Talk:Ecuador

Self Determined-Census

I erased this line, because the CIA census does not mention that. The self-determined census was conducted by the INEC with different results: http://www.eluniverso.com/2011/09/02/1/1356/poblacion-pais-joven-mestiza-dice-censo-inec.html

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://globalvoicesonline.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)