text:
[Datanucleus-issues] [DataNucleus JIRA] Resolved: (NUCCORE-628)
Embedded metadata creation when fields not specified can omit some due to
undefined "modifier"
From: Andy Jefferson (JIRA) <issues@da...> - 2011-01-18 07:27:43
[ http://issues.datanucleus.org/browse/NUCCORE-628?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Andy Jefferson resolved NUCCORE-628.
SVN for 2.2 and 3.0 have this fix
> Embedded metadata creation when fields not specified can omit some due to undefined "modifier"
>                 Key: NUCCORE-628
>                 URL: http://issues.datanucleus.org/browse/NUCCORE-628
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.0.release, 2.2.1, 2.2.2
> If we have an embedded PC field and that has some fields that are of types such as "int" then at the point of metadata population for the EmbeddedMetaData those fields may not have been populated themselves in the owning class. This results in them being omitted from the EmbeddedMetaData members. We should just work out what is the default modifier in those cases
[Datanucleus-issues] [DataNucleus JIRA] Created: (NUCCORE-628)
From: Andy Jefferson (JIRA) <issues@da...> - 2011-01-17 15:21:41
Embedded metadata creation when fields not specified can omit some due to undefined "modifier"
Key: NUCCORE-628
URL: http://issues.datanucleus.org/browse/NUCCORE-628
Affects Versions: 2.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.0.release
If we have an embedded PC field and that has some fields that are of types such as "int" then at the point of metadata population for the EmbeddedMetaData those fields may not have been populated themselves in the owning class. This results in them being omitted from the EmbeddedMetaData members. We should just work out what is the default modifier in those cases


text:
Your health finds no place in vehicle emission policy - Hindustan Times
home » India-news » NewDelhi Your health finds no place in vehicle emission policy
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times New Delhi, February 17, 2013
First Published: 19:43 IST(17/2/2013) | Last Updated: 02:25 IST(18/2/2013)
Two years after India's last auto-fuel policy lapsed with the notification of Bharat Stage IV emission norms for vehicles in select cities, the government woke up from its slumber and constituted a committee to suggest a new auto fuel roadmap for 2025.
The petroleum ministry has asked the committee, headed by plan panel member Saumitra Chaudhuri, to recommend new emission standards for vehicles on the road as well as new ones - taking into consideration achievements under the last policy, growth of vehicular population and availability of fuel. The terms of reference of the committee are heavily loaded in favour of automobile manufacturers and fuel companies, with not a single mention of the deteriorating air pollution levels in India.
Of the 13 committee members, only one is an environment-economist. Most of the others are linked with the auto sector or fuel companies.
Around one-fourth of the air pollution-related deaths in Asia happen in India, the latest report from the World Health Organisation states. Delhi was rated as most polluted city in the world by Yale University last year, and the Central Pollution Control Board - the country's pollution watchdog - says that only 5% of the 250 cities monitored have air quality better than the recommended standard.
Anumita Roy Chaudhury of the Centre for Science and Environment said that the increasing number of roads was the biggest contributor to rising air pollution levels in Indian cities. The government wants the committee to recommend a policy for reducing vehicular emissions. The entire emission regime would depend on whether the oil companies would be able to create infrastructure to provide cleaner fuel for vehicles and auto manufacturers would come up with better vehicle technologies.
The committee has been asked to recommend a suitable mix of automobile fuels, including gas and its specifications, keeping in mind infrastructure availability, fuel processing costs, and logistics.
Another key area for the committee to explore would be the removal of inter-fuel distortions and alternative fuels that minimise the impact on the environment. The committee will also look into new emission norms, but they are unlikely to come into effect before 2017.
vehicle emission policy health Bharat Stage IV emission norms auto-fuel policy

type: global

value: This website is an Indian English-language daily newspaper introduced and founded in 1924 by Sunder Singh Lyallpuri, founder-father of the Akali movement and the Shiromani Akali Dal in the Punjab Province. It played integral roles in the Indian independence movement as a nationalist daily.


text:
Items found similar to "New Ally Floating Swim Bodyboarding Fins Size Medium Black Green"
New Ally Floating Swim Bodyboarding Fins Size Med...: Items in search results
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Blue/Green
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Green/Yellow
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Large/Black/Green
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Small/Black/Green
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size XL/Green/Gray
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size XL/Green/Grey
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Small/Green/Grey
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Small/Black/Grey
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Large/Black
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Large/Red/Yellow
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size XL/Black
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Large/Red/Yellow
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium-Large/Black/Yellow
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Large/Black/Blue
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Large/Red
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium/Large/Orange
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Large/Black/Yellow
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Medium-Large/Blue/Red/White
+C $7.54 shipping	New Ally Floating ERS4 Swim/Bodyboarding Fins/Size Large/Blue/Red/White
+C $7.54 shipping	Ally Floating Swim Fins, Black/Green, Medium/Large NEW Free Shipping
Ally Floating Swim Fins, Black/Green, Medium/Large NEW Free Shipping
Ally Floating Swim Fins, Black/Green, Small NEW Free Shipping
Newly ListedAlly Floating Swim Fins, Black/Green, Large NEW Free Shipping
Ally Floating Swim Fins, Black/Green, X-Large NEW Free Shipping
Churchill Slashers Bodyboarding Swim Fins - Kids 4-7 Years
+C $26.17 shipping	Ally ERS4 Swim Fins, Black/Blue, Medium NEW Free Shipping
Custom X Bodyboard Swim Fins Yellow and Black Size Medium-Large
+C $11.55 shipping	Ally ERS4 Swim Fins, Black/Blue, Medium NEW Free Shipping
+C $26.17 shipping	NEW KICKS HIGH PERFORMANCE BODYBOARD FINS SWIM FINS BLACK MEDIUM 7-8
+C $4.93 shipping	NEW CUSTOM X SWIM FINS BODYBOARD FINS BLACK GREEN SIZE MEDIUM 6-7
+C $4.93 shipping	CHURCHILL MAKAPUU Swim Fins, size XL (mens 13-15) NEW
+C $26.17 shipping	NEW KICKS HIGH PERFORMANCE BODYBOARD FINS SWIM FINS BLACK MEDIUM LARGE 9-10
+C $4.93 shipping	Ally ERS4 Swim Fins, Black/Blue, Small NEW Free Shipping
+C $4.93 shipping	Ally ERS4 Swim Fins, Black/Blue, X-Large NEW Free Shipping
Ally ERS4 Swim Fins, Black/Blue, Small NEW Free Shipping
NEW DaFIN SWIM FINS BODYBOARD FINS BLUE YELLOW SIZE SMALL 5-6
+C $4.93 shipping	NEW DaFIN SWIM FINS BODYBOARD FINS GREY ORANGE SIZE SMALL 5-6
FINIS Floating Fins , Red/Black (Size: 3-5)
NEW DaFIN SWIM FINS BODYBOARD FINS BLUE YELLOW SIZE EXTRA SMALL 3-4
+C $4.93 shipping	ALLY Fins Clark Little Edition Swim Bodysurf Bodyboard Propulsion Speed Agility
+C $12.77 shipping	Water Gear Floating Swim Fins Size 5 - 7
NEW CUSTOM X SWIM FINS BODYBOARD FINS BLACK ORANGE SIZE MEDIUM 6-7
This page was last updated: 25-Dec 04:33. Number of bids and bid amounts may be slightly out of date. See each listing for international shipping options and costs.

value: This website is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in San Jose, California, that facilitates consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer sales through its website.


text: $14.95 - $19.97 Wrangler Men's No Iron Flat Front Casual Pant 4.0 stars (64) ratings Try unlimited 2-day shipping FREE for 30 days See details | Sign up Free shipping on orders over $50 Free store pickup 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 Next Showing 40 of 790 results Departments Bags & Accessories Men Boys Big & Tall Baby & Toddler Clothing The Basics Shop Industrial Workwear Activewear for the Family Associate Dress Code Girls School Uniforms Shoes Young Men's Styles See all Departments Shipping & Pickup Show all Ship to Home FREE Pickup FREE Pickup Today Brand Wrangler Signature by Levi Strauss & Co. Faded Glory Riders by Lee Danskin Now Rustler Dickies Just My Size No Boundaries White Stag Hanes Jordache George Fruit of the Loom Disney Genuine Dickies Catalina L.e.i. AND1 Avengers See more brands Price $ to $ Go $0 - $5 $5 - $10 $10 - $15 $15 - $20 $20 - $25 $25 - $150 $150+ Special Offers Clearance Rollback Special Buy Reduced Price As Advertised Only at Walmart New See more special offers Color Blue Black Red White Beige Gray Multi Pink Brown Orange Yellow Green Purple Silver Clear Other Bronze See more colors Retailer Walmart.com BeltOutlet Zoro Customer Rating 4.0 stars & Up 3.0 stars & Up 2.0 stars & Up 1.0 stars & Up Save Big Bundle Popular in Wrangler Clothing Wrangler Cargo Pants Women's One-piece Swimsuits Toddler Boys' Clothes Men's Long-sleeve Shirts Winter Gloves Men's Black Socks White Dresses Boys' Disney Clothes Compute- app-11031939-10-54695655, DC- prod-dal4, ENV- prod-a, Ver- 44.0.2, SHA- 42702b0755507672d99b43707ee6c95abb804137, Log- 3e690fbc-59-156311fb09c000 Site Information Be the first to save! Email Address Sign up Privacy Policy Stay connected Mobile apps Help Feedback MoneyCenter Privacy & Security CA Privacy Rights Terms of Use Financial services Walmart MoneyCenter Walmart Credit Card Apply Now Manage Card Account Product Care Plans Walmart Pay Get to know us About Walmart.com Corporate Suppliers Marketplace Careers @WalmartLabs Walmart.com Terms of Use About Our Ads Affiliate Program CA Privacy Rights Privacy & Security Customer service Returns Policy Product Recalls Int’l Customers Tax Exempt Program Contact Us Feedback Store Pickup In the spotlight Expand Baby Cribs Strollers Diapers Baby Feeding Car Seats Expand Electronics Cut the Cable Computers TVs iPads & Tablets Expand Fitness Exercise Machines Vitamins Ellipticals Treadmills Fitbit Expand Keep Cool Air Conditioners Fans Swimming Pools Pool Toys Expand International Sites Argentina Brazil Canada Chile China Japan Mexico United Kingdom © Walmart Stores, Inc. To ensure we’re able to help you as best we can, please include your reference number: Ref:

value: This website is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets , discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.


text:
New Wide Tele Flash Filter Kit Panasonic DMC GF1 GF3 GH2 14 45mm 14 42mm Pro | eBay Please enable JavaScript Our new search experience requires JavaScript to be enabled. Please enable JavaScript on your browser, then try again.
Items found similar to "New Wide Tele Flash Filter Kit Panasonic DMC GF1 GF3 GH2 14 45mm 14 42mm Pro"
View: Gallery view Customize... New Wide Tele Flash Filter Kit Panasonic DMC GF1 ...: Items in search results
VIVITAR SERIES 1 LENS STARTER KIT:fits Panasonic DMC-GH2 DMC-GF2 DMC-GF3 DMC-GF5
Vivitar 52mm Macro Close-Up Filter Lens Kit for Panasonic DMC-GH2 GF2 GF3 GF5
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Digital Camera w/45mm & 45-150mm Lenses 32GB Package
TOP LCD HI POWER AUTO FLASH FOR PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-GH1 DMC-GF1 DMC-GF2 DMC-GH2
500mm/1000mm Telephoto Lens Panasonic M4/3 DMC-GX1 DMC-GF5, DMC-GH3, DMC-GF6


text:
Layers Pattern in Practice - CodeProject 11,337,468 members (43,332 online)
Re: Excellent Ciumac Sergiu1-Dec-10 3:57 Thank you and good luck in developing your project.
My vote of 5 minakshijuware30-Nov-10 3:46 It helps me allot in deciding my projects structure.
My vote of 5 maq_rohit16-Aug-10 22:38 5 from me. Its great article and very Learning. Keep it up .
My vote of 5 kempol9-Jul-10 0:27 nice one mate
Re: My vote of 5 Ciumac Sergiu9-Jul-10 4:16 Thanks =)
Gr8 entry Md. Marufuzzaman5-Jul-10 5:27 This is simple outstanding.
Re: Gr8 entry Ciumac Sergiu5-Jul-10 11:55 Thanks =)
Godd article Steppenwolfe19-May-10 11:17 Got my 5, thanks..
Minor problem... Paulo Zemek27-Apr-10 8:51 When you explain connected and disconnected data, I think you tell a possible trait as an obligatory one.
Re: Minor problem... Ciumac Sergiu27-Apr-10 9:47 Thanks, Paulo for your comment. Speaking of .NET architecture there are 2 main possibilities related to data access (I'll enumerate specifically database data access objects): 1) Through DataSet object (which defines the so called Disconnected Data Environment - does not need any connection, once it holds all the data in the RAM, meaning that all the changes are made locally (final commit is called at a user's defined point), and 2) Through DataReader object which defines a Connected Oriented Model. In classical terms this means that DataReader needs a constant user connection to the data source while performing any operation (open SqlConnection object if we speak about SQL database). Even though, DataReader is an object which is strictly connection oriented, it can be used in a hybrid architecture model (with caching and commit on critical events). The same is true with the example given in the article. I could have used a model which persists an open I/O stream for the Xml file, or a model which changes the Xml file exactly in the same time once the user changes something in the DataGrid (I remind you that my data-source is a file and not a database). But I've decided to do differently. As in the case of DataSet object, I cache all the changes in the RAM by explicitly marking what fields have been modified, and how they were modified (Inserted, Deleted, Updated). Once a crucial event occurs, the changes are made to the data-source itself (Xml file is changed accordingly). In this case I have the advantage of minimizing the I/O operations performed by the application. As an example, consider a person inserting a row in the DataGrid. After a while the user decides to delete the currently inserted row (I know this sounds weird, but imagine it just for the sake of an example ). According to Connected Data Environment Model, this will result in two I/O operations: 1) Insert in Xml 2)Delete newly inserted item. But, as I use the mechanism of caching, this will result in zero I/O operations (the cached item will be marked as deleted, and there will be no need of deleting it from the data-source either). Keep in mind, that the application uses Xml files as the data storage and not a standard SQL database (so the entire Disconnected Data Environment Model is simulated . Hopefully, my explanation was satisfactory.
Re: Minor problem... Paulo Zemek27-Apr-10 10:48 I understand very well. My only problem is that you consider connected as "apply immediatelly", when it is not mandatory (but generally occurs).
Re: Minor problem... Ciumac Sergiu27-Apr-10 11:01 Hi Paulo,
Nice functioanl style. Can someone do this OO now?? Lugnuts27-Apr-10 8:03 This really was a great article for a 1960s style of programming. I call these types of programs "object based programs” as they are written using an OOPL but NOT in the way OO-Analysis and OO-Design want them to be used. An object oriented approach takes the OO Analysis model of the business domain and implements it in an OOPL (with as few changes as possible between the domain object model and the software object model). I am not going to describe what that process is only talk about the results. As there is no notion of "GUI" in a business model, no GUI operations appear anywhere in the code. Contrast this with 1960s style COBOL programs where I/O statements are all over the place. Likewise there is no notion of "making data persistent" in a business model so there should be no database operations in the middle of the code. Again COBOL programs are full of these too. YES such an OO program is not as efficient as a fully functional style of coding but efficiency is not always the main attribute of coding. We spend far more time maintain applications. Small apps are easy to maintain in any style of coding – not so for VERY large ones. WE all seem to agree that removing the GUI code from within the body of an application makes sense and justify this by saying it decouples the two concerns of GUI and business logic. I claim (and OO experts agree) that all similar I/O operations of any nature should be treated similarly. Thus all the database accesses should be hidden similar to how MVC GUI apps are coded.
Re: Nice functioanl style. Can someone do this OO now?? [modified] Ciumac Sergiu27-Apr-10 10:54 Hello George,
Re: Nice functioanl style. Can someone do this OO now?? Lugnuts29-Apr-10 8:27 I was not saying that your architecture was not in 3 layers. It does seem to be that way. The older COBOL programs were also in 3 layers. If the programmer wanted to read from the screen and write to the database they would code something like:
MEF ? GerhardKreuzer27-Apr-10 0:01 Really great work, no matter. But if you go just a little step forward, maybe in Part 2, you can replace the hard coded assignments by MEF imports and exports, managed by some container. And MEF is now part of .net 4 framework.
Definitely A 5 From Me KentuckyEnglishman26-Apr-10 14:28 From my limited understanding and breaking into the WPF world - this was an article I was able to understand, so hey - here's a 5 from me! )
Re: Definitely A 5 From Me Ciumac Sergiu26-Apr-10 23:03 Thanks This is great my 5 , Its a disrespect to rate this article below 5 Shivprasad koirala24-Apr-10 5:21 Great article , voting 3 for this article is a crime. This is what is needed in projects.
Re: This is great my 5 , Its a disrespect to rate this article below 5 Ciumac Sergiu24-Apr-10 10:53 Thanks, nice to hear that )
Good article have a 5 Sacha Barber24-Apr-10 0:51 5 from me
Re: Good article have a 5 Ciumac Sergiu24-Apr-10 10:52 Thanks Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 19:00 Last Update: 30-Mar-15 3:14Refresh1

value: This website is a community for computer programmers with articles on different topics and programming languages such as web development, software development, C++, Java, and other topics. Once a visitor registers a user account on the site, they can gain reputation which allows users to unlock different privileges such as the ability to store personal files in the user's account area, have live hyperlinks in their profile biography, and more.


text:
Related Citations for PubMed (Select 18180974) - PubMed - NCBI
Display Settings:Summary,20 per page,Sorted by Link RankingFormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListItems per page5102050100200Sort byLink RankingPub DateFirst AuthorLast AuthorJournalTitleRelevanceApplySend to:Choose DestinationFileClipboardCollectionsE-mailOrderMy BibliographyCitation managerFormatSummary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCSVSort byLink RankingPub DateFirst AuthorLast AuthorJournalTitleRelevanceCreate FileRelated Citations for PubMed (Select 18180974)FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other DataSort byLink RankingPub DateFirst AuthorLast AuthorJournalTitleRelevanceNumber to send5102050100200Start from citationE-mailSubjectAdditional textE-mail"SPAM" filtering software noticeAdd to ClipboardAdd to CollectionsOrder articlesAdd to My BibliographyGenerate a file for use with external citation management software.Number to send5102050100200Start from citationCreate File
Select item 181809741.Secondary contributors to bone loss in osteoporosis related hip fractures.Edwards BJ, Langman CB, Bunta AD, Vicuna M, Favus M.Osteoporos Int. 2008 Jul;19(7):991-9. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0525-7. Epub 2008 Jan 8.PMID: 18180974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 186806092.Evaluation of patients with a recent clinical fracture and osteoporosis, a multidisciplinary approach.Dumitrescu B, van Helden S, ten Broeke R, Nieuwenhuijzen-Kruseman A, Wyers C, Udrea G, van der Linden S, Geusens P.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Aug 5;9:109. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-109.PMID: 18680609 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC ArticleRelated citations Select item 159288023.Vitamin D, parathyroid hormone levels and bone mineral density in community-dwelling older women: the Rancho Bernardo Study.von Mühlen DG, Greendale GA, Garland CF, Wan L, Barrett-Connor E.Osteoporos Int. 2005 Dec;16(12):1721-6. Epub 2005 Jun 1.PMID: 15928802 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 117427744.Hypovitaminosis D and 'functional hypoparathyroidism'-the NoNoF (Nottingham Neck of Femur) study.Sahota O, Gaynor K, Harwood RH, Hosking DJ.Age Ageing. 2001 Nov;30(6):467-72.PMID: 11742774 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free ArticleRelated citations Select item 94255045.Importance of albumin, 25(OH)-vitamin D and IGFBP-3 as risk factors in elderly women and men with hip fracture.Thiébaud D, Burckhardt P, Costanza M, Sloutskis D, Gilliard D, Quinodoz F, Jacquet AF, Burnand B.Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):457-62.PMID: 9425504 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 87770796.Nutritional aspects of hip fractures.Bonjour JP, Schurch MA, Rizzoli R.Bone. 1996 Mar;18(3 Suppl):139S-144S. Review.PMID: 8777079 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 168744427.Vitamin D and intact PTH status in patients with hip fracture.Sakuma M, Endo N, Oinuma T, Hayami T, Endo E, Yazawa T, Watanabe K, Watanabe S.Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(11):1608-14. Epub 2006 Jul 28.PMID: 16874442 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 116835498.Calcium and vitamin D nutrition and bone disease of the elderly.Gennari C.Public Health Nutr. 2001 Apr;4(2B):547-59. Review.PMID: 11683549 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 171149129.High prevalence of secondary hyperparathyroidism due to hypovitaminosis D in hospitalized elderly with and without hip fracture.Giusti A, Barone A, Razzano M, Pizzonia M, Oliveri M, Palummeri E, Pioli G.J Endocrinol Invest. 2006 Oct;29(9):809-13.PMID: 17114912 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 1635770510.Secondary prevention of hip fractures among the hospitalized elderly: are we doing enough?Kamel HK.J Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Apr;11(2):68-71.PMID: 16357705 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 896649411.Prevention of hip fractures by correcting calcium and vitamin D insufficiencies in elderly people.Meunier P.Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1996;103:75-8; discussion 79-80.PMID: 8966494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 1046899312.Vitamin D insufficiency increases bone turnover markers and enhances bone loss at the hip in patients with established vertebral osteoporosis.Sahota O, Masud T, San P, Hosking DJ.Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1999 Aug;51(2):217-21.PMID: 10468993 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 887348713.Osteoporosis in lung transplantation candidates with end-stage pulmonary disease.Shane E, Silverberg SJ, Donovan D, Papadopoulos A, Staron RB, Addesso V, Jorgesen B, McGregor C, Schulman L.Am J Med. 1996 Sep;101(3):262-9.PMID: 8873487 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 1808816114.Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health.Cranney A, Horsley T, O'Donnell S, Weiler H, Puil L, Ooi D, Atkinson S, Ward L, Moher D, Hanley D, Fang M, Yazdi F, Garritty C, Sampson M, Barrowman N, Tsertsvadze A, Mamaladze V.Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Aug;(158):1-235. Review.PMID: 18088161 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free ArticleRelated citations Select item 905616215.Osteoporosis and bone mineral metabolism disorders in cirrhotic patients referred for orthotopic liver transplantation.Monegal A, Navasa M, Guañabens N, Peris P, Pons F, Martinez de Osaba MJ, Rimola A, Rodés J, Muñoz-Gómez J.Calcif Tissue Int. 1997 Feb;60(2):148-54.PMID: 9056162 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 921301116.Accelerated bone mineral loss following a hip fracture: a prospective longitudinal study.Dirschl DR, Henderson RC, Oakley WC.Bone. 1997 Jul;21(1):79-82.PMID: 9213011 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 636712117.The vitamin D endocrine system, calcium metabolism, and osteoporosis.Slovik DM.Spec Top Endocrinol Metab. 1983;5:83-148. Review.PMID: 6367121 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 1877313618.Poverty is a risk factor for osteoporotic fractures.Navarro MC, Sosa M, Saavedra P, Lainez P, Marrero M, Torres M, Medina CD.Osteoporos Int. 2009 Mar;20(3):393-8. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0697-9. Epub 2008 Sep 5.PMID: 18773136 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Select item 1523711919.Does routine blood bone biochemistry predict vitamin D insufficiency in elderly patients with low-velocity fractures?Singh SK, Manjure S, Stott P, Shetty A, Iversen SA, Williams CR.J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2004 Jun;12(1):31-4.PMID: 15237119 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free ArticleRelated citations Select item 1535936020.Bone density, parathyroid hormone, calcium and vitamin D nutritional status of institutionalized elderly subjects.Deplas A, Debiais F, Alcalay M, Bontoux D, Thomas P.J Nutr Health Aging. 2004;8(5):400-4.PMID: 15359360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations << First< PrevPage of 8Next >Last >>

value: This website is part of the United States National Library of Medicine , a branch of the National Institutes of Health . It is approved and funded by the government of the United States.


text:
BBC Radio Wales - Good Evening Wales, 20/08/2013 The BBC has updated its cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media websites if you visit a page which contains embedded content from social media. Such third party cookies may track your use of the BBC website. We and our partners also use cookies to ensure we show you advertising that is relevant to you. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the BBC website. However, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Continue Change settings Find out more ]]> Accessibility links Skip to content Accessibility Help BBC iD Notifications
HomeEpisodesClipsPresentersContact Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio 20/08/2013 Good Evening Wales Drivetime news, sport, weather and travel. Add Release date: 20 August 2013 2 hours, 30 minutes Last on Tue 20 Aug 2013 16:00 BBC Radio Wales More episodes Previous 19/08/2013 View Programme information Next 21/08/2013 View Programme information See all episodes from Good Evening Wales Broadcast See all broadcasts of 20/08/2013 (1) Radio Wales - In Short Bite-sized best bits featuring news, sport, entertainment, and your stories - in short. You may also like View all Similar programmes By genre: News HomeScheduleInfoPodcasts {{/each}}

value: This website is the BBC's online service. It is a large network of websites including such high-profile sites as BBC News and Sport, the on-demand video and radio services co-branded BBC iPlayer, the children's sites CBBC and CBeebies, and learning services such as Bitesize.


text:
The 36-Hour Day: A Family Guide to Caring for Persons with Alzheimer Disease, Related Dementing Illnesses, and Memory Loss in Later Life book by Ms. Nancy L Mace, M.A., Peter V Rabins, MD, MPH | 5 available editions | Alibris Books
Alibris ID: 14882814226
Alibris ID: 11944763295
Alibris ID: 15594933833
Alibris ID: 15591291724
Alibris ID: 15384757877
Alibris ID: 15546399140
Alibris ID: 15591310475

value: This website is is an online store that sells new books, used books, out-of-print books, rare books, and other media through an online network of independent booksellers.


text:
Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian War - Wikipedia
Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian War
1 Talk pages involved
2 Japanese mercenaries????
3 What they were fighting for...
4 Neutral assesment Oct. 14
6 IP User Complains
7 Messhermit Answer
8 Impartiality in Question
9 Peruvian or Ecuadorian POV in Question ?
10 Page protected
10.1 Reply
12 Reply to my fellow IP user
13 Unprotecting
14 About the monument image
15 Inca empire reference deletion
16 Vandalism in course
17 Picture for the article
18 Translating from the Spanish version
19 Figures for casualties and troops!
20 200 tanks???
22 not enough
Talk pages involved[edit]
Talk:Ecuadorian-Peruvian war
Talk:Cenepa war
Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute
Japanese mercenaries????[edit]
what's the source of this ecuadorian myth? Greetings Rasdar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.39.36 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) There is a myth in Rasdar Peruvian government to buy Japanese soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.68.236 (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What they were fighting for...[edit]
Wasn't the the patch of land they were fighting for a rich oil supply, which American companies wanted to secure. So they incited a border war with Ecuador and Peru to see would be supplying it to them? (source: Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins) User:Tetris11 16:59, 9 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.48.149 (talk)
Neutral assesment Oct. 14[edit]
While it is clear that the critical post below lacks any sort of unbiased foundation, it is also very clear that the article in question is not accurate at all.
The author, presumably editor for both Ecuadorian-Peruvian war and Cenepa war, cites an article on the latter from the US Department of National Security. This article is used to reinforce his point that the military engagement of Cenepa in the 90's was started by both sides. Meanwhile, the same research paper qualifies the 1941 Ecuadorean - Peruvian war as an invasion by the Peruvian forces. This completely refutes the wikipedia entry in which it insinuates a provocation act by forces, that according to the US Dept, consisted of "3,000 poorly led and equipped Ecuadorian soldiers against 15,000." Dragonlord kfb 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Looking at this from a relatively neutral perspective, and with very little knowledge of the conflict in question (though this "stupid Yank" would be happy to be directed to the relavent sources), I believe that a few simple and unbiased images to include in this article would be: a: A map of the disputed border region, and b: pictures of the commanders of the respective sides. This may not be much, but this might get the ball rolling. 76.204.16.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
IP User Complains[edit]
This article includes more than one outright lie, and fails to mention a naval skirmish which Ecuador
won against absurd odds. The outright lie is that Ecuador invaded Peru, when it was the other way around, as it has always been, for Ecuador at no time in its history posessed the military means Peru did, and as the info panel at the right of the article shows, in 1941 the Peruvian forces outnumbered the Ecuadorian ones by a ratio of two to one. Peru has long claimed the port city of Guayaquil and its surrounding fertile lands as parts of its territory, going as far as to occupy Guayaquil in 1859 (this time, by ship), and if the Peruvian army had been as good as the article claims it was, it would have gotten to Guayaquil in no time at all. Instead,it was bogged down near Machala, in Ecuador's El Oro province, by token forces of the Ecuadorian army fielding old machine guns.
Meanwhile, in the Gulf of Guayaquil, the Abdón Calderon a 131-foot (40 meters) long coastal steamer built in the 1880's, retrofitted with two puny cannon of less than 100 mm and two 20 mm fast-fire guns, was able to put out of service the Almirante Villar, a 315-foot (96 meters) Peruvian destroyer of WWI vintage, that fielded four 101/60 caliber cannon. If that steamer had been a fast torpedo gunboat, the Peruvians defeat wouldn't appear so outrageous, but the Abdón Calderon's reciprocal steam engines couldn't push more than 8 knots, while the Almirante Villa's steam turbines could easily push its 1300 tons to 30 knots.
The Almirante Villar spent the rest of its life in a Peruvian dry dock, while the Abdón Calderon became the subject of epic poems, books and a monument consisting of itself in a large pool.
Messhermit Answer[edit]
Large and Sad proof of Ultra-Nationalistic POV. Messhermit 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Guayaquil in fact was detached from the Viceroyalty of Peru by Simon Bolivar, and after that, no single Peruvian Government has reclaimed the city as an integral part of the Peruvian Republic.
The Naval battle is only proposed in the Ecuadorian POV, since a persecution does not constitute a battle by itself. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
At the time Simon Bolivar goes to Guayaquil, it already had an independent goverment that had successfully resisted the spanish efforts to reclaim the city as theirs. Guayaquil was an independent province that was forced to join the Gran Colombia.
Impartiality in Question[edit]
I do believe that the objectivity of this article should be disputed. It is not true, for example, that after independence from Spain Ecuador was left without access to the Amazon. Things weren't so clear back then as they are now with respect to borders. I don't see any mention of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol, signed between Colombia and Peru (before Ecuador separated from Colombia) which is rather important. There's a book on the subject (can't recall the title) written by an American which is quite impartial and could be used as reference here. -- Jose
The Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol is not involved here because of a main reason: It's authenticity cannot be proved by the Governments of Colombia and Peru (the two countries that sponsored that Treaty). The Ecuadorian Government has not been able to proof the existence of that document.
My understanding is that the original signed document is missing, and hasn't been found in Colombia. To suggest that the treaty never took place is far fetched (see Occam's Razor). Regardless of what you may personally believe, the importance of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol (existent or not) to understanding the conflict is paramount. This is the basis, the explanation of it all. This is the original point of disagreement. Ecuadorians give much relevance to the protocol. Peruvians either think it is void or non-existent. Wikipedia articles should be objective, without passion or prejudice. The views of both Peruvians and Ecuadorians should appear in the article. As it stands, it reads as if it was taken right out of a Peruvian elementary school's text boook.
Sorry, but the info is not from any school book. You may feel comfortable writing the Ecuadorian one? Also, Neither Colombia and Peru have a copy of a treaty that only Ecuador claim to have existed.
Also, Brazil Recognized the Amazon river (and by doing this, invalidate the Ecuadorian claim to the river) as part of its frontier with Peru.
I believe you're referring to who discovered the Amazon, which is not that relevant
to this article. You might want to dispute the article Amazon_River#European_exploration.
The Amazon River is not the Question. Peru ceded territory allong the Amazonas River and Brazil recognised the rest of the territory as part of the Peruvian Republic.
Colombia also recognised borders with Peru even before the signing of the Salomonte-Mozquera Treaty in 1922.
Quite Simple: Why did he settle it's borders with Peru if (according to Ecuador) the hole territory was Ecuadorian? Messhermit 01:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Glad to answer some question. Messhermit 02:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Peruvian or Ecuadorian POV in Question ?[edit]
Readers of this article should be aware that the author(s) of this article belong to one of the two nations involved in the dispute. People interested in this subject are strongly advised to consult other sources for a non-biased description of the War of 1941, preferably taking into account both Ecuadorian and Peruvian POVs. Andres C.
And People should be aware that there is a lot of pro-ecuadorian POV pushing going around. Messhermit 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
And People should be aware that there is a lot of pro-ecuadorian POV pushing....
Naturally so, and it should come as no surprise. Both Ecuador and Peru hold their own POV about the history of the border disputes between the two nations. This contributor does not wish to get involved in an edit war (some of his entries have already been rapidly deleted), and only wants to point out that this Wikipedia article -as well as other articles about this subject both in the English and Spanish versions of Wikipedia, (seeCenepa War)- is written according to the Peruvian POV. In doing so, this article, as it stands now, does not comply -sadly- with Rule 4 of Wikipedia, which calls for a Neutral Point of View.
Taking into account the new era of goodwill between Ecuador and Peru that should have followed the signing of the Peace Treaty of Itamaraty in 1998, this contributor holds the opinion that a NPOV, well-balanced article about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941 will only be possible when both POVs are presented to the reader in an impartial and straightforward manner, allowing the reader to know both sides of the story. In that sense, it is important that, besides documenting from credible sources certain parts of the article (Ecuador invading Peruvian territory in 1941 comes to mind), Peruvian contributors allow members of Ecuador or other nationalities to contribute to the article, accepting the inclusion of points of view that may not be in accord with the Peruvian version of the events. Such an article, free of bias, would be an example of goodwill and cooperation between Ecuadorians and Peruvians. This contributor would like to continue to try to include the Ecuadorian POV which, presented along with the Peruvian POV, would make for a Wikipedia article of much better quality.
I must remind also that presenting both sides is not NPOV. Actually, the fact that Peruvian an Ecuadorian versions of how the war started shows that at least one of the sides is not telling the truth. Also, credible sources does not means that the dispute will end with that, because there are several documents that show or support one of the other. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
After seeing the way you delete any suggestion that does not agree with your version of truth, presenting both sides of the story looks to me like the best arrangement that can be made for this article to improve its overall quality; at the very least, it would be better than just presenting the Peruvian POV (which implicitly hints that the side not telling "the truth" is the Ecuadorian).
Finally, the inclusion of pictures of Peruvian monuments to victory, while perhaps constituting a source of pride for Peruvians, does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, and may be hurtful to Ecuadorians, who know only too well that their nation suffered a humiliating and costly defeat in a one-sided struggle. This Wikipedian respectfully asks the contributor who posted that image to move it to an article about Lima and its architecture. While being of small importance by itself, that initiative, if accepted, would be a good way to start creating a new and better article about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, a non-biased article that would not hurt the feelings of anyone wishing to learn something about this subject on Wikipedia. In case the editor who posted that image is no longer contributing to Wikipedia, this contributor would like to respectfully ask from fellow Peruvian wikipedians their opinions about removing said image from the article, and replacing it perhaps with a map of the zone of dispute, which would help very much international readers in their understanding of the subject.
With very best regards, Andres C. 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The Peruvian Monument is the only available picture that I was able to found about the War of 1941. I have not been able to found a monument that shows both countries (or at least flags). Also, It will only hurt the memories of those who will continue to claim Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas as part of Ecuador. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is telling you to put an image where Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas appear as part of Ecuador. You won't find it. For that, you will have to look at maps of the Presidencia de Quito, available from the CIA Factbook webpage.
Hello, I edited the sentence on the Ecuadorian invasion and occupation of Zarumilla, as there is no Peruvian or Ecuadorian primary source mentioning such an event taking place before the outbreak of the war. Even though readers will find it akward that the puny Ecuadorian army had somehow managed to go on the offensive and occupied the Peruvian town of Zarumilla, I will gladly reinstate myself such an event in the article if respectable primary sources are brought forward proving that this event happened at all. Please do not revert this change if such primary sources are not posted in the references section of the article. Thank you.
Regards, Andres C. 17:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you by no means can create or put a ban on my information. Also, you don;t have enought information to say that Peru invaded Ecuador just for fun or for the pleasure to do it. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Messhermit: please understand that this is not "your" article anymore, it belongs to the community of Wikipedians. As long as Ecuadorians watch over this page, you will find yourself in an endless edit war over its content until any Peruvian POV is clearly noted as such, and not as objective "truth" The same also applies for Ecuadorian POV. The information about Peru invading Ecuador, which you seem to consider a lie, while at the same time praising the airborne assault on Puerto Bolivar is not put there for the fun of it.
For specific online references where the word "invasion" is used to describe the war between Ecuador and Peru in 1941, please see:
Now I shall ask you to please post references for the Ecuadorian invasion of Zarumilla. Can you do that? Andres C. 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This page is now protected. Please make an attempt to resolve your differences and reach concensus before moving forward. Once you have reached an agreement that all parties can live with, you can post a messagwe on my talk page or make a request @ WP:RPP to unprotect. Saludos a todos. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly, the real problem here is how the article is being misleaded, actually blaming for the war to the Republic of Peru. The so-called invasion (by part of the Ecuadorians) is presented as a surprise attack, deleting every reference to previous border skirmish between both countries. Also, the fact that one investigation says that Peru was the agressor, does not make it the law of the land.
As a compromise, I'm willing to remove the Peruvian Monument from the Info-box, and upload a map that will show the area in dispute. The Monument picture will be in the article, just in a different location and with a more detailed explanation about his meaning.
If this important issues could be solved, We may can work to improve the article. Messhermit 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I would first like to thank Jossifresco for stepping in and protecting the article, an action that I hope will help to end this edit war and contribute to produce a better article.
Messhermit wrote:
Unfortunatelly, the real problem here is how the article is being misleaded, actually blaming for the war to the Republic of Peru.
This is interesting. When I first came in to help with this article, I found the following statement by you, Messhermit:
Attempting to assert its territorial aims in a region near the Río Marañón, Ecuador militarily occupied Zarumilla, a town located in Peruvian territory. The Peruvian Army responded promptly and confronted the Ecuadorian Army.
Hmmm...and yet you accuse me of "misleading" people and doing unjustified blaming. Go figure. About that alleged Ecuadorian military occupation of Zarumilla: I asked you for primary references about such incident ever happening, but no evidence has been brought forward so far, despite the fact that I pledged myself to put that claim back into the article if said evidence was presented. Instead, the same claim has been put back over and over despite my edits. Once again, I would like to ask for some primary evidence about this Ecuadorian invasion of Peruvian territory taking place in 1941. (Incidentally, I have to recognize that, knowing the sorry state of the Armed Forces of my country in 1941, the sole mention that Ecuador actually went on to occupy Zarumilla looks to me a bit preposterous).
The so-called "invasion" (by part of the Ecuadorians) is presented as a surprise attack, deleting every reference to previous border skirmish between both countries.
Messhermit, I have not used the term "surprise attack". Regarding the term invasion, this is the definition Wikipedia gives: "An invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period."
Is Puerto Bolívar not part of a foreign land? Why do you find it so troublesome the concept of an invasion ocurring in 1941, when you yourself mention Peruvian troops in Puerto Bolívar and the province of El Oro? They were not tourists on vacations, you know.
As for border skirmishes before the war, which you claim I have deleted...well, look at the several edits made over the last few days. The article I found on October 12 made no mention whatsoever of border incidents happening before the outbreak of the war. You can confirm it yourself. This accusation is all the more surprising since it was I who went on to mention such incidents. Take a look at my very first edit on this article (marked 18:31, October 12), if you will:
After a series of sporadic border incidents, and claiming that Ecuadorian forces had attempted to occupy the Peruvian town of Zarumilla, Peru unleashed a full-fledged invasion of Ecuadorian territory, advancing on that nation's coastal province of El Oro, and securing also a large part of the disputed border area on the Amazon basin.
Later, I added a date for the beginning of the incidents: 1938. If I was the one who mentioned these incidents in the first place, how can you say I delete "every reference to previous border skirmish(es)"? I don't get it.
Also, the fact that one "investigation" says that Peru was the agressor, does not make it the law of the land.
Messhermit: The study that you find unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia (to the point of deleting it altogether) is a study presented before the Department of National Security and Strategy, U.S. Army War College, by a person who has done extensive research on Latin American conflicts. If you take the time to read it (it's not that long), you will find that Mr. Marcella actually counted with the collaboration of the Peruvian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Regarding the Cenepa War (which is its main subject), the "investigation" as you refer to it in disdain, goes on to say:
The most serious fighting centered around Cueva de los Tallos, Base Sur, and Tiwintza outposts occupied by Ecuadorean troops located within the Peruvian side of the undemarcated and disputed border.
Note the date the article was written: November 25, 1995. Do you really think he is biased against Peru??
Having responded to your accusations, I look forward to continue this talk, in order to reach some sort of agreement. The first question I would like to pose is: How can we define the presence of Peruvian troops in the province of El Oro without mentioning the word "invasion"? Even if you hold to the position that Ecuador invaded Peru and took Zarumilla, which prompted a surprised Peru to respond with a counterattack (a very fast one, airborne operations included, but never mind...), you would still have to find a word to describe the presence of Peruvian troops in El Oro during the better part of six months.
My position is this: 1. Ecuador and Peru held talks in Washington, D.C., from 1936 to 1938. 2. Following the breakup of the talks, border incidents began to happen with increasing frequency during the period 1938-1941. 3. In July 1941, the Peruvian Army Commander, against the specific orders from the President, launched an invasion of Ecuadorian territory, with the purpose of ending the border disputes once and for all. 4. Ecuador was in no position to defend Guayaquil from a Peruvian advance along the coastline, and it asked for a ceasefire, that went into effect on July 31, leaving Peruvian troops in control of the province of El Oro until a Peace Treaty was signed. 5. Peru was much more prepared for a war in 1941 than Ecuador, which didn't even have an Air Force and whose heaviest equipment then were a couple of machine guns manned by badly trained recruits.
I would like to know your comments. The important thing is to see how can we reach a consensus were both the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian versions are presented in an article free of nationalistic propaganda, be it Ecuadorian or Peruvian. I hope it can be done. If Ecuador and Peru could finally find an agreement and close the border for good, why can't we begin to write a new, better account of these wars?
Cheers, Andres C. 08:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
AS for the Battle of Zarumilla
On 5 July 1941 there was a clash between an Ecuadorian Army patrol and elements of the Peru Civil Guard. [1]
In an effort to assert its territorial claims in a region near the Río Marañón in the Amazon Basin, Ecuador occupied militarily the town of Zarumilla along its southwestern border with Peru. [2]
After the battle of Zarumilla the conflict was solved by the signature of the Act of Talara, predecessor of the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro.
The beginning of the fighting happened on July 5, 1941 when Equator Army's soldiers entered in Peru's territory in order to remove the wire-work of a peruvian farm. In the same day equatorian troops attacked the peruvian border posts of Aguas Verdes, Las Palmas and Lechugal.
The battle existed. and YES, you attempted to delete the part about the skirmish in your first modifications.
There are several books on College, writed by US militars and with the colaboration of Both Peruvian and Ecuadorian embassies that say different stories. I will make sure to select a few of them in order to suport my claims.
About the action in Puerto Bolivar, it is there because is the first time in latin america that an airbone division is used in war. As a matter of fact, if you research about that incident, you will find that it was also one of the first time that this type of warfare was used in the world.
The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol.
The fact that the Peruvian Army was better prepared does not mean that the war was planned. An example of this is the fact that the Brazilian Military is one of the most powerfull armies in latin america and (as far as I know) is not planning to invade any country. The fact that the Ecuadorian Army was not in shape for conflict, does not mean that Peru was preparing an invasion.
Messhermit 12:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Show me where. My first modification is the one named 22:29, October 12, 2005. Again, there were was mention of skirmishes until I posted them in said edit.
From the webpage you cited: From 1931 to 1936,when the Treaty of Lima was signed, Ecuador had been provoking Peru with continued troop confrontations in the Peruvian Departmento (State) of Amazonas. Even after signing the Treaty, the provocations continued increasing in intensity between 1938 and 1940.
Does it looks to you like a NPOV narration of events??? Messhermit: citing Peruvian Air Force's official history to support your claim of Ecuadorian forces invading Peru will get us nowhere. What do you think the official history of the Ecuadorian Army would say about the conflict? What would you expect?
As a matter of fact, if you research about that incident, you will find that it was also one of the first time that this type of warfare was used in the world.
Perhaps you take pride in that? By the way, by the time of the airborne assault on Puerto Bolivar, the Germans had already conducted extensive airborne operations in the conquest of Norway (April 1940), the assault on Holland and the seizing of the forts of Eben Emael (May 1940), and the successful, if very costly, assault on Crete. Yes, Peru was the first nation to conduct airborne operations in America, and you should very well know that airborne assault are high risk military operations that require a lot of planning and coordination before their execution. That should tell you something about who was planning what.
You are getting nowhere trying to make an article around the idea that the conflict came about as a result of Ecuadorian aggressive, expansionist plans towards Peru...How could Ecuador be planning to, of all things, invade Peru in 1941, when it was well known at the time that the Peruvian Army, Air Force and Navy where some of the strongest military forces in the entire continent? Don't you know that Arroyo del Rio had most of the troops stationed in Quito? Most of the Carabineros, a paramilitary force created by him, refused to go to the frontier to fight, and stayed in Guayaquil. Unless you get familiar with the history of Ecuador, your article will never get past the level of nationalistic propaganda. We should strive for a much better article.
I hope we can get past this and try to reach an agreement. Don't let yourself be fooled by Patriotic propaganda (in Ecuador we can also have that problem, though it's getting less of an issue as of lately) or we won't get anywhere. Let us contribute to make a better article, free of bias.
Regards, Andres C. 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Something that I'm proud of it's the fact that we didn't have a Borders of the Country subject in school, that gave to ecuadorians a false idea that those territories at some point belong to Ecuador. Unfortunately, that may be clouding your views about the war.
And Invasion is not the appropiate name, since the only moment that Peru actually invaded the country was in response to the skirmish and the battle near Zarumilla. Also, Only El Oro was occupy, and at any moment Peru planned to annexed the province or reclaim Guayaquil. The other parts in conflict ( Mainly the Amazonian Jungle - the disputed territories) were not de jure or de facto part of Ecuador.
I just wanted to point out that all invasions are in response to something; that's not relevant. Consider the German invasion of Poland, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US invasion of Iraq. They had their reasons; they didn't just go in because they were nuts. Invasion simply means that they went in uninvited. Also, you have claimed that Ecuador occupied Zarumilla, which again, is not citable. The Peruvian army itself claims that Ecuadorian troops had entered Peruvian territory near Zarumilla, which sparked a firefight (which somehow extended throughout much of the border in the area) and as a result Perú quickly improvised a swift invasion with tanks, paratroops and air support that same day (which is remarkable considering how long it takes the US to prepare an invasion). The best you could claim is that Ecuador was trying to go and occupy Zarumilla, but you can't know that. Occupying a city means that forces have gotten rid of the local government and subsequently control the city. It's also unclear to me why Aguas Verdes is never mentioned. Clearly it would've been much more logical for the Huaquillas unit of the Ecuadorian army to take Aguas Verdes first. There are no accounts of civilians getting killed in Peruvian territory that I know of. Also, was that Aguas Verdes-Huaquillas border under dispute at the time? I'd be surprised. I don't doubt that Ecuador was perhaps entering disputed territory and setting up posts from time to time, but why go into territory that's not disputed, unless you're really prepared to win militarily? And why did it all start precisely in a place with a convenient bridge that could be used for crossing into the other country and occupy a populated province, and not in some other place, like the Cenepa region? In essense, the whole thing doesn't sound very believable to me.
200.63.231.224 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Just like the 101 Airbone division that landed in Normandy a few days before the D-Day, those operations were mostly theorical, and it's implementation costly in both man and equipment (and just like the Germans, they took a heavy price on human lifes). The fact that a peruvian Airbone division took part in the war and took control of a small port is military seen as a simbolic (but at any moment strategic) tactic. Or was Puerto Bolivar a extremely important port for the Ecuadorian Army?
I just wanna say that you are also getting nowhere pretending that Peru was the agressor in the war. The constant skirmish were created by both parts, and the nationalistic and populist rethoric that several Ecuadorian presidents (and politicians) use in his electoral campaing or to gain political support should be blame also.
Messhermit 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Something that I'm proud of it's the fact that we didn't have a Borders of the Country subject in school
I never had that subject in school either. Sorry to dissapoint you. Let me tell you a little secret: do not believe everything they told you about those deceitful, sinister, mendacious, war-mongering Ecuadorians and their secret plans to conquer Peru. We are too inept to do that.
And Invasion is not the appropiate name, since the only moment that Peru actually invaded the country was in response to the skirmish and the battle near Zarumilla.
So? What there an "invasion" or not? By the way, I see you changed the version from "Ecuador taking Zarumilla" to "skirmishes and battles near Zarumilla".
Also, Only El Oro was occupy
Only El Oro; that's good. Was that an invasion? How many provinces do you need before considering an enemy move into foreign territory as invasion? Two? Four?
Just like the 101 Airbone division that landed in Normandy a few days before the D-Day
The U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the 6th British Airborne Division were dropped on Normandy six hours before the first beach landings on June 6. Had they landed "days before the D-day", they would have been massacred for lack of heavy weapons. Military history is not your forte perhaps?
those operations were mostly theorical
What? Feel free to write in Spanish because you are not making any sense here.
Or was Puerto Bolivar a extremely important port for the Ecuadorian Army?
I see. Since it was just a tiny unimportant port-city, its taking by airborne assault does not constitute an invasion. They were just doing some live-fire training perhaps?
I just wanna say that you are also getting nowhere pretending that Peru was the agressor in the war.
Messerschmitt: you imposed the tone of the discussion.
The constant skirmish were created by both parts
The FIRST sensible thing you've said up to this point. So no more Ecuadorian sneaky provocations and treacherous trespassing into a peace-loving Peru? Thanks a lot. From this point on we can start to have some serious discussion about how to improve the article.
regards, Andres C. 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It should be clear to any reader of this lengthy discussion that whatever credibility Messerschmitt had as an author is now gone.
''Res ipsa loquitur''
1 Messerschmitt has failed to provide any meaningful source of information to the ongoing conflict. Attempted to compare a US Department of National Security paper with a blog that cannot be verified is hardly reasurring. 2 Continuous attempts by the aforementioned to erase sources of information (against wikipedia philosophy). Information, that in fact, sheds light in the ongoing issue, and 3 Continuous editing without contributing information that cannot be readily verified in order to resolve the controversy,
should lead the reasonable reader to the inevitable conclusion: Messerschmitt is pushing a Peruvian POVDragonlord kfb 04:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm Ecuadorian, but I don't have any interest in making the article have an Ecuadorian POV. I admire the NPOV ideal of Wikipedia. But it would be important to present both sides. I had this discussion (organized it actually) over 10 years ago in a mailing list(use Google Groups to search for "charla limitrofe ecuador peru".) I'm not a major expert in the field by any means, but here are some specific additions that would balance the article:
Mention the battle of Tarqui, won by Colombia.
Mention the Pedemonte-Mosquea protocol, and the Peruvian arguments that suggest it never took place (e.g. only copies have been found, and there are also arguments that both Pedemonte and Mosquera were not available on that date) and the ones that indicate that even if it took place, it wasn't ratified and it was with a country that no longer existed.
The proximity of dates between idenpendence from Spain, separation from Colombia and so on are worth noting.
Mention some of the treaties that occurred between that time and 1941, e.g. Noboa-Pando, Morales-Estrada, etc.
An analysis of how the region up to the Amazon that Ecuador considered its own was basically de facto Peruvian because its inhabitants were mostly Peruvian. (I recall reading it was upwards of 60% in the late 1800s). Nevertheless, I understand there are some towns in the region named after Ecuadorian presidents and politicians.
In discussing how the 1941 war started, explore claims made by both Ecuadorians and Peruvians.
The challenges to the Rio Protocol of 1941 by Ecuador are likely relevant to this article. The Ecuadorian arguments as to why the protocol should've been considered void are several, and need to be listed.
Heck, unlock the article and I might do this myself, a little bit each day. 200.63.231.224 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello! As the member who asked for this page to be protected in the first place, I support the request made by user 200.63.231.224 to remove the protection.
I asked for the page to be protected temporarily as a means to "enforce a cool down period to stop an edit war." (See Wikipedia: Protection policy). I don't know if the protection has served its intended purpose, as the senseless confrontation with Messhermit regarding the term "invasion" kept going until it reached a dead-end. Actually, I am afraid the protection turned out to be of little use. Even my request for primary sources documenting the Ecuadorian invasion of Peruvian territory in 1941 (which Messhermit mentions as the cause of the war) went unheeded.
In any case, I guess it is important that both Ecuadorians and Peruvians (or by that matter anyone interested in contributing to this article) reach some sort of consensus regarding the subject of NPOV, in order to produce a better-quality article that takes into consideration both sides of the story, and not just the Peruvian, as has been the case up to this point.
The subjects mentioned by 200.63.231.224 deserve to be dealt with in detail, taking into account both the Ecuadorian and Peruvian versions. In my humble opinion they should be addressed in the article named History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, whose author is -you guessed rightly- the same individual who reverts or deletes any modifications or additions made to the articles Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and Cenepa War.
Cheers. Andres C. 02:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Messhermit is not interested in contributing information to Wikipedia, but simply a pro-Peruvian POV across various articles. It's intellectually dishonest of him to delete information that I assume is relevant and notable simply because he disagrees with it. How is a problem like this usually resolved in Wikipedia? 200.63.231.224 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started to edit History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. Please go to the talk page there for feedback on POV and content. 200.63.231.224 19:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Reply to my fellow IP user[edit]
Too bad that you already have a terrible opinion about my actions wihout looking at the hole picture, and realicing that my defence against the other user is as valid as your contributions. The fact that you are usgin the talk page to discuss the issue rather than tearing apart the article (fortunately, it was protected) is a good sign. Also, about Pro-nationalistic peruvian POV< I'm terrible sorry to dissapoint the other user. Take a look at my contributions, and you will realice that I'm involved in a broad subject of topics that goes between iraqui, afghani and pakistani history (for naming ones).
Also, in the same way that you accuse me of pushing a peruvian POV, I must say that the other user clearly push a Ecuadorian POV. Most of the article is a clear attemp to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that Peru invaded Ecuador, clearly ignoring the fact that skirmish and ecuador's political class were igniting the flames of this conflict.
Also, the fact that some US investigations have some information about the conflict does not close the discussion.
AS you may have realice, I have started an article that can explore in a much more neutral an accurate discussion the real nature behind the conflict. I have see that you are impartial with both sides, and I'm merely correcting some gramatic mistakes. I'm willing to work with you in these effort to settle this dispute.
Cheers!. Messhermit 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Messerschmitt.
(fortunately, it was protected)
Yes, fortunately. Now go on and find who was the one who requested the protection.
Most of the article is a clear attemp to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that Peru invaded Ecuador
Read the article as it was before I started editing it. Was it not "a clear attempt to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that "Ecuador invaded Perú"?
No it doesn't. Who said that? Now I respectfully ask you to refrain from deleting said source, as it goes against all rules regarding NPOV. You shamelessly deleted the reference, and your action is in the "history" page for everyone to see.
I'm terrible sorry to dissapoint the other user. Take a look at my contributions, and you will realice that I'm involved in a broad subject of topics that goes between iraqui, afghani and pakistani history (for naming ones).
Oh no, you do not disappoint me. Actually, I am having a bit of fun with your ranting. Yes, I have seen your contributions, and from what I gather, you are:
(1) rather careless in the English syntax and spelling departments (remember Wikiquette), and
(2) a troublemaker of sorts, as is evident after a quick glance at your talk page.
AS you may have realice, I have started an article that can explore in a much more neutral an accurate discussion the real nature behind the conflict. I have see that you are impartial with both sides, and I'm merely correcting some gramatic mistakes.
Oh really? Didn't you just mentioned the term wars...impossed on the Peruvian people in another talk page? Good luck then with your "neutral and accurate discussion".
And while you are correcting, I suggest you start right here: use grammar, not gramatic, use realize instead of realice. And another one, which appears in the talk pages of both you and me (remember when you accused me of vandalism?): write considered, not considerated. That one was a real winner.
Cheers to you too! Andres C. 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I need to pay attention to the dates of posts ^_^ Pvt Mahoney 21:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has been protected for over a week. I'm unprotecting to see if editing can proceed. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
About the monument image[edit]
It's clear to me the image should be removed. It has been pointed out that it could be hurtful to Ecuadorians. But more relevant to a Wikipedia article is the fact that the monument is not notable in this article. The article is about a historical event, and a picture of a monument is not historically notable. Wikipedia articles are meant to inform, not pay tribute to combatants. The picture perhaps belongs in the Lima article, at best, or in Wikitravel. 200.63.231.224 15:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello 200.63.231.224. To fill you in on details about the image.
On October 14, 2004, I asked in this page for a third party to consider removing the image of the monument. I didn't do it myself in order to avoid being labelled "an Ecuadorian ultranationalist" by Messhermit (to no avail, as he went on to call me just that). I was a new Wikipedian at the time, and hadn't had the time to getting to know this fellow.
The following day, user 69.148.25.252 went on and deleted the image. A little later, Loopy put the image back. I went to Loopy's talk page and asked him (who is neither Ecuadorian nor Peruvian) why did he consider important for the image to appear in the article.
Loopy kindly answered, Hi there. Sorry, I didn't realise you had suggested it - it's starting to get hard to tell what is and isn't POV-motivated in that article! Feel free to remove the image as you wish, it was a mistake on my part. I tried to look myself for an appropiate image to replace it but it isn't easy, is it? Having read through the talk page properly I agree a map of the disputed area would be a very good idea. Cheers for letting me know and sorry for the misunderstanding --Loopy 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, the image is still there. Messhermit seems to argue is is there because there are no alternative images. I went on to ask for a Protection of the article, so Messhermit and I could begin to talk about how best to proceed together with the editing. Well, you can see that the measure was useless, as all that came out of it was a senseless flame war. The Protection has been now lifted, but I better refrain from deleting the image myself, as Messhermit would put it back immediately. Perhaps you could remove it, as this fellow seems to hold you in higher esteem than the rest of us Ecuadorian wikipedians around here (at least, as far as I know, he has not attacked you with the usual "Ecuadorian ultranationalist" label he seems to stick to anyone who comes over to add any Ecuadorian information on this articles).
Best Regards, Andres C. 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It would not be good to remove the image without replacing it with another one. I'd vote for moving the current image to the Lima article, and perhaps replace this one with a map of the disputed region, or a 1960-1999 map of Ecuador. 200.63.231.224 22:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. That was the suggestion I made back on October 14.
One possibility could be the "Tufiño map" you included in the article about the border dispute (the one that guy messhermit calls controversial), but I would be against it. Besides, in Rio we never lost the famous 200,000 square km. If we follow the status quo line from '36, it turns out that in Rio we ended up losing around 14,000 square km. All in all, the Tufiño map does not show the reality of what came out of the war of '41, but rather old-fashioned Ecuadorian nostalgic propaganda from the 1970's. What about a picture of soldiers from one side or the other? I guess the Peruvians would have more access to photos taken at the time.
Hope to hear what you think. Regards, Andres C. 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's Messhermit's map, don't know where he obtained it. It is a pretty accurate map of Ecuador from that time period as I recall. What you note about the status quo line is true, and it's already mentioned in the dispute article, though the exact figure is not there. The thing about that map is that it's about something that happened about 1960, which is outside the scope of this one article really. If we can't come up with a replacement image, we might as well remove it, per the arguments already stated. 200.63.229.190 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
An example of an image that would be more appropriate is this: [3]. However, this particular image is probably not public domain. Neurodivergent 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Inca empire reference deletion[edit]
I don't undestand the necessity of deleting that reference. It's notable and interesting that there was conflict involving Quito and Cuzco really far back. 200.63.231.224 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The deletion process has started...good luck with that. Andres C. 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the status on this matter? Have both sides come to an agreement, or are wikiadmins still heavily involved? Dragonlord kfb 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The article titled History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute has not sparked any significant edit warfare so far. I think that should be our model for the 3 articles involved, i.e. present claims by both sides qualifying them for what they are. Neurodivergent 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the articule shows wrong information and it needs to be urgently updated, bysides, why no ecuadorian war hero is mentioned?. Certainly, something as important as the conclution must be out of any POV, as a limited military victory takes place in 1995 in the Cenepa war (at least for ecuadorians).
Vandalism in course[edit]
This article came today under a coordinated attack of vandalism from four different IP addresses (the first two from Miami, the last two from Lima). Extensive amounts of sourced and verifiable information, as well as a list of references, are being deleted from the article.Andrés C. 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that deleting information & references from articles on a persistent basis, also referred to as blanking, is considered a form of vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Andrés C. 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you report the vandal's IP? Dragonlord kfb 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There were like ten IPs involved, all blocked days ago. Most of them were open proxies anyway. Andrés C. 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Picture for the article[edit]
This picture [4] that I found in Wiki-Commons would be more appropriate to be in this page (since both the monument and the soldiers were removed), because it shows the main cause of the war: the disputed territories between Peru and Ecuador; and it also has the final border between the two countries as stated by the "Rio Protocol" in 1942. Messhermit 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have my doubts about it. For one, its is fairly obvious that this map carries a strong pro-Peruvian stance and doesn't say a lot about the war. It's all about Ecuadorian postwar reivindications. We need a map which clearly delineates (1) the line of the status-quo of 1936, (2) the line of advance of Peruvian troops both in El Oro and the Oriente in 1941, (3) the border line suggested by Peruvian Foreign Minister Solf y Muro to the Mediators in Rio in January 1942, and (4) the line finally laid down by the Rio Protocol. I'm currently working on it. Still, the article needs a picture; I liked the one I posted but couldn't verify copyright status. Andrés C. 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the parts that are in Spanish, the map clearly shows Ecuador aspirations (that is, Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas) which were something real, and it shows the boundary that was established by the "Rio Protocol". The only thing that is missing is the supposed 78 Km2 that Ecuador refused to mark in the 60's. After all, several ecuadorian maps also bear a strong bias, depicting (until 1992) Ecuador with the territories involved as integral parts of their republic. Messhermit 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For the introduction, I believe that map its more that enough. More detailed maps can be separately added to each of the topics in this article:
Pre-war boundaries and border clashes caused by both sides.
Movement of troops (both Peruvian and Ecuadorian) and concentration of Troops (North of Peru and Quito, Ecuador)
Final settlement and the Nullification crisis created by Velazco Ibarra. Messhermit 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about. It's a postwar map showing the Ecuadorian aspirations. I'd say the article will profit most from a map that shows both the 1936 line and the Ecuadorian and Peruvian aspirations prior to the Rio Protocol (the Solf y Muro line), as well as the line of the Protocol.
I suggest that the Ecuadorian revisionist map that you once posted on another article (and which was official until 1999, not 1992), with the 78km-long unmarked strip, as well as the details on the diplomatic crisis caused by Velasco Ibarra's unilateral rejection of the Protocol in 1960 be included in the Rio Protocol article. Andrés C. 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I found the "Nullification" map that you are talking about [5]. It does not have a good quality, so If anyone can find a better map, it would be appreciate. Messhermit 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Translating from the Spanish version[edit]
I got here from Wikipedia:Translation into English/Spanish. I tried to fix the "war" section for NPOV using both the Spanish and the current English as my only sources, leaving in facts which seemed not to be in dispute (including "Side X claims..."). The text was clearly a battleground, and I believe that it is appropriate for non-knowledgeable outside editors like me to come in and clean it up but that it is NOT desirable to just do a direct translation of the sparser, Spanish version. Please respond if you agree/disagree. --Homunq 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for taking interest in the article. As you can see, the article has had its share of problems in the past, so having more editors involved is a great thing. Besides being incomplete, it needs a major revamping. In any case, you're right: a direct translation of the Spanish version is not a good idea. Most of the articles on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute on the Spanish wikipedia have a strong bias towards one of the countries involved. --Andrés C. 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute and I think it actually does a pretty good job, it's a better source for outside editors than the Spanish version (though the Spanish version of this article, in particular, didn't look too biased to me at a naive reading). I think for the time being it's a good idea to leave the request for translation as a way to attract attention, but the strategy should be primarily to MOVE stuff from the History page to the War page (leaving just a short synopsis - dates and results, no "who started it" claims - on the History page) and replace the History part of the War page with a reference. If I get positive feedback on this I may start to do it, but of course others are welcome to. --Homunq 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The History section deals with too many details. A shorter Background section would be better. Andrés C. 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be better if we can identify what this 2 version of the events have in common and state them here. In this way, the reader would not be confused with details that are only claimed by one of nations involved. Creating a timeline would increase the accuracy and chronological order of the informationMesshermit 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Figures for casualties and troops![edit]
Not knowing much about this conflict it still strikes me as ludicrous when I look at the figures of casualties and troops! Considering that the war only lasted 7 weeks, up to 1.5 million dead would most certainly make it the most bloody conflict in human history! Surely, who ever edited this article and added those figures was having a laugh. Any other page concerned with this conflict states the troop strength for this war at about one-thousands of what is stated here, 15.000 at the most! I think it needs some attention from somebody with some proper knowledge.EA210269 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite agree, EA210269. The data for the participating troops look feasible (though I'm no expert on this war) but currently there are no loss data at all. Please, someone who knows about this conflict, add the numbers killed, wounded and PoWs (if any) on each side. If the figures aren't known exactly, then a range. If there's a dispute, then state the losses claimed by each side, and the respective references, so that we can draw our own inferences about the most likely range and accuracy. --Wally Tharg (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
200 tanks???[edit]
My sources say no more than 24 CKD LTP tanks (Czech Panzer 38). My sources also mention 6 Renault/Latil UE and 95 CKD Praga TH artillery tractors. Considering only the 24 LTP tanks and that 1941 was a time well before US post-WWII aid (M4 Shermans, M3 Stuarts, etc), the number of 200 tanks is a big one, where can this ludicrous number be found? Source? 83.61.244.250 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right--Stay by me (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How does this border war have anything to do with World War II? Someone please respond or I am liable to make changes. --Az81964444 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
not enough[edit]
doesn't tell why is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentBoy (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian_War&oldid=803646315"
This page was last edited on 3 October 2017, at 19:44.

value: This website is the English-language edition of the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. It was founded on 15 January 2001 as Wikipedia's first edition and, as of October 2021, has the most articles of any edition, at 6,412,521.


text:
'Nothing can be done if umpires sell their integrity' | cricket | Hindustan Times
'Nothing can be done if umpires sell their integrity'
A fourth umpire officiating in the warm-up game between India and Pakistan ahead of the World T20 allegedly passed on information about the weather and wicket to undercover reporters in lieu of money. HT reports. Wrong calls
Updated: Oct 09, 2012 01:36 IST
A fourth umpire officiating in the warm-up game between India and Pakistan ahead of the World T20 allegedly passed on information about the weather and wicket to undercover reporters in lieu of money.
Sagara Gallage, the Sri Lankan umpire, also reportedly promised to favour India in the course of the match by 'managing' the match referee and other officials.
While an umpire agreeing to do all this is of course a matter of grave concern, the information he passed on to undercover reporters isn't really classified and is available on the web.
"Anyone can find out weather and pitch conditions from cricket websites a day before the game. Besides, he was the fourth umpire in the game and would come into the picture only if any of the three umpires was not available. So, he had basically no role in decision making," said a BCCI umpire.
Stung againThe sting showed another Sri Lankan umpire, Maurice Winston, promising the same information to the undercover reporters for Rs 50,000 bribe.
The reporters, the channel claimed, also got Pakistan umpire Anees Siddiqui to give a decision in favour of India in lieu of money. He told the undercover India TV reporter that he wanted the entire amount in 'black', the channel reported.
The ICC said that none of the umpires named were involved in any of the official games of the ICC World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, it has asked for information that could help in investigating the matter.
"If umpires are willing to sell their integrity, the ICC can't do much about it. The punishment should be such that it sets a precedent. Otherwise, this is something that could spread if not checked.
"Umpires are not supposed to talk to anyone, even the media, before matches forget about sending out information about the pitch and the playing 11," said RS Rathore, a former BCCI-appointed ump-ires' coach.	tags
Kupwara army camp attack LIVE: Three soldiers, including an officer, killed in militant...
Apr 27, 2017 09:12 IST


text:
Admire Home Living Plaza Floral Beige Area Rug (3'3 x 4'11) - Free Shipping Today - Overstock.com - 17492035
Love how plush this rug is, perfect beige, slight touch of blue
ITEM# 17492035
Porch & Den Pearl District Burnside Brown Area Rug (3'3 x 4'11)
Artfully Crafted Arlesey Damask Area Rug (2'7 x 4'7)
ITEM#: 17492035
The Plaza floral area rug is a stylish, modern rug made in a durable and easy to clean heat-set olefin. This rug features a beige background with ivory and brown accents that ensure a great fit within a variety of decors.
Exact Size: 3'3 x 4'11
Rug Size: 4' x 6', 3' x 4', 4' x 5', 3' x 5'
Did not work out for me. Thought it would look nicer but in person it didn’t look that great. Looked like a rug you could find at any local discount store for half the price. It’s been rolled up stored in closet until I find someone to give it to. Maybe some people will like it but it wasn’t for me.
I bought this rug for an entrance hall. I wanted a non-wool rug since it is a high traffic area and I didn't want to worry about staining. It is a very pretty rug; colors are subtle and pattern is nice. My dog loves to lay on it! It is fairly thick and the front door rubs along it as it opens. I couldn't use a full pad under it because of that. I compromised by putting strips of rug pad under three sides to keep the rug in place on the hardwood floors. This seems to work just fine. I may get another in the runner size.
lauraal Aug 11, 2016
Cathy N. Apr 8, 2016
Fits well by our front door
We had an awkward space in our entry where we decided not to replace existing tile when we did a remodel. This rug fits well and looks nice in the area.
Heidi H. Jan 17, 2016
John C. Jul 12, 2017

value: This website is an American internet retailer selling primarily furniture headquartered in Midvale, Utah, near Salt Lake City.


text:
America's Baby Bust: How The Great Recession Has Jeopardized Our Demographic Health : Natalismjump to contentmy subredditsannouncementsArtAskRedditaskscienceawwblogbookscreepydataisbeautifulDIYDocumentariesEarthPornexplainlikeimfiveFitnessfoodfunnyFuturologygadgetsgamingGetMotivatedgifshistoryIAmAInternetIsBeautifulJokesLifeProTipslistentothismildlyinterestingmoviesMusicnewsnosleepnottheonionOldSchoolCoolpersonalfinancephilosophyphotoshopbattlespicsscienceShowerthoughtsspacesportstelevisiontifutodayilearnedTwoXChromosomesUpliftingNewsvideosworldnewsWritingPromptsedit subscriptionsfront-all-random | Music-videos-GetMotivated-Documentaries-television-Art-books-movies-creepy-DIY-IAmA-personalfinance-food-photoshopbattles-aww-history-space-UpliftingNews-tifu-funny-gaming-gifs-WritingPrompts-nosleep-Jokes-sports-TwoXChromosomes-dataisbeautiful-AskReddit-Fitness-pics-askscience-OldSchoolCool-listentothis-explainlikeimfive-todayilearned-mildlyinteresting-philosophy-Futurology-gadgets-Showerthoughts-news-nottheonion-worldnews-science-EarthPorn-LifeProTips-InternetIsBeautifulmore »reddit.com Natalismcommentsrelatedwant to join? login or register in seconds|Englishlimit my search to /r/Natalismuse the following search parameters to narrow your results:subreddit:subredditfind submissions in "subreddit"author:usernamefind submissions by "username"site:example.comfind submissions from "example.com"url:textsearch for "text" in urlselftext:textsearch for "text" in self post contentsself:yes (or self:no)include (or exclude) self postsnsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)include (or exclude) results marked as NSFWe.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dogsee the search faq for details.advanced search: by author, subreddit...this post was submitted on 30 Jul 20131 point (100% upvoted)shortlink: remember mereset passwordloginSubmit a new linkSubmit a new text postNatalismsubscribeunsubscribe253 readers~3 users here nowThis is a Reddit for people interested in discussing Natalism. ...
"I am partial to babies in general, regardless of how much or how little pigment they happen to have in their skin." - Steven W. Mosher created by SammyD1sta community for 1 yearmessage the moderatorsMODERATORSSammyD1stone-pump-chump012America's Baby Bust: How The Great Recession Has Jeopardized Our Demographic Health (newgeography.com)submitted 1 year ago by SammyD1st1 commentsharecancelsorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted onloading...all 1 commentssorted by: hotbesttopnewhotcontroversialoldrandom[–]mystical-me 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children)sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted onThe birthrates in the Western World doom the West to a future of irrelevancy. total births in India outnumber births in the US, EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by 2:1
username:try anotheravailable!account recovery email: (optional)we only send email at your requestpassword:verify password:remember mecreate accountis it really that easy? only one way to find out...loginalready have an account and just want to login?username:password:remember merecover passwordloginclose this windowinterface languageEnglish [en]العربية [ar]Беларуская мова [be]български език [bg]Bosanski [bs]català [ca]česky [cs]dansk [da]Deutsch [de]Ελληνικά [el]English (Australia) [en-au]English (Canadian) [en-ca]English (Great Britain) [en-gb]English [en-us]Esperanto [eo]español [es]español [es-ar]eesti keel [et]Euskara [eu]فارسی [fa]suomi [fi]français [fr]Gàidhlig [gd]עברית [he]मानक हिन्दी [hi]hrvatski [hr]Magyar [hu]Հայերեն լեզու [hy]Bahasa Indonesia [id]íslenska [is] (*)italiano (Italy) [it]日本語 [ja]ಕನ್ನಡ [kn_IN]한국어 [ko]Latin [la]1337 [leet]LOL [lol]lietuvių kalba [lt]latviešu valoda [lv]Nederlands [nl]Nynorsk [nn]Norsk [no]Arrrrrrrr! [pir]polski [pl]português [pt] (*)português [pt-pt]português brasileiro [pt_BR]română [ro]русский [ru]slovenčina [sk]slovenščina [sl]српски језик [sr]Srpski [sr-la]Svenska [sv]தமிழ் [ta]ภาษาไทย [th]Türkçe [tr]українська мова [uk]Tiếng Việt [vi]中文 [zh] (*) incomplete volunteer to translateπ Rendered by PID 9396 on app-13 at 2014-10-25 20:58:22.603385+00:00 running d911df0 country code: US.

value: This website is an American social news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion website. Registered members submit content to the site such as links, text posts, images, and videos, which are then voted up or down by other members.