Talk:Paquisha War

Paquisha & Falso Paquisha

Hello. The town of Paquisha has always been located where it is, that is along the banks of the Nangaritza river. On the other hand, the Ecuadorian oupost called "Paquisha" was on the Comaina valley, which is on the other side of the Condor range. The Peruvians calls it "Falso Paquisha" as the Peruvian history has it that Ecuador wanted to fool world opinion by putting the name of an Ecuadorian town to an Ecuadorian outpost on the other side of Condor range. Thus, I believe that the "Falso Paquisha" denomination does have to appear on the article. On the other hand, the Ecuadorians have always stated that the town and the outposts where two completely different things. I believe it is better to use both names, the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian, in order to portray both views fairly and without bias, without stating which name is the "appropiate" one. Also, bear in mind that the Ecuadorians don't call the post "Falso Paquisha". This is a word used in Peru, but not in Ecuador. I believe foreign historians don't use the name "Falso Paquisha" or "Paquisha". Thanks. Andres C. 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... the 3 outpost that the Ecuadorian military installed beared the name of 3 towns that were located outside the Disputed territory (in this case, Jaen properly). I wonder why. Messhermit 16:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you are wondering about. The towns of Paquisha, Mayaicu, and Machinaza are located in the province of Zamora-Chinchipe, west of the Condor range. Jaen is far away from the scene. As you know, the 78-km stretch of land left unmarked corresponded to the Condor range. Frankly, I fail to see the Jaen connection in this particular context.

Anyhow, I don't understand why the article can't give both names, the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian, to the military outpost. Peruvians call it one way, Ecuadorians call it the differently. Also, please consider that the term "Falso Paquisha" is used exclusively in Peru, and is derisive for the Ecuadorians, so it is better that the article present both names. I have added an explanation of how the outposts came to be known as Falsos in Peru. Andres C. 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Messhermit. Your last revert also swept away the information I added on the OAS meeting, explaining how the Falso Paquisha term was born. I think it was important information. Also, please note that I have explained twice that the Paquisha military outpost was one thing, and the town of Paquisha was another. It would be better to have both the Ecuadorian and Peruvian names for said outpost. Why only the Peruvian one? Andres C. 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The term itself is pure ecuadorian POV, and also qualifies as propaganda. Hense, I'm reverting that part, since it is clear that the outpost was presented by the ecuadorian authorities as the town of Paquisha, not as a military outpost. Messhermit 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. The part where I explained how the term Falso Paquisha came into being was unfortunately deleted in a revert. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what you think as pure Ecuadorian pov, the article must refer to the outpost with both names: the Ecuadorian one and the Peruvian one. If Falso Paquisha is going to appear, then Paquisha must also appear , so as to give both versions of the story, as per Wikipedia's official policy. Ecuador referred to the outpost as the Paquisha outpost. I don't see why the Ecuadorian name of the outpost must not be allowed to appear in the article. A little bit of history: when the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry denounced the attack to the Peruvian embassy in Quito, on January 28, 1981, it referred to the Paquisha outpost, not to the town of Paquisha.

You are also claiming lack of sources as an excuse for reverting/deleting my edits. What about your sources for the 179 sorties flown by the FAE during the conflict, that I asked for? You have failed to bring them forward. Still I have not deleted or reverted that part. Andres C. 01:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Another point I would like to address is the number of FAE sorties flown during the war. Could we have a reference for the figure which is given in the article? Andres C. 15:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, and added another interesting fact about falso Paquisha (1 town and 2 Outposts?). Messhermit 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Paquisha and Falso Paquisha

• 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)

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)

Horrid grammar

This section 'It was during this meeting that the Peruvian Foreing Minister, Javier Arias Stella, called the three Ecuadorian military outposts as falsos ("false") point to the fact that according to Peru the Ecuadorians had given these three outposts the names of Ecuadorian towns in an effort to confuse world opinion and to present the conflict as provoked by a Peruvian aggression on Ecuadorian soil. The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, Alfonso Barrera Valderde, responded to this allegation stating that when Ecuador first denounced the attacks, on January 28, it always specified that these were being made against the destacamentos (military outposts) of Paquisha, Mayaicu, and Machinaza, not against the similarly named Ecuadorian towns.[1]'

Is entirely horribly written, as it makes my mind question what is going on. I dont understand at all what this paragraph is trying to convey. Someone please revise this (NOT REVERT) so that it makes more logical sense.Pvt Mahoney 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This section was horridly written due to the fact that all day long I have had to struggle with continuous reverts. Somewhere along the way, I missed the "pointing"...It was in the original edit. It's in the appropiate (diff). Sorry about that.

As for the aftermath, I have not edited that part. Take care. Bye. Andres C. 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Another issue

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)

I concur with your appreciation. Andres C. 03:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism...

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)

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)

Well isnt that the most interesting thing... I did not notice that website linked to wikipedia for its information... How most unusual. Eh... I still say the entire article needs to be rewritten =P I'd do it myself, but right now I need to ready myself for some political meeting of sorts...City hall here i come!Pvt Mahoney 12:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Another dispute

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)

1. The term "Condor War" is more associated with the military conflict of 1995. A quick search on Google [1] prove this.
2. Having explained this, the article's name is once again "Paquisha War".
3. I will provide the info that is needed. Also, It is necesary to explain the existence of the 3 ecuadorian towns that "curiously" had the same name.
4. Please show respect to other wikipedist sources. Your's are as controvertial as the ones that you complain so much. Messhermit 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

WPMILHIST Assessment

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)

Strengths and casualties on both sides

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)