Jump to content

Talk:Ecuador/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Can someone write something about Ecuadorian volleyball which I think is more of a community occasion than US volleyball... See Kennington Park in London... Szczels 18:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. The name of such an article should be Ecuavolley or Ecuaboli or Ecuavoli some such plus redirects, as that is how it is termed in Ecuador. None of these currently exist. Mona-Lynn 21:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added Ecuavolley to the list of variants under the Volleyball article. Seitz 03:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


The right name's JAMIL MAHUAD and he was responsible of the biggest and worst economical crisis of our country, a corrupt politician who robbed millions of USD together with his "friends", ledding our country into an even deeper status of poverty. He lives covered by a nice and confortable "Political Refugee" agreement in Costa Rica.

It is my understanding that Mahuad lives confortably in the USA.

The same could be said of any recent president.

the CIA had Jamil Mahuad's name spelled two different ways, popular opinion is it's "Mahuad" (11,300 vs. 307 pages in google). I hope Mr. Mahuad or Mahaud agrees.

Reference moved from article page. olivier 12:05, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article contains information from the CIA World Factbook 2000 and the U.S. Department of State website.

Motto

The national motto of Ecuador, Libertad y Orden is translated as The peace and wellbeing, the glory and triumph. But doesn't Libertad y Orden mean Freedom and Order or something to that extent? Or does Ecuador have another motto and is the translation correct? Aecis 13:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The motto of Ecuador is "El Ecuador ha sido, es, y será país amazónico." (Ecuador has been, is, and will be a country of the Amazon.) I'm not sure if that was changed after relatively recent resolution of territorial issues with Peru.

It is Dios, patria y libertad. on Spanish Wiki: w:es:Ecuador Meteor2017 11:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons pictures

Hi,

I've uploaded a few photos taken by Mazbln to the Wikimedia Commons. Take a look: Commons:Category:Ecuador -- I would appreciate it if someone could go through them and add relevant ones to this and other articles.--Eloquence* 04:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Map

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map of Ecuador Map of Ecuador

The lower one would, of course, be reduced, but could be clicked to enlarge it. Kelisi 03:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map of Ecuador

I prefer the lower Kelisi version, --SqueakBox 03:21, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

sport and culture?

I think the culture heading should be changed to culture and sport

Then the main national sports of Ecuador could be listed (soccer and volleyball?) Szczels 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

needs more information

Such as information on points of interest, the conflict with Perú, geography, etc.

Confict with Perú: here

dollar?

Why did Ecuador start using the dollar? Is it true? --Revolución (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. On January 17th, 2000, Dr. Jamil Mahuad, then President of Ecuador, announced a banking holiday and that Ecuador would assume the US dollar as its currency. The exchange rate was pegged at 25,000 Ecuadorian sucres per 1 USD. All deposits in savings accounts above $500 had 50% frozen for one year. The Ecuadorian Central Bank ceased producing Sucres and all commercial banks in the country began cashing all cheques, paying withdrawals in USD at the fixed exchange rate. All Sucres that were deposited were then deposited into the Central Bank at the fixed exchange rate and then destroyed. The Central Bank concentrated on importing bills and coins from the US.

As to why, it's because the sucre was very unstable. Basically they just threw their hands in the air, adopted a more stable currency and let someone else handle monetary policy. It was a good idea too. Inflation is probably close to an all-time low. Most of the arguments against it in Ecuador are purely based on nationalism. Neurodivergent 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Inflation is probably close to an all-time low. Unfortunately, it is not (at least the locals say so). The prices of everything are still raising while salaries remain the same.
Most of the arguments against it in Ecuador are purely based on nationalism. No, they're not. True, inflation is lower (I remember when I went there once and paid with 100 sucres coins, then the next year I had to use 1000 sucres coins, etc.) but in general the life has been tougher for the greatest part of the population since the US dollar was made the national currency.
By the way, they're called dollars but wouldn't be accepted in the US. The bills are the same, as well as the $1 coin, but the other coins are completely different. Real USD are accepted anywhere in the country though. It is common to pay with both currencies mixed. Fgabolde 18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

English Names of Countries

If the English form of España is Spain, and Spain is used widely by English speakers, why isn't "Equator" used as the name of Ecuador by English speakers? --Shultz 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is true of all countries in Latin America, right?. European countries do tend to have different names in English. Neurodivergent 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The issue has also to do with the fact that the word "Equator" refers to the imaginary line. In Spanish, "Ecuador" is not the name of the imaginary line. The imaginary line is called "línea Ecuatorial" or "línea Equinoccial" in Spanish. Thus, using the term "Equator" to refer to the country is actually a mistake.--192.188.59.3 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ecuador

What is the main language of Ecuador

Spanish. Quishua is spoken, mainly in the Sierra, but in the cities, you will mostly hear Spanish. I believe such questions would be best answered in the corresponding article, however. Fgabolde 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Archipelago de Colón?

I speak Spanish, and I've always claled the Galapagos Islands "islas Galápagos". I've never heard "Archipelago de Colón".

The province of Ecuador is called Islas Galápagos: the geographical entity is, in Spanish, called by either that name or Archipelago de Colón (although I've always thought that Archipelago de Darwin would have been more appropriate) Kevin McE 11:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Statistic Corrected

Jehovah's Witnesses do not count membership according to the number in attendance at the yearly Memorial. They count membership according to active publishers (although, technically only the publishers who are baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses are actually members). I am correcting the statistic to use current 2005 data from Watchtower February 1, 2006 issue, which showed average publishers as 50,843. I also removed the POV qualifier "rapidly" from the context. Respectfully, --Evident 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How big is Ecuador?

I am totally confused about the size of Ecuador: The written text tells me 272,045km², the table shows only 199,235km² and the comparison listing in 1E11m²shows a size of 283,560 km² So who can help me in finding the correct size? A confused teacher, Brigitte

You're right that the numbers are conflicting. The one I'm finding is most cited is 256,370 km². The CIA factbook says 283,560 km² total, with 276,840 sq km in land. The Ecuadoring Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites the 256,370 figure [1], as does the Ministry of Tourism [2]. I'd go with what the government of Ecuador says. Neurodivergent 18:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecuadorians living in Australia

Hi,

I am a Year 7 student (12 years old) in Melbourne, Australia. I need to know, as part of a Geography assignmnet, if there are any Ecuadorians living in Melbourne or Sydney. I am sure there must be many. I also need to know what their lives as migrants to Australian are like, how they keep in touch with other Ecuadorians in both Australia and Ecuadore. If any one has any iinformation or ideas I would be very grateful. 

              Hi, I am also wanting to know the same question. I am living in Australia and i would also like to know the same question.

Signed: Madmatt2314

the country ecuador is a place where toyurist love to visit because of the galapagos islands

Demographics of Ecuador

I have a question for ecuadorians here: Ive been watching the world cup in Germany and I really loved the Ecuador team. Well, I came here to learn more about the country and I found it weird to find out that blacks are just a very small minority, when the national team is almost completely made out of blacks. I found that strange, so I ask you are they really that few, or do they do like in other latin american countries and declare themselves metistzos, not black? I'd appreciate an answer and good luck with england, hope you'll beat them... Dizzee ignorant 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As an Ecuadorean I can tell you that Mestizos is a huge percentage of the country, we are talking above 90%, then you have african-americans (no idea if that term applies outside the US) and caucasians. By no means is the country split up in the same way the soccer team is, I imagine its something like sports in the US where african-americas clearly dominate almost every sport yet they are only a small percetange of the population. In Ecuador there are two regions that are mostly comprised by black people, one is Esmeraldas, and the other is the Chota valley, I think as many as 6 of the national team players came from Chota.

Archive 1Archive 2

Waves of vandalism

Why is Ecuador being vandalized like this? Does anyone know? 68.17.237.177 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea. The protection template needs to last longer. Digirami (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I just had to change the ethnicity percentages. White people are only a very small minority in Ecuador, and someone keeps changing it by making whites a higher percentage. It's silly. Someone must be getting a laugh out this. Jonie 15 August 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.101.144 (talk)
Just undid edits by: 137.140.38.160 due to vandalism. Wintonian (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add Jaime Valencia to the list of artist on the main page

Jaime Valencia is a well known painter - indigenous movement. He should be added to the main page as a indigenous movement painter. He has won numerous national awards for his artwork and even sculpted the facade of the Casa de Cultura.

Thank you for your consideration.

-Banchis13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banchis13 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Poverty in Ecuador

The population under poverty line 38%, not 50 (half) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.106.35 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

it was over 58% in 1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.19.119 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Nader reference on Ecuador

Copying discussion from User_talk:Blupper92

I think Blupper92's point is that just because it was decided that Nader was not notable enough to justify a separate article, it doesn't mean he can't be mentioned in an article. I am not siding one way or the other on the entry in this article, but I do agree that the deletion discussion cited above is distinct from the issue of the relevance of the disputed material here. For instance, somebody famous has an article, which includes details of his early life, including his parents. His parents may not be notable enough to justify a separate article on each, but that doesn't mean they can't be mentioned in their son's article. Perhaps the material in dispute in this article should be eliminated (due to relevance, verifiability, sources, etc). But that needs to be a distinct analysis. --anietor (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my whole point was that if the subject is going to be referenced in the Science and technology section it should be first shown that Ronnie Nader has anything to do with any of those subjects. Since there is no reason to believe the guy is neither an astronaut nor a scientist (see the relevant discussion ), I dont see how the subject is relevant to the Science and Technology section. The same goes for the "Ecuadorian Civilian Space agency" reference. Then there's the "World Record" mention, which I also think is irrelevant for the Science/Technology section. All of this should be discussed of course. Thanks. --Hilbert137 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fellow contributor User:Hilbert137 implies on deleting a paragraph that is not about Ronnie Nader, which i have neither justified, nor supported. The paragraph the section signals is Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency not Ronnie Nader.

Copying discussion from User_talk:Anietor

I think Blupper92's point is that just because it was decided that Nader was not notable enough to justify a separate article, it doesn't mean he can't be mentioned in an article.

You should not place a comment thinking for me, that disvalidates the neutrality of an argument, especially when it clearly doesn't claim my argument.--Blupper92 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Hilbert. I now see that the disputed content is broader in scope than just the reference to Nader. I agree that we should probably scrutinize the reliability of the other information, including the Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency (which has its own wikipedia article). Information on this organization seems rather thin. --anietor (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Would the user who keeps deleting the etymology section please explain why exactly they keep removing it? Other articles have it and is an important part of country articles in order to better explain the meaning of the country's name.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated twice in editnotes, I've removed the duplication of information that is in the lead paragraph, where it has been found for at least 4 years. The new paragraph adds nothing, except an expectation that the reader does not know what the equator is, in which case a link is available for them. If the derivation of another country's name is more complex or disputed, an extended discussion may be necessary: it is not the case here. The article is about the country, not its name, and countries do not have etymologies, words do. The section in question is inconcise, unencyclopaedic, patronising, and poor English. Kevin McE (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Countries do not have etymologies? How about the United States, Bolivia, Peru, Japan, Italy, and Brazil (Among others)? There's not even a sentence dedicated to the etymology of the country's name, just random pieces of information. The etymology section is there to focus on the name of the country and nothing more, and it doesn't take up much space either (which makes the claim "the article is about the country, not its name" completely ridiculous). Moreover, what kind of super-natural or god-given ability gives you the right to decide what is complex and what is not? If you think the section has poor English, improve it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Countries do not have etymologies: that is a fact. Look up the word "etymology" in a dictionary if you do not understand what I mean. Information is included in sentences: that it can be dealt with in a clause of a sentence that encompasses other things is testament to the simplicity of the name of the country. As to your arrogant accusation, I would point out that you are the one trying to add a section that no-one has considered necessary for more than 4 years, at least, while the etymology of the country's name has been addressed to the satisfaction of all who have passed here. Kevin McE (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the fact that other country articles have a specific section dedicated to the name of the country (which is directly linked through the website's search engine in "Name of [Insert Country Here]") demonstrates that it is important. Who is "no-one"? Once again, what kind of super-natural or god-given ability gives you the right to decide whether a person has been satisfied or not with what they have seen in this article? Obviously, if I am a person simply looking for the name of a country, I would do such a thing as look for Name of the United States or Name of Peru. I wouldn't want to "look for" the response to my inquiry inside the introduction. By the way, if you think I'm being arrogant, I apologize because that is not my intention.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if you don't want to appear arrogant, you don't go about accusing editors of assuming a God given right, when all their edits have been explained, and are consistent with the practice on this article for many years. Please clarify what useful information about the country is included in the paragraph that you wish to add that is missing from the text previously present, because I cannot see it as adding anything of value. Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't own the article. I already explained the purpose of the etymology section, and if you consider it to have bad grammar then (as I also have already mentioned) you should improve it. What practice? This article is not some sort of dynasty and Wikipedia does not keep traditions (if that is what you mean). And, once more, I'm not trying to be arrogant; arrogance comes from those who consider that they hold the ability to decide "what is black and what is white" (And, by reading the discussion, it has not been me the one making those rulings). The section could be more valuable if other contributors could provide their knowledge about the name "Ecuador" (Such as who came up with it, where was it first officially named, etc.), but by simply deleting the material the possibility for such a thing to happen is largely minimized.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You have been invited to clarify what additional information about Ecuador is conveyed in the new paragraph. You failed to identify any. I certainly cannot see any, so I am deleting it as repetition. If you have new, sourced, well written material, by all means add it; until then, in the interests of what is concise and relevant, the lead paragraph deals perfectly adequately with the name. Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you two clearly aren't going to come to any sort of agreement, I'm going to give my two cents and side with Kevin. The etymology paragraph is not needed. It spends five sentences wordily expounding on the simple fact that the country is named for its location on the equator, which is already efficiently expressed in the first paragraph of the article. There is no need to explain what the equator is... that's what wiki links are for. If there were some historical information about how the name was given or by whom, an etymology section might be justified. For now, please leave the section out.Craig Butz (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oil revenues reduce poverty in Ecuador

"Higher oil prices at the beginning of the 21st century allowed the Ecuadorian economy to recover, which has reduced poverty substantially since then." This line within the Economy section of the article requires a citation. There is nothing to show that oil revenues within Ecuador have "reduced poverty substantially" since the beginning of the 21st century, or at all for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.57.234 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC) One way that oil revenues reduced poverty was through the creation of COFIEC (Compania Financiera Ecuatoriana). A finance company founded by Dr Jose Antoñio Correa to reinvest and diversify oil revenues in other economic sectors. This was not a non profit or NGO but did contribute significantly to the diversification of Ecuador's economy and non dependance on one source of ingress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surgicus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

cleanup tag (Feb 2010)

This article has several issues with it including but not limited to:

  • The phrasing of the words within the article (it is clear a non-native English speaker wrote it)
  • External links within the body of the article
  • Bad wikilinks
  • MOS issues in general
  • Persistent vandalism (vandalism is staying in article for days at a time, article needs to be thoroughly checked)

and more...please let me know if you need more issues on my talk. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I suggested at his talk page that he do something about it, but he shows no indication to do so, so I'll remove the tag: no-one else has raised concerns. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article has serious issues? Do I need to provide diffs? That's the point of tagging the article! So someone will fix it! I'm sorry I'm busy and don't usually edit here. Why can't you fix the issues? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So what are these bad wikilinks, and uncorrected vandalism? The article was not written by a single editor, so your first issue makes little sense. If you can't provide examples (or better still, address the issues that you believe to be so pressing) then your tag deserves little attention. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know if there is uncorrected vandalism. However, looking at the article's history, I see times that vandalism has stayed on the page for a long time. Someone who knows about Ecuador should either look through the history to check for unresolved vandalism, or look through the article. With the first issue, I meant a major editor to the article (I know about editing wikis). Have you even read the article?! The issues are very obvious. I am no expert on Ecuador, and cannot decipher what is good and what is bad in this article, that's why I tagged it (that's what tags are for you know). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
We can see how good the tag is by the large number of editors who have been ny to improve it since you placed the tag. Kevin McE (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Surface

Please correct, the surface of Ecuador is 256.360 Km2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.42.15.33 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo overload

This article is beginning to more closely resemble a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedia. I reckon that at least half of the pictures should be culled, and half of the remainder reduced in size, but when I tried to be bold and do so, it was reverted with no explanation. Some sections are appallingly unbalanced at the moment, action needs to be taken: which photos are useful for illustrating the article? Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What good is two pictures when one is suffice. Digirami (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Same ISP trying the same trick today. Kevin McE (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proportionality in the sports section

(before we start getting into 3rr territory) I hadn't noticed that the earlier reference to Olympic sports had disappeared, and a rementioning of Pérez' medals is appropriate. But if we are going to mention his non-medal Olympic acheivements, should we not be mentioning everyone else's? And I do not believe that other awards given to him are relevant this article, although they should of course be at his own article. Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HDI incorrect

The HDI is incorrect in the intro section (should be 0.695, high). See tables for the HDI index. {{Edit semi-protected}} Nitraat (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Fixed, and also moved over the reference that was in the infobox. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Significantly Ecuador offers asylum to Wikileaks

Ecuador offers political asylum to Julian Assange (wikileaks) after Interpol issues warrant for his arrest, December 1, 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/interpol-issues-global-arrest-warrant-for-julian-assange-20101201-18fw7.html?from=smh_sb

Let's include this in the first paragraph.

Stringfoto (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely disagree. That's a trivial statement that has little to do with the country as a whole, it's history, it's people, etc. It might be interesting now, but probably won't be memorable in a week or two (unless, of course, he takes the offer). Even if it were included, it certainly wouldn't belong in the lead, which should summarize the main points about the country only. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the Lit section there is a picture of Juan Montalvo. The decription is "Juan Montalvo, Ambato" with a link to his page as well as a link to Ambato. HOWEVER, the link to Ambato leads to a disambig page instead of directly to the article for that city. Please correct! Thanks. Joshualatos (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in Ecuador

According to the CIA profile, whites only account for 7% of the population NOT 16%. I have changed it, I hope it stays that way. - Rocco, 5:30 30 June 09.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/EC.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.102.185 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been to Ecuador and I have first hand experience that white people are rather hard to find, it is either indigenous or mestizos. I have changed the percentages as well, given the CIA link is a legitimate source and current. Jimbi 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.101.144 (talk)

As Rocco says, the World Factbook gives

mestizo (mixed Amerindian and white) 65%, Amerindian 25%, Spanish and others 7%, black 3%

and those are the values I'm reverting it to. (Yes, it was changed again.) Anyone wanting different figures needs to provide a reference. -- Thinking of England (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ecuadorians don't like to be associated with indegenous or mestizos, somewhat ironic considering they make up 90% of the population (65% Mestizos and 25% Indigenous), so how does the 16% of whites come into it?. Give it up 'cholos', 90% whether you like it or not. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ec.html 60.234.105.112 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A "first hand experience" is not enough to write an article about any country, its difficult to understand from outside because most of european countries have more or less the same etnic origins or population, but this is a different case because in a multicultural country like Ecuador you can find different mixes, dependig wich zone you are for example at central mountains (andes) obviously you will find more indigenous mixing because this area was populated by many of them, if you go to coast cities as Guayaquil, some areas of Manabi, or Cuenca at south you will find more white mixing, at many degrees as well, dependig wich zone, if you go to esmeraldas at northern coast you will find an 80 % black people, if you go to the amazonia you will find different people inclusive many exotic indigenous living in their natural state, isit difficult explain the infinite mixings you can find inside this small country, personally i find it and interesting natural experiment all this different people living togheter when at many developed countries is difficult even with modern laws accept and live between different kind of people, i hope my idea can be understood and sorry about my english :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.197.120 (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the population of Ecuador is mixed race as the World Factbook shows. However, the CIA WorldFactbook is generally considered to be a poor and inaccurate source (though far better than unsourced numbers or guesses). All of my professors in undergraduate and graduate school list the WorldFactbook as source #2 that may never, ever be used in a paper due to inaccuracy...Wikipedia is of course #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.221.202 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about 1960s Social Unrest

The main article says that the 1960s were a time of military intervention. Maybe this could be explained a little bit better. Were there wildcat strikes that required military intervention so buildings were kept secure? I am guessing that import/export problems reared their ugly head at a time like this. Was the military called upon to prevent dockworkers from causing problems with boats? Were railroads being sabotaged? What was the name of the general that authorized the intervention? 216.99.201.76 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


For a further picture, and a clear view read José María Velasco Ibarra, and Philip Agee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.135.51 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dollarization in Ecuador

About dollarization in Ecuador, was dollarization good or bad for Ecuador?Agre22 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

From what I've studied, a bit of both. Digirami (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The Ecuadorian currency is not pegged to the USD, it IS the USD. Most other South American countries had their currency pegged or "pegged" to the USD, but Ecuador is something of an exception. Despite the loss of seigneurrage, it must be well enough to stay there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.30.208 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
For the immediate time at which it was approved, dollarization was a positive, most economist agree on this, however as a long term, which is the negative, dollarization is said that decreased industrialization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.135.51 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

History

I'm ecuadorian, and son to an historian / archaeologist. I have been studying my country's history since 1998. First of all, it should be mentioned that Valdivia pottery is the most ancient in all Americas. And that merchant-sailors from the Manta culture travelled as far away as Mexico and Chile, stablishing one of the longest trade routes in the ancient world. Finally, a lot of modern days vegetables where first domesticated in the region including Ecuador, south Colombia and northern Peru, including beans, peppers, pumpkins, papayas, pineapples, and others.

Second, modern history has concluded that there was never a "confederation called the Shyris". The Shyris were created by an imaginative colonial priest, and there is no historical or archaeological record to sustain his tale. Please refer to the work of modern historians like Enrique Ayala Mora.

As for the Incas, they never took control of the whole country. They stablished themselves in the southern and central highlands of Ecuador, maintained a continous war in the north (when spaniards arrived, the caranqui-cayambis still had control of a lot of the region), made agreements with the powerful merchant cultures of the coast, and tried without luck to get a foothold in the amazon. In the north, Incas presence was of 50 years only.

Finally, a bether description of modern day politics is needed. Ecuador has one of the strongest indigenous and farmers movements in the americas, but they are not the only reason for the fall of 3 presidents in the last years. There is high degree of political and democratic consciousness in the population, with the 2008 constitution as one of the products of it. A brief description of the problem by an expert on the subject could help a lot.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Carrera (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The confederation of the shyris is still under dispute. The most important archeological proves which were inexistent before like the existence of the quitu was not found until recently, therefore it's still under dispute.

As for the incas, within the paragraph i think to the benefit of your argument, it says the incas gained expansion loosely. More like city states, and not conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.135.51 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting up auto-archiving

I have added automatic archiving to this talk page. Currently, it is set to move all threads older than 90 days to an archive page which will remain linked here. This allows people who want to look back to old conversations to be able to easily find them without having to go through the history, while still keeping this page focused only on current discussions. If anyone doesn't want archiving on, let me know and I can undo it, although it's pretty standard practice once talk pages reach a decent length. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Population is wrong.

There was a population Census recently and the results are different from the infobox and the rest of the article, they should be changed. Source is the national census office. http://www.inec.gob.ec/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.30.165 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that that source will we useful in due time, but while a source confesses to being "preliminary data", it confesses to not being confident of reliable data. Kevin McE (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Guayaquil 2´200.000 Quito 1´600.000 Cuenca 330.000 Sto Domingo 300.000 Machala 240.000 Durán 230.000 Portoviejo 220.000 Manta 210.000 Loja 185.000 Ambato 179.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.46.79.223 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to support that info. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

largest cities in Ecuador box (bugzilla:29171)

The edit links for the largest cities in Ecuador box was going to the wrong place. I tried to fix it by making it go directly to the article, I'm not sure if it'd be better if there just was no edit links (and if so, I have no idea how to do that). Anyways, I thought I'd leave a note so that you folks who probably know about such things better then me might be able to sort it out better. Cheers. Bawolff (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Guayaquil 2´280.000, Quito 1´620.000, Cuenca 330.000, Santo Domingo 305.000, Machala 240.000, Portoviejo 225.000, Loja 185.000 and Ambato 179.000 habitants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.42.108.163 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Demonym is spelled three different ways in this article

I hope that an expert can volunteer to edit the article so that the proper demonym is used everywhere. I see Ecuadorean, Ecuadorian, and Ecuadoran - they can't all be right, can they? BrianWilloughby (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: Thanks, Southamerica2010, for the Merrian Webster reference. It seems that all three demonyms are, indeed, correct. BrianWilloughby (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Asamblea Constituyente de Ecuador 2007.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Asamblea Constituyente de Ecuador 2007.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

September 30, 2010 coup d'etat

The section that describes the September 30, 2010 incident does not reflect the majoritary position of a coup d'etat. It reflects a minority position with lots of facts not being mentioned. It is in fact a coup d'etat attemp because many participants wanted to take over the government, especially minority oposition leaders. Many people went to the streets to defend the democratic government. It was a misinformation that it was a salary bussiness even though it was the tool used to uprise the military and the police. http://globalvoices.org/2010/09/30/ecuador-police-strike-denounced-as-attempt-to-destabilize-country/ http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/ecuador http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1927 http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5739

Even though it is an authoritarian government, it has support from most of the population because it oposes the high income 1% of the oligrarchy. Most of the middle class (which are a minority) support the oligarchy. That is the reason for the misinformation. The currently stated facts on that part of the article have no verifiable sources. Quiliro (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those sources that you provided don't meet WP:RS, so can't be used in the article. The only one that may be okay is Human Rights Watch, but I think they still fall under a partisan source (I'd have to check at RSN to be sure). Do you have any other sources (newspapers, news website, etc.) that would support that position? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Shyri existence not supported by modern history studies

This is a long and old debate in Ecuador. 18th century priest Padre Velasco invented the story of a big Shyri confederation, that no sources before him ever mention. 20th century official history supported the tale as real, as part of nationalistic notions taught in schools, until it became common knowledge. But late 20th century historians, based on scientific research, demonstrated that there was never a Shyri confederation or any sort of centralized power of that size in pre - incan Ecuador. There are no conquest or colonial records on it, nor any archaeological data to support the theory.

On the other hand, there is enough data to support a different, more realistic version of political organization during the time of the Inca invasion of the northern ecuadorian highlands. There was a lose alliance of several peoples (Caranqui, Cayambi, Cochasqui and others) that opposed Inca rule near Quito, until the Spanish conquest.

I recommend to research the works of historians of the "Nueva Historia" movement, as Enrique Ayala Mora, and change this part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier Carrera (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong CIA information

According to the last census in my country the ethnic are groups = Mestizo 71.9%
Montubio 7.4%
Afroecuadorian 7.2%
Amerindian 7%
White 6.1%
others 0.4%

http://www.eluniverso.com/2011/09/02/1/1356/poblacion-pais-joven-mestiza-dice-censo-inec.html

It is information from a newpaper, INEC is the a governmental institute which is in charge of the population statistics of Ecuador I can not see why this information is wrong I am pretty sure that us the Ecuadorians know better our country than any other people or institution in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.155.85 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This set of data is unhelpful without the ability to refer the reader to what is meant by montubio. The definition of mestizo offered at its article seems to accommodate the racially descriptive element of the farmer definition proposed a few days ago. Suggest that we combine these figures, showing 79.3% either as mestizo or as mixed race. Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

The transcription looks broad (phonemic) but the brackets suggest it's narrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/ecuador-says-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-is-seeking-asylum-at-its-embassy-in-london/2012/06/19/gJQAOyENoV_story.html Should we add something to the article on Julian Assange? I couldn't find a good place to edit it in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamcoltra (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fine in the Julian Assange article, not here - such transient news don't belong in country overviews. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, they are currently granting him temporary asylum by not just throwing him out on the street. This tells a lot about the country itself. The outcome, either siding with the United States, or standing with free speech will also say a lot about their country and is certainly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamcoltra (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, the news that Assange is seeking asylum in Ecuador is only pertinent to Assange. Embassies take a few days to analyze such requests; this is a standard routine and tells nothing about a country. If Ecuador actually grant him asylum (or some major diplomatic events occurs as a result of this request), then this might be another story. Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I would argue against inclusion here even if asylum is granted. Just because an often overlooked country is featured for something in the Western media for a few days, it does not mean that that thing is of any lasting importance in relation to that country on the whole. Inclusion would be highly disproportionate, recentist, and an imposition of systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the insignificant events of a man's life should be mentioned in an article about a country. Digirami (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This will be one of the few times that Ecuador is in the world's headlines, so the Assange-matter probably warrants an entry which can be amended once it becomes historical. Other country-entries mention people, not just mountain-ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Country articles should mention people who are key to the history of that country, not merely people to whom the country is (or, in this case, might in the future become) important. Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it also shows a stance by the government. It would be essentially making a policy that will have major effects on it's future. You are looking at it from an Assange angle, I am looking at what precident it sets if the country over rides two other nations legal systems.☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it shows a one off response of the government, to one specific request from one specific individual, that will make zero difference to the vast majority of the population of Ecuador, and even less difference to the country's medium to long term history. In the very unlikely event that a granting of asylum results in the application of drastic retribution from the US or the EU (neither Sweden nor the UK make up a notable proportion of Ecuador's trade, so any response from them would be of neglibible impact) that makes some material difference to the country, that might make things different. To suggets that this is "making a policy that will have major effects on it's future" is unsustainable crystal balling, and it would be for those supporting this inclusion to demonstrate that it has any meaningful historical impact. I would argue that I am looking at it from Ecuador's point of view: of course it is a big deal from Assange's POV, but that is not the issue for this article. Correa is dismissive of suggestions that it will have any real effect of intergovernmental relations, and editorials in the Ecuadorian press relate no such fears. Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the country of Ecuador, not it's day-to-day political dealings. Adding Assange to this article is a knee-jerk reaction from pseudo-political people. There's plenty space on the Julian Assange article for stuff like this. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo sizes

Is there some reason not to use standard sizes for all the photos? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Media in Ecuador?

I can't find anything about radio, TV and newspapers in Ecuador in this article. --178.1.31.98 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Ecuador

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Ecuador!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge Regions of Ecuador

I came across the short article Regions of Ecuador, which expands (only slightly) on the four regions described in the Geography section. Can that information be merged into this article? Or are there plans to expands the Regions article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of uncited material

Uncited material that has been challenged, via deletion, can be restored -- but only in accord w/wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the editor does not seem to like the application of WP:BURDEN, I will quote the relevant part here ... noting that I did consider tagging the language in question, but chose under the circumstances to delete it. The editor is free to restore any such deleted information with the appropriate citation, per wp:burden:
"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[1]
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged .... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article....
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.
  1. ^ .... and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
It does not say that "there are better ways to engage with your fellow editors and get citations added where missing."
Just because an editor does not like wp:v, and wishes to enter and retain uncited material in articles, does not mean that the editor's view is an improvement of the Project.
Any editor is free to challenge/delete further material from this article that is not supported by wp:v. There is no deadline. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What nonsense! Lets see the bits you left out ....
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
Your edit summary does not state whether you believe this deleted material is factually incorrect, or misleading, or what? Which is it? The burden to explain that lies with you, not me. It's not good enough to say there is no citation. If you have a challenge, you need to state what that is. Not every piece of of information needs a reference.
So whats your challenge?
BTW, you don't need white space between indented lines. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The ancillary parts you reflect above don't change the point at all. Wholly uncited material was added. It was challenged and deleted. You restored it, without any citation let alone the requisite inline RS ref. That was a clear violation of wp:v.
My edit summary stated: "d uncited per wp:v". I thus stated a concern that it violated wp:v, and by turning to wp:v we understand that to be a concern that "there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." (it is fine to link to the language; we don't have to repeat it in the edit summary if there is an appropriate link to it). The material was wholly uncited.
As to whom the "burden" is on vis-a-vis such material, wp:v states, inter alia, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Since you restored the wholly uncited material, that burden was on you, and you failed to comply with your burden. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You can isolate individual phrases and sentences all you like, but the total meaning of the whole section is not as you pretend. It very pointedly highlights the distress you are causing by not tagging unedited sections and allowing reasonable time for references to be added. Doing so is the mark of someone who is willing to engage with the broader community rather than plough their self-obsessed lonely furrow. This is supposed to be a community project. Editor behaviour is a big issue on WP, and this sort of action is a prime example of the reasons that editors don't stay. You give no rational reason why these paragraphs in particular must go. Go back and look at the article again. After the lede, the next 15 paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. So why did they stay, when you removed the 2 from sport? What was the reason the sport paras were decimated ahead of all the other incited sections? Do you have a reason? Or was it because you happened to be a particularly bad mood that day when you Random Articled into Ecuador? WP:Burden is very clear that when you challenge and delete material you must explan you rationale. And saying that it lacks citations is not a rational explanation. I am challenging you to explain yourself. The community deserves that explanation. Or are you just a law unto yourself? Atlas-maker (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the central issue is that you violated the clear strictures of wp:burden. Please don't do it again. As much as you may like to insert unverified material into the Project, please respect wp:v. Second, there is not of course -- as you know -- any per se requirement that material be tagged before deletion. I often tag material. But I exercise editor discretion as to whether or when I do so, per wp:v. Third, please don't make ad hominem accusations. They are personal attacks. Perhaps personal attacks, and the re-addition of challenged wholly unreferenced material, are the reasons editors don't stay. Fourth, there is not need to review or challenge or delete all material that could be handled in that way all at one time. And editor is doing a perfectly fine job by focusing on the text that he focuses on, and (for the moment, at least) not doing so with other text within the article. There is no urgency for any editor doing so. As was already mentioned to you. Nobody has to explain to Atlas either, btw, why they were focused on one wholly uncited section of the article rather than another. Editors are free to focus one section of an article, and not another, at a point in time. As discussed above, the material was deleted per wp:v; if you can't take the time to click through and see the wp:v criteria, I repeated them to you above. Anyway, I appreciate that while you may be a fan of including in the Project wholly uncited material, you are now presumably on notice that to do so without inline RS refs -- as you did here -- is a direct violation of wp:burden. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • See related discussion at another article here, and related discussion referencing this issue at this article here, and resultant block from edit-warring over this issue at the other article here (followed by a further block of Atlas-maker for block evasion). Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Help fix this sentence

Too tired to do the research to correct this, but in the 3rd paragraph there is this obviously wrong sentence:

In reflection of the country's rich cultural heritage, the historical centers of Quito and Cuenca, the third-largest city, were each declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site was also declared a World Heritage Site in 1999 as an outstanding example of a planned, inland Spanish-style colonial city in the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.44.218 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ecuador. 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 to let others know.

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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

deez nutz is a joke that kids like to say when they are playing or joking around with friends and family as you know kids usally say crazy or stupid but some dude came up with a funnier versoin o crazy or stupid some kids evan say what came in the mail today and then say deez nutz as a joke and funny saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4100:B3AB:9C34:20DB:CE14:5E47 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update ethnic diversity line

This sentence uses racial terms that are obsolete: The legacy of both empires is reflected in Ecuador's ethnically diverse population, with most of its 15.2 million people being mestizos, followed by large minorities of European, Amerindian, and African descendants.

Suggest changing to: The legacy of both empires is reflected in Ecuador's ethnically diverse population, as 15.2 million descendants from European, Amerindian, and African descendants, as well as the recent immigration from countries such as China, Lebanon, and Korea.

4andreschang (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ❤ 00:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Power Outlets

Does the one sentence worth of information about power outlets need to be in the article, let alone in its own section? I want to move it somewhere else, but I'm not sure where. Steele W. FarnsworthTalk 22:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

Fix the link in the sports section. It says xxx (x)|xxx]] it needs [[ at the start Sports Devotee (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecuador/Archive_1&oldid=1029341898"