Talk:2012 Ecuadorian protests

Close paraphrase

Article is such a close paraphrase that it comes close to being a copyvio. At least there are enough failings in the Al Jazeera journalist's knowledge of Ecuadorian geography and political history gives us some changes that are absolutely necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Since WP editors are resident experts on all knowledge then what part is failing? Point it out?Lihaas (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't shout (as you have below), don't assume a superior sarcastic tone, and read the edit notes, and you will find far more co-operation in the building of articles that interest you, but about which you clearly have little knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? you allege im being sarcastic and you get catty?! what "superior" knowledge do you have over others? RS sources are RS, any dispute shuold be aken to RSN

"Uninformed drivel" sounds liek an npa...not that im concerned ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Some edits

This edit, including a summary of attack on the part of the editor who refutes an RS for personal opinion, states that CONAIE claims to represent its figure. READing that will show it is not stated as gospel fact. This has been altered for a possible accomodation. This needs a source WP editorial not opinion. This is OBVIOUSLY contradicted by the wikilink itself.Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on including errors simply because some journalist makes them, I shall propose deletion of the article as a close paraphrase infringing copyright. There is no such province as Ecuacorriente Zamora-Chinchipe; the article does not even say that CONAIE claims such membership levels There is a key difference between representing people and having them as members, but a political groups claim about what it does is, even of quoted by a third party, still only a boastful claim). CONAIE were a tine part of the efforts to remove Bucaram and Mahaud: see the articles on those ex=presidents. Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What errors are there? Ive discussed everything if you want to then discuss dont threaten. please READ what ive written, i have taken that OFF.

again read the exact word on the source. CONAIE "claims to have a membership" your opinion is not fact. take it to RSN if you have a dispute. if you allege there was only a "tiny part" to play against the RS' statement then the onus is on you to prove it with RS sources because WP editors opinions are not RS. and get consensus first for reverts per BRD

its not you that have great unsourced knowledge while attacking others...and threats dont help discussion per CIVIL. more importantly instead of attacking vs. discussing you hae not answered ONE SINGLY point i politely explained above. AND made accomodations for.

Further to the threats what is "close paraphrase infringing copyright" that the word CLAIM is taken and the editorial opinion now holds no water? You aint mentioned whats "copyrighted" beyond threats that restoration will trigger copyvio flags...despit ebeing asked to discuss. Any rate, ive tagged for further discussion

for the sake of discussion i will reiterate: 1. directly from the source that said editor refuses to see: "CONAIE, which claims to represent a third of Ecuador's population of more than 14 million..."; 2. accomodate on the Amazon bit and i wrote region not the province; 3. agreed and crossed off; 4. the editors OPINION of provinces is starkly contrasted with the actual WP page tht exists (ad is linked here) about the provinces of Ecuador.

To paraphrase, of the 4 issues: 1 i changed as wrong on my part, 1 i accomodated, 2 ive opened for discussion TWICE to get no response. OWN? not on WP.Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, BBC ALSO says COANAIE played a leading role in the ousters, not a "tiny part"Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)None of the issues of dispute are actually key to the thrust of the article, and all of them are areas in which the journalist is clearly ill informed, as is proven by his confusion of the name of a province with the name of a politician (Zamora-Chinchipe, Salvador Quishpe), and lack of knowledge of when Correa was elected.

• Amazon

A totally irrelevant adjective to apply. Ecuador has 24 provinces, of which Zamora-Chinchipe (not Ecuacorriente Zamora-Chinchipe, which further evidences the ignorance of the journalist as to the subject), and 7 regions. Zamora-Chinchipe is in the same region as two other provinces, both of which are on the Pacific side of the Andean watershed. Thus there is no such thing as an Amazon region in Ecuador.

• CONAIE membership

The al-Jazeera source says " CONAIE, which claims to represent a third of Ecuador's population of more than 14 million" Hoping to represent people's interests is not the same as having them all as members, which is the phrasing in the article at the moment. The government of Ecuador presumably claims to represent the entire population. CONAIE might seek to represent the entire indigenous population, but it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the entire indigenous population are of one mind. I would challenge anyone wishing to retain this in the text to find another serious source that makes the claim.

• CONAIE and the ejection from office of Bucaram and Mahaud

CONAIE was undoubtedly part of the uprising against both of these presidents, but any article that actually focusses on these events would certainly not describe them as the only, or even prime, movers in either case. The 2000 rebellion was fronted by the military, and Bucaram was sacked by congress on the grounds of mental instability. I would repeat the challenge of the last section to those who would retain this: find any other reliable source that gives sole credit to CONAIE. (It may be that the Al-Jazeera article is simply rehashing something from the wires: I'd accept a source that does centre on the same incident, lest the ignorance lies beyond Al Jazeera)

• Route and hope for increase in number of marchers.

Current version is a thoroughly ungrammatical mixture of tenses. It is far more relevant to give the distance of the walk than to mention the truism that one has to go through several provinces to complete the trip. A simple look at a map makes it clear that the journey must include at least 5 provinces (including the start and destination), but one could do a journey of about 20 km and go through 5 provinces near Bucay: km tell the reader how far it is, provinces don't. Kevin McE (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved back up here as its not a 3O

Also get over the journalistic errors and comment on content. After all the requests from me and the 3O you havent provided sources for your assertions. The onus is on the challenger to prove with sources, not call for counterclaims to provided but disliked sources.

The journalistic errors are the only reason that you are trying to include false information. They, and your blind belief that they should be taken as true, are the root of the problem. How can they be ignored? Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Provinces of Ecuador mentions nothing of the 3 regions. At any rate, to accomodate: instead of region perhaps for the Amazonian context "Amazon area" would work

Whoever mentioned 3 regions? There is no direct relevance to the Amazon anywhere in this story, so I cannot understand your insistence on trying to crowbar in mention of it despite the inaccurate statements about the administrative divisions of Ecuador that it necessitates. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

2. NOTHING says anything about CONAIE "seeking" the source merely says they claim, whether true or not, and that is cited. If there is a counter source instead of OR then by all means show and edit that.

I really can't reply to that as it makes no sense at all. Your source does not say that they claim a membership of 1/3 of the population, but you insist on wanting to make that claim on their behalf. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

3. NOTHING says they were they ONLY movers in the rebellion. There are now 2 sources that show they were not a "tiny part" Again as requested multiple times provide a source that says so as the onus is on the challenger not to assert OR/synthesis. is BBC ignorant and of their rocker?

It is clear that the BBC are rehashing the same AFP story as the Al-Jazeera source, so that helps identify the origin of the errors in the news story. To say that their protests led to the removals is to posit them as the prime movers: that is gross oversimplification. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

4. NOTHING is saying they are going directly to Quito...as per seeing bolivia's success they could be going around different "regions" to pick up supporters. Further the distance IS added with a source. And as for the corrections feel free to correct them...this is the point of WP's open editing policy. Thats what colloboration is, not to demand.Lihaas (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am seeking to do: to make corrections. Well done to you for sourcing the start of the article, but you should allow others who know a little more of the context to correct the over-simplification that so easily occurs in news agency stories. That is all I have been trying to do, but you seem unduly tied to the information that you found. I haven't added extra information that requires sourcing, I have simply removed false information because the source is not always correct. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

by all means do so...but source it. claims of oversimplification without anything to back up is OR/synthesis (See below) Im not saying dont add it, im saying source it. And at times when the version was wrong ive said as much and changed. other times, like the provinces, ive shown its not true. You have to SHOW that its not correct, you cant synthesise per the statements above "show me a source that is against X logic"(Lihaas (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).

How do you suggest that one sources the removal/toning down of claims? That is illogical and unstipulated. I'm at a loss as to how you believe that you have proved an error about provinces, you are simply justifying a comment that is a redundant truism, as it is impossible to walk from the beginning of the route to the end of it without passing through several provinces. Indeed, you have introduced (into your reasoning, not into the article) pure speculation that there might be a reason why they might have set an indirect route: that cannot justify an inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite logically you can give another source that contradicts this and asserts your view, perfectly normal to show/proof a source made a mistake.

Secondly, the reasoning i gave here was a possiility as to what the source may mean, its not in any way gospel truth...and again unil you have the other proof your reasoning is pure OR/Synthesis. im not going around in circles anymore, provinde a source if you must

During this whole "Saga" youve dont nothing but assert again and again your opinion without proving with any source whatsoever...conversely instead of bickering i went out and found more sources. (in line with the outside opinion)Lihaas (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wht have you restored blatant unsourced lies into the article? This is vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NO its vandalism and not AGF to go on restoring without dsicsussion or even one single source...much as to what the OTHER opinions said you so we dont go around in circles. Simpyl said your opinion alone does not and WILL not count.

CONSENSUS is built on discussion and YOU are clearly against the grain of consensus having done absolutely nothing but assert your will and demand to restore your WP:WRONGVERSION. Im not going go go again and again and say this but thre are 2 other opinion here that are againstyou. THe next time you resotre to your personal liking without discussion or source or anything the other views will be called upon and your non AGF edits will be reported as per your ad hominem attacks that dont discuss content

"Unsourced absolute nonsense: no RS in the world claims this, but Lihaas does"

WP will NEVER cite an editors opinion vs. RS sources...if you have a counter source provice it NOT your opion.Lihaas (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not adding any opinion. I am editing what you have posted, which is mainly in good faith, but in terms of CONAIE having a membership of >4 million people is a fanciful interpretation of the source, and is not present in any source. If you are incapable of distinguishing between claiming to represent people, and claiming that a group of people are members, then frankly, editing an encyclopaedia is probably beyond your language skills.

The RS is not particularly well informed, but even if it were, we have no obligation to repeat every journalistic turn of phrase that the source uses. I cannot for the life of me imagine how you consider the article to be improved by the poorly written mixture of tenses that you have today re-introduced in the Protest march section; nor by the confusion of a second march which is never clearly stipulated as a separate event; nor by repeating the ridiculous truism that a walk with those start and finish points will go through various provinces (you might as well say that they started on 8 March, and walked through 9th, 10th, 11th, etc to arrive in Quito on the 22nd). Making up words to add to quotes, as you have now done twice, is explicitly forbidden. There are formal regions in Ecuador: using the word informally will serve no purpose other than to confuse the reader.

Please suggest your reason, beyond the fact that they were mentioned in a AFP wire and repeated by various sources too lazy to do their own research, for wanting to include these details. Kevin McE (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If your BOLD edits were reverted you need consensus before having your version backed by nothing, unliek what is here being fully backed by RS soruces per WP policies. If you think the RS is not well informed that is YOUR opinion. take it to RSN or provide a counterpoint. There are other opinions against you yet you insist on your way.

Im not going to argue with your idea of a fanciful interpretation or not because thats your persnal and private opinion alone and whats written is from the source. As i have said the wording for the march is from the source, if you disagree then you PROVE otherwise dont add your convoluted personal logic and as gospel fact at that. And the article on WP lists provinces, if you disagree then show it. Your opinion holds nothing for reliability here. (as does mine or anyone elses). If sources are too lazy, then you should do the research to prove they are. THhey have editorial processes that WP recognises. Individul editors do NOT have that. I have also seen reason as in the province name and accomodated and changesd. youve dont nothing but assert your whim.Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I note your refusal to consider the questions that I asked above, and your total indifference even to the grammatical, MoS, and accuracy of quotation concerns expressed, and refer you to the specific proposals, and the reasons for them, below. I can only conclude that you are indeed incapable of distinguishing between claiming to represent people, and claiming that a group of people are members, and refer you to the advice that I give above for that contingency. Similar counsel would have to be given to anyone incapable of differentiating between expressing an opinion and removing contentious or ill-phrased prose. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am quite capable of discussing and gaining consensus (as per the change of province name)_, but your abject inability to discuss in order to have your whim and fancy as gospel truth asserted against the grain of consensus is absolutely intolerable. The onus is on YOU to prove your soruces. not your op-ed views.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion

I was asked by User:Lihaas to comment here in hopes of diffusing the situation and thus will do so. First, I will note that the article currently uses only 1 source which is not a good idea, as it can make the article unbalanced. Now, the best way to fix this problem is by added more sources and trying to determine what the majority position is when sources disagree. Changing content that appears to be POV without providing alternate sources is not really helpful and is possibly original research of sorts. Finally, threatening to have the article deleted if someone doesn't cooperate is inappropriate. Either the article infringes on copyright and should be fixed irregardless, or it doesn't and the issue should be dropped.

Now, I believe the core of the dispute is whether CONAIE's claims can/should be in the article. I don't feel they have to be, but the info probably is useful background. If the figure is a huge exaggeration, then find some alternate number attributable to a RS and say something like "CONAIE claims to represent 5 million people, but outside groups put the figure much lower at 100,000" or whatever. Again, the main problem here (IMO) is the use of only 1 source, not the attribution to possibly inaccurate info to said source. If it's wrong, provide evidence that the source is wrong, don't just assert that it is wrong and remove the material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I added 2 more sources, one of which deals with the assertion of the role CONAIE played in the past. So if im not mistaken, we only have the numbers issue left. (ive put a tag there to generate discussion)Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment here, and agree pretty much entirely with ThaddeusB's comments. However, the information about CONAIE in the background section is a little jarring - it isn't clear to me why the information is needed on this page, particularly about their support for Correa. Perhaps the info about being involved in removing previous presidents should actually be in the "Goals" section instead. Another thing that needs fixing is the use of bare URLs as the references. Number 57 19:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Background for context i would have thought. Shows possible potency in light of successful movements in the recent decade or so.

Just doing reflinks after adding some more.

btw- i asked for some admin (neutral?) opinion on this lest i be accused of canvassing...dont believe i "canvassed" in any form.Lihaas (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats going on?

Whats at Yantzaza and/vs. El Pangui, both in the same province? And BBC contradicts ens-newsire in saying Ecuacorriente is Chinese vs. Canadian. I suspect, rightfully, that its Canadian but doing the sale to China?Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

• Delete the words the southeastern Amazonian region, including from the phrase open-cast industrial copper mining concession in the southeastern Amazonian region, including the province of Zamora-Chinchipe.

The term region has a specific administrative purpose in Ecuadorian local politics. The region that includes Zamorra-Chinchipe includes two other provinces, neither of which are either on the east of the Andean watershed or in the southeast of the country. Thus the region is not southeastern or Amazonian, and it is misleading to use the word region in an informal sense in a context where it has formal application. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Will surely do that when you can cite its issue in politics of ecuador as said. the WP article makes no mention and i checked. Kindly see the wikilink you provided which links to "Zamora-Chinchipe province"Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the article Ecuador in any attempt to inform yourself before holding onto your lack of knowledge on the matter as a point of principle? I have never proposed the descriptionof Zamorra Chinchipe as anything other than a province. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1. im not going to respond to your attacks if they have nothing to do with content. 2. you mentioned regions vs. provinces which is not in the article i cited AND unsourced (for the nth time youve provided none so it holds no water).Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

They have everything to do with the content, but if you can't be bothered to look it up, you lose the right to comment

1. sign your posts, 2. your ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with content. 3. im accomodating, youve done nothing but assert your way on every issue. thats not how consensus works or ever will. so dont talk of "losing rights"

The region bit was an accomodation to you against the Amazon inclusion that is SOURCED and in context. if you have another wording for Amazon inclusion do that.Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Replace CONAIE, the umbrella organisation leading the protest march, claim to have a membership of a third of Ecuador's 14 million population with CONAIE, the umbrella organisation leading the protest march, claims to represent the interests of Ecuador's indigenous population.

There is no source, at all, that claims that CONAIE has a membership anywhere even vaguely in the region of 4 million people. Any statement to this fact is clearly a false conclusion from the claim that they represent the indigenous community. Claiming to represent part of the population is not the same as claiming that every member of that group is a member of the organisation. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a RS source that says so. Will change when you counter prove. This logic makes no sense at all, its duly added as CONAIE's claim not gospel truthLihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So please provide the source that says this, because those cited do not mention membership at all. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The one cited in the text mentions their claim of membership...have you forgotten your criticism of it? EVERYTHNG on the page is sourcedLihaas (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is quite simply untrue. The source says absolutely nothing about membership, as you have been told several times. It says, " CONAIE, which claims to represent a third of Ecuador's population of more than 14 million, " I have lost count of how many times I have asked you to acknowledge the difference between membership and representation. Far from me forgetting my criticism of it, you have totally ignored my criticism of it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

it claims is what was added...ill add the word represent. the source says 1/3...your unbacked assertion is OR.Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Replace led with contributed in the phrase In the past their protests have led to the removals of presidents Abdalá Bucaram in 1997 and Jamil Mahuad in 2000.

It is not in the scope of this article to speculate as to how central CONAIE's contribution to those events was. They were among several bodies involved on each occasion, so we should simply state what is incontrovertible, rather than risk controversial exaggeration of their role. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

the variety of sources, both Al Jazeeera and BBC say that. When you have a source it will be done. (though there are TWO RS sources that suggest this.Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get the nuance here, do you? It is not a difference of fact, but of degree. The word led implies a that CONAIE were the prime movers in these uprisings, and that their actions were the definitive catalyst in the removal of those presidents. I have already referred you to the articles on both of those ex-leaders, where you will see something of the complexity of the events at the time. In neither case was the final, definitive action that of CONAIE. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"You really dont get it do you"...the RS sources cites it as such! youve yet provided no source.Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No I don't have to. You have used one phrase that is your preferred paraphrase of the source: I have used another, and explained to you why it is preferable to avoid potential exagerration of the role of CONAIE, and shown you articles that give you an idea of the complexity of the situation. The phrase led to is no more sourced than the phrase contributed to, and you have never provided any reason why you think the article is better served by your choice of words, which I have done. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"now i dont have to" want a bet? you will always need sources or your opinion will meean less and then "youll lose your right". the source explicitly said they led it...YOU personally said no. you are not RSLihaas (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Correction of the inappropriate capital letter in which they said would lead to Environmental degradation and threaten their livelihoods.

I cannot imagine why anyone would consider this to be controversial, but an editor has disruptively undone this correction several times. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do...the capitalisation. Done it was a wikilink;)Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That might have been an excuse for placing it once: not for doing it three times. That you did it repeatedly is proof that you did not read the edit notes or comments here, and therefore that you edited with blind disregard for MoS and grammar. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

as did your revert without discussion of the other content so lets not go there.Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is just total rubbish. I never introduced this orthographical error into the article, you did, repeatedly. 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Radical simplification of the ungrammatical mix of tenses and confusion of prediction and outcome included in The march is planned to cross several provinces before ending in Quito, on 22 March after it picked up the intended support of more protesters, reducing it to The 700 km march reached Quito on 22nd March.

It is a meaningless truism to state that the walk passed through several provinces: it is impossible to get from that start point to that finish point without passing through several provinces. This is pure journalistic gloss.

There is no evidence as to whether the hoped for increase in numbers as the walk progressed was realised.

It is patently ridiculous to have a future intention expressed in an article about an event that finished 5 days ago, and yet this was restored to the article today. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The source said it goes through provinces so that will stay till counter proven, the picking up protesters was a resason per your assertion as accomodation. that can go

That is simply stubbornness to stick to a journalistic tone, and has absolutely nothing to do with facts. Of course it cannot be disproven, but that does not mean that it is in any way relevant or appropriate. This point has been made several times, and you have been asked above why you think that adding this meaningless truism is beneficial to the article. You have patently failed to address that. I cannot fathom what you mean by the later part of this response, so cannot comment on it. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ive removed part of it. Check the new version.Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot end in Quito during a 700 km march. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You can if you dotn go directly! Marches are not straight liens.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: that simply makes no sense. The end is not during a march, it is at , ermm, the end of it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ah! after the march okey...Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete the sentence The Yantzaza march against Ecuacorriente was also scheduled to reach Quito on 22 March.

There is no source that refers to two separate marches. Given the proximity of the reported start points, it seems far more likely that this was either confused reporting or one march that started in different places before merging. If there had been a separate Yantzaza march, presumably reports of its arrival in Quito could be sourced. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Read it and the discussion thread here. As i asked days ago DoneLihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as an admission that you were in the wrong, and will take your apology for continually re-introducing it to the article, despite being presented with clear reasons for not doing so, as read. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

if that pleases youLihaas (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removal of the sentence including unspoken words from the attributed quote We will never talk to the corrupt right, with the liars! [The indigenous should not] be used. We know that mining is necessary for modern life.

There is no excuse in an encyclopaedia for making up words to present as part of a quotation, and it is explicitly prohibited in the MoS. An editor seems to think that this rule does not apply to his edits, as he has added this to the article three times.Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

that was from the quote, the addition was in parantheses...what is made up? The source says "urged the natives to not let themselves "be used."" for which i added indigenous, is that wrong?

Read MOS:QUOTE, as previously suggested, and you will have the answer to your question. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

then reword it...nothing stopping that vs. a wholescale undiscussed changed. everythign in quotes if fromt he the source.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did rephrase it, and explained to you why I had done so, and you restored, twice, your false claim as to what was said. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

the quote is directly from the page...you removed the quoted wording. You can reword the indigenous thats not directly quoted but you cant remove/censor a quote.Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the above have been presented in the article, and reasoned, several times, and have been repeatedly removed from the article by an editor with issues around ownership of articles. A blind desire to incorporate as much of the filling as possible from one source, and an apparent inability or unwillingness to consider the content of the article rather than recklessly undoing considered and explained has lead to an lack of concern for grammar, objectivity, evidence, accuracy of quotation, and relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Theres not lack of objectivity...in line with the opinion above i got the more sources requested.

as per OWN i think asserting your whim and fancey without sources AND against consensus indicates ownership.

BTW- appreciate this proposal finally ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It should not be necessary to present edits as a proposal if editors are willing to consider the reason made for the edits. That is exactly what I did repeatedly. You chose to revert without consideration of the specific and individual points made (actions typical of article ownership), even to the point of re-introducing inappropriate capitalisation. If you are not willing to allow a non-controversial description of CONAIE's role in the deposition of Mahaud and Bucaram, then there is indeed a lack of objectivity.

Finally, let's examine the consensus that you claim. Thaddeus suggests "Now, I believe the core of the dispute is whether CONAIE's claims can/should be in the article. I don't feel they have to be, but the info probably is useful background. If the figure is a huge exaggeration, then find some alternate number attributable to a RS and say something like "CONAIE claims to represent 5 million people, but outside groups put the figure much lower at 100,000" or whatever. " Note that he makes the distinction between membership and representation. I can't find any membership claim for CONAIE (but there again, neither have you), but he is not proposing retention of your membership claim. Meanwhile, Number 57 states "However, the information about CONAIE in the background section is a little jarring - it isn't clear to me why the information is needed on this page", and yet you remain insistent that it not only remains on the page, but that it remains in a controversial and unobjective phrasing. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You chose to insert youtr verson without consensus and hence yes you DO need to discuss.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No I don't. My contributions to the article need no more consensus than do yours. You really don't seem to understand the concept of articles being built by a community, whereby the welcome initial suggestions can be honed and refined by people with more specific knowledge. The revert phase of BRD is never meant to simply be "this isn't what I wrote, so I don't like it", but I see no justification for your edits beyond that. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

and im going with consensus. as the other user said your assertion need sources and through the whole month youve come up with NOTHiNG. NOT ONE source to back you. its not by people with more knowledge its SOURCEs. your idea of provinces is backed by nothing whatsoever.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)