Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peru Portal

This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Archives

There have been flame wars in this talk page in the past. They are mostly resolved and have been archived at Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. Readers interested in heated exchanges should use that page. Neurodivergent 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I went on to add the sections "Reaching consensus" and "Clearing disputes" to the archive, as they belong to the same topic. What is more, "Clearing disputes" sounded more like an intention from a previously uninvolved third party to get the flame war restarted, long after the two involved contributors had put the matter to rest. It definitely belongs to the archive. Happy Wiki-ing! --200.124.230.250 16:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The contents of a second flame war have been sent to that same page. Andres C. 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above-mentioned second flame war has been moved to its own subpage: Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar2 Andres C. 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A subpage named Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Archives has been created to archive previous discussions held in this page but not related to flame wars. Andres C. 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability issues

Hello. On the section "Ecuador's thesis of nullity", we find the following sentence:

On September 29, 1960 Ecuadorian president José María Velasco Ibarra declared the Rio Protocol null and void. (Some specualate he had internal political motivations for doing so.)

The problem here is the presence of the weasel term some speculate. Knowing Velasco Ibarra's liking for all things melodramatic, I get the point, but it is likely that non-Ecuadorian readers may be at a loss. I mean, who exactly is doing the speculation? In order to stick to Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability and avoidance of weasel terms, I think it is necessary to back this up with some reliable source, or reword this sentence so as to avoid the "some speculate" part. I haven't found anything on Velasco Ibarra's domestic political calculations behind the 1960 decision. In the worst-case scenario, we may have to delete it altogether until we can come up with some data to support this speculation. A great article like this should try to steer clear from speculations. I'll be glad to know what everybody thinks. Fine job by the way!. Regards --Andres C. 01:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Normally speculation should be excluded, that's true. But in this case that's an important part of Peru's POV, and the article tries to present both POVs as extensively as possible. Any recommendations on how you'd change the wording of that? Neurodivergent 14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed it a bit. What do you think? Neurodivergent 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Seems to be the best way to include the Peruvian POV without falling into a weasel term trap. BTW, in 1960 Velasco Ibarra declared the nullity of the Protocol after coming to power for his fourth term, beating hands downs Carlos Guevara Moreno after obtaining around 50% of total votes in the presidential election. Typical of him, he was out by 1961.

Andres C. 15:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

About President, Velasco Ibarra, I would like to present some important evidence that may reveal the real motives behind his invalidation of the protocol:

Despite his populist rhetoric, Velasco Ibarra remained clearly and deliberately allied with the conservative oligarchy. [1]
On March 30, 1946, Velasco Ibarra declared himself dictator, abrogated the progressive 1945 constitution (which had been in effect only a little more than a year) and reinstated the 1906 constitution. [2]
Velasco's populism continued into his inaugural address, when he renounced the 1942 Rio Protocol. He thus came to power with the adoration of the masses, but he saddled himself with expensive commitments to the poor at a time when deficits in the state coffers were approaching a critical level. [3]
Additionally, Velasco threatened Ecuador's shaky economy with what amounted to a declaration of hostilities against Peru' and the guarantors of the Rio Protocol, namely Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States. [4]

With these examples, it is obvious that he did not exclude populist and nationalist rethoric in order to gather political support, an in more than one opportunity, attempting to achieve dictatorial powers. Thus, I'm in favor of restore the deleted line. Messhermit 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

He definitely was a populist -- well known fact. Perhaps you can play that into the article. But it all remains as speculation. It's possible other presidents of Ecuador would've done something similar. (Btw, nothing was deleted.) Neurodivergent 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Circunstancial is not the appropiated word that I would use, since the facts exist. As any other President since the War of 1941, he knew the political support that he would get with that move. It's important to stated that also. Messhermit 18:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence simply means that there is no direct evidence; in trials, for example, it means that there are no eye witnesses. (Even DNA evidence is considered circumstantial, but that's another topic.) In this case it simply means that based on a pattern of past behavior you predict a motivation. To not be circumstantial, you'd basically have to have a written statement by Velasco saying that in fact he came up with the idea of nullity as a political tool. As an analogy, I think Dick Cheney pushed for the invasion of Iraq in order to benefit Halliburton. Any suggestions on how I shold play that into the Dick Cheney article? Neurodivergent 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

There has recently been another edit war in this article over the neutrality and historical accuracy of a single paragraph, as well as over more personal isues, such as the good faith of an editor (myself). Most of the flame was sent to Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar.

Below is a short summary of the dispute and a couple of suggestions I propose.

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 physical presence in the northern part of Maynas (that is, north of the Marañon river) at this time.
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. The total area that changed hands, relative to the 1936 status 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)

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.).
Thus started an edit war which rapidly escalated, with edits and reverts coming one after the other, in quick succession, and which included some pretty serious personal accusations.
The edit war continued until March 13, when Katefan0 locked the article, as requested by this Wikipedian.

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

Trying to come to an agreement with the other party in this Talk Page.
Posting warnings in Wikiquette alert, the first on March 10
Asking the article to have Full Protection until the amicable resolution of this dispute. The article is currently locked with Full Protection.
Posting an announcement in Wikipedia's Request for Comments
Requesting the help of the Mediation Committee, which was turned down by the other party.

[edit] Recommendation

In order to come up with a text that follows the NPOV rules, 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 anyone interested in the topic. Cheers Andres C. 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good revision. Seems to hold all the main ideas and keep neutrality. I don't see any bias from my perspective. Sorry for the long delay in response, had a huge chunk of work recently and couldn't get to commenting on this topic. I hope this article can be finished and be done with. Pvt Mahoney 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Pvt Mahoney. I am Ecuadorian, hence -being my nation one of the involved parties in this past historical dispute- one must be particularly careful regarding the use the right words in the right place in these kinds of articles. Anyway, I concur with you: as far as I can see, I'd say the present version shows no particular bias towards one side or the other. Be that as it may, and erring on the side of caution, it would be wise to wait for a couple of days to see if there's any disagreement before asking for the protection to be lifted. Cheers and thanks for mediating. Andres C. 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messhermit's answer

It seems that all my counterarguments were erased... I wonder what happened with them. Messhermit 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for reverting

Wikipedia ask for sources in order to have accurate, fair an NPOV articles. I reverted those editions that did not have sources and were clearly POV (an Ecuadorian POV, that is). My only work with this page was to keep it in the way that it was before the last rv war; that is, neutral.
The other user involved basically states: Go and look for the sources yourself. As far as I know, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that information that may not be available on the net or in the local library. Why then, I must do the work of another Wikipedist? Presenting NPOV sources (since just by reading the title of some of his neutral books it is clear that they already have a POV) it's the duty of every wikipedist; the reader of the article is not suppose to see if the info stated is accurate. The reader Trust Wikipedia, and with this example the only side that is getting harm is him.
I don't understand the part of serious personal accusations. The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. So far he is only interested in keeping the article with his POV sources and own personal opinions. Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas

The other party involved claimed that there were not Peruvian settlements before 1830:

Diocese of Maynas (created on May 23, 1803). It later changed its name to Diocese of Chachapoyas on 1843.
The city of Jaen was founded on 1549 [5]. In this particular case, the city itself requested to be part of the peruvian state [6]. Guayaquil joined the Great Colombia Federation by its own will... disregarding the fact that by Royal Decree it was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Why then, the Ecuadorian thesis recognise the choice that Guayaquil made as valid and the one made by Jaén as invalid? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that point should be clarified... Guayaquil joined the GCF after San Martin and Bolivar met in that city specifically to discuss that issue, among others. There was an official document signed stating clearly that it was to belong to the new formed Federation and therefore it was not simply a popular decision. That occured during the time both leaders were establishing new borders. Also most of the other agreements signed after the disolution of the GCF disregarded whatever decrees were standing during the spanish administration,and that would also include the Rio de Janeiro Protocol...let's then be careful on that statement. Guerrero de la noche

[edit] Regarding Sources

Curiously enough, I have been able to find parts of this book on the net: Invasión peruana: el Protocolo de Río. Antecedentes y explicación histórica. The autor makes some interesting remarks regarding the disputed territories (wich, unfortunatelly, were not included by the other part involved in this discussion):

Cuando se perdió esa provinvia (Jaén)?: en 1821, o sea antes de la batalla de Pichincha y la liberación de Ecuador. Nacimos a la vida republicana sin Jaén.

Regarging the city of Tumbes:

Hemos poseído alguna vez esa provincia desde la independencia?

These can be found here: [7], and the article that uses them even states in which pages are located. Why the other user focus to much on the supposed territorial question (clearly trying to lead the reader to reach the conclussion that Ecuador lost territory) and totally ignoring the real one: If the disputed territories were (regardless if they were de facto or de jure) part of Ecuador? Clearly POV.

If the Ecuadorian ambassador that signed the Rio Protocol is questioning the legitimacy of the Ecuadorian claim, does it makes sence to think of Ecuador giving away territory? Maybe a personal opinion of the other Wikipedist? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(more to come...)

Yes, the link refers to a work by Percy Cayo, which was already provided by me days ago. Cayo cites some of Tobar Donoso's paragraphs in order to advance Peru's case. That's ok. I have not included this citations first because I have the book, and second because it has nothing to do with the paragraph, and I am not supposed to copy the entire book in this page. There was not a single yard of land in the province of Jaen exchanged between Ecuador and Peru as a result of the Rio Protocol. It had been Peruvian, and stayed Peruvian. Andres C. 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

But will you deny the fact that Jaen is also included in the 'Areas donde el Protocolo de Rio es inejecutable? Jaen is the perfect example that refutes your argument:

There was no peruvian settlement north of the Marañon. Messhermit 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. The area where Ecuador said that the Protocol was impossible to implement was limited to the 78 km-long stretch between the border markers of "Cusumaza-Bumbuiza" and "20 de Noviembre", that is the "divortium aquarum" between the Zamora and Santiago rivers. That's not Jaen. The disputed area was next to the modern Peruvian department of Amazonas. The province of Jaén is located in the Department of Cajamarca. So yes, I guess you can say that I deny the fact that Jaen was included in the 'Areas donde el Protocolo de Rio es inejecutable. When I say no Peruvian presence north of the Marañon in 1830 it is understood I am refering myself to Maynas. Jaen has nothing to do with the Marañon river. It is west of the Marañon river, not north of it. Through the province of Jaen pass the rivers Chinchipe and Huancabamba, tributaries of the Marañon. Andres C. 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate of Ideas

Sources: Regarding the sources used to give figures on the changes made by the Rio Protocol to the 1936 "de facto" line, I specifically mentioned them. I'll do it again if it helps. Julio Tobar Donoso. La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Río. Antecedentes y Explicación Histórica. Banco Central del Ecuador. Quito, 1945, 1982. (The Peruvian Invasion and the Rio Protocol. Background and Historical Explanation).

So far, the lines that I have stated in my previous argument are the only parts of the book that can be verify on the net. However, your editions go beyond that scope, providing a POV that cannot be verify (since there is no resources that support your claims on the net). Any link to support your editions? Once again, you have not present any accurate link. Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

- Messhermit pointed out a number of objections regarding the use of this source.
  - It carries the word invasion in the title; therefore it's not a neutral or reliable source. Here are his exact comments

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)

- - As for neutrality, no author in the world is completely neutral or free of bias. That's in the nature of the human being, and also in Wikipedia's articles about POV and NPOV. Peruvian writers and historians supported Peru's cause, Ecuadorian writers and historians supported Ecuador's cause. Still, it must be said again that Mr. Tobar Donoso was the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister who signed the Rio Protocol. In his book (originally published in 1945) he specifically warned against attempts to try to put in question the validity of the Protocol. Still, I would like to point out that I used Tobar Donoso's book to give figures, not opinions.
    - So far the only thing that your editions had are opinions and not facts. In that case, you are clearly providing a false statement.
  - As for reliability, it should be pointed out that most respected Peruvian historians (Cayo, Denegri for example) who have written about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute consider Tobar Donoso's book as a first-rate source for Ecuadorian information. See for example this work by the famous Peruvian historian Percy Cayo Córdova which has been published in the internet: Las Primeras Relaciones Internacionales Perú-Ecuador. Cayo cites Tobar Donoso at least three times. In page 30, Cayo (which naturally has a proPeruvian POV) refers to Tobar Donoso's book as a "valioso libro" (valuable book).
    - Compare to the ultra-nationalistic rethoric that is clearly abundant in Ecuadorian literature regarding the issue, it is clearly valuable. Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit says: The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. Measures taken by me reach a compromise are detailed in the subsection Steps taken by Andres's to resolve the dispute or to call for help from a third party. These steps included an official request before the Mediation Committee.
- Aggressiveness and threats are not mediation. Also, I have already stated that I refused the mediation because it was based on just one side of the story and without presenting my version of the events. How is possible to achieve a NPOV resolve to this conflict if the other user only present what is favorable to him and not the whole truth? He is no angel or compromiser, as he is trying to portrait himself Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Maynas:The Diocese of Maynas was created following the Cédula Real of 1802 decreed by the King of Spain. It was transferred from the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada to the Viceroyalty of Lima, not to the Republic of Peru. After the independence, both Colombia and Peru claimed their respective rights over Maynas. That is already stated in the article, as well as the discussion between Peru and Ecuador regarding the implications of the 1802 Cedula for the drawing of the borders between Ecuador and Peru. In 1829, in the treaty of Guayaquil (at which time Peru had no knowledge of the Cedula Real, and Colombia, which knew about it, said nothing of its existence to the Peruvian delegates), there was talk regarding considering the Marañon river as the natural border between Peru and Colombia (Gran Colombia), leaving that to a binational commission to decide on the matter. The Gran Colombia dissapeared in 1830, and the commission never went into function.
- Glad to see that you are finally making a point. If the border was never settled, then how come that the Ecuadorian version always present the inexistent Pedemonte-Mosquera Treaty (because no original document has been provided so far) as a prove of that supposed agreement between the Peruvian Republic and the dissolved Colombian Federation?. Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Jaen: In colonial times, Jaen was part of the Presidencia de Quito (part of the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada). When it declared its independence on June 1821, its inhabitants declared their desire to be under the protection of General San Martín, and then became part of the liberated Peruvian province of Trujillo, which after the total independence of Peru became part of the new Republic. Colombia's request for the delivery of Jaén was one of the causes for the 1829 Colombian-Peruvian war. After the war it continued to be part of Peru.
- Good! you are making another point. I wonder then why Ecuador has always claimed Jaen as part of their territory. Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I don't understand the reference to Jaen since:

The province of Jaen had nothing to do with Maynas, before or after the independence of Peru and Colombia. The First Constitutional Congress of Peru, inaugurated on September 20, 1822, had 15 representatives from the Department of Trujillo (to which the province of Jaen belonged by the wishes of its inhabitants) and 1 representative from the Department of Maynas y Quijos. (Jorge Basadre, Historia de la República del Peru. Vol I. 6th Edition. Ed. Universitaria, Lima. Page 3.) Also, in the Law of 1836 for the reorganization of Peru's internal political jurisdictions, the province of Jaén became part of the new Department of La Libertad (along with the provinces of Cajamarca, Chota, Huamachuco, Pataz, Lambayeque, Chiclayo, Trujillo and Piura), while the province of Maynas y Quijos (renamed Maynas) became part of the new Deparment of Amazonas (along with the province of Chachapoyas). Basadre, op. cit. Vol II, p. 258-259.
Having said that, it must be noted that the southern borders didn't change much as a result of the Rio Protocol. Jaen had been Peruvian for more than 100 years, and continued to be Peruvian. No changes of territory in that area occurred.

This post is becoming quite long. I'll refer myself to the actual Peruvian colonization of Maynas (citing Basadre) later.

I would like to comment on just one thing Messhermit said: If the Ecuadorian ambassador that signed the Rio Protocol is questioning the legitimacy of the Ecuadorian claim, does it makes sence to think of Ecuador giving away territory? Maybe a personal opinion of the other Wikipedist? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Julio Tobar Donoso always defended the validity of the Protocol against some writers and politicians who were already protesting against it in 1944-45. For Tobar Donoso, the deal was the best Ecuador could get given the circumstances.
Though I don't want to engage myself in personal issues with Messhermit, I would like to point out that his last remark seems to be contrary to Wikipedia's basic policy regarding the assumption of good faith by another editor, an accusation that was already launched when it was said that I was making up my sources.
- And I have my reasons: The Flame War that you started, and your constant personal attacks against my person are good reasons to doubt about your fairness and neutrality. Messhermit 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bearing with me. Cheers. Andres C. 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

I cannot stay quiet when I see someone trying to portrait just a single side of this story:

Wikipedia ask for sources in order to have accurate, fair an NPOV articles. I reverted those editions that did not have sources and were clearly POV (an Ecuadorian POV, that is). My only work with this page was to keep it in the way that it was before the last rv war; that is, neutral.
The other user involved basically states: Go and look for the sources yourself. As far as I know, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that information that may not be available on the net or in the local library. Why then, I must do the work of another Wikipedist? Presenting NPOV sources (since just by reading the title of some of his neutral books it is clear that they already have a POV) it's the duty of every wikipedist; the reader of the article is not suppose to see if the info stated is accurate. The reader Trust Wikipedia, and with this example the only side that is getting harm is him.
I don't understand the part of serious personal accusations. The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. So far he is only interested in keeping the article with his POV sources and own personal opinions.

Having explained this, I will provide some info that cannot be refuted:

The other party involved claimed that there were not Peruvian settlements before 1830:

Diocese of Maynas (created on May 23, 1803). It later changed its name to Diocese of Chachapoyas on 1843.
The city of Jaen was founded on 1549 [8]. In this particular case, the city itself requested to be part of the peruvian state [9].

(more to come...)

[edit] Talkpage size

The talkpage is starting to creep into the unmanageable size, with the page being 37.6kbs. Me thinks it should be slightly cleaned up, or at least subdivided into different pages (i.e. Talk:History_of_the_Ecuadorian-Peruvian_territorial_dispute/NEWSECTION) It would be much more manageable, if we removed all of the POV flame war-related topics and put it all on its own subsection. That would actually allow us to WORK on the article, instead of focus on flame-topics. ^_^ Anyone else concur? Pvt Mahoney 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I've been thinking about this myself for the last couple of days. Haven't done it for fear of having it reverted. There's actually a page which was created by another Wikipedian for that very purpose: Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. I think we can dump the current flame war on that same page. I'll give it a try. Tell me if the results are ok with you. Andres C. 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say do it, and then put up a notice where to find it for those who might not know about the change. Pvt Mahoney 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is that, by taking away my suggestions and recommendations, other Wikipedians will not have the opportunity to agree or disagree with them, or add their own comments, which is precisely what the article needs in order to be unlocked. If you don't mind, I'll put them back in the page. Cheers. Andres C. 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No issue, just thought I would move it all together, but I see what you're saying now. I say that in about four months, it should be moved or deleted anyway, if the issue has been resolved before then. Pvt Mahoney 14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to organize contents a bit more, I've just created another subpage, Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Archives, to archive previous discussions not related to flame wars.

I'm also polishing my Recommendations subsection here. Hope it helps. Anyhow, the article cannot be in Full Protection indefinitely. As soon as administrators see that there is no active discussion going on, they will unlock it.Andres C. 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

The article has been locked for eight days and there is no active discussion going on in the page. Sadly, there are no comments or counterproposals to my recommendations, despite the RfC notice. There is no way to know whether my proposal has gained acceptance or is still regarded as Ecuadorian POV-pushing with baseless propositions. Any comments would be welcome. Andres C. 19:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andres. I haven't been able to put much time into this. Can you come up with a summarized list of the issues and paragraphs that are currently in dispute? Neurodivergent 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article itself was more than neutral the way that you writed Neurodivergent. The whole problem started when Andres C. decided to puch a POV that clearly was trying yo portray Ecuador as the country that give away territory. Your line that stated (more or less) that both sides were forced to drop their respectives claims was replaced with a POV. Messhermit 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neurodivergent. It's good to see you back. In order to help other editors who might wish to comment, I have already summarized the issue on Section 3 of this Talk Page. The initial paragraph is in maroon fonts. The new paragraph I'm proposing is in blue fonts. In between there's a explanation for the changes, and a list of the steps I took while trying to put an end to this recent revert war. I sent all the awful stuff related to the edit war and the personal attacks (Ecuadorian POV-pusher, etc.) to the flame wars subpage in case you are interested. Anyways, thanks in advance for any comments you may have. Take care Andres C. 06:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are misleading the reader: You attempted to modify the paragraphs in order to push a pro-ecuadorian POV. Does that makes a fair and equal article? nop. Does that label you as POV pusher? yes, since you were not willing to accept that your modifications were non-neutral. Messhermit 12:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like what Andres originally changed only removed the statement regarding Peru's de facto posession of much of the territory in dispute. Andres was trying to clarify that there was some territory lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. The original paragraph did mention this, but it wasn't as clear on this point. I think it is important to mention Peru's de facto posession, and Andres' "compromise" paragraph does note this, while also explaining the changes compared to the 1936 status quo border line. New information is always good, so I think Andres' compromise paragraph is fine. Messhermit, what are the issues you have with Andres' compromise paragraph? Let's see if we can address them. Neurodivergent 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated some of my anwers in a new section above. Also, I would say that the Utti Possidetis of 1810 is far more important that the question of de jure or de facto ownership of the territories (since it was the other Wikipedist the one that raised some questions about those two important principles). As a matter of fact, the so called Compromise was a forced one, since the page was protected. Messhermit 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither party respected the uti possidetis principle. Colombia annexed the province of Guayaquil, the province of Jaen became part of Peru. As we all know, Peru's position on the matter of the borders with its neighbours followed three principles, spendidly expressed by Basadre. (1)the uti possideti, (2)the wishes of the people, (3)the actual possession of the land. I would certainly like to know what has Jaen to do with the paragraph. Andres C. 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this user is trying to mislead the discussion by denying that the disputed territories included parts of Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas. A carefull explanation of the usual ecuadorian map (the ones after the supposed nulification of the Rio Protocol and that they use to have in Guayaquil or Quito's International Airport) clearly includes Jaen. Is there any attempt to deny that fact? Messhermit 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to mislead anyone or to deny facts. The maps they used to have in Quito and Guayaquil after the supposed "nulification" of the Protocol included Jaen, as a territory that Ecuador claimed as its own by right, according to Ecuador's view of the territorial dispute. Actually, I was referring to the fact that the ownership of Tumbes or Jaen, or for that matter even Maynas itself, was not even discussed at Rio de Janeiro in 1942. All that the diplomats did at Rio was to draw on the map the definitive border using the 1936 "status quo" maps as a basis. The 1936 line had Tumbes, Jaen and the lower Maynas inside Peruvian territory, and there was no change on that part of the line. The changes that ocurred were mostly limited to the disputed Amazonian border. Jaen was Peruvian, and stayed Peruvian. That is the reason why I don't understand what is exactly the part that Jaen plays in the changing of hands of territory that ocurred as a consequence of the 1942 treaty. Thank you. Andres C. 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. There's an RfC notice about this article. A couple of comments on this matter

The behavior of the editor Messhermit has been extremely confrontational. I would suggest him to stick to the issue at hand and not hurl personal accusations against the editor Andres C. Also, refusing a request for Mediation on the grounds that the Mediators will only consider one side of the story is quite a strong statement.

Andres C. has put in a lot of information on this page and seem to know a lot about the issue being discussed. Nevertheless, his credibility has been called into question by Messhermit with some pretty harsh words. Since this is an obscure topic for most English-speaking users, I suggest him to scan the relevant pages from the sources he is using and upload them to this page or to another subpage, as the page is quite long as it is now. Regarding his complaints about personal attacks, he seems to be turning the other cheek right now, which is always commendable. He should continue to focus on the topic and refrain from striking back, a course of action that will only make things worse.

[edit] A comment from Andres C.

This debate about maps in aiports, 1549, Jaen, the uti possidetis, Guayaquil, the Marañon river, Cedulas Reales, the Pedemonte-Mosquera, and more is interesting and can go for days on end, as it encompasses the whole issue of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. I am just asking for opinions regarding the paragraph I propose to modify. Again, this is my proposal:

I don't see the usefulness of the discussion about Jaen for the resolution of this particular conflict. The entire 22,000 km2 plus area of territory that changed hands in 1942 was located in the Maynas territory. Nothing happened in Jaen.

Finally I would like to thank Messhermit for these personal comments about me:

So far he is only interested in keeping the article with his POV sources and own personal opinions.
- You have not provided sources for some of your editions, and anybody who reads them clearly views a Ecuadorian POV. Is that a personal attack? Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  - Sources have been provided. Scans will be provided. Still, if I am not mistaken, it appears that Pvt Bmahoney and Neurodivergent do not seem to view my edits so clearly as Ecuadorian POV. Thank you. Andres C. 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So far the only thing that your editions had are opinions and not facts. In that case, you are clearly providing a false statement.
- Indeed. We are talking about sources and not personal attacks. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
your editions go beyond that scope, providing a POV that cannot be verify (since there is no resources that support your claims on the net).
- Once again, since when asking for sources is a personal attack? Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Compare to the ultra-nationalistic rethoric that is clearly abundant in Ecuadorian literature regarding the issue, it is clearly valuable.
- WRONG, since at any moment I was talking about you. Read the whole thing, and don't try to surprise the reader with this type of sentences. Don't put words in my mouth. That paragraph clearly stated that compared with other BOOKS availables in Ecuador, maybe the one from Tobar Donoso is the least worst.
  - Thank you for referring to books written in my country in such a way. I must say, on the other hand, that I have the utmost respect for Peruvian historians, many of whose books I keep in my personal library. Andres C. 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have already stated that I refused the mediation because it was based on just one side of the story and without presenting my version of the events...He is no angel or compromiser, as he is trying to portrait himself.
- And I'm wrong? The flame war goes against you in this sense. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Flame War that you started, and your constant personal attacks against my person are good reasons to doubt about your fairness and neutrality.
- So I should ignore the previous treatment that you use in your debut here in Wikipedia and give you a blank check once again? No, since your behavior is still the same. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Does that label you as POV pusher? yes, since you were not willing to accept that your modifications were non-neutral.
- Taking this from Wikipedia (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POVwarning"):
- One of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is to present topics from a neutral point of view. This means articles must represent each outside view fairly and proportionally, but not present any single view as true. Your edits appear to violate this principle and introduce bias to the article. Please use the talk page to discuss controversial edits—if you do not, it is likely that your edits will simply be removed by others. You should also be aware that repeatedly inserting something breaks the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Ignoring this may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
- Clearly, you have ignored several times the fact that without sources and with a Ecuadorian POV the only thing that you are doing is violating this important rule. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this user is trying to mislead the discussion
- And have you not? both in the flame war and the last rv war you were clearly moving from talking about the topic and attacking me. Also, defending the Ecuadorian position involves that the peruvian territories of Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas were at some point part of Ecuador. Maps produced in your country prove this, but now you are only claiming that the whole issue was about Maynas. So? that was the only claim that Ecuador had? no, and you know that. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

About this, I'd like to say that there are two particularly good articles in Wikipedia:

In particular, this last one says, and I quote: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Well, that's it. Thank you. Andres C. 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have provide an answer to each one of your so called accusations. If you are gonna ask for respect, at least have the decency of showing some. Messhermit 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

People earn the respect of others through their actions, not by asking for it. Yours words are valuable. I will have the decency to show some respect for you. Thank you. Andres C. 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section: Sources

There is a new subpage for this article, History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources. Please click on it to view pages from Julio Tobar Donoso's book pertaining to the present discussion. At this moment it's in Spanish. The part pertaining to the article refers to the figures about the areas exchanged between Ecuador and Peru -relative to the 1936 status quo line- as a result of the Rio Protocol. Thank you. Andres C. 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only objection so far that I can find is the fact that Tobar Donoso uses the word invasor (Invador) while he is talking about the peruvian forces in the Disputed Territory. Besides the fact that El Oro and Loja where under peruvian military control, the disputed territory was not under the complete sovereign of any of the parts involved. Messhermit 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually Mr. Tobar Donoso uses the word invasion to refer to the crossing of the Zarumilla river by Gen. Eloy Ureta's forces on July 23, 1941, the defeat of the Ecuadorian outposts on the northern bank of the river ("the Battle of the Zarumilla"), and the subsequent advance of the Peruvian forces along the axis Huaquillas-Arenillas-Bellavista-Santa Rosa-Pasaje-Machala-Puerto Bolivar, in El Oro, with secondary operations on Zapotillo and Macara, in Loja. Andres C. 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

However, it corroborates one of the points that the other Wikipedist said: Basadres's 3th theory regarding the territorial issue of the early Latin American republics. Messhermit 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, wouldn't be a good idea to upload other documents? I have a couple of articles (removing the POV that is always present) in my computer that it may help in this issue. A map of the disputed territory (together with a map of the Peruvian Ecuadorian Border of our days) would add more info to the article. Messhermit 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to resolve

This is turning pretty messy. Let's keep things pragmatic. Andres has proposed a compromise paragraph. Messhermit, do you have an alternative paragraph? Just tell us what you want to do. You want to revert to original text or modify what Andres proposes in any way? I'd note that Andres has added some new notable information (which I assume is citable) so it would be best to keep it in some way. Neurodivergent 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected by Katefan0. I will proceed to replace the relevant paragraph with the proposed version agreed upon by all the parties involved in the recent discussion. Andres C. 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

May I reminded you that not all parties have agreed with you? if you state your POV here, be aware that I will removed it or revert it. Messhermit 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I still believe that the previous paragraph (the one that the other wikipedist is trying to change) is far more neutral, simpler and accurate than the other one. The proposed one (even after removing any traces of POV), could be far more confusing, since not everything that is stated in that paragraph is detailled in the article. Messhermit 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought you had agreed upon the proposed paragraph, as Bmahoney and Neurodivergent had. What is exactly what you want us to do? Cheers. Andres C. 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is already stated. Messhermit 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused. On March 24 you wrote The only objection so far that I can find is the fact that Tobar Donoso uses the word invasor (Invador) while he is talking about the peruvian forces in the Disputed Territory. I though you were talking about the paragraph, responding to Neurodivergent's question. 15:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Andres C. 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign!)

Am I to understand then that what you want is for the paragraph to stay the way it was? Also, you are already warning me in advance that you are going to revert the article if I change the parapraph to the proposed version. Besides the fact that such a statement was not very friendly from your part (and probably uncalled for) I am left wondering what was the purpose of the informal mediation that we went through with the help of Bmahoney and Neurodivergent. Would you then be willing to accept a formal mediation from the Mediation Committee? If you agree, you can ask for it, and I will accept the mediation. Andres C. 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The previous paragraph is more appropriate, hense it should stay as it was way before this whole debate started. Also, I warned you because of your usual disregard of other wikipedian's editions. Messhermit 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's not how it works in Wikipedia. We're not suppossed to fix articles or to prevent other editors to contribute as long as they are not engaged in vandalism. The articles in Wikipedia are based on consensus, and three editors have reached a consensus in this page regarding the change I am proposing. On the other hand, I don't think warnings have a place in Wikipedia. Finally, I ask again: would you be willing to accept a formal mediation from the Mediation Committee? If you ask for it, I will give my acceptance right away. Andres C. 23:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the paragraph that was posted in the article (before the whole rv war started) is far more neutral, simpler and better.
Also, your so called request for mediation are clearly biased towards my person. Just by reading those paragraphs that you write it is obvious that you portrait yourself as a the moderate and the other party involved (me) as the troublemaker. I refuse to participate in such mediations that, just with that start, are clearly biased.
Another point:

Ecuadorian propaganda efforts seem to be inspired by the erroneous idea that if something is repeated frequently enough it is bound to be believed as true in the long run, disregarding how inaccurate, false, or absurd it may be. This reasoning on the part of Ecuador might be correct in the sense that perhaps it may be able to confuse some people into believing that the protocol of Rio de Janeiro reduced its territory and increased Peru's. [10]

I hope that you finally understand that no side gained territory. Messhermit 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. The person that wrote the original paragraph (Neurodivergent) has specifically stated that he sees no problem with my proposal, and that it gives more details on the subject.

The requests for mediation are not meant to be biased against you. On the contrary, I am actually asking you to call for a Mediation (which I will accept inmediately). You can present me as the troublemaker if you want. That's OK by me. The important thing is to nip another edit war in the bud. I still think an official mediation is a good idea. Please, call the Mediation Committee. I will accept their mediation right away. Andres C. 02:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Andres' paragraph adds info, such as detail on what changed compared to the 1936 status quo border line. Messhermit, unless you consider this info to be uncitable, I see no reason to rever to original text. Neurodivergent 14:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The info states that one of the parties involved lost territory, regardless of how nice it has being tried to be reworded. These clearly push only a POV that does not represents the real issue regarding the Rio Protocol: That is, that the Disputed Territories of Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas ceased to exist, the borders are settled and the territory finally divided between the parties involved. The so called Compromise Paragraph does not solve this, and only confuse the reader by stating info that is not present in the article. Messhermit 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A pledge to extinguish flames and unlock article's "edit this page"

It has been a long time since this dispute has gone so far, unfortunately both parts have never reached an accord, and this seems a little bit a shame to the article, because there are some users like me, who perhaps can add some information to the article like pictures (the article really lacks of them) and another links. I would ask to both parts please to come to an armistice and let others to contribute to the article.--HappyApple 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello HappyApple. You can ask Katefan0 to unlock the article. He announced he would do so, but for one reason or another he thought it was better to leave it locked for the time being. Three persons (myself included) reached an agreement on the inclusion of a paragraph (see above), but then Messhermit gave a warning, so things came to nothing. -- Andrés 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the other user involved in this dispute only presents information that supports its ideas. Therefore, I have to explain the dispute once again: the paragraph that has being modified now involves (in its current state) a personal and one-sided POV. That is, the "idea" that Ecuador "lost" territory that obviously was not under their sovereign. No matter how much the paragraph is reworded, that biased opinion is still present and thus, against the NPOV rules. Messhermit 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think HappyApple can read what is on this page and draw his own conclusions, Messhermit. Perhaps you don't need to explain this over and over again? -- Andrés 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe a temp ban may be in order if this situation doesn't get resolved promptly. Who gets banned is entirely up to the persons who continue to cause issues. This article should have been open a long time ago, and should have never had all this bickering. I do support Andres' solution paragraphPvt Mahoney 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can make an additional change to the paragraph, Andres, so that it doesn't say that Ecuador "gave" Peru territory. The article could document, in a very neutral manner, what changed relative to the 1936 status quo border line without using verbs such as "to give". What do you think? Neurodivergent 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Neurodivergent. I'll rephrase that part and see what comes up. I hope we can finally reach some kind of consensus. Thanks for your proposal. -- Andrés 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought about a possible wording: Ceded. Ecuador ceded the territory to Peru. And personally, in the outcome of this situation, it is true that Ecuador lost and Peru gained, let's face that fact and do something more productive. Loss is not the end of the world here.... Pvt Mahoney 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pvt Mahoney. I'd thought about ceded as well. (i.e. Ecuador ceded xx sq miles of land to Peru, and Peru ceded xx sq miles of land to Ecuador). But as far as I understand, Messhermit's position is to avoid any reference to Ecuador losing anything, so perhaps cede may not do it, as it may be seen as similar to give. As for who came the winner and who came the loser out of the conference, we all know the answer is pretty obvious. What we need here is to find a formula that Messhermit finds acceptable. Hey, don't think I'm enjoying this quest for the perfect word. As far as I am concerned, it's all a waste of time. -- Andrés 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is against Messhermit's POV, so why are we catering to just one individual? We're not here to write articles for us; We're here to write articles for other people. Let's get that straight. All of this appeasement nonsense annoys me Pvt Mahoney 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have to clarify mi ideas and refuse these accusations of POV:

The "Disputed Territories" ceased to exist once the Rio Protocol divided the whole territory between the parties involved. That is, neither side had sovereignty or total control of the territory and thus, the territory itself was not an integral part of any of the republic involves.
Having explained this, it is not my POV the one that is the problem here. The POV that is the trouble in this article is the one that states that Ecuador "lost" territory in favor of Peru.
Reviewing facts and not mere opinions: If the Disputed Territories were not part (and thus, not sovereignty also) of any of the parties involved, how can a country lose something that it was not theirs in the first place?
The answer, as stated by the other wikipedist involved in this dispute is: NONE. Neither Ecuador nor Peru gained or lost Territory. The disputed territories were "divided" between both countries after the Rio Protocol was accepted.

Having explained these points, it is more than clear that I'm not the one that is causing controversy in this page or with the modification of the article. It is this paragraph that attempts to portray a POV. Messhermit 02:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to see this page to be open again, because i really wish to participate on this page, even if is a minor adit, but it seems this dispute is going and going and going (i am not referring to Duracell's adds). As a casual reader (because i prefer to contribute on scientific articles), i believe the temporal banning tool should be the last resort to solve this conflict, but as we have reached this stalemate on accords, my question is, should both parts involved on this conflict be banned?--HappyApple 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do to edit here is to ask for this page to be unlocked, HappyApple. Anyhow, the answer is yes, you can ask for me to be banned. All you have to do is to present a case, with the specific evidence pointing to the reasons why you think I should be banned (e.g., violations of official policies, insults to others, disregard for consensus among editors, etc.) Regards. Andrés 03:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This question was going to Pvt Mahoney not exactly to you User:Andres C. because he said in a previous paragraph this :"Honestly, I believe a temp ban may be in order if this situation doesn't get resolved promptly.", and i want to ask, if he can ban someone to let this conflict to reach a prompt solution, who will be?, both parts?, to be frankly a temporal ban should be the last resort to solve this conflict.--HappyApple 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Proposal

As recommended by Neurodivergent, and Pvt Mahoney, I bring forward this modified paragraph:

By signing this Protocol, Ecuador formally renounced its long-standing historical claim for the right 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 hitherto disputed territory in the Amazonian basin (known as the "Maynas" region) were awarded to Peru, which was already the "de facto" possessor of most of these lands since the end of the 19th Century. The diplomats at Rio de Janeiro took the 1936 Lima Accord's "status quo" line -which recognized current possessions but not sovereignty- as the basis for the definitive border line. As a result of the line drawn up at Rio de Janeiro, and relative to the 1936 line, Ecuador ceded to Peru 18,552 km2 of previously possessed territory, and Peru ceded to Ecuador 5,072 km2 of previously possessed territory.

Sources: Julio Tobar Donoso. La invasión peruana y el Protocolo de Rio. Antecedentes y Explicación Histórica. ("The Peruvian invasion and the Rio Protocol. Background and Historical Explanations) P. 462. Quito, BCE, 1945/1982.

Please, let me know what you think. -- Andrés 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What Messhermit should recognize is that the new paragraph adds information. I didn't know the details of the 14,000 km2 myself. There's really no good reason to censor this information. If he would like to propose different wording to present this information, that's fine. I might propose changing the last part as follows:

relative to the 1936 status quo border line, Ecuador's net loss was of about 13,480 km2 (not 200,000 km2 as is usually reported). About 18,552 km2 of previously Ecuadorian possesed territory went to Peru in the ?? region, and about 5,072 of previously Peruvial possesed territory went to Ecuador in the ?? region. Neurodivergent 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another proposition with more neutral language:

As a result of the line drawn up at Rio de Janeiro, and relative to the 1936 line, Ecuador was awarded 5,072 Km2, and Peru with 18,552 of the territory.

Once again, I have stated that no side "loss" territory because of the Rio Protocol. I hope that this will end this issue once and for all. Messhermit 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But once again, you are wrong. I even took the time to go out, and look at other sources that have information on the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro. All of them state that Ecuador gave up territory. Links:

How much more do you need to get before you give up? Losing isn't a biased word. Losing is the correct term here. Pvt Mahoney 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are relaying on innacurate sources:

[16] -> The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. For a change history, click here. This article is a mirror from old information stated in Wikipedia. A much more detailed and upgraded version is available here [17], wich clearly does not uses "losing" or "gaining" regarding the territorial changes after the treary.
[18] -> Ecuador agreed to a border that conceded to Peru much territory Ecuador previously had claimed in the Amazon.. As stated in the paragraph found on this page, it did not implaying losing territory in favor of Peru.
[19] The document states this:

The Rio protocol established the borders on the basis of the status quo line agreed by Peru and Ecuador in 1936, according to the effective territorial possession held by each country at the time. Therefore, Ecuador did not lose any territory by the 1942 protocol.

Supported by this facts and not personal oppinions, I stance once again that my proposition is far more neutral and much more accurate than the stated by the other wikipedist involved in this dispute. Messhermit 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a question unrelated to this issue, Messhermit. Why is it that you keep on referring to me as the other wikipedist? Is there any particular reason for you not to refer to me by my name? On a second related issue, please note, Messhermit, that ecuador native.web.org is a source you have used on this very article, to put Ecuador in a very bad light. Finally, do you realize that your stance on this issue is based on a personal opinion? -- Andrés 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1.- You used several names to talk to me, from the right spelling of the word "messhermit" to "this individual" in previous disputes. I decided the current definition that I use for you is far more neutral due to the fact that is not insulting, and also means that we don't have confidence between us.

2.- The article found in Ecuador native.web.org was not written be my or any other person related with the countries involved. It was written in the US, Washington to be more precise, and it points out several flaws in the Ecuadorian Thesis.

3.- It is your personal opinion that started all this dispute, trying to portray Ecuador as a country that "Lost" territory when in fact it did not lose anything. The only thing that Ecuador "lost" was his supposed claim to the Disputed Territories.

Messhermit 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So I am the other wikipedist, you are Messhermit. In any case, I would prefer to be called the other Wikipedian.

It's my personal opinion, plus the personal opinion of two others, against your personal opinion.

Since you are very strict on all things related to NPOV, truthfulness and impartiality, you may be interested in checking on the link. It does put Ecuador in a bad light, doesn't it? Now, don't you find a little strange for an article to be so grossly biased? (and I don't care if the bias is towards Ecuador or Peru, just follow me on this). Now click on its parent site: http://ecuador.nativeweb.org/border/. What does the first paragraph says? Yes, as you see, it is supposed to be an Indigenous perspective on the conflict. The word CONAIE appears there. It says the document comes from Washington D.C. (probably from the State Department). Probably??? What's that supposed to mean? Yes, that these people quite probably don't have any idea where it came from or who wrote it. As you see, it is an anonymous document, Messhermit. Nobody knows who wrote it, when, or where. But let's keep on reading, because what follows is really interesting: its analysis is somewhat slanted in favor of Peru. Indeed it is. And then, it goes on to say: For another version of the story from Ecuador's perspective, see this document on the territorial problem between Ecuador and Peru. Click on the link and read...Yes, you get a biased view of the issue, this time in favor of Ecuador. I don't really know if you get the point, but I hope you do. Verifiability and Reliability. -- Andrés 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Although I agree that the sources in that indigenous page are biased against both perspectives, I wonder how impartial and accurate are data published by an Ecuadorian general that is (or was) involved in the arms dealing between Ecuador and Chile in the middle of the war and that is accused of human right violations.

Obviously the info used as "sources" is more a POV than an accurate research. I don't think that a person involved in such things would write something that will work against him. Hense, just as the previous info is biased against both parties, the one that the Chilean paper (and many other "independent" papers) use as sourced is biased against Peru.

Thus, it is more an opinion than any other thing. Messhermit 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No comments. Andrés 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The page linked from nativeweb.org is text posted to a mailing list named ec-charla in 1994 by someone with a lepruwash nickname. It is clear the person who posted this is Peruvian, and the source is clearly biased if you take the time to read it. I was surprised to find ec-charla there. That's a list that has been dead for a while I'm sure. I used to be a member in 1993-1994. There was a major debate about the territorial dispute in that list in that timeframe, where members of a Peruvian mailing list were invited to participate. Ideas such as the binational park were probably first proposed in that very debate. Neurodivergent 19:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected the article per the request dropped at WP:RfPP. I'd hope that two months have been more than enough time to resolve your differences and refrain from edit-warring, but it just in case, I'll keep it watchlisted and jump in at the first sign. Let me know if the article needs to be protected again. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello AmiDaniel. The ArbCom's remedies for this case took care of the edit-warring. Thank you for unprotecting the page. Andrés C. 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to hear it. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peruvian History Navigation Box

Hello. I removed the {{History of Peru}} template from the main page. For practical purposes, Wikipedia articles about the history of more than one nation are left without these templates on the main page, so as not to clutter it with infoboxes about all the nations involved. Andrés C. 13:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources

An article that you have been involved in editing, History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/sources. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Subpages no longer exist, so this article shouldn't be here. In addition, the images it contains from books are copyrighted. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1828 War urgent clarification

Once again I am forced to interfere after reading the orientation of the author when narrating the events of the 1828 war. It's very easy to use pure personal perception of things and leave out important facts that otherwise would make the article say what it supposed to, even if the author doesn't like it... As it is now, it is outrageuosly biased. I've come to the conclusion (after reading this article, and the spanish one which in no way is the same one,and which by the way brings to me the question of why is it not just a trabslated copy of this one, but that's another point) the author is definately an anti-Bolivar guy, but whatever, that is not really my concern. What makes it serious however, is to state that Bolivar's declaration of war against Peru was a sort of RETALIATION for having colombian troops expelled from Bolivia and as part of his plan to become a life-time president in his supposevely ambititous unification plan... what kind of statement is that???? What about De la Mar's intention of annexing Loja and southern territories from the Real Audiencia de Quito? What about his premeditated invasion to El Oro province to gain a reaction from Bolivar after what had happened with Antonio José de Sucre? Let's not forget De la Mar belonged to Bolivarian troops at first during the independence fights... The war broke out when peruvian troops under De la MAr's command invaded what is now southern Ecuador, and was then the southern areas of the GCF ALREADY FORMLY ESTABLISHED. I therefore demand that part to be urgently clarified or else I myself will erase it or edit it. This is not a matter of nationalities, it's a firm response to an aggressive alegation/insinuation with absolutely no real fundings, just based on a single peruvian's point of view, and obviously a violation of wikipedia's policies. Guerrero de la Noche. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.10.196.63 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_the_Ecuadorian-Peruvian_territorial_dispute_026b.html"

Categories: B-class Peru articles | Unknown-importance Peru articles