Talk:2010 Ecuadorian crisis

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Nick Number in topic date format

The article has been several edited to emphasis a clear one sided political point of view

edit

Requested move to 2010 Ecuador coup d'état attempt

edit
edit

went away from the article for a few days, couldnt take the rough-and-tough warring here.

Ecuador to jail police over mutinyAmnesty opposed for Ecuador police Ecuador: Failed Coup or Institutional Crisis? Also did we add both airports to the article? Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Eva Golinger about CIA und NED involvement

http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/10/evidence-of-ned-fundingaid-to-groups-in.html http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/10/ecuador-what-really-happened.html http://www.adital.com.br/site/noticia.asp?lang=ES&cod=51542 --84.46.24.58 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Academic analysis(es)

edit

i started a section for academic opinions. In principle, academic opinions should probably be integrated into the text as a whole - but for the moment i don't see any easy way to do it, especially since the only academic opinion i've found so far more or less just lists the facts we already have in the article. An IP editor removed this on the grounds that it doesn't represent all academics. i have reverted the text, since the intention is that the present quote is clearly attributed to one particular history professor. There's no attempt to summarise all academics' opinions, which would be OR. If there are other RS'ed academic opinions, please, let's have them.

i put analysis which could be interpreted as either singular or plural (analysis in general), but it could later be changed to analyses if we get more than one.

It might be possible to put this as a subsection of the Reactions section, but IMHO it makes more sense as a section. In principle, historians don't just give their gut reaction or political opinion, they try to coldly assess the evidence for and against, check consistency with the historical record (e.g. sociological patterns that repeat for many decades generally don't stop happening suddenly without a dramatic reason), etc.

To user:109.178.44.2 - maybe you felt that the section title implies that most academics agree with Greg Grandin. That's not the intention. i've added a "section stub" tag, to make it obvious that the subsection is likely to be incomplete. Hope that helps. Boud (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (Minor corrections made to this comment, since i did actually put it as a section == rather than a subsection ===. Boud (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC))Reply

I would suggest a subsection of reaction as somethin along the lines of "academia." Alternatively, it could go like the various election pages that have an analysis section, though ofcoruse with due caveats (which i see youve added)(Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)).Reply

Rename

edit

Okey the dust appears to have settled. So I think it's time to see if we can shift to a less generic name. "Police rebellion" is my first thought but would someone like to present the case for coup?©Geni 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was a coup every leader of the region agree on that. This is bad even for wikipedia "Standards"--190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hey Geni if there is not a concensus in considering it a coup detat(sadly for wikipedia honor(if theres any left)) why you continue with this issue? Do you want trouble??--190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

POV

edit

The article is one-sided. For example, in Ecuador it's disputed whether Correa was actually kidnapped. His security detail brought him to the Police Hospital. According to some versions, no one except his staff and security could enter the floor we was in. Here's video of Correa as he entered the hospital: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0V_ELIOZcE 190.9.184.7 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Eva Golinger?

edit

Eva Golinger is too biased to be considered a reliable source. I suggest that we should remove those parts from the article, unless they can be substantiated by a more reliable, unbiased source. --Lacarids (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seconded

Lenbrazil (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

'...higher-ranking officers exhorted "Kill the President"...', RELIABLE Citation needed.

edit

The citation for the following passage:

On internal police radios, higher-ranking officers exhorted "Kill the President", "Kill Correa", "He won't get out alive today", "Kill them all, open fire, shoot them, ambush them, but don't let that bastard leave", "Kill that 'S.O.B.' Correa", in reference to Correa and ministers and secret service officers accompanying him.[36][citation needed](cited source is a blog)

...was Eva Golinger on her blog, she is an official mouthpiece of the Chavez regime. El Pais and ANDES gave no indication as to the ranks of the cops saying these things. If no other citaton is provided in about 7 days I will delete the passage especially since it is redundant. That is of course unless a more experienced editor disagrees.

Lenbrazil (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done

Lenbrazil (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Ecuador crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 2010 Ecuador crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on 2010 Ecuador crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

date format

edit

This article has a "use dmy dates" tag from April 2014. Would anyone object to switching it to mdy to match Ecuador and related articles? Nick Number (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply