Talk:Football War

message: 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)
thread_title:  There's no discussion of the actual war... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Length 

message: *June 6 1969, Tegucigalpa: Honduras 1 - 0 El Salvador (0-0 at halftime)   
*June 15 1969, San Salvador: El Salvador 3 - 0 Honduras (HT: 3-0)   
*A playoff match on June 27 1969, Mexico: El Salvador 3 - 2 Honduras after extra time (HT: 1-2, FT: 2-2).
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ridiculous. Of course the results should go in here. Jooler 07:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with takethemud and Jooler. Belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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  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)
thread_title: Football results

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Role of the football

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Market suspension 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not neccessarily. Could be as little as 3.01 days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 days? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  nonsensical duration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussing Latin America's penchant (or not) for large land owners 

message: Someone changed the number of casualties to "none" for El Salvador, while increasing drastically the number of casualties of Honduras. There were no sources given, and all the other language wikipedias support the former data. I reverted some minutes ago. So, be careful, maybe this vandal returns to again forge statistics in favor of El Salvador. -- 87.159.65.77 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: " The United Fruit Company owned ten percent of the land, making it hard for the average landowners to compete."
This sentence makes little sense as it stands. "The average landowner" does not "compete" with a fruit company. GeneCallahan (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Fruit Company 

message: According to the information of this website
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_156.shtml
The Mercenaries hired by El Salvador did not do much figthing, choosing to fly away in confrontations.
The actual dogfights, if any, were done purely between El Salvador pilots and Honudran pilots.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.246.44.138 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Salvador Mercenaries 

message: Not really sure how to do this as I have never done anything like this before, but I happened across this page and started reading it.  The entire article, particularly the First Shots section, seems to be very biased in favor of El Salvador.  For example the sentence, "This is, perhaps, the only good thing coming out from what is considered a defeat of the Honduran forces in general, since the Honduran army did a poor job on the ground and never stood a chance against the ferocious Salvadoran Army force," is just one example of some of the statements that seemed to biased.  
I am sorry that I am not more helpful, but I have never done anything like this before.  I figured it would be best to try and bring it to the attention of those who are more knowledgeable on the subject.  The only reason I bothered was that the article was given a high rating which did not seem appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.177.9 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Bias 

message: The "First shots" section says, "Late in the afternoon of 14 July 1969, concerted military action began." The "Cease fire" section says, "A cease-fire was arranged on the night of 18 July; it took full effect only on 20 July." That is six full days, 50% more than the "four-day" or "100 hour" war spoken of in the first sentence of the lead. Can somebody explain the discrepancy?  Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it myself.  --Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four-day war? 

message: "FENAGH was anti-campesino as well as anti-Salvadoran."
While this may be true in the author's opinion, I have no reference to go on, and it smacks of sloppy journalism. I suggest deleting it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Troydickers (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC
:The source cited at the end of the paragraph is the source for the whole thing. Searching on Google Books for Federación Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Honduras anti-campesino I got this result from The war of the dispossessed: "...los grandes terratenientes se organizaron para formar un grupo anticampesino, anti-colono ilegal y sobre todo anti-salvadoreño en 1966. Este grupo era la Federación Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Honduras, la cual era generalmente abreviada..." which Google Translate translates as "...large landowners were organized to form an anti-peasant (anti-campesino), anti-illegal settler and especially anti-Salvador group in 1966. This group was the Federación Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Honduras, which was usually abbreviated..."  Scolaire (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective comment without a reference: 

message: "Amelia Bolanos" redirects to the Buildup section, but it doesn't actually say anything about her.Pyromilke (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amelia Bolaños 

message: The account of the air war says that Capt. Fernando Soto shot down Capt. Guillermo Reynaldo Cortez, ‘who died when his Corsair exploded.’ However Cortez’ article states he was merely wounded and died when his plane crashed; the source there is his biography. How should this be resolved? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Per the comment two posts up, and per , I have nominated  for deletion. The discussion is at  -- Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amelia Bolanos 2