Talk:2010 Ecuadorian crisis

Coup Detat POV

I would like to move it to 2010 Ecuadorian Coup d'éta... but is it a NPOV title? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for pagemove

At the present time the claim that it is a coup is POV. In fact the availible evidence suggests that it is a protest that has gone over the top.©Geni 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to argue otherwise. Physically attacking the president and occupying the Parliament building and airport certainly appear to me to fit the definition of coup d'état, at least an attempted coup d'état. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now becoming quite obvious that this was a prototypical CIA planned coup attempt in the contemporary latin american style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWpgRQuXU4 As such, this "crisis" title is merely American POV and a cover-up. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted investigation are ongoing, but it seems to be at least labeled that elsewhere. its not just a "crisis"Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Parallel

The paralell with Honduras was twice removed without discussion, inficating a POV on its own. All content is duly sourced, it was just an editor who "felt" it was "factoids about the US and NOVP relationship with the Honduran mess." Pending discussion and consensus I have restored the original.Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but it did seem somewhat WP:SYNTHy. It was cited, but the source was a general article about the president, not about the president's politics and their relation to the current crisis. I'd say leave it out. TFOWR 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1)No US diplomats appear to be involved in this event. We would probably have heard if any had got hit by teargas. Thus no reason to mention them 2)The way the paragraphs have been brought together is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH which attempts to push the POV that this is a 70s/80s style US backed coup. 3)It represents the journalists statement of opinion as fact (rather than the journalist thinking the event recalled that mess in hondorus we that that events echoed that). Incerdently you appear to have missed that I found a way to include the journalists opion which means we now cover it twice.©Geni 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the extra content of relations with the usa maybe synthesis, but not to remove the whole para altogether. Perhaps quote the source as in the cite?(Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)).

I did here. It got reverted.©Geni 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Woops, removed the other part, but left the left-winged source to back the other stuff you added in

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

About the Honduras parallel...it is true that just about everyone in Latin America is drawing explicit parallels between this action against Correa and what happened last year in Honduras. Even conservatives like Chile's Sebastián Piñera argue there are parallels here. To the extent that Manuel Zelaya was removed in a way which did not follow Honduran law, I agree there are parallels. However, I think it's important no lingering impressions are left that these are exactly analogous cases. One major difference is that it was the Supreme Court of Honduras which removed Zelaya, whereas it appears at this point that Correa was removed (for the time he was removed) by rebellious police and military officials acting with zero authority from any part of the Ecuadorian government.

The US-based Law Library of Congress made this distinction about the Honduras coup in a way I personally find persuasive: "In August 2009 the Law Library of Congress released an official analysis of the situation and concluded that "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system. However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities."

Granted, we're not here to argue about opinions, and your opinion of what happened in Honduras may well differ from mine. But a presentation of the anti-Correa coup which suggests those acting against the duly-elected president of Ecuador had even this much of a cover of legitimacy would be pretty irresponsible. Unless new evidence comes to light to prove me wrong on this, and I don't think it probably will given what I've heard, it's pretty clear that the attack on Correa was an action with no basis at all in the law of Ecuador. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Have you read this? Who was taken to hosptal and who declared the state of emergency? the opening para is gibberish...Merlin-UK (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Looks like a cut-and-paste wound, now bandaged. TFOWR 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I started 2010 Ecuadorian coup d'état attempt without realizing this page had already been started (I did do a search). Now I think they should be merged.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sure, merge the content thats different into this, (per the article title above) dont think there is controversy.

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

TV

Where is a CNN en Espanol live stream ? --93.82.13.24 (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blue links

think theres too many? We could cut it down with the links to the countries.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Saying "it recalls" does not constitute a parallel.

I am removing the AFP mention. 24.215.174.233 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

coup orchestrated by Lucio Guitierrez

The coup is being orchestrated by Lucio Gutiérrez. [1] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done using the RS in the link.(Lihaas (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Source: Patino has asserted this now.[2]. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a silly idea, Lucio Guitierrez is merely a US puppet. The US orchestrated this coup attempt, not its right-wing, "strong man" puppet. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder...

Just a reminder to all artcle writers if you type a word and you see a red line underneath it that word is probalby either a proper noun or incorrectly spelled. This article was a mess of spelling errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.142 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

UNASUR statement

Help with full translation?:

"Las jefas y jefes de Estado y Gobierno de la Unasur, reunidos en el palacio San Martín, en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, República Argentina, el 1 de octubre de 2010,

"1- Reafirman su fuerte compromiso con la preservación de la institucionalidad democrática, el estado de derecho, el orden constitucional, la paz social y el irrestricto respeto a los derechos humanos, condiciones esenciales del proceso de integración regional.

"2. Condenan enérgicamente el intento de golpe de estado y posterior secuestro del presidente Rafael Correa Delgado, registrado en la hermana República del Ecuador el 30 de septiembre.

"3. Celebran la liberación del presidente Correa Delgado así como la pronta vuelta a la normalidad institucional y democrática en la hermana república, expresan la necesidad de que los responsables de la asonada golpista sean juzgados y condenados. En ese marco, reiteran su más pleno respaldo al gobierno constitucional y destacan el rol desempeñado por las instituciones para el restablecimiento del orden constitucional.

"4. Afirman que sus respectivos gobiernos rechazan enérgicamente y no tolerarán, bajo ningún concepto, cualquier nuevo desafío a la autoridad institucional ni intento de golpe al poder civil legítimamente elegido, y advierten que en caso de nuevos quiebres del orden constitucional adoptarán medidas concretas e inmediatas tales como cierres de fronteras, suspensión del comercio, de tráfico aéreo y de la provisión de energía, servicios y otros suministros.

"5. Deciden que sus cancilleres se trasladen en el día de hoy a la ciudad de Quito para expresar el pleno respaldo al presidente constitucional de la República de Ecuador, Don Rafael Correa Delgado, y al pueblo ecuatoriano, partícipe indispensable del pleno restablecimiento de la institucionalidad democrática en ese país.

"6. Acuerdan adoptar, en la cuarta reunión cumbre ordinaria de jefas y jefes de estado y de gobierno de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas, a celebrarse el 26 de noviembre en Guyana, un protocolo adicional al tratado constitutivo de la Unasur que establezca la cláusula democrática".

Source: Unasur: los cancilleres de la región viajarán a Quito para "respaldar" a Correa, La Nación

--IANVS (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I did this translation of the text, hope it is useful:

The Heads of State and Government of the Unasur, reunited in the San Martín Palace, in the city of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina, on October 1st, 2010,

1. Reaffirm their strong compromise with the preservation of democratic institutionality, with the rule of law, with constitutional order, with social peace and the unrestricted respect to human rights, essential conditions in the process of regional integration.

2. Energetically condemn the attempt at coup d’état and the subsequent kidnapping of the President Rafael Correa Delgado, which has been registered in the sister Republic of Ecuador, on September 30.

3. Celebrates the liberation of President Correa Delgado, just as the prompt return to the institutional and democratic normality in the sister republic, expressing the need for those responsible for the coup to be tried and convicted. In this context, they reiterate their full support for the constitutional government and highlight the role played by the institutions for the restoration of the constitutional order.

4. Affirm that their respective governments energetically reject and will not tolerate, under any concept, any new defiance to the institutional authority, nor any attempt at coup against the legitimately elected civil power, and warn that in the case new breaks of the constitutional order are reported, they will adopt immediate and concrete steps, such as the closure of borders, suspension of commerce, of air traffic, and energy provision, services and other supplies.

5. Decide that their foreign ministers travel today to the city of Quito to express full support to the constitutional president of the Republic of Ecuador, Mr. Rafael Correa Delgado, and to the Ecuadorian people, indispensible participant in the process of full re-establishment of the democratic institutionality in this country.

6. Agree to adopt, in the forth ordinary summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Union of South American Nations, to be celebrated on November 26th in Guyana, an additional protocol to the constitutive treaty of the Unasur, which shall establish the democratic clause

Thank you very much! I'll add it as a footnote. --IANVS (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"compromiso" = commitment or pledge. bajo ningún concepto = in any way (in this case). I'd copy-edit for prepositions; also, bear in mind that Spanish uses the definite article much more than in English. In translation, it's not needed nearly as much. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look and edit directly at the footnote in the main page. I already did some improvements. --IANVS (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some of the footnote. Sorry, I had not seen that your first language isn't English. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help ;) --IANVS (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged CIA involvement

http://www.centrodealerta.org/noticias/inteligencia_eeuu_detras_de.html 84.46.30.106 (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i traced it to this news organisation source: <ref name="JGAllard_USAinfilt">{{cite news | first=Jean-Guy | last=Allard | authorlink=Jean-Guy Allard | pages= | language =[[Spanish language|Spanish]]| title=Informe confirmado: Inteligencia USA penetró a fondo la policía ecuatoriana | date=2010-09-30 | publisher=[[Radio Del Sur]] | url=http://www.laradiodelsur.com/?module=opinion_detail&i=8174 |accessdate=2010-10-01 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5t9gH4QsG |archivedate=2010-10-01 |deadurl=no}} ''(archival copy has [[css]] problem: change style or select text to read)''</ref>

In fact, the report does not directly state that the CIA was involved - the CIA discussion refers to Philip Agee, who left the CIA many decades ago. It also does not directly state that US intelligence forces were directly involved in the coup, so i just cited the word Allard actually uses: he says that the coup "confirmed" the close involvement of US intelligence services in the Ecuadorian police. He leaves the next step in inference to the reader, so we (as wikipedians) have to do the same thing. Boud (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you did it right, doesnt seem with RS to implicate CIA involvment, but in the section that mentiosn Gutierrez this other plausible theory should be added. (maybe change the section title) But, of course, with the caveats youve said about same vague link and ex-CIA fellow.

 Done added(Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Does the law cut benefits?

In the source I first read this News ([3]), it says that Correa claims the new law doesn't cut benefits and rumours of that have been spread by the opposition. According to him, the law not only doesn't halves the salary, but also regularizes the payment of overtime. Therefore, saying the law proposes salary cuts should be framed by the article as one claim among others, not as the truth. --189.1.140.165 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats what he said last night at the presidential palace. I added somethign to the effect that he "claimed," with controversy (and without the text of the law) it cant be affirmed either way.(Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Law page

I think this law warrants its own wiki page (as do many others cotnroversial laws). If anyone has access to that law then it would be nice to cite it.(Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Here is the Law online: Public Service Organic Law, taken from the National Assembly of Ecuador webpage.

It has 75 pages. I don't know if it is worth translating it entirely. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reaction lists

[4](Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Section title

Per [5] the title supranational body was change citing "OAS, UNASUR are (by now) international organizations." But these terms are by definition supranational (which also can include "international" -- ie- they are not mutual exclusive). Also by saying intl org's and intl there is an awkward overlap. A caveat for intl states should be added to differ the two.Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Supranational imply sovereignty delegation, which is not the case in either OAS, UNASUR (as of now), UN, nor the Foreign Affairs of the EU. So they're not Supranational reactions, just International (Inter-State) Organizations. --IANVS (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

[6] = "having power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments" The latter is certainly true in this case.Lihaas (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a rather loose definition. Do as you prefer. --IANVS (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool, but there was also a youtube video of his speech at the palace ( i lost it now, but it was found from your link i think), could use that to cite the rescue part that i quoted directly.Lihaas (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

background

the Vela quote was removed now becasue hes not "notable." per se that statement is right, and its adds context. Een the other cited journalists were not "notable" as such,.Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag, since the article is now including certain conjectures about the events as fact, with political biases on multiple sides. The article needs to be reworked to limit it to verifiable information. Caleiva (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the conjectures, so as to source them or remove them? Thanks. --IANVS (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to some particular section, as this article is clearly well-sourced and not speculative. Please use the POV-section tag. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more than one section. The allegations of US and/or Lucio Gutierrez's involvement are reflected in the "Perpetrators" and "Reactions" sections, so the POV tag applies to all the article.