Talk:Civil unrest forces out Ecuador's president

sorry, i don't have the time to write this up, but if someone needs some sources, here are a few sources from which i recommend integration of material. Boud 23:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/04/1732037_comment.php
 * http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/04/1733998_comment.php
 * http://ecuador.indymedia.org - mostly in spanish, but run by and for people *living* in ecuador

I don't have time to write about it either, but here's one more source. MikeCapone 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1st person account of events in Quito
After closely reading source articles supplied by Boud and MikeCapone, there are no discrepancies between those accounts and the events reported by the anonymous contribution. I believe the article flag should be lifted and the story moved to headline section. This is exactly the seemingly on-site reporting we seek. -Edbrown05 19:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the moment
I've read through the text as it now stands and made a few minor alterations. I believe that its is reasonably well sourced and its content leigitmate now, thus I have removed the dispute tag. However should any furture issues of reliabilty emerge I am willing to undo my actions. → CGorman (Talk)  21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cannot find sources about civil war worries
The article still has several phrases (including the title) about worries about civil war. As far as i understand (from the sources cited) i don't see any evidence of civil war - there were mass protests, a president who earlier had lots of popular support, but lost it, resigned, and parliament and the army decided to go along with the general popular feeling. While what happened was probably not strictly legal in terms of parliamentary politics and the constitution (i'm guessing here), that doesn't make it civil war.

i have to admit that i'm a bit suspicious that someone (or some group) is trying to claim it's a civil war in order to justify a military intervention in order to support a "democracy" in which corporations and banks from the intervening military power get to "help" the locals learn democracy.

At the same time, i'm happy to trust NPOV third parties to decide, especially since i'm not claiming to research this in depth myself. My suggestion would be to change the title to something like Ecuador president removed by public pressure and remove claims that there are worries of civil war unless someone can find a source supporting the claim.

After all, in the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan "revolutions", these had the fruity/flowery names of orange and tulip "pro-democracy" revolutions, not "civil war". Is a revolution which appears to be in favour of US corporate interests fruity/flowery while one appearing to be against US corporate interests is "worrying" and have connotations of "civil war"? Boud 01:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You may have a point there, I don't see any evidence of civil war worries in the sources either. Perhaps the original writer was relying on their own opinion. DouglasGreen 23:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)