Talk:2010 Ecuadorian crisis

Cia book

Excuse me, i'm having the hardest time remembering the name of a book that surfaced after a succesful coup in a central american country (i think el salvador). The book has an article of it's own on wikipedia, which states the CIA admitting it made it. Well the book is about the steps of how to topple regimes in latin america. If anyone could link the book in wikipedia itself i would greatly appreaciate it.

Coup Detat POV

I would like to move it to 2010 Ecuadorian Coup d'éta... but is it a NPOV title? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for pagemove

At the present time the claim that it is a coup is POV. In fact the availible evidence suggests that it is a protest that has gone over the top.©Geni 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to argue otherwise. Physically attacking the president and occupying the Parliament building and airport certainly appear to me to fit the definition of coup d'état, at least an attempted coup d'état. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now becoming quite obvious that this was a prototypical CIA planned coup attempt in the contemporary latin american style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWpgRQuXU4 As such, this "crisis" title is merely American POV and a cover-up. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted investigation are ongoing, but it seems to be at least labeled that elsewhere. its not just a "crisis"Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC still refering to it as an acusation.©Geni 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Parallel

The paralell with Honduras was twice removed without discussion, inficating a POV on its own. All content is duly sourced, it was just an editor who "felt" it was "factoids about the US and NOVP relationship with the Honduran mess." Pending discussion and consensus I have restored the original.Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but it did seem somewhat WP:SYNTHy. It was cited, but the source was a general article about the president, not about the president's politics and their relation to the current crisis. I'd say leave it out. TFOWR 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1)No US diplomats appear to be involved in this event. We would probably have heard if any had got hit by teargas. Thus no reason to mention them 2)The way the paragraphs have been brought together is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH which attempts to push the POV that this is a 70s/80s style US backed coup. 3)It represents the journalists statement of opinion as fact (rather than the journalist thinking the event recalled that mess in hondorus we that that events echoed that). Incerdently you appear to have missed that I found a way to include the journalists opion which means we now cover it twice.©Geni 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the extra content of relations with the usa maybe synthesis, but not to remove the whole para altogether. Perhaps quote the source as in the cite?(Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)).

I did here. It got reverted.©Geni 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Woops, removed the other part, but left the left-winged source to back the other stuff you added in

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

About the Honduras parallel...it is true that just about everyone in Latin America is drawing explicit parallels between this action against Correa and what happened last year in Honduras. Even conservatives like Chile's Sebastián Piñera argue there are parallels here. To the extent that Manuel Zelaya was removed in a way which did not follow Honduran law, I agree there are parallels. However, I think it's important no lingering impressions are left that these are exactly analogous cases. One major difference is that it was the Supreme Court of Honduras which removed Zelaya, whereas it appears at this point that Correa was removed (for the time he was removed) by rebellious police and military officials acting with zero authority from any part of the Ecuadorian government.

The US-based Law Library of Congress made this distinction about the Honduras coup in a way I personally find persuasive: "In August 2009 the Law Library of Congress released an official analysis of the situation and concluded that "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system. However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities."

Granted, we're not here to argue about opinions, and your opinion of what happened in Honduras may well differ from mine. But a presentation of the anti-Correa coup which suggests those acting against the duly-elected president of Ecuador had even this much of a cover of legitimacy would be pretty irresponsible. Unless new evidence comes to light to prove me wrong on this, and I don't think it probably will given what I've heard, it's pretty clear that the attack on Correa was an action with no basis at all in the law of Ecuador. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just had my clarification about Honduras's coup being precipitated by a Supreme Court of Honduras ruling edited out and replaced with the acknowledgment that Zelaya was removed as part of a "constitutional crisis". I'm fine with leaving it at that so long as the words "constitutional crisis" don't get edited out by someone who wants to emphasise the coup aspects more and downplay that it was a crisis involving a dispute over constitutional principles. But I suspect someone will probably want to do that. If that happens, I'll probably go back and replace my explicit reference to the Supreme Court of Honduras decision. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that makes this distinction it would be the WP:Synthesis of wikipedia editors to have adjudged that controversy. Furthermore, the US congress is certainly not free of bias. But if there is a RS that makes the distinction then we can put it in with the variosu caveats.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put the Law Library of Congress argument in the article, Lihaas, I put it here on the talk page to illustrate the view I find persuasive about what went on in Honduras (to illustrate that not everyone believes that the coup was only a coup - it grew out of a dispute over what the Honduran law and constitution said). Anyway, I disagree that pointing out the Honduras analogy is not a perfect one involves a synthesis. Honduras differed from Ecuador in that Honduras's coup involved a constitutional dispute. That is a fact, and it's an important one. I would think that the most leftist of the leftists decrying the coup in Ecuador would want to point out that there wasn't even a pretense of a legal issue involved in Ecuador, as there had been in Honduras. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not suggesting you did, im also fine with you inserting provided a RS makes the distinction and not the view of wikipedia editors.Lihaas (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

TV

Where is a CNN en Espanol live stream ? --93.82.13.24 (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blue links

think theres too many? We could cut it down with the links to the countries.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Saying "it recalls" does not constitute a parallel.

I am removing the AFP mention. 24.215.174.233 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

coup orchestrated by Lucio Guitierrez

The coup is being orchestrated by Lucio Gutiérrez. [1] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done using the RS in the link.(Lihaas (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Source: Patino has asserted this now.[2]. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a silly idea, Lucio Guitierrez is merely a US puppet. The US orchestrated this coup attempt, not its right-wing, "strong man" puppet. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the US is so incompetent that it would back a coup that didn't even have the support of the country's armed forces. I think Gutierrez was going rogue on this. Anyway, we're off topic now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sector of the armed forces did rebel. It was evidently a coup attempt that failed. I don't know about USA involvement, but it is childish to believe that US only engages when success is guaranteed (or worst, that the USA never fails). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder...

Just a reminder to all artcle writers if you type a word and you see a red line underneath it that word is probalby either a proper noun or incorrectly spelled. This article was a mess of spelling errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.142 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

UNASUR statement

Help with full translation?:

"Las jefas y jefes de Estado y Gobierno de la Unasur, reunidos en el palacio San Martín, en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, República Argentina, el 1 de octubre de 2010,

"1- Reafirman su fuerte compromiso con la preservación de la institucionalidad democrática, el estado de derecho, el orden constitucional, la paz social y el irrestricto respeto a los derechos humanos, condiciones esenciales del proceso de integración regional.

"2. Condenan enérgicamente el intento de golpe de estado y posterior secuestro del presidente Rafael Correa Delgado, registrado en la hermana República del Ecuador el 30 de septiembre.

"3. Celebran la liberación del presidente Correa Delgado así como la pronta vuelta a la normalidad institucional y democrática en la hermana república, expresan la necesidad de que los responsables de la asonada golpista sean juzgados y condenados. En ese marco, reiteran su más pleno respaldo al gobierno constitucional y destacan el rol desempeñado por las instituciones para el restablecimiento del orden constitucional.

"4. Afirman que sus respectivos gobiernos rechazan enérgicamente y no tolerarán, bajo ningún concepto, cualquier nuevo desafío a la autoridad institucional ni intento de golpe al poder civil legítimamente elegido, y advierten que en caso de nuevos quiebres del orden constitucional adoptarán medidas concretas e inmediatas tales como cierres de fronteras, suspensión del comercio, de tráfico aéreo y de la provisión de energía, servicios y otros suministros.

"5. Deciden que sus cancilleres se trasladen en el día de hoy a la ciudad de Quito para expresar el pleno respaldo al presidente constitucional de la República de Ecuador, Don Rafael Correa Delgado, y al pueblo ecuatoriano, partícipe indispensable del pleno restablecimiento de la institucionalidad democrática en ese país.

"6. Acuerdan adoptar, en la cuarta reunión cumbre ordinaria de jefas y jefes de estado y de gobierno de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas, a celebrarse el 26 de noviembre en Guyana, un protocolo adicional al tratado constitutivo de la Unasur que establezca la cláusula democrática".

Source: Unasur: los cancilleres de la región viajarán a Quito para "respaldar" a Correa, La Nación

--IANVS (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I did this translation of the text, hope it is useful:

The Heads of State and Government of the Unasur, reunited in the San Martín Palace, in the city of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina, on October 1st, 2010,

1. Reaffirm their strong compromise with the preservation of democratic institutionality, with the rule of law, with constitutional order, with social peace and the unrestricted respect to human rights, essential conditions in the process of regional integration.

2. Energetically condemn the attempt at coup d’état and the subsequent kidnapping of the President Rafael Correa Delgado, which has been registered in the sister Republic of Ecuador, on September 30.

3. Celebrates the liberation of President Correa Delgado, just as the prompt return to the institutional and democratic normality in the sister republic, expressing the need for those responsible for the coup to be tried and convicted. In this context, they reiterate their full support for the constitutional government and highlight the role played by the institutions for the restoration of the constitutional order.

4. Affirm that their respective governments energetically reject and will not tolerate, under any concept, any new defiance to the institutional authority, nor any attempt at coup against the legitimately elected civil power, and warn that in the case new breaks of the constitutional order are reported, they will adopt immediate and concrete steps, such as the closure of borders, suspension of commerce, of air traffic, and energy provision, services and other supplies.

5. Decide that their foreign ministers travel today to the city of Quito to express full support to the constitutional president of the Republic of Ecuador, Mr. Rafael Correa Delgado, and to the Ecuadorian people, indispensible participant in the process of full re-establishment of the democratic institutionality in this country.

6. Agree to adopt, in the forth ordinary summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Union of South American Nations, to be celebrated on November 26th in Guyana, an additional protocol to the constitutive treaty of the Unasur, which shall establish the democratic clause

Thank you very much! I'll add it as a footnote. --IANVS (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"compromiso" = commitment or pledge. bajo ningún concepto = in any way (in this case). I'd copy-edit for prepositions; also, bear in mind that Spanish uses the definite article much more than in English. In translation, it's not needed nearly as much. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look and edit directly at the footnote in the main page. I already did some improvements. --IANVS (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed some of the footnote. Sorry, I had not seen that your first language isn't English. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help ;) --IANVS (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged CIA involvement

http://www.centrodealerta.org/noticias/inteligencia_eeuu_detras_de.html 84.46.30.106 (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i traced it to this news organisation source: <ref name="JGAllard_USAinfilt">{{cite news | first=Jean-Guy | last=Allard | authorlink=Jean-Guy Allard | pages= | language =[[Spanish language|Spanish]]| title=Informe confirmado: Inteligencia USA penetró a fondo la policía ecuatoriana | date=2010-09-30 | publisher=[[Radio Del Sur]] | url=http://www.laradiodelsur.com/?module=opinion_detail&i=8174 |accessdate=2010-10-01 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5t9gH4QsG |archivedate=2010-10-01 |deadurl=no}} ''(archival copy has [[css]] problem: change style or select text to read)''</ref>

In fact, the report does not directly state that the CIA was involved - the CIA discussion refers to Philip Agee, who left the CIA many decades ago. It also does not directly state that US intelligence forces were directly involved in the coup, so i just cited the word Allard actually uses: he says that the coup "confirmed" the close involvement of US intelligence services in the Ecuadorian police. He leaves the next step in inference to the reader, so we (as wikipedians) have to do the same thing. Boud (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you did it right, doesnt seem with RS to implicate CIA involvment, but in the section that mentiosn Gutierrez this other plausible theory should be added. (maybe change the section title) But, of course, with the caveats youve said about same vague link and ex-CIA fellow.

 Done added(Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

CIA sentence

i have modified the CIA/Agee sentence. Two particular points:

1. The source from centrodealerta is exactly the same Jean-Guy Allard/Radio Del Sur article, and it seems to me that Radio Del Sur is more likely to be the original source, since it's a mainstream news organisation.
2. The wikipedia article about Philip Agee says that he was working for the CIA in Ecuador, infiltrating police etc, many decades ago. The reasonable interpretation of Allard's paragraph about Agee is that this is background that "everyone should know". i don't think he's suggesting that he interviewed Agee and that Agee made the statement based on continued contacts (after 40 years) he has in Ecuador. In fact, Agee died two years ago, so there's no chance of Agee having made a post-coup-attempt statement. i wrote "in the 1960s" in the article because it's simpler/shorter than an exact quote, and i think it's quite easy to NOR infer from "quién, antes de abandonar las filas de la agencia, estuvo asignado a la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Quito" given that the Philip Agee wikipedia article dates his assignment for subverting Ecuadorian politics as 1960-1963/1964.

Boud (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

official US visits / clarification needed = OK ?

If people are OK with the Allard/US officials' visit during recent months sentence, then please remove the "clarification needed" tag. It seems to me reasonable to say that Allard is saying that he is suspicious of the visit by the US officials. He's not claiming he has any direct evidence, e.g. of NED, USAID, etc. involvement in the coup attempt. Boud (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the law cut benefits?

In the source I first read this News ([3]), it says that Correa claims the new law doesn't cut benefits and rumours of that have been spread by the opposition. According to him, the law not only doesn't halves the salary, but also regularizes the payment of overtime. Therefore, saying the law proposes salary cuts should be framed by the article as one claim among others, not as the truth. --189.1.140.165 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats what he said last night at the presidential palace. I added somethign to the effect that he "claimed," with controversy (and without the text of the law) it cant be affirmed either way.(Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Law page

I think this law warrants its own wiki page (as do many others cotnroversial laws). If anyone has access to that law then it would be nice to cite it.(Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Here is the Law online: Public Service Organic Law, taken from the National Assembly of Ecuador webpage.

It has 75 pages. I don't know if it is worth translating it entirely. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i don't think the suggestion is to literally translate any of the versions of the law project! i think the idea is that the law project and controversy relating to it constitute a different, though related, topic to the attempted coup d'etat. i think it's obvious that this page is mostly focussing on the attempted coup d'etat. This is why below i have started a "requested move" for the article title. Anyway, here's a stub for an article on the law project itself, which allegedly was a reason for the coup d'etat attempt: Public Service Organic Law (Ecuador 2010).

BTW, an important point: this is only a law project (proposed law), not a law. Boud (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reaction lists

[4](Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).

Section title

Per [5] the title supranational body was change citing "OAS, UNASUR are (by now) international organizations." But these terms are by definition supranational (which also can include "international" -- ie- they are not mutual exclusive). Also by saying intl org's and intl there is an awkward overlap. A caveat for intl states should be added to differ the two.Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Supranational imply sovereignty delegation, which is not the case in either OAS, UNASUR (as of now), UN, nor the Foreign Affairs of the EU. So they're not Supranational reactions, just International (Inter-State) Organizations. --IANVS (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

[6] = "having power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments" The latter is certainly true in this case.Lihaas (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a rather loose definition. Do as you prefer. --IANVS (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool, but there was also a youtube video of his speech at the palace ( i lost it now, but it was found from your link i think), could use that to cite the rescue part that i quoted directly.Lihaas (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

background

the Vela quote was removed now becasue hes not "notable." per se that statement is right, but it adds context. Even the other cited journalists were not "notable" as such,.Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag, since the article is now including certain conjectures about the events as fact, with political biases on multiple sides. The article needs to be reworked to limit it to verifiable information. Caleiva (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the conjectures, so as to source them or remove them? Thanks. --IANVS (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to some particular section, as this article is clearly well-sourced and not speculative. Please use the POV-section tag. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more than one section. The allegations of US and/or Lucio Gutierrez's involvement are reflected in the "Perpetrators" and "Reactions" sections, so the POV tag applies to all the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleiva (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it applies to those two sections. Anyway, anything that's said on Lucio Gutierrez is sourced on allegations by notable people. I don't see the POV there. --IANVS (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is already tagged. Please, try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS first! --IANVS (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reactions section doesnt mention such allegations and certainly not in an accusatory manner. the perpetrator section explicitly mentions the allegations nature of person X and Y's accusations, it doesnt mention anything as gospel truth.

one says "reports alleged" and the other says "claimed." Theres no affirmation in that, and both are duly sourced to RS.Lihaas (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Honduras again: "current" vs. "currently-established"

I just had a clarification changed because some wording I added stated that the "currently-established" Honduran government sent a message of support for President Correa after the Ecuadorian crisis came to light. This word was replaced with "current".

This is probably just a semantic issue - I was trying to use language that was neutral on whether the Honduran government is legitimate or not, because I didn't want to get into that debate. What I was pointing out is that the government that exists in Honduras, whether it's legitimate or not, supports President Correa against those who acted against him in this crisis.

Anyway, when my wording was changed, the editor that did this said that "current" was a better word to use because my wording of "currently-established" implied that the government of Honduras is legitimate...exactly the opposite of what I intended. I thought "current" sounded like it was recognising legitimacy...exactly the opposite of what that editor intended.

This being the case, I'm wondering if another word (besides either of our previous terms) might make this more clear, since we're not understanding one another about this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wording implied that the current goverment is (well-)established. That is, "undisputed". The alt. wording ("current government") says nothing about its disputed/undisputed status. My edition was also meant to avoid further debate about Honduras in this page. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As a third person how about "ruling"? Or if thats not fair then perhaps suggest a few, and in the meanting a {{dubious}} tag can be added.

Alternatively just add the dispute saying something to the effect of the "disputed government administration" (although this sounds off to me)Lihaas (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ruling" sounds good. What do you think, IANVS? Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"The government currently ruling Honduras" ? Ok, if we don't have anything better. --IANVS (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

grammar

[7] "and declared to be impressed " just doesnt make sense in terms of flow in english. There isnt a real necessity to add everything as the source is duly attached. But if need be the whole thing needs to be rephrasedLihaas (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to 2010 Ecuador coup d'état attempt

2010 Ecuador crisis → 2010 Ecuador coup d'état attempt — since it is quite NPOV and RS now that armed security forces (mostly police) tried to remove the president by force and possibly kill him, compare Equatorial Guinea and Venezuela. Boud (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a coup d'état would require an active attempt to replace with someone or something. While there are acusations about Lucio Gutiérrez they are still at the accusation stage. For the time being the argument that the events were in fact a coup attempt rather than protests that went over the top is POV.©Geni 22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

i don't follow your first point. How can security forces carrying out a coup d'etat form a junta or nominate a new president or claim that they will organise new elections until they've properly secured the key elements of power, including the media? The requested move is to coup d'etat attempt, not to coup d'etat. There doesn't seem to be any dispute so far that the rebellious security forces:

• blocked the National Assembly of Ecuador
• blocked the main airport
• tried to take over the main television station
• physically attacked the President with tear gas
• prevented him from leaving hospital
• attempted to assassinate him in the hospital and when leaving

Whether or not Lucio Gutiérrez was directly involved or not does not seem to be relevant here. There was a widely coordinated takeover of important institutions using the threat of violent force (tear gas, guns) by security forces. Calling this "protests that went over the top" seems a bit ridiculous. Police do occasionally carry out political street protests in democracies when they want better pay, shorter working hours, whatever - without taking over parliament/congress, a major international airport, a major television station. Boud (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

your second sentence is the reason we shouldn't move it. We don't know what if anything was being planned. Untill we do we don't know if it was a coup attempt or not.©Geni 23:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Again: the proposed name change is to attempted coup, not coup. We don't know what was planned, but we know what was done. The key institutions of power were seized by force. Democratic political protest aims to get a lot of media coverage, not to take over the media by the threat of violent force. Political groups don't try to kill the President of a country just to score political points. If US police took over the United States Capitol, several major international airports (to keep things in proportion to airports per population), several of the biggest TV studios (again to keep things in proportion), fired tear gas at Barack Obama, prevented him from leaving hospital and tried to shoot him, would that be considered a political protest gone over the top or an attempted coup d'etat? Boud (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Except there are plently of forms of protest which are far from peacful. Protesters attempted storm Ireland's parliment back in May for example. Was that an attempted coup? Simular has happened in greece. Only difference was that in this case the police were not there to stop the protestors.©Geni 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ireland: you are presumably referring to the 25 May 2010 protest which on 2010 in Ireland links to http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0525/dail.html:

1. there is no suggestion that the 500 demonstrators constituted a group of armed people highly trained to work together as an organised group to use physical force, including lethal firearms, i.e. guns that can kill people
2. there is no report about the main Irish airports being occupied by an associated group
3. there is no report about the main Irish television stations being taken over by force by an associated group
4. there is no report of 8 *6/15 = about three people dead, and 274 * 6/15 = about 110 people injured (proportions based on populations); on the contrary, the report says "the demonstration has passed off without incident."
5. there is no report of the president or prime minister of Ireland being physically attacked, held prisoner, or being subject to assassination attempts

So at least from this article, there is no suggestion of any possibility of a simultaneous, sudden armed takeover of several of the key political/media institutions of a country.

Greece: i don't see any obvious wikipedia entries - if there was an attempted coup in Greece in 2010, let it be documented.

We can now give a more objective estimate of the number of dead and injured in a would-be takeover of the Capitol, roads, major airports and key TV stations in the US: 8 *310/15 = about 165 people dead, and 274 * 310/15 = about 5660 injured. So if an analogous US protest by upset police officers using tear gas and guns led to 165 dead US citizens and 5660 injured in the space of just 1 or 2 days during their attempted takeover of the Capitol, major airports and TV stations, would that be called an "over the top" protest or an attempted coup d'etat? Boud (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some POV's:

1. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) calls it a coup d'etat
2. Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero calls it a coup d'etat
3. former Argentine president Eduardo Duhalde calls it a coup d'etat

It seems to me that Latin American political leaders are the sorts of people who can reasonably be considered as experts in judging the difference between a political protest and an attempted coup d'etat, at least in the context of their part of the world. Boud (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Except every person you named has as pretty clear agender that favors calling it a coup.©Geni 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

1. UNASUR members Peru, Colombia, Chile and UNASUR observers Mexico and Panama all have right-wing presidencies right now. In terms of a left-right power balance "agenda", it would be in their interests for Correa to lose power and a right-wing candidate to become president of Ecuador, in a way that is seen as democratic rather than by the threat of and/or use of violence. They could easily have blocked the words "coup d'etat" (in Spanish) from the consensus statement, insisting on vague statements of principle such as "we wish all parties to work towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis". UNASUR represents a range of political POVs.
2. The Spanish/Argentinian oil/gas company Repsol YPF is likely to lose some profits under nationalisation as part of Correa's program. Zapatero's agenda as PM of Spain includes protecting Spain's economic interests. Helping Correa to be replaced and avoiding the loss of billions of euros per year by Repsol YPF could make the difference between Spain's economy collapsing Greece-style or not.

So it's not so clear which ways the agendas point to. Boud (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be kept as a "crisis", not a "coup attempt". Some people have called it a coup attempt, but they have reasons for doing so. Even Gutierrez's on-the-record assertions suggest that all his people wanted was to oust Correa and have new elections. BTW, Correa's face-off against his own party should also be included as part of this "crisis", since there still remains the possibility of him dissolving government and ruling by decree. That, to me, counts as crisis, and the police protest is part of the larger story, though likely being exploited by incompetent former Presidents for their own gain. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"oust Correa and have new elections": That would be a coup in itself. I don't know why you are obsesseed with the need of a putative leader for a coup to be. A coup can be just the destitution of an established leader by non-democratic means. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the "dissolution" of the Assembly would imply immediate legislative + presidential elections. Not "governing by decree". --IANVS (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So I wrote some prose, but the writing was terrible. So I've condensed my fors-and-against into bullet form. I think it could go either way.

Against rename:

• "Crisis" is broad, and can contain all possibilities.
• The first perpetrator who threw the tear gas necessitating Correa to go to the hospital was not "in-the-know"
• There wasn't any follow-through on the 10 hours that Correa was in the hospital.
• The police protest may have larger ramifications outside the attempted coup.
• Most USian and European sources - if history is any guide - are not as likely to call it a coup.

For rename:

• "Crisis" is too broad, when the reasons for the coup are simple enough, and the results following are likely to be related to the attempted coup.
• 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt <-- not a redirect. There may be examples in and outside of Latin America for [[#### Country coup d'état attempt]]
• "Attempted coup" is, at any rate, closer to the main theme than the broad "crisis"
• "2010 Crisis" is much more continual than "2010 coup attempt", a coup being more of a one-off event.
• The police protest outside the attempted coup may not be too notable, relatively, considering the number of police protests that happen anyway versus how often they're covered.
• The police protests may have been to create a coup in the first place, so long as former presidents are likely behind it. But that's conjecture.

And re: AllGoryToTheHypnotoad, you say "all his people wanted was to oust Correa and have new elections" <-- this is called a coup :-p (different if you mean "all his people wanted was to oust Correa by having new elections") --Xavexgoem (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is certainly mounting (paritcularly here) that it was an atempted coup. The institution of state were held hostage and for a period it was unknown what correa's fate would be, not just a protest. Seems consensus here supports this with 1 dissent (and another dissent, but whose reason was cited as by others as supportive of the move)

So support(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)).

edits explained

1. I moved this to the reaction section as it pertains more to that then explanatory background.
2. This was not acceded to in talk, and not consensus was given. In the same vei, this and this was explained to have been alleged not affirmed.

$Moved this to the article

1. The rest were just uncontroversial copy edits.(Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)).