Talk:Rafael Correa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

I don't see a problem with including campaign "rhetoric". His beliefs are notable. I am reverting.--Thomas.macmillan 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert my clean-up of the article. Each sentence in the paragraph is sensational, offering little context for helping the reader understand Correa's "platform." The paragraph starts off mentioning, "His platform includes not renewing a treaty with the United States permitting their use of the Manta air base as an operation site for drug surveillance flights." Without offering context, the relevance of this particular claim is unclear to readers. The second sentence states, "He seeks to restructure Ecuadorean [misspelling] debt and reduce debt payments against the recommendations of the WTO." Has the WTO issued a statement about Correa's platform? I doubt it. The WTO, like most international organizations, generally avoids the perception of interfering in the domestic electoral politics of independent states. The third sentence reads, "He is also noted for close ties to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez." Referring to "ties" is vague, almost meaningless. Please work on clarity of expression when writing an encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The sentences you removed certainly weren't adequate for an encyclopedic article, but I'd much prefer it if you actually contributed something to the article (in the spirit of developing it) to fill the vacuum, rather than simply pruning it. I'd also prefer it if you would explain your reasons for removing the links, and given that you have doubtlessly have some, at least put the links here on the talk page so that others can use them as a starting point for developing the article further. Jun-Dai 08:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia since 2002. I have probably contributed more to Wikipedia than all but only a hundred people worldwide. You are in no position to tell me I have failed to donate a sufficient amount of time to this website. As for the links, see what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Keep the current events articles at a minimum. 172 | Talk 08:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Nor did I tell you any such thing Jun-Dai 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You suggested that I failed to contribute enough to the article. Removing unencylopedic material is a contribution in itself. 172 | Talk 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Correa and Chavez

Most international press, including WSJ, Financial Times, The Economist; shows Correa as a close friend of Chavez. I am not describing him as chavista. I am only reflecting a fact and a quote of him referring to Bush. I don't think is a PoV. And I don't think why a compromise cannot be reached on this subject. User:Bakersville

I agree. I don't know if he is a personal friend of Chávez, but he is clearly an ally, and intends himself to be perceived that way. --Rbraunwa 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Every single newswire (Reuters, AFP, etc) describes Correa as a friend of Chavez in their coverage of Ecuador's elections. While Minister of Finance he was very close to Chavez. Why is so wrong to say that he is a friend of Chavez and link an anti Bush quote? Assertions that this is an attempt to find him guilty (of what?) by association do not assume good faith in editing the article. User:Bakersville
Calling them "personal friends" and "political allies" may be a stretch-- just the media hype of the momemnt. If the two of you can recall Ecuador's last presidential election, media pundits outside Latin America were convinced the election winner Lucio Gutierrez was another Hugo Chavez. But when he took office, it became clear that all the speculation about Chavez's influence prior to the election was unfounded. Please do not insert content about Chavez unless you can offer concerte specifics concerning the nature of their 'friendship' and 'alliance.' Otherwise, it's just speculation, which may be appropriate in news analyses, but not an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 03:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't know that you were so knowledgeable about Latin American politics to be above all the media hype. I am not worthy. It is very relevant to the article to mention he is close to Chavez.User:Bakersville
Please see WP:CIVIL. Sarcasm does not contribute to a constructive editing environment. I do happen to be knowledgeable about Latin American politics, but that is not an issue. If you can point to news articles mentioning concrete specifics concerning an alliance, add the material. But just flagging Correa, who happens to have a much different background from Chavez, as a "leftist Chavez ally," sounds just like sloganeering, not an encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 03:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no agenda here. The article on Noboa is overall negative but well sourced (by an anonimous contributor) Now just adding a sentence on Correa closeness to Chavez according reliable sources and based on his own words, is immediately deleted. Sorry is kind of ridiculous.
The problem is that you are just asserting their "closeness," not mentioning factual specifics that allow readers to draw their own conclusions. As we saw with Lucio Gutierrez, sometimes Western media pundits (who are not necessarily expects on Latin America), get it wrong. 172 | Talk 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I may have been (or was) sarcastic; but I do not appreciate condecending comments, like implying that i am being mislead by the media hype and that you are above that. The original sencence was: "Correa is a friend of Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez. After Chavez compared George Bush to the devil Correa wondered whether the devil would take offence."[8]. It is sourced by a reputable magazine. Reuters and AFP wires also mentioned the fact that he is a friend of Chavez. Friend is less dramatic than ally. What he said about Bush and the Devil was also mentioned in other newspapers and in any case i don't think The Economist is in the business of inventing quotes. I don't see what's wrong with the sentence. The Noboa article quotes sources that are much more controversial than The Economist.
Encyclopedias are supposed to be written from the standpoint of a longer-run view than the headlines of the moment. One comment, which may be an off-the-cuff remark, is not more notable than the overview of his career as an academic and public figure, which remains quite underdeveloped. As for the Noboa article, I have not read it; and the Noboa article is not an issue on this page. 172 | Talk 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 172. The fact that he is portrayed in the media as a 'friend' of Chavez does not automatically garnish him that status. How are they "friends"? Did they go to school together? Was he an advisor to his presidency? Please, if you want to refer to this in an encyclopedia -and not in a consumer-driven media outlet- you need to reference your sources. Adding an off-colour remark does not add to the article, either.Dragonlord kfb 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Correa's quote about his friendship with Chavez but not ties with the bolivarean movement. Hope this solve this issue. User:Bakersville

[edit] Links relating to Correa

[edit] Citing Spanish Wikipedia here

Does it bother anyone else that this page links to an unreferenced wikipedia page in Spanish? It's as though just by being written in Spanish it would have some greater authority... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew.kegg (talk • contribs).

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the link. Whether or not the a WP article is referenced or not, it should not be cited by another WP article, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. If the Spanish article were referenced, we could use the same references here.... -Seidenstud 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] right wing bannana tycoon

I have no idea what precisely to object about in that syntagm, but it sounds a bit .. ridiculouis :) I mean , really, right wing bannana tycoon, :-D --83.131.152.38 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC) It's misspelled, too. Noahbain 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inauguration

  • Anyone knows when he is officially taking over as President ? Hektor 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As I'm typing this I think. it's January 15th, 1981.
That was a typo. It should have read 2007.
Given that I did not include a critical comma, it is fair to satirize my comment by saying that, as I was typing that, I was not thinking! ROFL!!!

[edit] Did his picture just change...

Or was it a different top election story? Or was it just me? --Lenoxus 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is a crop of Image:IMG_0403.JPG. That picture is also fairly new since it was added by User:Mmeyers here. An anon IP then added an infobox and used the Mmeyers picture instead of the other one and rightfully so since it better shows him. I thought it'd be good to feature Rafael Correa so did a crop of the Mmeyers picture. I then realised it'll be good to replace the infobox picture since the other one didn't work so well. However my crop was a little to small so I did another crop which is now used as the primary infobox picture. Ironically, my second crop was eventually features on the mainm page not the first one :-P Nil Einne 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Prior to this we had a picture of Jan Peter Balkenende on the main page. I believe we changed the picture we used once because it was felt the original one was a bit unflattering Nil Einne 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Correa's comments on IMF and Washington Consensus

Correa's views on this topic are notable, because he is an important addition to the group of South American Presidents who have expressed these views. The first time that I referred to this in the article, 172 deleted it, calling it "speculation." So, I spent some time to thoroughly document it, and put in this:

  1. ^ Pimental, Lester, "Ecuador, Calling Debt `Illegitimate,' May Repay 40%", Bloomberg.com, January 18, 2007
  2. ^ "Ecuador's new leader has no kind words for U.S.", CBC News, January 15, 2007

Then, 172 deleted again, calling it "POV." Why? --HonourableSchoolboy 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why I should not restore this deleted material. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • His position on the foreign debt is already covered in the previous section. 'Cutting off ties with the World Bank and the IMF' is meaningless. What does this mean? The wording suggest he intends to withdrawl Ecuador's membership in both organizations. This is almost certainly not the case; just about every state in the world is a member. He likely meant Ecuador would reject certain terms and conditions imposed by either body. 172 | Talk 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That's your interpretation, for which you offer no source. The cited article says, to be precise, that he threatened to "sever ties." And it is widely discussed that he is following the example of Pres. Kirchner of Argentina, who closed the IMF office and sent its representative home. It is also significant that he attacked the Washington Consensus, which goes beyond just a policy of "restructuring of Ecuador's debt." Why do you insist on deleting a reference to the Consensus? --HonourableSchoolboy 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have said nothing about the Washington Consensus. I am referring to your poorly written text in general. What does 'severing ties' even mean, based on your source (hopefully not a Lyndon LaRouche publication)? Your writing offers no context and little clarity. 172 | Talk 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you in the habit of deleting sourced material without even checking to see what the source is? --HonourableSchoolboy 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added this, since 172 didn't offer any reason for the deletion besides not liking it. --Delirium 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. What exactlty does 'severing ties' mean? Ending Ecuador's membership in the World Bank and the IMF? Default? Rejecting particular terms and conditions? Rejecting advice? Do not reinsert the paragraph until you are ready to offer the needed context and clarity. 172 | Talk 06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't our job to make such interpretations, but merely to report what the sources say. If the sources say "sever ties", then we report "sever ties". If you'd like to rearrange or reword this that might be reasonable, but simply wholesale removing information isn't acceptable. You also haven't addressed why you removed the sentence and reference about the Washington Consensus. --Delirium 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Many sources may be vague, as is the case here. In that case, find a news article offering more specific detail regarding the processes and procedures entailed in 'severing ties' with these particular international organizations. Regarding the sentence and reference about the Washington Consensus, I do not understand what it contributes. Correa's opposition to neoliberalism is clearly established in the section on his candidacy. The sentence is redundant. 172 | Talk 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
172, the material you have deleted once again is neither "vauge" nor "redudant." I don't know why you are so upset by this particular sentence, but it seems to me that it can only come from some sort of POV issues on your part. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to bring up POV issues, you could add that you are being monitored by an administrator, Will Babek, for adding LaRouche movement concepts and sources to articles against multiple rulings of the arbitration committee. The sentence is vague because it can mean anything from defaulting to withdrawing membership in the IMF. States can remain members of the IMF after defaulting on debt. Has Correa threatened to end Ecuador's membership in the IMF? I don't think you can answer the question. 172 | Talk 00:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask me to explain what goes on inside Will Beback's mind. He thinks that Henry Charles Carey, who died in 1879, was a LaRouche agent. He wasn't, and neither is Rafael Correa. --HonourableSchoolboy 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
H. don't fall into the same errors of logic as the other LaRouche accounts, like HK. Saying that Larouche and his supporters are proponents of the American System, Carey, List, et al., is not the same as saying that Carey is a LaRouche's agent. -Will Beback · † · 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I happen to think that Carey is a notable critic of Free Trade. Apparently, so does LaRouche. However, that does not make me a "LaRouche account." To jump to that conclusion would be an "error of logic," and a personal attack as well. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder if my edits are being reverted here just becuase I have spoken out in favor of the ArbCom's recognition that LaRouche sources are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. HonourableSchoolboy's last edit summary "revert impermissable guessing about 'what sources really meant'" [1] is nonsense. Both the AP and Bloomberg articles refer to treats of default as well. This is more specific, and not my speculation. Frankly, I think HonourableSchoolboy objects to replacing generalizations with more specific detail just to make a point. 172 | Talk 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any call for the personal attacks, given that even a cursory glance shows and an in depth reading proves that neither sources are LaRouche publications, that the administrator himself has not stepped into the matter (probably having no cause), and that the single statement that's causing both an edit war and a flame war on this page, while vague and missing context is not POV. The Correa administration itself has been vague on what his campaign promise to "break ties" was, and news sources are now commenting that this is probably due to the focus on more pressing issues, namely the constitutional convention. The matter of specific documented statements on the IMF is fairly treated in the article, though the matter of "breaking ties" could be better sourced with an actual quote to shed some light on the matter, or at least be more appropriate for citations than the passed-around wire service reports. As for the Washington Consensus matter, the article in question quotes (and accurately translates) the inaugural speech of Correa. The original statement can be seen here, first paragraph under the heading "Eje III Revolución Económica." As for contextualizing the quote, it would probably be best found in a section on the inauguration itself.The One True Fred 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debt Restructuring / Kirchner comparison

I don't think this a a big deal, particularly now that it has been abbreviated. But on the interest of clarity it should be deleted. Argentina defaulted on its debt because inability to pay. That happened under the brief administration of Rodriguez Saa. Kirchner restructured the already defaulted debt because simply there wasn't any alternative. Analysts dispute the extent of the "cut" but not the fact that there was no ability on the part of Argentina to service its debt. Ecuador has been servicing its debt. Actually the Correa administration plans at the moment to pay its next instalment and has the ability to do so. Please refer to this link that has a good summary of the situation. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=auh_v1xZ0bmg. I will delete the reference once again for now. If you still think it's notable then a caveat that there is conflicting opinion on how different these two situations were will have to be introduce.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/f/Talk%7ERafael_Correa_20e3.html"