Talk:Paquisha War

message: * Here due to the RfC - Please use and explain both terms. To understand the conflict, one needs to understand the differences in perception from both sides - both Peruvian AND Ecuadorian POV need to be ident, and ident as such - as in "According to Ecuadorian sources...." & "According to the Peruvian version...." This is the only way an outsider can form a NPOV & understand the conflict. Mentioning only one perspective to the exclusion of the other version IS POV & propaganda. Bridesmill 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. That is precisely my point. Both version of the story must be presented. Hence, my insistence on allowing for the article to state that the military outpost that caused the conflict was named Paquisha by Ecuador, just as it was later named Falso Paquisha by Peru. Both names must appear, one alongside the other. There is detailed explanation of why the post, which was baptised as Paquisha by Ecuador (the name of an Ecuadorian town located outside the disputed area) went to be known as Falso Paquisha (falso as in fake) by the Peruvian government. Andres C. 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments: ''Paquisha and Falso Paquisha''

message: The aftermath section is also poorly written, which leads me to believe that this entire article needs to be rewritten, dates need to be exacted and the content of this page needs to be simplified, sourced and needs to make more sense. The flow of this page is choppy and there are dates that arent very well written down in the article Pvt Mahoney 02:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your appreciation. Andres C. 03:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another issue

message: Hate to continue criticising this article, but a lot of this article is straight-up copied from other sources... "In the aftermath of the incident, both sides increased their military presence up and down the Cordillera del Cóndor area and the Cenepa valley down below, starting a cycle of tensions and provocations that ended up producing another military confrontation in 1995, the Cenepa War." <- I copied that from Answers.com. I copied this from this article "In the aftermath of the incident, both sides increased their military presence up and down the Cordillera del Cóndor area and the Cenepa valley down below, starting a cycle of tensions and provocations that ended up producing another military confrontation in 1995, the Cenepa War." Pvt Mahoney 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pvt Mahoney: I think you should have taken a minute to take a look at the history of the article, and see how it was created. It so happens that you just accused me of plagiarism. Actually, I happen to be the original contributor of the information you are referring to. Everything that appears on the Paquisha Incident article in Answers.com, except for the two last references, is copied from Wikipedia, as indicated in the Answers.com article. The information that appears there is what I wrote here in Wikipedia about this issue, on November 7, 2005. Here it is.. I am not responsible for what has been written afterwards, until this recent event. Look at the history section to see who wrote the rest of the article. You want the article to be deleted because it makes you bleed foul? Fine. That's ok with me. Better to have no article in Wikipedia about Paquisha than to be the target of personal accusations by the same person over and over again every single time I put a single word in anything related to the Ecuadorian-Peruvian disputes. Andres C. 04:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It wuold be better if you tell us which paragraphs are the ones that we need to reword, instead of talking about the whole article Pvt Mahoney. Messhermit 19:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism... 

message: You have wrong information. There were never "two" military outposts with the name Paquisha. Please prove your point using reliable and serious sources. Andrés 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Call the war however you want to call it. Tell the world how many Ecuadorian posts had the name Paquisha, and tell us their locations. As for respect, you will learn, in time, that this is something you don't ask for: it is something you earn. So earn our respect. Anyhow, Messhermit, I won't bother you anymore on this article. You are now completely in charge of it. No more Ecuadorians here. Give the war the name you want, give the posts the name you deem most appropriate. Give to the world a nonbiased account of what really happened in 1981. The things you know, and the things that perhaps you are still too young to know. Andrés 05:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another dispute 

message: Please expand on the "Background" section. A link is good, but actual content, summarizing the particularly relevant bits from that linked-to article, would be better. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: I've been able to find the strength of the Ecuadorian side, but not of the Peruvian forces in this conflict. The casualty statistics come from the Spanish wiki article, but it is not clear what their source is. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strengths and casualties on both sides