Talk:Cenepa War

message: The Ecuadorian Air Force never achieve air superiority in the Cenepa War, in fact, was unable to stop the air raids of the Peruvian Air Force, which operate almost since the beginning of the war until the cease-fire. Please avoid nationalism in Wikipedia, this is about the truth, and isn't acceptable this kind of statements. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: The reader should be aware that the brief description of the events leading to the outbreak of the conflict are presented from the Peruvian POV. 
From the Ecuadorian POV, it was the setting up of a Peruvian outpost (Base Norte), located behind the Ecuadorian outpost on the Cenepa headwaters which brought about the war.
References: Pablo Cuvi,Al Filo de la Paz 1999.
*Another Example of POV pushing. Truth always finds it way. Messhermit 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On POVs, Reverts, & Deletions

message: Is the number of downed Ecuadorian aircraft the only remaining issue in this article? I believe the number currently listed in the article is uncitable. Messhermit should prove otherwise. I'd suggest mentioning claims by both sides in that regard with citations, indicating that they are claims -- or removing the sentence altogether might be easier.
As general feedback, I'd say that the article does sound a bit apologetic towards the Peruvian side, with things like "overcoming difficult logistics" and all the stuff about Ecuador's advantages. It's like it's saying, these poor Peruvians, they sure had an uphill battle; it's a wonder they managed to survive. I'm sure Peru had advantages too, which are not mentioned, and that might be ok if they aren't notable. Perhaps they are, it's of general interest. For example, Peru still has one of the strongest military forces in South America, while Ecuador's rank is unknown to me, probably very low. Military spending is likely significantly divergent.
200.63.231.224 23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I occurred to me Wikipedia should have a feedback/rating system for Wikipedians, like eBay has for sellers, but then again, I'd have to create an account :) plus anonymous editing is what allows Wikipedia to be what it is. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your work is top-notch, and all things considered, you have managed to stay cool so far (yes, I know it was stupid of me to let myself be dragged into a flame war; well, sh@t happens, as they say). Why don't you go on an open an account? You will be even more anonymous that way (and secure, as your IP will not be out in the open anymore. Also, everybody can start referring to you with an easier name than 200.63.231.224... :) Take a look at some of the benefits that opening an account have. Saludos. --Andres C. 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. FYI, I took your advise. Neurodivergent 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: His discussion page is a kind of user feedback page though. Is he also deleting complaints from his discussion page? 200.63.231.224 16:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I saw, he seems to get into trouble quite often with a number of people. It seems other Ecuadorians have thrown up their arms in despair before (thus the unilateral stance of the articles, as you (and I) found them). If this reverting thing goes on, I'll end up throwing in the towel myself. --Andres C. 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since it's pretty recent, there are quite a bit of searchable magazine and news paper articles outside of Ecuador/Peru on this conflict. I'm sure it would be possible to write an interest and neutral article about it. It's a shame that people are basically disallowed from editing it and that uncitable claims are kept. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine to include the speculation that Velazco was politically motivated, so long as the article indicates that it is speculation by Peruvians, i.e. the article doesn't state it as if it were fact, as it used to in the 1941 article, a sentence which I've fixed to indicate it's speculation -- something which hopefully will be left alone as is. Normally I believe the Wikipedia philosophy is to exclude speculation as much as possible. But in this case it's probably notable and would lead to an endless edit war if excluded. 200.63.231.224 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, that's a shame. Try some simple grammar/spelling changes and see if he deletes them. If he does, report him. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining Issues?

message: *Messhermit: When I came to Wikipedia, the first thing I did was to correct the figures for the losses during the Cenepa war. My edits were immediately reverted. When I asked about the reason for that and the sources for the numbers given in the battlebox, I got accused of promoting an Ecuadorian POV. Then I asked your opinion about a mediator, you did not answer. When I tried to contact you directly, I got accused of vandalism for the mistake of contacting you in your personal page...It was not what I would call a friendly reception from a veteran Wikipedian.  Please approach the subject of Peruvian and Ecuadorian losses during the Cenepa war with the utmost respect. If you agree to that, I think we can get on in very good terms.  
*About the battlebox: Messhermit did not put it in there. It was someone else. What Messhermit did was revert any changes made without explaing reasons for doing so. And I found that a bit shocking. 
*I think that a battlebox for a conflict that happened barely 10 years ago is by itself troublesome. First, it asks for an outcome to be put in. If you write "Ecuadorian victory" (on the grounds that the Ecuadorian forces were able to hold on to their bases in the Cenepa valley during the conflict) it would only cause another flame war. If you write "Indecisive", you would have to explain why it was indecisive, and so on...
*On the aircraft losses. I found someone (not Messhermit) had written in the battlebox that Ecuador had lost 6 aircraft and Peru 9 aircraft. Both numbers are wrong. The ACIG information is in general correct (though some very interesting "insider" details from the Ecuadorian side are lacking; I don't know "insider" details from the Peruvian side, someone will have to help us on that one). I ask Messhermit to specify what part of the ACIG data he finds inaccurate. If he gives specifics, we can have an interesting & friendly debate about such data. I hope he does that.
*At the end of the day, and if the worst comes to the worst, Neurodivergent's idea would be the best way to solve the issue of aircraft losses without an edit war. Each side would just write down the number of aircraft and helicopters each side claimed, and the number each side 
recognized as having lost.
:That's probably the way to go. Those numbers should each have citations if the issue is so contentious. If some citations are better than others, that's for the reader to figure out. Neurodivergent 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this Chilean paper has an analysis of the losses, and says there's no trustable source of information: . Neurodivergent 17:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Battlebox and the figures given for losses

message: I renamed the article Cenepa War (from Cenepa war), to keep it in line with other articles belonging to the same Wikiproject, e.g. Yom Kippur War, Vietnam War, etc. Hope it's ok with everybody. -- Andres C. 07:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagename

message: Well, as far as can see editorial war broke out once more. It seems this is too flammable and unsettled topic for me to engage. I'd better go farther into the past and try to translate Chincha Islands War. Verdi1 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Verdi. The funny thing is, this article had been quite stable since November 2005, as you can see in the History page. As for the recent unexplained massive deletion, I'm clueless. It seems that editor didn't even like the map :) I guess I can put everything back into place.  Andres C. 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry folks.  There must be a gremlin in the system.  I was just trying to change MANPAD to MANPADS (the correct acronym), clicked "edit" for the appropriate section, made the changes, and for some reason saving that section deleted deleted everything else.  Computers do some weird things. Preuninger 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! No problem Preuninger. Thanks for leaving the note. Andres C. 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I think this tag is inappropriate and it has been used twice.  I think it should be removed! 203.115.91.242 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? Can you please identify/logon when commenting? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be that as it may 

message: The strength box is only used to represent the strength of the forces employed in the conflict. I doubt that the entire forces of each side were involved. If 6400 tanks were battling it out in S.A. I would have heard more about this conflict. --Lemmey (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick browse in the existing WikiArticles on the Ecuadorian (Ecuadorian Army#Equipment 2) and Peruvian (Peruvian Army#Equipment, Peruvian Army#Personnel) armies shows huge discrepancies in materiel figures. Can any experienced editor please improve the Infobox or get sources for the figures currently in it? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength 

message: 3000+ tanks? On both sides? Thousands more APC's? Really, and they flew them in on Mi-17's eh? Methinks the infobox needs a little work... Maury (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the info box? 

message: I have removed the abovementioned paragraph from the infobox. The Cenepa War ended with the signing of a ceasefire and an agreement regarding the withdrawal of all military units from the war zone pending the results of the diplomatic negotiations to be carried in the context of the Rio Protocol. The MOMEP, a peacekeeping force from the four guarantors of the Protocol (USA, Brazil, Argentina. Chile) was sent in to oversee the demilitarization of the area. The final agreement regarding the definitive closure of the border was reached only in 1998, after a lengthy process of diplomatic negotiations and some saber-rattling from both parties. While minor adjustments were made to several sections of the common border, the most important aspect of the Peace Agreement was Ecuador's final recognition of the Condor mountain range as the border between both nations in the Cenepa valley. 
Also: Ecuador was not "forced" to change its maps as a result of the Peace Agreement, as the text seems to imply. The current official map of Ecuador came into being in 2000 as a result of an internal administrative decision. Adiutrix (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial Changes 

message: The chronology section deals mostly with the air war. I'm assuming there was a lot happening on the ground as well. To the degree that it is possible (for jungle skirmishes that may have been confused), can someone give more detail on the ground war? 69.196.129.179 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of chronology section 

message: The section Chronology of the War only puts the Ecuadorian version.
As a veteran of that war, I can say that what is written below :
February 22
That afternoon and night, the Ecuadorian forces retaliate against Peruvians positions until the next day, when was detected an intense activity in the Peruvian lines, identified by the Ecuadorian officers as the evacuation of the casualties caused by the offensive the night before.[14]
It is false. It is true that there were a few injured by the artillery that fired during hours that night, but the reason for the intense activity the next day was for the arrival of President Fujimori and journalists.
Having read the page  http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_164.shtml. I can assure that many lies that are written here. For starters there was no Navy airplane lost.
Sorry but everyone already knows how many casualties had the Peru, and I find it shameful that even now people still repeat the same nonsense on this subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.66.100 (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes is a joke now, for yours edits and your peruan POV ;-) Ecuadorians were defeated, and therefore did not get any of the goals they had set: to question the validity of the Rio Protocol and achieve the papal : but..lol, read this please. The ip here is probably this, or this of others wiki (it, fr and es.wiki).--Kirk39 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry but this article is a joke 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050204141033/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_164.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_164.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050514004034/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_164.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_164.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051220020254/http://aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk:80/waf/americas/ecuador/AirForce/Ecuador-af-home.htm to http://aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk/waf/americas/ecuador/AirForce/Ecuador-af-home.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051024075411/http://www.uc.cl:80/icp/webcp/papers/def8.pdf to http://www.uc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/def8.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050204141033/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_164.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_164.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927160752/http://www.rree.gob.pe/portal/boletinInf.nsf/0/d279e8a9d33601e605256ff3000a4f62?OpenDocument to http://www.rree.gob.pe/portal/boletinInf.nsf/0/d279e8a9d33601e605256ff3000a4f62?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024075411/http://www.uc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/def8.pdf to http://www.uc.cl/icp/webcp/papers/def8.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821042548/http://www.hoy.com.ec:80/noticias-ecuador/venta-de-armas-lleva-a-juicio-a-menem-311728.html to http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/venta-de-armas-lleva-a-juicio-a-menem-311728.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified