Talk:Rafael Correa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ecuador This article is part of WikiProject Ecuador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] October 2006 dispute

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)


[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... —Preceding unsigned comment 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.

[edit] Presidency Changes

Recently a large part of the presidency article was deleted because the information contained was described as being "Lyndon LaRouche propaganda". It's possible that some of the article may fit that description, however, in my opinion, the discussion on the referendum and the political turmoil it caused (and is causing) in Ecuador seems to be a fairly factual representation of what's going on (and thus I replaced it). I think this part of the article is important for two main reasons. 1. In the past conflicts between the different branches of government in Ecuador have lead to the president being removed from office, and thus I think it is important to record these conflicts. 2. This referendum is the number one concern of the president right now, and his actions for the rest of the term may very well be dictated by it, and thus I think it is appropriate to describe the history of the referendum in some detail.

I'd appreciate any feedback or comments (or revisions that remove what is not factual in that part of the article). Sjmcfarland 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with the Press deletions and reversions

I have requested full protection for this page, in view of the repeated deletions and reversions made by WGee. As I have explained in one of my editings, the issue of the relationship with the press is a key one in the communication policies of Rafael Correa. It belongs to this article. It is also properly sourced. 24.215.143.247 | Talk 12:12, May 21 2007 (UTC)


i rule! from:SAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.251.43 (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== As asked / Relationship with the Press

I was asked to take this to the talk page. In any case, we currently have a single purpose account who has taken it upon himself to enter Wikipedia and start removing controversial content en masse (in this case: [2]). Thus, I have reverted the edits. We cannot simply remove large sections of sourced material without an explanation on the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to assume good faith by calling me a "single purpose account." My motivation is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and thus a more reliable source of balanced facts. That being said, I am working to improve Wikipedia by removing a totally one-sided and unencyclopedic section. The section details a number of very harsh statements by the president of Ecuador without offering the context behind his reasoning and explaining his side of the story. Worse, the section only includes the talking points of the opposition, which represents a small minority in a country where President Correa is very popular. Per Wikipedia's strict 'living persons' and 'neutral point of view' guidelines, the onus is on the original writers to make the material balanced and neutral before the content is re-uploaded in the article. The Noosphere (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Noosphere, your mass deletion of whole sections of the article that are very well documented and sourced is not warranted. Nowhere in the deleted sections your assertion that Correa is very popular is contradicted. If you have information relating to the sections (press relations and conservancy) that is contradictory, please feel free to add and source. Bakersville (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the material is sourced. The issue is that the material is systematically biased. Can you honestly, in good faith, tell me that the section is not slanted systematically in a way to make him look bad? Can you seriously assert his supporters quoted or given serious consideration in the section in compliance with Wikipedia neutrality policies? No, the section is loaded with talking points from the opposition, without offering counter-criticisms from his supporters. The Noosphere (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The section is factual. If you want to add to it Correa's supporters vision of the press as an instrument of Ecuador's oligarqui, find sources, quote them and add them; and stop vandalizing this page Bakersville (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be neutral and follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well. The section violates policy, and must either be removed or re-rewritten. Allowing the biased polemic to stand is unacceptable. The Noosphere (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the section violates NOPV. It presents Correa's position like in "Correa has stated that the Ecuadorian press is "a group of wild beasts" "...mediocre, incompetent, inaccurate, lying and is a part of the structure of corruption and accomplice of the national disaster" (its a view held by many in Ecuador), facts (lawsuit against a newspaper editor) and the position of relevant international press organizations. Mass deletion is not warranted. If you have an issue with a sentence, a fact, wording etc., take it to talk and we work on it. Bakersville (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bond 'Scandal'

I removed the claim that "some of the Ecuadorian government rhetoric might have been part of an alleged market manipulation" as the articles cited (Bloomberg's May 2007 "Ecuador Prosecutors Probe Patino" and El Universo's May 2007 "Una parte no revelada del video senala a venezolanos") speak of no such conspiracy and only mention vague allegations. If the user that posted these claims is the same that posted the UFO claims (seems to use the same strategy and the same sources), I would suggest that this user be banned from editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.171.213 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This claim, like the UFO claim, was rehashed by a vandal without justification or legitimate evidence. I strongly urge a mod to ban the vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.222 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This claim was reposted by Bakersville - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bakersville. Again, I ask that he is banned from editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.222 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is well sourced. It has been discussed in the WSJ, The Economist,Bloomberg,Reuters. The language is neutral and NPOV. Bakersville (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you believe it to be well sourced, then source it with an article that actually talks about the claims you are making. Do not insert tangentially related citations to make your claims seem authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.201.138 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the references. Bakersville (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I read both references. Neither of them make the claims you do, as I stated when I originally deleted your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.171.200 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO nonsense

I removed the claim that Correa stated he wanted to meet with UFO enthusiasts as the claim was unfounded. The June 2007 El Universo article cited, "Correa pide desclasificar informe ovni," made no such claim - this is apparent from reading the even just the title. I suggest whoever posted such claims receive a ban slap for vandalizing and fabricating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.171.213 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was reposted without explanation, so I deleted it again. I strongly urge a mod to ban the vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.222 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This claim was reposted by Bakersville - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bakersville. Again, I ask that he is banned from editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.222 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For those that read Spanish the Universo article says el Presidente de la República autorizó al Ministerio de Defensa y a las tres ramas de las FF.AA. que le entreguen cualquier información que pueda existir en archivo sobre ovnis, para lo cual deberá acercarse a esas oficinas". I think that the sentence in the Correa article captures this. There are many other personalities that have UFO references in their pages, see kucinich among others. Also I will appreciate if you stop threats as I am editing this in good faith. Bakersville (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage all to read the el universo article (link) or its english translation (link).

Nowhere in the article does el universo claim that Correa "has indicated his intention to cooperate with UFO enthusiasts in the investigation of two UFO related incidents in Ecuador." If you want to write something that could use evidence from the el universo article - for example, that Cardenas signed a decree dealing with the MoD and the FFAA, feel free. Otherwise, find another source. I am deleting you post once more. Further, I never made any 'threats'. I asked that you be banned from editing this page and will continue to do so. I've looked over your edits on the page, and I am having a difficult time believing you are editing "in good faith." Your edits are systematically characterized by a lack of in-depth analysis and intellectual laziness (or, perhaps, fabrication). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.201.138 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the big fuss on the UFO article. The title itself says "Correa ask to declassify OVNI report". Then in Spanish: "“el Presidente de la República autorizó al Ministerio de Defensa y a las tres ramas de las FF.AA. que le entreguen cualquier información que pueda existir en archivo sobre ovnis, para lo cual deberá acercarse a esas oficinas”. He is cooperating to shed some light into the UFO incidents. Regarding the bonds, if you read the Bloomberg article, it is very clear that they are alleging market manipulation. This was all over the press, I believe that the two sources are reputable and accurate. I don't see the need to oversourced it. Of course you are entitled to think otherwise, but I believe that my edits in Wikipedia are sourced and NPOV, I contribute to other pages and interst raging from Latin America politics to African music. On the other hand the blanking seem to be coming from a single purpose account. Bakersville (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, there is no hard evidence in the article you cited that could bolster your claim that Correa intends "to cooperate with UFO enthusiasts." There is no quote from him or any other officials on the matter. The actions of some government officials may be _interpreted_ as his intention to cooperate with UFO enthusiasts, but stating it as fact breaks NPOV. On the issue of the bonds, the Bloomberg article you cite makes no reference to "Ecuadorian government rhetoric" and makes no effort to tie Correa to the scandal - the only reference to Correa is his quote at the end of the article stating that Patino is "one of the most honest, patriotic men in the country." Furthermore, the Bloomberg article was published before the matter was settled. Furthermore, you write, "[t]his strategy collapsed," yet provide no evidence that this was, indeed, some conspiracy. Then, you argue why 'it' collapsed, without any evidence backing your claims. I have asked for a third opinion, and I ask you to refrain from again removing the disputed tag until the matter is settled. Riselikehelium (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not about indicting Correa in a court of law. It is about a scandal that occurred during Correa's administration that put into question his rhetoric on Ecuador's sovereign debt. It is factual and well sourced. I added The Economist article for further sourcing. Bakersville (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

One of this encyclopedia's core content policies, Wikipedia:No original research, applies here:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.   [Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]
"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."   [underlining added]

In the discussion above, it is apparent that the disputed content manipulated what the sources said in order to form a conclusion which the sources themselves did not form. — Athaenara ✉ 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Athaenara. If anyone would like to dispute the third opinion, I suggest throwing up a post on the Wikipedia:BLPN noticeboard. Riselikehelium (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, the June 27, 2007 El Universo article ("Correa pide desclasificar informe ovni" - google translation "Correa calls declassified report UFO") is about the declassification of military documents, not user Bakersville's "cooperation with UFO enthusiasts" synthesis. — Athaenara ✉ 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am open to delete the UFO paragraph. It is not defining of Correa's presidency. However I believe that the Bond Scandal is well sourced. I am open to suggestions on how to rewrite the bond paragraph, but I believe that deleting it is unwarranted. The Economist article says "In his campaign Mr Correa promised to divert money from debt payments to social programmes. In February the finance minister, Ricardo Patiño, said he might delay a $135m interest payment—only to make it promptly. This led to wild swings in the value of Ecuador's bonds and of derivatives linked to them, and raised suspicions of deliberate market manipulation." I fail to see how The Economist article (and the other 2) do not support the deleted paragraph.Bakersville (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the claims much more legitimate with the addition of the Economist article. Do you find my re-writing of the section suitable? Riselikehelium (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that after the inclusion of The Economist article, we are closer to resolve this issue. Regarding the new edit I have the following comments:Riselikehelium writes "In May 2007, allegations surfaced that statements of some in Correa's administration may have been crafted to benefit Ecuador from movements in the price of financial instruments linked to Ecuadorian Bonds." 1. Correa himself made comments on that regard in repeated occassions, that was the position of the Ecuadorean government, not just "some". 2. Ecuador as a country wasn't benefiting from the manipulation, but according to the accusations, a Venezuelan fund. It wasn't just a buyback trick, as the Economist article points out "A former finance minister who also appears in the video later claimed that Venezuela's government, which sympathizes with Mr Correa, held $2.5 billion in Ecuadorean paper, and stood to gain from the payment." I will rewrite a new paragraph and add sourced information on Patiño moving out of the Finance Ministry as a consequence. Bakersville (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have one remaining objection. I believe the first sentence must be quantified in the way that I edited it so as to make sure there is no suggestion that the allegations implicated Correa himself in talking about defaults so as to manipulate the market. Riselikehelium (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Correa himself talk about the default in many opportunities. Then his Minister was caught on videotape discussing the use of the rethoric to bring down the prices. So there is no question that Correa was involved in the rethoric; it may be not be completly certain that he knew about the manipulation (though it may take a lot of ingenuity to assert that). I will try to change the paragraph to reflect this reasoning. Hopefuly bringing this back and forth on the editing to an end. Bakersville (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC). I added Correa's defense on the video scandal with source. Riselikehelium, if you find another sourced Correa's quote on this issue please feel free to add. Bakersville (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy moly, this guy is a real winner!

This reads like a really bad soap opera script. Unbelievable, and gets worse all the time. Unfortunately, it appears to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.231.146.244 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)