Talk:Ecuador/Archive 2

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

Volleyball[edit]

I am surprised that there is no mention of volleyball in the sports section of this article. Ecuador has its own unique version of it and, having been to Ecuador, I've seen it played everywhere, even played myself. I believe it is especially popular in rural areas.

Zcientista 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sport section? It states "Ecuador's specialties include Ecuavolley, a three-person variation of volleyball."
Please note that new sections on a talk page should be added to the bottom of the page, not at the top. Kevin McE (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism[edit]

There is no section in either this article nor in the separate article on Ecuadorian economy that mentions tourism. Not only is tourism in Ecuador a significant economic factor, but its roots in German influence as a result of the exodus after WWII and Ecuador's status as a highly internationally integrated country with tourist-friendly geography make it worth mentioning.

Creationlaw 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

completely non-NPOV!!!!![edit]

In 1941, Peru and Ecuador had many military incidents, and Peru invaded Ecuador in July 1941 with more than fifty thousand troops taking fast control on almost 75% of ecuadorean territory including the Amazon region, the highlands, and the coastal region. The Peruvian navy blocked the port of Guayaquil cutting supplies to the ecuadorian troops that were not more than ten thousand, while thousands of well prepared troops took control of the main cities of Ecuador. After a few weeks of the war, Ecuador had to accepted the condition of being defeated and had to sign a treaty that gave Peru more than 150,000 square kilometers (57,900 sq. mi) of Amazonic and coastal teritory, basicaly the provinces of Jaen and Maynas.

In all the articles refering to this war this is the most non-POV, unfactual, and non-suitable for an encyclopedia I have seen. First off, if your even going to mention this war, which you obviosly should since it is such a big part of Ecuador's history, you should mention a little background about those "military incidents" and what caused them. Second, Ecuador says Peru invaded them. Peru says Ecuador was already in their territory. In any case it doesn't matter because the territory was already claimed by two differnet countries which made it disputed so no one would be invading anyone if it were from a NPOV. Third of all so many of your numbers are made up and infactual. When you are writing in an encyclopedia you don't write what you think is correct but what you know for sure by researching it and getting sources to varify your research. There were actually only 11,681 Peruvian troops. You said 50,000. Peru did not invade 75% of Ecuador's territory but only the two small provinces of Loja and El Oro which make up about 6% of the country. Ecuador did not give up any territory to Peru. Peru won the war which in turn rewarded the disputed territory which Peru already claimed as theirs. I would like to belive that all these numerical "errors" and exaggerations were from the lack of knowledge and not lies but I don't know...

Vivaperucarajo 05:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm... sorry? It's what happened. In 1941 Peru invaded Ecuador. The territories weren't "disputed"; they signed an agreement about them in 1936. Ecuador had them, then Peru claimed them and invaded them. There's no evidence of the "incursions", what it's obvious Peru invaded. Go to Ecuador-Peru War. --User:Revoish 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Revoish. The amazon territories were not 'under dispute'. They were, in fact, part of Ecuador in all global maps, including Mercator. The fact that Peru had a casus belli, or could "claim" these territories doesn't change the fact that they were in fact Ecuador's. While i don't necessarily agree that the article narrative is of encyclopedic standard, it achieves NPOV as per Wikipedia policy. Ecuador is not the only country that says they were de facto invaded. The US, and other leading nations sanctioned. Citable papers from their ministries of defense corroborate this fact.

"says Ecuador was already in their territory. In any case it doesn't matter because the territory was already claimed by two differnet countries which made it disputed so no one would be invading anyone if it were from a NPOV"

It doesn't really matter? Laughable. There is no such thing as land claimed by two countries. One has the claim and another has the possession. Ecuador was weaker, and Peru took advantage, simple as that. This is not Kashmir, as the territory was not taken from Peru by an act of war. I am not an expert in the topic, so the figures could be off, but in the general sense, judging as a neutral, i would say your argument is the one that is really off. Dragonlord kfb 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the paragraph in question, it's all correct except perhaps the 75% figure. That is, Peru did invade Ecuador, by any sensible understanding of the word "invade". They occupied El Oro province. Now, that's not nearly 75% of Ecuador, unless the disputed territories are considered part of Ecuador. The legal situation at the time is not clear. Peru had de-facto posession. Neurodivergent 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peru cheteated ecuador. just becuase there stronger dosnt mean they could just take it that land is ecuadors. this is by an ecuadorain citizen that proably knows more than you Americans.LONG LIVE ECUADOR

Independence day[edit]

Isn't Ecuadors independence day August 10th and not May 24th? I believe May 24th is the battle of Pichincha?

  • August 10th is the "proclamation of independece", which is really misleading -- it was just a few people that proclaimed they wouldn't follow the new King of Spain, but the previous King. So yeah. May 24th was indeed the Battle of Pichincha, where Ecuador gained its independence. So I think May 24th it is. --User:Revoish 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, I'm amazed at how much I didn't learn in grade school!
  • You're welcome =P and you're not the only one, even here many people don't know the whole story about August 10th; they call it the "Proclamation of Independence". Which it kinda is... just a proclamation of independence from a current monarchy to serve another one. But hey, I guess a rebellion is a rebellion nonetheless!

Motto[edit]

Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto? I couldn't find any evidence that Dios, partia y libertad is used as an official motto (but that might be because my Spanish is terrible). Incidently, it is the motto of the Dominican republic. Pruneautalk 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, googling around[1] I didn't get anywhere concrete. Our motto isn't that big of a deal here (it's not a "patriot symbol" on itself, anyhow), and there is some conflict, because apparently they changed the motto, and thus one generation uses "Ecuador was, is and will be an Amazonic country" and the other one uses "God, Homeland and Freedom"...
For "official" references, I found that "Dios, Patria y Libertad" is used by the president [2] and by the customs department [3], and YET "El Ecuador ha sido es y será País Amazónico" seems to be used on an official legal form [4]. If you try to google the last motto, you'll find it's also used by Ecuadoreans on some message boards and on newspapers. I'd stick with "Dios, Patria y Libertad", regardless of how terrible unoriginal it is... since it's used by the government more often and whatnot. --User:Revoish 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC

I believe "Dios, Patria y Libertad" is a military motto. Very few people aside from military use it nor acknowledge it as a patriotic phrase. "El Ecuador ha sido, es y será país amazónico" is engraved near one of the main squares in central Quito, yet I don't think it qualifies more than the previous one. As far as I know, it was first said in a speech by the late president Jaime Roldós A. on may 24th, 1981.Cœlispex 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVASION BY PERU (CHEPOES)[edit]

Ecuador rightfully ownes all the lands of the amazon river becuase the expedition to the amazon left quito there is even a museum dedicated to it also on paper it said that Ecuador ownes all the land gained from the gran columbia peru in 1941 invaded ecuador with 50000 troops come on!!!! ecuador should at least be givin back Iquitos. there is also a mention in this page that in the 1941 invasion they got 75 percent of ecuadors land yeah right they went straigt to the capitail and forced them to surrender.anyway i would like to hear your opinion for a paper

How old are you, kid? History is not as simple as you've been taught. For one, Iquitos is a large city where about 900,000 Peruvians live. Does it make sense to "give it back" to Ecuador? Heck yes Think about that. (Not to mention that it is actually on the south-east side of the Marañón). so what it's Ecuador's territory and they should give it back just because someone lives on someone's propety doesnt make it theirs Neurodivergent 16:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was taugt this in an ecuadorian history book im from ecuador. and the protocal 1n 1941 was just one bit of international injustise to the nation of ecuador!iquitos was part of Ecuador it shows that in almos all maps from the time

That is crazy. By all acknowledged treaties Iquitos belongs to Perú. Ecuador has long stopped its claims for such territories. Cœlispex 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marine / Land Iguana[edit]

Hi there

There is a picture in this article that shows a Marine Iguana according to the caption. This is not the case; the picture does in fact show a Land Iguana. I've just been to Galapagos a few weeks ago and I am 100% sure. Marine Iguanas are black with little dragon like spikes down the back. If it were possible to attach images I've photos of both kinds.

Kindly, Jonas

Ooops: I think that was me. I was thrown by the suggestion that it was the "signature animal" of the Galápagos, and I would suggest that the Marine iguana has far more claim to that description (although probably not as much as a tortoise would have). Kevin McE 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they just thrown in for fun, or is there a reason why they are in the sport/food section? Sad mouse 18:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Isn't the Galapagos turtle the "signature animal" of Galápagos? Iguanas have relevance only due to Darwin's study, right? Plus, they can be found in the coastal Ecuador, whereas Galápagos turtes are only found in their island. Cœlispex 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non profit org link on Ecuador page[edit]

Hi,

re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador and the link Children Of Ecuador Foundation I have to strictly disagree with your argument.

1. For what is the external links section then if not for links?

2. but to leave a link to a travel guide with Google Ads on its site is encyclopedic and fully ok, ya?

3. The whole article is quite long, the external link section on the other hand quite unpopulated. I think a few links are definitely ok as long as it's not spammy and again, it is the "external" link section, meaning links going outside. If it's not wished to put links then please delete ALL external links on all wiki pages asap.


The link is not commercial and was at least a month up; during that time the article has been edited the whole time by countless editors and the link didn't offend nor disturb anyone at all. I think an exception can definitely be made here.


On another side note... I don't see the post anymore someone (you?) made on my talk page alleging that I spammed before and I forbid this allegation. My IP number is not always the same and changes from time to time and I did not make any of those changes alleged I did, comments on that talk page I've never seen before.

Thanks.


"I do not doubt that it is a worthy charity, but Wikipedia is not a directory for links."

The anonymous author, who posted here under 85.10.199.106, put this message on my talk page, as well as here, in response to my explanation on his/her talk page as to why I had deleted the link in question. Lest you be interested in my response to him/her, you will find it on my talk page. Kevin McE 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified additions to religion and culture sections[edit]

Jerahad, sorry, let me rephrase. When I said I thought you should “add references”, I didn’t mean you should put whatever you want in the article, and then add links to 3 generic references at the end. I meant you should to be able to cite verifiable sources for each thing you put in. Your references don’t do that.

For example, you’re saying the existence of a cathedral in Cuenca proves they are the most religious city on Ecuador. You’re saying that the fact that Guayaquil has highways is causing them to be less religious. You’re saying that racism has been eliminated because of the national soccer team; however, your reference explicitly says the opposite. You do not substantiate that Peru has a worse racism problem than Ecuador because, (evidently?), their national soccer team isn’t integrated.

In short, you are putting, at best, unverifiable information, and at worse, stuff you’re making up off the top of your head, in the article. You need to be able to cite a verifiable source for each fact you put in.

I kept the section about Christmas being Americanized in, but added a {{Fact}} tag, since that is probably true, but it also needs sourcing.

This is the last time I’m going to revert you, because the last thing I desire is to get into an edit war, but I suspect you’ll find others will revert your edits unless you can justify your edits with legitimate, verifiable, acceptable sources. --barneca (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit notes today on the now removed section on Education show that this editor is severely stretching the claims of the sources he/she cites. Kevin McE 10:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Culture[edit]

Now, the cathedral meaning to be the most faith ful was not my intention, I meant to show how as in many other countries modernization takes a toll on culture and religion. Recently the countrie's citys have changed between each other. The cathedral is mentioned in Ecuador's history, as being build to show their enormous faith.

Cuenca has not modernized with sky scrapper building, and such but quito and guayaquil have.

I thought i gave my source very well if you read both articles for culture, they give the support i need.

I meant not to say that a highway took religion away, but i just gave modernizations examples that I have seen the most notable. My current citation for the mall; i can sadly say that i no longer have that article, it would be a shame to loss it, but if you must then go on.

Second important point Racism compared to peru..I did not make a bold comparison due to the integration of the teams, but due to the media information of peruvians calling ecuadorian player monkeys and apes, while our spectators defended them, saying our diversity is beauty, and racism in ecuador is no being tolerated anymore.

I also want to make a point towards the second article i presented, of futbol releaving black minorities into the mainstream society. If you read the report it specifically says, how team spirit even at youth is stoping prejudice.

My last point is, of saying what i placed in your page, I think my additions show the new changes occuring in that country today, rather then outdated. Racism is down according to ElMercurio newpaper, and people in ecuador seem less likely to care aslong as the national team wins, examples are Agustin Delgado, and Mendez friendship with Kaviedez. Please take a neutral mind at this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerahad (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is interesting about Ecuador and Cuba?[edit]

I need to know interesting facts about Ecuador and Cuba. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.91.106.106 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

`I'm not sure of cuba yet, but im sure there tons, including it's interaction with Ecuador. Some interesting facts are, ecuador being an ecological conservative throughtout the country. Ecuador's old capital was nearly destroyed by an earthquake in loja, city cuxibamba: meaning smily valley. Also, cuxibamba was named the ecological example to the world. The new unasur, a type of european economy union among south america is located in quito. If the south american continental currency is established, which is in process, the dollar currency may be droped. Ecuador is also becoming a national country since it has imported immigrants from peru, colombia, Bolivia, and some from Paraguay.

The President of Ecuador JOse Ibarra is shut down by a revolt with Cia operators support because he was too friendly with Cuba.

You mean José María Velasco Ibarra, Or José Velasco. Cœlispex 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inmigration[edit]

Can somenoe add information on Ecuadors immigration both on imports and exports, i know there are tons but none is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerahad (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Beef jerky[edit]

The only source currently substantiating jerky being a tradition of Ecuador appears to be a requires-subscription link to The Economist on the page for beef jerky. Can anybody familiar with Ecuador traditions, please, supply a better source? Digwuren 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such tradition. Popular meat meals in Ecuador include Churrasco, Secos, Hornado and Fritada. Cœlispex 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Billetes.jpg[edit]

Image:Billetes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no politics section?[edit]

Unlike any other country article?

The politics are largely dealt with in the latter part of the history section. There is an artincle, so the material exists if you wish to summarize it in a section here. That is how Wikipedia works: don't criticise the gaps: fill 'em Kevin McE 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language links[edit]

Two editors have complained on my user page about my deletion of links to websites in Spanish, even makiing a veiled accusation of vandalism. I am happy to be judged by my consistent revisions of vandalism on this and several other pages. I have always explained my edits in edit notes, and a glimpse at the edit history for 30th May, 7th June and 29th June will bear out. I do not believe that discussion in these pages is necessary for applying Wiki Policy, and I will not accept edited and selective quotes of policy in such accusations. Let us examine MoS as it pertains to the links that I deleted:

Since this is the English Wikipedia, webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers (which is why I retained the link to the main government site, and do not blithely or uncompromising delete foreign language links on other pages I watch) in some cases:

  • when the website is the subject of the article The deleted sites were those of the ministries of Exterior Relationships, Industries and Competition, Economy and Finances, and Telecommunications, and the National Bank. I would not delete these links from putative articles on Ecuadorian Foreign Policy, Commerce and Industry in Ecuador, Financial institutions of Ecuador, or Telecommunications in Ecuador respectively, as they would fit this criterium, but in this article these specialist areas have little or no attention, and so this justification for their inclusion fails. Indeed, IMHO their relevance to the corresponding page on es.wikipedia.org is debatable.
  • when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables; explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them Even if such information is present on these external sites, no such key is presented, so this cannot be held to be the justification for posting these links.
  • when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and (my emphasis) is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative) These pages are not cited in the article: if there were, they should be linked via the references section, not under external links.

Thus there is no grounds allowed under the MoS for claiming reason to go against the general principle cited above by posting these foreign language links, and I repeat my deletion of them, while awaiting apology from those who accused me of vandalism. Kevin McE 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you already know me, but I do agree with the previous addition that was undone. Many links, I don't mean all, were of interest in relation to the ecyclopedia topic, like it's economy link, and a few others. I think thought the previous user due to the lack of response simply blindly added such links. As a suggestion I due sincerly believe perhaps you should have not deleted it, but instead edited the links. (I noted you had previously done the same before, in a previous discussion) But i do not consider it vandalism. Well hope you judgement comes to senses.

Map: what is its purpose and what features does it need to meet that purpose?[edit]

Although the satelite style image that User:Hanzon created (there is no accreditation given to the source of the satelite original, which is grounds for concern over copyright issues) and uploaded might be of interest, is scarcely conforms to the definition of map offered in that article :A map is a symbolized depiction of a space which highlights relations between components (objects, regions, themes) of that space. Most usually a map is a two-dimensional, geometrically accurate representation of a three-dimensional space; e.g., a geographical map. The current image is not symbolised, it does not highlight relationships (indeed, no features are labelled at all), and it is not geometrically accurate (it gives a totally false impression of the location and size of the Galáagos Islands). In what way this image is thought to be better than the one that was raised previously in discussion on these pages was not explained when Hanzon, without discussion, usurped the map that had been accepted without question on the page for several months, declared it to be so, and although I gave (admittedly mistyped) reasons for the edit I made, he/she seems unwilling to explain a reversion without a discussion here. So if anyone would care to explain how they find the satelite style image to be more useful thatn the previous map, and provide assurance that it was sourced from an original that requires no accreditation, I won't delete it again in 48 hours. Kevin McE 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you may check, i resolved the copyright problem to your likeing i believe, i chose not claim it as my own since i had edited it to include the galapagos. On your other point of it's pourpose as a map, i due have to point out to the article section in which it's located. The previous map was included under Geography, which the previous didn't seem to fufill. I expect this definitively without a doubt fills. If you also notice, I assume, there is one underneath which you may browse as often as you like. :) unsigned comment by User:Hanzon at 07:32, July 12, 2007

I'm technically on a wiki-break, but in a weak-willed moment I looked at some of the pages on my watchlist to see if there was any vandalism, and saw this discussion. Since Talk:Ecuador is evidently not on a lot of people's watchlist, I'll pop in to add my opinion.
Yes, that's a pretty picture, but as a map it is 10% 1% as useful as the previous map. A country article really has to have a map with city names and locations, provinces, roads, geographic feature names, etc. The satellite photo basically shows that Ecuador is green. I also agree it over-emphasizes the size of the Galápagos. I strongly favor the old map.
The article already has quite a few pictures, so I don't think I favor showing both, but I don't feel too strongly about that if others think differently. However, you should consider adding the appropriate Blue Marble page (where the satellite photo came from) to the External Links list; if you choose (and link to) the right layer, clicking on each city on the map takes you to the appropriate Wikipedia article. If I wasn't about to re-cloak and resume my wiki-break, I think that's a good enough idea that I'd probably try to do it myself. I will check in once or twice in the next couple of days to see if there's any feedback. --barneca (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I acknowledge the more honest description of the origin of the Blue Marble image, it clearly does not fulfil the requirements of a map on a country article. Hanzon seems not to acknowledge that geography means more than physical geography. No-one has spoken up in favour of Hanzon's change in the 4 days since I posted my message, so I have reverted it. Kevin McE 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today Hanzon has posted another satellite style image in place of a map. This still does not meet the basic requirements of a map as cited above, nor does it acknowledge any human geography. I will be reverting it again shortly. Perhaps Hanzon can explain what he considers to be deficient in the map that has stood on the page for many months. (Sorry: I posted this on 22nd July, but forgot to sign it: Kevin McE)
Hanzon, the map you are removing is useful. The two you've replaced it with are somewhat interesting, but do not replace the one you're removing. My comment above still stands, with respect to your new map as well. You really should stop removing that map. As far as adding one of your in addition to the useful map, I'll let you and Kevin McE argue about that. At the very least, explain here why you think yours are better. --barneca (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this: Which corresponding paragraph does the map belong to. In your respect, the map present is as you say a good map, but the map I present is a topographic map, which ever you description was above does not apply to all maps. THe topographic map show the =Geography= of the country not the roads or cities it goes through.

"Geography" does not only refer to topography. It refers to all related ideas, like topography, locations and names of cities/towns, bodies of water, political divisions, vegetation..... the list is long. Don't believe me? See Geography. No map is going to show all of this, but the map you were deleting does a good enough job. It even does a reasonable job of showing the topography. Your new map doesn't even show the borders of the country. If you want to add a satellite picture to the map that is already there, previous comments above make me think you're going to run into disagreement with Kevin McE, but I don't really care. But removing the map, and replacing it with one who's only purpose is to show the topographic relief of this portion of South America, doesn't make any sense. You might also want to look at four or five random country articles, to see how they handle maps and the geography section. --barneca (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any great objection to a satellite image being posted (although the article does have a lot of pictures already), so long as it does not claim to be a map (Hanzon: I gave the source of that definition), or replace one, and with the proviso that the source of the image (and not just an editor's alterations to it) meets requirements for fair use. Is there a Wiki policy on how many images a page should have? Kevin McE 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

I did a lot of editing for grammar, punctuation, clarification, elimination of wordiness, and correction of syntax, but made no content changes. However, I saw no mention of the Sucre as the national currency prior to 1999 (except in a table footnote). I inserted a mention in two locations, but it needs to be discussed in more detail in terms of its value against the dollar during the late 1990s, leading up to the collapse of several banks and the adoption of the dollar to replace it.

Also, the global news organizations use the term Ecuadorean (with an 'e' as in European), or just Ecuadoran, rather than Ecuadorian (with an 'i'), which is a derivative of the Spanish spelling. MS Word spellcheck recognizes Ecuadorian, but I wouldn't consider it an authority. --NameThatWorks 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave a message on your talk page earlier about Ecuadorean, but decided against it; I was afraid I'd interrupt the great editing job you were doing. Thank you. Both spellings seem to be used. Ecuadorian has the advantage in Google hits (roughly 2 million vs. 300,000), and the fact the the Ecuadorian Embassy in D.C. uses it [5]. Ecuadorean does, as you say, have the advantage that the AP style guide seems to prefer it. --barneca (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. The editing is a pleasure (I lived in Ecuador for three years and love the place). Ecuador's embassy uses the 'i' because it's the Spanish-derived spelling. I'd stick with the 'e' spelling -- but if you want to change it, I promise I won't change it back again.
I did read some of the controversary (above) concerning the dispute between Ecuador and Peru, and there were still skirmishes when I went down there in 1995. To get my resident visa, I had to pay the military a $300 "fee" to avoid being drafted and sent to the front (I was 48 at the time).
--NameThatWorks 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Provinces[edit]

I have noticed the political maps of Ecuador that show provincial divisions are outdated, since they do not have the new two provinces: Santa Elena and Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas. Does anybody here have an updated map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.9.49 (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term "Archipielago de Colon" is no longer used and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.131.225 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and climate[edit]

The intro to this section mentions three mainland areas plus the islands. But, there are only three bullet items total (the coastal zone has gone missing). Seems to me that last time I reviewed this article all four bullet items were there. Did I miss a big earthquake? --NameThatWorks (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) It was just a missing space it was connected with the : of the line above obv (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Holidays and Festivals[edit]

Surprisingly, Ecuador celbrates many of the same holidays as the United States. Christmas, Good Friday, Labour Day and more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.63.34 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that everybody celebrates Christmas and Holy Friday, and so... However, the Labor Day in Ecuador is May 1st, an in many other countries. I'll update that section with some other useful holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.215.99 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Nader in Science and Technology[edit]

It appeared to me that Ronnie Nader included a self-promotion of himself in the part of science and technology as the first "astronaut" of Ecuador, this part should be edited. --Guillermosoriano (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But edited how? Seems vague on your behalf to want to edit that section without commenting on what should be edited. I personally don't think it should be edited. He is the first Ecuadorian astronaut... that seems significant in itself. And so far as I can tell, he is the only astronaut in the country and is heading a lot of what EXA is doing. Perhaps the order of sentences in that section may need to be re-arranged, but that's about it.

Now was it added by the man himself as a form of self-promotion? Looks unlikely... Everything about the Ecuadorian space program and Ronnie Nader came a from a user named Airwolf754, who signed Ronnie Nader's article talk page as Col. Luis Herreria of the Ecuadorian Air Force. So if it was Col. Herreria's work, it can't be self-promotion by Mr. Nader. Besides, you have listed no proof that is it self-promotion by Mr. Nader.

Digirami (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact initially added by Blupper92 (05:45, 09/08/2008), to whom I raised a query about its relevance on a national page. His reply was that within 2 days he intended to expand the section to be a more far eaching overview of Science and Technology in the country, but this was never done. Frankly, I think that the exploits of EXA should be no more than a "See Also" entry here: the Ecuador article should relate information about the land, people, culture and governance of the country, not the activities of any company or agency in particular. Kevin McE (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, the section seems to just repeat what the EXA article says. But at the same time, some mention of EXA in the Science and Technology section would be great seeing as they are the 3rd space agency on the continent, with something more brief as to what they are doing. Digirami (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDUCATION[edit]

The section of Education should be improved. It is important to have a list of the main universities in Ecuador, and that it is regulated by CONESUP. In Quito the main universities: Universidad Central, Pontificia Universidad Catolica, Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Escuela Politecnica del Ejercito, Universidad San Francisco de Quito. In Guayaquil: Universidad de Guayaquil, Universidad Catolica Santiago de Guayaquil, Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral, Universidad Laica Vicente Rocafuerta. other universities: Universidad del Azuay, Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja. Later it should be good to start an article of each of these universities, I found one on Escuela Politecnica Nacional, I don't know about the others. --Guillermosoriano (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorean economy[edit]

I think the economy section of Ecuador´s article is somewhat out of date. It mainly deals about the devastating economic crisis that took place in Ecuador at the beginning of the present century, yet the country has achieved a lot improvements, and the latest report given is about Ecuador´s default over its foreign debt. Nothing in the economic section informs the reader about Ecuador´s relatively good advance in its Human development index score and ranking among Latin America in the last few years. The reader is also led to believe that currently 70% of Ecuador's people live below the poverty line, as it was left with no further explanation that this information was correct in the early 2000's, not in the present years. I think that section should be updated in order to give the reader a more realistic view of the country. 200.107.49.26 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government in Ecuador[edit]

I've read city pages for Ecuadorian cities, but I'm still not sure I understand how local government works in Ecuador, so perhaps this needs to be made more clear. So, generally, are urban settlements governed small and/or large governed at least partially independent of their parish government, or does a parish governed urban settlements and sometimes multiple ones within its border? And then specifically for the cities of Quito and Guayaquil, which seem to be called "metropolitan districts" at the canton level, are all parishes urban and rural administered as a "city" or is there a seperate canton (all parishes) and "city" (urban parishes) government? This really needs to be made more clear probably in the "Administrative divisions" section of this page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016[edit]

PLEASE I WILL LIKE TO IMPROVE THE PAGE ABOUT ECUADOR.

THANK YOU Franciscodegotia (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! What would you like to be changed? Please be as clear as possible (i.e. "change x to y") and explain your reasoning. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transport edit[edit]

The lines about the Quito airport should be changed to past tense as we are now in 2016, and the future changes happened in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.96.111.55 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Ecuador Problem[edit]

Under religion in Ecuador, for the panel with percentages, one of the minority religions listed is, "Black," which then links to Afro-Ecuadorian, but this seems like it'd be a population demographic, and not a religion, especially as there is no mention of whether there is a specific religion practiced by the black community that differs from the rest. The link to the Afro-Ecuadorian page then goes on to state that the predominant religion of the black community in Ecuador is Roman Catholicism. Would there be any problem if I were to delete black out of the religion panel? 79.158.167.31 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence ending abruptly[edit]

I was reading the article today. I found this: "The public finance of Ecuador consists of the Central Bank of Ecuador (BCE), the National Development Bank (BNF), the State Bank, the Na". The sentence stops abruptly. Can this be corrected by someone knowledgable? Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self Determined-Census[edit]

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

Incas arrived in this region and were not indigenous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.179 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017[edit]

~~


ECUADOR HAS AN TERRITORAL EXTENTION OF 283.561KM2 PLERASE RECTIFI THIS ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT ECUADOR.

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017[edit]

Santiagoski (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


RELIGION IN ECUADOR IS ACCORDING TO PEW RESEARCH: 85% CATHOLICS, PLEASE RECTIFY THIS IN THE PAGE OF RELIGION.

THANK YOU.

Not done: Information provided is from the CIA world fact book which is a more reliable source. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2018[edit]

Change Bolivar to Bolívar in the Administrative Divisions of Ecuador table. Tucotuco (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Minor edit to insert a correct diacritical mark. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019[edit]

This article states that Quito, the capital is the largest city, when in fact it is Guayaquil. The article states as shown: "The capital city is Quito and the largest city as well" when a check on CIA.gov's world factbook will actually prove Guayaquil is the largest city by a factor of 1.077 million. Thank you for your time 2600:1009:B053:4EF8:2C66:EC23:FE67:73DB (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The claim is supported by a reliable source that has been provided in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIA factbook reference[edit]

Currently the main reference for the religion section is a CIA world factbook page on Papua New Guinea, not Ecuador. Tellurium128 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

largest city[edit]

I just reverted the largest city back to Guayaquil. From the numbers on Wikipedia, Guayaquil is bigger than Quito: 2.7M vs 2M without metro. Saraedum (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the same thing. Both city and urban area make Guayaquil larger. Someone doesn't like the numbers? Here is the text claiming Quito as largest city, removed from the introduction:
its largest city as well. References: "Siri dice que la capital de Ecuador es Guayaquil, ¿qué pasó?". Retrieved October 11, 2019. and "Quito se convirtió en la ciudad más poblada del Ecuador con más de 2,7 millones de habitantes en el 2018". Archived from the original on January 10, 2019. Retrieved January 11, 2019.</ref>
Zaslav (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone named Emilio_Mondragón has reverted the correction of the largest city, in defiance of the figures given in the WP articles, thus creating an internal contradiction. What is the correct course of action? I am reluctant to start an edit war, but this is unreasonable.
One of the alleged sources for this is the article "Siri dice que la capital de Ecuador es Guayaquil, ¿qué pasó?". Retrieved October 11, 2019. which falsely claims Siri says Guayaquil is the capital. In fact, if the screen shot is Siri, Siri dice solo que Guayaquil es la capital economica. Artícolos qui no pueden comprender Siri no deben bases para editar Wikipedia. Also, that source does not appear to say which is the largest city, but I did not read the whole thing.
The other alleged source is something I can't evaluate, but it is only a newspaper story and the population figures appear to be estimates (my Spanish is not good enough to be sure). If it is correct, there should be a more authoritative source, and the WP figures should be changed to avoid inconsistency. Zaslav (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Emilio Mondragón, user of Wikipedia since 2010. I have been claimed that Quito is the largest city of Ecuador nowadays, because the statistics of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC), that it's the Government local census source, in its publication "Proyecciones Poblacionales". Retrieved April 18, 2020., Quito (as a canton, like a municipality and city, not urban area solely) figures with 2,78 million inhabitants in 2020, more than Guayaquil (which you defend as the largest city of the country), that figures with 2,32 million. I understand what you think, but Wikipedia has wrong data, because it only considers the urban area. In this point, Guayaquil has more population than Quito, 2,6 million to be exact. This is higher than the capital's one (2,0 million). For this reason, Quito has more inhabitants than Guayaquil, because we consider the rural areas (note that Guayaquil only has 100K people in its rural areas, lower than Quito, that has nearly 700K people in its rural areas). Please, try to understand that Quito is the largest city of Ecuador, Guayaquil has a lower growth rate of population than Quito, and we can't talk about the population of both cities without taking into consideration their rural areas. I invite you to analyze the projections that are in the link above (my English is not so good as you), and after that, you can debate your points of view here. Greetings. Emilio Mondragón (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zaslav on this one I think. If the other numbers on Wikipedia are wrong, then these should be fixed first with the appropriate sources. But Wikipedia says that (without metro) Quito has 2M and Guayaquil 2.7M. That makes Guayaquil the largest city. With metro Quito has (according to Wikipedia) 2.7M and Guayaquil 3.1M. Again this makes Guayaquil the largest city. So, sorry but I propose to revert your change again. Saraedum (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

caca[edit]

Bold text and pelada retoño prepuscula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:472:829C:C8D0:EDDD:7FD6:DED6 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

There is great controversy regarding the most populated cities in the country, however, "Quito has been ratified as the most populous city in Ecuador," as there are no articles in the law or the like that dictate that the population of a city is purely urban, it is municipal as a whole. Quito has 2,735,987 inhabitants (remember that Quito is not only the area of ​​urban parishes, Quito comprises a whole, that is, Quito D.M.), while Guayaquil (understand Guayaquil as a WHOLE) has 2,698,077 inhabitants. A clear difference of just over 38,000 inhabitants, a gap that increases over the years. There are people who defend by sword that Guayaquil is still the most populous city in the country, CLEAR REGIONALISM an desinformation (Wikipedia isn't the only reference). Of course, its urban parishes concentrate more population than those of Quito. 2.6 million vs. 2 million. But 'the term city UNDERSTANDS EVERYTHING', not just urban cities, since, as I mentioned earlier, there is no law that indicates that a city is made up of urban parishes. For example, Calderón is a rural parish in Quito, but it belongs to the city of Quito.

If so, otherwise please let me know in my personal discussion. Also, I delete the "controversy" note, because I leave below evidence and sufficient references that notice that Quito is the largest city of Ecuador.

References (all in Spanish):

Greetings.— Emilio Mondragón (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear construction[edit]

"He is accompanied by the vice-president, currently María Alejandra Muñoz, elected for four years (with the ability to be re-elected only once). "

Presumably they are both elected for four years with the possibility of one additional term? Please fix if so Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecuador/Archive_2&oldid=1176630657"