Talk:Football War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
El Salvador Portal
Football War is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
SICA ZP
Latin America Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Both sides lose

How can both sides lose? Either it's inconclusive or one side wins... ugen64 17:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Answer: Because the ONU (UN) stopped the war in the 4th. Day...The country who opposite a this desicion could be invaded.....Thats why they named it the "100 hours war". -- 168.243.218.1
factmonster says that it was the OAS rather than the UN who persuaded Salvador to withdraw. The bellman 12:48, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

[edit] Playoff match

"A playoff match on June 26 or June 28, 1969" was anonymously changed without citation to "A playoff match on June 27, 1969". Does someone have a citation for this apparently unclear date? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:25, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ryszard Kapuscinski

Put this in a section called other because it hasn't been used as a reference? --SqueakBox 20:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive edit by anon, including some deletion

I don't know a lot about this, so I'm only going to make a process-oriented remark: I'd appreciate comment from a registered user who knows this topic either endorsing User:68.167.204.193's recent edit or indicating if he/she thinks there are issues with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There's no discussion of the actual war...

Since the article is about the war, it should discuss the actual war. What exactly happened? Who invaded whom? What sort of armament was used? Or was it guards firing over the border at each other for six days? Tempshill 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

I just set up a new section title and had it reverted with rollback. Please explain why that happened here and what your objection to the edit, which I thought made the article look much cleaner, is exactly? SqueakBox 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aah, gremlins problem. That expalins it, SqueakBox 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

The intro is longer than the article!

It feels like ridicule or belittling to give the details of the futbal matches more attention than the civilian or military casualties of the actual war. The section, which I cut, could go in the World Football Cup article. --Uncle Ed 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is an interesting tidbit of information. I won't restore it, it should be discussed first. takethemud 06:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

[edit] Football results

This results of the game was recently deleted as unrelated. Even if it isn't INTEGRAL to the Football War, it is an interesting tidbit of information. I would be in favor of restoring this if others agree it should be restored. takethemud 06:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

It should go in whichever article covers football, with perhaps a link from Footbal War and a brief explanation of why somebody decided to nickname these 6 days of battle the "football war". I'm more interested in the origin of the nickname than the results of the match. Is there an article on Football in Central America? --Uncle Ed 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Of course the results should go in here. Jooler 07:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm with takethemud and Jooler. Belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Shame about the result, SqueakBox 14:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of the football

Although the actual causes of the war were, undoubtably, not about football, I think the role of the match in triggering the war deserves more comment than "These existing tensions between the two countries were inflamed by rioting during the second qualifying round for the 1970 Football World Cup. On July 14, 1969, the Salvadoran army launched an attack against Honduras."

Epeeist smudge 09:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Market suspension

A recent edit turned "12-year suspension of the Central American Common Market" into "22-year suspension…" Both are uncited, so I have no idea if this is a correction of vandalism. Does someone have a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Central American Common Market page, it looks like 22-year is correct (The organization collapsed in 1969 with the Football War between Honduras and El Salvador, but was then reinstated in 1991.) Nik42 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date

What is "by late m2006" supposed to mean? I'd have presumed "by late 2006" but, since that is still a bit in the future as this was added in early October 2006, that may not be the meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the demarcation was mentioned earlier in the article which is fine, not much happened this year, so deleted my edit addition, SqueakBox 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 days?

The war started on the 14th and ended on the 18th. That makes 5 days doesn't it? Cjohnzen 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not neccessarily. Could be as little as 3.01 days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


According to the penguin dictionary of international relations it was 5 days, ive changed it back for now.--Talkshowbob (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nonsensical duration

This section makes no sense; other places in the article talk about 4 days, or about a decade; but this part says "many decades", and also refers to the turn of the twentieth century, which, if am not mistaken, was 1900:

These unkept promises had been made on the night of July 18th, 1969. Many decades later, at the turn of the twentieth century, did the fighting actually cease to exist. El Salvador had refused to withdraw their troops from the occupied territory in Honduras until August 2nd, 1969. On this date, Honduras also guaranteed Salvadoran President Fidel Sanchez Hernandez that he would provide adequate safety for the Salvadorans still living in Honduras.

Bayle Shanks 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing Latin America's penchant (or not) for large land owners

The statement:

In Honduras, a large majority of the land was granted to large landowners or big corporations. This was a very popular trend in Latin America and still is to this day.

...has been tagged as disputed (not by me) and supposedly there was a section in here for discussing it. There isn't, but hey, now there is. Wikipedia should stick to the facts. The first sentence is a fact. The second, part-fact, part-opinion. (If the tagger was disputing the factual aspects of land ownership in Latin America, they really ought to take themselves to a history book.) Therefore, I have proposed a rewrite that incorporates the factual aspects together into a single sentence, as follows:

In Honduras, as in much of South America, a large majority of the land was owned by large landowners or big corporations.

"Popular trend" isn't strong words. The reference to South America contextualises the land ownership issue as not being exclusive to Honduras. I removed "granted" because it may imply someone did so recently, whereas it has happened over hundreds of years. 58.108.27.47 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC) user:Aragond