Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian War

message: what's the source of this ecuadorian myth? Greetings Rasdar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.39.36 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese mercenaries???? 

message: While it is clear that the critical post below lacks any sort of unbiased foundation, it is also very clear that the article in question is not accurate at all.
The author, presumably editor for both Ecuadorian-Peruvian war and Cenepa war, cites an article on the latter from the US Department of National Security. This article is used to reinforce his point that the military engagement of Cenepa in the 90's was started by both sides.  Meanwhile, the same research paper qualifies the 1941 Ecuadorean - Peruvian war as an invasion by the Peruvian forces.  This completely refutes the wikipedia entry in which it insinuates a provocation act by forces, that according to the US Dept, consisted of  "3,000 poorly led and equipped Ecuadorian soldiers against 15,000." Dragonlord kfb 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral assesment Oct. 14 

message: Looking at this from a relatively neutral perspective, and with very little knowledge of the conflict in question (though this "stupid Yank" would be happy to be directed to the relavent sources), I believe that a few simple and unbiased images to include in this article would be: a: A map of the disputed border region, and b: pictures of the commanders of the respective sides. This may not be much, but this might get the ball rolling. 76.204.16.48 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Suggestion 

message: * Large and Sad proof of Ultra-Nationalistic POV. Messhermit 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messhermit Answer 

message: I do believe that the objectivity of this article should be disputed. It is not true, for example, that after independence from Spain Ecuador was left without access to the Amazon. Things weren't so clear back then as they are now with respect to borders. I don't see any mention of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol, signed between Colombia and Peru (before Ecuador separated from Colombia) which is rather important. There's a book on the subject (can't recall the title) written by an American which is quite impartial and could be used as reference here. -- Jose
:* The Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol is not involved here because of a main reason: It's authenticity cannot be proved by the Governments of Colombia and Peru (the two countries that sponsored that Treaty). The Ecuadorian Government has not been able to proof the existence of that document.
::* My understanding is that the original signed document is missing, and hasn't been found in Colombia. To suggest that the treaty never took place is far fetched (see Occam's Razor). Regardless of what you may personally believe, the importance of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol (existent or not) to understanding the conflict is paramount. This is the basis, the explanation of it all. This is the original point of disagreement. Ecuadorians give much relevance to the protocol. Peruvians either think it is void or non-existent. Wikipedia articles should be objective, without passion or prejudice. The views of both Peruvians and Ecuadorians should appear in the article. As it stands, it reads as if it was taken right out of a Peruvian elementary school's text boook.
:*Sorry, but the info is not from any school book. You may feel comfortable writing the Ecuadorian one? Also, Neither Colombia and Peru have a copy of a treaty that only Ecuador claim to have existed.
:*Also, Brazil Recognized the Amazon river (and by doing this, invalidate the Ecuadorian claim to the river) as part of its frontier with Peru. 
::*I believe you're referring to who discovered the Amazon, which is not that relevant
to this article. You might want to dispute the article Amazon_River#European_exploration.
:*The Amazon River is not the Question. Peru ceded territory allong the Amazonas River and Brazil recognised the rest of the territory as part of the Peruvian Republic.
:*Colombia also recognised borders with Peru even before the signing of the Salomonte-Mozquera Treaty in 1922. 
::*Reference?
:*Quite Simple: Why did he settle it's borders with Peru if (according to Ecuador) the hole territory was Ecuadorian? Messhermit 01:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality in Question 

message: Readers of this article should be aware that the author(s) of this article belong to one of the two nations involved in the dispute. People interested in this subject are strongly advised to consult other sources for a non-biased description of the War of 1941, preferably taking into account both Ecuadorian and Peruvian POVs. Andres C.
And People should be aware that there is a lot of pro-ecuadorian POV pushing going around. Messhermit 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peruvian or Ecuadorian POV in Question ? 

message: AS for the Battle of Zarumilla
* On 5 July 1941 there was a clash between an Ecuadorian Army patrol and elements of the Peru Civil Guard. 
*  In an effort to assert its territorial claims in a region near the Río Marañón in the Amazon Basin, Ecuador occupied militarily the town of Zarumilla along its southwestern border with Peru. 
*After the battle of Zarumilla the conflict was solved by the signature of the Act of Talara, predecessor of the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro.
The beginning of the fighting happened on July 5, 1941 when Equator Army's soldiers entered in Peru's territory in order to remove the wire-work of a peruvian farm. In the same day equatorian troops attacked the peruvian border posts of Aguas Verdes, Las Palmas and Lechugal. 
The battle existed. and YES, you attempted to delete the part about the skirmish in your first modifications.
*There are several books on College, writed by US militars and with the colaboration of Both Peruvian and Ecuadorian embassies that say different stories. I will make sure to select a few of them in order to suport my claims.
*About the action in Puerto Bolivar, it is there because is the first time in latin america that an airbone division is used in war. As a matter of fact, if you research about that incident, you will find that it was also one of the first time that this type of warfare was used in the world.
*The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol. 
*The fact that the Peruvian Army was better prepared does not mean that the war was planned. An example of this is the fact that the Brazilian Military is one of the most powerfull armies in latin america and (as far as I know) is not planning to invade any country. The fact that the Ecuadorian Army was not in shape for conflict, does not mean that Peru was preparing an invasion. 
Messhermit 12:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: This article has been protected for over a week.  I'm unprotecting to see if editing can proceed. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: I don't undestand the necessity of deleting that reference. It's notable and interesting that there was conflict involving Quito and Cuzco really far back. 200.63.231.224 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article titled History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute has not sparked any significant edit warfare so far. I think that should be our model for the 3 articles involved, i.e. present claims by both sides qualifying them for what they are. Neurodivergent 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inca empire reference deletion

message: This article came today under a coordinated attack of vandalism from four different IP addresses (the first two from Miami, the last two from Lima). Extensive amounts of sourced and verifiable information, as well as a list of references, are being deleted from the article.Andrés C. 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were like ten IPs involved, all blocked days ago. Most of them were open proxies anyway. Andrés C. 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in course 

message: I got here from Wikipedia:Translation into English/Spanish. I tried to fix the "war" section for NPOV using both the Spanish and the current English as my only sources, leaving in facts which seemed not to be in dispute (including "Side X claims..."). The text was clearly a battleground, and I believe that it is appropriate for non-knowledgeable outside editors like me to come in and clean it up but that it is NOT desirable to just do a direct translation of the sparser, Spanish version. Please respond if you agree/disagree. --Homunq 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Thanks for taking interest in the article. As you can see, the article has had its share of problems in the past, so having more editors involved is a great thing. Besides being incomplete, it needs a major revamping. In any case, you're right: a direct translation of the Spanish version is not a good idea. Most of the articles on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute on the Spanish wikipedia have a strong bias towards one of the countries involved. --Andrés C. 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute and I think it actually does a pretty good job, it's a better source for outside editors than the Spanish version (though the Spanish version of this article, in particular, didn't look too biased to me at a naive reading). I think for the time being it's a good idea to leave the request for translation as a way to attract attention, but the strategy should be primarily to MOVE stuff from the History page to the War page (leaving just a short synopsis - dates and results, no "who started it" claims - on the History page) and replace the History part of the War page with a reference. If I get positive feedback on this I may start to do it, but of course others are welcome to. --Homunq 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The History section deals with too many details. A shorter Background section would be better. Andrés C. 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if we can identify what this 2 version of the events have in common and state them here. In this way, the reader would not be confused with details that are only claimed by one of nations involved. Creating a timeline would increase the accuracy and chronological order of the informationMesshermit 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating from the Spanish version 

message: Not knowing much about this conflict it still strikes me as ludicrous when I look at the figures of casualties and troops! Considering that the war only lasted 7 weeks, up to 1.5 million dead would most certainly make it the most bloody conflict in human history! Surely, who ever edited this article and added those figures was having a laugh. Any other page concerned with this conflict states the troop strength for this war at about one-thousands of what is stated here, 15.000 at the most! I think it needs some attention from somebody with some proper knowledge.EA210269 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures for casualties and troops!

message: My sources say no more than 24 CKD LTP tanks (Czech Panzer 38). My sources also mention 6 Renault/Latil UE and 95 CKD Praga TH artillery tractors. Considering only the 24 LTP tanks and that 1941 was a time well before US post-WWII aid (M4 Shermans, M3 Stuarts, etc), the number of 200 tanks is a big one, where can this ludicrous number be found? Source? 83.61.244.250 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 200 tanks???

message: doesn't tell why is important  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentBoy (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  not enough