This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago50 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
i don't follow your first point. How can security forces carrying out a coup d'etat form a junta or nominate a new president or claim that they will organise new elections until they've properly secured the key elements of power, including the media? The requested move is to coup d'etat attemptnot to coup d'etat. There doesn't seem to be any dispute so far that the rebellious security forces:
attempted to assassinate him in the hospital and when leaving
Whether or not Lucio Gutiérrez was directly involved or not does not seem to be relevant here. There was a widely coordinated takeover of important institutions using the threat of violent force (tear gas, guns) by security forces. Calling this "protests that went over the top" seems a bit ridiculous. Police do occasionally carry out political street protests in democracies when they want better pay, shorter working hours, whatever - without taking over parliament/congress, a major international airport, a major television station. Boud (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Again: the proposed name change is to attempted coup, not coup. We don't know what was planned, but we know what was done. The key institutions of power were seized by force. Democratic political protest aims to get a lot of media coverage, not to take over the media by the threat of violent force. Political groups don't try to kill the President of a country just to score political points. If US police took over the United States Capitol, several major international airports (to keep things in proportion to airports per population), several of the biggest TV studios (again to keep things in proportion), fired tear gas at Barack Obama, prevented him from leaving hospital and tried to shoot him, would that be considered a political protest gone over the top or an attempted coup d'etat? Boud (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
there is no suggestion that the 500 demonstrators constituted a group of armed people highly trained to work together as an organised group to use physical force, including lethal firearms, i.e. guns that can kill people
there is no report about the main Irish airports being occupied by an associated group
there is no report about the main Irish television stations being taken over by force by an associated group
there is no report of the president or prime minister of Ireland being physically attacked, held prisoner, or being subject to assassination attempts
So at least from this article, there is no suggestion of any possibility of a simultaneous, sudden armed takeover of several of the key political/media institutions of a country.
Greece: i don't see any obvious wikipedia entries - if there was an attempted coup in Greece in 2010, let it be documented.
We can now give a more objective estimate of the number of dead and injured in a would-be takeover of the Capitol, roads, major airports and key TV stations in the US: 8 *310/15 = about 165 people dead, and 274 * 310/15 = about 5660 injured. So if an analogous US protest by upset police officers using tear gas and guns led to 165 dead US citizens and 5660 injured in the space of just 1 or 2 days during their attempted takeover of the Capitol, major airports and TV stations, would that be called an "over the top" protest or an attempted coup d'etat? Boud (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that Latin American political leaders are the sorts of people who can reasonably be considered as experts in judging the difference between a political protest and an attempted coup d'etat, at least in the context of their part of the world. Boud (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
UNASUR members Peru, Colombia, Chile and UNASUR observers Mexico and Panama all have right-wing presidencies right now. In terms of a left-right power balance "agenda", it would be in their interests for Correa to lose power and a right-wing candidate to become president of Ecuador, in a way that is seen as democratic rather than by the threat of and/or use of violence. They could easily have blocked the words "coup d'etat" (in Spanish) from the consensus statement, insisting on vague statements of principle such as "we wish all parties to work towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis". UNASUR represents a range of political POVs.
The Spanish/Argentinian oil/gas company Repsol YPF is likely to lose some profits under nationalisation as part of Correa's program. Zapatero's agenda as PM of Spain includes protecting Spain's economic interests. Helping Correa to be replaced and avoiding the loss of billions of euros per year by Repsol YPF could make the difference between Spain's economy collapsing Greece-style or not.
I think this should be kept as a "crisis", not a "coup attempt". Some people have called it a coup attempt, but they have reasons for doing so. Even Gutierrez's on-the-record assertions suggest that all his people wanted was to oust Correa and have new elections. BTW, Correa's face-off against his own party should also be included as part of this "crisis", since there still remains the possibility of him dissolving government and ruling by decree. That, to me, counts as crisis, and the police protest is part of the larger story, though likely being exploited by incompetent former Presidents for their own gain. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
"oust Correa and have new elections": That would be a coup in itself. I don't know why you are obsesseed with the need of a putative leader for a coup to be. A coup can be just the destitution of an established leader by non-democratic means. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
BTW, the "dissolution" of the Assembly would imply immediate legislative + presidential elections. Not "governing by decree". --IANVS (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
So I wrote some prose, but the writing was terrible. So I've condensed my fors-and-against into bullet form. I think it could go either way.
Against rename:
"Crisis" is broad, and can contain all possibilities.
The first perpetrator who threw the tear gas necessitating Correa to go to the hospital was not "in-the-know"
There wasn't any follow-through on the 10 hours that Correa was in the hospital.
The police protest may have larger ramifications outside the attempted coup.
Most USian and European sources - if history is any guide - are not as likely to call it a coup.
For rename:
"Crisis" is too broad, when the reasons for the coup are simple enough, and the results following are likely to be related to the attempted coup.
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt <-- not a redirect. There may be examples in and outside of Latin America for [[#### Country coup d'état attempt]]
"Attempted coup" is, at any rate, closer to the main theme than the broad "crisis"
"2010 Crisis" is much more continual than "2010 coup attempt", a coup being more of a one-off event.
The police protest outside the attempted coup may not be too notable, relatively, considering the number of police protests that happen anyway versus how often they're covered.
The police protests may have been to create a coup in the first place, so long as former presidents are likely behind it. But that's conjecture.
And re: AllGoryToTheHypnotoad, you say "all his people wanted was to oust Correa and have new elections" <-- this is called a coup :-p (different if you mean "all his people wanted was to oust Correa by having new elections")
--Xavexgoem (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The evidence is certainly mounting (paritcularly here) that it was an atempted coup. The institution of state were held hostage and for a period it was unknown what correa's fate would be, not just a protest. Seems consensus here supports this with 1 dissent (and another dissent, but whose reason was cited as by others as supportive of the move)
Support - the weight of factual evidence is that what was mounted was an attempt to remove Correa from office by violence. That's a coup d'etat - end of. But in addition, it is clear from international reactions, particularly South American ones, that this was considered a threat to the constitutional continuity of the government (=coup), and in many cases (notably via UNASUR) explicitly called it a coup attempt. Rd232talk17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support - Very clearly a coup. Zachary Klaas (talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC−3)
Oppose for now. Yes of course the international reactions will basically assume the worst and furthermore not try to insult Correa, who HAS clearly claimed it was a coup. However, just as we shouldn't blithely accept the US or Chinese government's position, we shouldn't do the same for Ecuador. For example, a member of Ecuador's opposition said this:
Others here beg to differ, pointing out that the high command of the armed forces did not break with Mr. Correa, even after top generals had suggested that he should consider revising the austerity law. “At no time did Correa lose control of the government, nor did anyone attempt to succeed him,” said César Montúfar, a prominent opposition legislator. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/americas/04ecuador.html?scp=2&sq=Ecuador&st=cse
So what should we use? We use what secondary sources use, as always. This means, at the moment, news media reports, and later scholarly works (which will surely be written and mention this). I mostly read "The New York Times" and "The Economist," and both have scrupulously avoided calling the events a coup themselves, instead standing back and talking about the debate. To me, this indicates the matter is unsettled at the moment. Debate Rages for Reason for Assault on President talks about the differing viewpoints, and says "Debate rages over whether the uprising — which seemed to crystallize as a protest against a law that would reduce benefits, like year-end bonuses, for the security forces — was intended to oust Mr. Correa." If it was attempting to oust Correa, it was a coup attempt; otherwise it was a high-powered police riot. [1] and [2] are some other articles from the NYTimes, which are similarly neutral. A glance at other newspapers, including some British ones, reveals similar trends. I'm not really happy with the vague "crisis" - "police uprising" is more specific and undeniably true - but let's wait on "coup." SnowFire (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latam sources are far more credible on this issue. But anyways, as you said "If it was attempting to oust Correa, it was a coup attempt" There are sources aplenty that show and suggest this was the goal, and its even on the page.Lihaas (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Look at the 2000 Ecuadorean coup d'état - there are rather a lot of parallels, and nobody has any trouble calling that a coup. It's easier because that case actually resulted in toppling the President, but if the distinction between coup and non-coup was success and failure, there'd be no such thing as a failed coup attempt. Rd232talk12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the replies, Lihaas and rd232. However, I feel that most of the commentary above, as well as the responses, are somewhat tangential. Wikipedia should be using what neutral secondary sources use, not governments, and most of the neutral secondary sources - for whatever reasons - are hemming and hawing and refusing to call it a coup themselves, instead saying there's a debate on what exactly happened and what it should be called. This debate is clearly happening within Ecuador as well. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't "pick a winner." The one part that is valid is the "Latam sources are far more credible on the issue," but can I ask you to explain why? I don't want to overhype the US press, but in general the LatAm press tends to be far more likely to be "political" which would complicate them as a neutral choice. I looked at the Spanish newspaper El Pais, which also seemed ambivalent on whether it was a coup. Maten a Correa para que se acabe ya esta protesta calls it a "protesta contra el Gobierno", and Golpe a la ecuatoriana, an Oct 2 article shortly after the uprising, is obviously titled with coup, but includes contrasting voices in the article. It notes that commone people in Ecuador generally call it a coup ("Para el presidente Correa está claro que fue un golpe de Estado y la mayoría de los ecuatorianos de a pie respaldan esta visión") but also brings up others who say it's not ("El general retirado del Ejército Galo Monteverde, citado por el diario El Comercio, asegura que no hubo un golpe de Estado sino una insurrección policial," and shortly afterward some random analyst as well). I'd characterize the article as being more sympathetic to calling the events a coup, but still not entirely willing to say that's the "right" term. So yeah, I'm sticking with my point above.
I will say in response to your other points... unrest is often an excuse for a coup, but it is not a coup. It's only when people actually start trying to change the government a riot becomes a coup. It's at the moment still if there was any plan to install a new ruler or what. Let's say Correa had been shot and killed, but the police uprising remained just that - unruly police unhappy with pay cuts, and the normal transition of power occurred afterward. That clearly would not be a coup anymore than the assassination of William McKinley was a coup. (But this discussion is irrelevant since even if one of us was "right" about what a coup means, we should run with what the secondary sources use anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I dont understand was Rd232 is trying to say, but for the second reason, we have adequately debated that there was in fact an attempt.(Lihaas (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)).Reply
It's simply untenable to describe what happened here as anything other than a coup attempt. From Coup d'état: "the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military." No matter how out of control a police strike gets, taking over TV stations, parliament and the national airport, kidnapping the President and a presidential bodyguard, shooting at the Presidential vehicle... at this point, whether it's spontaneous or not, it is an attempted coup. As with the 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, no amount of denying the nose on your face will make it go away. Rd232talk23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support - i'm the proposer of the move, my arguments are above; i'm just putting this here with the support tag for a neutral third party to more easily browse the discussion. i looked at the counterarguments and didn't find them convincing. Boud (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose it's quite clear now that was not prepared, and the several elements show that it was no more than a strike that causes a bit of chaos. Talking about "coup" is taking only one point of view that is not majoritory anymore (people afterward asked themself if indeed it was a coup, while at the heatest point of the crisis everybody thought it was a coup... If putting in danger the life of the chief of state was enough for qualifying a coup, there would be lot more event qualified as coup (example : attempt to murder several presidents in western europe) Loreleil (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
" putting in danger the life of the chief of state" trivialises the arguments made in favour of calling it a coup. See my comment above. Rd232talk10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
=> the kidnapping is not proved (the president himself recognized he didn't thought the opposition will be important, he just put himself in danger in confronting and shouting at a striking crowd), the government was not deposed or any attempt on deposing it.... The shooting was unclear due to the fact that it has been an assault by forces on other forces ... The term crisis is more suitable : it 's not over, the parliament will be dismissed so there is more than just this event. And it started before the riots... (by the announcement of probable dismissing of the parliament , and the breach in the coalition of the government) Loreleil (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps you were looking at the wrong comment from me (I meant the one just above Boud's Support comment). Allow me to quote myself: "No matter how out of control a police strike gets, taking over TV stations, parliament and the national airport, kidnapping the President and a presidential bodyguard, shooting at the Presidential vehicle... at this point, whether it's spontaneous or not, it is an attempted coup". Some of your comment is quite unclear: what does "The shooting was unclear due to the fact that it has been an assault by forces on other forces" mean? As with Honduras 2009, the background is the background, it doesn't change the nature of the events. Rd232talk10:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
My answer was based only on this explanation so yes I was lookig at the right comment. It was not a kidnapping (only the official commentary are talking about it like that, and a lot of people have denied it since), the shooting at the Presidential vehicle : rofl in an assault with heavy forces against an armed crowd do you think that you know what is aimed => you are basing your affirmation on official announcement of the government, it still unclear how the rescue was successful and where was the impact that the government press agency was talking about: "El auto que sacó a Correa no tuvo impactos (The car which rescue Correa didn't have any impact)". It was a strike, which in several countries results on having building of officials targeting (public TV and parliament is usual stuff even in our safe countries in Western Europe). Call it riots, strike ... but not Coup attempt, because it's only based on the analysis of the official press agency of the Ecuadorian government. Now that it's over people are starting to take a step back and think about what happened. Ecuadorian indigenous organization denied it was a coup (they are not part of the opposition), the opposition denied it was a coup, and now if you look at the analysis [3], [4], people are questioning about having call that a coup when it seems it was not merely the case. The problem is that official organization such as UNASUR have to relay the official declaration of an recognized government that is member of their organization, if we based our analysis on the fact that UNASUR has call the event a coup d'etat, we are just quoting the president himself in fact : it's a diplomatic response to an official governement... Loreleil (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're ignoring the big difference between armed security forces (police, armed forces) and ordinary citizens. "...public TV and parliament is usual stuff even in our safe countries in Western Europe). Call it riots, strike .." There are certainly massive demonstrations and strikes in Western Europe every now and then, including sometimes in front of parliament or tv stations, but they are not by the police and the armed forces. In Western Europe, the police and the armed forces have a legal monopoly on violence. They are highly trained in using guns, and they have guns. i cannot think of any recent incident in Western Europe where parts of the police and the armed forces take over parliament, the major airport, a major TV station, burn tyres to block roads, and then attack the president/prime minister and refuse to let him leave hospital. That would have been called an attempted coup d'etat. Sometimes police demonstrate for their political rights, and probably even more rarely, armed forces - but they do it in a very limited way so that there's no risk of citizens and politicians being afraid that it's a coup d'etat. (Here, i'm ignoring the fact that police and army do take over roads and buildings under government orders to repress dissent, but that's another issue. Here we're talking about police and army taking over against government orders.) Boud (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Two international airports taken over by the airforce in such a tiny country (Associated Press report), so that's airports not airport. Can anyone think of any Western European, or other democracy in which the airforce blocks the two biggest international airports and it is not called an attempted coup? The Eyjafjallajökull eruption was a natural event, not a rebellion by European airforces against our governments. Boud (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
"It was not a kidnapping": i don't think anyone was claiming exactly a "kidnapping"; he was taken to hospital by his personal security people. Instead, "it" was forceful refusal to let him leave the hospital by a well-organised group of armed people well-trained in the use of firearms (i.e. "police"), according to the New York Times, El Correo, El Pais, just to name a few sources - see the relevant section. So "unlawful imprisonment" and "physically threatening an elected official" rather than "kidnapping". He still had his own personal security with him, and obviously he hadn't completely lost influence over hospital personnel. When organising a coup d'etat, you cannot instantly persuade the whole population that the President is no longer the head of the State. Once you have convinced the other parts of the police and armed forces, and also the rest of the population, that you've taken over power, then it's no longer an attempted coup d'etat, it's a successful coup d'etat, or at least an initially-successful coup d'etat. Boud (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Quoting wikipedia's cited coup seems to indicate it was in fact one as proven up. One needs to argue or disprove those facts not ones own theory of happenings.Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support Per arguments made by Rd232 and others. This seems a pretty clear-cut case to me. Certain elements of the police and military forces tried to remove from power and/or kill the head of state. That's a coup attempt. Just because we don't know exactly what person or junta would have replaced Correa had they succeeded does not change this. There was a clear attempt to remove the president from power and replace him with something else. That's a coup attempt. -Helvetica (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
There isn't proof that someone tried to kill him. Do you have any? Moreover, many country leaders have been assassinated without this being a proof of a coup. There isn't any proof of an organised plan, the US supported Correa from the very first moment, etc. I don't see any attempt for a coup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
(Reply to Magioladitis's post at 10:01, 8 October 2010)There's no need to do any new research to support my case, it's all in the article already, which has been very well-sourced. To quote from the article itself: "Police forces outside the hospital building surrounded it and kept him from leaving;[8][4][9][10] a helicopter tried to evacuate him and his entourage but was prevented from landing by obstacles in the landing pad.[33] They also arrested one member of his close protection team.[35] Although La Hora Nacional reports that two hospital employees denied it was a hostage situation,[36] El País reports recorded dialogues between the policemen, in which they announce their intentions to kill him or either have him out of office.[37]" "By afternoon, Telesur reported that the police, accompanied by former president Lucio Gutiérrez's lawyer Pablo Guerrero, attacked Ecuadoran state television,[3] and took abrupt control of the channels.[42]" It's also documented that police and military set up road-blocks, shut down airports, etc. I'm not sure what else you're looking for...And there certainly doesn't need to be proof of U.S. gvt. support for it to be a coup attempt! -Helvetica (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Response to: "There isn't proof that someone tried to kill him." i don't have time right now to put this in properly, i'll just quote here: police statements during the events: "Official recordings later revealed that during those tense and dangerous moments, police officers called out to “kill him” on their radios. “Kill the President”, “Kill Correa”, “He won’t get out alive today”, ordered the higher-ranking officers on the internal police patrol radios. “Kill them all, open fire, shoot them, ambush them, but don’t let that bastard leave”, said police over the radios, referring to the President and the team of ministers and secret service that accompanied him. “Kill that ‘s.o.b’ Correa”, they shouted." (Someone else feel free to use this or another source for an NPOV selection of quotes for the article.) Boud (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I think one of User:Boud's comments helps to put this event in perspective. Would anyone arguing here that this was not a coup-attempt be arguing the same if something similar had happened in the United States for example?..."If US police [and elements of the US military] took over the United States Capitol, several major international airports (to keep things in proportion to airports per population), several of the biggest TV studios (again to keep things in proportion), fired tear gas at Barack Obama, prevented him from leaving hospital and tried to shoot him." If something like this had happened in the US, I highly doubt anyone could see it as anything other than a coup attempt. -Helvetica (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just to put some numbers there: Since we know now that two airports were blocked, and the population ratio is about 310/15, i.e. the US has 20 times more people than Ecuador, then that should read 40 major international airports and 20 of the biggest TV studios, all blocked and occupied by US police and military. Boud (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC) And remember to add in uniformed, armed US forces burning tyres to block many major highways throughout the USA. Not "anti-globalisation activists" burning tyres. Uniformed, organised, men (and women?) with guns burning tyres and halting most of the traffic. Boud (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
What? The reasons for a coup dont make it a coup or not. A coup is not based on certain reasons, a coup is based on the actions performed. And whether america supported or if it happened in america is irrelevant to calling it a coup.
Comment. I realize that I've already said my piece above. But I just want to say again that the opinions of Wikipedia editors on what they think constitutes a coup or not is ultimately trivial. Coup is a politically charged word (like terrorist) and should not be used without firm secondary source backing. Therefore this discussion should ideally be revolving around examples of what scholars and journalists (not activists and governments) have said on the topic. Hypothetical US coups are not really that important, nor is coming up with a "Wikipedia definition" of coup; Wikipedia just mirrors the consensus of what disinterested others have said. There may well be a double standard in the world, but that's not our problem. While I disagree with Loreleil's contention that it clearly wasn't a coup - knowing the history of the region, I wouldn't be surprised at all if evidence came out it was - I do agree that the article shouldn't be moved to "coup," since we should wait for the press to give that strong backing. Which, checking around, still hasn't happened yet. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
i'm not really convinced that there is a dispute about defining "coups d'etat" in the same way that there is for "terrorist" vs "state terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" etc. There was a dispute about the 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, but that's the only obvious case that i'm aware of. And in that case, the solution was to separate 2009 Honduran coup d'état from the wider context of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. As for the triviality of our opinions and hypothetical US coups, almost every Wikipedia guideline recommends that we use common sense. The simultaneous occurrence of: occupation of 40 major US airports by armed forces, the blocking of major highways and tyre-burning there by police, police occupation of the buildings of Congress, police taking over 20 major TV stations, police attacking President Obama, calling out on their radios to kill him, holding him hostage and shooting at him, would make it beyond common sense to say that it's just a political protest. As for scholars, New York University professor Greg Grandin's initial analysis agrees that it was "too coordinated" to have been just a political protest: "the government has made a lot of, I think, accurate accusations that it was not just a spontaneous social protest against austerity. It was too coordinated. It happened simultaneously in a number of cities, a number of barracks. Sectors of the air force joined in immediately. It seems like there have been sectors that have been dissatisfied with Correa within the military. And certainly, a past president, Lucio Gutiérrez, ... immediately came out and called Correa illegitimate and called for him to step down." Boud (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose move' The governmental view concerning the events of the 30 September is highly disputable. The so-called coup seems to be a strike (even “unofficial”) of certain units of the national police of Ecuador, since there is no solid proof, except for the governmental claims, that the policemen attempted to violently overthrow president Correa and establish an authoritarian regime. Moreover, the acts of activism which followed the strike of the policemen, such as the short-time occupation of public buildings, are common practice for strikers around the world, who use such actions in order to put pressure to their governments.
On the contrary, there are plenty of Ecuadorian democratic parties and popular organizations which support the view that president Correa invented the event of “the coup attempt” in order to mislead the public opinion and escape from the popular discontent that has been caused by the neoliberal measures that he is promoting. Among these parties and organizations are PCMLE and Democratic People's Movement, with elected members to the National Assembly, which have strongly condemned coups and coup attempts which took place in other countries of Latin America during the past years. Furthermore, the communication of CONAIE (the confederation of the indigenous nationalities of Ecuador) accuses Correa for spreading false information about the events of the 30 September.
It should be taken into account that the predominance of the governmental view concerning the events of the 30 of September was backed up by the fact that a state of emergency was enforced by the government which resulted in the corresponding prohibition of the right of expression, allowing only the allegations of president Correa to be diffused to the international news agencies.
Some other facts: According to this source"the head of Ecuador's civil aviation authority, Fernando Guerrero, said in a statement that international operations were suspended at the latter two airports “due to the lack of immigration and counternarcotics personnel.”" i.e. the airport shut down was only a consequence of the large-scale strike and not a real occupation by police forces. Anothe reported by an Associated Press journalist, which can be seen here, seconds this opinion by writing that "Schools shut down in Quito and many businesses closed early because of the absence of police protection that left residents and businesses vulnerable to crime." It's clear that schools and airports closed not by the police but because of t absence. I think w should add these details to the article too. -- Gl4g09 (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're ignoring firstly, the undisputed fact that the rebellion was not just by police, it was also by parts of the armed forces, and secondly, that police and armed forces are very different from other professions when there is a political struggle. It's the nature of police and the armed forces that they are armed with deadly weapons and have the legal protection that disobeying a police officer risks landing in you in prison. When they carry out political strikes (which do happen in democracies, sometimes), they have to take very special precautions to show that they are suspending their physical and legal powers of using lethal force, and that they are not trying to overthrow the government. Airports: the same source you quote also says "Air force troops shut down Quito's Mariscal Sucre airport". The statement by Guerrero does not say that the airport was only shut down because of a lack of personnel. On this report "The airport's president, Philippe Baril, told a local radio station that 300 troops had occupied runways, forcing flight cancelations." There are plenty of photos showing military troops blocking runways. Boud (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
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
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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_ELIOZcE190.9.184.7 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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}}).
NAn 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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
.svg){kind=small}
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the