country has affected our development (even thou we have lost 60% of our territory since independence).

Messhermit, at least check what you write...You are contradicting yourself in that paragraph.
By the way, I see you have gone from calling me an Ecuadorian ultranationalist (you can keep saying that, as it makes me laugh), to call me a fascist. Well "MESSERSCHMITT", that one is a serious accusation you are making against me.

Your lack of respect towards my person only reflect that you are another POV pusher.

Yes, that is what you, veteran wikipedian, called me the very first time I edited your figures on the Ecuadorian losses for the Cenepa War, which you then went on the revert, leaving a message that read "Ecuadorian POV pusher" or some nonsense like that. Explain: how exactly is that correcting your figures means that I am "pushing a POV"? Explain.

If you wanna speak more trash about me, I would be more than glad to recieve it in my talk page rather than wasting the space in this article talk page

I've seen your talk page. Indeed, that is where I went to apologize (as gentleman do, but you don't know anything about apologizing, do you?) for the mistake of talking to you in your personal page, which caused you to histerically accuse me of vandalizing your page.

And you know what? It was actually useful to go to your talk page. What is written there allowed me to understand that you are quite the troublemaker.

Something interesting is what I am waiting for you to produce, Messhermit. For the THIRD time: when was the Province of Azuay attached to the Viceroyalty of Perú?

If you wanna take all this as a personal dispute by me against you, that's fine with me.

Just go to those history sections in the pages Cenepa war and Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, and see who made this a personal dispute, as you call it. Go and read. Your total lack of respect and your constant name-calling is what put you in this situation.
You deleted an external link to a Wikipedia article, and everyone saw you doing that. And still, you have the guts to call someone a FASCIST. You have lost all self-respect and what little credibility you still may have had.

Andres C. 05:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not gonna explain myself to someone who will only listen to himself. Stick to the topic, and once again, I have a talk page if you still have not notice. If the only thing that you are looking here is create trouble and controversy, be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Messhermit 00:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jose de La Mar, President of Peru at 1828, was born in the city of Cuenca while that city was still under Peruvian Jurisdiction (Viceroyalty of Peru). Also, the war of 1828 between Peru and the Gran was in response of the peruvian invasion of Bolivia and the expulsion of Colombian troops (and Gral. Sucre) from that territory. Messhermit 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; he was still born in Cuenca (that's a contribution by Andres C. I believe BTW.) The second part I didn't know. Go ahead and add it if you have a reference (as I'm guessing it's not a commonly known event.) 200.63.231.224 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know that he was born in Cuenca, but the previous statement was writed as a way to explain why this historical leader was able to be elected President of Peru. A common example of this type of dual citizenship was Andres de Santa Cruz, who was born in La Paz while it was under peruvian jurisdiction and was enable (by law) to be President of Peru in two ocations. Messhermit 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first President of Ecuador was Venezuelan-born General Antonio José de Sucre. According to your way of explaining things, Ecuador would be saying this was only possible because at the time Flores was born, the Capitanía General de Venezuela belonged to the Presidencia de Quito. Not a very solid argument, don't you think?
  • Could you please cite any historical document (a Cédula Real or something along these lines) to prove that the Real Audiencia de Quito had been dissolved by 1776, with the Province of Azuay going to the Virreinato de Lima?
  • Please see the list of Presidents of the Real Audiencia that I included here just in order to advance my argument that the Presidencia had not been dissolved. I am still waiting for your reply. At least do it out of courtesy. That is, if you know what courtesy is, as it seems that even my apologies for writing by mistake on your personal page were not accepted.

--Andres C. 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna claim that Gral. Sucre was Ecuadorian by birth (in the same way that you pretend that the battle of tarqui was an ecuadorian victory), then you have a serios problem. fortunatelly, your argument does not have a solid base and the only thing that you are looking is to create more controversy. Does the fact that Simon Bolivar was appointed (and not elected) president of Bolivia automatically makes him bolivian? I don't believe that those sort of cases are real (the only case that I personally -but not confirmed - hear was the one about "Che" Guevara). Messhermit 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
President La Mar was born in Cuenca under Peruvian Administration. He was elected to the Constitutional Congress of 1921(!!) and was one of the 3-members Junta that controled the country before the arrival of Bolivar, and after the wars of independence were finished, he was elected (and not appointed) president of Peru. I will make the proper research to prove this, since it is a well know fact that he recognised his dual citizenship and, during the war of 1928, attempted to re-annex the city of Cuenca to legitimize it's position (as any other Latin American State, the fact that he was born in a former part of their country greatly increase it's chances of having a democratic and stable government). Messhermit 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list is interesting, and I would make the proper investigations to see the accuracy of those names. Also, between 1810 and 1820, Latin America ( from New Spain to Chile) was in open revolt against the Spanish Empire. It would be interesting to see if those names did actually exercise it's power, and to see if those laws enacted by the spanish crown were actually enforced. Mmmm... I wonder, how can you control a state in rebelion? Messhermit 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy is a word that you certainly also lack. what you did with your appologies, you erase it with all your accusations and confrontations (I found that childish). What reply do you spect with the kind of treatment and confrontation that you are creating here? you should be thank that I'm not going as low as you are doing right now. Messhermit
Once again, I remaind you that I have a talk page. So, please stop acting like a kid (wich, I believe you are certainly not) and STICK to the topic and remember to pass by to my talk page. Messhermit

Here we go again... :If you wanna claim that Gral. Sucre was Ecuadorian by birth (in the same way that you pretend that the battle of tarqui was an ecuadorian victory), then you have a serios problem.

Evidently, I made and inadvertent goof-up when I wrote down Antonio José de Sucre. Right below Sucre it the name Flores (Juan José Flores), which was the first President of Ecuador (the nation you hate so much). No Messhermit, I am not claiming Flores was Ecuadorian by birth. That was intended as an irony in order to show how ludicrous was your claim about Cuencan-born La Mar (which, by the way, you are claiming to be Peruvian by birth).
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH WELL ENOUGH, FEEL FREE TO WRITE IN SPANISH.

(in the same way that you pretend that the battle of tarqui was an ecuadorian victory)

And who told you I am claiming Tarqui as an "Ecuadorian" victory?

:The list is interesting, and I would make the proper investigations to see the accuracy of those names.

By all means, do your "proper investigations" of the "interesting list". Heck, you should know some of these men were appointed directly from Lima. Ignorant.

:Courtesy is a word that you certainly also lack. what you did with your appologies, you erase it with all your accusations and confrontations (I found that childish). What reply do you spect with the kind of treatment and confrontation that you are creating here? you should be thank that I'm not going as low as you are doing right now.

I see, Messhermit. Who was the first to use the term "ultranationalist Ecuadorian" when I corrected your figures for the Ecuadorian losses in 1995? You accuse me of going low. How lower can you go after deleting an external link and accusing me of being a fascist?

I saw you reverted every single edit I made to the article, Messhermit, including improvements I made in English syntax (something, you, self-proclaimed Advanced English user, couldn't even respect). Go then, revert every single grammar of syntax edits I make.

Oh yes Messhermit, this is personal. You made it personal when you accused me of being "an ultranationalist Ecuadorian" in my very first contribution.

NOW, SINCE YOU DO NOT SEEM TO ANSWER TO ANY OF MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TOPICS, I REPEAT THEM.

  • CITE YOUR SOURCES FOR THE ECUADORIAN INVASION OF ZARUMILLA IN 1941
  • CITE YOUR SOURCES FOR THE ECUADORIAN LOSSES DURING THE CENEPA WAR
  • CITE THE EXACT DATE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE REAL AUDIENCIA DE QUITO

:Once again, I remaind you that I have a talk page. So, please stop acting like a kid

I am giving you a little dose of your own medicine. So far, you are finding it not to your liking. Still, you just reverted EVERY SINGLE EDIT I made to the article.

I hope they report you for your indiscriminate use of the REVERT tool.

One more question.

What have you really done for your country? Did you ever serve in the Peruvian Army? Do you have the least respect for the flag of your nation? Have you ever served your nation, wearing the uniform of your country's army?

I have a LOT of respect for many Peruvian Army and Air Force officers. Good people that have nothing in common with you. I'll rephrase: I hope you are not just a coward calling names behing the internet. --Andres C. 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to keep talking like that. For a person of your age, it's a shame.
  • People that read this talk page would be able to reach it's own conclusions. By the way, I'm not the person here that is the problem: you have become the problem by making this discussion personal.
  • Also, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm really wise in a broad number of topics (mainly in World Politics and World History), and the word ignorant does not suit me as you may believe. but who knows? it may be applied to you. If Investigate or doing some research is wrong (as you are claiming), then you really have a problem that is beyond discussion.
  • Well, it seems that my accusation was true: you are behaving like a ultra-nacionalist Ecuadorian, who aparently was raised to hate Peru, who aparently was raised with the false idea that Ecuador reached the Amazonas, and who aparently celebrate the Cenepa War as one of the most glorious military actions of the republic since the Battle of Tarqui. I don't hate Ecuador, but rather people like you, who only see the Ecuadorian side of the war and will not tolerate any other versions. Funny, but the peruvian tex-books that you attack soo much are much more neutral than the History of the Borders.
  • My english is Ok. the fact that you use that as one of your many dirty tricks to minimize my opinions, proves my point that you are not an educated person as you claim to be. Go ahead, make fun of my english. I really enjoy your pitifull attemps to discredite me in this way.
  • Also, since you only attack my person, that proves that you have nothing important to say or contribute to this article.

If you wanna continue with this, I will always have an answer :D, so you are going nowhere. Be aware of that. Messhermit 23:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit wrote: I'm really wise in a broad number of topics (mainly in World Politics and World History)

Of course you are, my friend.

Messhermit wrote: My english is Ok

Sure it is. And it shows. By all means, it is Advanced English 3.

Messhermit wrote: I don't hate Ecuador, but rather people like you

And you were hating me even as early as my first edit in Wikipedia.

Messhermit wrote: Also, since you only attack my person, that proves that you have nothing important to say or contribute to this article.

Funny thing to hear from someone who avoids supporting his arguments with references.
Messhermit, or whatever it is that you call yourself, I will ask you again some questions that a ultranationalist from anywhere around the world usually refuses to answer:
  • WHAT HAVE YOU REALLY DONE FOR YOUR COUNTRY? HOW HAVE YOU SERVED PERU?
  • HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO WEAR THE UNIFORM OF YOUR NATION'S ARMY?

Also,

  • HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO ECUADOR? I have been to Lima. Great seafood! Your ceviches are "almost" as good as ours. Didn't like the "aji de papa" though, but yout Pisco is not bad. I have the privilege of having many Peruvian friends. Wonderful people. Very different from you.
Good luck with your research on the Presidents of the Real Audiencia, and also good luck with your fixing of grammar, spelling, and syntax issues in this and any other articles.
Andres C. 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, I don't have to wear a uniform to feel proud of my country :D. If you have the idea that love your country is serving in the army, that's too bad. That sort of claims can be classify as militarism.
  • And yes, I'm serving my country: Studing and preparing myself to be someone usefull for the republic, with legislations rather than uniforms and weapons.
  • One of my friends here in Miami is Ecuadorian-born, and fortunately, and is quite diferent from you. First them all, he doesn't have that fanatical idea that you have about the war (so called invasion) and does not feel that the military of Ecuador is something to be proud. Very nice people, and they don't concern so fanatically about this issue.
  • Again, I see that your only attack is against my englis. It's a shame to realice how many narrow minded people can be found around the world.
  • Once again, I wonder... Don't you anything else to do besides insulting me and trying to make fun of me? It's pretty sad to see that you only write things about me and not too much about the topic in question.
  • I remind you, once again: every time that you write something against me, you will always recieve an answer.

Messhermit 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that your only attack is against my englis
Making fun of you englis (it's English, you moron) is too easy. Look at how many stupid mistakes you made just in your last post. In fact, I'll put in RED every single mistake you make from here on, just so you can see how really bad your English is.
No, I am making fun of self-righteous statements like: I'm really wise in a broad number of topics (mainly in World Politics and World History)
Also, I am making fun of your ultranationalistic stance in Wikipedia, your tendency to lie, your utter ignorance in the matter (so, did you find anything about the Presidents of the Real Audiencia?), you lack of proof to the statements you write, your deletion of every entry that goes against your nationalistic beliefs. You are just such an easy target it's almost boring.
I also make fun of your complete ignorance of the history of your own country, and of the fact that you have never served your nation (which doesn't prevent you from being an ultranationalist of sorts, and a bad one at that).
Once again: What have you really done for your country? NO, studying to help with legislations (again, that does not make any sense in English) does not count.
How have you really served the nation you seem to love so much, you ultranationalistic clown?

--Andres C. 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was because of Gral Gamarra and Gral Santa Cruz ambitions to create the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy that Bolivar declared war to Peru. Messhermit 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Battle of Portete de Tarqui (full and proper name) must be considerated as a Gran Colombian victory, rather than an ecuadorian one. A reasonable way, since, as an example, the USSR and the Red Army won the battle of Kursk, even thou the USSR no longer exist.
I believe it's clear in the article that it is a Gran Colombian victory. 200.63.231.224 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for more info to write here. so far, I will only rearrange paragraphs and look for possible POV. Cheers ! and thanks for the important info. 00:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

NP. It's theoretically impossible to come up with an article on a controversial subject that's NPOV and pleases everyone, but I've done the best I could. 200.63.231.224
  • Messhermit: I knew Jaén y Mainas passed to the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of Perú according to a Cedula Real dated July 15, 1802. I also know that the military jurisdiction of the Provincia de Guayaquil passed to the Viceroyalty of Perú as ordered by a Real Orden dated July 7, 1803, until returned to the Presidencia de Quito in 1819, Cédula Real of 23 June, 1819.
Could you cite the date in which -according to you- the Department of Azuay also passed to the Viceroyalty of Perú? From what I know, it always remained under the jurisdiction of the Presidencia de Quito. It was the capital of the Presidencia from 1810 to 1816.
Thanks a lot Andres C. 23:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The City of Cuenca, Capital of the Department of Azuay, was founded by Royal order of the Viceroy of Peru, Andrés Hurtado de Mendoza [1]. Also, by 1776 it was nominaly part of the Viceroyaty of Peru, since the Real Audiencia de Quito ceased to exist and was divided between Peru and New Granada.
  • Guayaquil is a special case: De Jure under Peruvian Administration, it was De Facto Attached to the Colombian Federation by Simon Bolivar Itself [2]. Jose de San Martin didn't approve this but didn't propose any solution to the problem.
  • Also, by the time that the Cedula Real of 1819 was issue, the whole Latin America was in revolution.

Messhermit 04:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please check your sources.
  1. The Real Audiencia de Quito ceased to exist in 1717, when the Cédula Real that decreed the creation of the Virreinato de Nueva Granada also eliminated the Real Audiencia, giving its territories to the new viceroyalty in Santa Fé.
  2. The Cédula Real of February 18, 1720, reestablished the Real Audiencia de Quito, but subordinating it to the Viceroyalty of Perú. In 1723 the Virreinato de Nueva Granada was suppressed.
  3. In 1739, the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada was reestablished. Once again, it was decided that the Real Audiencia de Quito would be supervised form Santa Fé de Bogotá. (The year 1776 that you mention was the year that the Virreinato del Río de la Plata was created.)
  4. About Guayaquil. You are certainly wrong; it was not under de jure administration from Lima. That was the case from 1803 to 1819. Check the date of the Cedula Real of 1819. I see you call that Cedula Real into question, and I see where you are going with that. Thanks but no thanks, Guayaquil is just fine where it is. Who knows? Soon, we might be able to proclaim the autonomy from the central government in Quito. If you feel in the mood of name-calling, you could very well call me a pro-autonomy Guayaquilenian, instead of a ultranationalist Ecuadorian. I won't be offended.
  5. Could you please provide sources regarding the legal dissolution of the Real Audiencia de Quito by 1776?
The last Presidents of the Real Audiencia de Quito:
  • Luis Francisco Héctor, Barón de Carondelet (1799-1807)
  • Manuel de Urriez, Conde Ruiz de Castilla (1808-1810)
  • Joaquín Molina (1810-1812)
  • Mariscal de Campo Toribio Montes (1812-1817)
  • Teniente General Juan Ramírez (1817-1819)
  • General Melchor Aymerich (1819-1821)
  • General Juan de la Cruz Mourgeón (1821-1822)
  • General Melchor Aymerich (1822)

Now, according to you, the Real Audiencia had ceased to exist as early as 1776. How do you explain then that these gentlement were appointed by Spain as Presidents of the Real Audiencia? I'd surely want to know how this could be possible. In any case, I'd hope you could bring forward the exact date when the Real Audiencia was dissolved and broken up between Santa Fé and Lima, as you claim it was. Also, you should be aware that Cuenca was the seat of the Real Audiencia between 1810-1816.

Andres C. 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Pizarro

I think this needs to be verified: "This is disputed by Peruvian sources, who claimed that Gonzalo Pizarro started his journey in Cuzco, and that he recluted Orellana (in Quito) on his way to the Jungle [8]." I read just today that the Peruvian historian's claim is that Gonzalo Pizarro was sent by Franciso Pizarro, I'm guessing from Cuzco, and that's the nature of the dispute. That is, the counter-argument doesn't seem right, and I didn't understand it even by reading the reference. It needs to be better explained. 200.63.231.224 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current state

I think I'll start to spend less time on this article. (I'm losing focus on personal things.) So you guys go ahead and add content in the missing sections. I'll check back from time to time. I'm mostly happy with the current content. A section on the Inca Empire would probably be of interest too. Some suggestions on editing:

  • Avoid confrontational language. If such statments are needed, use "Peru claims" or "Ecuador claims" before them.
  • Before deleting information, discuss in the talk page. It's ok to delete information that's not citable or not notable. It's ok to replace sentences that are confrontational with more sensible versions.
  • Put yourself in the shoes of someone who's not Ecuadorian or Peruvian.
  • If a statement critical of one of the countries is notable and needs to be included, balance with a counter-argument if possible.
  • Avoid language offensive to citizens of either country whenever possible.
  • Stick to the facts, and note that skipping facts or claims if you know them is intellectually dishonest.

200.63.231.224 16:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. I'm currently working in that too, looking at the article and fixing some of the mistakes. Thanks for the improvement!. Messhermit 00:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit's deletions

I noticed Messhermit is deleting even good style changes, and new clarifying information that has been added -- stuff that's not even controversial. This simply looks like an attempt to discourage any edits not done by Messhermit, which obviously would not be in the interest of Wikipedia. I think if this continues, Messhermit will have to be reported to Wikipedia. 200.63.231.224 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my position that deleting most of the notest that were stated in small letters was also an attemp to hamper the NPOV work in this page. Also, I already stated that I will correct the mistake and rework on those paragraphs that were good enough for the article and affected by my rv. Cheers. Messhermit 04:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the Peruvian counter-arguments to the nullity thesis are notable and it would be wrong to exclude them. But the looks of it are not good frankly, plus it sounds as if the article were arguing the Peruvian position. Whenever the article sounds like its arguing either country's position, that's a good indication something's wrong. The article ideally should be matter-of-fact, preferably with no arguing. If arguing is included, it should argue the neutral position. So I plan to move the "notes" to a separate paragraph. 200.63.231.224 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. If there is going to be a section about the nullity thesis, it would be interesting for the purposes of NPOV to attach the Peruvian responses to each item. I deleted Messhermit contribution for the poor quality of his English text. Be advised that he has been misinformed about the fact that by January 29, 1942, there were no Peruvians in El Oro. It would be useful to add to his counterargument, a counter-counterargument.
Rio Protocol, ARTICLE II

The Government of Peru shall, within a period of 15 days from this date, withdraw its military forces to the line described in article VIII of this protocol.

Again, I probably won't be able to do it myself since this individual would revert the entire article, probably damaging also your last edits: Andres C. 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you let yourself be discouraged from editing, then he has beaten you. I'd save small changes at a time. Also, I wasn't aware of the info you mention. Sounds notable to me, so if it's citable, it would be important to include it. 200.63.229.190 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Individual has a name here in Wikipedia: Messhermit :D.
Peruvian troops departed from the province of El Oro before the Ecuadorian congress accepted the Protocol as a fact, and even before the President of Ecuador signed the decree approving it too. This is well documented in the archives of the Peruvian Congress:

Por su parte, el Congreso ecuatoriano aprobó el Protocolo el mismo día 26 de febrero, y fue ratificado por el Presidente constitucional del vecino país, Carlos Arroyo del Río, dos días después. Es importante señalar que, para ese momento, las tropas peruanas ya habían desocupado el territorio ecuatoriano, movimiento que habían completado para el día 14 de febrero. [3]

Always glad to help :D. Messhermit 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the timing of the withdrawal of Peruvian forces from El Oro, this is what the above-mentioned individual had written before, and I quote:
The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol.
That line has been copied and pasted directly from Talk:Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, subsection: Reply. Entry from 12:15, 19 October (UTC)
He appears to have changed his mind, as he now claims the withdrawal took place after the signing (Jan 29, 1942), but before the Congressional approval ((Feb 26, 1942).
Just a note from an "ultranationalist Ecuadorian", for what is worth...Andres C. 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine. The article does note both facts correctly already. But has Ecuador claimed that Peruvian troops remained after congress ratified the protocol? 200.63.231.224 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Individual (AKA Messhermit) has demostrated that the Peruvian Army departed 'El Oro before the Ecuadorian Congress approved the Protocol. In this way, the individual has also invalidated the argument that:
It was signed while Ecuadorian towns were under occupation
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but check signature and ratification dates in the protocol text to dispell any doubts. 200.63.231.224 15:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final agreement over the Rio de Janeiro Protocol was made on March 31, 1942.
El 31 de marzo de 1942, los embajadores del Perú y Ecuador, Jorge Prado y Enrique Arroyo Delgado, se reunieron en la ciudad de Petrópolis de Brasil, para canjear las ratificaciones del Protocolo.[4]
  • By this, the individual has made clear his point. The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the Protocol became effective. A protocol is only effective if both parties involved agree. On March 31, Peru and Ecuador recognised the Protocol. Messhermit 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is what he wrote:
The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol.
Now, confronted with the evidence of his very own words, he is making a rather poor & pathetic attempt to save face. No further comments are needed here.
--Andres C. 00:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! It seems that the other Wikipedist is attempting to create another problem and add more controversy by denying such important fact. Also, it seems to me that it also constitute a poor attemp to defend its position, clearly damaged by the statements and research of the individual. Messhermit 02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm unclear on what you're saying. The article states both arguments:
  • The protocol was signed before Peruvian troops had withdrawn.
  • The protocol was ratified after Peruvian troops had withdrawn.
Both arguments are true and I'd say not even controversial (unless there's additional info that shows there's controversy.) Once again, the protocol text is very clear on signature and ratification dates. 200.63.231.224 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I believe is the fact that the protocol became effective after the peruvian troops leave the province. A protocol is not valid as an international agreement if one of the parties involved refuse to sign it.
  • The Ecuadorian Congrees had the chance to repudiate the protocol once the Peruvian Army was forced (by the protocol) to leave the country, but they didn't do it: they ratify it.
  • By this, The Ecuadorian government at any moment was forced to sign the treaty under occupation.
  • As a matter of fact, I will reword the sentence that is in the article in order to clarify that. Cheers! Messhermit 20:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view, clearly. Do check the protocol text [5], particularly the parts that say "Signed..." and "Approved by...". In editing, note that one paragraph contains Ecuador's arguments, and another paragraph contains Peru's counter-arguments. Do not include counter-arguments in arguments or counter-counter-arguments in counter-arguments. I'd say in those two paragraphs it's permissible to include any arguments and counter-arguments so long as it's true that they are that. Neurodivergent 21:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oka, I will try to keep that in mind if I edit those lines. Messhermit 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, friend. The case is closed. Now move on to another topic please, and stop making a fool out of yourself. --Andres C. 02:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are not able to see that you are the one that has prolonged this. So, I would say that fool is not an accurate description of me, but rather yours. Cheers ! Messhermit 03:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, friend. Now please calm down, ok? --Andres C. 13:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you calm down, I will. Messhermit 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching consensus

I'm sorry to involve my self in this discussion concerning this article and its main (and recent) contributors, but.. it seems both Messhermit (talk · contribs) and Andres_C. (talk · contribs) need to reach a consensus in this tit-for-tat discussion before the article itself turns into a deeply controversial one and readers won't even bother to read it once they see the talk page. Articles are supposed to be improved upon, and other wikipedia contributors are supposed to come and help out without bashing other users for their grammatical skills, which has become very evident in this talk page. While it is evident Messhermit has to improve his English, it seems rude to point out every one of his typos in red so as to purposely highlight his grammatical errors. We're not here to make fun of other people's English or any other language for that matter, but rather to correct it in a friendly way. Also, since when does one individual have to join, or have been part of, a national army to be able to discuss topics related to wars? I found that completely irrelevant and out of touch with Wikipedia's main philosophy of having contributors irrespective of their national backgrounds and previous occupations. Finally, this article must have authoritative references to make it look more professional...and Messhermit shouldn't oppose that. If any individual has the sufficient knowledge to discuss and/or write about *any* topic, there shouldn't a reason to prevent that individual from doing so. If further discussions persist, we will have to add this article to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment and allow other users to come in and voice their opinions. Let's avoid that and have everyone state their opinions and make this a POV-free article. I would also encourage the contributors of this article to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before making any other further changes. --Dynamax 01:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dynamax. Well, you involved yourself in a discussion that came to an end three days ago. In any case, you are totally right. Not that it really matters now, but if you are interested in how things could come this far, take a look at the history and talk pages on the articles Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and Cenepa war, and also at the talk page of Messhermit to see how it all started. In the end, no one wins, everybody loses. Still, I'd like to point out a couple of things:

  • Nobody is trying to turn Wikipedia into a boot camp. My questions regarding what Messhermit had done for his country were not aimed at disqualifying him as a Wikipedia editor. Who am I to do that? To understand the question I posed, you'll have to put it in the broader context of an unpleasant discussion regarding a rather startling & unjustified revert episode that happened in the Cenepa war article.
  • A big detail: your warning about sending this over to the Wikipedia:Request for comments is a bit inexplicable, if I may say so. The main contributor of this article is Neurodivergent, who never got involved in the dispute. Please take a look at the history page.
  • I would like to say Neurodivergent is going to great pains in order to make this a POV-free article. His efforts should be appreciated and not put under close scrutiny. He knows this article is almost off-limits to me, even to make minor edits, because a sudden revert from a third party may unintendedly ruin some of his previous work.
  • All in all, as far as I am concerned, there are no issues pending with Messhermit. If you as a mediator consider that deleting the flame paragraphs from this talk page, or placing them somewhere else, is going to help the article (and reduce the size of this page!), I'll second your initiative. In the end, it was all just a waste of valuable space.
  • With very best regards, --Andres C. 04:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for archiving the flame war as well. It reflects badly on the article, which if I may say so myself, is as NPOV and complete as it could be under the circumstances. Dynamax: If there's something about the article itself which you find POV or questionable, let us know and we'll discuss how to address. Neurodivergent 14:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing disputes

I have checked up to this article, and it seems its required to extinguish some fire over here. All the accusations made to user:Messhermit and other wikipedians involved on this article needs to be cleaned. First is not polite and useless to use Caps Lock messages over here so please dont use this. As we are on english wikipedia to attempt to use Spanish on messages on talk page is useless too. Arguments including phrases such as this, and i quote from user:Andres_C. By all means, do your "proper investigations" of the "interesting list". Heck, you should know some of these men were appointed directly from Lima. Ignorant. . must Not being tolerated on wikipedia. Reverts are required in order to prevent vandal attempts or disputed accuracy, please stop using reverting edits if they are not needed. To serve or being drafted as conscript does not mean someone or somebody has not been involved with this conflict on the first place, to use this as an argument to state points of view is useless too. HappyApple 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll rephrase. Please calm down. As you can see, the fire has been extinguished for several days now. I second your motion: all accusations leveled from anyone at anyone should be cleaned from this talk page. Regards. --Andres C. 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
???????? Just relax folks, you're making it seem as if you want start WWIII territorial dispute here. Take it easy. --Dynamax 08:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I've archived the flame war. Neurodivergent 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flame War, Part Two

On REVERTS and DELETIONS

Hello Messhermit. I would like to ask you to please use the revert tool in a reasonably fair way. I know you are used to do this, but I think that it is not very polite to revert all edits made by another wikipedian if there is not a strong reason for doing so, like for example a case of vandalism. I am sure most other wikipedians would agree with that,as that is standard policy in Wikipedia. All data related to the military aspects of the war that I included in your article are true, not false or made up by anyone, so there was no reason to delete them. I know you took away everything I wrote based on the fact that I didn't include sources. I have now included them, for your benefit. I hope you find them acceptable enough. Still, not adding sources is not a reason to revert an entire edit without first trying to contact the other editor (in this case, me) and tell him about the drastic measure you are taking. I sense you are a very reasonable person, and I know we can together make this article a much better one, free of points-of-view. Have a very nice day.Andres C. 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in that shape for several months, and I remind you that it was not writed by my person or you. Another Wikipedist used a far more neutral language. So far, no evidence is provided for your claims more than your word that those sources have that material, wich clearly states an Ecuadorian (and thus, not neutral) POV. Regarding Fujimori, he was declared the winner of the 1995 peruvian national elections that were fair, according to international sources. Explaining this, I'm reverting 'your POV. Messhermit 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see that you are taking this attitude, going so far as to claim that I am making up sources (a most unpolite measure, if I may say so). If you have any doubts about the bibliographical sources, you must check them by yourself. You can find them in any municipal or university library in Lima or wherever you live. Please, do not revert anything before putting up your case to a Moderator here in Wikipedia. Deleting sources or making accusations about POV without proof must be a very serious transgresion of Wikipedia rules. As for Fujimori, I don't have anything to comment, as I have not edited anything regarding this Peruvian president. Please check the HISTORY page to see who changed things to a version you did not like. Messhermit: I am reverting your reversion. Please be aware that you cannot make more than three reverts per day. I suggest you take the case up to a MODERATOR before further reverting. You must be ready to explain why adding technical information about the military history of the war is contrary to the POV rules. Saying that Peru had two light infantry divisions in Ureta's Army, or that Ecuador had no AA guns outside Puerto Bolívar is hardly a pro-Ecuadorian POV attitude. In any case, I am somewhat surprised that you don't know about Luis Humberto Delgado, which is a very important historian in your country (but not as good as Mr. Basadre, the best historian Peru has ever produced). I have seen your sources, Messhermit. I sincerely think that Delgado is a better source of information. The same thing about Rodríguez, which was the commander of the Ecuadorian forces in El Oro. Eloy Ureta has also a book about the campaign. Sadly, I have been unable to find a copy in Ecuador. Have a nice day. And please, don't use the RV tool in such a drastic manner. Stay cool. Andres C. 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get clear on this.

  • I have already stated that the sources that you claim cannot be confirmed. Is there any link? No.
  • Because the language that you are using for your editions, it is more than clear that you are pushing a POV; in this case, the ecuadorian one. The article was using a much more neutral language before your editions. Thus, regarding the POV issue, it has nothing to do with your sources.
  • Regarding President Fujimori, if you claim to known little or nothing about this Peruvian Ex-president, I don't understand your reasons to keep uploading the part of his supposed dictatorship.

I will not revert the article, but I will remove the POV. Messhermit 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Messhermit: We have already gone through this before. The first time around, I did not understand what was happening. Now, I know better. Reverting changes or edits is something that you have been accused of by many people here in Wikipedia. Many have also complained of your accusations about "pushing POVs" when they write something you don't like. Look, it is all over in your talk page.
  • Now, you are complaining that since there are no links to my sources, they cannot be posted. Since you are a veteran wikipedian, you should know better about the rules here in Wikipedia regarding SOURCES and VERIFIABILITY. So please take a minute of your time to read Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability.

This is what Wikipedia considers official policy:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I want you to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia does not depend exclusively on material that is on the internet. Many valuable books are not on the internet, and in fact, the internet is the worst choice when it comes down to look up for sources for articles. If you allow me say so, we can see this on the sources your post, which are all from the internet. Look at this example:

As with all other such incidents, there are conflicting accounts to this day as to which side fired the first shot. Peru's version of events (notably well documented in Peruvian sources [25][26]) is that Ecuador had been making incursions into its territory since 1937 and occupied several border locations by 1940.

Now look where the note 26 lead us to: peruvictorsofcenepa

This is a very well-known anonymous ultranationalist website from Peru, very much like the Ecuadorian "webnacionalistaecuatoriano" site. Nobody takes it seriously, and still, somebody has used it as reference to an article regarding the history of our nations. Don't you think articles regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian history deserve more than that? And still, you delete entire contributions because you don't happen to have Luis H. Delgado's book at hand...I mean, he is a very well known Peruvian historian. How could you say you can't verify the information? All you have to do is to go to your university library and ask for the book.

Delgado, Luis Humberto. Las Guerras del Perú. Campaña del Ecuador, vol I, Ed. Latino América. 1944 (first edition).

This is a very important source for everything regarding the 1941 from the Peruvian POV. How could you dismiss it as unverifiable??

I don't want to argue with you. I just want you to reflect on some of the basic policies of Wikipedia. As for Fujimori, I already stated that I don't have anything to do with that. I am just reverting your reverts. That is what happens when someone just uses the revert tool in an appropiate manner. Things get all mixed-up. I hope you can let me help you editing the article on the 1941 war. You can bring in all the bibliography you have from the Peruvian perspective, from serious and reliable sources, and it will make for a much better article. Best Regards,Andres C. 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, let me be claer on this:

  • I have so far avoided to rely on ultranationalistic webpages, Ecuadorian and Peruvians. Thus, I see no point in using that as an accusation against my person. The words Well Documented on Peruvian Sources were your editions, and I don't remember having added that link.
  • Regarding the sources, let me give you and example of what I'm talking about:

Further reading Red Flag Over Afghanistan: The Communist Coup, the Soviet Invasion, and the Consequences - Thomas T. Hammond - ISBN 0-86531-444-6

As you can see, there is the full title and the code of identification. With that information, it's easier to search for that book over the net. THAT's the only way to verify your information, since you don't provide any link on the net.

  • Please remove the accusations that you are making against my person. Your ideas that I'm a POV Pusher have no solid base, and I considere them an insult. Several of my editions are to rectify and remove POV, like the ones that I remove from your last editions. THOSE are clearly an Ecuadorian POV that only push the article to believe that Ecuador was the victim on this war. Messhermit 13:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you happen to check on the articles I've contributed so far, you will see that I do take it very seriously the bibliographical data. Please see "Cenepa War" for an example of how Wikipedia asks editors to put this information.
  • Books written in 1943 and 1944 DO NOT have ISBN numbers, my friend. Still, since you insist on putting in doubt my credibility, you CAN AT LEAST READ THE BOOKS I used as sources going to your university or municipal library in Lima, or asking a family member to get them for you.
  • You accuse people of being "POV-pushers". Please take a look at the HISTORY pages of the articles, where you use the phrase "POV-pushing detected" or something like that wherever you revert edits. I have to repeat what I said before: many here accuse you of being a POV-pusher, many people have complained about this in Wikipedia, even in your talk page. I think they are right. The articles on Ecuadorian-Peruvian issues have a strong pro-Peruvian stance, and people complain about this as well.
  • I am aware of your stance regarding who was the victim in the 1941 war. I am sure this belief of Ecuador invading Peru, which is very widespread in your country, does not come from malice. It is due to ignorance regarding the events surrounding the war. Remember that insisting that Ecuador invaded Peru on July 23, 1941 is indeed "Peruvian POV pushing". It has to be included in the article, as long as you ALLOW OTHER EDITORS to explain the state of the Ecuadorian Army in 1941. Read everything Wikipedia has to say on POV attitudes.
  • I see you are not very interested in coming to an agreement. I consider myself insulted as well by you. I was insulted when you REVERTED an entire edit and then DELETED SOURCES (which you have done in the past) using the words "POV pushing detected" as an excuse for your actions.
  • I must say that if you persist on taking measures contrary to basic policies in Wikipedia, I will have to report your behaviour. I do have to ask you to remember that the original contributor of this very article complained about your behaviour and asked you to read the article on intellectual honesty. This seems to be a good advice.

As always, best regards. Please stay cool. Andres C. 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words POV pushing - No sources were put in the article for this main reasons:

  • Once again, the language that was use before your editions was fairly neutral. You change them, using clearly an Ecuadorian POV. I CLEARLY stated POV pushing due to that fact. By reverting it, I leave the article in the same way that it was before your POV pushing. As you can see, I have not stated in this article that Peru was in a just cause or Peru was in a great advantage, compare to your recent editions.
  • In Wikipedia, readers come here for that reason: they can't find sources. Now, you claim that I should read your sources. So every person that reads this article has to that? I'm afraid that you are not getting the right idea then. Besides your word, there is no single proof, once again, that those books contain that information. And if have not notice it, I'm not in Lima. I will not do your homework. It is you, who as a member of wikipedia, provide the appropiate information to state that the article was based on facts, rather than someone else opinion.
  • BTW, I have never accused you of faking those sources. So far, the only thing that I'm asking for are links, facts and some sort of way that those editions can be verify.

Another point that I have to make:

  • Regarding the stance on who invaded who, it is more than clear that you are the one selling the idea (because you are more than interested in putting that in the article) that the Peruvian Army invaded Ecuador. Both versions are still on dispute, and the openning paragraph of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War stills states (more or less)that Nobody really knows who started the war.
  • Regarding the supposed accusations against my person, it seems that you are fairly interested in accuse me. Be aware that I was under the same treat of a much more experienced (and clearly leflist) Wikipedian Administrator. That is, most of the accusations that you claimed to have readed in my personal page are from that time.
  • Your treats (because they are treats) are not a good argument, and the only thing that you are doing is trying to shift the discussion from your Ecuadorian POV editions to accuse my person.
  • The same happened the first times that you intented to edit the article, using derogative terms against my person; pointing out my grammatical errors; accusing me of not loving my country; and treating me in a clearly disrespectfull way.

In these sence, besides a few incidents, I have a much more solid record than you. Avoid this option, since the only thing that you could get is more problems than me. Regarding the agreements:

  • The one that is not interested in any sort of agreement is you. You only want the information that you consider fair, you only want to present a clearly biased Ecuadorian POV and you clearly tried to shift the topic of this from editions to acussations.
  • I must remaind you, once again, that another wikipedist was the original writer of this proyect, and that most of the wording is from him. I have not done any POV modifications, in contrast with your recent editions.

I have left the technical information in the article (I still have my doubts, but I will not search those things for you, since that is your job) and remove any personal opinion that you may have. It is more than clear for me now that your main concern here is to get into troubles anyone who disagree with you. Messhermit 18:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok Messhermit, here is something you CAN verify. Only to show you that I was acting in good faith.

Latin America's Wars: The Age of the Professional Soldier, 1900-2001 p. 121, THE PERUVIAN BLITZKRIEG. Robert L. Scheina. Brassey's, 2002. ISBN 1574884522. Google Print, retrieved March 9, 2006.

  • You may or you may not give credibility to this book, which makes extensive use of Delgado's books. That is up to you. Chances are, you will dismiss it as propaganda and Ecuadorian POV pushing.
  • Your edits on the article on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian war of 1941 are contrary to the N-POV rules in Wikipedia. Your sources lack reliability and reputation. You make continuous accusations to other fellow Wikipedians, and then accuse them of accusing you.
  • Your misbehaviour and lack of respect to fellow wikipedians will be reported. Good bye now. Andres C. 18:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this page's history I have noticed many changes by Andres C. most notably:

  • Given these circumstances, the President of Peru, Manuel Prado Ugarteche, ordered the formation of the North Grouping, a military unit in charge of the Northern Operational Theater, on January 11, 1941, consisting of two light divisions with three battalion each, plus four other independent batallions and three artillery batteries (one of the with six 105 mm guns)(Delgado, . In front of these forces, the Ecuadorian Border Security command had under its orders two Army battalions, the "Montecristi" and the "Cayambe", each one consisting of around 250 troops, armed with 7,92 mm Mauser rifles and a couple of Czech 7,92 mm ZB-26 light machine-guns, plus two Vickers-Maxim machine-guns. There was also a "Córdova" batallion, made up of around 100 troops, and a so-called "Mariscal Sucre" artillery battery, with 71 troops and no artillery pieces. In fact, the only artillery in the whole province of El Oro consisted of six Italian 65 mm mountain guns, sold to Ecuador as leftovers from the Great War, and almost without shells. These guns were never put into action.(Rodríguez, 1943).


  • As for antiaircraft defenses, the Ecuadorians had only a pair of 20 mm Breda guns deployed on Puerto Bolivar, which was the only port of entry for supplies, reinforcements, and weapons to arrive to the province, by sea, from the port-city of Guayaquil.


  • Before: By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed territory were awarded to Peru. Most of it was already in Peru's de facto possession since before Ecuador became a republic in 1930. In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km² (5,404 squared miles) changed hands as a result.


  • After: By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed Amazonian territory were awarded to Peru. Actually, considering the status quo line of 1936, Ecuador lost to Peru around 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles).

This is an encyclopedia. The point of this whole website is to make accurate facts available to people who need them. There are two sides the this point of view, the Peruvian and the Ecuadorian. In order to accurately display facts I think it's neccecary to display both POV's not find the correct one. Can you give a source for the lit of weapons the both sides had? Ecuador did not loose any territory to Peru. It was never reconized as theirs to start with by Peru. Peru won the war which in turn rewarded the disputed territory which Peru already claimed as theirs.

If you want to see how non-NPOV this is go to the Ecuador article under the history section and then read what I wrote on that talkpage. Vivaperucarajo 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

  • As you correctly point out, Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to present facts to the reader. That is why it is always important to be accurate.
  • Regarding the loss of territory: As I am sure you know, in 1936 Ecuador and Peru agreed on a statu-quo line, based on the actual positions of the military outposts in the Maynas area at the time, pending the results of the Washington talks, which we know came to nothing. When Ecuador signed and ratified the Rio de Janeiro Protocol, it not only gave up its claims to have direct access the Marañon. The statu-quo line was also modified, and as a result Ecuador lost some territory -13,480 km2 to be precise- relative to the 1936 line. This is what happened:
  • Ecuador gave to Peru:
    • In the Huachi, González Suárez, and Tarqui area: 15,190 km2
    • In Tarqui-Rocafuerte area: 3,362.5 km2
      • Total: 18,552.5 km2
  • Peru gave to Ecuador:
    • In the Yaupi-Morona area: 312,5 km2
    • In the San Miguel-Putumayo area: 1,032.5 km2
    • In the Aguarico-Güepí area: 3,727.5 km2
      • Total: 5,072.5 km2

(Source: Julio Tobar Donoso. "La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Rio". BCE, 1945. You can find the same data in any Peruvian work about the Protocol).

  • Thus, the net loss of territory for Ecuador, considering the 1936 line, was of 13,480 km2. So you see, when I modified the paragraph, I was actually correcting a mistake, and presenting a more accurate "fact". The territory that "changed hands" were 23,625 km2, not 14,000 km2. This last figure actually represents exactly what I put: the area that Ecuador lost to Peru, considering the 1936 line.
  • As for sources, they are already on the article. For Ecuadorian data I used Col. Luis A. Rodríguez's book "La agresión peruana. La campaña del Zarumilla documentada". Quito, 1948. For Peruvian data, I relied on Luis Humberto Delgado's "Las guerras del Perú. Campaña del Ecuador". Vol I. Lima, 1944.

Please take a look also at the book I cited in this same page, which is in English and happens to be in Google Print's library.

Best Regards, Andres C. 07:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to still not understand. Peru did not give anyone land and the same for Ecuador. The territory was already disputed as I have said. Both countries claimed the same piece of land which led to war. The outcome of the war just forces Ecuador to reconize Peru's claim and give up their own claim, not the territory. Because of this no territory switched hands only Peru's claim was reconized by Ecuador and therefore reconized by every other country on the planet. Vivaperucarajo 07:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Julio Tobar Donoso. "La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Rio". BCE, 1945. You can find the same data in any Peruvian work about the Protocol

Interesting... just by the title you can clearly view that is already a nice example of Ecuadorian POV. (for those who does not known Spanish, the title clearly has a line that says The Peruvian Invasion). I wonder how fair and neutral can be the information from that book. Messhermit 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Any way to look for your sources? So far I have seen none. Messhermit 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit, go please read the article on Wikipedia: Verifiability. The war of 1941 included an invasion of Peruvian forces into the Ecuadorian provinces of El Oro and Loja. Yes, there was an "invasion". That is not POV. Read Eloy Ureta's book,read the book in English I posted above with a link, so you can know about the history of the 1941 war. BTW, you still violate Wikipedia's rules. Andres C. 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the Peruvian Armed forces occupied Loja and El Oro. Your editions, however, tries to show another thing that is more serious: that the Disputed Territories were part of Ecuador. Besides, the so called Invasion was in responce of ecuadorian troops already in peruvian territory (mainly Zarumilla, part of Tumbes) rather than inside the disputed territory. Messhermit 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messhermit, with all due respect: El Oro and Loja were indeed part of Ecuador. The disputed territories in the Amazonian basin were just that, disputed. I have not implied that they were Ecuadorian. If you tought I had, it was a misunderstanding. Sometimes it is difficult to carry on a discussion like this in a foreign language, over the internet. It makes for very high probability of people not getting the right message. It happens even when people talk face to face in their native languages!
  • There was no "so called" invasion. There was an invasion of Ecuadorian soil which started on July 23. Occupation means a country's armed forces entering into another country peacefully, like the Anschluss between Germany and Austria. That was not the case in 1941. There was a war, and Peruvian forces invaded El Oro and parts of Loja. People died in the fighting. Where did you think Quiñonez plane crashed? In Ecuadorian territory.
  • Zarumilla was never "taken" by Ecuador at any moment. Where did you get that information, seriously? You know that between Zarumilla and Huaquillas there is a Peruvian town called Aguas Verdes. Please, could you provide a serious historical source from Peru stating that Ecuador invaded Zarumilla? Ask your friends, or read the book whose Google Print link I posted. I have great respect for Peruvian historians, and I read their books. I wish Ecuador had a historian like Mr. Basadre. Could you quote Basadre on the war of 1941?
  • There are a couple of things that I should clarify to you: Indeed, the situation on the border was very tense. Ecuadorian troops did take some ill-adviced measures during 1939 and 1940, like for example setting up the Alto Matapalo border post, without approval from the Government. The same goes for the post in the Payana island and the post in the Cerro del Caucho. Those were not "invasions", but Peru had reasons to protest because there was an escalation of military presence in the border area, which both sides had previously left as "no-man's land". There were accusations from both sides regarding expulsions of civilians, abuses, and so on. Peru responded accordingly by setting up the Agrupamiento del Norte under General Eloy Ureta, a very gifted officer. After setting up the Northern Group, there was a pressure from the Peruvian military to ask the President Prado to let them use this force to end once and for all the border problem. That is not POV, that is part of Peruvian history, which you can read in serious Peruvian history books. The Peruvian invasion of El Oro was not improvised. Ureta and his staff were very professional men. No serious nation sends its troops into enemy territory without a plan and an objective.
  • Now, you must also keep in mind that operations on the 23rd began at dawn, with aerial bombings mainly on the Ecuadorian posts of Chacras and Quebrada Seca. Then came the artillery fire, and then the infantry started the advance along the whole line. At a certain moment, the Peruvians did make a limited retreat in a sector, and part of the Ecuadorian battalion "Cayambe" (the whole battalion was 250-plus strong) made a counterattack, at about 10h10, the troops actually crossing into Peruvian territory. This was used by some Peruvian propagandists (yes, there are also many Ecuadorian propagandists) to accuse Ecuador of starting the war by invading Peru. Up to this day, many sincere Peruvians still have this view of the events. Not because of malice, but because that's what they were told. In Peru not many people take much interest in the wars with Ecuador, because the biggest war Peru has had was with Chile. Comparing 1941 to 1879-1884, it is obvious which war attracts more attention. Anyway, by nightfall, the entire right flank was overwhelmed, and on the 24th the same happened to the Ecuadorian left flank. By the 25th, the entire Ecuadorian army was retreating in a disorganized manner. The lack of airplanes dealt a serious blow to the Ecuadorian soldiers, who could do little against the attacks of the CAP.

Though Ureta wanted to occupy El Oro and land troops in Guayaquil, Prado didn't let him do that, because there was a lot of pressure from the USA, Brazil, and Argentina to limit the Peruvian advance. Again, this is not POV, this his history, you can easily verify this in any serious Peruvian history book. Ureta's criticism of the cease fire order of the 26th is recorded and appears in the history books. Anyway, Ureta resumed the advance on the 29th, and by the evening of the 31st, almost the entire province was in Peruvian hands, Puerto Bolivar taken by a combined operation that included landing of troops on the port, some paratroopers (some say three, some say six), and regular infantry coming up full-speed from Pasaje.

  • Peru did not want to "conquer" El Oro or "annex" Guayaquil. That was not the purpose of the invasion. The purpose of taking El Oro and of menacing Guayaquil was to force Ecuador to sign once and for all a definitive border agreement, and it worked. The Rio Protocol was signed at the end of the III Panamerican Council Meeting, which met soon after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
  • I must add, because I think you don't know this information, that Dr. Julio Tobar Donoso was the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister who signed the Protocol in Rio. He was a very brave man for what he did,and he suffered the consequences afterwards. But he did the right thing. Ecuador had to sign the treaty or Peru would continue the invasion, sending its forces up to Cuenca or Guayaquil. That was the truth, that was what the Brazilian Chancellor Mr Aranha told Tobar Donoso. Ureta was willing to resume the advance. You can verify all this by yourself. The Peruvian Foreign Minister who signed the Protocol was Mr. Solf y Muro, a very prestigious and talented diplomat.
  • Well, I am sorry this post became too long, but if I can't contribute with information in the appropiate articles because of the RV thing, at least I can do it here. My intentions are sincere and I don't have any intention of making accusations to your country. I have some very good friends from Peru -some are from the military, some are civilians, and yes, all of them are very patriotic- and I love to read history, that's all. And I read it from Ecuadorian and Peruvian authors. My only criticism to you at this point, Messhermit, is that I feel that your knowledge of the 1941 war is not very deep. I respect your collaborations in Wikipedia, because I see you know a lot about other things, but this is my sincere appreciation. I hope you don't take it as a personal attack, but just a constructive criticism. Please take a look at the Cenepa War article, which I helped to write months ago, and see if I am making accusations or claiming Ecuador was "right" or Peru was "wrong". In a war, there is no such thing as a good side and a bad side. There are just sides, each one with its own reasons to fight.
  • I don't know if I can add more to this discussion than what I have already said. Good bye. 200.124.231.253 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC). Sorry, I got logged out while writing. Andres C. 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit. Id' like to ask you to stop acting like a self-proclaimed vigilante. If you have any problems with other editors' contributions, the right & polite thing to do is to TALK prior to any removal of information. You must first explain to other editors your points of view, telling them what is that you see as bias. THEN, if your accussations have a basis, things can be reworded or modified to a point where BOTH SIDES agree. Please observe how vivaperucarajo acted in this case. Your behaviour deleting and reverting edits is what cause you to get into so many arguments. Please TALK, TALK, TALK. I have reverted your edit. Before deleting things agains, explain here why exactly are you reverting things. I am really bored about this senseless discussions. Andres C. 16:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly stated the reasons for my actions:

  • 1st, the last one of the editions clearly push an Ecuadorian POV, portraying Ecuador as a nation htat lost territory in favor of Peru. Clearly, the Disputed Territories were not part of Ecuador, and thus, Ecuador did not lose any territory.
  • I stated that my main reason for removing that paragraph is because they contained BIASED information.
  • as Vivaelperucarajo stated:

You seem to still not understand. Peru did not give anyone land and the same for Ecuador. The territory was already disputed as I have said. Both countries claimed the same piece of land which led to war. The outcome of the war just forces Ecuador to reconize Peru's claim and give up their own claim, not the territory. Because of this no territory switched hands only Peru's claim was reconized by Ecuador and therefore reconized by every other country on the planet.

  • I will keep an eye on this article due to your biased editions. You are in no position to tell wich article should I look and wich ones I don't. Messhermit 17:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, take time to read the changes of territory regarding the 1936 line, which I posted for you here in this very page. Once again, the Protocol did some changes to the 1936 line, Ecuador losing about 13,000 km2 in the process. Please compare the 1936 line with the 1942 line.
  • Considering your past record and your lack of wish to TALK, your edits are already being watched not only by me but by others as well.
  • No one is telling you which articles you can't look. I am telling you that you should TALK FIRST. Your proPeruvian stance is well known.
  • An example of biased information is to put that the official Ecuadorian map of the 1960s was controversial. This is a Properuvian, antiEcuadorian comment which has no place in Wikipedia. Yes, this was controversial for PERU, and you should state that information in that sense. Stick to facts, and not to personal opinions which may offend Ecuadorians reading Wikipedia.
  • My intentions to come to an agreement with you are recorded in this page, as are your not-so-friendly answers (Ecuadorian POV-pushing, etc.). I hope moderators take time to read this very long TALK PAGE, and come to their own conclusions about what is really happening here
  • Sorry, until you come with a convincing argument about why this paragraph should be eliminated, your edits will have to be considered as VANDALISM and therefore reverted. Andres C. 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My editions are not vandalism, since the only thing that I'm doing is preventing the presence of a CLEARLY Ecuadorian POV. Besides, who are you to qualify what is vandalism and what is not? I have stated clearly that your recent editions are BIASED, not vandalism. And indeed, if someone reads the article it realices that the article involves a great deal of Ecuadorian POV. Vivaelperucarajo realice of this, and stated his opinion in this page. Thus, having exposing my arguments, I'm reverting your biased comments. Messhermit 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are preventing the article to state the information regarding the changes of territory that the Rio Protocol of 1942 made to the 1936 line. That is clearly vandalism. Your revertion is therefore reverted. As you are not in the mood to reach consensus, and keep acccusing me of POV pushing, I am forced to resort to extraordinary measures, for which I apologize to Wikipedia. I hope a neutral moderator steps in soon to stop this nonsense. Andres C. 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another person already stated (and complained about that in the Ecuador Talk page) that your information is biased. I see no point in talking this issue with you, since you will not rest until the information (clearly BIASED) that you think is fair is in the page. Messhermit 20:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Another personal accusation without proof. The information which caused the complaint was not put by me. Yes, I know you don't want to talk. You have made it very clear. Too bad, since it's the only way to come to an agreement in Wikipedia. You must prove that the information of the 13,000 km2 is wrong. If you don't, you can't delete it, unless your intentions are to hide certain facts in Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. Somebody, not Ecuadorian, not Peruvian, must come in fast and read this page to stop this madness. Of course, I am reverting your revert. Andres C. 23:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are bent on winning the revert war. Nevertheless, I still think that the best way to resolve this problem is to talk and to compare arguments. As far as I understand, your problem seems to be with the following paragraph:

About 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed jungle territory were awarded to Peru, most of it being already in Peru's de facto possession since the end of the 19th Century (the areas immediately adjacent to the Marañon river were in Peruvian possession since the 1860s). The border line decided at Rio took the 1936 statu quo line as the basis for negotiations. Ecuador gave to Peru about 18,000 km2, Peru giving to Ecuador around 5,000 km2. Thus, in real terms, Ecuador lost a little over 13,000 km2 of previously possessed Amazonian territory as a result of the Rio Protocol.

You seem to prefer this version:

In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km² (5,404 squared miles) changed hands as a result.
  • What is exactly the part that you see as "Ecuadorian POV-pushing" (whatever that means)? I ask you this since you deleted a lot of words.
    • The timing of the Peruvian possession of the northern tributaries of the Marañon?
    • The fact that the diplomats at Rio de Janeiro took the 1936 line as the basis for the definitive border line?
    • The amount of territory each country awarded to each other, considering the 1936 line?
    • The amount of territory that Ecuador lost to Peru considering the 1936 line?

If you help me explaining in more detail your arguments, things could be much easier. The version you prefer as the problem of being inaccurate. This is because

  • a. the area that changed hands did not comprise 14,000 km2, but 23,000-plus km2.
  • b. the 14,000 number refers specifically to the amount of territory that Ecuador lost in 1942 relative to the 1936 line.
You have to remember that line agreed upon by both countries in the Acta de Lima of July 6, 1936, reflected what each country possessed at that moment, and that the line was actually made by the Peruvian Foreign Ministry and delivered to the Secretary of State of the USA. If that line indicated actual possessions, why is it that you don't want the article to state that Ecuador lost 13,000km2 of what it had according to the 1936 statu-quo line?

I hope I can compare your arguments with mine. I don't like this senseless edit war, which will have no victors, only losers. If you bring forward your arguments, we can find a solution that would please both of us. Andres C. 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Disputed Territories were not part of Peru of Ecuador, thus, using logic, neither side lost any territory. As you proclaimed once, the Status Quo of 1936 was a de facto frontier, but in reality Ecuador considerate the whole disputed teritory as theirs. Once again, The Ecuadorian version is totally BIASED since it proclaims that it lost territories that it was never considerated as theirs (since the status quo of 1936 was rejected by both countries).
  • Thus, I'm reverting once again your information. Messhermit 12:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit: why did you revert the edition? I didn't change the 14,000 km2 part. Still you reverted the edtion...again. It seems you are now bent on insisting that Peru was in possession of Maynas since before 1830? Where did you get that? Both countries considered the "whole disputed" territory as theirs. Peru stated that the border had to follow the eastern Andes, and that Ecuador had no right to any land in the Amazonian basin, as per the 1802 Cedula. ECuador stated that the border had to follow the Marañon river, as per the 1829 treaty. Thanks for the revert. You seem to like that. Andres C. 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Full Protection & Request for Mediation

Interesting, asking to block the editions once the article is back at your editions. How NPOV is that? I'm now convinced that you are nothing more than a POV pusher. Messhermit 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted against your mediation. Clearly, you are not interested in making the article NPOV, but only to present your POV. Nothing good will come from a mediation that use as base your own editions of this article. Messhermit 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Declined

  • Messhermit. A little bit of advice: Watch your manners and your behavior. Everything you write from now on will be closely watched by moderators (the same goes for me). Besides your usual accusations against me, you have just put in doubt the impartiality of the moderator who locked the article. Article Protection is a measure designed to stop edit wars, until editors come to an agreement in a civilized manner. It DOES NOT endorse the current version. You could have reverted my edits in time, before the protection was imposed, and the article would be locked with "your" version. No big deal, that's how it works. Anyway, as I said, you just put in doubt the impartiality of the moderator who locked the article. Of course, that will go straight to Wikiquette Alert.
  • I see you declined the Mediation. Well, it was not "my" mediation. It is a procedure performed by a Mediation Committee, where both sides explain their arguments in a civilized manner. The Mediation was not going to use "my editions", but yours and mine. I was going to present my point of view, you were supposed to present yours. A third party was going to analyze all data and come to a conclusion. You did not accept it because you already know that nothing good will come out of it. Ouch! Well, it's ok. I will go on making use of all the mediation measures Wikipedia presents users in these cases.

IIt is precisely because I want the article to be NPOV that I put the case to a Mediation Committee. You declined. I do wonder who's the POV pusher really? As I said there are other -albeit even more formal and of far reaching consequences- tools to deal with these kinds of problems in Wikipedia. I will take this case to whatever instance it takes. Feel free to continue with your accusations. Andres C. 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I voted against that proposition not because I disregard Wikipedia (since now you are putting words in my mouth), but as my way to protest against your unilateralism. So far, you are not willing to see any other edition in the article that you do not approve. What mediation can come from that? Unfortunatelly, a mediator that does not understand the real problem (no sources, lack of respect, treats against another wikipedist) and only hears your side of the story cannot be a good judge. The request is dismissed.
  • Most of your editions are based on nationalistic and biased ecuadorian propaganda (that you most likely learned in your Historia de fronteras subject in High School), and the only sources that you have bear such anti-peruvian titles that if anything good comes from them, it would be a surprise.
  • Also this kind of IRRELEVANT and clearly OUT OF CONTEXT paragraphs:

You did not accept it because you already know that nothing good will come out of it. Ouch!

  • It really shows the kind of person you are: a POV pusher that not only fears public embarrassment, but that relies on personal attacks once its editions are clearly proved to be baseless.
  • Feel free to keep that behavior, the Flame war is against you in this matter. Messhermit 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read your arguments for declining the Mediation...Once again, you are free to continue with your personal accusations. I just warn you that your behaviour is making things worse for you. And oh!, I didn't have Historia de Límites at school...I went to a private school :) As for antiperuvian titles: well, there was an invasion of Ecuador in 1941 (no matter what you say about it, go to your local municipal library in Lima and get the books of Ureta and Delgado). The author of the book is Julio Tobar Donoso, the signed of the Protocol in Rio. Anyway, I have to tell you that I really doubt your claims about you being a NPOV wikipedian. Play by the rules, Messhermit, and behave yourself. You prefer to revert things and accuse people instead of coming forth with counterarguments. This won't work anymore. BTW, your last entry is really interesting...it turns out that you have some kind of prejudice against Ecuadorians in general. Could you repeat again that part about the "Ecuadorian propaganda"? And I see you were trying to "recruit" other Peruvian wikipedians to your cause, as if this was about nationalities. Too bad, Messhermit. You will now have to play by Wikipedia's rules. Andres C.

I don't feel like taking either side of this issue, but I feel both of you are acting in a rather arrogant fashion. Both of you are very capable in writing articles. Why do both of you insist that the other is the one at fault? You both acted out of a bit of a selfish means. Neither of you has come to terms with the fact that both of you are indeed biased. It is an innate characteristic of humanity. Stop posting reply after reply stating that you aren't. You are. Why not, instead of bickering and reverting and vandalizing, just post both of the views on the page. "It is the view of the Ecuadorians (? Is that what they are called?) that...." and "On the other hand, views from Peru contradict that of Ecuadorians in that...." Why not just have both beliefs? As it seems that there may not be a very well unbaised view on a certain subject, why not just post both? It would help eliminate the issue at hand.

I understand the ideal of NPOV. In essence, it is presenting information without a one-sided view (i.e. bias). Presenting both perspectives, without "weasel words", would allow this ideal to be met, while stating information and making all sides happy.

What are your thoughts? Pvt Mahoney 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in, Bmahoney. I do recognized that I am biased to the extent that I want the Ecuadorian POV to be displayed along with the Peruvian POV. I am contributing to this discussion with arguments, facts, numbers, it's all in this very long talk page. Long ago I told Messhermit that these articles have to carry both POVs. He thinks otherwise. He just reverts anything that goes against his beliefs, but without coming forth with counterarguments. By all means, I am ready to work with this Wikipedian in an article where both POVs are shown. I have tried to come to an agreement with him, I asked for the article to be locked until this useless dispute is resolved. I asked for mediation, he declined. I don't know what else to do. He just keeps on accusing me of being a POV-pusher. I am prepared to come forward with arguments, and not with personal attacks. Best Regards, Andres C. 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to do as you say, would you mind keeping away of the He-said,she-said comments? You only need to defend yourself and your actions, and he has his. Keep away from bringing him directly into your defense. If you're willing to put both views up, how about researching both views? Personally, I'm just barely learning about Peru, and more-or-less contribute to these articles by cleaning up and rewording, rather than data mining. But do research the belief of Peru and try to see why they came to the conclusion they have in the situation, and possibly use it to integrate a NPOV page that incorporates both views. Pvt Mahoney 00:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main issues here are these ones:

  • The sources that Andres C. is using are nowhere to find. Wikipedia is suppose to give accurate sources to people who can't access that information.
  • The issue of territories. Can one country claim to have lost a territory that was not in their de jure or de facto possetion? I don't believe that.

Messhermit 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the main issues here, but anyway, I will respond to these allegations:

  • My sources are books not found on the internet but in libraries, available both in Ecuador and Peru because of their importance for historians on both sides. One example is Dr. Julio Tobar Donoso's book La invasion peruana y el Protocolo de Rio - Antecedentes y Explicación histórica, Banco Central del Ecuador. Quito, 1945. (Translation: The Peruvian Invasion and the Rio Protocol - Background and Historical Explanation). The other Wikipedist -even though he has not read the book- has pointed out that this book has no credibility because its title carries the word "invasion".
From Wikipedia: Verifiability. Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I should point out that Mr. Tobar Donoso was the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister who signed the Rio Protocol, and his work has been praised by reputable Peruvian historians, not the least because he sternly defended the validity of the Protocol against some Ecuadorian writers and politicians who were already arguing about the Protocol's validity in 1945. Hence, his work is reputable. This information is not known by Messhermit, or else he would not be protesting against this particular work being cited.

  • In July 6, 1936, the Ecuadorian plenipotentiary in Peru, Mr. Homero Viteri Lafonte, and the Peruvian Foreign Minister, Mr. Alberto Ulloa Sotomayor, signed in Lima a document called "Acta de Lima" (the Lima Accord). This document, a great step towards the fulfillment of the 1924 agreement which called for the arbitration of the U.S. President in the matter of the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border dispute, stated also that both nations, until the final decision of the President of the United States, would respect each other's current possessions along the entire border, thus preventing any further incursions from any side, especially in the disputed Amazonian basin area, up or down the tributaries of the Marañon. After the agreement was signed, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry sent a communiqué to all the American Foreign Ministries stating the current possessions of Ecuador. The final point of the letter, Point 14 ,stated that "From what has been exposed in this document, it can be easily inferred that there is not a single Ecuadorian outposts on the banks of the Marañon or Amazonas river". The line drawn became known as the 1936 statu quo line. This line was used as a basis for the 1942 Rio Protocol line, which made some changes to it. (Please, see above in this page for details). Thus, the claim that in 1942 Ecuador did not lost a single square yard of land it had had under de facto possession (according to the 1936 agreement) is not true. By signing the Rio Protocol in January 29, 1942, Ecuador had a net loss of 13,480 km2 (8,376.08 square miles) that it had had previously under de facto possession.

Hence, the phrase that reads something like "about 14,000 km2 changed hands as a result" is not true. The total area that changed hands measured 22,280 km2 (13,844.15 square miles). The 14,000 km2 corresponds to the area that Ecuador had to surrender. Once again, 13,480 km2 of land possessed de facto by Ecuador were given to Peru. Thank you for bearing with me this long explanation of facts. Andres C. 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please cite your sources that claim that books made by Tovar Donoso are examples of NPOV. So far, I found really strange that books with titles as Peruvian Invasion can be praised by historians of the country accused. Evidence? none so far. Wikipedia must be based on facts, and if you are not able to present reasonable sources (accurate and ones that can be reached by any person around the world), your editions are not well supported and can be deleted.
  • De facto posetion does not implies recognition, and does not implies also that those territories are an integral part of that republic. It was part of the disputed territory that was, as a whole, not part of any country. They were not part of Ecuador and Peru, and after the protocol of Rio de Janeiro the territory was divided. If any change after the Protocol of Rio is made in favor of one or the other side, then we are now talking that one of the parties involved lose. So far, the only thing that I have realice that the other party involved in this disscussion is only concern to present Ecuador as losing territory in favor of Peru, wich it is clear that is not the case. Messhermit 04:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Messhermit.

  • Remember what Wikipedia:Verifiability says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. Editors are not supposed to make judgments regarding the POVs of authors (all writers have POVs, you have POVs, I have POVs). Anyhow, you are right in the sense that the burden of evidence lies with me. What was wrong was your attitude (reverting, accusing me of POV-pushing and so on). So, what I have to do is to prove to you not that Tobar (not Tovar) Donoso is a "NPOV writer" -such a man does not exist- but that Tobar Donoso is an authoritative Ecuadorian writer, cited by Peruvian historians when dealing with the Ecuador-Peru border dispute.

Luckily, there is in the internet a 70 pages-long work from the Universidad del Pacífico written by none other than Percy Cayo Córdova (a very famous Peruvian historian) titled Las Primeras Relaciones Internacionales Perú-Ecuador, where he cites Tobar Donoso at least three times. Read the whole work, it's interesting. In page 30, Cayo (which uses Tobar Donoso's book to advance his case...yes, Cayo being a Peruvian historian, naturally has a proPeruvian POV) refers to Tobar Donoso's book as a "valioso libro". In the last page of the work, you can read the entire citation for the book. The first edition is dated 1945. The copy Cayo cites is the 1982 reprint of the Banco Central del Ecuador. I think that settles the issue of Mr. Tobar Donoso's book existence and reputability. (And yes, there was an invasion -where do you think the ambush at Porotillo took place?- but we will leave that for another round).

  • Messhermit: Ecuador lost a war. Losers lose. Winners win. That's how it is. Your second point is controversial. I answered to your argument that said:
The issue of territories. Can one country claim to have lost a territory that was not in their de jure or de facto possetion? I don't believe that.
  • I demonstrated to you, with patience, that Ecuador lost territory that was indeed under its de facto possession.
  • Now you throw this argument and talk about "recognitions". I am acting seriously here, I hope the same from you. The de facto line did not recognize sovereignty, it was a declaration of current possessions. Nobody has talked about Ecuador losing sovereign territory. All the edits have been very clear on that point. All the edits have referred to territory lost relative to the 1936 line. Look at all the different edits you reverted. Things would have been much easier if you had accepted my requests to talk this issue, instead of reverting everything from the get-go. Andres C. 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise and a search to extinguish flames

It seems this topic has gone into an ambiguous circle of accussations between two parts, in one side, the ecuadorian point of view towards the territorial dispute versus the peruvian point of view, in the course of the discussion thread, both sides never reached a consensus and i personally think this isn't going somewere, however there are some bias which i consider malevolent.

  • Someone does not need to had a weapon, or serve in an army to talk about a conflict, to accuse for such accusation someone who has a point of view based on arguments found on books had to be considered seriously, and this goes through the second point.
  • Books written in the 1940s dont have an ISBN code, however the source is verificable as far as the document (if a scanned version is available) can be uploaded to wikipedia servers to state an argument, and this doesnt implies the book doesn't exist,(ISBN was adopted as standard since 1970).
  • In order to mantain sanity and avoid offense i would advise both parts involved on this heated debate please abstain using caps lock or bolding words to state arguments based to diminish the other.

And so far, there are many other examples in which both sides didnt acted in good faith, however i would advocate to give the opportunity to user:Messhermit to post his point of view stated on the article, i believe his vision towards this dispute clears the panorama for people who aren't well informed about this event.--HappyApple 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course, the fact that you are also Peruvian does not have anything to do with your unbiased assessment of the situation. :) BTW, your remarks about weapons or armies are out of place, as nobody has stated such arguments in the present discussion. If you want to mediate, the least thing you should do is to refrain from pointing to flame wars resolved long ago, and not bring them up again. The discussion is already heated as it is, so we do not need anyone to pour more gasoline into the fire, thank you. Andres C. 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments stated on the first paragraph were a summary of what has been discussed on this thread, and all has been done in good faith without any intention to remark or add fuel to this dispute. --HappyApple 04:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I would have no problem meditating even though I am Peruvian I really don't care about the details in this dispute. I have already proved by unbiasment (don't know if that's a word :P) by unofficially meditating this. I would however, like some consenses from both Messhermit and Andres C..

Vivaperucarajo 04:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. Nationalities should not be used as tools to ban anyone with a goodwill to help and settle this discussion. Messhermit 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, what we need are mediators. Your meditations will indeed help you to relax, but what about us? Just kidding :) (a little joke to break the ice)
I agree with Messhermit: nationalities are not to be used as tools in Wikipedia; moreover, they should never be used as "recruitment tools" to help anyone, from any country, get rid of someone else's edits. Sounds familiar, Messhermit? :) You are more than welcome, vivaperucarajo. Good, now we have a locked article -thankfully, no more reverting for now- a mediation turned down, and one American and two Peruvian mediators. I have presented my arguments. I will present the paragraph I propose here, and you'll let me know your opinions. Andres C. 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you think a little bit before making any statement in this talk page would be a great improment. So far, you keep behaving worse than a high school student. Messhermit 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It is you who had done just that. I can prove what I said in the statement. It is in vivaperucarajo's Talk Page. What with your lack of intellectual honesty, your indiscriminate reverting, your histerical personal accusations, your accusations against me for the article being locked the way you did not like, and your decision to turn down the Mediation (all recorded in this page) you are hardly in a position to talk about "high school behaviour".
From vivaperucarajo's [Talk Page]: It seems that, regarding the fact that you have clearly stated that no territory was lost by neither side, the other user involved will not accept your contribution. It clearly wants to make believe the reader that Ecuador Lost territory in favor of Peru. Help me to get rid of that Biased and baseless proposition. Messhermit 00:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, this was later removed by Messhermit. Andres C. 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are we telling lies to Wikipedia now? I have not touched that talk page as you claim I have done. by Biased and baseless proposition I was talking about your edtions. Feel free to think that I'm offending you, since at any state I have done that. That's it for now, grow up and go to the facts of the dispute: your Biased and baseless proposition that Ecuador lost territory. Messhermit 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My arguments on the facts of the dispute are in the previous section. I wrote them yesterday and am waiting for your counterarguments, so we can concentrate on the resolution of the dispute by coming up with a paragraph satisfactory to both parts. Cheers. Andres C. 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andres's Summary of the Dispute. Points of View, Arguments & Recommendations

  • On March 5, the article had the following text under the Rio Protocol section:

By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed territory were awarded to Peru. Most of it was already in Peru's de facto possession since before Ecuador became a republic in 1930. In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km² (5,404 squared miles) changed hands as a result.

  • On March 7, I edited the text to the following version:

By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed Amazonian territory were awarded to Peru. Actually, considering the status quo line of 1936, Ecuador lost to Peru around 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles).

I had three reasons for making this edition:

  • Ecuador became a Republic in 1830, not in 1930.
  • Before the year 1830 there was no Peruvian or Colombian physical presence in the Maynas region. Certainly, there was no Peruvian presence in the northern part of Maynas (that is, north of the Marañon river, along the Putumayo, Napo, Tigre or Pastaza rivers, tributaries of the Marañon). This is common knowledge, but we can dwell on this if necessary. Suffice it to say at this moment that the Peruvian city of Iquitos was founded in 1864.
  • The text which reads "In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles) changed hands as a result" is historically inaccurate. As I have explained before in this page, the total area that changed hands, relative to the 1936 statu quo line measured 22,280 km2, not 14,000 km2. This last number -actually 13,480 km2- represents the net loss of land that, being in Ecuadorian de facto possession following the 1936 Lima Accord, was awarded to Peru. Andres C. 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few hours later, user:Messhermit reverted this text (along with a number of other editions I had been doing) to the March 5 version, with the following edit summary: (rv. POV detected - No sources.)
  • I responded to these revert on March 8 with a revert of my own, with the edit summary (Revert. Bibliographical notes. Please make fair use of rv.). user:Messhermit reverted again with the edit summary: (rv Ecuadorian POV detected - No sources.). I responded in kind, with the third revert for the day, edit summary: (Third RV in the same day. Sources were deleted.).
  • Thus started an all-out edit war, with edit and reverts coming one after the other, in quick succession.
  • On March 12 I reworded and added more details to the disputed paragraph, as follows:

By signing this protocol, Ecuador gave up its long-standing claims to sovereignty on the lower Maynas region, in the Amazonian basin, thereby renouncing to have direct land access to the Marañon/Amazonas river. About 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed jungle territory were awarded to Peru, most of it being already in Peru's de facto possession since the end of the 19th Century (the areas immediately adjacent to the Marañon river were in Peruvian possession since the 1860s). The border line decided at Rio took the 1936 statu quo line as the basis for negotiations. Ecuador gave to Peru about 18,000 km2, Peru giving to Ecuador around 5,000 km2. Thus, in real terms, Ecuador lost a little over 13,000 km2 of previously possessed Amazonian territory as a result of the Rio Protocol.

This version seemed to me acceptable because:

  • It corrected the information about the lands north of the Marañon river being under Peruvian de facto physical possession already in 1830.
  • It specified the areas exchanged between the two countries as a result of the Rio Protocol, relative to the 1936 status quo line.
  • It corrected -once again- the error about 14,000 km2 "changing hands", specifying that these 14,000 km2 were what Peru gained from Ecuador relative to the 1936 statu quo line (actually 13,480 km2).
  • Messhermit thought otherwise, and an impressive revert war took place. On March 12, there were seven reverts made to the article, way beyond the absolute limit of three per day. I take full responsibility of my participation in this embarrasing development (I made three, as shown in the History page). There were accusations that I was pushing or selling wrong ideas about Ecuador losing territory as a result of the 1942 Protocol.
  • The edit war continued until March 13, when Katefan0 locked the article, as requested by this Wikipedian.

Steps taken by Andres's to resolve the dispute or to call for help from a third party

  • I have tried to come to an agreement with the other party in this Talk Page.
  • I have posted warnings in Wikiquette alert, the first on May 10
  • I asked for the article to have Full Protection until the amicable resolution of this dispute. This was granted. The other party accused me in this Talk Page of being a NPOV editor because of the Protection.
  • I posted an entry in Wikipedia's Request for Comments
  • I put a request before the Mediation Committee, which was turned down by the other party.

Recommendation

In order to come up with a text that is N-POV as Wikipedia understands it, that is, a text that contains both points of view, I propose the following article:

By signing this Protocol, Ecuador formally renounced its long-standing historical claim to have direct land access to the Marañon/Amazonas river, in exchange for the withdrawal of the Peruvian military forces from the Ecuadorian provinces of El Oro and Loja. About 200,000 km² (77,200 square miles) of disputed jungle territory in the Amazonian basin were awarded to Peru, most of which was already in Peru's "de facto" possession since the end of the 19th Century, the areas immediately adjacent to the Marañon river being settled by Peru as early as the 1860s. The diplomats at Rio de Janeiro took the 1936 "status quo" line -which recognized current possessions but not sovereignty- as the basis for the definitive border line. As a result of the Rio Protocol line, and relative to the 1936 line, Ecuador gave to Peru 18,552 km2 of previously possessed jungle territory, and Peru gave to Ecuador 5,072 km2 of previously possessed jungle territory.

This is, I think, a good compromise solution. It has facts and figures. I hope to receive comments regarding this paragraph from mediators. I also hope this issue can be resolved soon, since I have to confess that I am somewhat tired of this endless dispute, and would like to go on to other, less disturbing, projects in Wikipedia. Cheers Andres C. 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlude

  • Indeed, Ecuador became a republic in 1830 after the dissolution of the Great Colombia. Probably a typo that just got in the middle of the discussion.
  • The Jaen [6] and Maynas(clearly located north of the Marañon River) declared it's independence from Spain and send delegates to the 1st Peruvian Congress in Lima.
  • The so called historically inaccurate it's in fact a reality. How many times do I have to point out that a country does not lose territory that was never theirs? How can Ecuador lost a territory that was never in their De Facto or De Jure control?
  • Indeed, the editions clearly attempted to portray Ecuador as giving away territory that belong to them. Nothing more baseless. It is clearly a POV. Messhermit 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. As you point out correctly, what I am writing in this section is clearly a POV, that is my point of view. I hope your could respect that. I respect your opinions, but I would like to ask you to let me prepare my case, write my arguments and POVs in this section I have created. You could perhaps present your arguments in another section. That way, the issue gets organized so other Wikipedians can get a better understanding of what has been going on here, and consider each side's POVs and arguments. Thanks a lot. Andres C. 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, your POV is trying to lead the reader to reach a conclussion that is biased. Wikipedia also must have a fair and accurate description of what happened during that war and its effect, not what you think, that is exactly what POV is about. Wikipedia must not allow two versions because the only thing that creates is more confusion to the reader. Messhermit 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are valuable, and must be taken into consideration. Could you please leave me this section to expose my point of view and my arguments? Thanks again. Andres C. 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what I got from reading all of this was the following:
  • Peru acquired land. How much land did it acquire in the end?
  • Ecuadar no longer had political rights to the land Peru acquired.
  • Ignoring all this de facto nonsense, Ecuador no longer had land that it wanted, and Peru got what it wanted.

So let me figure this out. There's no reason to be bickering over nothing, when you can easily state that land that Ecuador believe it possessed finally was written down as being lands of Peru. What treaty was this that caused the land to go into Perus hands?

Now that we have established the fact that Ecuador agreed that Peru would have the land, could we give up on all this "Ecuador lost, gave away" jibber-jabber? Ecuador, in essence, acknowledged that the land is now, indeed, Perus.

There. Done. No more POV nonsense. Anyone for an icecream bar? I'm too cheap to buy an icecream cone =P

One side note: Andres C., if you were just stating that this was your POV, and then previously stating that you were attemping to get a NPOV article written, which is the real truth? If you want NPOV, you have to keep your own POV out of it, correct?Pvt Mahoney 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Bmahoney. Perhaps we can find the real truth in Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View article. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. Well, this is exactly what I am proposing here. It's all about letting people read the arguments from both sides. Cheers! Andres C. 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I haven't given up on you (even though this is a rather complicated dispute) I've been busy creating 15 articles for Peruvian airports Vivaperucarajo 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Messhermit: nationalities are not to be used as tools in Wikipedia Es un milagro!!! :) Vivaperucarajo 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple

Now that we have established the fact that Ecuador agreed that Peru would have the land, could we give up on all this "Ecuador lost, gave away" jibber-jabber? Ecuador, in essence, acknowledged that the land is now, indeed, Perus.

It is actually not that simple. After this was signed, it was later voided by Ecuador and considered false. It wasn't until 1998 that Ecuador permanenatly actually reconized it. I've have also seen in this article that there is no reason given why the terriotry was so important. The area is basicly rural jungle. The reason is Peru has has access to the Atlantic via the Amazon River and pf coarse to the Pacific by it's 1500mi. coastline which containes many of its major cities. Ecuador has long sinced wanted acces to the river. Two of Peru's major ports, Iquitos and Pucallpa are located on the river and on it's tributaries. This is one of the most important topics as it is the reason the whole thing started. Vivaperucarajo 05:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that Ecuador permanently recognizes it now? Thank you very much for restating what I said, only with numbers. Pvt Mahoney 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Firestar464 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Ecuadorian–Peruvian_territorial_dispute/Archive_2&oldid=1171579625"