Talk:Domestic policy of the Evo Morales administration

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

Land Theft[edit]

Should a section about how Morales is taking land from political opponents without compensationUnicorn76 (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide sources, we'll have a basis for discussion. Rd232 talk 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nationlization[edit]

Let stop using the PC word and call it appropriation or theft.Unicorn76 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you can provide well-sourced details of companies not receiving appropriate compensation etc, you can improve the article in a way that throwing around POV labels won't. Rd232 talk 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64013020100501 not giive me a reason why we can't remove the PC. prottection of this theif?Unicorn76 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the source you gave doesn't even make that claim (See WP:V). It says that the power companies were nationalized and compensated. Second, even if it were in the source, it would be an opinion that it was "stolen" (a fringe opinion at that), not a fact (see WP:ASSERT).-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters did say that Morales took the property without the other sides agreements thats theft. Reuters is internationally accepted.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read (and digest) my last response to you. Then go read WP:OR, as well. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, now I suggest you do the same, the source mets standardsUnicorn76 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the reliability of Reuters as a source (yes, Reuters is generally a reliable source). It has to do with you trying to include something that the source does not support -- please see WP:V. Your own personal interpretation of this article it is not relevant -- please see WP:OR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what the Reuters source exactly says is "Morales said the Bolivian government tried, but failed, to convince investors to sell the shares the state needed to have a controlling stake. "It's the state's obligation to compensate investors for their assets. ... We made an effort to reach an agreement with the private, multinational companies, but they were unwilling to reach an accord," said Morales." Earlier in the article it quotes Morales saying "We're here ... to nationalize all the hydroelectric plants that were owned by the state before, to comply with the new constitution of the Bolivian state. Basic services cannot be a private business." There isn't really enough detail here (there often isn't in news sources) to explain exactly what's what. But it sounds like the nationalisation was mandated by the new, democratically approved constitution (fact 1 to confirm) and the government negotiated with the companies on that basis (fact 2 to confirm) and the companies didn't want to sell (fact 3 to confirm) leading to the government declaring a forced sale (fact 4 to confirm). The main detail needed is whether third parties consider the forced sale price fair. It's worth noting that provisions for forced sales under some public interest circumstances are commonplace around the world, including Western democracies (there's a legal word for it which escapes me now). PS Unicorn, please check out Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation - I've fixed this now but you ought to know how to do it right. Rd232 talk 07:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent domain, I believe, is the term you're looking for. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Thanks :) Rd232 talk 09:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would ask why we are taking Morales word. The facts are he took someone else's property. Why not say after is claim about not reaching agreement, he took the energy company's property?Unicorn76 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have already been answered above. Come back with reliable sources, instead of original research. Your argument is not convincing, and even if it were, it wouldn't matter. You don't get content included on Wikipedia based on good arguments. You include it based on how it's represented in reliable sources. Continuing on trying to convince people that it is a "theft" is a waste of everyone's time (including yours). So stop. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more proof of Evo's theft. Will that suffice? http://www.sandiego6.com/news/world/story/Bolivia-seizes-more-ranch-land-from-govt-opponent/LZlBfhnNRESAieSJQbaCCw.cspxUnicorn76 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is part of a land reform programme targeting fallow lands or lands without proper proof of ownership, and the article states courts have upheld similar seizures. Mistreating workers ("treated as virtual slaves") is also a factor. "Land reform" really ought to be a heading in the article and if you want to write a neutral section on it (I think the new constitution has relevant provisions worth mentioning), great. If all you want to do is label Morales a thief, please drop it. Rd232 talk 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you two examples on where Morales has stolen land, you just seem to be taking his side if nothing else lets put in the point that the land owners were not given compensation.Unicorn76 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to ensure WP:NPOV, you would have to describe the land reform programme context. It appears the proper legal and constitutional procedures were followed, and no compensation was legally due (whether it was because of proof of ownership was lacking or something else is not clear to me). Possession of property does not necessarily equate to legal entitlement to it (if it did, the concept of theft would evaporate). Rd232 talk 17:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the link, I stand by my point. Morales took land that was owned by someone else and did not compensate him. As far as the legal procedure that it is a POV the other side claims they owned the land. Morales changed the law to take the land.The fact that they were not compensated is important to the article.Unicorn76 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Here are some links on the 2006 land reform bill [1] and the provisions of the new constitution [2]. Quite a lot of the land appears to have been acquired illegally, and upon this being found out, is naturally removed from the "owner" without compensation. See also Bolivian constitutional referendum, 2009 for the supplemental question on land limits, which are not retroactive [3]. The legal provisions on expropriating unused land are not original; what's new is actually enforcing the law.[4] Rd232 talk 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh you are only posting the goverment line or in ref #2 a very biased source, what is the objection to saying that the political opponent of Morales was not given compensation, I've given you reports on it.Unicorn76 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not saying that you can't mention that they were not given compensation. He's actually saying the opposite. But what he did say is that you can't take it out of context (i.e. you need to mention that they were not legally entitled to compensation, and need to discuss it in the context of land reform policy -- of course, you'll need to understand what that means first ...) and he is saying that you can't include your own point of view and throw in words like "thief" or "stolen" that are not backed by the sources (and are incorrect/misleading, for that matter.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have given say they were not given compensation, all I am saying is that we give equal weght to their cliams.What is the problem Wikipedia or so Jim Wales says is not supposed to be biased. but you object to the neutrality. He was entitled to compensation just because Morales pushed through a racist law not make the owner unentitled to compensation, we are not talking about a country where people have equal rights.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: the gist of the laws predates Morales, he's just enforcing them (and did you read some of the stuff about virtual slavery, and the scale of the land inequality?). The only question of competing claims arises in specific cases, where it is hardly surprising the owner (or possibly "owner") contests the government claims that no compensation is due. (Also not surprising that these rich landowners, some with US ties, manage to create a large enough stink to echo in international media, whilst the daily injustices of Bolivian peasantry go unreported.) That would be an excellent reason not to waste encyclopedia space going into individual cases, and instead describing the general land reform programme, and summarising that some controversy exists. Now, please, either draft some text on the land reform programme, or drop this. Or if you must report the individual case, Wikinews is that way. Rd232 talk 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Land confisication[edit]

As Morales defenders are being obtuse

Here is the proposed added info

Land confiscation

One of Evo Morales reforms is taking land from wealthy land owners and redistributing it to the poor.

These properties are taken from political opponents and given to poor ethnic supporters

Morales justify these seizures without compensation claiming that the land was being unused or alleging mistreatment of the workers.

The uncompensated owners deny these allegations

http://www.abc4.com/news/world/story/Bolivia-seizes-more-ranch-land-from-govt-opponent/LZlBfhnNRESAieSJQbaCCw.cspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Er, no. I already explained above you need to describe the land reform properly, and gave several sources to do that. And by the by, emphasising that the land is taken from political opponents is spectacularly missing the point that wealthy landowners are obviously not Morales supporters; land inequality in Bolivia is very high, and he represents the poor. So if he's going to redistribute land (as previous land reform law claimed to, but hardly did), he can't hardly take it equally from supporters and opponents. You can't play this like it's Obama taking land from Republicans! Rd232 talk 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to have a discussion you call it land reform I call it land confiscation. I have not seen any evidence that supports the Land Reform. But as Morales is not giving any thing in return for the land confiscation is a more accurate term. My sources which you don't seem to accept support the land confiscation description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy on land and land reform is all in the new Bolivian Constitution which was drawn up by a democratically elected assembly, further negotiated on and approved in the congress and then ratified by 62% of the Bolivian population in a referendum.
  • In the article cited by User:Unicorn76, the government makes two claims for the land seizure from Osvaldo Monasterio - that land is not serving a social and economic function and that title deeds are fraudulent. The first condition comes from the constitution, the second refers to a basic dipute over legal ownership. According to the article Monasterio hasn't commented. Pexise (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Unicorn76 is simply unfamiliar with the concept of land reform. Bolivia itself had some land reform before (see Agriculture in Bolivia), and as I said before, the Morales land reform provisions are similar to what existed before, except now the law is actually applied. [5] Rd232 talk 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the concept of Land Reform, but I think Land Confiscation is a more NPOV. Just becuase a goverment which is biased against non indians votes in a law does not mean it is fair and just. The U.S rancher can not appeal because the Morales court which did not explain its ruling does not allow apeals. The Bolviain goverment is bias against certain ethnic groups just as many totalitarian goverments in the Middle East are.Unicorn76 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am familiar with the concept of Land Reform". Uh huh. Have you even bothered to look at the land reform article? By definition it involves taking land from those who have it and giving (some of) it to those who don't. Since there is a finite amount of land it has to come from someone claiming the land belongs to them; and compensation at full market value would preclude land reform on any scale, so land reform rarely involves compensation that leaves the prior owner happy. Besides which, you seem determined to simply ignore the issue of land title - if the "owners" can't prove ownership they're no better than squatters. And whilst it's touching that you're concerned about a democratic government being possibly "biased" (? this is politics, not Wikipedia) against rich Bolivian landowners, were you so concerned at all the pre-Morales governments "biased" against the Indians? I increasingly feel that you simply have no grasp of this subject whatsoever, and wonder what on earth motivates you to care about it. Rd232 talk 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well first there may be an article but Land confiscation would be a better description of what Moralesis doing considering he only seems to be taking it fron non Indians. And maybe I see Morales to be just as much a racist as Robert Mugabe.Unicorn76 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about all the rich Bolivian Indians whose vast landholdings are (so far) untouched? With appropriate sourcing rather than speculation of course. (And I'm guessing I do have to point out that to sustain your thesis you would have to show not merely that such people exist at all, but that they're affected to a lesser extent by the reform programme, to a statistically significant degree, taking into account a large range of possible confounding factors like location, type of land use, strength of ownership claim, etc etc. If you can do that, it'd merit publication as an academic paper...) Rd232 talk 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And would you please follow the Wikipedia indenting conventions? Colons at the beginning of a line, one more than the previous comment. Thanks. Rd232 talk 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight an Indian leader who give special privilidges to his ethnic group while burdening and stealing from other groups is not a racist?Unicorn76 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I totally agree. He's a raging racist, and I heard he has concentration camps for Jews and Filipinos where he eats coca pudding and whips people with bamboo. And I think someone said he's mentally ill and force feeds chicken to homosexuals. Something to do with hormones and capitalism. But anyway, please read WP:V and come back when you have high-quality reliable sources and can neutrally report what they are saying. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it would be best if you could provide suggestions for how to improve the article instead of ranting about your hatred for this "racist land thief". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your ceaseless hyperbole, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and inability or unwillingness to follow indenting conventions is adding up to my wondering if your presence is really a net positive for the project. Rd232 talk 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you both to this quote from that same page:Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. Unicorn76 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the reference to "productive contributors" - I see no evidence so far that you qualify, or intend to. Your own userpage declares an intent to be a POV warrior, and your contributions on both content and discussion pages give every impression that this declaration is correct. You need to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground and start treating it as an encyclopedia to which you are contributing. Rd232 talk 13:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I see it the opposite way, PC editors make a claim of NPOV and if it is disputed with facts as I have done we are attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Domestic policy of Evo Morales. 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) 23:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domestic policy of the Evo Morales administration. 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) 06:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Updating[edit]

The article is virtually worthless as a source of information on the title subject. There is nothing at all on any of his or his government's actions in the last 13 years except for scant mention of the 2009 constitution 10 years ago. It is insane that we have literally nothing to say on this. Crmoorhead (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_policy_of_the_Evo_Morales_administration&oldid=1205539670"