Talk:Cenepa War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrections[edit]

The Ecuadorian Air Force never achieve air superiority in the Cenepa War, in fact, was unable to stop the air raids of the Peruvian Air Force, which operate almost since the beginning of the war until the cease-fire. Please avoid nationalism in Wikipedia, this is about the truth, and isn't acceptable this kind of statements. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On POVs, Reverts, & Deletions[edit]

The reader should be aware that the brief description of the events leading to the outbreak of the conflict are presented from the Peruvian POV. From the Ecuadorian POV, it was the setting up of a Peruvian outpost (Base Norte), located behind the Ecuadorian outpost on the Cenepa headwaters which brought about the war. References: Pablo Cuvi,Al Filo de la Paz 1999.

  • Another Example of POV pushing. Truth always finds it way. Messhermit 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Truth always finds it way"...Indeed. Let us hope it also finds its way in Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Andres C. 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite sources for the 6 Ecuadorian aircraft lost in the conflict, including models and dates when they where downed by enemy fire. Also, please cite sources for the 350 Ecuadorian soldiers dead in the war. If said sources are lacking, please refrain from tampering with Ecuadorian losses during the conflict. Thank you very much. Andres C. 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is happening here? Once again the figures for Ecuadorian losses have been changed, without indicating sources...Also, the notice about a DISPUTE was deleted (which startled me a bit). Since deleting a note of dispute must be taken seriously, I would like to know if Messhermit agrees to a call for mediation. Andres C.
      • Stick with the numbers the current sources for now, and get rid of the two section POV disputes. Those are sections so they can't be disputed and with the article size it isn't necessary. Falphin 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute?[edit]

Hi there. I'm reacting to a post on WP:WARS on help for the dispute. Admittedly I have no knowledge of this conflict, but i'd be happy to mediate, if this is appreciated. Is it correct that one of the main conflicts is on the number of casualties on Ecuadorian side? --The Minister of War 18:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Minister. Sadly, there is indeed a dispute of sorts going on. I am a new wikipedian, but from what I have been able to gather so far reading at the talk pages, the articles on the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border disputes and its wars have been "monopolized" by a certain fellow Peruvian wikipedian, who apparently accuses any nonPeruvian wikipedian who attempt to edit the contents of these articles as "pushing an Ecuadorian POV".
My attempts to start a discussion about the sources this contributor has for the Ecuadorian losses he insists on putting in the article have had no response so far.
Finally, I found myself engaged in a full-fledged edit war on the article Ecuadorian-Peruvian War with said contributor until things reached, apparently, a dead-end. I don't really know where to go from here, not that it really matters anyhow.

- Best regards, Andres C. 00:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this one doesn't look too bad. I'll probably add a couple things. 200.63.231.224 18:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the modifications in these page (and the other article in question) where at any moment made with the intention of creating a compromise, but rather a direct attack to the accuracy on the information. The fact that one or two pages actually claimed Victory for

the Ecuadorian Military does not make it the law of the land. And because I don't recognise such biased info, this article is named POV

The only POV that can be seen here is ecuadorian (and in the other article too), and is a terrible distortion of reality. Gladly, the other page was protected, and I will resume with my research on this war that, as in other previos oportunities, was totally imposed to the peruvian people. Messhermit 03:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Messerschmitt, the other page was protected. You only failed to mention that it was I who requested the protection, so as to put an end to your ceaseless ranting.

"And because I don't recognise such biased info, this article is named POV"

Messerschmitt, another proof of your persistent tendency to LIE, deceit and manipulate facts. This article has a Warning, indeed. And do you know who put the warning? Go to the "history" page and check out who added said notice of warning. If you now pretend to claim it was you who named this article "POV", well, you are telling a blatant lie. You have totally discredited yourself.
Once again, before you go on to edit the article, be aware of the Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV. It seems that with your appreciation that "this war that, as in other previos oportunities, was totally imposed to the peruvian people", you have not learned a bit as a result of the last edit war. So go on, by all means, start editing and you will find yourself again tearing your hair off with another edit war the very minute you start introducing terms like "Ecuadorian invasion", "Ecuadorian provocations", or the like. I wonder how more edit wars will you need before the NPOV rule sinks in.

By the way, since you are already advancing terms like "war..totally imposed to the Peruvian people it may be of interest to you to read the following extracts from the article Wikipedia: Neutral point of view:

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

and also this:

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points.

Before you go on adding the fruits of your research, I urge you to read the entire article Wikipedia: Neutral point of view

Happy editing! Andres C. 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS- What about your sources for your figures on Ecuadorian losses during the Cenepa war?? Since you were so bent on insisting on your numbers as being the "truth", reverting unrespectfully any modification to these figures, you better come up with a good source.

Remaining Issues?[edit]

Is the number of downed Ecuadorian aircraft the only remaining issue in this article? I believe the number currently listed in the article is uncitable. Messhermit should prove otherwise. I'd suggest mentioning claims by both sides in that regard with citations, indicating that they are claims -- or removing the sentence altogether might be easier.

As general feedback, I'd say that the article does sound a bit apologetic towards the Peruvian side, with things like "overcoming difficult logistics" and all the stuff about Ecuador's advantages. It's like it's saying, these poor Peruvians, they sure had an uphill battle; it's a wonder they managed to survive. I'm sure Peru had advantages too, which are not mentioned, and that might be ok if they aren't notable. Perhaps they are, it's of general interest. For example, Peru still has one of the strongest military forces in South America, while Ecuador's rank is unknown to me, probably very low. Military spending is likely significantly divergent.

200.63.231.224 23:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article, as it stands now, is of very poor quality. Through patience and asking for a temporary protection, I at least managed to fix the figures for Ecuadorian losses (Messhermit's were something like 9 aircraft (!), 350 dead, and I don't know how many wounded, it should be right there in the history page). I'm afraid the figures now presented will be reverted back to Messhermit's own, it's just a matter of time. Yesterday I started a draft on the Beginnings of the War section, where both versions are represented. I don't know if Messhermit will tear apart my edits, so I'm not really in the mood to continue improving this article. Looks like a waste of time. And this guy have done this to a number of other wikipedians before, so it's not like he will be going anywhere anytime soon.
I occurred to me Wikipedia should have a feedback/rating system for Wikipedians, like eBay has for sellers, but then again, I'd have to create an account :) plus anonymous editing is what allows Wikipedia to be what it is. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your work is top-notch, and all things considered, you have managed to stay cool so far (yes, I know it was stupid of me to let myself be dragged into a flame war; well, sh@t happens, as they say). Why don't you go on an open an account? You will be even more anonymous that way (and secure, as your IP will not be out in the open anymore. Also, everybody can start referring to you with an easier name than 200.63.231.224... :) Take a look at some of the benefits that opening an account have. Saludos. --Andres C. 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FYI, I took your advise. Neurodivergent 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His discussion page is a kind of user feedback page though. Is he also deleting complaints from his discussion page? 200.63.231.224 16:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw, he seems to get into trouble quite often with a number of people. It seems other Ecuadorians have thrown up their arms in despair before (thus the unilateral stance of the articles, as you (and I) found them). If this reverting thing goes on, I'll end up throwing in the towel myself. --Andres C. 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph about the Ecuadorian advantages and Peruvian disadvantages was not created by Messhermit (or whoever it was). He just copied it from another website and pasted it here intact. Do a Google search on the Cenepa war and you'll see what I mean.
Since it's pretty recent, there are quite a bit of searchable magazine and news paper articles outside of Ecuador/Peru on this conflict. I'm sure it would be possible to write an interest and neutral article about it. It's a shame that people are basically disallowed from editing it and that uncitable claims are kept. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went to help with the English grammar and spelling on the History of the Border Dispute article, deleting as I went the most obvious point-of-view references (Velasco Ibarra declaring the article void because "some say" (weasel term) it was done out of internal political reasons; the Ecuadorian map tagged as controversial, etc.) Well, as you saw, Messhermitt just reverted the WHOLE edit. What a waste of time...
I think it's fine to include the speculation that Velazco was politically motivated, so long as the article indicates that it is speculation by Peruvians, i.e. the article doesn't state it as if it were fact, as it used to in the 1941 article, a sentence which I've fixed to indicate it's speculation -- something which hopefully will be left alone as is. Normally I believe the Wikipedia philosophy is to exclude speculation as much as possible. But in this case it's probably notable and would lead to an endless edit war if excluded. 200.63.231.224 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your work on the History of the Border Dispute is great. Sorry I can't continue polishing it. This Messhermit guy won't let me get anywhere near it.
Yep, that's a shame. Try some simple grammar/spelling changes and see if he deletes them. If he does, report him. 200.63.231.224 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Battlebox and the figures given for losses[edit]

  • Messhermit: When I came to Wikipedia, the first thing I did was to correct the figures for the losses during the Cenepa war. My edits were immediately reverted. When I asked about the reason for that and the sources for the numbers given in the battlebox, I got accused of promoting an Ecuadorian POV. Then I asked your opinion about a mediator, you did not answer. When I tried to contact you directly, I got accused of vandalism for the mistake of contacting you in your personal page...It was not what I would call a friendly reception from a veteran Wikipedian. Please approach the subject of Peruvian and Ecuadorian losses during the Cenepa war with the utmost respect. If you agree to that, I think we can get on in very good terms.
  • About the battlebox: Messhermit did not put it in there. It was someone else. What Messhermit did was revert any changes made without explaing reasons for doing so. And I found that a bit shocking.
  • I think that a battlebox for a conflict that happened barely 10 years ago is by itself troublesome. First, it asks for an outcome to be put in. If you write "Ecuadorian victory" (on the grounds that the Ecuadorian forces were able to hold on to their bases in the Cenepa valley during the conflict) it would only cause another flame war. If you write "Indecisive", you would have to explain why it was indecisive, and so on...
  • On the aircraft losses. I found someone (not Messhermit) had written in the battlebox that Ecuador had lost 6 aircraft and Peru 9 aircraft. Both numbers are wrong. The ACIG information is in general correct (though some very interesting "insider" details from the Ecuadorian side are lacking; I don't know "insider" details from the Peruvian side, someone will have to help us on that one). I ask Messhermit to specify what part of the ACIG data he finds inaccurate. If he gives specifics, we can have an interesting & friendly debate about such data. I hope he does that.
  • At the end of the day, and if the worst comes to the worst, Neurodivergent's idea would be the best way to solve the issue of aircraft losses without an edit war. Each side would just write down the number of aircraft and helicopters each side claimed, and the number each side

recognized as having lost.

That's probably the way to go. Those numbers should each have citations if the issue is so contentious. If some citations are better than others, that's for the reader to figure out. Neurodivergent 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barring unexpected reverts, it is my intention to continue with the draft of the Cenepa war, seen from the Ecuadorian perspective. I hope the Ecuadorian version can be complemented in time by someone with a Peruvian version of events, so anyone interested in the article will benefit from learning the history of the Cenepa war as seen from each side.

Regards, --Andres C. 04:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this Chilean paper has an analysis of the losses, and says there's no trustable source of information: [1]. Neurodivergent 17:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pagename[edit]

I renamed the article Cenepa War (from Cenepa war), to keep it in line with other articles belonging to the same Wikiproject, e.g. Yom Kippur War, Vietnam War, etc. Hope it's ok with everybody. -- Andres C. 07:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV analysis[edit]

It seems this article has a pro Ecuador point of view about this war. Added POV sign at the top of the page.HappyApple 01:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw you put a notice disputing the article without any previous talk. I have been working on this article, trying to stick to a neutral point of view. Since I am Ecuadorian -and hence, citizen of one of the countries involved- it would be only natural if I missed something somewhere. Could you be so kind as to specify exactly which section, paragraphs or sentences have an Ecuadorian point of view? Some details and sources would be most welcome. I'd be happy to change what you deem as pro-Ecuadorian points of view, but I'd need specifics first. Sources would help too. Cheers. --Andres C. 02:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed your polite mood right here, but i pledge to your conscience and stop using Caps Lock on other Talk Pages related to Peruvian and Ecuador conflicts, i urge you to dont use arguments including swearing, and to use revert tool just in case to be neccesary. On the other hand; I find is disputed the accuracy on the following aspects:
  • Hi everyone. It's understandable that according ecuadorians this conflict ended in victory for their military, since no person would like his country to be the one who loosed, or be the one who initiated the aggressions; however, we must never forget that in every war there is more than ONE version of the events.
  • That been said, I think this article should be separated in both ecuadorian and peruvian version, because both versions are not accurate, since they represent the POV of each army, they may have some true, but they are not to be considerate as "facts".
  • Finally, in the spirit of brotherhood, I want to add that this conflict has already ended years ago, and the borders are already established with the agreement of both sides, so let's not fight over disagreements related to sources and STOP the personal aggression.

201.240.52.123 04:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. Thank you for your advice. The only thing I can't do is to stop using the revert tool, as I was not the person doing that action. I may have used strong words, yes, but I am not into the business of deleting sources for articles or reverting an entire work. By the same token, I would only ask you to please calm down a bit. It is not contructive to keep on reviving and old flame war with Messhermit. I am sure he would ask you the same thing.
  • This article is for Ecuadorians and Peruvians to build together in harmony, trying to reach consensus on an item per item basis. I think that with a little patience it can be done succesfully. So far I've been the main contributor of the version you are seeing because no one else has shown interest in contributing before you did. I thank you for that. On your questions:
  • Please give us some ideas for a new name for the war. In any case, remember that declarations of war are diplomatic measures of days long gone. If I am not mistaken, the last one was the declaration of war of Germany to the USA on December 11, 1941. The biggest war in the history of humanity, the Ruso-German war of 1941-45, never saw a declaration of war from any one of the two parties involved. The Yom Kippur war article is a featured article in Wikipedia. . I don't know if there are issues with the name because it was an undeclared war. Be that as it may, please bring forward a new name and let's talk about it. Also, please take a look at this Peruvian Congress motion from 2002 regarding the definition of Total War for the Alto Cenepa conflict. I think it's an important piece of information to take into account.
  • I don't really get your second question, regarding "task force". Could you be more specific?
  • The aftermath, I believe, was a peace treaty signed in 1998. Regarding the outcome of the war, I don't know if we can apply the terms you are suggesting for a self-limited conflict. Look at how I worked my way through it, both in the battlebox and in the introduction, so as not to hurt any sensibilites, be it from Ecuadorians or Peruvians. Anyway, give me your opinion regarding the outcome, and how it should be worded.
  • For logistics: please read the sections "mobilizing for war" and "ex post fact analysis of the war". If you deem there is not enough information on the issue, I'd guess it's mainly because there are no credible sources to back up any information on little known aspects of the war, still kept secret by both sides. It would be very good if you can contribute with some new information regarding logistics to the one that is already there.

Regards --Andres C. 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. No single person holds the ultimate truth. That is why the best articles in Wikipedia are those in which many contributors, with different points of view, have participated. The version I bring to you is as neutral as I could go, taking good care to cite the controversial parts, so it's not my truth, but the truth of the sources I have been able to find on the matter. If I have not been neutral enough, that can be corrected with your contributions and sources. I have tried to steer clear from words like "aggresor" or "winner" to avoid getting into unwanted polemics.
Please help us to separate the article on Ecuadorian and Peruvian parts. Give us some ideas on the layout you propose, so we can start working together on it. Is there any specific event you are finding incorrect? If that is the case, please be specific so as to put both versions of the event, as long as we can cite sources.
You are totally right. The war ended more than ten years ago. What we are doing here is not reviving anachronistic antagonism, but creating an article belonging to Wikiproject Military history. That's how it should be taken, and not in any other way. At least that's my personal opinion anyway. I believe the sources included so far are worthwhile and credible. Ït would be great if you can add some more sources to the article. Hope you can put some new information in the article. If any information you have found is blatantly wrong, please point it to me, so I can double-check on the sources for that particular event. Best wishes. Andres C. 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! On the issue of the POV warning, I went on to make a proposal, to work our way around it. New section: The Crisis Escalates, with two subsections, for Ecuadorian and Peruvian versions. The sources I'm citing (I think the references are coming out ok, but if not let me know) all point to the same meeting between Grijalba and López Trigoso. The contents of the meeting according to said references are already under the Ecuadorian version. Please help me out with the Peruvian one. If there is a Peruvian version that differs form the one cited already, I guess we can put it under the subsection I left open. Hope to hear what you think. Regards. Andres C. 18:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HappyApple. Thanks for your feedback.
  • I think there is no problem in specifying that the Cenepa conflict was an undeclared war. Already on line 2 of the second paragraph we are defining as a self-limited conflict, which for the purposes of defining the scope of the war is, I'd say, more specific than defining it as an undeclared war (case in point: the Russo-German war of 1941-45. There was no declaration of war between Germany and the USSR, and yet it was the biggest military conflict in history). On the other hand, I should like to point out that the Cenepa war was pure conventional warfare, in the sense that we usually interpret the term, that is, a war fought with conventional means (infantry, artillery, helicopters, fighters, etc).
  • On draft and conscription. As far as I know, both countries activated general mobilization, which in most cases includes calling to arms all former conscripts between the ages of 19 to 22 (the active reserve). Look at the Chronology section, date January 27, where I am mentioning the important concentration of forces on the lowlands border. I'm planning to add a small subsection on the danger of a general war, with the Peruvian submarines already in the Gulf of Guayaquil, the FAE Jaguars armed and ready to destroy Talara AFB, and the FAP to do the same to Taura AFB.
  • Generally we use the word logistics to refer to issues of supply, transport, and maintenance of troops on the field. "Mobilizing for war" and "ground warfare: logistics" already mention some logistical aspects of the war. I agree with your suggestion on including some additional information on weapons and technology. We have already a lot of info on the air war, but if you or anyone can add some more information it would be even better.
  • Pictures are definitely a must. Generally I go on to add pictures after I think the text is more or less ok. I am trying to find a good map of the area of the conflict that can be uploaded to wikipedia, that's my priority regarding images.
Well, that's more or less it. I think that, in general, I agree with your suggestions. An article will always benefit from additional information. If there's specific information you want to add -and that perhaps I am not aware of- by all means, go ahead. Anyway, it's not like I own the article: it's all public domain. Nevertheless, I am still confused about the strong POV warning. I've been re-reading the articles Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:Points of view, and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, to see if I had missed something. As far as I can tell, I've tried to keep the article unbiased, balanced, with all major points of view included. Still, if there's anything that goes against the NPOV policy, let me know, so we can fix it. My priority here is not to advance any particular agenda, but to describe the major military developments of the Cenepa war. Andres C. 06:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed notices & ideas[edit]

Although there have been some disagreements, this edit seems to indicate no POV dispute anymore. Perhaps somebody else will add one, but thats fine. I have also removed the notice that the article is under construction; every article on Wikipedia is under construction at all times, and judging from the controversiality perhaps some input from all sides should be welcomed rather than discouraged. As a small note, I edited the infobox; clearly the casualty number is the official number, any deviations should be mentioned in the text, but just looks confusing in the infobox imho.

The article seems to be looking good, nice work Andre C! It has grown from a small stub to a decent sized, informative article! If you would appreciate some constructive comments, i think some points could be expanded/improved:

  1. This conflict is screaming for a map! Where were the bases, where is the dispute exactly? I havent looked around other Peru-Ecuador articles yet, but perhaps something is already on Wiki somewhere. If not, any map featuring Ecuador and Peru would already be a great addition.
  2. Background & Causes could perhaps be merged; they both deal with the backgrounds, only long and short term. I dont think a single sentence should deserve a seperate header & section personally.
  3. The section New Crisis is currently split in a Peruvian and Ecuadorian side. This is a good method to create NPOV by balancing, but ultimately often a very bad way to maintain NPOV. People will often want to add their POV to their section "Group A always insults Group B", which is then hard to refute, because it is already mentioned as a POV. I'll give it a shot soon.
  4. One simple (yet dangerous) question is not clearly answered: Who won? Only the Ecuadorian opinion is stated; does this mean Peru disagrees? There is mention of a peace-agreement which both sides did not like, but for someone not very familiar with the topic (aka me), its not easy to judge the importance of any part of the agreement.
  5. The sections Fallout, Aftermath and EPF analysis could use a merge and rename. The names are very much alike, and should perhaps be sub-sections of each other:
    1. Aftermath: Small intro on how the conflict ended, and a condensed version of the EPF analysis
      1. Peace Agreement: what did the agreement exactly contain? Was everybody happy?
      2. Casualties: the how and why of disagreement on numbers.
      3. Political fallout: the consequences for political life in Peru and in Ecuador.

I also think it would make sense to include Controversial Issues and perhaps the main bulk of the EPF analysis throughout the article rather than in seperate sections. Controversial issues tend to expand rapidly just as seperate POV sections as i mention above. Well, those are my suggestions, hope they make some sense! The Minister of War(Peace) 10:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your advice, Minister!
  • You are totally right, images are badly needed here, especially a good map of the area. User:HappyApple also mentioned that (still, I don't know what's it got to do with NPOV issues), but sadly did not bring forward any images. So far, I've been unable to come up with a good one to upload, but I'm on the lookout as we speak.
  • The who won question is, as you said, dangerous. The choice of words is of utmost importance, since a badly worded response will understandably attract more POV warnings. I am trying to work my way around it, sticking to the "Ecuador considered it a victory" stuff, and not going any further. It would be good to have some Peruvian folks give some suggestions.
Ecuador sees the brief Cenepa war as a victory (holding on to Tiwintza, shooting down a disproportionate number of Peruvian aircraft, getting away with the thing of the three aircraft shot down by Ecuadorian fighters, etc.), only to lose it all at the negotiation table, years later. Some Peruvian wikipedians have introduced the term "inconclusive" here. As I said, this is an issue that requires Peruvian input in order to avoid further POV warnings.
  • Thanks for your good advice on reorganizing the sections and subsections. I'll implement them.
  • New Crisis was split up in an effort to take into account HappyApple's POV warning and trying to come up with a solution. I know it's not the best formula, and may actually cause more problems in the future.
  • As for the peace agreement (which needs a map of its own to show where was the line finally drawn in 1998), the political fallout in Peru (which I hope a Peruvian wikipedian can step in and give me a hand), and the subject of losses, they are still in the works. Peruvian contributions would be most welcomed also in the matter of Peruvian infantry losses.
  • Again, your advice is really helpful, especially considering the potential for controversy and use of warnings in the article. Don't forget to drop in when you have one or two minutes to spare. Best wishes, Andres C. 17:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mes Compliments!! Good work Andre, I really like what you have done. Especially that map; wouldnt have expected you would find the perfect map! As you may have noticed, I have added the Public Domain (C) tag, their website states that everything is PD unless specifically stated otherwise on the image.
I feel kind of out of pace with you now; i havent had the time yet to start on merging New Crisis!! I'll see if i can get to it this weekend... The Minister of War 20:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The article is looking good and is extensive. Clearly Andres is aware of quite a bit of inside info on this conflict. The article may benefit from the contributions by someone equally knowledgeable on the Peruvian side. Regards. Neurodivergent 21:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks guys. The researching part has been making me go the extra mile in terms of time devoted to it (went a couple of times to the municipal library to re-read old 1995 newspapers and magazines, to check on the chronology part and the daily Army communiqués, and get a day-by-day view of the war), so the feedback is appreciated. Oh the map, the map; yes, thanks for the notice regarding the copyright. I went on to include the location of the bases involved in the war, before uploading it into Wikipedia.
I have been rearranging things already. Causes was merged into Background, "New Crisis" went through a complete overhaul. Still, that "in retrospect" part, I'm not sure about it. The thing is, what with so many essential facts still unclear, be better go and tell it upfront. Any advice about it would be great.
I doubt I have "VIP access" to inside info :) Even if I had, it wouldn't do any good: remember, no original contributions...so I guess the personal interviews with people who were there will have to be included in the upcoming book! (just kidding). Anyway, the article is already getting too long. In the end, I guess we need to revise for length and cut some parts in order to make it more readable. Your remark is right on: Peruvian contributors are badly needed to check on balance, should there be a lack of Peruvian information. Andres C. 00:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article settled?[edit]

Gentillissima asmblea, is this atricle settled? Agitation subsided? Can I consider this text final and start translating it into Russian? Verdi1 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I guess you can say the article is settled, though every article has always room for improvement, and this one is no exception. As for agitation, it's been quite peaceful around here for more than four months now. Regards. Andres C. 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not realiced that this article had soo much POV. Hense, the NPOV tag is placed. I will procced to remove those paragraph that clearly attempt to interact with the reader and lead them into a biased conclusion. Messhermit 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page clearly presents the Ecuadorian version. I wonder how NPOV is that. Messhermit 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is good that someone from Peru is interested in presenting the Peruvian version along the Ecuadorian one. That was exactly what The Minister of War, Neurodivergent and myself were talking about months ago (see above). Adding the Peruvian version of the events will only improve the quality of the article. I wasn't able to get a copy of Coronel Fournier's book anywhere in Lima when I was there a couple of months ago. I think that's an important source for Peruvian citable information on the military aspects of the conflict.
I noticed nevertheless that you placed a warning tag. It af all possible, before removing anything, could you please tell us which paragraphs are attempting to interact with the reader? Perhaps we can reword them instead of just deleting what could be important information. Also, please note that many of the information has links to the references section. It may be of help to look at the references if you find any particular paragraph troublesome. Thanks. Andres C. 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 versions in a single article cannot exist. This only leads to confusion. Therefore, paragraphs that have a certain ammount of POV must be removed. Messhermit 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply following the quite explicit guidelines of WP:NPOV? It doesn't talk baut removing paragraphs of POV but "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." If Ecuador and Perú versions differ, the guideline states that both are "fairly presented, but not asserted". --Ecemaml 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The guidelines are not only explicit, but quite simple as well. Andres C. 13:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Well, as far as can see editorial war broke out once more. It seems this is too flammable and unsettled topic for me to engage. I'd better go farther into the past and try to translate Chincha Islands War. Verdi1 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Verdi. The funny thing is, this article had been quite stable since November 2005, as you can see in the History page. As for the recent unexplained massive deletion, I'm clueless. It seems that editor didn't even like the map :) I guess I can put everything back into place. Andres C. 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks. There must be a gremlin in the system. I was just trying to change MANPAD to MANPADS (the correct acronym), clicked "edit" for the appropriate section, made the changes, and for some reason saving that section deleted deleted everything else. Computers do some weird things. Preuninger 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! No problem Preuninger. Thanks for leaving the note. Andres C. 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ban this IP address, he changed the article to a war between adjikistan and the children of south asia. IP: 71.206.99.73 - Thanks Tu160m 04:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the use of {{NPOV}} tags[edit]

Messhermit: The use of this tag on Wikipedia pages has a specific purpose. As the page on NPOV disputes states, marking an article with this tag is considered as a temporary measure, which should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.. You tagged the article 10 days ago, but since then you have failed to come forward with proposals or contributions on how to deal with your complaint. Also, I cannot improve it myself as you have not pointed out to which sections are you referring to. I am removing again this tag. Please, if at all possible, put it back when you are ready to begin discussions on the specific sections or paragraphs where you see bias, partiality, prejudice, or one-sidedness, so we can start working on how to improve the pertinent sections. May I suggest you ask for a RfC if you happen to disagree with me? Experience has shown that we work better when mediators step in. Andres C. 14:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no currently discussion regarding the neutrality of the article does not imply that the article is “neutral”. The problem is still there, the POV is still present on the article. Any reader must be warn that the information that is stated in this article is not accurate. Hence, the Tag is important and will be once again present in the article.Messhermit 16:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a war, (undeclared one), and views stated on it may been subject of analysis by the readers, and if both sides disagree about the neutrality a tag must be used. On this case i am in favor to let the NPOV tag to keep in the article. --HappyApple 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's tracked and monitored this article since it was a stub, I think you two are being unfair on Andres C.. His research has been meticulous. He has made consistent and tremendous efforts to present the Peruvian POV, and has always taken care to cite sources. He's been willing, at all times and in every capacity, to discuss problems with the article with a view to improving it. No appeal, on anyone's part, has gone ignored.
In brief: While Andres C.'s patience is apparently unlimited, mine is not. You want to accuse the article of bias or inaccuracy? Fine. Cite examples. Tag removed. Albrecht 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know something about the topic? I doubt. The fact that your patience has a limit means that you have some sort of authority to impose what you think is right and what is not? I also doubt of this. Be warned, if that was a treat then that could lead to problems. The fact that in wikipedia can even "quote the devil" does not means that the info "researched" by this other wikipedist is free of POV. Hence, the tag is once again in place. Messhermit 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I claimed any great knowledge of the topic? No. But I do know something about POV, and I know when tags are applied frivolously or out of spite. Besides, your continued refusal to discuss, in any capacity, the content article, hasn't exactly distinguished you as a well-informed specialist.
I have made no threat. But, since my tone obviously upset you, please accept my apologies.
Neither have I claimed authority to impose what I think is right. I acted in accordance with Wikipedia practices. As previously stated, the POV tag is an instrument to facilitate the resolution of a dispute. It must be accompanied by an open and clear dialogue of the article's problems. Since this is not forthcoming, the tag serves no purpose other than to vaguely discredit the article.
And "this article is not necessarily free of POV" isn't good enough. What is POV, where, and why? To me, the article nicely balances Peruvian and Ecuadorian POVs. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far, I haven't seen a shred of evidence of it. It would help if you were willing to discuss your objections. Albrecht 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have clarified your words, I will no longer take them as “offensive” against my person. I will provide the information that you ask. Messhermit 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several inaccuracies are present in the article[edit]

There is something that it seems that I have not explained myself pretty well. The fact that you "believe" that the article is "balanced" with Ecuadorian and Peruvian versions of the conflict does not means that the article is accurate... And I'm currently doing the appropiate investigation to remove the POV from the article itself. I will provide one (of the many) Inaccuracies that are presented in this article:

Heavy air activity continues over the battlezone. During the morning, the FAP sends in A-37Bs and Su-22Ms to strike Ecuadorian positions. The FAE steps in. At 12:42, the Ecuadorian radars pick up five enemy targets approaching for another round of attacks. Two FAEMirage F.1JAs and two IAI Kfir C.2s are sent to intercept the incoming aircraft. At 13:15 the pair of Mirage F.1s catch up with two Su-22 and shoot them down with Matra R.550 Magic infrared-homing air-to-air missiles, A few minutes later, the pair of Kfirs get visual identification of two Peruvian A-37s and shoot one down.

The Ecuadorian military "claims" that they shotdown 2 peruvian aircrafts, and this is the version that the ecuadorian wikipedist uses as "fair" and "NPOV", ignoring the peruvian version. HOWEVER, the actual wording of the event was another one, as clearly stated in the following paragraph.:

  • La defensa antiaérea de nuestro Ejército, ubicada en el área, derribó el viernes a las 14h30 un avión supersónico Sukoi, un avión de apoyo de fuego A-37 y un tercer avión Sukoi fue impactado sin conocerse su resultado.
  • The Air Forces of our [Ecuadorian] Army, deployed in the area, shoot down this friday, at 1430 hours, a Sukhoi supersonic aircraft and a A-37, while another Sukhoi was damaged without knowing the resutls.

The previous paragraph were taken from this Ecuadorian Newspaper: Diario EL UNIVERSO de Santiago de Guayaquil - Ecuador, Año 74 Nº 149, Página Nº 1, de fecha Sábado 11 de febrero de 1995.

How it is possible to claim that the Ecuadorian Air Force destroyed 2 peruvian planes if the Ecuadorian Army didn't even know the fate of the 2nd one? (The plane actually suffered engine problems after while leaving the battlefield and fall to ground)

Thus, I have given one of the many innacuracies that this article has. I wonder how "fair", "balance" and "researched" it is. Messhermit 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took my time to go to the library and read the Feb/11/1995 edition of El Universo. If you cited this very edition from El Universo (Año 74, N. 149, Pag. 1) why didn't you tell the whole truth? Why on earth didn't you add that on that very page, the FAE was already claiming that these aircraft had been brough down by Air Force fighters, and not by the Army antiaircraft defenses? You comments above this entry are full of sarcasm against me. I ask you: why were you not fair when you cited this reference? Why did you left that information deliberately out of your post? Or perhaps I don't even deserve a response? -- Andrés 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On FAP aircraft losses[edit]

Hello. I think it is important to remain civil, Messhermit. If you asked for my opinion, I would say you were too harsh on Albrecht.

  • I see you are referring to the matter of the Peruvian aircraft lost on Feb/10/95. I believe this is a hotly disputed matter by Peruvians on several internet forums, even to this day. Other than that, I have failed to find any official Peruvian Air Force documents dealing with the exact circumstances in which these three aircraft were lost.
  • The war diaries of the 21st Fighter Wing of the Ecuadorian Air Force ("FAE") do state that the two Peruvian Su-22s and the A-37 were brought down by the FAE interceptors.
  • Sadly, I've failed to see the Peruvian version corroborated by independent sources. That is why I did not include it in the first place. If you have access to them, by all means, bring them to the article, please.
  • On the matter of the Ecuadorian newspaper: Do please remember the fog of war. The events took place past midday. Confirmation of the claims made by the Ecuadorian pilots did not reach headquarters until a couple of hours later (by intercepting Peruvian radio transmissions to an from El Pato Peruvian AFB). The newspapers close their daily editions at around 6 pm, just when FAE headquarters was about to deliver the official communiqué. That is why El Universo (which is not the only newspaper in Ecuador) got the news all wrong. That has been debated ad nauseaum all over the internet for the last ten years.
  • Still, you have a version. I suggest you that instead of making sarcastic remarks about me, please include your version of the events in the article, supported by credible sources if possible. All you have to do is to include what you want, citing sources. That's all. No need to lash out against me.
  • Other than that, I see you have begun to remove entire paragraphs from the article. What a pity to see an article destroyed in such a way. Andres C. 22:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the paragraph was removed because the article is not supposed to interact with the reader, a basic rule of neutrality. Otherwise, the article will not be fulfilling its purpose to inform but rather "lead" the reader to "assume" that the information stated here is the right one. Messhermit 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: I just want to let you know that during your removal you took away a paragraph that contained a link with a reference to a book on the issue: Ecuador vs. Peru: Peacemaking amid rivalry, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 2002, pp. 40. ISBN 1-58826-075-5. Could you please avoid making any further massive removal of information until I finish revamping the entire system of links? Thank you. Andres C. 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I must inform you that I don't need to ask you in order to edit here in Wikipedia. Or, should I remind you of all the times that you erased what you didn't like and what you feel it didn't support your ideas in other Ecuadorian-Peruvian related topics? Please, don't ask for respect when you have not being able to provide one. Messhermit 01:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding the Ecuadorian sources, it is really cleaver to "assume" that the newspaper got it wrong, right? Also, it appears that by "minimizing" the presented source does help in your attemp to deny this fact. Not only that, but several of your "independent sources" are based with the "assumption" that the Ecuadorian Military was right in this issue. Not a really strong argument to "assume" that the Sukhois were shot down by Ecuadorian fighters, if I may say.

Yes sir, El Universo got it wrong. El Comercio got it right. Big deal. I don't minimize the source. Actually, I am susbcriber of El Universo. The independent sources were used by you as well, on the Paquisha article. They are serious sources. Anyway, do what you need to do. Andres C. 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Mmmm... Interesting. So now you decide what is right and what is wrong regarding sources...

As any Army in any war, they clearly exalted their "supposed" air supremacy in the conflict zone. The same thing was done in the Falso Paquisha War. Therefore, another proof of your Ecuadorian POV is presented:

February 12: Air operations continue. The Peruvians claim the destruction of one A-37B and one Kfir, both of them denied by Ecuador.

Why is that, in this case is not objectively stated that the Peruvians shoot down those two aircraft? Why is that this case is treated with a totally different approach that with the previous one? Is the Ecuadorian "supposed" victories more "important" or "credible" than the Peruvian one?

That is because (1) Ecuador denied having lost these aircraft, and (2) I could not find references that confirm these claims. Andres C. 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC). [reply]
(1)And Peru didn't do the same regarding the "supposed" shoot down of the 2 Sukhoi's? (2) And the fact that the Ecuadorian Military denies the shoot down of the Kfir is automatically stated as "true" in the article? Curious indeed...

Obviously, there is a POV present in the whole article, minimizing the Peruvian version an pretending to estate that the Ecuadorian one is the only "credible" and "accurate". Messhermit 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit: Please feel free to do what you need to do with this article. Regarding sources: I'll repeat what I said. Just add what you need to add, citing sources. There's no need to come down on me or on my sources with sarcastics comments, please. Andres C. 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone ask for sources, I'm giving them. Someone asked for paragraphs that had POV, I'm giving them. Any other complains regarding the NPOV tag in the article?. Messhermit 01:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are Peruvian, and in such a nationalistic country as Peru, the matter of the fact is that you can't edit this document citing your nationality, and historic record. Which means it should be left to a neutral party, of neither Ecuadorian nor Peruvian descend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.94 (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties with no sources[edit]


I have removed the whole section regarding casualties in the info box. There are no independent reports that corroborate those numbers and, in fact, are based only on propaganda. Messhermit 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the information once again. There is a specific section in the article regarding losses. I suggest you should read it before removing things again from this article. -- Andrés 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it and most of the data is extracted from sources proclaimed by Ecuador. Neither Military has released how many "official" losses they had, and as stated before, "fog of war" was pretty common on the ecuadorian side of the conflict. Having explained this, I'm removing the section once again since it lacks independent sources. Messhermit 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources include an Ecuadorian newspaper (El Universo) for Ecuadorian losses, a book published in the USA (Herz), a well-known website (ACIG), and a Chilean essay. This means that you didn't read the sources, and that your last revert was deliberately disruptive. I don't know to what you are referring to when you say that the "fog of war" was pretty common on the ecuadorian side of the conflict. Could you be more specific, so other readers (and I) can understand this somewhat cryptic comment? Andrés 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is an accusation, please remove it. It seems that you are willing to add more fire to this already heated discussion. Nevertheless, I will provide the first counter argument that you request regarding the sources.
  • The Chilean Essay: This essay sites as their primary source of information a certain "Jose Gallardo: La Defensa de Tiwintza".
As we all know at this point, Gallardo was the ECUADORIAN Minister of Defense, and it is more than clear that his opinion is not independent or accurate regarding the losses. Curious enough, he was also involved in several controversial topics related to Ecuadorian politics:
  • The purchase of ammunitions and weapons made by the Ecuadorian Army to Chile [2][3] in the middle of the undeclared war.
  • Support the coup made by Lucio Gutierrez against Jamil Mahuad due to his removal from the Military [4]
  • Gallardo was also declared by the Ecuadorian Permanent Assembly of Human Rights as "unfit for the job" due to the constant incursions that the FARCs have made in the Ecuadorian Territory [5]
With the evidence presented, it is more than clear that his opinion is not independent as claimed above. Also, an interesting note regarding Twinza:
  • Pero en todas partes se cuecen habas: el ministro de Defensa del Ecuador, José Gallardo, "se contradijo" según el diario limeño "La República" . Para el rotativo, Gallardo "habló de dos bases militares llamadas Tiwinza".La nota de prensa se ajusta a las imágenes que transmitió la TV según las cuales, a no ser que se deba a la "magia" de la edición, el ministro dejó entender la existencia de dos bases militares con el mismo nombre, "una a orillas del río del mismo nombre en territorio ecuatoriano y que está ocupada actualmente por tropas de ese país" -destaca "La República"-, "y otra en la cabecera del río Cenepa donde se encuentran los militares peruanos. Texto de ese diario: "En la reunión a la que asistió la prensa local y extranjera, el general Gallardo dijo que en el Perú se informa equivocadamente de la existencia de una Tiwinza falsa ubicada al frente del río Santiago.
  • "Sin embargo, más adelante, un tanto nervioso, se contradijo y habló de dos bases militares llamadas Tiwinza. "La Tiwinza que algún momento tuvimos nosotros, que está cerca del río Cenepa lo tienen ellos (los peruanos) ahora' señaló contradiciendo así las versiones del gobierno ecuatoriano que insiste en que ellos tienen el control de dicha base. "Luego señaló que la 'Tiwinza actual, de acuerdo a las coordenadas que tenemos, nos permite tener una influencia, algún control soberano del Ecuador sobre el río Cenepa'. "Después manifestó que 'el Tiwinza donde están las fuerzas ecuatorianas está en las orillas del río Tiwinza y que allí no han estado nunca las fuerzas peruanas". [6]
Messhermit 13:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No accusations, Messhermit. I am just asking you to be more specific on what you said. An accusation is when you say another editor is a POV-pusher, or a propagandist or something like that. So, no, my question will not be striked out or deleted. It will stay there.
The heated exchange (as you call it), which was limited to another article, has now affected this hitherto stable article because you made a decision to start removing things according to your criteria regarding what is a point of view and what is not a point of view.
Messhermit: this is the English-language Wikipedia. As a matter of courtesy to the non-Spanish speaking readers, I think it will be a good idea that, if you are going to cite extensive references in Spanish, you have to translate them into English first. As it is, you may see your last entry completely erased from this site by an administrator.
While you take the time to explain what did you mean with that last statement on the "ecuadorian [sic] side of the conflict", I would like to inform you that you are not sufficiently informed on this subject: the Ecuadorian Armed Forces did release official figures on the human casualties and material losses sustained by Ecuador during the Cenepa War. The Peruvian Air Force and the Peruvian Army Aviation service have the lists of their losses during the war.
Also, you are contradicting yourself in your reverts. You justified your first revert on the grounds that those figures were not from independent sources, and that they were based on Ecuadorian propaganda. Then, you made your second revert pointing out that these are not official losses.
This means that, as I stated before, you are using the revert tool in a disruptive way. If I post official figures, you will accuse me of using Ecuadorian propaganda. If I post external sources, you will accuse me of not relying on official figures. Therein lies the fundamental weakness of your policy on reverts.
While it is ok for anyone not to know enough about certain subjects, it is not ok to remove information from Wikipedia because you don't like the sources or because of a simple lack of knowledge on the subject. -- Andrés 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit.- it is fine if you want to edit an article...even if it is borderline disruptive and not based on factual (or at least citable) information. However, be aware that source deletions will not be tolerated. I suggest you stop this practice at once.Dragonlord kfb 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may[edit]

I think this tag is inappropriate and it has been used twice. I think it should be removed! 203.115.91.242 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Can you please identify/logon when commenting? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength[edit]

The strength box is only used to represent the strength of the forces employed in the conflict. I doubt that the entire forces of each side were involved. If 6400 tanks were battling it out in S.A. I would have heard more about this conflict. --Lemmey (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please validate the data in the infobox? The figures for tanks, artillery, and aircraft (not to say the "volunteers") seem to be a bit high for countries the size of Ecuador and Peru, so independent sources for them (eg: the "Jane's" publications) would be very helpful. Obviously, if all those forces were employed the conflict would have turned into a major war. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick browse in the existing WikiArticles on the Ecuadorian (Ecuadorian Army#Equipment 2) and Peruvian (Peruvian Army#Equipment, Peruvian Army#Personnel) armies shows huge discrepancies in materiel figures. Can any experienced editor please improve the Infobox or get sources for the figures currently in it? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the info box?[edit]

3000+ tanks? On both sides? Thousands more APC's? Really, and they flew them in on Mi-17's eh? Methinks the infobox needs a little work... Maury (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial Changes[edit]

I have removed the abovementioned paragraph from the infobox. The Cenepa War ended with the signing of a ceasefire and an agreement regarding the withdrawal of all military units from the war zone pending the results of the diplomatic negotiations to be carried in the context of the Rio Protocol. The MOMEP, a peacekeeping force from the four guarantors of the Protocol (USA, Brazil, Argentina. Chile) was sent in to oversee the demilitarization of the area. The final agreement regarding the definitive closure of the border was reached only in 1998, after a lengthy process of diplomatic negotiations and some saber-rattling from both parties. While minor adjustments were made to several sections of the common border, the most important aspect of the Peace Agreement was Ecuador's final recognition of the Condor mountain range as the border between both nations in the Cenepa valley. Also: Ecuador was not "forced" to change its maps as a result of the Peace Agreement, as the text seems to imply. The current official map of Ecuador came into being in 2000 as a result of an internal administrative decision. Adiutrix (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of chronology section[edit]

The chronology section deals mostly with the air war. I'm assuming there was a lot happening on the ground as well. To the degree that it is possible (for jungle skirmishes that may have been confused), can someone give more detail on the ground war? 69.196.129.179 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this article is a joke[edit]

The section Chronology of the War only puts the Ecuadorian version. As a veteran of that war, I can say that what is written below :

February 22 That afternoon and night, the Ecuadorian forces retaliate against Peruvians positions until the next day, when was detected an intense activity in the Peruvian lines, identified by the Ecuadorian officers as the evacuation of the casualties caused by the offensive the night before.[14]

It is false. It is true that there were a few injured by the artillery that fired during hours that night, but the reason for the intense activity the next day was for the arrival of President Fujimori and journalists.

Having read the page http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_164.shtml. I can assure that many lies that are written here. For starters there was no Navy airplane lost. Sorry but everyone already knows how many casualties had the Peru, and I find it shameful that even now people still repeat the same nonsense on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.66.100 (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes is a joke now, for yours edits and your peruan POV ;-) Ecuadorians were defeated, and therefore did not get any of the goals they had set: to question the validity of the Rio Protocol and achieve the papal : but..lol, read this please. The ip here is probably this, or this of others wiki (it, fr and es.wiki).--Kirk39 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cenepa War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cenepa_War&oldid=1206591641"