Open main menu

Recent editsEdit

Just wanted to start this so we can discuss recent edits without further conflict. I agree with removing the puppet ruler designation. However, multiple sources describe Correa's policies as "populist" and that he had overspent in an effort to maintain popular support. Also, the summaries by The Economist and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace assist with explaining the situation Moreno faced. These are both reliable, independent sources and not arguments used by either protesters or the Moreno administration directly. Thank you all in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Hi. Some sources mention him as such, and that is the reason why we have a paragraph which states that they consider him a populist and his policies as excessive. Mentioning that certain sources describe him as such is fine, but slapping on such a politically-charged label, which is under a lot of dispute from his own followers, is just not kosher. The summaries aren't relevant to the article, as it's meant to just give a brief overview of the background of the protests, not as an exhaustive analysis of Rafael Correa's policies. Even if it was, citing a US-based think tank led by senior US politicians hits me as a bit of a conflict of interests when discussing the relations of Ecuador and it's economic policies vis-a-vis the United States and it's IMF-sponsored Washington Consensus, which is one of the main issues behind the protests. There's a reason we didn't add explicitly pro-Correa sources, such as TeleSUR to the article. The same rule should apply here as well. Correa's accusations of "authoritarian tendencies" are already included in the article, as is the fact that his administration increased public debt considerably. Lastly, the idea that Correa used the "2010s oil glut" to his advantage is madness. I hope you realize that the oil glut represtented a significant decrease, not increase in oil prices. The oil glut was one of the main reasons that undeversified and heavily oil-reliant economies, such as Venezuela, entered into a deep recession. And even then, Rafael Correa began his Presidency in early 2007, and the oil glut happened in 2014! Please, listen to reason. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Goodposts: Thanks for pointing out the 2010s oil glut error. Populism and Latin American politics often go hand in hand since the days of the caudillos. This is not an exception for Correa and multiple sources will affirm to this. He was a populist leader and overspent like many other leaders at the time as a result of the 2000s commodities boom. Including multiple sources would be Wikipedia:OVERKILL and cumbersome for the reader. We could possibly find more sources that may be more reliable. However, I do not see an issue with the sources as presented.
The summaries are necessary too. They explain the background as to why Moreno made such decisions. Without explaining Correa's overspending and the motivation for popular support, it reads that Moreno decided to enforce austerity measures for no reason. According to the sources, it occurred because of Correa's overspending and the IMF would not provide funds until a more stable budget is established.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Hi and thanks for replying! You are correct that both left and right-wing populism goes hand in hand with latin american politics for as long as latin american politics have existed. Even Mr. Moreno was elected on a platform that was dubbed as populist by many sources. At the same time, it is a very politically charged label, and adding it without referencing which side determines him to be such isn't really a fully neutral point of view. For this reason, I've added a part of the article, which states that the IMF, alongside some analysts define Correa as populist. This lets the reader know who defined him as such and lets the reader form his own conclusions.
As for 'overspending' - this is very highly relative. Who determines what is the 'correct' amount of spending? Ecuador had generally healthy and positive economic growth for the vast majority of Correa's term, so his spending could be defined as simply a left-wing tax-and-spend economic model, as opposed to the conservative don't tax-don't spend model. Again, I have already included in the article that the IMF and some analysts consider his spending to be excessive, but intentionally avoided marking him as such from a wikipedia point of view. I've also already included the IMF paragraph, which states that the IMF demanded these fiscal reforms in exchange for the loan, which was conditional on their fulfilment. This lets the reader know why Moreno chose to implement these reforms. I really don't see what the issue is. The main difference between the versions is that what I've attempted to do was outsource any defintions of wether or not he was a successful president to cited sources, instead of given definitions. This lets the reader know who has supported or opposed his policy and why they did so.
In addition, arguing that Correa had "removed democratic institutions" is also not NPOV. He was accused of using a state regulatory body to influence the media and using a "depolitization" process to influence a court. While those do show certain authoritarian tendencies, they do not show a "removal" of "democratic institutions", especially when Correa supporters argue that they had been done for other reasons. I think that the text that I've added that "Correa was accused of authoritarian tendencies due to his alleged attempts to X & Y" already show that information to the reader. Lastly, you've removed the part about his moving closer to the United States (which was backed up by several citations, including one noting how he allowed the US to establish a military base on Ecuador's soil), while at the same time adding that he had "increased independence" by leaving ALBA. While I can agree with the fact that ALBA was primarily Venezuelan-led and also the fact that his leaving of the alliance represented a distancing from Nicolas Maduro, the removal of the text referring to his relations with the US strikes me as, again, not NPOV. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Goodposts: The IMF does not recognize Correa as a "populist" in any sources. Many sources do agree that he was a populist leader. The negative connotation of the term "populist" is subjective as well, with some politicians adopting the label. So, I do not see an issue with this.
As for the lending, I tried to explain the reason why Correa utilized Chinese loans instead of the IMF or other lenders. I can try to provide more detail on this as well as sources explaining overspending. In simple economic terms, if your spending is unsustainable, its overspending. Not much to say about that.
In my recent Carnegie edit, I tried to provide some more balance to the "authoritarian" claim to make it more NPOV and removed the additional quote. Hopefully that helps.
The only source about warming relations to the United States that you used is the US military article. First, you incorrectly mention that "he (Moreno) allowed the US to establish a military base on Ecuador's soil" when it was only allowing anti-drug aircraft to utilize a runway. Second, this single source said nowhere that Ecuador and the US were "moving closer" and the material was not "backed up by several citations". This is a patent fallacy. You have done this in a similar case here where you included political ideologies that were not even mentioned in the cited articles. Finally, I do not see the relevance of the United States in this as they are not a direct actor. Moreno has accused Venezuela of being involved, so I see a reason for that country's inclusion, but not for the US.
I do not know who "has an axe to grind", but it certainly is not me. I am here to provide reliable information, not WP:OR. We are trying our best to make these fixes, but it is difficult when obvious fabrications are occurring in this article.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Then edit it to say "Correa, who was accused of/defined as being a populist by X and Y" and the problem disappears. Correa doesn't define himself as a populist. If you believe he does, show me the reference and I'll be happy to change my point.
Plenty of nations spend a lot, and plenty of nations borrow a lot. The fact that Ecuador still had large credit lines, even albeit with high interest rates, means that Ecuador's spending was not so excessive as to shake creditor confidence to the point where they were unwilling to lend credit. A simple fix here could be to remove the term "overspending" and simply term it "Due to Correa's borrowing public debt tripled" - and then the problem disappears.
You don't consider that previous source about the relations to be sufficient. Okay, here are a few more, which explicitly mention it. [1] [2][3] The relevance of this is because in the following sentence you mention how Moreno had "increased independence" by leaving ALBA - which misleads readers to Assume that Ecuador had undergone a more policy more based on autarky, which wasn't the case.
While I welcome the desire to change, I still see the claim that he had "removed democratic instutitons", which is not something that the sources stated and isn't what happened as no relevant state or private institution was "removed" during his term. Goodposts (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


As you can see in my recent edit, this is not just "Western analysts and think tanks" stating that Correa's economic policies were unsustainable and populist. The sources include analysts, scholars, media organizations and socialist organizations. So this is not a left vs. right or Western vs. Eastern thing, this is all from solid sources. It does not get more obvious than this and misrepresenting what happened is blatantly deceitful.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


The background section should not be a political essay on the pro's and con's of Correa's presidency. Its also heavily biased in favour of a certain viewpoint and reads like somebody has an axe to grind. (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agree If we can't find a consensus that keeps it short, then I reckon we ought to just remove the text regarding Correa entirely, instead starting from Moreno's deal with the IMF and taking it from there. Goodposts (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Some background is needed and I don't think that going back to Correa is a bad thing for it. But focusing almost entirely on Correa presidency and going so briefly on Lenin and the Executive Decree No. 883 does not make sense. I think we need better sources on the Decree 883, the IMF loans and other recent developments. Then it will be easier to determine the relevancy of past background. --MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  Disagree The measures taken by Moreno would not have occurred without the policies set in place by Correa. I agree somewhat with MarioGom that we should explain Moreno and Decree 883 and that can go in the fuel subsidies section.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Did not know that the austerity measures were announced in August 2018, over a year before they took place. Thanks again Mario.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
ZiaLater: Actually they are different packages. The first one was announced in August 2018 and the second one in October 2019. --MarioGom (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Got it. Thanks for the explanation.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  Disagree It's not a political essay, it's called Background and it is fundamental for the reader understanding of the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jamez42 and User:ZiaLater I am not suggesting entirely cut out the parts about Correa's presidency, just the parts that are not of direct relevance to the present situation. Such as the fact that Correa reduced poverty and increased censorship. I'm not sure what those two things have to do with the present situation. (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLaterJamez42 by that logic, why not increase the timeline further back to the original enactment of the fuel subsidy half a decade ago? Goodposts (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Goodposts, ZiaLater, and Jamez42: I can give it a copyedit to include what I see as relevant, since I don't know a lot about this dispute over Correa and as such will have no knowledge beyond the current crisis to see as significant. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I would appreciate that.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I don't object, either. At the same time, though, after a quite long back-and-forth, we're finally appearing to converge on some kind of mutually acceptible consensus and so I'd be careful as not to upset the hardfought balance trough large edits. Most of the points in dispute seem to be resolved with some form of compromise and I feel as though real progress was made. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear event orderEdit

The following paragraph could use some clarifification:

By 12 October, CONAIE had announced that they would participate in dialogue with the Ecuadorian government.[1] However, violent protests intensified in Quito, with the national auditor office–which contained evidence surrounding corruptions cases–being set ablaze and two media facilities being attacked by demonstrators; the offices of Teleamazonas and El Comercio.[1] While masked protesters broke into the facilities, press workers were left trapped.[1] By 3:00pm, Moreno had decreed a national curfew and deployed the Ecuadorian army, stating "We are going to restore order in all of Ecuador" and explaining that the violent protesters were not related to organized indigenous groups, such as CONAIE, instead blaming drug traffickers, organised crime and Correa supporters.[1] In the few streets of Quito that weren't blocked, taxi cabs formed a caravan that rolled trough the city, honking and displaying anti-Moreno signs.[2]

The Contraloría attack happened around 11:00am, the curfew was announced around 14:30 and took effect at 15:00, and the attacks to Teleamazonas and El Comercio happened after the curfew started ([1]). Current wording could be misleading, since Teleamazonas attack happened after the curfew already started, but the reader might think that the this was a factor leading to the curfew. --MarioGom (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thanks!----ZiaLater (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d Press, Associated (2019-10-12). "Army deployed in Ecuador as protests descend into violence". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-13.
  2. ^ "Hopes for talks to end unrest in Ecuador dim as protests roil capital". Reuters. 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-13.

Inaccurate news on dialogue outcomesEdit

Given the nature of the developing events, some news sources about the outcomes of the dialogue process are inaccurate. Note that this sometimes happens even with reliable sources in the context of breaking news. Reversal of the whole austerity package was not an outcome of the dialogue, despite what some media outlets are rushing to report.

Pasadas las 21:45, Arnauld Peral, coordinador representante de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) para Ecuador, leyó el acuerdo: "Como resultado del diálogo se establece un nuevo decreto que deja sin efecto el Decreto 883. Para lo cual se instalará una comisión que elaborará el nuevo decreto, integrada por las organizaciones movimiento indígena, participantes en este diálogo y el Gobierno nacional, con la mediación de las Naciones Unidas y la Conferencia Episcopal Ecuatoriana y con la veeduría de las otras funciones del Estado. Con este acuerdo se terminan las movilizaciones y medidas de hecho en todo en Ecuador. Y nos comprometemos de manera conjunta a restablecer la paz en el país".
— El Comercio[1]

There was no discussion about all economic measures, the negotiation was centered around Decree No. 883 (removal of fuel subsidies). The resolution was the creation of a committee to gain consensus for a new decree that would substitute Decree No. 883. The terms are still unknown. It is still unknown (WP:TOOSOON) whether the Government will reverse Decree No. 883 first and then negotiate the new decree, or if Decree No. 883 will stay in effect until the new decree is approved. --MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • According to UN Ecuador, Decree No. 883 will be repealed immediately, before the formation of the committee to draft a replacement.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioGom (talkcontribs) 10:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that as of 10:30am 14 October (Ecuador local time) there is no new Decree repealing or modifying Decree No. 883. Most media are assuming it already happened or that it will happen imminently, but it didn't yet. --MarioGom (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decree 883 is finally repealed by Decree 894. Note that this only covers fuel subsidies, not the rest of announced economic measures. I have updated the infobox accordingly, but I'm still looking for in-depth sources to fix the breaking news mess in the "Austerity measures reversed" section. --MarioGom (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Finaliza el paro en Ecuador; Gobierno deroga Decreto 883 y crea uno nuevo". El Comercio. Retrieved 2019-10-14.
  2. ^ ONU Ecuador (14 October 2019). "Comunicado Oficial". Twitter (in Spanish). Retrieved 14 October 2019.

Maybe a new collage imageEdit

I think the current infobox collage is good, but what about this one?

It's used on the Spanish article. (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The images are better quality, but it contains two images (upper and lower left) of the same crowd in the same event. We should probably use a more representative selection. --MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done Used some of the images that you showed and moved an old one below to the body.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Ecuadorian protests" page.