Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute

Flame war

There have been flame wars in this talk page in the past. They are mostly resolved and have been archived at Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. Readers interested in heated exchanges should use that page. Neurodivergent 14:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I went on to add the sections "Reaching consensus" and "Clearing disputes" to the archive, as they belong to the same topic. What is more, "Clearing disputes" sounded more like an intention from a previously uninvolved third party to get the flame war restarted, long after the two involved contributors had put the matter to rest. It definitely belongs to the archive. Happy Wiki-ing! --200.124.230.250 16:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The contents of a second flame war have been sent to that same page. Andres C. 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A subpage named Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Archives has been created to archive previous discussions held in this page but not related to flame wars. Andres C. 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability issues

Hello. On the section "Ecuador's thesis of nullity", we find the following sentence:

On September 29, 1960 Ecuadorian president José María Velasco Ibarra declared the Rio Protocol null and void. (Some specualate he had internal political motivations for doing so.)

The problem here is the presence of the weasel term some speculate. Knowing Velasco Ibarra's liking for all things melodramatic, I get the point, but it is likely that non-Ecuadorian readers may be at a loss. I mean, who exactly is doing the speculation? In order to stick to Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability and avoidance of weasel terms, I think it is necessary to back this up with some reliable source, or reword this sentence so as to avoid the "some speculate" part. I haven't found anything on Velasco Ibarra's domestic political calculations behind the 1960 decision. In the worst-case scenario, we may have to delete it altogether until we can come up with some data to support this speculation. A great article like this should try to steer clear from speculations. I'll be glad to know what everybody thinks. Fine job by the way!. Regards --Andres C. 01:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Normally speculation should be excluded, that's true. But in this case that's an important part of Peru's POV, and the article tries to present both POVs as extensively as possible. Any recommendations on how you'd change the wording of that? Neurodivergent 14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed it a bit. What do you think? Neurodivergent 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Seems to be the best way to include the Peruvian POV without falling into a weasel term trap. BTW, in 1960 Velasco Ibarra declared the nullity of the Protocol after coming to power for his fourth term, beating hands downs Carlos Guevara Moreno after obtaining around 50% of total votes in the presidential election. Typical of him, he was out by 1961.

Andres C. 15:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

About President, Velasco Ibarra, I would like to present some important evidence that may reveal the real motives behind his invalidation of the protocol:

• Despite his populist rhetoric, Velasco Ibarra remained clearly and deliberately allied with the conservative oligarchy. [1]
• On March 30, 1946, Velasco Ibarra declared himself dictator, abrogated the progressive 1945 constitution (which had been in effect only a little more than a year) and reinstated the 1906 constitution. [2]
• Velasco's populism continued into his inaugural address, when he renounced the 1942 Rio Protocol. He thus came to power with the adoration of the masses, but he saddled himself with expensive commitments to the poor at a time when deficits in the state coffers were approaching a critical level. [3]
• Additionally, Velasco threatened Ecuador's shaky economy with what amounted to a declaration of hostilities against Peru' and the guarantors of the Rio Protocol, namely Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States. [4]

With these examples, it is obvious that he did not exclude populist and nationalist rethoric in order to gather political support, an in more than one opportunity, attempting to achieve dictatorial powers. Thus, I'm in favor of restore the deleted line. Messhermit 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

He definitely was a populist -- well known fact. Perhaps you can play that into the article. But it all remains as speculation. It's possible other presidents of Ecuador would've done something similar. (Btw, nothing was deleted.) Neurodivergent 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Circunstancial is not the appropiated word that I would use, since the facts exist. As any other President since the War of 1941, he knew the political support that he would get with that move. It's important to stated that also. Messhermit 18:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence simply means that there is no direct evidence; in trials, for example, it means that there are no eye witnesses. (Even DNA evidence is considered circumstantial, but that's another topic.) In this case it simply means that based on a pattern of past behavior you predict a motivation. To not be circumstantial, you'd basically have to have a written statement by Velasco saying that in fact he came up with the idea of nullity as a political tool. As an analogy, I think Dick Cheney pushed for the invasion of Iraq in order to benefit Halliburton. Any suggestions on how I shold play that into the Dick Cheney article? Neurodivergent 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Andres's Summary of the Dispute. Points of View, Arguments & Recommendations

There has recently been another edit war in this article over the neutrality and historical accuracy of a single paragraph, as well as over more personal isues, such as the good faith of an editor (myself). Most of the flame was sent to Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar.

Below is a short summary of the dispute and a couple of suggestions I propose.

• 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 physical presence in the northern part of Maynas (that is, north of the Marañon river) at this time.
• 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. The total area that changed hands, relative to the 1936 status 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)

• A few hours later, user:Messhermit reverted this text (along with a number of other editions I had been doing) to the March 5 version, with the following edit summary: (rv. POV detected - No sources.)
• I responded to these revert on March 8 with a revert of my own, with the edit summary (Revert. Bibliographical notes. Please make fair use of rv.).
• Thus started an edit war which rapidly escalated, with edits and reverts coming one after the other, in quick succession, and which included some pretty serious personal accusations.
• The edit war continued until March 13, when Katefan0 locked the article, as requested by this Wikipedian.

Steps taken by Andres's to resolve the dispute or to call for help from a third party

• Trying to come to an agreement with the other party in this Talk Page.
• Posting warnings in Wikiquette alert, the first on March 10
• Asking the article to have Full Protection until the amicable resolution of this dispute. The article is currently locked with Full Protection.
• Posting an announcement in Wikipedia's Request for Comments
• Requesting the help of the Mediation Committee, which was turned down by the other party.

Recommendation

In order to come up with a text that follows the NPOV rules, 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 anyone interested in the topic. Cheers Andres C. 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good revision. Seems to hold all the main ideas and keep neutrality. I don't see any bias from my perspective. Sorry for the long delay in response, had a huge chunk of work recently and couldn't get to commenting on this topic. I hope this article can be finished and be done with. Pvt Mahoney 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Pvt Mahoney. I am Ecuadorian, hence -being my nation one of the involved parties in this past historical dispute- one must be particularly careful regarding the use the right words in the right place in these kinds of articles. Anyway, I concur with you: as far as I can see, I'd say the present version shows no particular bias towards one side or the other. Be that as it may, and erring on the side of caution, it would be wise to wait for a couple of days to see if there's any disagreement before asking for the protection to be lifted. Cheers and thanks for mediating. Andres C. 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit's answer

It seems that all my counterarguments were erased... I wonder what happened with them. Messhermit 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for reverting

• Wikipedia ask for sources in order to have accurate, fair an NPOV articles. I reverted those editions that did not have sources and were clearly POV (an Ecuadorian POV, that is). My only work with this page was to keep it in the way that it was before the last rv war; that is, neutral.
• The other user involved basically states: Go and look for the sources yourself. As far as I know, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that information that may not be available on the net or in the local library. Why then, I must do the work of another Wikipedist? Presenting NPOV sources (since just by reading the title of some of his neutral books it is clear that they already have a POV) it's the duty of every wikipedist; the reader of the article is not suppose to see if the info stated is accurate. The reader Trust Wikipedia, and with this example the only side that is getting harm is him.
• I don't understand the part of serious personal accusations. The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. So far he is only interested in keeping the article with his POV sources and own personal opinions. Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas

• The other party involved claimed that there were not Peruvian settlements before 1830:

• Diocese of Maynas (created on May 23, 1803). It later changed its name to Diocese of Chachapoyas on 1843.
• The city of Jaen was founded on 1549 [5]. In this particular case, the city itself requested to be part of the peruvian state [6]. Guayaquil joined the Great Colombia Federation by its own will... disregarding the fact that by Royal Decree it was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Why then, the Ecuadorian thesis recognise the choice that Guayaquil made as valid and the one made by Jaén as invalid? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sources

Curiously enough, I have been able to find parts of this book on the net: Invasión peruana: el Protocolo de Río. Antecedentes y explicación histórica. The autor makes some interesting remarks regarding the disputed territories (wich, unfortunatelly, were not included by the other part involved in this discussion):

• Cuando se perdió esa provinvia (Jaén)?: en 1821, o sea antes de la batalla de Pichincha y la liberación de Ecuador. Nacimos a la vida republicana sin Jaén.

Regarging the city of Tumbes:

• Hemos poseído alguna vez esa provincia desde la independencia?

These can be found here: [7], and the article that uses them even states in which pages are located. Why the other user focus to much on the supposed territorial question (clearly trying to lead the reader to reach the conclussion that Ecuador lost territory) and totally ignoring the real one: If the disputed territories were (regardless if they were de facto or de jure) part of Ecuador? Clearly POV.

If the Ecuadorian ambassador that signed the Rio Protocol is questioning the legitimacy of the Ecuadorian claim, does it makes sence to think of Ecuador giving away territory? Maybe a personal opinion of the other Wikipedist? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(more to come...)

---

Yes, the link refers to a work by Percy Cayo, which was already provided by me days ago. Cayo cites some of Tobar Donoso's paragraphs in order to advance Peru's case. That's ok. I have not included this citations first because I have the book, and second because it has nothing to do with the paragraph, and I am not supposed to copy the entire book in this page. There was not a single yard of land in the province of Jaen exchanged between Ecuador and Peru as a result of the Rio Protocol. It had been Peruvian, and stayed Peruvian. Andres C. 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Andres' responses to Messhermit's answer

• Sources: Regarding the sources used to give figures on the changes made by the Rio Protocol to the 1936 "de facto" line, I specifically mentioned them. I'll do it again if it helps. Julio Tobar Donoso. La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Río. Antecedentes y Explicación Histórica. Banco Central del Ecuador. Quito, 1945, 1982. (The Peruvian Invasion and the Rio Protocol. Background and Historical Explanation).
  • Messhermit pointed out a number of objections regarding the use of this source.
    • It carries the word invasion in the title; therefore it's not a neutral or reliable source. Here are his exact comments
      

Interesting... just by the title you can clearly view that is already a nice example of Ecuadorian POV. (for those who does not known Spanish, the title clearly has a line that says The Peruvian Invasion). I wonder how fair and neutral can be the information from that book. Messhermit 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • As for neutrality, no author in the world is completely neutral or free of bias. That's in the nature of the human being, and also in Wikipedia's articles about POV and NPOV. Peruvian writers and historians supported Peru's cause, Ecuadorian writers and historians supported Ecuador's cause. Still, it must be said again that Mr. Tobar Donoso was the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister who signed the Rio Protocol. In his book (originally published in 1945) he specifically warned against attempts to try to put in question the validity of the Protocol. Still, I would like to point out that I used Tobar Donoso's book to give figures, not opinions.
    • As for reliability, it should be pointed out that most respected Peruvian historians (Cayo, Denegri for example) who have written about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute consider Tobar Donoso's book as a first-rate source for Ecuadorian information. See for example this work by the famous Peruvian historian Percy Cayo Córdova which has been published in the internet: Las Primeras Relaciones Internacionales Perú-Ecuador. Cayo cites Tobar Donoso at least three times. In page 30, Cayo (which naturally has a proPeruvian POV) refers to Tobar Donoso's book as a "valioso libro" (valuable book).

• Messhermit says: The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. Measures taken by me reach a compromise are detailed in the subsection Steps taken by Andres's to resolve the dispute or to call for help from a third party. These steps included an official request before the Mediation Committee.

• Maynas:The Diocese of Maynas was created following the Cédula Real of 1802 decreed by the King of Spain. It was transferred from the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada to the Viceroyalty of Lima, not to the Republic of Peru. After the independence, both Colombia and Peru claimed their respective rights over Maynas. That is already stated in the article, as well as the discussion between Peru and Ecuador regarding the implications of the 1802 Cedula for the drawing of the borders between Ecuador and Peru. In 1829, in the treaty of Guayaquil (at which time Peru had no knowledge of the Cedula Real, and Colombia, which knew about it, said nothing of its existence to the Peruvian delegates), there was talk regarding considering the Marañon river as the natural border between Peru and Colombia (Gran Colombia), leaving that to a binational commission to decide on the matter. The Gran Colombia dissapeared in 1830, and the commission never went into function.

• Jaen: In colonial times, Jaen was part of the Presidencia de Quito (part of the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada). When it declared its independence on June 1821, its inhabitants declared their desire to be under the protection of General San Martín, and then became part of the liberated Peruvian province of Trujillo, which after the total independence of Peru became part of the new Republic. Colombia's request for the delivery of Jaén was one of the causes for the 1829 Colombian-Peruvian war. After the war it continued to be part of Peru.
  

I would like to add that I don't understand the reference to Jaen since:

• The province of Jaen had nothing to do with Maynas, before or after the independence of Peru and Colombia. The First Constitutional Congress of Peru, inaugurated on September 20, 1822, had 15 representatives from the Department of Trujillo (to which the province of Jaen belonged by the wishes of its inhabitants) and 1 representative from the Department of Maynas y Quijos. (Jorge Basadre, Historia de la República del Peru. Vol I. 6th Edition. Ed. Universitaria, Lima. Page 3.) Also, in the Law of 1836 for the reorganization of Peru's internal political jurisdictions, the province of Jaén became part of the new Department of La Libertad (along with the provinces of Cajamarca, Chota, Huamachuco, Pataz, Lambayeque, Chiclayo, Trujillo and Piura), while the province of Maynas y Quijos (renamed Maynas) became part of the new Deparment of Amazonas (along with the province of Chachapoyas). Basadre, op. cit. Vol II, p. 258-259.
• Having said that, it must be noted that the southern borders didn't change much as a result of the Rio Protocol. Jaen had been Peruvian for more than 100 years, and continued to be Peruvian. No changes of territory in that area occurred.

This post is becoming quite long. I'll refer myself to the actual Peruvian colonization of Maynas (citing Basadre) later.

I would like to comment on just one thing Messhermit said: If the Ecuadorian ambassador that signed the Rio Protocol is questioning the legitimacy of the Ecuadorian claim, does it makes sence to think of Ecuador giving away territory? Maybe a personal opinion of the other Wikipedist? Messhermit 15:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Julio Tobar Donoso always defended the validity of the Protocol against some writers and politicians who were already protesting against it in 1944-45. For Tobar Donoso, the deal was the best Ecuador could get given the circumstances.
• Though I don't want to engage myself in personal issues with Messhermit, I would like to point out that his last remark seems to be contrary to Wikipedia's basic policy regarding the assumption of good faith by another editor, an accusation that was already launched when it was said that I was making up my sources.

Thanks for bearing with me. Cheers. Andres C. 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Andres's Summary of the Dispute. Points of View, Arguments & Recommendations

There has recently been another edit war in this article over the neutrality and historical accuracy of a single paragraph, as well as over more personal isues, such as the good faith of an editor (myself). Most of the flame was sent to Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar.

Below is a short summary of the dispute and a couple of suggestions I propose.

• 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 physical presence in the northern part of Maynas (that is, north of the Marañon river) at this time.
• 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. The total area that changed hands, relative to the 1936 status 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)

• A few hours later, user:Messhermit reverted this text (along with a number of other editions I had been doing) to the March 5 version, with the following edit summary: (rv. POV detected - No sources.)
• I responded to these revert on March 8 with a revert of my own, with the edit summary (Revert. Bibliographical notes. Please make fair use of rv.).
• Thus started an edit war which rapidly escalated, with edits and reverts coming one after the other, in quick succession, and which included some pretty serious personal accusations.
• The edit war continued until March 13, when Katefan0 locked the article, as requested by this Wikipedian.

Debate

I cannot stay quiet when I see someone trying to portrait just a single side of this story:

• Wikipedia ask for sources in order to have accurate, fair an NPOV articles. I reverted those editions that did not have sources and were clearly POV (an Ecuadorian POV, that is). My only work with this page was to keep it in the way that it was before the last rv war; that is, neutral.
• The other user involved basically states: Go and look for the sources yourself. As far as I know, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that information that may not be available on the net or in the local library. Why then, I must do the work of another Wikipedist? Presenting NPOV sources (since just by reading the title of some of his neutral books it is clear that they already have a POV) it's the duty of every wikipedist; the reader of the article is not suppose to see if the info stated is accurate. The reader Trust Wikipedia, and with this example the only side that is getting harm is him.
• I don't understand the part of serious personal accusations. The other user was reluctant to reach a compromise. So far he is only interested in keeping the article with his POV sources and own personal opinions.

Having explained this, I will provide some info that cannot be refuted:

• The other party involved claimed that there were not Peruvian settlements before 1830:

• Diocese of Maynas (created on May 23, 1803). It later changed its name to Diocese of Chachapoyas on 1843.
• The city of Jaen was founded on 1549 [8]. In this particular case, the city itself requested to be part of the peruvian state [9].

(more to come...)

Steps taken by Andres's to resolve the dispute or to call for help from a third party

• Trying to come to an agreement with the other party in this Talk Page.
• Posting warnings in Wikiquette alert, the first on March 10
• Asking the article to have Full Protection until the amicable resolution of this dispute. The article is currently locked with Full Protection.
• Posting an announcement in Wikipedia's Request for Comments
• Requesting the help of the Mediation Committee, which was turned down by the other party.

Recommendation

In order to come up with a text that follows the NPOV rules, 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 anyone interested in the topic. Cheers Andres C. 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good revision. Seems to hold all the main ideas and keep neutrality. I don't see any bias from my perspective. Sorry for the long delay in response, had a huge chunk of work recently and couldn't get to commenting on this topic. I hope this article can be finished and be done with. Pvt Mahoney 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Pvt Mahoney. I am Ecuadorian, hence -being my nation one of the involved parties in this past historical dispute- one must be particularly careful regarding the use the right words in the right place in these kinds of articles. Anyway, I concur with you: as far as I can see, I'd say the present version shows no particular bias towards one side or the other. Be that as it may, and erring on the side of caution, it would be wise to wait for a couple of days to see if there's any disagreement before asking for the protection to be lifted. Cheers and thanks for mediating. Andres C. 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all my counterarguments were erased... I wonder what happened with them. Messhermit 05:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage size

The talkpage is starting to creep into the unmanageable size, with the page being 37.6kbs. Me thinks it should be slightly cleaned up, or at least subdivided into different pages (i.e. Talk:History_of_the_Ecuadorian-Peruvian_territorial_dispute/NEWSECTION) It would be much more manageable, if we removed all of the POV flame war-related topics and put it all on its own subsection. That would actually allow us to WORK on the article, instead of focus on flame-topics. ^_^ Anyone else concur? Pvt Mahoney 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I've been thinking about this myself for the last couple of days. Haven't done it for fear of having it reverted. There's actually a page which was created by another Wikipedian for that very purpose: Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Flamewar. I think we can dump the current flame war on that same page. I'll give it a try. Tell me if the results are ok with you. Andres C. 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say do it, and then put up a notice where to find it for those who might not know about the change. Pvt Mahoney 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is that, by taking away my suggestions and recommendations, other Wikipedians will not have the opportunity to agree or disagree with them, or add their own comments, which is precisely what the article needs in order to be unlocked. If you don't mind, I'll put them back in the page. Cheers. Andres C. 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No issue, just thought I would move it all together, but I see what you're saying now. I say that in about four months, it should be moved or deleted anyway, if the issue has been resolved before then. Pvt Mahoney 14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to organize contents a bit more, I've just created another subpage, Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute/Archives, to archive previous discussions not related to flame wars.

I'm also polishing my Recommendations subsection here. Hope it helps. Anyhow, the article cannot be in Full Protection indefinitely. As soon as administrators see that there is no active discussion going on, they will unlock it.Andres C. 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

The article has been locked for eight days and there is no active discussion going on in the page. Sadly, there are no comments or counterproposals to my recommendations, despite the RfC notice. There is no way to know whether my proposal has gained acceptance or is still regarded as Ecuadorian POV-pushing with baseless propositions. Any comments would be welcome. Andres C. 19:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andres. I haven't been able to put much time into this. Can you come up with a summarized list of the issues and paragraphs that are currently in dispute? Neurodivergent 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article itself was more than neutral the way that you writed Neurodivergent. The whole problem started when Andres C. decided to puch a POV that clearly was trying yo portray Ecuador as the country that give away territory. Your line that stated (more or less) that both sides were forced to drop their respectives claims was replaced with a POV. Messhermit 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neurodivergent. It's good to see you back. In order to help other editors who might wish to comment, I have already summarized the issue on Section 3 of this Talk Page. The initial paragraph is in maroon fonts. The new paragraph I'm proposing is in blue fonts. In between there's a explanation for the changes, and a list of the steps I took while trying to put an end to this recent revert war. I sent all the awful stuff related to the edit war and the personal attacks (Ecuadorian POV-pusher, etc.) to the flame wars subpage in case you are interested. Anyways, thanks in advance for any comments you may have. Take care Andres C. 06:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are misleading the reader: You attempted to modify the paragraphs in order to push a pro-ecuadorian POV. Does that makes a fair and equal article? nop. Does that label you as POV pusher? yes, since you were not willing to accept that your modifications were non-neutral. Messhermit 12:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like what Andres originally changed only removed the statement regarding Peru's de facto posession of much of the territory in dispute. Andres was trying to clarify that there was some territory lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line. The original paragraph did mention this, but it wasn't as clear on this point. I think it is important to mention Peru's de facto posession, and Andres' "compromise" paragraph does note this, while also explaining the changes compared to the 1936 status quo border line. New information is always good, so I think Andres' compromise paragraph is fine. Messhermit, what are the issues you have with Andres' compromise paragraph? Let's see if we can address them. Neurodivergent 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated some of my anwers in a new section above. Also, I would say that the Utti Possidetis of 1810 is far more important that the question of de jure or de facto ownership of the territories (since it was the other Wikipedist the one that raised some questions about those two important principles). As a matter of fact, the so called Compromise was a forced one, since the page was protected. Messhermit 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither party respected the uti possidetis principle. Colombia annexed the province of Guayaquil, the province of Jaen became part of Peru. As we all know, Peru's position on the matter of the borders with its neighbours followed three principles, spendidly expressed by Basadre. (1)the uti possideti, (2)the wishes of the people, (3)the actual possession of the land. I would certainly like to know what has Jaen to do with the paragraph. Andres C. 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this user is trying to mislead the discussion by denying that the disputed territories included parts of Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas. A carefull explanation of the usual ecuadorian map (the ones after the supposed nulification of the Rio Protocol and that they use to have in Guayaquil or Quito's International Airport) clearly includes Jaen. Is there any attempt to deny that fact? Messhermit 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)