Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)

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).

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)
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)
    • 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)
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)
    • 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

    • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
Oka, I will try to keep that in mind if I edit those lines. Messhermit 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
You are right, friend. Now please calm down, ok? --Andres C. 13:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you calm down, I will. Messhermit 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
 ???????? 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)
As you can see, I've archived the flame war. Neurodivergent 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_the_Ecuadorian-Peruvian_territorial_dispute_Flamewar_4819.html"