Talk:History of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Gonzalo Pizarro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Current state

message: I'm sorry to involve my self in this discussion concerning this article and its main (and recent) contributors, but.. it seems both  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reaching consensus  

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  ???????? 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)
replies: text: As you can see, I've archived the flame war. Neurodivergent 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing disputes 

message: Interesting, asking to block the editions once the article is back at your editions. How NPOV is that? I'm now convinced that you are nothing more than a POV pusher. Messhermit 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have voted against your mediation. Clearly, you are not interested in making the article NPOV, but only to present your POV. Nothing good will come from a mediation that use as base your own editions of this article. Messhermit 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Full Protection & Request for Mediation 

message: It seems this topic has gone into an ambiguous circle of accussations between two parts, in one side, the ecuadorian point of view towards the territorial dispute versus the peruvian point of view, in the course of the discussion thread, both sides never reached a consensus and i personally think this isn't going somewere, however there are some bias which i consider malevolent.
*Someone does not need to had a weapon, or serve in an army to talk about a conflict, to accuse for such accusation someone who has a point of view based on arguments found on books had to be considered seriously, and this goes through the second point.
*Books written in the 1940s dont have an ISBN code, however the source is verificable as far as the document (if a scanned version is available) can be uploaded to wikipedia servers to state an argument, and this doesnt implies the book doesn't exist,(ISBN was adopted as standard since 1970). 
*In order to mantain sanity and avoid offense i would advise both parts involved on this heated debate please abstain using caps lock or bolding words to state arguments based to diminish the other.
And so far, there are many other examples in which both sides didnt acted in good faith, however i would advocate to give the opportunity to user:Messhermit to post his point of view stated on the article, i believe his vision towards this dispute clears the panorama for people who aren't well informed about this event.--HappyApple 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments stated on the first paragraph were a summary of what has been discussed on this thread, and all has been done in good faith without any intention to remark or add fuel to this dispute. --HappyApple 04:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A compromise and a search to extinguish flames 

message: * On March 5, the article had the following text under the Rio Protocol section:
By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed territory were awarded to Peru. Most of it was already in Peru's de facto possession since before Ecuador became a republic in 1930. In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km² (5,404 squared miles) changed hands as a result.
* On March 7, I edited the text to the following version:
By signing this protocol, about 200,000 km² (77,200 squared miles) of disputed Amazonian territory were awarded to Peru. Actually, considering the status quo line of 1936, Ecuador lost to Peru around 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles).
I had three reasons for making this edition:
*Ecuador became a Republic in 1830, not in 1930.
*Before the year 1830 there was no Peruvian or Colombian physical presence in the Maynas region. Certainly, there was no Peruvian presence in the northern part of Maynas (that is, north of the Marañon river, along the Putumayo, Napo, Tigre or Pastaza rivers, tributaries of the Marañon). This is common knowledge, but we can dwell on this if necessary. Suffice it to say at this moment that the Peruvian city of Iquitos was founded in 1864.
*The text which reads "In reality, only a small fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. In practical terms, at most 14,000 km2 (5,404 square miles) changed hands as a result" is historically inaccurate. As I have explained before in this page, the total area that changed hands, relative to the 1936 statu quo line measured 22,280 km2, not 14,000 km2. This last number -actually 13,480 km2- represents the net loss of land that, being in Ecuadorian de facto possession following the 1936 Lima Accord, was awarded to Peru. Andres C. 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what I got from reading all of this was the following:
*Peru acquired land. How much land did it acquire in the end?
*Ecuadar no longer had political rights to the land Peru acquired.
*Ignoring all this de facto nonsense, Ecuador no longer had land that it wanted, and Peru got what it wanted.
So let me figure this out. There's no reason to be bickering over nothing, when you can easily state that land that Ecuador believe it possessed finally was written down as being lands of Peru. What treaty was this that caused the land to go into Perus hands? 
Now that we have established the fact that Ecuador agreed that Peru would have the land, could we give up on all this "Ecuador lost, gave away" jibber-jabber? Ecuador, in essence, acknowledged that the land is now, indeed, Perus.
There. Done. No more POV nonsense. Anyone for an icecream bar? I'm too cheap to buy an icecream cone =P
One side note: Andres C., if you were just stating that this was your POV, and then previously stating that you were attemping to get a NPOV article written, which is the real truth? If you want NPOV, you have to keep your own POV out of it, correct?Pvt Mahoney 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're telling me that Ecuador permanently recognizes it now? Thank you very much for restating what I said, only with numbers. Pvt Mahoney 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andres's Summary of the Dispute. Points of View, Arguments & Recommendations 

message: In order to come up with a text that is N-POV as Wikipedia understands it, that is, a text that contains both points of view, I propose the following article:
By signing this Protocol, Ecuador formally renounced its long-standing historical claim to have direct land access to the Marañon/Amazonas river, in exchange for the withdrawal of the Peruvian military forces from the Ecuadorian provinces of El Oro and Loja. About 200,000 km² (77,200 square miles) of disputed jungle territory in the Amazonian basin were awarded to Peru, most of which was already in Peru's "de facto" possession since the end of the 19th Century, the areas immediately adjacent to the Marañon river being settled by Peru as early as the 1860s. The diplomats at Rio de Janeiro took the  1936 "status quo" line -which recognized current possessions but not sovereignty- as the basis for the definitive border line. As a result of the Rio Protocol line, and relative to the 1936 line, Ecuador gave to Peru 18,552 km2 of previously possessed jungle territory, and Peru gave to Ecuador 5,072 km2 of previously possessed jungle territory.
This is, I think, a good compromise solution. It has facts and figures. I hope to receive comments regarding this paragraph from mediators. I also hope this issue can be resolved soon, since I have to confess that I am somewhat tired of this endless dispute, and would like to go on to other, less disturbing, projects in Wikipedia.
Cheers Andres C. 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommendation

message: * Indeed, Ecuador became a republic in 1830 after the dissolution of the Great Colombia. Probably a typo that just got in the middle of the discussion.
* The Jaen  and Maynas(clearly located north of the Marañon River) declared it's independence from Spain and send delegates to the 1st Peruvian Congress in Lima.  
* The so called historically inaccurate it's in fact a reality. How many times do I have to point out that a country does not lose territory that was never theirs? How can Ecuador lost a territory that was never in their De Facto or De Jure control? 
*Indeed, the editions clearly attempted to portray Ecuador as giving away territory that belong to them. Nothing more baseless. It is clearly a POV. Messhermit 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what I got from reading all of this was the following:
*Peru acquired land. How much land did it acquire in the end?
*Ecuadar no longer had political rights to the land Peru acquired.
*Ignoring all this de facto nonsense, Ecuador no longer had land that it wanted, and Peru got what it wanted.
So let me figure this out. There's no reason to be bickering over nothing, when you can easily state that land that Ecuador believe it possessed finally was written down as being lands of Peru. What treaty was this that caused the land to go into Perus hands? 
Now that we have established the fact that Ecuador agreed that Peru would have the land, could we give up on all this "Ecuador lost, gave away" jibber-jabber? Ecuador, in essence, acknowledged that the land is now, indeed, Perus.
There. Done. No more POV nonsense. Anyone for an icecream bar? I'm too cheap to buy an icecream cone =P
One side note: Andres C., if you were just stating that this was your POV, and then previously stating that you were attemping to get a NPOV article written, which is the real truth? If you want NPOV, you have to keep your own POV out of it, correct?Pvt Mahoney 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interlude

message: Now that we have established the fact that Ecuador agreed that Peru would have the land, could we give up on all this "Ecuador lost, gave away" jibber-jabber? Ecuador, in essence, acknowledged that the land is now, indeed, Perus.
It is actually not that simple. After this was signed, it was later voided by Ecuador and considered false. It wasn't until 1998 that Ecuador permanenatly actually reconized it. I've have also seen in this article that there is no reason given why the terriotry was so important. The area is basicly rural jungle. The reason is Peru has has access to the Atlantic via the Amazon River and pf coarse to the Pacific by it's 1500mi. coastline which containes many of its major cities. Ecuador has long sinced wanted acces to the river. Two of Peru's major ports, Iquitos and Pucallpa are located on the river and on it's tributaries. This is one of the most important topics as it is the reason the whole thing started. 
Vivaperucarajo 05:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're telling me that Ecuador permanently recognizes it now? Thank you very much for restating what I said, only with numbers. Pvt Mahoney 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not that simple 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Firestar464 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]