Talk:2010 Ecuadorian crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Reaction lists

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

Section title

Per [2] 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)

[3] = "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, but it adds context. Even the other cited journalists were not "notable" as such,.Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 2 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)

I just had my clarification about Honduras's coup being precipitated by a Supreme Court of Honduras ruling edited out and replaced with the acknowledgment that Zelaya was removed as part of a "constitutional crisis". I'm fine with leaving it at that so long as the words "constitutional crisis" don't get edited out by someone who wants to emphasise the coup aspects more and downplay that it was a crisis involving a dispute over constitutional principles. But I suspect someone will probably want to do that. If that happens, I'll probably go back and replace my explicit reference to the Supreme Court of Honduras decision. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that makes this distinction it would be the WP:Synthesis of wikipedia editors to have adjudged that controversy. Furthermore, the US congress is certainly not free of bias. But if there is a RS that makes the distinction then we can put it in with the variosu caveats.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put the Law Library of Congress argument in the article, Lihaas, I put it here on the talk page to illustrate the view I find persuasive about what went on in Honduras (to illustrate that not everyone believes that the coup was only a coup - it grew out of a dispute over what the Honduran law and constitution said). Anyway, I disagree that pointing out the Honduras analogy is not a perfect one involves a synthesis. Honduras differed from Ecuador in that Honduras's coup involved a constitutional dispute. That is a fact, and it's an important one. I would think that the most leftist of the leftists decrying the coup in Ecuador would want to point out that there wasn't even a pretense of a legal issue involved in Ecuador, as there had been in Honduras. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting you did, im also fine with you inserting provided a RS makes the distinction and not the view of wikipedia editors.Lihaas (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the law cut benefits?

In the source I first read this News ([4]), 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)

i don't think the suggestion is to literally translate any of the versions of the law project! i think the idea is that the law project and controversy relating to it constitute a different, though related, topic to the attempted coup d'etat. i think it's obvious that this page is mostly focussing on the attempted coup d'etat. This is why below i have started a "requested move" for the article title. Anyway, here's a stub for an article on the law project itself, which allegedly was a reason for the coup d'etat attempt: Public Service Organic Law (Ecuador 2010).

BTW, an important point: this is only a law project (proposed law), not a law. Boud (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Honduras again: "current" vs. "currently-established"

I just had a clarification changed because some wording I added stated that the "currently-established" Honduran government sent a message of support for President Correa after the Ecuadorian crisis came to light. This word was replaced with "current".

This is probably just a semantic issue - I was trying to use language that was neutral on whether the Honduran government is legitimate or not, because I didn't want to get into that debate. What I was pointing out is that the government that exists in Honduras, whether it's legitimate or not, supports President Correa against those who acted against him in this crisis.

Anyway, when my wording was changed, the editor that did this said that "current" was a better word to use because my wording of "currently-established" implied that the government of Honduras is legitimate...exactly the opposite of what I intended. I thought "current" sounded like it was recognising legitimacy...exactly the opposite of what that editor intended.

This being the case, I'm wondering if another word (besides either of our previous terms) might make this more clear, since we're not understanding one another about this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wording implied that the current goverment is (well-)established. That is, "undisputed". The alt. wording ("current government") says nothing about its disputed/undisputed status. My edition was also meant to avoid further debate about Honduras in this page. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a third person how about "ruling"? Or if thats not fair then perhaps suggest a few, and in the meanting a {{dubious}} tag can be added.

Alternatively just add the dispute saying something to the effect of the "disputed government administration" (although this sounds off to me)Lihaas (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ruling" sounds good. What do you think, IANVS? Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"The government currently ruling Honduras" ? Ok, if we don't have anything better. --IANVS (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

grammar

[5] "and declared to be impressed " just doesnt make sense in terms of flow in english. There isnt a real necessity to add everything as the source is duly attached. But if need be the whole thing needs to be rephrasedLihaas (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

coup orchestrated by Lucio Guitierrez

The coup is being orchestrated by Lucio Gutiérrez. [6] 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.[7]. 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)

I don't think the US is so incompetent that it would back a coup that didn't even have the support of the country's armed forces. I think Gutierrez was going rogue on this. Anyway, we're off topic now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sector of the armed forces did rebel. It was evidently a coup attempt that failed. I don't know about USA involvement, but it is childish to believe that US only engages when success is guaranteed (or worst, that the USA never fails). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:56, 3 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)).

A background reference, or connection of known Covert United States foreign regime change actions can be made, to dignify the speculation of CIA involvement. The assertions of the international community for example [[8]] can also lead credence for support of an involvement. Althought not asserting an inlvolvement without prove, the speculation is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blupper92 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

CIA sentence

i have modified the CIA/Agee sentence. Two particular points:

1. The source from centrodealerta is exactly the same Jean-Guy Allard/Radio Del Sur article, and it seems to me that Radio Del Sur is more likely to be the original source, since it's a mainstream news organisation.
2. The wikipedia article about Philip Agee says that he was working for the CIA in Ecuador, infiltrating police etc, many decades ago. The reasonable interpretation of Allard's paragraph about Agee is that this is background that "everyone should know". i don't think he's suggesting that he interviewed Agee and that Agee made the statement based on continued contacts (after 40 years) he has in Ecuador. In fact, Agee died two years ago, so there's no chance of Agee having made a post-coup-attempt statement. i wrote "in the 1960s" in the article because it's simpler/shorter than an exact quote, and i think it's quite easy to NOR infer from "quién, antes de abandonar las filas de la agencia, estuvo asignado a la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Quito" given that the Philip Agee wikipedia article dates his assignment for subverting Ecuadorian politics as 1960-1963/1964.

Boud (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

official US visits / clarification needed = OK ?

If people are OK with the Allard/US officials' visit during recent months sentence, then please remove the "clarification needed" tag. It seems to me reasonable to say that Allard is saying that he is suspicious of the visit by the US officials. He's not claiming he has any direct evidence, e.g. of NED, USAID, etc. involvement in the coup attempt. Boud (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

edits explained

1. I moved this to the reaction section as it pertains more to that then explanatory background.
2. This was not acceded to in talk, and not consensus was given. In the same vei, this and this was explained to have been alleged not affirmed.
3. Moved this to the article
4. The rest were just uncontroversial copy edits.(Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)).

1. the see also's have been discussed numerous times where the Honduran link is already in the page. the Eg. Guinea's relevance is that, like Venezuela, it was a failed coup and also with [alleged] western connectionsLihaas (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out that the explanation for the revert of my Honduras-related changes to this page are the first of the "this" links here. Is there some reason for not saying straight out "I changed this part about Honduras"? I also had a hard time figuring out who made the changes because there are no edit summaries explaining why the change was made.

Anyway, I have more to say about this, but I'm going to announce it at the bottom of the page with a more transparent announcement that I have changed these back. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

section title: Perpetrators vs Alleged Perpetrators

i haven't (so far) tried to track who keeps removing "Alleged". There might also be a better title than either of these. Either Gutierrez or Pachakutik or Hodges may have just generally encouraged the idea of a military takeover, to be passed on to elections later and presented as a "lesser evil", but whether one or all would be directly considered as perpetrators by those making the claims is not so obvious.

Wiktionary:perpetrator: One who perpetrates; [especially], one who commits an offence or crime.

i would guess that making plans to violently overthrow the goverment, even while getting other people to do the actual task, would presumably be criminal under any typical legislation. In that sense, Gutierrez, Pachakutik and Hodges are to some degree being accused of being perpetrators, but none of them have been convicted in a court of law. The same goes for the three police colonels.

Probably in that sense, "alleged perpetrators" is OK, though i have the feeling that it should be more like "people-alleged-to-have-strongly-influenced-and-thereby-be-suspected-of-significant-legal-or-moral-responsibility". Maybe someone can suggest a word with this slightly weaker meaning than "perpetrators".

But in any case, clearly there has to be the "alleged" there, unless someone finds a word in which the meaning "alleged" is very obviously implied.

If someone has any reason not to include "alleged", then please explain it.

Otherwise, it's time to stop removing the "alleged". Or maybe someone should trace the edit history. Boud (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree to keep "Alledged". salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There was already a discussion above that discussed this where the content already mentions in each case that it is in fact alleged. It would simply be redundant to place the tag twice (double negatives, if you must)Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a grammatical double negative. The renaming of the header is for clarity, nothing more. As it stands, there is no clear perpetrator aside from a few nameless policemen and demagogues. Someone looking over the TOC may believe that the case is solved - not likely, but it could happen. IMHO, we should be as clear as possible. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC) The commenting out of the SOA connection in formal investigations is only because it's not yet part of the formal investigation. I'm just not sure where to put it.

I'm re-adding alleged. Since there's a formal investigation, and a series of conflicting sources, it's pretty clear that there's a gray area here. reverted Xavexgoem (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like i over-wrote in an edit conflict.

 Done

Also I changed "formal..." to "investigations" in the interest of consistency accorss wikipedia. this section title implies official investigation whereas others are "theories/conspiracies" as in 9/11. Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On the tag after reports, first word of paragraph: this is here so that someone can fix it to avoid WP:WEASEL. This is not my attempt to case doubt on the article. This is Wikipedia, and editors need to point out to other editors where the problems are to avoid casting doubt... on the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "reports" was tagged with a {{who}} tag. I answered the query as to who, in the article Correa, makes accusations as well as the rest of thwe sourced comment in the sectionLihaas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything in common with these reports? My contention is solely that it looks weaselly. Reports from X, Y, Z; or X Reports (Government reports), something like this. Without some semblance of attribution, it's either unclear or gives the impression that any number of sources from any affiliation are in agreement. {{Who}} is not a call for sources, it's a call for clear attribution in the section the tag appears in. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily youre right, but in this case the paragraph itself gives attribution so the "reports" is just the intro. But feel free to add the necessarily caveat, if its controversial well discuss that.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 4 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleiva (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it applies to those two sections. Anyway, anything that's said on Lucio Gutierrez is sourced on allegations by notable people. I don't see the POV there. --IANVS (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is already tagged. Please, try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS first! --IANVS (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reactions section doesnt mention such allegations and certainly not in an accusatory manner. the perpetrator section explicitly mentions the allegations nature of person X and Y's accusations, it doesnt mention anything as gospel truth.

one says "reports alleged" and the other says "claimed." Theres no affirmation in that, and both are duly sourced to RS.Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this article was slanted towards the views of Correa and his government. Missing a lot if not all of Gutierrez and the Ecuadorian opposition views.--Amnesico29 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't provide any sources then this is just your assertion. (I'm not paying that much attention here, so forgive me if I've missed such sources.) Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your perfectly free to add Gutierrez's opinion of things. but not WP:Synthesis, it needs sourced. As IANVS said already if you have concerns ask them here so we can discuss/source/take action.

It seems again the user who added the tag has not discussed so im taking it off per IANVS' first warningLihaas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, I am contesting that is unbalance and you are pushing it. The tag will stay. all significant viewpoints READ WP:NPOV learn to edit wikipedia!!. I'll add the sources. --Amnesico29 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you explain what is POV, youve been asked twice and you still havent discussed it.Lihaas (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I balanced the article and you reverted all the balancing. Want me to add extra sources? Do you understand Spanish?--Amnesico29 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Amenesico29, please bring the sources to support your edit proposals! So we can stop reversing and restoring tags and we can do something more useful regarding your concerns. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If language is the constraint then you need not worry, there are plenty of Spanish sources in the article.Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Honduras yet again.

I've been trying to affect some balance to the page by adding information about the Honduran government's official support for President Correa in this coup crisis in Ecuador. I will be open about why I am trying to do this. Right now there is this wave of comparisons being made of the Ecuador coup to the one which occurred in Honduras. These comparisons represent a point of view, admittedly widely-expressed, but a point of view nevertheless. It's a point of view which needs to be balanced, however, because the Ecuador coup was opposed strenuously by numerous conservative or social democratic presidents as well as leftist socialist ones, such as Sebastián Piñera of Chile, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, Alan García of Peru, and, it must be said, Porfirio Lobo Santos of the ruling government in Honduras.

I mention Chile, Colombia and Peru in particular because these are governments which recognise the current government of Honduras, post-coup. Yet they all agree that Correa's government in Ecuador must be defended against the coup plotters there. There is a difference between these two coups. As I've mentioned before, the difference largely has to do with the fact that there was no "constitutional crisis" in Ecuador's coup, it was just a group of angry members of the police and military acting with no legal authority, and not even any appeal to legal authority.

When quoted individuals and groups explicitly compare Ecuador's coup to that of Honduras, not providing balancing facts that point out areas where the comparison is less tenable as prominently allows one point of view to predominate in the article. This is why I've put back in the "Background" section that the ruling government in Honduras supports Correa. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the Honduran position being added. Those who've been paying attention to Honduras will likely see it as duplicitous, and the mentions of the Honduran coup makes it seem duplicitous, anyway. Those who backed that coup, or doubt the veracity of it as a coup, won't see this as duplicitous. So I'm wondering why we, as editors with opinions, think this is a contentious area. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly, I love the word duplicitous

Adding the content about the the constitutional crisis is itself a non-official POV because it is the synthesis of wikipedia editors to assert that, not RS made the distinction as to why what happened.

Furthermore, the reaction of Honduras is just that, a reaction, like that of Chile, Peru, Colombia, etc, etc. The context is not a reaction, its is the parallel being drawn (per RS). The reasons for Honduras' support were taken as is from the background to the reaction section, nothing was censored or removed whatsoever. In other words, the content abotu the reation should be on the page and is on the page but it is not background, it is a reaction to the whole event just as much as the other reactions are regardless of who said what.

As it stand right now the information is quite clearly duplicated and thus redundant as the edit summar did in fact say previosuly.[9] Lihaas (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thus far, the part about Correa and Zelaya being both "left-wing" is also synthesis. No one's said in any RS sources why the Ecuador coup is like the Honduras coup, other than that both were coups. If mentioning Honduras sided with Correa is synthesis and goes to the back of the article, then mentioning Correa and Zelaya are both "left-wing" should also. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And seriously, are you really telling me that "remove redunandy again ads already explained in talk + merge paras os similiar Latam relations" is a comprehensible edit summary? Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You just supported my own point. Various sources have drawn the parallel, yet no source has said why, herein lies the synthesis of wikipedia editors to say that.

[10] and [11] are clearly repetitious. To repeat: nothing is censored nor removed, certainly not without discussion. The move is simply for organisation/clean up where exactly the same content is replicated.

As an aside, i never added the left-winged part, someone else did i mere wikilinked, which too was overidden with a better link.(no question on that link) I mean with taking that out, as you have validity with the possible synthesis. If one synthesis goes then the rest should.

Oh come on, first you say there is no mention and summary, now you find another reasonLihaas (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if the edit summary was written in another language, that's why I had trouble with it.  :) Anyway, just to make sure I have your point correct, then - if the point about Honduras siding with Correa is moved to the back of the article again and out of the background section, I'll have your support for following this move with moving the stuff about Correa and Zelaya being left-wing to the back of the article and out of the background section as well? Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

let's take the whole background part out and discuss its breakdown here to get consensus. Better than doing it bit by bit ON the page. ok?Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Honduras quarantine passage

“ As the events developed, officials and the media in Latin America, as well as Correa supporters, expressed concern that the events could develop as they did during 2009 Honduran coup d'état in which another left-leaning Latin American president, Manuel Zelaya, was overthrown by the military during a constitutional crisis in that country. Correa also describes himself as "left-wing." ”

Now what are the objectionable parts?Lihaas (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative version:

“ As the events developed, officials and the press in Latin America, as well as Correa supporters, had expressed worry that the events could develop as they did during 2009 Honduran coup d'état in which the president was overthrown by the military during a constitutional crisis in that country. A left-leaning Latin American president, Manuel Zelaya, was overthrown in that coup. The ruling government in Honduras sent a message of support for President Correa after news of the crisis in Ecuador broke. Correa describes himself as "left-wing." ”

Well, I stick to the former one. --IANVS (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis added on the second one, and struck out no controversy.

To get the ball rolling, the first sentence seems spot on that we all agreed to below, so thats done.(although i had a grammatical suggestion below waiting reply) Constitutional crisis was agreed to as an accomodation with Zachary Klaas. I believe IANVS came up with the "Pink tide" quote. Although, as mentioned above this could be construed as synthesis along with the constitutional crisis. (and that would mean taking out the Correa = Leftist part, I can agree with this going out altogether as both the constitutional crisis and the Leftist part can be duly noted on the requisite wikipedia pages.) The crux here seems to be then the reference to Honduras supporting the coup. I've explained before that "background" is supposed to be what happened first, reaction is what happens last, after-the-fact. Also its needless to cite the same thing twice which is quite clearly done.Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH as we are only saying that so & so expressed concern over an Honduras-like result. That's all. I agree the Honduras supporting Correa can be taken to the Reactions section w/o problem. But it can also stay here. At the end of the paragraph, not in the middle of it. The connector can be "Significatively,". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is possibly "significantly"? If so, I would agree. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the word :) --IANVS (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, what is so horrible about this section that it requires a "quarantine"? I don't like that kind of treatment of the serious work of Wikipedia editors. Second, I think both points are relevant and belong on this page, not buried safely away on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and Rafael Correa pages, respectively. Many are, indeed, claiming that Ecuador's attempted coup is like Honduras's coup, basically because Correa and Zelaya are located somewhere on the same part of the political spectrum, and that analogy has some pretty clear limits, because Ecuador and Honduras, in many relevant respects, are not the same. Both of those things should be represented on the page. Right now these points are phrased without any "however" or "also" language which could lead people to draw the necessary inference between points, which is following the basic WP:SYNTHESIS rule. But clearly it matters that post-coup Honduras supports Correa, and clearly it matters that both Correa and Zelaya are left-wingers. How much it matters we can leave to the readers, but to pretend these aren't related issues makes no sense. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My removal of "however" was extremely nit-picky, I'll admit. And looking back at it, my knee-jerk concern was that it conferred legitimacy to the Honduras' present government. I'm beginning to wonder if we're mentioning Honduras only to highlight the problems over there. Seriously, we don't have much material on the connection between Ecuador and Honduras, save for three things:

1. Comparisons were drawn. Nevertheless, the only comparison we have is:
2. Both Zelaya and Correa are self-described left-wingers.
3. Also: The current government in Honduras sent their wishes to Correa.

That isn't much. Unspoken, the events happened nearly within a year of each other and both took place in Latin America. Maybe I had a knee-jerk reaction because I'd unconsciously assumed that we were making a commentary on Honduras. Why else would it be there? How tenuous is the link, really? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel the need for the clarification if it weren't for the fact that it is a genuine meme in Latin American discourse right now that "what happened in Ecuador is like what happened in Honduras". There's no way the article can fail to address that the leaders of Latin American countries, including Correa himself, are not only saying this, but going out of their ways to say it. So there needs to be something in here which makes it clear that this analogy everyone is making is not accepted by everyone. Honduras itself sees there as being a difference, and governments which support the post-coup government in Honduras also see there as being a difference. It may be a proper analogy, but it's an inexact one at the least which needs to account for some things which don't fit the "this is just like Honduras" script. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there's no quarantine right now, so move ahead. Neither "both are left-wing" nor "current Hond gvt" matters too much as an explanation of the main theme. The coup could've developed in the same way against a right-wing gvt; and the position of the Hond gvt is irrelevant regarding the parallel between events. Both "Correa is left wing" and "current Hond gvt supported Correa" are dispensable. Anyway, both are hard facts that can help the reader into a more complete panorama. Let's keep them both, then. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me.  :) And salut to you as well. (We say that here in Quebec as well.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"quarantine" was a way to avoid edit warring, which is discouraged.

Im fine with the edits as i said, just saying one cant be synthesis and the other not. But the issue, we were describing here was mentioning the same thing twice almost verbatim in both section. The Honduran support to Correa comes as a reaction to the coup, not as a background that ive tried to explain. the crux was to use this part only once, and hence like all the other reactions it should be added there. It doesnt need to follow that every mention of Honduras' coup needs a caveat. We changed the wording already in the background to what was a better accomodation (as we all seemed to think so), but that doesnt mean everything has to be added.

Can we agree then on this? Seems easy enough. IANVS and me support the version without the reaction, and I think your beginning to agree that the other stuff was important to be there (as agreed), and so is the Honduran statement (which is mentioned in all its parts) Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Parallels have been drawn to the coup d'état in Honduras"

The problem with this is that nowhere in the article is any parallel actually mentioned. (People quoted complaining about what happened in Honduras is not a parallel.) It should be removed or replaced with an explanation of at least one actual parallel between the two situations. 24.215.174.233 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I gather people think it's self-evident that what links them is that they are coups where the presidents being acted against had some sort of a left-wing agenda. But yes, I think you're right, people should specify the argument that links the specific events. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the line as follows:

As the events developed, officials and the press in Latin America, as well as Correa supporters, had expressed worry that the events could develope as those of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état.

Hope this solve the problem. --IANVS (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Or "expressed concern that this bore similarity to" as in the first ref.

And Latam is already linked in the article. Other than that sounds goodLihaas (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

BBC still refering to it as an acusation.©Geni 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Police wanted to kill Correa

Police Radio proves plans to kill Correa: http://andes.info.ec/portada/registro-de-comunicaciones-de-la-central-radio-patrulla-deja-en-evidencia-intencion-de-asesinar-al-presidente-correa-32241.html 84.46.78.90 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pachakutik

i don't know if there was some controversy about the Pachakutik paragraph, but someone removed it. Maybe someone was confused about why it mainly occurs as the 2nd paragraph in the (alleged) perpetrators section, but also again briefly in the Golinger claims paragraph. My reasoning is that unless Golinger is outright lying about the Pachakutik press release, then although her POV that their press release is important is part of the information we have, it also primarily deserves to be stated as Pachakutik's POV. They quite clearly say that they support the police actions of the day and called for Correa to resign. Whether or not they were funded by USAID/NED is in principle verifiable, but whether or not this is relevant is very much a POV. So that's why that part seems to me more natural in the Golinger paragraph, since otherwise we have to twice explain her general thesis that USAID/NED etc. systematically act in accordance with their stated motives, i.e. having political influence on democracies.

The relation between Pachakutik and Gutierrez is there because Gutierrez is the subject of the first paragraph. The info is from the Pachakutik article, which lacks references (i put a tag there), but it's presumably uncontroversial info. Someone can add a cn tag here if they like, but it seems to me unreasonable not to mention what are likely to be NPOV statements of their past relation and breakup.

It would be good to find a more direct source of the Pachakutik press release. Their own web site seems very out of date. Boud (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Pachakutik wikipedia entry: http://www.pachakutik.org.ec/ Google has many articles that all seem to be sourced to the Golinger article. Pachakutik Press Release 098 (30 June) is available on Clever Jimenez' parliamentary blog. There's also press release 104 (15 July) there. If Pachakutik publishes a press release typically about every 2 or 3 days, then 141 would be about right for 30 September 2010. Presumably they normally only send press releases by private email to news organisations and/or print them... Boud (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Pachacutik paragraph was moved to Domestic reactions. The paragraph can be adapted to fit both sections. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, wasnt removed or censored, it just seemed like a reaction from the domestic media instead of such an allegation, but if you feel the perpetrator is better than just remove it from reaction

 Done Not done -- it seems not as an accusation but a reaction, so ive move it backLihaas (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

i see the point here. Taken independently of Golinger's POV, the fact that Pachakutik issued a press release supporting the coup attempt does not mean that they claim to be responsible for the events that had happened up to that point, and they did say that it was the National Assembly that should dismiss Correa - they did not overtly call for the police and airforce to remove Correa. On the other hand, Golinger does see them as part of a US destabilisation plan.

So, i've added the brief version of the Pachakutik statement as part of the Golinger paragraph, as part of her thesis. Secondly, i've extended the Pachakutik text in the Reactions section - given the very little info we have, i put their reference to the Constitution as a summary, and i've made the second part mostly a direct quote, since it's much more ambiguous, e.g. which actions of the police do they support - it's a bit ambiguous to call for the National Assembly to dismiss Correa under the Constitution and at the same time support the police who are occupying the Assembly, holding Correa captive and apparently trying to assassinate him. However, that's Pachakutik's problem, not ours.

There is still some overlap between the two, but the idea is to give what is relevant in the two different sections. Boud (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting more complicated. The "you're with us or you're against us" POV fails, for obvious reasons. i'll go ahead and edit during the next few minutes, and if people need to discuss more, then follow here or start a new section... Boud (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Amnesico29 edits

Amnesico29, your editions at the intro constitute WP:SYNTH. Semana does not state that Correa made a provocative speech, nor that the law would not be changed. Instead, Semana says:

Correa intentó dialogar con los policías en las afueras del Regimiento, pero los manifestantes lo recibieron molestos y con gritos, por lo que el jefe de Estado ingresó en las instalaciones y desde una ventana se dirigió a los policías de tropa.
Al inicio de su intervención, Correa aseguró que podía esperar esa actitud de cualquier otra institución, pero no de la Policía, y se lamentó de lo que considera una "memoria frágil", pues, en su criterio, ningún otro gobierno ha hecho lo que el suyo por esa institución del orden.
"Si quieren tomarse los cuarteles, si quieren dejar a la ciudadanía indefensa, si quieren traicionar su misión de policías, su juramento, traiciónenlo, pero este presidente y este gobierno seguirán haciendo lo que tienen que hacer", añadió Correa.
"Si quieren destruir la patria, destrúyanla, pero este presidente no da ni un paso atrás. Viva la patria", finalizó Correa, quien terminó su intervención de forma abrupta.
La policía le arrojó una bomba lacrimógena que cayó cerca del mandatario. El Presidente se puso una máscara para protegerse.

I'll copyedit to revert to what the source states. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to get him to talk with us here. No luck, yet. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

http://eldia.com.bo/index.php?articulo=Creen-que-Correa-exagero-sobre-un-golpe&cat=149&pla=3&id_articulo=43075 provocative speech/rhethoric against policemen---Amnesico29 (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's an op-ed by Armando Añel (Libertad Digital) pasted at the end of the article. --IANVS (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.canal15.com.ni/videos/20882

http://eju.tv/2010/10/creen-que-correa-exager-sobre-un-golpe-para-tapar-la-corrupcin/ dos mas --Amnesico29 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Or if you are so picky about it, watch it youtself Time in video 1:47--Amnesico29 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I already heard it. But my opinion (or yours) would constitute WP:SYNTH. --IANVS (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the source supports it--Amnesico29 (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that seems to be a quite biased non notable publication. Furthermore, it is signed by some "Zoe". This doesn't justify such a weasel word at the intro. Please, reconsider. --IANVS (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Source doesnt mean WP:RS. I support IANVS on this one. "provocative" is clearly a loaded word. That said feel free to add this statement to the "domestic [media] reactions" with the caveat that X called his post-rescue speech provocative. Not as a stand alone statement of fact.

Said new edits are clearly POV, against the grain of consensus, and in violation of 3rr (which i started yesterday but withdrew thinkign we ar emaking progress) Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New adjustments

Amnesico29, I had to re-write a some of what you've edited in the intro, the background, and the mutiny section. I had to resort to what the sources you yourself provided, said, as some of the edits were distorted, and even made up. --IANVS (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, you are pushing for your POV. Before there is consensus an article must have WP:NPOV, meaning ALL points of views. You are clearly trying to change sections and making it look as if the article was saying there is a "mutiny" or a "coup d'etat"! those terms have been contested, there is a debate and we must be neutral about it.

What is a fact is that the Police and military were on strike (huelga!), what happened next is confusing, so the NPOV tag should be placed on the article until all issues are resolved. There is a reason the article is called a "crisis" and not "mutiny" or "coup d'etat". Check your wording, and check your sources, at least contrast what is being said All the sides of the issue. I am in support of showing all points of views, in regards to whoever is saying that I have a POV.. let me tell you something, I am just advocating to have all points of views and I say you are ignoring neutrality issues. I've been trying to add to the article. Take a look at the Spanish wiki. The article is way more neutral there. This one is missing a lot of info and other points of views. --Amnesico29 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a WP:BRD cycle that you have not followed while edit warring.Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all sides are worth showing, per WP:FRINGE. I hate to bring in that old one, but not all points of views should be shown. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas don't you think it's you who is not following the process of WP:BRD?? was the article neutral as you had it? don't think so. And Xavexgoem, yes all points of views are to be shown if they comply WP:RS read WP:FRINGE more carefully. I am advocating for a Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. All the sources presented with the view you guys are trying to ignore by continuously inserting information by few point of view, the one supported by the Pink tide. Watch the wording, particularly with "mutiny" and "coup". --Amnesico29 (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no, consensus was against you. it was 3-1 in fact. The way you insert is POV. WP:Consensus doesnt 1 person inserts his "npov".Lihaas (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Honduras wording consensus?

I'm moving discussion about the wording about Honduras here because I found the previous discussion to be a bit of a muddle, and because the part where Honduras is mentioned is no longer "quarantined" (which it never should have been to begin with).

It looks like we currently have wording that I would accept as reasonable in the article. Do I take it we now have consensus? If not, what would improve the wording? Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the above agreement, (which i believe is the first version) yes i think we can all agree. And good it was a WP:Civil discussion.

Per your above statement, can you cite "analogy everyone is making is not accepted by everyone." Sure you may be right (namely Honduras), but i havent read anythign of the sort yet. (Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)).

The agreement is the first version + honduras gvt = current version. At least, that was what I understood. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

+Honduras govt meaning? The inclusion of their reaction? If so im not sure i agree, because as mentioned the reaction is not background, its where the reaction from all such countries are. As it stood the verbatim info was in twice, one has to go. (whichever doesnt amtter)Lihaas (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Significantly, i would like to propose removal of the word "Significantly," at the beginning of the Honduras-related sentence. We try to include all the significant information in any wikipedia article, so "Significantly," could be added to nearly every single sentence in nearly every wikipedia article. Significantly, this has not become a common wikipedia policy. Another way of putting it: it sounds like a weasel word that is trying to imply some extra meaning that we cannot state directly and that we wish the reader to infer. Any objections? If not, someone go ahead and, significantly, remove the word. Boud (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. but where do we stand on the double reiteration of the reactions? I dont want to edit war.

btw- loved your edit summary ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)