Jump to content

Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.224.51.125 (talk) at 16:06, 10 December 2019 (→Updates to the Discussion that End the Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Was this really a Coup?

Just asking as there was no forceful Military takeover. Yes it was. The opposition is far-right and violent. No, it wasn't a coup, it started as a civilian movement demanding a second round in the election, because of the irregularities that happens during the first round, after the OAS published a preliminary report of the audit of the fist round, the commander in chief of the police and the commander in chief of the armed forces who previously supported Evo Morales asked for his resignation along with the civilians that were demanding the same thing. Rvlvas (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) — Rvlvas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It has nothing to do with the forces involved being Far-Right, or with the fact that many protesters supported the move. It was an intervention of the armed forced that overthrew the government. This is the definition of a coup. It was a forceful military takeover. The fact that it was bloodless doesn't change that, the term "bloodless coup" exists for a reason. Antondimak (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Wiki definition of a coup d'etat Coup d'état: A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ (About this soundlisten); French: [ku deta]), also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction There was a political faction that seized illegally and unconstitutionally the established power. Grievances for the opposition could have been resolved through legal means like impeaching the president or going to new elections with new actors and neutral overseers of participating political parties and international observers as the deposed president set forward. However, it was clear that the opposition goal was to seize power at all costs notwithstanding using illegal means. Therefore, it was a coup d’etat GregorioApaza (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — GregorioApaza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Coup d'état?

Which reliable sources are calling it a "coup d'état"? In the sources presented in the article, the word "coup" is used only when they refer to Morales accusations against the opposition.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are none. The 2019 Bolivian protests page already exists; this new one seems to have been created to push a point of view, and should be deleted.--Rxtreme (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one, there are LOTS of sources, if you need more than one please ask. Now please change the title back to what everyone in Bolivia safe a few putschists from the opposition are calling this. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Telesur is far from a reliable source, especially if it involves politics in Latin America. In fact, it's banned. Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
If y'all don't like it, send it to AfD, but a coup "is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means" -- exactly like Guaido in Venezuela. Your support of the coup and opposition to the established government does not change the terminology. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: Just a suggestion to alter terminology of that last sentence; we can't judge editors' political affiliations based on questioning the use of 'coup' - a military merely forcing resignation is a more peaceful coup than most, and English sources are at least hesitant to use the term based on lack of information, so Morales supporters could disagree with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, which sources you have that supports the idea that the Morales government was overthrown non-democratic means? Or it's just YOUR opinion. Morales disrespected the results of the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and he then frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election (according to the OEA) to keep the power. Resulting in protests and revolts erupting throughout the entire country. He lost support from his country authorities and from the army. About Venezuela, I got be kidding right? Maduro is far from being a democrat. He is a plain and simple dictator and nothing else.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish language reliable sources are using it freely, e.g. Pagina 12, Argentina and El Universal, Mexico. Spanish for coup = 'golpe'. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif. Página12 is a left-wing newspaper in which most of the articles are opinative and not informative (including the one you linked here). The article on "El Universal" is using the word "coup" in the context of the opinion expressed by the Mexican government. They are not treating this event as a "coup".--SirEdimon (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Página 12 is not so fiercely opinionated I wouldn't call it an RS, though. Fully reading the Universal article, I agree with you there. Will do a source review soon. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several governments have already referred to the situation in Bolivia as a coup. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For now, altered lead to reflect more accurately. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Coop. There's a war of narratives between left and right in Latin America. For now, all the governments that called it a "coup" are left-wing governments.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SirEdimon. All the governments and sources that call it a "resignation" or a "reestablishment of democracy" and not calling it a coup are right-wing or outright fascists. Like the government of Bolsonaro for instance. So any source which pushed you to rename the article to "resigntation" should equally be discarded by your own standard. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise in the lead? "The situation in Bolivia has been referred to as either a 'political crisis' or a 'coup' by various observers." Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JayCoop, thanks heaven someone moved the title to "Evo Morales government resignation". After the fiasco of calling this page "Bolivian 2019 coup d'etat" someone tried to called this "Bolivian transition to democracy". Both titles are hard to swallow for a person following the news from the sources in Bolivia: firstly, Morales resigned in an untenable political situation, secondly Morales won three elections with over 60% of votes. Wikipedia needs editors that understand the NPOV policy and use it wisely.Ciroa (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Página/12 is as opinative, ideological and informative as Clarín, La Nación, Infobae or any other newspaper. You can't say a source isn't reliable because it is "leftist".--Bleff (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to...?

  • Coup d'état is an extremely loaded term. We don't use that kind of language in wiki voice unless there is overwhelming support for it in RS sources. The community declined to refer to Fidel Castro as a dictator on much the same grounds. The current article title fails multiple guidelines including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:REDFLAG. Let's consider a new name. Suggestions anyone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not to merge with 2019 Bolivian protests?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The topic at hand is notable enough to exist as its own article. Take the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the articles split from the 2019 Hong Kong protests as examples. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019 Bolivian political crisis? --Semsurî (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evo Morales government resignation?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a political crisis tomorrow. It may be called a coup by press. Morales may get arrested. Though I supported the title 'coup' based on the pure definition (effectively overthrown, military involvement), I now recognize WP:CRYSTALBALL comes into play. So far, SirEdimon's is the only non-crystal title. The government has resigned. That's about all we can neutrally say at the moment, so I support a quick move to that and then a naming discussion, especially when things become clearer in the coming weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evo Morales government resignation -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it is better to change the name into "2019 Bolivian political crisis" because these title already used on infobox. I also agree to change the title to the same name in Spanish language ones (Crisis política en Bolivia de 2019) Hanafi455 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because they wouldn't, quite simply. The compilation of facts inherent to protests doesn't include the complex political schtick that's appeared. They are different topics. They are different events. The protests article includes all the stuff from before anyone knew that Morales would resign, to put it in exactly your terms. Morales resigning, believe it or not, is not a protest. Kingsif (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see on Spanish Wikipedia, there was a suggestion to rename the article to "Crisis institucional en Bolivia de 2019",which to me sounds like 2019 Bolivian constitutional crisis. Why not change to these title in English? Hanafi455 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. you can propose a name change. Anyone can. 2. It's a bit early to come up with a longstanding title. This problem occurs with current event articles all the time. The best thing to do is pick a solid neutral title and wait until a more descriptive one appears in common use. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait people. We don't know exactly what it's going on and what will be the results of these events. "2019 Bolivian constitutional crisis" is CRYSTAL in my opinion. Let's stick with "Evo Morales government resignation" for a while and see what happens next. Moving articles all the time like this is counterproductive.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for the US state department narratives, even if most American media is. The events of yesterday are definitionally a coup. The military demanded the resignation of the civilian government, after which a warrant was issued for the arrest of much of the previous government. It's not only a clear cut coup, but a more textbook one than events in Zimbabwe or Turkey, which have been (correctly) classified as such by Wikipedia. Zellfire999 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant whether or not it was a coup. As Wikipedia editors our job is not to decide that. Our job as Wikipedia editors is merely to convey what the Reliable Sources state, full stop. As soon as it breaks in to analysis it's WP:NOR. If the NYT runs an article that says "Coup d'État in Bolvia" then we call it a coup, until that point we do not because we don't write our own opinions, no matter how right they may be. The proper venue for calling this a coup without RSs stating it as such is a newspaper, a book, an Op-Ed, etc. but it is not wikipedia. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that our job as Wikipedia editors is not to decide on wether or not it was a coup, but strongly disagree that this designation is irrelevant. Instead, we should list which sources reffer to it as a coup - and leave the judgement to the reader. Goodposts (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the designation of it being a coup is irrelevant far from it, I'm saying from the standpoint of what we do as editors it's irrelevant as what we do is write what the RSs say. If there's disagreement in the RSs then we write what the the disagreement is, thus allowing the reader to decide. But from the standpoint of Wiki editors, Wiki is a tertiary source thus our job is to write based off of primary and secondary sources. It can be the most blatant coup in the world, but if the RSs say it wasn't, then we say it's not. If Jair Bolsonaro gets voted out of office in a free democratic election, and the RSs state that it was a coup then we call it a coup. This is what I meant by it being irrelevant. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019 bolivian coup d'etat. It was definitely a coup. It is highly irresponsible not to call it for what it is. He was forced to resign.--Bleff (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more suitable to use the title like this 2019 Bolivian political crisis because 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat sounds more like taking point of view from Latin American leftist governments as the title violates Wikipedia NPOV (Netral point of view). Evo Morales government resignation can also be used as the title sticks. Hanafi455 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% percent a coup, there is a name for when a head of state is being forced out by the military, its called a coup'd'etat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.18.219.146 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be returned to 2019 bolivian coup d'etat. It is more clear than ever, the military has taken the streets and Morales has been forced to flee the country. The military overthrowing a country's civilian government is definitionally a coup. Wikipedia should be about facts, the perpetrators of a coup should not be able to throw off the label by simply denying it. Zellfire999 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia's own definition of a coup d'état is "the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.[1]". Regardless of your personal views on Morales, this was definitely an unconstitutional seizure of power by the military, to then hand power to another political faction (the opposition of the Movement for Socialism). Not to call it a coup is not merely irresponsible, it's outright incorrect. KarstenO (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a consensus among the Spanish-language press that this was a golpe de estado. Yes:El Pais El Universal Tele Sur Ambito No: Excelsior Forbes Mexico Neutral: La Nacion Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just skimmed the first one you posted, El País, but to be clear they did not say it was a coup. Rather they interviewed four experts who gave varying opinions as to whether or not it was a coup ie some yes some no. Guess that would be qualified as something of an Op-Ed, same with the second El Universal just asking various people their interpretation of the events, some yes some no, but the two publications do not call it a coup in their own words, and are neutral in the matter.Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Áñez

First, I'm typing her surname here for all those who don't have character keyboards to copy. Second, does anyone want to help translate her page with me? Kingsif (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected request?

In Spanish Wikipedia, the page about Evo Morales government resignation was protected to prevent vandalism so only registered users can edit it. Why this couldn't be same for English Wikipedia because there are many vandalism that edit the article like anonymous users? Hanafi455 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested extended confirmed protection. This should also prevent registered account vandals (the most vandals here have had accounts) as well as IPs. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for what cause should the article be semi-protected? While semiprotection is useful against vandalism, it's important to also note that it discourages new users from contributing to wikipedia. I have so far not seen any major vandalism on this article, that would call for or warrant semi-protection. Goodposts (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I moved to "2019 Bolivian transition to democracy"

I am the person who moved to "2019 Bolivian transition to democracy" That being said, I understand it's far-fetched, and I apologize for its lack of neutrality. I simply did not want it to be called a "coup". Personally, my family is from Bolivia, and I have been closely following the situation there over the past few weeks. As some of you may know, the current set of protests in Bolivia began because Evo Morales manipulated the results of the 2019 election to make it look like he won by a wide margin. This greatly angered many people, who saw it as anti-democratic, leading to the protests. The military and police did not overthow the government. They simply sided with the protesters, leading to the resignation of Evo Morales. Needless to say, this is a victory for the protestors, who have grown tired of Evo's authoritarian tendencies, so calling the situation a coup is insulting to them, especially since that is the term Evo has tried to use to discredit them. However, I also agree that moving the article to the "transition to democracy" is also problematic, as we haven't had time to see how the situation plays out. I therefore think "Evo Morales resignation" is a good compromise. Once again, I apologize for my lack of neutrality. I admit that I know very little about editing Wikipedia. --Ascarboro97 (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Reading the guide to Wikipedia when you register should help introduce, but some customs aren't covered - like how it's usually impolite to just move a page out of nowhere. Welcome, we value your contributions! I'm sure you'll be of real value around the Latin America pages :) Kingsif (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I understand your position, but ask you to also understand the fact that this is an encyclopedia that attempts to be neutral, and the personal desires of an editor aren't really relevant when writing content for Wikipedia. I'm sure that, in the same vein, a pro-Morales Bolivian could also make the case that he felt cheated by the upturning of the election, the violence of some of the protests and didn't want the article to be associated with a "transition to democracy". We all learn, though, so don't feel personally attacked - wikipedians were just trying to follow WP:NPOV. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to say that what happened to Bolivia is a textbook definition of a Coup d'etat.

Obscuring which governments are calling this a coup

The editor Kingsif repeatedly adds text obscuring that leftist Latin American governments (e.g. Cuba, Maduro, the incoming Argentinian government) are calling this a coup. If all the governments calling this a coup are Morales's leftist allies in Latin-America, then we should obviously communicate that in some way, rather than give the mistaken impression that there is a widespread perception among Latin American governments that this was a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One source describes them as left. Some would say they are fascist, for example. It is unnecessary to give such expansion in the lead when we structured the response section into ideologies. I'm not obscuring anything, don't try and create some supposed conspiracy behind my clean-up, I'm being mindful of NPOV concerns; your phrasing (with the rest of the pre-existing sentence, but you equally didn't bother to rewrite it) suggests that being left-wing is bad. That is the main issue. Kingsif (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about we stick to the sources rather than engage in pointless postmodernist debates about how no one truly knows that the Earth revolves around the sun and whether socialist governments are actually left-wing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And then also stick to the WP:NPOV rule that doesn't like painting one particular political leaning as wrong in the lead of an article? Other sources in this article, if you'd like to read some, have a variety of opinions on the political stances of all the countries in Latin America. They're somewhat controversial. We try to tread particularly carefully where that's the case, rather than blast at the start that 'left wing governments call this a loaded term'.
It takes more than a sentence to handle it well. That's what we have body sections for. Expand in the body, the lead doesn't need to as detailed; it's not incorrect that "various Latin American governments have called it a coup", and it's not debatable. Saying left-wing is debatable, especially when not all the left-wing governments have. Kingsif (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My version is that it should say 'some leftist Latin American governments' as the cited RS does. Your claim that mentioning the political persuasion of the governments calling this a coup is to paint them negatively is incomprehensible... just utterly incomprehensible. And there is ZERO dispute as to whether a socialist government is left-wing. "Various" L-American governments is some serious BS that is purely intended to obscure that all the governments calling this a coup (per the body) are leftist allies of Morales, and is intended to mislead readers into thinking there is widespread support among L-American governments for designating this a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that whatever I say, you will decide I am spouting "some BS" and apparently trying to hide important facts. I'm not going to respond further until you've calmed down or get some reality knocked into you. Other editors are free to reply, perhaps engage some of their opinions. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wether or not they are left-wing is irrelevant in this situation. The reaction section is about reporting how internationally-recognized governments have reacted to a given situation. Also, not to argue over logic too much, but if the majority of Latin American countries are "leftist allies" (which most of them aren't), and these "leftist allies" had condemned the event, then subsequently - a majority of Latin American countries would have condemned the event. It's also important to mention that first - not only leftist governments have described the situation as a "coup" and second - not all leftist governments have yet described it as such. Furthermore, such a phrasing implies that left-wing politics or left-wing governments are inherently bad, which is a breach of WP:NPOV. Wether or not a government is left or right-wing should not be something the article concerns itself with. It should merely list which governments issued which reactions - and if interested, the reader can click on the transcluded links to learn more about their politics. Goodposts (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth is it irrelevant that allies of Morales are going with his language that this was a coup? That's what BBC News[1], Washington Post[2], AFP[3], NY Times[4], The Guardian[5], and CNN[6] reports as relevant context when they describe which governments have mimicked the coup language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should also attatch a note to the reactions such as those of Brazil, Colombia and Guaido that they are "right-wing enemies" of Morales and as such their reactions are also invalid? It's either neither or both - picking sides is a violation of WP:NPOV - and do keep in mind this is an article on the Bolivian government resignation, not the Pink Tide. Goodposts (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The lede does not mention responses by other actors so there are no descriptions of them that need to be added, but thanks for playing. (2) Do RS characterize nuanced responses to events in Bolivia as responses by the "right-wing enemies of Morales"? If not, then we don't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead clearly mentions that the Bolivian opposition rejects the 'coup' allegations. Second, yes they do, as a quick example - "Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s far-right president, said he was pleased to see Mr. Morales go."[1] Goodposts (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Stop moving the goalposts - first you wanted to describe governments who refused to use the 'coup' language as 'right-wing' enemies of Morales, now you want the Bolivian opposition to be described as 'right-wing' (which is a separate discussion - and again, which needs to be reliably sourced in THAT discussion). (2) Bolsonaro is unquestionably far-right, but he's one leader, he's not mentioned in the lede, and he's not the only one not to resort to the 'coup' language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me - I didn't want to do that. I'll assume good faith on your part and say that I was alluding to how that would be the mirror image of what you were doing with "leftist allies" - showing you that both of them are quite improper. I also didn't describe the opposition as "right-wing" (although parts of it may be), don't put words in my mouth. Lastly, the mention of Bolsonaro was in showing you that news outlets were referring to Morales' right-wing opponents, as you specifically requested that be demonstrated to you. Goodposts (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I reject the implication about Iván Duque, he's a good president, and you may characterize him as a "right winger" but he has done more than any other South American government to offer aid to our brothers fleeing Venezuela. He has an incredibly difficult job dealing not only with his own party but our legislative branch as well. We have massive refugee camps in the east, and over three million refugees whom he has welcomed. Secondly I agree with Snoog. The fact of the matter is that three of the four have abysmal human rights records, and lack democracy. One is Nicolas Maduro who has been characterized as a monster by Pedro Sanchez, the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain, then the next two are Nicaragua and Cuba. If it were Peru, or Uruguay or Panama, fair enough, but it's not. Seems to me like taking Kim Jong Un and Khamenei's opinion and then saying "various Asian countries think y." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wether or not Duque is or was a "good president" is not the topic of the conversation and not relevant as to wether or not he was a "right winger". The refugee camps are also irrelevant, as they have nothing to do with this conversation, and the same goes for his supposed issues with the legislative (and isn't it the primary point of the democratic argument that the President cannot just decree whatever he wishes?). Kim Jong Un or Ayatollah Khamenei's (not left wing, by the way) opinions are not listed or cited anywhere in the article, nor were they ever the object of discussion. The reactions part of the article lists the reactions of various governments. Some of them can be characterized as centre-right, right-wing or even far-right, while others fall on the leftist spectrum. In either case that is also irrelevant, as the position of the ruling party of X country on the left-right political spectrum is not a factor in determining wether their statements are valid or relevant. Lastly, this entire argument is moot, as the point that statements should be published for each country and not completely summarized was part of my original proposal. Goodposts (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who brought him up, not myself. I also thought it was rather non-sequitur. And in the lede it says various Latin American Governments have called this a coup, hence this post. This doesn't have anything to do with the international perceptions section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I merely mentioned him in passing and not even by name, as an example of a Latin American leader who isn't a "leftist ally" of Morales. The coup allegation started from Morales himself - we merely state that it is backed up by several Latin American countries, but denounced by the nation's opposition. Goodposts (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos?

How about photos of this article? i see that only interim bolivian presidents photo was included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanafi455 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want photos of? Morales in hiding? If his own military can't find him, good luck getting someone with a camera willing to upload to Wikipedia in there. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Palacio Quemado has a picture of the lamppost where Gualberto Villarroel was hanged. It also has a picture of the Palacio Quemado. One is less haunted, but the other is framed better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Pablo Iglesias' opinion to this article

For those of you who aren't intimately familiar with Spanish politics, Pablo Iglesias is the head of a Spanish Political party called Podemos, which is popular in Catalunya for Spanish National Elections. Pablo Iglesias has never been the Spanish PM, because of his view on one domestic issue in particular he most likely will not be Spanish PM in the near term, I'm just wondering how his opinion is really relevant to this. He doesn't represent the Foreign Policy views of the Spanish Government. So I'm not really sure that it adds anything to this, his only two qualifications seem to be that he's a politician who speaks Spanish ironically in a region in which Spanish is not the official language. I understand why International Reactions are important but pasting every persons opinion seems irrelevant. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and removed Iglesias' comment. Personally I'd limit the section to governments and relevant international organization (UN, OAS). Was tempted to remove the Corbyn quote on the same basis, but he's slightly more significant as leader of the opposition instead of a third party so I'd rather get a second opinion. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the Corbyn quote too. I think it'd probably be more relevant for his own page because it's more indicative of his ideology and Labour's new ideology, but oh well, I think there probably wouldn't be consensus for removing it, plus there's a good chance he'll be next PM of the UK, provided he promises Scotland a new vote, and promises the UK a new Brexit vote to get the Lib Dems on board. And haha, Podemos isn't even a third party anymore, it's now the fourth after Vox. I used to live in Spain, their politics are nuts, it was everything short of a holiday in Barcelona when Rajoy got punched. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove all international reactions because Its not significant? Can you remove quote from UN Secretary general? Hanafi455 (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think ideally it'd not be a list but more a run down something along the lines of "International reactions have been mixed with some countries supporting Morales whilst others have called for peaceful elections. International bodies have further called for an end to violence and swift elections." But I don't have the time at the moment. Just to contextualize how this fits in to world and to give it a quick meta-view. I think sometimes the lists become a way of POV pushing, "look who agrees with my POV it's countries x, y and z." Rather than a true effort to provide a NPOV information to better understanding of the theme. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see on the article, third-party reactions are too weak to describe the reactions, seems that i renamed that to Include aftermath of Evo Morales resignation to be more focus about how Bolivian reacted to the announcement. I think this is better NPOV for me. Hanafi455 (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed Corbyn for not being a national leader, not being a politician to a relevant country, and for being sourced by RT (the only other source I could find for it was Daily Mail, almost as bad). Removed UN for being a copy-paste from the source. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corbyn is cited in credible sources,[2][3] and in addition RT's article cited the original source,[4] and so there shouldn't be any issue with adding it. Corbyn is a very noteworthy person, although I'll agree this his reaction shouldn't be listed as a "UK" reaction, as he is currently not affiliated with the British government. He also probably shouldn't be listed separately under the "international reactions" section, as that is for reactions given by the governments UN-member states and not leaders of political parties, however influential they may be in a separate world power. Instead - considering there are already quite a few relevant non-state reactions, how about we add a non-state organization heading, as was done in previous articles? I think that sounds like a fair compromise. Goodposts (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could be persuaded, but I foresee a lot of headaches around deciding which non-state reactions to include. Which reactions are significant? Do we try to achieve geographical balance, or should responses from the Americas be favoured? What about the mixture of criticism and support? --RaiderAspect (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we only include reactions from leaders or official representatives of parties which are either parliamentary-represented, or noteworthy in some other way. They should be summarized only briefly for each country - eg. in Brazil, XYZ supported, ABC condemned - so as to give an "at a glance" look, while not taking up too much time in an exhaustive list. Both criticism and support should be included. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/world/americas/evo-morales-bolivia.html
  2. ^ https://www.thenational.ae/world/the-americas/bolivia-s-president-evo-morales-resigns-amid-protests-over-disputed-election-1.935902
  3. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/evo-morales-steps-reaction-latin-america-191111052010737.html
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1193657983219257344

Proposal to rewrite the International Reaction Section

As per a recommendation by a fellow Wiki editor I propose rewriting the international reaction section. Currently it is more or less in the form of a list with quotes from Twitter. My proposal is to rewrite this to say something along the lines of "International reactions to the resignation of Evo Morales have been mixed. Some countries have called these events a coup, whilst others have called for transparent elections overseen by the OAS. The Secretary General of the UN has stated: "x." As brought up in another section, is it really relevant that Jair Bolsonaro said that the coup was perpetrated by Morales or that Jeremy Corbyn has condemned these events in the strongest possible terms? This can be restated by just saying that it has been polarizing for various countries and has evoked strong reactions from some global leaders. Without copying and pasting twitter from Twitter. I'd like to get some sort of consensus on this because I know with breaking news stories particularly to do with politics people can have different visions. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should delineate sections for official reactions, and then perhaps add another non-state sections for relevant regional or global political forces, should their inclusion is relevant. The reactions of the UN, as well as Heads of State are definitely relevant and should be listed. Simply stating that it had "evoked strong reactions from some leaders" is extremely vague and not very informative. So I agree with you on separating reactions, but I'd argue they shouldn't be purged. Should be alphabetized, though. Also, while twitter sources can be used, they aren't prefferable - and should be replaced by published sources where possible. WP:QUOTEFARM should also be avoided, and the published statements should be summarized in a way that conveys the original meaning behind the reaction without directly quoting each word. Goodposts (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the specific reactions relevant? It's sufficiently informative to our readers to say that reactions to the resignation were mixed, particularly in the Americas. Saying exactly which countries said exactly what is excessive detail. This isn't like the situation in Venezuela where the stances of various countries have a lasting effect on which vying government they conduct diplomacy with. This is (as of yet) a done deal, so a list of reactions is essentially just rehosting a peanut gallery. 199.247.46.4 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians must understand that different countries may have very different laws

I will cite impeachment proceedings in neighboring countries. In Brazil the Judiciary participates in the conduction of the impeachment process, which is fairly well described in their Constitution and Laws. But an impeachment process may last as much as 8 years, as in the Mensalao scandal. Brazil had a dictatorship from the mid sixties through the mid eighties, but with several different people acting as president. In Paraguay there is one single article in the Constitution that deals with impeachments (Art. 225) and lets the Congress to establish the procedure in a case by case basis. There is no Judiciary intervention in the impeachment. Paraguay suffered a very long dictatorship by a single ruler during 35 years (General Alfredo Stroessner) and the new Constitution made it easy to impeach a President to avoid such accumulation of power. (By the way, the Wikipedia article about the impeachment of Fernando Lugo is extremely badly written. There is a list of points to be corrected in the Talk Page, but nobody seems to care). In Bolivia there is an article in the Law of the Organizing of the Armed Forces, Article 20.b., that allows the military to oversee and analize internal conflicts to make recommendations to the concerned parties. That is exactly what General Kaliman did. Something like that will be unthinkable in neighboring Paraguay, due to the manner that the Constitution and Laws were drafted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.126.201.186 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info, I added it to lede. Other editors can provide the relevant references. I can't right now. Wikipedia really tends to leave important bits like this one out -- the information you provided, if correct, single-handedly refutes accusations that this was a coup.Vandergay (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vandergay: That can wait until someone provides a source for it. Note that directly citing the law would not be sufficient here; the law would need to be mentioned in the context of the current events, to avoid synthesis. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forced government resignation

If we're not going to use the term coup d'etat for the heading at least put in the word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.103.107 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no forced resignation. The head of the military made a suggestion on live television, without Evo Morales present. This (as has been explained above) is in the Bolivian constitution - the military leaders are allowed to make public suggestions. Evo Morales' response was likewise on live television without the military leaders present. He voluntarily resigned.
I think it further clarifies that this wasn't a forced resignation, the fact the the head of the military who suggested he resign, Cmdr Kaliman, was a longtime supporter of Evo Morales. And even when Evo Morales ordered the armed forces to attack the police and civilians, Kaliman was going to do it (he didn't because a majority of his subordinates threatened to ignore the order, which would have placed half the armed forces at odds with the other half).
Also notable is that Kaliman was immediately removed from service by the interim government. He doesn't have any position in the new government and received no special compensation. 73.25.86.75 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Text

Regarding this edit. The text is attributed to Morales himself so I have no idea why WP:ATTRIBUTE is being referred to. As for WP:DUE, its Morales stated reason for resignation, is his stated reason not of high relevance to this article? 103.127.65.220 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and following no dispute from other editors edited it back in, though I've altered it in a way as to assuade one editor's concerns that a portion of the text could constitute WP:SYNTH. Goodposts (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of article.

The tone of the article is far from neutral. I will try to look for more Reliable Sources in both languagues, while also improving the Background of the resignation of Evo Morales. Some more pictures of other opposition figures will be fine.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

Change title to: "Bolivian Coup d'etat" Silverinacertaintown (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Requests to rename pages can be made at WP:RM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

add a statement from senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. "I am very concerned about what appears to be a coup in Bolivia, where the military, after weeks of political unrest, intervened to remove President Evo Morales. The U.S. must call for an end to violence and support Bolivia’s democratic institutions." https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1194000920696229889 24.93.31.58 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. In any case, it's unclear how this would improve the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is calling this a coup?

Current lead has

Morales and close allies to Morales, particularly the governments of Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, the disputed government of Venezuela, and Argentina's president-elect have called the demand a coup d'état,[1][2][3][4]

The only countries I can find mentioned in those articles are Venezuela and the incoming Argentine government (both in the Guardian article). Do we have reliable sources for the others? Rxtreme (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to international responses in this article it has the sources. I'd copy and paste them here, however I'm feeling too lazy; need more coffee. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to note that Bolivian major newspapers and news sources are not calling it a Coup (including sources with previously heavy pro-Evo Morales slants). list of Bolivian newspapers: https://www.prensaescrita.com/america/bolivia.php Laella (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Citation of BLP in a Rollback on the page

Just wanted to state why I cited BLP, so as to show that I wasn't using the term frivolously to stifle editing. First BLP doesn't just apply to pages about people, but any page which speaks about living people. Secondly the passage I was referring to is this: "After Morales's victory, rightwing opposition groups, led in part by Fernando Camacho, kidnapped and tortured political officials.[5][6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evo_Morales_government_resignation&oldid=925777018

Accusing a living person and a politician of leading right-wing groups to kidnap and torture political officials is extreme, and it needs rock solid sources to back it. In my opinion the Gray Zone, and the Peoples' Dispatch weren't sufficient to back such a statement, so I cited BLP in rolling back this edit. Once again I didn't mean to stifle editing or anything like that, but I think it's important to have caution when dealing with controversial statements about the people involved in this event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Even without the BLP concerns those don't look like good sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political crisis?

Since the situation seems to be quite chaotic and infighting between factions is degenerating, I suggest that this page is called "2019 Bolivian political crisis" or "2019 unrest in Bolivia", I think that would be more appropriate.-Karma1998 (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 unrest in Bolivia is already used on this page 2019 Bolivian protests. So It is unnecessary to duplicate the title that in facts the same thing. Hanafi455 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favor 2019 Bolivian political crisis. I also think these two articles should merged under that title. Charles Essie (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The current article title seems really awkward. It seems like Resignation of the government of Evo Morales would be a more natural title for this article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the title seems to be natural, but you must think again that not only Evo Morales government has resigned, but other políticans also resigned as well. So for more appropriate and neutral title would be 2019 Bolivian political crisis since the resignation is not only for Evo Morales government. Hanafi455 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favor 2019 Bolivian political crisis. I also think this article should be merged with 2019 Bolivian protests under that title. Charles Essie (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favor 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. The military forced the resignation of the President, and have suppressed demonstrations against his removal (belying their stated aim to avoid confronting protesters in demanding Morales's resignation). Simply because the perpetrators do not call it a coup is an untenable reason to deny its factuality. In fact, the circumstances of this coup are extremely similar to that of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état and bears some resemblance to the 2004 Haitian coup d'état (which was at least preceded by a rebellion of sorts) as well. It is utterly inconsistent to refer to this as anything else.Zellfire999 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current title is too stripped of context. Yes, the government did resign, but it is indisputable that it only did so under military pressure. The fact that not only Morales, but also plenty of members of his administration and even their families have fled the country further lends credence to the claim that this wasn't an ordinary resignation. In my opinion, it could be interpreted as a coup, as it does constitute a forced resignation at the hands of the military. I don't find the argument that it was done to "protect democracy" to hold much weight either, as the events took place after Morales had already agreed to opposition demands to hold an OAS-monitored re-run of the elections. Furthermore, even if the last edition of the electoral results were disregarded, Morales was still in first place - the difference would have been on wether or not a runoff would have to be held, and in any case I don't hold a military intervention to be a perticularly "democratic" act. The fact that western countries, such as Spain, are also condemning the military involvement I think is evidence enough that it is more than just a case of a left-right political battle. For these reasons, I would generally agree if it gained the designation of a coup détat, however, I am aware that some editors disagree with this, and Bolivia's opposition definitely does as well. In the interests of fairness and neutrality, we should take all reasonable and well-cited views into account and make decisions based of well-researched sources and community consensus. It would probably be difficult to obtain consensus for such a move, though not impossible depending on how it plays out. It might take some time to see how this event is reported on past it's end and wether or not most reliable sources would reffer to it as a coup or not. Presently, it's a mixed bag. Goodposts (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, like both 2019 Bolivian political crisis and 2019 Bolivian coup d'état better than the current title. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in support of 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. What happened is the definition of a military coup, and several reiable sources are calling it as such. Antondimak (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification request

Per WP:PAYWALL, could someone please verify the information regarding "gang attacks" Cochabamba, and the water supply issue? I am unable to find any other sources confirming that. The provided sources is behind a paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/world/americas/bolivia-evo-morales.html BeŻet (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeŻet: - That source does not mention anything about "gang attacks", in fact it doesn't use the term "gang" or "attack" even once in the entire article. It instead talks mostly of Morales' resignation and subsequent power vacuum and describes two incidents - the first, in which several hundred pro-Morales protesters, some of which carrying sticks, arrived at La Paz and were accused by police of vandalizing offices, and a second, in which police and armed forces joined together with protesters to form barricades to prevent pro-Morales demonstrators from reaching the centre of the town. It does mention that drinking water was cut off to parts of El Paz an El Alto, but states that the reason for that was unknown. Goodposts (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Goodposts, in that case I'll remove that claim as it's unsourced. On a similar note, does this source mention anything about burning police centers? BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Hundreds of supporters of Mr. Morales made their way on late afternoon Monday toward the center of La Paz from the mountains surrounding the city, some of them armed with sticks. As they approached, their chants of “here we go, civil war” could be heard echoing above the city. The police said the armed group had vandalized police offices, causing panic in some neighborhoods where people blocked their doors with old furniture to protect stores and houses. After receiving requests for help from the national police and civilian politicians, the armed forces announced Monday night they would mobilize to defend gas, water and electricity services around the capital. Army and police units will also begin joint patrols around the city, according to the national police."..."For weeks after the disputed election results, demonstrations paralyzed much of the country, and groups supporting the president have roughed up protesters."
As a side note, the article's starting to sound a bit en contra of the protestors in sections against the protestors as per the same article: "There was little to no violence in Santa Cruz, a center of the opposition. A festival-like mood prevailed there, with people celebrating on the streets and waving flags." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, @BeŻet:. What Alcibiades979 pasted is what the article wrote, more or less the same as my summary. As for your WSJ request - the article mentions a local newspaper had reported that residents of Chepare had allegedly burned "police posts" after an unnamed local activist called for Morales' supporters to "fight back". It then goes on about how Mexico condemned the alleged coup and that 20 government officials had been given asylum in Mexico. Goodposts (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for verifying! BeŻet (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! Goodposts (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to '2019 Bolivian political crisis' by User:Jamez42 on 15 November. New requested move opened below.(non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Morales government resignation → 2019 Bolivian military memorandum – This seems to fit every characteristic of a military memorandum (example 1 example 2). Army gives an ultimatum to president to resign, which results in his resignation. Calling this article "Morales government resignation" makes it seem as if it was voluntary, while it was forced by the army KasimMejia (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have to say this is a very interesting proposition and not one that popped into my head. "Military memorandum" is a good way to look at it - that it was decision taken by a civilian government, but only after a military demand. It is more or less proven by this point that the resignations were triggred by the armed forces' declarations, and were seeing this being cited as a military intervention not only by Morales' allies, but also neutral and western countries, such as Spain. Meanwhile, I also agree that while "government resignation" is something that happened, it strips the act itself of the context in which it took place. At the same time, "military memorandum" avoids the use of the word "coup", which I know has been very contentious and was the cause of much dispute. I believe that this proposition is NPOV compliant enough, as it avoids language that either praises or condemns the event. Though I'd definitely be interested to hear other editors thoughts on the subject. PS. One issue, though, could be in finding sources, which reliably reffer to the situation as such. Goodposts (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Against We should just follow what the sources say. This takes the contention out of it all. Wiki has a list of RSs for news articles there are a couple of others that can be added like NYT, and we say what they say. That way it's entirely straight forward. I'm also reticent to change the name with such a recent event. I think it's better to let it play out, then the result will be more clear, and well sourced. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Against the request of resignation that bolivian armed forces sent to Evo Morales was not an "ultimatum" but a "suggestion", which is a legal atributtion the military have. The article 20 of the Law N°1405[7] (Organic law of bolivian armed forces) states:

Article 20.- The attribution and responsabilities of the military high command are: [...] b. To analyze inner and foreign troubled situations to suggest to whom it may concern the apropiate solutions.

If we analize de facts strictly, the bolivian armed forces acted according to law.--Elelch (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this title "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" seems too spesific as the title indicates in favor of military opinion, which violates NPOV. The current title "Evo Morales government resignation" also too spesific only for Evo Morales government and not about other politicians. For me, this title should be 2019 Bolivian political crisis because more politicians and officials other than Evo Morales government also resigned as well. For example police Chief. For me, 2019 Bolivian political crisis seems to more neutral. Indonesian Wikipedia has the article about it (Krisis pasca-pemilu Bolivia 2019). But this title, Along with 2019 Bolivian protests should be separated, like 2013–2014 Thai political crisis and 2014 Thai coup d'état there are two different things despite related events. This is a reason why you should request like this:
2019 Bolivian political crisis
I think it is my opinion about the article title. Hanafi455 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Against, agree with Hanafi455, 2019 Bolivian political crisis would be a better NPOV title.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat is the only truly accurate title, but 2019 Bolivian military memorandum would be an improvement over the current misleading title.Zellfire999 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite you support to called them 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat, but i think the title is more like leftist point of view for me because how leftist called then. It is harder to reach consensus how like the article title was, even in Spanish Wikipedia there were strong disagreement about how to called that title also as well as Spanish and English-language media there was divided over whether this called "coup" or not. The current Evo Morales government resignation or more neutral 2019 Bolivian political crisis should be used even there was a opinion that what happened on Bolivia is a coup, particulary the Latin American leftist governments. Hanafi455 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose don't see any WP:Reliable Sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject of the article is too broad to mention only the military declaration, without considering the fraud reports, protests and audit. All of these factors resulted in the resignation. The consequence should be the title at best, not the causes. To include the whole situation, 2019 Bolivian political crisis may be better. Still, I would like to warn against WP:TOOSOON and consider that this an ongoing situation. Once definite government is constituted the discussion may be easier. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The English version of this article now place under Article title dispute tag POV-title same as Spanish version of Wikipedia does as there was a strong disagreement over what the article title was. There was a coup, resignation, memorandum, etc. Many of editors were disagree. I think English and Spanish Wikipedias are only two versions of Wikipedia whose the article title is disputed. But not for French, Portuguese or Persian version does because there are simply translate from Spanish or English version with local sources. But because English was global language, the discussion is very interesting for editors around the world. Hanafi455 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2019 Bolivian political crisis This move request is falling off the edge of the world, and the clock is ticking. Let's be honest, no consensus will emerge about any military coup, at least until it becomes blatantly irrefutable. But the current "government resignation" title is way too narrow and bland. Let's move it to "political crisis" - which it clearly is, because there are at least two opposing factions and a general air of national instability - and then later we can debate more specific terms. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad the title has been changed to "political crisis". Now as to "military memorandum: it has a certain logic to it, but most English readers won't understand the phrase. Outside of Wikipedia, I can find no such usage. If another title change is sought, it would be better to use a more familiar term for the military's action. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally move back to the status quo (coup) before moving to 2019 Bolivian military memorandum: Evo said since the beginning of protest that had there been any evidence of fraud he would launch a re-election. So of course he is endorsing a reelection. However what happened is the military blatantly ask Evo and MAS members to resign, which is, by definition, a coup for sure. Somebody broke the status quo of the article and unilaterally renamed it from a coup to a resignation, which is the problem we face right now. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "status quo" which existed for a few hours, you mean. 199.247.47.19 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The Wikipedia policy on status quo does not depend on how long the it lasts. If we do not procedurally move back it would be an endorse of the vandalism done by the one who AFAIK has already been banned from editing Wikipedia. Albeit the fact that right now there's no enough evidence to call this a genuine coup and the fact that memorandum is more neutral, this procedure should not be omitted. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I changed it to the current title (look, still here) and, besides having the most unofficial votes at that point, it also got a lot of positive responses from uninvolved editors. I'd argue if there's a status quo, it's the current title. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2019 Bolivian Military memorandum: this title violates NPOV as the article only explains the broad issue with military opinion. Evo Morales government resignation is better title, but is too bland because only explains resignation of Evo Morales and Its government while not mentioned other officials and politicians that resigned
I think, this article needs neutral name to accompained both left and right viewpoints about political situations in Bolivia. Hanafi455 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the "military" title. Places too much emphasis on the military's statement when the subject of the article is the resignation. Support 2019 Bolivian Political Crisis as this covers the broader topic. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 06:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the military memorandum title. Its too narrow. Fraud reports and the elections audits are part of this too. Also oppose coup, it is not used by reliable sources. --MaoGo (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Although 2019 Bolivian coup d'état would be even better. BobNesh (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Against the BobNesh opinion. because the title is too narrow to describe broader political turmoil in Bolivia and that title violates NPOV. Why not 2019 Bolivian political crisis? That title is more neutral than current and requested title. Hanafi455 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does 2019 Bolivian coup d'état violate NPOV? The military forced Morales out of the country and installed an unelected leader. Seems like it's unequivocally a coup, and I'm not really sure why you'd use the more vague 2019 Bolivian political crisis instead. That said, both are more accurate than the current title Evo Morales government resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2019 Bolivian military memorandum, and 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. The primary role of the military in the resignation is by far the most important component here, whether we call it a "coup" or not. Davey2116 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose memorandum. The memorandum is just a document, so all that would belong would be coverage of the document itself, the lead-up to its creation, and its effects. The article's current focus is on the event with ancillary coverage of the document, but if the page were renamed, it would need to focus on the document with ancillary coverage of the event. Compare Zimmermann Telegram with American entry into World War I, a document that prompted an event; if there were only one article, it would probably be on American entry. The document shouldn't be the focus of an article unless it gets a lot of coverage that needs to be split out of the event article. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed or 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Ralbegen (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is very interesting because I create the Indonesian Wikipedia article about it. The content is exactly same as in English despite still incomplete, but the title was very different than other languages. You can see that article on this link [7]. This title is more exactly like "Bolivian governmental crisis" or "Bolivian political crisis". After i create that article on Indonesian Wikipedia, i think that the latter title "2019 Bolivian political crisis" was more suitable and neutral because it is focused of broader topics, not just about Military memorandum which forced Morales to resign. Hanafi455 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that the title should be changed to something else, but definitely not this. The military "suggestion" is only part of this article, and not the main focus. DinoGuy101010 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposer and supporters have presented no sources that refer to this as "military memorandum". The sources I've read call it various things. Some call it a coup, others say it was the result of a popular uprising, but everyone agrees that the Morales government resigned. Until there is a consensus among reliable sources about what to call it, "Evo Morales government resignation" is as good a title as any and better than most. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term ″military memorandum″ is obscure (there isn’t even a Wikipedia article for it) and I haven’t read any source that uses it. I have seen sources that call it a coup d′etat, so ″2019 Bolivian coup d′etat″ would be the best title if you want to emphasize the involvement of the military & police. But given all of the dimensions of what’s going on, ″2019 Bolivian political crisis″ seems like the best title right now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Support Even though 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat would be even better in my opinion, this is still an improvement over the current title. Antondimak (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I haven’t seen any sourcing for the term “military memorandum”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogarz1921 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors who support title change to "Military memorandum" need to visit Indonesian language version of the article instead [8]. I know that many user's support the title "Military memorandum" but because this article focused about broad Topic, ranged from audits, military pressure, resignation, and many more, "2019 Bolivian political crisis" is more neutral title of the article despite in Indonesian Wikipedia it called "Bolivian governmental crisis" but you can used "2019 Bolivian coup d'etat" if you want to more emphasize about role of Military and police. Hanafi455 (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to 2019 Bolivian political crisis for now, with discussion on the title continuing after the move. It is truly a feat of Wikipedia-style consensus resulting in an outcome that no one is happy with that "Evo Morales government resignation" both a) doesn't accurately describe the event at hand and b) doesn't even follow proper Wikipedia naming conventions. Morgan695 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have had many discussions before regarding what is and is not coup in the past. Describing this as a "military memorandum" is putting this event in a small scope and ignoring the popular demonstrations against Morales. Such wording also suggests that it was only the military, in turn pushing the opinion that this was a coup.
For the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, I agreed with calling the event a coup attempt since academics described the event as such mainly because there was armed action to overthrow a government. In certain ways, the Bolivian event is similar to the 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis, which was not widely labeled as a coup. In both cases, the military did not take armed action, they simply made statements. In Peru, the military said they recognized the Vizcarra government. In Bolivia, they urged Morales' government to resign.
Now, the same academics that called the Venezuelan events a "coup attempt" are saying that the binary rhetoric of describing such events as a coup or revolution is outdated. In this New York Times article it states: "Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray". I think as Wikipedia editors, we have to agree with the academics on this and have to find a "neutral" or "grey" way to describe these events moving forward. With the way the world has become more polarized recently, things may be more difficult, but it is our responsibility to work together to make Wikipedia as neutral and accurate as possible.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is such an obvious thing that I don't understand why this hasn't already been renamed 2019 Bolivian political crisis. There are two sides of this crisis, each calling it something different, each having some validity and supported by numerous sources. 2019 Bolivian political crisis is neutral and accurate. Everything else is either blatantly picking a side (coup) and/or not describing the entire situation (government resignation and military memorandum). ---Sleeker (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleeker: I agree, somewhat. The neutral terminology I have thought of for this and future events similar to this is XXXX governmental crisis. The term "political crisis" is also vague when the crisis is specifically jeopardizing the government. So, I suggest 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZiaLater: I so agree at this point. You can checked on Indonesian-language version of the article [9]. (Krisis pemerintahan Bolivia 2019). But you can also can contributed in the Indonesian version of the article which has different name than other languages. Hanafi455 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, It seems unlikely for consensus to develop around this idea by this point. I'd support 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis as an alternative. Goodposts (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The correct title would be 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat as this article describes events where the military forces a democratically elected president out of office and unleashes terror and violence upon his supporters, but this is still an improvement over the current title. --★ RegicollisT·C 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this article was moved to 2019 Bolivian political crisis. I think we stick with that (at least for now) per above arguments. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It appears that this article is about Morales and his cabinet's removal from office and not the entire political crisis that began after the election. I also think that 2019 Bolivian military memorandum is a much more accurate title than 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, it appears that the 2019 Bolivian protests article is more about the whole crisis. So I think the name 2019 Bolivian political crisis would be better suited to that article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update The Spanish-language article has adopted the name "coup". Maybe we should follow suit. Charles Essie (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia is independent, and if we are to move the article to "coup" it should be on an agreement based on policies and reliable sources. The talk page even has an extensive chart summarizing each of the sides' arguments, and at the very least it should be considered before deciding to to the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again. Those who are in favor of moving to "coup" show the overwhelming majority of reliable sources nominally calling the event a "coup" (not opinion articles like those posted here). Again, we have to remember that we, as WP's editor, are not entitled to have our own opinion. Here on WP our opinions and analysis (Even if well-grounded. Even if we're experts) don't matter. What matter are the RS. And, in this case, the name must be "widely used in reliable sources". Let's stick to the WP's policies--SirEdimon (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

References

  1. ^ "Bolivian president Evo Morales resigns after election result dispute". The Guardian. 10 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Bolivia's beleaguered President Morales announces resignation". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2019-11-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Teruggi, Marco. "Bolivia: la derecha apura el golpe contra Evo Morales | Insisten con la renuncia del Presidente, a pesar del llamado a nuevas elecciones". PAGINA12. Retrieved 2019-11-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Bolivia: Morales warns of coup d'etat over police mutiny". Deutsche Welle. 9 November 2019. Retrieved 2019-11-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ "The Real Reason U.S. Media Won't Call Evo Morales' Ouster in Bolivia a "Coup"". In These Times.
  6. ^ "Bolivia coup led by Christian fascist paramilitary leader and multi-millionaire – with foreign support". Gray Zone.
  7. ^ "Law N° 1405" (PDF). Retrieved 30 December 1992. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Yes it's a coup d'état

Having the military and police point a gun and force the democratically elected president, vp, and senate president is a coup. AHC300 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it is a coup d'état. There is no question about it. The Bolivians are in the street right now to counter the putsch and the military and police are defending the institutional putschists from them. The problem is that this whole Wikipedia page and the discussion are dominated by equally fascist people who will gladly silence the plight of the indigenous people who saw their democracy robbed. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this were we talk about accusations of rigged elections?Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting to note is that Morales was open to new elections after protests occurred. Also, it's interesting to note that the polls conducted right before the election were in line with what the election results turned out to be. In regards to the quick vote issues, rural areas are heavily in favor of Morales, hence the rise in Morales' lead in late quick polls. However, none of that should matter. Rigged election or not, dictator or democratically elected official, he was forced out of office. This is certainly a coup. —SPESH531Other 02:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is interesting to note is Evo said since the beginning of protest that had there been any evidence of fraud he would launch a re-election. So of course he is endorsing a reelection. However what happened is the military blatantly ask Evo and MAS members to resign, which is, by definition, a coup for sure. Somebody broke the status quo of the article and unilaterally renamed it from a coup to a resignation, which is the problem we face right now. So don't be evasive by showing the non-coup part and conclude there's no coup. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SPESH In MSA the letter p doesn't exist and ص represents an emphatic s sound, sides of the tongue are rolled up, the sound is made a bit further back against the alveolar ridge. Thus on your page Spesh would be written سبش in MSA or سفش since often p->f hence پارسی -> فارسی. Also it doesn't matter what we think happened or what we know happened. Just what RSs say. Not our job to analyze no matter how clear a situation may be. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically ("WP:RS-technically"), it is not a coup.
When a left-wing (or otherwise unfavorable to the US) government is replaced by a right-wing (or otherwise favorable to the US) one, it is more of a "transition to democracy", while when the opposite happens it is a "coup". While this might seem absurd, it is completely in line with (or, maybe more precisely, a consequence of) the WP:RS policy, since the vast majority of reliable sources are US-based (or otherwise West-based) and this is the terminology they will use. They have already done it countless times. So, until the reliability of sources regarding such topics is revised (if ever), events like this one cannot be called "coups", regardless of the clarity of the situation, as Alcibiades979 said above. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

Jeanine Añez is now officially the new President of Bolivia, who succeeded according to constitutional laws. Leprechauncio (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that now. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolivian Uprising

Should be merged with 2019 Bolivian protests article and renamed 2019 Bolivian Uprising. Post-election protests shouldn't be disconnected from military's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose if you are calling that article 2019 Bolivian Uprising, why not called Bolivian Revolution or Post-election Bolivia crisis as Indonesian Wikipedia does (Revolusi Bolivia 2019; Krisis pasca-pemilu Bolivia 2019) because that title seems more sense to me but two article should kept separated in English despite same events because this event explains resignation of Bolivian government if you want to merge the article, why not merge two articles with 2019 Bolivian general election because the event was related to elections. Hanafi455 (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too difficult to adhere to a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, i.e. Neutral Point Of View?

I know almost nothing about Bolivian politics, sorry. But somebody in our country drew attention to the title 2019 Bolivian Transition to Democracy and used this as a justification for the 2-year-old ban on Wikipedia in Turkey (which was imposed by a court due to some content obviously in conflict with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy although it was possible to correct through the internal mechanism of Wikipedia and was in deed corrected later, so hopefully the ban will be lifted soon).

In Turkey we had a military coup d'etat in 1960 (which brought down the government, dissolved the parliament and instituted an interim military government), a military memorandum that merely caused the government to resign, replaced by an interim civilian government of technocrats and bureaucrats in 1971 (which looks similar to what has just happened in Bolivia), another military coup d'etat in 1980 to be followed by several successful and unsuccessful military memorandums, and finally a failed military coup d'etat in 2016. All were supported by the United States and the West in general, and none helped development of democracy in Turkey. On the other hand, although no excuse for "outside" intervention (by the army or foreign powers), it is also a fact that weaknesses in democratic culture and compromise among political actors made such military interventions possible and easier. So I hope Bolivian people can come out of this crisis as soon as possible in a peaceful and democratic manner by immediately preparing for fair elections on the basis a compromise and a common pledge to respect election results whatever the outcome might be.

Maybe the debate over this Wikipedia entry (starting from what its title should be) might hopefully contribute to developing such a culture of peaceful, civil and democratic culture in the political life of the country which doubtlessly will be in the interests of all citizens. I think everyone involved in this debate should always keep in mind above all Wikipedia's fundamental principle: Neutral Point Of View - as copied below.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Güvercin58 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you could cite some instances of POV in the article we can work on how to better phrase them or delete them. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Western Leaders in the Lede

I propose the deletion of "certain western leaders" in the lede. We've been over this the talk section before in regard to their inclusion in the international section, however now they're in the lede. The leaders quoted by the article are Jeremy Corbyn Labour Leader in the UK the opinion of whom was deleted by another wiki editor in the International Section, as well as that of Pablo Iglesias, who once again is the leader of the 4th political party of Spain which is incredibly controversial due to their opinion on a subject. Neither of the two are part of a ruling party nor ruling coalition, they don't represent their governments, and as such I don't think they should be included in the lede. It just adds needless words which are backed by Pablo Iglesias. If this were about an independence referendum in Catalunya his opinion would be incredibly important, but this is about a Political Event in Bolivia. To me it seems Wiki:UNDUE. It's also misleading, when I think of Western Leaders, I think of Merkel, Macron, Trudeau; I certainly don't think about Pablo Iglesias, and no offense meant to the guy I've seen interviews with him, he seems really nice, but it's an incredible stretch to term him a western political leader. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, changed. I also think if the coverage of reactions gets wide enough to consider adding Corbyn, the man's incredibly sketchy history of promoting literal terrorist socialist groups needs to be added - in that sense, he's not a normal Western politician in that way (ignoring ideology, just outright saying 'the ax killers should be in charge'). Kingsif (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think an attempt to ignore Corbyn, a very important political figure and the opposition leader in UK, because of some nonsensical tabloidesque accusations is not how things should be done on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read about his history, you'll see it all; besides that, it can be important context (we wouldn't ignore, just qualify): as in, if he's one of the only recognizable western politicians who openly support Morales, there's a major difference compared to his contemporaries, and if he has a history, it's important to recognize the unusualness. As if his support comes with the condition that he's done it worse before. Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what exactly, which "literal terrorist socialist groups" (plural, even) has he been promoting? Recognizing "the unusualness" would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From his article there's statements like "Corbyn and Ken Livingstone invited Adams, two convicted IRA volunteers and other members of Sinn Féin to Westminster" and "Corbyn supported the campaign to overturn the convictions of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami for the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London"; then there's the entire Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn article to read, including things like "in 2009, Corbyn said he invited "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in parliament". It's not hidden. Kingsif (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, those are not socialist extremist groups. Second of all, you said things like "working with", "promoting". BeŻet (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Corbyn is indeed not normal Western politician because he doesn't support islamist wahhabii headchoppers, Saudi war crimes in Yemen, renamed al-Qaeda (Syrian Al Nusra Front) and death squads, unlike many Western politicians. Unlike him, Hillary Clinton, as normal Western politician, openly admitted that USA created al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda is on American side in Syria. BobNesh (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that too, but mostly the very openly rants about things; possibly his only similarity with a certain modern US leader. I'm not trying to introduce POV and don't want people to see that, I do just think it can be important context that, regardless of political leaning, he openly goes out and works with even extremist socialist groups, so even though he's breaking from the Western political convention, he's not breaking from his own, i.e. it's not as impressive a stance as it would be coming from other Western politicians. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But he doesn't work with extremist socialist groups. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above. The point really is, when you hear Corbyn, you think 'promotes socialist groups regardless of their operational reality' - but not everyone knows that. If he is ever proposed to be included, those who don't know will see him attached to the UK and assume he has more traditional political approaches and therefore that something special must have happened for him to support Morales, despite it being a regular afternoon for him. That's all I think needs to be conveyed, and I sit here withholding opinions on anything Corbyn says or does, just commenting that he has done such unusual things. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you think Corbyn, you think that. There is no need to convey anything about Corbyn simply because you feel about him a certain way. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you never heard of the general you? Or should I have written "when one hears Corbyn". Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I'm objecting to, it's not a commonly held belief, it's a personal one. BeŻet (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be wide enough to put Corbyn in the International Reaction section, that said I'm not sure if it should be wide enough for that though. I'm not really sure if I understand the importance of Bashar Al-Assad calling it a coup, or Iran or Russia for that matter. Maybe Western Democracies just because of the fact that they're democracies but past that it seems a bit over the top. With the situation in Venezuela it makes sense, who fills in embassies, who controls the overseas assets and the possibility that if recognition for Guaido gets high enough he can replace Maduro at the UN. Here though, Morales is in Mexico. Also if the Corbyn name gets an asterisk the whole page will become far more contentious than it already is the last thing this page needs is a bunch of Jeremy Corbyn supporters going ape. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source calls them world political leaders. We are talking about important political figures. It seems very due to me, and there is no reason to worry about "needless words" since the lead isn't large. BeŻet (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should say world leaders - Western in this context has a very specific meaning, and the source also mentions Turkey etc. - not Western. Your edit reason said that it was changed from world to western because the Americas have already been named. Since when is the world made up of only The Americas and The West. Politically, there's a lot of overlap anyway (geographically they're basically identical), so it seems an illogical 'correction'. World leaders should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's change it to world leaders then. BeŻet (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No a "normal" western politician? He's the leader of the second most influential political party in one of Europe's most influential nations. He had a regular political career and was selected for his post trough the usual means. There's nothing "not normal" about him. Furthermore, when you accuse him of supporting "literal terrorist groups", please do keep in mind not just NPOV, but WP:BLP - such claims would in most cases be immediately deleted. Goodposts (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There are, of course, several sections about it in his article, so I wouldn't worry about BLP in this specific instance; it's only restating things in a published article. I would argue outside the normal - Western world leaders, if nothing else, usually have restraint regarding public statements of any kind that could be controversial (until Twitter, at least). Not that we need to talk more about Corbyn until we start including non-national leaders. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To bring this back for a moment this is the quote from the Euronews:"In the video above, we show how the so-called "coup d'etat" has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders. Political authorities from Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and Syria have shown their support to Morales and claimed that there has been an orchestrated coup in Bolivia."We have seen world political leaders, not only South American talking about a coup d'état in Bolivia", Bolivian expert in Political Science, Marcelo Arequipa told Euronews. Some European examples are British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or Spanish Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias..."" In the video the world political leaders they talk about are Maduro and the President of Cuba, as well as Dominic Raab the Foreign Minister of the UK. I'm worried that this not be taken out of context. Especially since the exact quote is that the term coup d'etat has caused division amongst world leaders. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quote clearly implies political leaders in Europe, categorized earlier as world leaders, have also been talking about a coup. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)To make sure I'm understanding you, could you try restate that really simply? As you say, don't want to misinterpret, and I'm a bit confused as to who said what in your Euronews round up at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my source, it's just the one being referenced for all of this. Essentially when it says world leaders it's referring to the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria etc. It specifically mentions Europeans but then clarifies that as Jeremy Corbyn and Pablo Iglesias. https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/11/evo-morales-resigns-is-bolivia-facing-a-coup-d-etat Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok - yes, that's pretty clear. Europe comes under the world, so it doesn't need much qualifying. Kingsif (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there isn't just one source, there are several. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Salon isn't a RS, I also quoted the Euronews verbatim so there should be no disagreement about the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't, you quoted a different part and obscured what the source is saying later on. BeŻet (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from above: I propose that we only include reactions from leaders or official representatives of parties which are either parliamentary-represented, or noteworthy in some other way in a separate section. They should be summarized only briefly for each country - eg. in Brazil, XYZ supported, ABC condemned - so as to give an "at a glance" look, while not taking up too much time in an exhaustive list. If necessary, we could further limit these reactions only to such parties from american countries, world powers and/or intl' organizations. Both criticism and support should be included. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't disagree with what you're saying. You'll forgive me if I say this all is slightly aggravating, as the Source is clearly being taken out of context. That works fine in the international reaction section, however this is about the lede. This is what I changed it to, to avoid issue: " according to Euronews, "has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders" however, and[1] the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term" Directly quoting the source. My revision gets rolled back, apparently by directly quoting the article I was obscuring its true meaning. How I know not. Now it reads: "and certain world political leaders have called the events a coup d'état." The article when stating certain world leaders is talking about most of the countries already listed, plus Bashar Al-Assad's government in Syria, which is clearly taking it out of context. Here's the source so you can read it if you like, @Goodposts. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, we have, in addition to the countries listed, at least Iglesias, Corbyn, Sanders, Lula, to name a few. BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)So you want the lead to say that the use of the term coup has been divisive? If the source explicitly says that, I see no problem including it. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source said that and I quoted it exactly and attributed the source to the source, my revision got rolled back for a version that says that certain world leaders call it a coup. I don't particularly want that, I don't think any of this should be included, however I'm proposing that to appease BeZet. His idea however is just that it says that certain world leaders have called it a coup. I also won't roll back his edit as I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source also says that certain world political leaders describe it as a coup. If we leave that out, it seems that only Morales and "his close allies" call it that, which is very far from the truth. BeŻet (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current phrase used by the lead is a compromise variant, as the phrase "Western political leaders" was objected to by an editor. It's very well cited, and a summary in this way wouldn't constitue WP:SYNTH, as Synth requires the material to claim or assert something that the individual sources did not - which isn't what's happening here. The reason it was added, as BeZet pointed out, is to balance out the "his close allies", which would imply that only Morales' "close allies" had dubbed it a coup - which clearly isn't the case. Assad's government reaction has nothing to do with the lead, in fact I only added it as I randomly stumbled upon it, while editing Syria-related articles yesterday. Goodposts (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'd have it say: "Morales and allies close to Morales, such as the governments of Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Uruguay, the disputed government of Venezuela have called the events a coup d'état, this term, according to Euronews, "has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders, however and the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term."" This is what it currently says: "Morales and allies close to Morales, such as the governments of Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Uruguay, the disputed government of Venezuela and certain world political leaders have called the events a coup d'état,[1] while the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term." Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree, that feels to me as though it asserts that the vast majority of the world disagreed with the label - which is not true and not NPOV-compliant. Goodposts (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the article literally says. It's a direct quote from the article that he's using as his source for what he said. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how it's NPOV to say people agree with the term, but POV to say that some leaders do agree with the term, and others don't. Especially when the same source is used for both. It's a fact, there are world leaders who disagree with that terminology, as per BeZets only source, which I directly quoted. So how is showing both sides POV, and only one side NPOV? Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps keep the current and add "Euronews writes that the use of the term 'coup' has been divisive." at the end. Kingsif (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says two things, that the name is devisive, and that certain world political leaders called it a coup. That's why if we ignore the latter part we are obscuring what the article is saying. BeŻet (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was added is because, due to the addition of "by Morales' allies", the lack of such a statement would make it seem as though Morales' allies were the only group to dub it as such. It was made to balance out that edit without undoing it. Goodposts (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As not only his "close allies" have called this a coup, we need to make sure the sentence says that. BeŻet (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet prohibit it from saying that there's any country that disagrees with it. This is the definition of POV, by the way. Just say, "I don't want to say that in the lede because it's against the narrative that I want to convey." That's the truth, and it actually makes sense. The argument that quoting the article that you're using as a source is POV because it says there's disagreement is of course absurd. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. As Kingif wrote, we can append at the end the sentence talking about the term being divisive. What I was objecting to was removing one piece of information and adding a different one, under the guise of "quoting" the article. Let's include both pieces of information. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a fair proposal. Goodposts (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: since you wrote "Looking at the talk page, there clearly isn't a consensus to include this in the lead" I am tagging you here as you clearly didn't manage to read our discussion. BeŻet (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't consensus. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How so, did we not agree that both pieced of information should be included? If so, what else have you got issues with? BeŻet (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: I clearly did read the discussion, which was precisely the same reason why I removed the wording. Alcibiades979 and Kingif have disagreed with the change, and so do I; just that with the explanations in the edit summaries I didn't find it necessary to further explain my arguments. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion above, Kingif presented a solution himself which we've accepted later on: Perhaps keep the current and add "Euronews writes that the use of the term 'coup' has been divisive." at the end. If you disagree with the changes, specify what you have an issue with so that it can be adressed. Otherwise you cannot claim lack of consensus, and you cannot remove content. Several editors have an issue with saying that only close Morales allies call it a coup. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it would be preferable to avoid reverting solely due to "no consensus" and instead refer to specific policy- or source-based issues, or at least link to the discussion if you feel there's some relevant discussion being ignored. Repeatedly reverting edits while only stating "there is no consensus", as has been happening quite frequently on this page, could be viewed as status-quo stonewalling and is not productive. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: could you please address our comments before, once again, removing content you don't like? BeŻet (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeŻet: Before starting I ask you to refrain from making personal accusations against me, specially since I have provided explanations in edits summaries and in the talk page alike. This violates the assumption of good faith and only makes the discusion more difficult.

If I'm not mistaken the original edit dates back to at least two days ago, when the change mentioned Prominent western politicians including Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn have also referred to the events as a "coup". The lead now includes the phrasing "certain world political leaders", which is weasel wording and extremely vague. Since the politicians mentioned in the original edit were not added again, this phrasing should be referring to opposition leaders and former presidents, namely Cristina de Kirchner, Dilma Rousseff and Lula da Silva, of which the latter two do not hold a government position currently as far as I know.

You mentioned Kingsif's proposal, but at the current version it seems to not have been included. Per WP:NPOV, other positions defining the events as a "transition to democracy" should be included.

While status-quo stonewalling claims are being made, it seems like the counterpart practice is being forgotten: WP:STONEWALL. Repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus does not agree is just as disruptive as what I have been accused of. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the last sentence and it should be reintroduced. "Word political leaders" is the wording from the reliable source. Fringe descriptions like "transition to democracy" should not be included since the main discussion happening at the world stage is whether this was a coup or not. Your claim that there is no consensus is false, since we have formed an agreement earlier that has been ignored. Repeatedly removing information that is covered in reliable sources, especially when there is wide support to include it, is not productive or helpful behaviour. BeŻet (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcibiades979: Please do not force a new version of the lead that hasn't been agreed on. We have an ongoing discussion and a version that has received wider support. There are several issues with ZiaLater's version as well: the source is an op-ed, the lead suggests "revolution" is a term used as widely as "coup", the wording of the sentence is not really accurately describing the article, implies that the the expert commuinity widely suggests that people shoulr refrain from using those terms, etc.. Plenty of issues to deal with. BeŻet (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcibiades979: Please stop forcing a new, undiscussed version. BeŻet (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeŻet: I don't remember that you have provided or pointed out which references use that wording. Coup is not a term widely used by reliable sources and many times it is used with attribution, quoting Morales' allies. As far as I know per WP:NOTUNANIMOUS the consensus should be etablished with 3/4 of the editors, or at least 2/3 of them. With 3/5 editors supporting the previous position, this does not seem to be the case, and even less "wide support". Also remember that consensus changes.
I'm pinging @Kingsif: to know their stance at the new lead proposal. To me and so far it looks like a good middle ground. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, @Jamez42: - what's the new proposal, I cannot see it in the recent comments? Kingsif (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:ZiaLater included the following text in the lead as an alternative: The designation of the terms "coup" and "revolution" to the event has been disputed, with regional and coup studies academics disagreeing with using either term, urging individuals to recognize the complexity of the event instead of disseminating polarizing rhetoric. What I personally like about the change is that it won't be necessary to argue about who said what, and who should be included in the lead. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I quite like that change. It gives context to the dispute, too. I think Zia's version should stay. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This version is based on a single opinion column. That's already a problem, but it also manages to misrepresent the source, implying that academics are in agreement that "black and white" language should be avoided. In fact, the piece quotes an academic who does call it a coup: Rut Diamint, a political scientist at Torcuato Di Tella University in Argentina, agreed with the criticisms of Mr. Morales but added, “None of that justifies a coup d’état.” This is in addition to the concerns raised above that the text implies that "revolution" and "coup" are at all similar in frequency of use, which is flat out false. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this version isn't good at should be removed. It completely downplays that many people, governments, organizations describe it as a coup. Moreover the current version has been forced without any preceding discussion. BeŻet (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

This is a clear coup by far-right fascists in Bolivia. Ahmedthahir111 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1194658741054050305

The current claimed president making Christian Fascism as the tool to oppress majority indigenous and LGBTQ


Here are other tweets (now deleted) where Bolivia's new far-right unelected coup "president" repeatedly calls the Indigenous majority "satanic"

This Christian-fascist wrote: "The city is not for Indians, they should go back to the Altiplano or the Chaco!" https://web.archive.org/web/20191113002729/https:/twitter.com/JeanineAnez/status/347734496273113088

 Not done Violates WP:NPOV. Twitter is not a reliable source to use in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The disputed government of Venezuela"

The lead refers to "the disputed government of Venezuela". Such wording is not used in any of the sources. In fact, several of them refer to Maduro as the president. Our article should be based on reliable sources, and not editors' opinions. Since the language in question is not reflected in the sources, there is no reason for us to include it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, perhaps "Maduro government" just for clarity? Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that option reads as much less POV. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is much clearer to anyone reading which government it is referring to Nathan868 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Maduro's Venezuelan Government" would be clear enough. Goodposts (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

Please replace "68th President of Bolivia ." with "68th President of Bolivia." There shouldn't be a space before the period. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you for pointing it out! — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"assumed the presidency"

The lead states that Añez "assumed the presidency", but this appears to be a paraphrase of her own remarks, not a description from reliable sources. The sources already cited in the article describe her as "claiming the presidency" or "declaring herself president":

  • [10] a leading lawmaker stepped forward and claimed the presidency, Ms. Añez said before she declared herself president that she would lead a transition, an attempt to nullify Ms. Añez’s self-proclaimed presidency — "assume" only used in Añez's voice
  • [11] Bolivian Sen. Jeanine Anez declared herself the country's acting leader Tuesday — "assume" not used, "become" used but only in Añez's voice
  • [12] Bolivian senator Jeanine Añez has declared herself the country’s interim president — note "assume" also used, but only in the same sentence as "declared herself": lawmakers from his party boycotted the legislative session where she assumed office.
  • [13] Jeanine Anez, the head of Bolivia's Senate, declared herself interim president of Bolivia in Congress on Tuesday — "assume" not used except in quote from Añez

While keeping in mind the caveats of WP:GOOGLETEST, a quick Google News search also suggests that "declared herself" is more common than "assumes". Some examples:

Even Voice of America uses "declared": [14] We should use the wording used in the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than paraphrasing (without attribution) Añez's statement, especially since her claim to the presidency is disputed (as mentioned in many of these articles). Note that while some Spanish sources use "asumir", we should go with what reliable English sources say rather than attempting to translate Spanish sources directly.

If there is a concern about "declared herself" being POV, I disagree, but a possible compromise would be to use "claimed the presidency" which is used by many sources as well. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before giving opinions on this, do we have the similar discussion on Guaidó archived? I'd like to review the arguments there. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's at Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC on "himself". The closer found a consensus in favour of using "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys - of course, the situations are not exactly the same, but the different considerations and arguments already made on Wikipedia policy can hopefully not need to be repeated if we all review them from that recent discussion first. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant policy is probably WP:WEIGHT, common terminology, WP:NPOV. I agree with arguments there that just because Telesur has used it does not mean it is excluded if found in RS's. I do not think there is too much negativity to saying she declared herself president, particularly with the levels of context provided on the power vacuum. I also think that at least having a precedent with Guaidó, different situation considered, can be considered.Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herself I don't have massively strong feelings, but sources show it is the common phrase; whether that be outside of technical terminology and just idiomatic, it is still at least more searchable, which swings it from completely neutral on the matter for me. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assumed As I stated in my edit summary, the phrasing "assumed the interim presidency" reflects the content of the article, namely the "Assumption of presidency by Áñez", including the line of succession and the session in Bolivia's Senate. Bolivia's situation is quite different from Venezuela's, starting that with the fact that the president and the following line of succession resigned, regardless of the circumstances. The presidency office was not disputed by anyone else before Añez. Plenty of reliable sources use this phrasing as well:
The sources note something interesting that I think should be added to the article: Jeanine assumed temporary control of the Senate after its president and first vice president resigned, which would have allowed her to hold the presidency of the Senate.[15][16]
  • BBC Bolivia crisis: Jeanine Áñez assumes interim presidency and Bolivian opposition senator Jeanine Áñez has assumed the interim presidency of the South American country following Evo Morales's resignation. — "declared herself" is used as a image caption, while assumed is used in the title and in a subtitle.
  • The Guardian Añez assumes Bolivia's interim presidency as Morales flees – video — "declared herself" is used in the article, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.
  • Washington Post Still, she assumed the presidency even though there was no quorum for a formal debate on accepting Morales’ resignation, and no one swore in. — This is a good example that the phrasing does not imply legitimacy, only phrasing. "Declared herself" used.
  • EFE With Morales in Mexico, Añez assumes interim presidency of Bolivia — Once again used in title.
  • Associated Press Bolivia Clashes After Opposition Leader Assumes as President — Once again used in title. Note that while published by Voice of America, the article was written by Associated Press. "Declared herself" used, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.
  • Sky News Clashes after opposition leader Jeanine Anez assumes Bolivian presidency — Once again used in title. "Declared herself" used, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.
I want to clarify that my main objection with using "declared herself" is the narrowness of the phrasing. Guaidó "declared himself" as president almost two weeks after Maduro's inauguration in a rally, a single and prominent event. Añez's assumption of the office seems to have happened in the same day following a series of events, including the OAS audit report and the military declaration. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, we use "declared herself" in the article as well, not just "assumed": Anez declared herself as acting president of Bolivia based on a ruling by the country's constitutional court, as she was the highest-ranking politician in the line of succession after the resignations.
Headlines should probably be given less weight than text from the body of the article; journalists usually don't write their own headlines and they're often written or modified by editors. I note that the articles all include "declared herself" other than EFE, which is extremely short, only a few sentences long. But as I noted above, there are several articles that limit "assumed" to quoting or paraphrasing Añez. I think this is additional evidence that "declared herself" is a more common / widespread phrasing.
To your last point, I'm not sure that "declared herself" is any more narrow than "assumed". I certainly don't have that intuition. They seem equally applicable to me. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declared Herself - as that is what the sources were saying. It can then be mentioned that the Constitutional Court supported her declaration, as did opposition senators, while Morales and the majority-holding MAS deputies did not. It's no Wikipedia's job to determine wether or not the court or the parliament have the final say. Goodposts (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful, please provide more sources using the phrase if there are others, since sources also use "Assumed". --Jamez42 (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declared herself - a literal description of what has happened that day, and what most sources say. BeŻet (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet:, since you have disputed the phrasing and knowing that a discussion is not defined by votes, could you please address the sources that I have provided and use the wording? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declared Herself it's what the NYT says. Honestly this is essentially a discussion about semantics. The two are almost equal in meaning according to Merriam-Webster. I think the only real difference would be semantics, assumed sounds a bit more passive in tone (eg assumed responsibility vs. took responsibility), where as a reflexive/middle tense verb, to declare oneself, has the full active force of the verb. That said, there are a number of variations that are used, I like the NYT. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAS blocked from entering parliament by police

It looks like the police have blocked some MAS legislators from entering the parliament, including Adriana Salvatierra. There's some Spanish coverage here:

The El Tribuno source also says that she has said she's willing to assume the interim presidency. If editors who are more proficient in Spanish are interested in incorporating some of this info into the article, I think it would be useful to do so. I can make an attempt later on, but there doesn't seem to be coverage in English (yet?) so I'd be relying on machine translation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to enter is also mentioned (before it happened) here [20]: But tensions were building, with Morales supporters who still have a majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly promising an attempt to nullify Ms. Añez’s self-proclaimed presidency. Supporters of Ms. Añez have set up barricades in recent days around the assembly’s plaza, along with the national police, and it remained uncertain whether they would even allow the Morales party lawmakers to enter the building. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Salvatierra had publicly renounced her position, making her legally ineligible to enter the Senate.
(this link is to Bolivia's version of Snopes) https://boliviaverifica.bo/adriana-salvatierra-anuncio-su-renuncia-en-tres-medios/
73.25.86.75 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what wikipedia would have put as the article title of the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état if it had existed during those time periods?

This is ridiculous, the CIA and US State Department is lobbying for this article to be called Evo Morales government resignation. AHC300 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline section

The "timeline" section is broken up by day (11 Nov, 12 Nov, etc) but the content is not in the appropriate places. For example, all the info about Añez declaring herself president is under 11 Nov. I think it makes sense for related information to be kept together, but I think if we're doing that then the timeline structure is not appropriate and we should change it to "Events" or something and get rid of the "11 November" and similar headings. I'm happy to do this reorganization but thought I would ask for feedback about it first. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a controversial proposal, be WP:BOLD buddy :) Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule that articles have to be written as a timeline. If you can make the article flow better - do it! Goodposts (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYT reporter story

The story discussing the terminology surrounding this event is by Max Fisher, an international reporter of The New York Times. This is not purely an opinion piece and reading through the article, one can find this is obvious as it utilizes multiple acadmic sources. Also, the edits placed in this article are not using the author's opinion, but the consensus of academic sources who specialize in events like this.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not inaccurate. Many regional scholars do refer to it as a coup, as other sources show. One can argue it belongs in the lede, but it can't be the only story in the lede about whether or not it is a coup when a number of media sources and regional governments refer to it as such, it is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a good source for the body of the article, but it shouldn’t be in the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: I will paste the comment I made above on the same topic: This version is based on a single opinion column. That's already a problem, but it also manages to misrepresent the source, implying that academics are in agreement that "black and white" language should be avoided. In fact, the piece quotes an academic who does call it a coup: Rut Diamint, a political scientist at Torcuato Di Tella University in Argentina, agreed with the criticisms of Mr. Morales but added, “None of that justifies a coup d’état.” This is in addition to the concerns raised above that the text implies that "revolution" and "coup" are at all similar in frequency of use, which is flat out false. I have edited the text to fix some of these issues, such as by including attribution and summarizing the article more accurately, but I agree with Zellfire999 that it would be misleading for it to be the only thing cited.

As for your claim that This is not purely an opinion piece — It's from Fisher's column/newsletter, The Interpreter, which is opinion/analysis, not reporting. Fisher's status as being an "international reporter" is not relevant; being a reporter does not magically convert opinion/analysis into reporting. Please see WP:NEWSORG:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it based off a single opinion column, it's currently the only part of the lead that even mentions the "coup" designation. No consensus was achieved for this move and the replacement of far more relevant reactions with some opinion articles is downright bad. It should either be reverted to the way it was before, in which both sides' positiones were summarized, or it should be deleted entirely. Goodposts (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zellfire999:, @Cmonghost:, @Goodposts:, @Blaylockjam10: I hear you all, but this is not the opinion of the reporter, this is the opinion of scholars. I believe to give it more neutral weight, we could include something like the following:
"Response to the crisis has varied among politicians and governments, with some describing the event as a coup and others calling it a democratic transition. Regional and coup studies academics criticize the use of such binary distinctions, agreeing that the event is too complex for such terms."
Is this better? Laundry lists of government responses and the "us vs. them/east vs. west" narrative in ledes is always bothersome.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s better, but I think that having multiple sources in the lead would be ideal. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While that is a lot better, I don't think that the single NYT source should be given the same level of attention as the official statements of multiple governments per WP:UNDUE. At the same time, mentioning that the term is divisive is fine. I really wouldn't call this an "East vs West" situation, since the vast majority of reactions came from South American countries. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: I don't really think that's much better, actually. Claims sourced from Fisher's column need to be attributed. Moreover, the word "agreeing" is a big problem: an NYT opinion column is not even close to being a reliable source for judging academic consensus. What you would need for that is a meta-analysis by other scholars. The column is not a meta-analysis, it's just a collection of responses that Fisher chose to use to bolster his argument. And as I already pointed out, even among the scholars he cites there is not agreement; one of them does use the term "coup". Text like Columnist Max Fisher wrote in the New York Times that the use of binary "coup" or "not coup" distinctions has been criticized by some academics would be superior, but the material should still be moved to the body, perhaps to a new section like "Terminology" or something. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the text is ugly. It's fair to say that it was added as a possible solution to the dispute regarding the controversy around using coup to describe the events, but instead it now sounds as an obscure and isolated statement. I don't know if the reference should remain or not, but we shouldn't forget the purpose of the piece in the first place. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that this is an opinion of scholars is completely missing the fact that this is an op-ed of an author who picked certain scholars and decided to highlight their opinion. I'm sure I'm not saying anything surprising by stating that plenty of scholars have different opinions about the subject. This fragment simply has no place in the intro paragraph. BeŻet (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the NYT Article that ZiaPosted, it does a good job refocusing the conversation from a dull debate on the semantics of coup and revolution and the ensuing good and evil connotations to a more nuanced look at the actualities on the situation which are incredibly complex which are annihilated when using charged words that of course aren't backed by WP:RS. There was a similar article posted in the same vein recently by The Economist.[1] In regard to the certain political leaders idea, it was WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:WEASEL by deliberately misrepresenting the information in its source. The world leaders it mentioned were already named in the lede, then it goes back around and says certain world political leaders in reference to those whom were already mentioned giving the false appearance that there are infact more as per the article, the "title certain world political leaders" never appears in the article, then it purposely neglected to mention that this was divisive, as Zia's article states, because I was told to show disagreement over the terminology would be POV, how? I know not. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is now the case that the word "Coup" appears nowhere in the body of the article. This is ridiculous, as the ousted government and many regional governments consider it to have been one. It obviously needs to be mentioned, even if only as an allegation. Zellfire999 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reactions of those governments are all listed in the reaction section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979: You can't be seriously suggesting that the fact that the ousted government has called the events a "coup" should be relegated to a standalone quote farm. Morales's opinion is mentioned in virtually every news story, regardless of whether the source calls it a "coup" in its own voice. As Zellfire999 said, it would be utterly ridiculous for this not to be mentioned. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmonghost: You're a good contributor in this area from my experience working with you on Vzl articles, can I ask you to write up a proposed paragraph with sources to discuss the opinions on the term 'coup' for editors to then discuss including; I think it may be more productive to have an idea of how it would be presented than to argue over hypotheticals. I agree that it is an important part of the story and should be included somehow. Morales is obviously significant, why is his opinion not? Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to do that, when I have some more time. I'll likely be busy with other things for most of this week, so anyone else should feel free to do it in the meantime rather than waiting for me. Rather than directly writing a paragraph for the lead, I think it could be more productive to write (a) more detailed paragraph(s) discussing the terminology, to be included in the article as a separate section. The lead can then summarize the section (the purpose of the lead being to summarize the article, anyway). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2019

NOT MOVED
Firstly, thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion as well as the previous move discussion. Participants weighed a number of policies which have wide consensus among editors, namely the article title policy and its subsections: WP:CRITERIA, WP:NPOVNAME, and WP:COMMONNAME. Because consensus is not a vote the opinions offered in this discussion must be weighed in accordance with policies that have wider consensus such as WP:AT and WP:NPOV. Given the weight of the arguments, there is no consensus to move the page.

The crux of the debate centered around WP:COMMONNAME, specifically, how do independent, reliable sources describe the Bolivian governmental change. As the original closer pointed out, "no consensus over whether it constitutes a coup cuts through the entirety of the reliable sources, not just here" and if there is any point of agreement in this debate it is that descriptions among sources are mixed. Regardless of editors' personal opinions on what constitutes a coup, the sources and relevant arguments show that there is no consensus that COMMONNAME supports any particular title.

Others point to the article titling criteria to argue that "2019 Bolivian coup d'etat" fulfills our article titling policy better than the current title. The consistency criterion was brought up a number of times to suggest the page be titled similarly to pages such as 1964 Bolivian coup d'état, 1976 Argentine coup d'état, 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état, and 1923 Bulgarian coup d'état and some argued that "coup" is a more WP:PRECISE description of the event. Editors disagreed on the point of precision, with a number stating it was a coup, others stating it was not, and for similar reasons as the WP:COMMONNAME debate, both sides presented sources consistent with their positions. As to consistency, editors point to other pages which do not conform to this pattern of titles using "coup" such as 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis.

In opposition to a move to "coup", most editors point to WP:NPOV derived from the second pillar of Wikipedia. It is obvious from this discussion and the sources presented that use of the term is controversial and value laden. A number of editors point out that some organizations refrain from describing this event as a coup to maintain an appearance of objectivity, and to avoid the appearance of supporting the deposed regime. While many editors in favor of a move to coup attribute this tendency to a bias in English sources, it still shows that there is general agreement that use of "coup" is a value-laden description of the incident. Per WP:NPOVNAME, for a non-neutral name to be used as an article title, editors need to come to a consensus that "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" refer to it by that name. Editors did not come to that consensus, and among the English-language sources presented, most refrain from using "coup". Given the discussion here in light of site-wide policies, there is no consensus to move the page. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 Bolivian political crisis → ? – Many have said that it was too early to coin the events a coup d'etat previously. I think the nature of the events have now made this increasingly clear. Although I believe the mere nature of the military forcing the civilian government to resign speaks for itself, events have continued to escalate. The military and police are now violently repressing pro-Morales protests, with many protesters killed today, the President has been forced to flee after he claims a warrant was issued for his arrest (and it has been confirmed he would be prosecuted if he returned), and the self-proclaimed new President is of disputed legitimacy with the MAS majority refusing to recognize her.[2][3][4] Furthermore, even many western sources have now referred to the event as a coup d'etat, as well as many governments.[5][6][7] Zellfire999 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment this information need further clarification and more events related to this because many mainstream media refused to refer the events in Bolivia as "coup d'etat". Even in spanish Wikipedia, there was strong debate and disagreements about what the title is. This situation is more complex and many editors and policians divided whether the events is coup or not. "Bolivian political crisis" still the most neutral title until more information progressed regarding coup or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.213.38.127 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Washington Post source is an opinion piece of an adviser to Bernie Sanders. Second source is not clear. Third source is Página/12, a Kirchnerism newspaper (Kirchner is a longtime ally of Morales). Before we make a determination on the terminology, take the time to let this settle. This is a recent and ongoing event. What we are hearing from scholars is to avoid the labeling entirely, with even the Sanders adviser agreeing to this idea somewhat.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The distinction between a "coup" and a "revolution" is often a value judgement rather than an objective description. There's no consistent standard on this wiki for the use of "coup" vs. "revolution". For example, the military was also involved in the ousting Morsi in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia, but both these events are labeled as "revolutions" on this website. Because there is no consistent standard, and because the word "coup" is controversial on this topic, the article should not include the term in in its title. "2019 Bolivian political crisis" is fine. Jogarz1921 (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as headline of this article. Military and civil police is killing and wounding people - more than 5 killed and about 75 wounded[8] in one day just in order to suppress one political point of view and keep in power one new political faction that came on power without using election or other legal terms. This is not a mere political crisis as it is killing and hurting of people opposing of removal of president and not just a president of their country. One more indication that this is coup d'état is US support and imminently recognition for new non elected interim president that in their hurry for power grab did not event get Bolivia Congress to vote for her - because USA already had many fingers in various coup d'état in Bolivia in their recent history this is valid point. UK press is less subjective in this case because it lacks past role in Bolivia and for example The Guardian clearly says this is coup d'état [9]. There is also many other sources calling this event coup [10][11] and there is no reason for editors here - except if they are not involved in staging coups worldwide - to seek some "neutral point of view" by declaring use of military and police including brutal force against people in situation when elected president fled country as mere political crisis.
And on top of all new so called "president" of Bolivia promoted immediately many new military commander[12] clearly indicating her connections with military in order to get power and stay there. What possible could one senate member know about military and their commanders in just one day as "president" if she is not already colluding with them before or just there to read from script prepared for her? She knows in one day the best man for chief of staff, general commander of the army, head of Bolivian Air Force and head of Bolivian Navy. In one same day - ridiculous. In end picture in this reference says more than a thousand of words [13].
And for example - think yourself - would you call coup - if - for example - some senator in US - lets say from California - ousted Trump and proclaimed itself a president circumventing all legal means and with military backings and help, while US president in such case escape for lets say to UK - Would that be coup or just some usual political crisis in US?
While this is not a situation that some military commander take direct power this is still a a coup - ″A coup d'état, also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction″ - from wikipedia.[14] Clearly here one political faction with help of some military and police units using non-democratic means sized power in Bolivia.
And ridiculous as is Juan Guaidó - one more non-elected "president" - recognize his fellow new non-elected "president" of Bolivia - love birds. Any similarities in technique of coup tried in Venezuela and now in Bolivia are coincidental just for naive persons or persons supporting this coups while stating otherwise and pretending to be something else than propagandist.
Revolutions are historically done(including first ones - US and French - change from monarchy) by people in order to replace one constitutional order with another usually in case of mass oppression or change current constitutions with another different, why is word "revolution" used in some articles in Wikipedia to describe some recent events in countries like Egypt where coup in end was done I don't know but it seems to me like similarly word "democracy" lately is used to promote and describe many non-democratic doings and events - it is just a mask for people behind actual events in order to passivize plebs. In Bolivia one the same constitutions is still in use - no revolution there. Loesorion (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The current move proposal only serves as a discussion to oppose the current title or not. "2019 Bolivian political crisis" seemed to be the less controversial, less divisive rename alternative. While some may thing that this title does not describe the events as well as others, other proposals seemed to have had more opposition, and there seemed to be a consensus to move the last title. As I have stated, if this position changes and a move is still requested, a move proposal with a specific alternative should be made. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics. One of the sources provided precisely says that the European Union ha refused to call the events a coup, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has recognized Añez as interim president. Since the events before and after the resignation are being discussed, I encourage other editors to read the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt article talk page, where extensive discussions about the topic have taken place. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this was clearly a coup, we have to use wording that agrees with most reliable sources, which, alas, are very careful when describing the event. BeŻet (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate. "On Sunday, the head of Bolivia’s military called on Evo Morales to resign from the presidency. Minutes later, Morales was on a plane to Cochabamba where he did just that. These facts leave little doubt that what happened in Bolivia this weekend was a military coup [...] The mainstream press has bent over backwards, and tied itself in more than a few tangled knots, to avoid drawing this conclusion."[21] Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Editors on Wikipedia are not entitled to have their own opinion on if this was a coup or not. Their opinion simply doesn't matter here. What matters is what the reliable sources say. To call it a coup, it would have to exist a strong consensus in the media about it and the word would have to be widely used in most media outlets which it's not the case here. As stated above by Jogarz1921 the distinction between a "coup" and a "revolution" is not very clear and in this case we shouldn't use this word unless there is a strong consensus in the RS.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Jogarz1921 and I have said, scholars do not agree with the binary terminology (coup vs. revolution). Giving this a neutral title would be the only way to abide by WP:NPOV. If any article were to have "coup" in the title, it would have been the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, but we agreed not to use the terminology (though I argued this to be a coup attempt since there were armed actions involved. What Goodposts, Sleeker and I were working on was a more specific, neutral title. That would be 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis. This is a crisis affecting the governance of Bolivia. Simple fix, simple title.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I need. 2019 Bolivian coup d'état now has my support. Charles Essie (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have not 'adopted' anything. Discussion is ongoing and consensus is yet unclear; an editor unilaterally changed the title. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for coup d'état. It is important to remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As many other editors have stated above, US and UK media cannot be followed blindly in this context because they are biased (a) toward the appearance of objectivity, even when that leads to errors, and (b) toward the interests of US and UK governments. (Manufacturing Consent would likely be an enlightening read for a number of opposing editors.)
I also want to point out that the editors above who state that "scholars do not agree with the binary terminology" are playing fast and loose with the facts, given that the only source for this is an opinion column. (I have pointed this out several times on this page and have yet to receive an adequate response.) Contrary to that column, a number of academics have indeed called what is going on in Bolivia a coup. For example, in this El País article, two of the four academics interviewed stated that it was a coup, one said that it was not a coup, and another stated that it had elements of both a coup and a military insurrection. Here are some more sources for consideration that accurately refer to this coup as what it is: [22] [23]
Finally, the proposed title meets all five of our title criteria, and in most of them, surpasses the current title. It is more recognizable than "political crisis", more natural, more precise, equally concise, and consistent with the titles of similar articles, such as 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and many others. We should follow Spanish Wikipedia in giving this article an accurate and recognizable title, and that means calling it a coup. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again. Those who are in favor of moving to "coup" show the overwhelming majority of reliable sources nominally calling the event a "coup" (not opinion articles like those posted here). Again, we have to remember that we, as WP's editor, are not entitled to have our own opinion. Here on WP our opinions and analysis (Even if well-grounded. Even if we're experts) don't matter. What matter are the RS. And, in this case, the name must be "widely used in reliable sources". Let's stick to the WP's policies--SirEdimon (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here in Indonesian Wikipedia, there are two articles with different name than other language does.
The first article is 2019 Bolivian protests, which in Indonesian version named 2019 Bolivian post-election crisis [24] same as French-language ones, the other is resignation of Evo Morales government, which have been called 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis in Indonesian version [25].
The term "governmental crisis" is relatively new for Wiki editors but it should be used.
You can visited Indonesian version of two articles about Bolivia crisis. Hanafi455 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two sources you yourself present, The Nation and The Intercept, have a known and documented bias of their own. Your suggestion that we ignore multiple reliable sources because of an assumed 'western bias' and instead follow only sources that align with your own bias is a bit flaccid. As far as keeping with titles of 'similar articles', please list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As you must be aware, all sources have a point of view. The Nation and The Intercept (which are considered reliable sources per WP:RSP) clearly present where they're coming from, unlike many other sources cited in this discussion which purport to have a view from nowhere and end up obfuscating the facts as a result. But as you'll see if you read my comment more carefully, I am not in fact suggesting that we follow only sources that align with [my] own bias, but rather demonstrating that some reliable sources use coup, making it an appropriate option for the title of this page. We can then use WP:CRITERIA to decide among our options. My position is that "coup" is superior by these criteria, being far more precise than "political crisis", consistent with other similar articles' titles, and recognizable, among other things. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for your request to list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats, I don't know why that would be relevant. In this case, the military did take action: it demanded Morales's resignation. Surely you're not suggesting such demands aren't backed by an implicit threat of violence? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'some sources use coup' and 'it's recognizable' is just not convincing justification enough for using such a contentious, sides-taking label in the title of the article. It certainly warrants mention, preferably with attribution. Not in the title. I don't know why that would be relevant? When you try to compare apples with oranges it's not relevant to point out that they look and taste different? Your characterization of events is one long stretch. Yes, I suppose one could technically call making a statement an 'action' but that's not really what most people mean when they think of military action. You say 'demanded' which is, again, not technically incorrect, but is about the most unfavorable possible interpretation of the words they actually used. As such the claim of 'implicit threat of violence' is met with my implicit eye roll. If "the military made a suggestion that could be interpreted as implicitly threatening" is your definition of a coup d'etat, I don't know what to tell you. Compare and contrast to what you're describing as 'similar'. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In 2002, after fatal clashes between supporters of the government and opposition, the military demanded that Hugo Chávez resign. Unlike Morales, Chávez did not comply and was then arrested by the military. If Chávez had resigned and fled the country rather than being arrested, this would still be considered a coup d'état, given that the military stepped in to remove the existing president. (Chávez and his supporters later executed a bloodless counter-coup.) What defines the current events in Bolivia as a coup is not the body count, but the involvement of the military. Rolling your eyes at the facts won't change them. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't backed by RSs, and we don't do OR. User cmonghost pointed out a couple of sources that refer to the event as a coup and then pointed out that they are considered RS per WP:RSP however they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship so they shouldn't take precedence over articles by the NYT for instance, as WP:UNDUE especially in the lead.
The Intercept: "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept."
The Nation: "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy."
I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacy, specifically, hasty generalization, and an appeal to irrational premises and its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venue. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The moment that Reuters, The BBC, The Washington Post, the NYT, The New Yorker or a majority of them start using the word coup, I'll be the first to change the name, but until that point RSs don't use the word coup, and we don't do original research. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the discussion with the IP above was getting into OR territory and doesn't seem like it will go anywhere. However you seem to misunderstand what a reliable source is. You say they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship, as if this should immediately rule them out in comparison to the other sources you've listed. However, as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for determining reliability, and indeed, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Both sources meet these criteria, and indeed, being an adversarial investigative journalism site, The Intercept has more independence from Western state governments supporting the coup than the NYT, WaPo, etc., which rely on access to powerful sources of information for their reporting.
I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacy If we're playing spot-the-fallacy, yours is straw man, because I didn't say that. What I am saying is that context matters, and we should take into account potential bias from all sources, not just left-wing ones.
its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venue Wrong on both counts. (a) The fact that the Nation and the Intercept are reliable is in fact supported by WP:RSP. (b) WP:RSP is not "an actual authority", it's an explanatory supplement to WP:RS. It is a useful reference, not a set of binding rules. This is made clear in the lead: Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
I will lay this out one more time, since you seem to be confused about what my argument actually is.
  1. Reliable sources use "coup", "crisis", "resignation", and many other terms. This gives us a number of potential options for the title.
  2. Turning to our title criteria to decide amongst our options, coup is superior.
— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that certain sources that call it a coup are "biased" is a bit rich. All sources are biased one way or another, there is no such thing as non ideological news. The New York Times, for instance, has a longstanding history of backing regime change. Many more Spanish language sources have referred to the events as a coup,[15][16][17][18] and the facts of the event i.e. the military forcing the civilian government from power, support that terminology. Zellfire999 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zellfire999 I can't analyze your sources in depth right now, but at first sign, I can say that, at least, two of your sources are not reliable. Telesur is not reliable per WP:RESOURCES. Página 12 is also not reliable. It belongs to Víctor Santa María, a politician affiliated to the Justicialist Party in Argentina. This is a politic newspaper heavily leaned towards "Kirchnerism", "Peronism" and left-wing politics in South America.--SirEdimon (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of a paper is not, in itself, compelling evidence that it is unreliable. For example, The Washington Post is considered reliable on Wikipedia despite being owned by Jeff Bezos, who stands to gain or lose from many of the events covered by the paper. To consider Página 12 unreliable we would need to see evidence of a lack of error correction, fact-checking, etc. In any case, the other two sources cited by Zellfire999 appear very solid. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979:@Cmonghost: Please bear in mind that original research does not apply to talk pages. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as headline of this article. The key moment of the political transition was the call of the head of the military for Evo Moralez to step down. Anez could only become "interim president" because the military backed her. According to the constitution it would not have been her call. The recent decree by the new coup-president Anez also shows the might the military now has.--Derim Hunt (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to rename the article as a "coup", because it would implicate the title is backing only one side, and the narrative of a "coup" is widely contested. The military suggestion for Morales to resign was based in article 20 paragraph b. of the Bolivian N°1405 Law, which allows the head of the military to make "suggestions" to the president. Also we have to consider that in a coup, normally the forces that perpetrate it asumme the government. However, in this case, the military nor the head of oposition Carlos Mesa (the alleged participant in the coup) assumed the government. Maybe that was the reason the Organization of American States did not call the event as a coup neither many goverments like US, Argentine, Brasil, Chile and Peru. Here we have some media sources where the narrative of a coup is rejected:
--Elelch (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all the sources cited here are either opinion articles or articles summarizing the opinions of nations or groups, such as the United States or Bolivian bishops. They should be given as much weight as opinion articles arguing in favour of the 'coup' designation, which is to say very little. It is also unsurprising that the OAS and some of its member states are reticent to call this coup what it is, given the primary role they played in fomenting it. Given their high degree of involvement, they can't be considered reliable sources for what our article should be called. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only role OAS played was to expose the electoral fraud performed by Evo Morales government, which was the real cause of his resignation.--Elelch (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, they also called for a second round of elections and have subsequently supported the coup government. Given this involvement, it would be laughable to treat them as a neutral arbiter of truth, as you appear to suggest in your original !vote. (Moreover, multiple statistical analyses, such as by CEPR and UMich professor Walter Mebane, have also suggested that the allegations of electoral fraud are quite dubious and were unlikely to affect the result of the election in any case.) The reason for his resignation, as has been stated by numerous outlets (including Western ones) as well as Morales himself, was that the military demanded he do so. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the result of OAS audit concluded that they were inconsistency in the electroal process, that the "informatic system was manipulated" and that "it was unlikely statistically that Evo Morales have reached the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round". I think that means fraud. That was so evident that Evo Morales accepted to redo the election. What is very laughable is that it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpetrators (military and Carlos Mesa) did not assume the government.--Elelch (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the findings of the OAS are dubious and have been convincingly disputed by other analyses. For example, the supposed statistical unlikeliness of Morales's win is straightforwardly explained by the fact that his base is located in rural areas that report later. This article gives a good overview: [26] (Note that I am not proposing to include this source in our own article.) It should also be noted that without evidence, Morales's agreeing to redo the election is not an admission to electoral fraud—you're free to interpret it as such, but I think it's more likely that the OAS report was simply one of a number of sources of pressure on Morales, also including the protests, the police mutiny, and increasing pressure from other nations.
it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpretators ... did not assume the government. This is not true. What definition of coup are you going by? It is by no means out of the ordinary for the military to install someone else as leader after carrying out a coup. One obvious example is that the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état was perpetrated by the military, but installed businessman and opposition member Pedro Carmona as president. (It's also unclear to me why you name Carlos Mesa as a perpetrator of the coup. While he's obviously a leading figure in the opposition, I don't know that there's evidence suggesting he conspired with Kaliman or other military figures before they decided to remove Morales.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that the source you gave to support the rejection of an electoral fraud is a source yo recognize is not reliable to be added to the article. Also, your comparison with the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état is not suitable, because Pedro Carmona had no rigth to take office as president. For the contrary, Yanet Añez was the person in the presidential line of succession according with Bolivian Constitution, so much so that Bolivia´s Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal endorsed it. As you can see, the narrative of a coup is not credible.--Elelch (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source I gave to support the rejection of fraud is an opinion/analysis piece (much like the ones you originally linked above), which is why it's not suitable for the article, not because it's inaccurate or because Jacobin is unreliable. (As far as I know, there's no consensus on whether Jacobin is reliable or not, likely because it mostly produces opinion and analysis rather than original reporting, to my knowledge.) I linked the article for your edification; you are welcome to read it if you'd like to learn something. Otherwise, I don't really see a point to continuing this now-very-tangential discussion. I will point out though that the president of the coup government's name is actually Jeanine, not "Yanet", and she was only next in the line of succession because several MAS candidates ahead of her, such as Adriana Salvatierra, were forced to resign — and their resignations were not formal, written resignations but merely statements on television. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The military only suggested the resignation of Morales not the whole line of succession. García Linera and the heads of parlament chambers resigned because Morales requested it in order to allege a coup d'état later. Do not forget that the presidency of Añez has been supported by bolivia´s constitutional court. It is really very strange the coup d'état you see, in which the perpetrators did not take charge of the country, the congress was not disolved and the new president, endorsed by the constitutional court, has already sent to congress a bill to call up for new elections... what a coup d'état!--Elelch (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- calling it a 'political crisis' is appropriate at this point. Calling it a coup is not neutral because of the negative connotations. Surely, a hot issue. After things stabilize and the legitimacy of the present government is determined this can be revisited. Meanwhile, it is better to be neutral about it by calling it a crisis. Jip Orlando (talk)
See WP:DUCK calling a duck a duck is fully neutral. A coup is a coup. KasimMejia (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If there is an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the Anatidae family, then it is not a duck, period. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post are not zoologists. The correct analogy is that the zoologists are calling it a duck, but the media has decided to call it a chicken because someone bought stocks in Perdue Farms. The media do not have a neutral point of view, not when it comes to highly charged political events; if you're really interested in getting it right, cite the zoologists directly.JoshuaChen (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshuaChen: Please read the page, you're missing the point. The essay is directed towards sockpuppet investigations. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for 2019 Bolivian Coup d'état - as KasimMejia wrote, it is a pretty clear situation, the military has forced president to step down and is violently crushing the protests (dozens of dead as of yesterday). All detailed arguments were written by other users previously. StjepanHR (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - to rename article as 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. It’s no secret that the army told Evo Morales you got to go or else, even after he offered to hold new elections. The new right wing government in power led by a small number of the elite from the non-indigenous minority is backed by the army and police. It has resulted in the suspension of certain laws and a campaign against political and civilian supporters of Morales. All this fits the text book definition of a coup.Resnjari (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - to rename article as 2019 Bolivian coup d'état.
The fact that the law for the Bolivian Army says it's a "Fundamental responsbility" for the Army to "Analyze internal and external conflict situations, to suggest to whom correspond the appropriate solutions." takes away all the threatening connotations of the suggestion of his resignation (See Article 20, paragraph B in [19])
The Bolivian Army suggestion makes sense given that it was made after:
  • a long (since October 21 to November 10) civil strike and blokades in all cities asking the president to resign because of the then alleged rigged elections,
  • the president threats on October 25 to surround the cities in which the strikes were asking an audit of the elections [20]
  • negative from the police to follow orders from high command on November 9 (which was in charge of president supporters) [21],
  • confirmation on November 10 by the OAS international audit team that "The audit team cannot validate the results of this election and therefore recommends another electoral process" (penultimate paragraph on [22], [23])
  • a message to the nation later same day on November 10 from the president telling he'll make new elections (but making clear he'll not resign from office and doesn't mention OAS result) [24]
  • still the people asks for his resignation and snipers shoots some protesters (posession of firearms is forbidden by law) [25]
Further, Bolivia was without president for two days (since November 10 to November 12) until Jeanine Añez proclaims herself as president because she was the highest-ranking politician in the line of succession after Mr. Morales and other top officials stepped down[26], the probable reason the legislative quorum wasn't supporting her was because more than 66% (25 of 36 seats) of senate belongs to the then ex-president MAS party [27]. Notice that her party is P.P.B - C.N[28] which is not the one the ex-president accused of making a coup d'état [29] (Mesa's party is FRI. [30] and Camacho is president of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, the second or third largest city of Bolivia, affiliated to another party MNR [31]).
As of today, November 22 current interim president presents a law proposal to call for elections [32]
RobertoOropeza (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — RobertoOropeza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment A pretty strong majority here seems to back the reversion to the original title (and it probably should never have been moved to begin with), but for anyone still doubting it is a coup, the interim government is now arresting MAS leaders and is investigating Morales for "terrorism."[33][34]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus are you talking about? Where are your sources? Again, your opinion doesn't matter here. In fact, any opinion or analisys from WP editors matters here. ONLY THE SOURCES.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the fact that many "reliable sources" DO refer to it as a coup as demonstrated above, if a politician was reported by media to have "been put to death by means of gunshot by a critic" would Wikipedia be unable to call it an assassination unless the media outlets used that word? Virtually the entire elected civilian government was forced to resign by the military. There is no dispute whatsoever as to that. That is, by definition, a coup. The majority of people who have commented here agree with that assessment, and Spanish Wikipedia has already adopted it. "Neutral language" is not neutral when it obscures the facts rather than illuminates them. Zellfire999 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zellfire999: Without going into detail or getting involved in the discussion for the time being, I have to remind that the Spanish Wikipedia has not "already adopted it", and that the current title resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zellfire999 First of all, again, show the reliable sources calling it a nominally a "coup". You didn't show it until now. Second, this "civilian government" frauded an election and disrespected the results of a referendum. I'm not pointing this out on this discussion, because my opinion or analysis doesn't matter here (as well as any WP's editor opinion). Third, Wikipedia cannot call an "assassination", an "assassination" unless the sources call it an "assassination". Wikipedia ONLY reproduces what is written on the reliable sources. We don't produce knowledge. We reproduce knowledge. If you don't understand that I suggest you to read WP:OR very carefully.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support to call it what it is: a coup. The media are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. It is well known that mainstream media are capable of bias. It is well known that the owners of major media, as well as many of their well-paid journalists, have their own political agendas and shared class-interests with the right wing actors. If the media decide to manufacture consent, Wikipedia-editors should not allow themselves to be made the lackeys of the ruling interests of our society. Instead, to simply apply the definition of "coup d'état" to the events that have unfolded would be far more accurate than regurgitating whatever comes out of media outlets with a vested interest in misrepresenting facts. Even though that would technically be "original research"--god forbid!!!!!! In reality, dogmatic adherence to policies, in situations where they should not apply, is just an excuse to uphold the status quo.
To demonstrate my point, here are numerous articles that refer to the coup as a coup: [[27]]. But some bootlicker would complain that these are left-wing or anti-American sources with this or that known bias. Well guess fucking what, the outlets refusing to call it a coup are biased too. There's no neutral, just left and right. You're just choosing to side with the right because of your own fucking political leanings, unconsciously or not. Find another fucking way of determining your precious fucking "objectivity."JoshuaChen (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: earlier in this thread Cmonghost pointed out this article that actually goes out of its way to interview academics on whether the coup can, technically, be considered a coup. Instead of citing blog posts from Jeff Bezos' personal propaganda rag, maybe y'all should look for the opinions of academics (or articles that cite academics). That'd probably be the best way find the correct terminology without breaking your rule on original research.
Also, apparently y'all have a policy called "CONTEXTMATTERS," so we don't actually have to bend the rules. Stop relying on right-wing sources.JoshuaChen (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yknow, if you're this hostile to how Wikipedia works, you're welcome to go start your own. Nobody is forcing you here. 199.116.171.69 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I want to provide a list of sources that reject the term of "coup" for the events that was included by @Elelch: in the Spanish Wikipedia.
There are plenty of references that don't use the term. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On november 23, Bolivia´s Congress has unanimously passed a law to annul the contested Oct. 20 elections and pave the way for a new vote without former President Evo Morales. Take note of the fact that Bolivia´s Congress is dominated (majority) by Movement for Socialism, the political Party of Evo Morales. So, I dont know what kind of coup is this in which the party of the alleged overthrew president endorses such a law. For me it is another proof that there was not a coup.--Elelch (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état. Those that argue that Wikipedia should not name it a coup because that would be "choosing a side", don't you realise that's exactly what you're doing by denying irrefutable facts? --Bleff (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to point out that, despite repeated claims to the contrary, several editors, including myself and Zellfire999, have provided reliable sources in both English and Spanish that use the word "coup" (or "golpe") to describe the events in question. Repeatedly claiming that such sources do not exist or have not been provided will not make it true. It is easy to scroll up, read the comments, and see it for yourself. WP:ICANTHEARYOU comes to mind. Here again are some sources referring to the events as a coup: [28] [29][30][31][32]
Given that both "coup" and various other names are used by reliable sources, our decision here should be based on our naming guidelines: There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. I have yet to see a compelling argument that "political crisis" is superior on these grounds. The facts of the event also support the name "coup": the military intervened by asking the elected head of state to resign.
I also want to point out that per WP:TITLE Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Political crisis" is ambiguous because it could refer to the protests around the election, the repression of protesters by the new government, or various other political issues (indeed, in news reports, the word "crisis" is used to refer to all of these, and in fact was used even before the coup took place), whereas this article is about the coup itself. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I originally closed this as "no consensus" with the following rationale; upon request, I've reopened the request for more discussion, but if someone other than me closes, I hope that the original close is taken into account. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is an incredibly hard close to make. The word "coup" is an incredibly emotive word that bogs down discussions both on and off the encyclopedia. In my personal opinion, I believe the forced resignation of Morales constituted a coup. But Wikipedia isn't a place for personal opinions. There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. The existence of no consensus over whether it constitutes a coup cuts through the entirety of the reliable sources, not just here. While more editors in this discussion prefer the term "coup", looking at the entire talk page, it seems as if the designation as such is still incredibly controversial and needs a consensus going forward.

  • Support The military ousted the government, while there was little public consensus, making it a coup. Many reliable sources are also calling it as such. -Antondimak (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Independently of whether someones support it or opposes it, when the army removes an elected president it is a coup. I cite the definition of wikipedia's own article Coup d'état: "[...] is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction". Fjsalguero (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Even disregarding the overwhelming amount of sources calling it is a coup, the historical prevalence of exactly similar coups in this region (including Bolivia itself), the suspension of the democratic process, the lack of public consensus for this regime change, and the complete absence of credible evidence of election fraud, the fact that an elected leader and members of his party were forced to flee the country under threat of violence from the military and police is the axiomatic definition of a military coup. Water is wet, a duck is a duck, and this is a coup, full stop. Bigwigge (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) — Bigwigge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment A fact that demonstrate that there was not a coup is that in november 23 the bolivian congress controlled by Evo Morales legislators, approved unanimously a bill that nullified the October20 elections and called up for new elections. The bill was sent to current president Añez who signed it into law later. It means that the MAS (political party of Evo Morales) does not consider his leader´s resignation as a coup. Also, it means Evo Morales legislators recognises it was an electroal fraud.--Elelch (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comment by Jamez42

Why is the resignation of Evo Morales not a coup: Introduction

Comment I am increasingly worried that this move proposal is growingly turning into a poll and moving away from a discussion. Many of the votes state as a rationaly simply that "It is a coup", without quoting Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or rebutting or addressing other issues addressed. In this regard, I would to do my best to provide a detailed explanation of why the title "2019 Bolivian coup d'état" violates WP:NPOV and should be avoided.

For starters, I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. For example, @Charles Essie: expressed support for a move, but at first leaned towards the "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" title. While I'm at it, I also want to emphasize again that the current title in the Spanish Wikipedia resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus. In any case, each Wikipedia is independent, and the move should be decided on these policies and guidelines, and its arguments supporting them, not because a different title has been adopted in another language.

@Cmonghost:, you have cited the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt several times and I would like to respond to you directly, hoping that in the process it also contributes arguments to the discussion. As it has been stated previosly, the main difference between Morales and Chávez is that the latter did not resign; or at least in practice. General Lucas Rincón Romero, the highest-ranking Venezuelan military officer, annouced at the moment that Chávez had accepted the resignation. While there is an agreement that at the very least Chávez accepted to resign orally (Meza, Alfredo; Lafuente, Sandra. El acertijo de abril, 2012) it currently isn't known for certain if Chávez did resign in writing. However, this is important because it has been argued that if Chávez resigned and there was a power vacuum, there would have not been a coup. Indeed, then Defense Minister José Vicente Rangel reportedly suggested Chávez: No firmes, Hugo, para que sea un golpe de Estado (Don't sign, Hugo, so it will be a coup d'état) (and according to some versions, Fidel Castro, but that's another kettle of fish).

The subject of the 2002 is very controversial and hotly debated (including if there was power vacuum, and why then Vicepresident Diosdado Cabello did not assume the presidency) but I would like to focus on a more important difference. There's a moment that can be pinpointed as an agreement between scholars on when the coup exactly happened: El Carmonazo, known in English as the Carmona Decree. Why would that be? Besides Pedro Carmona not being in the line of succession, I would read the decree to give you an idea:

Article I Designated Pedro Carmona Estanga President of Venezuela in charge of the Executive Branch.

(...)

Article III Suspended the National Assembly, with new elections to be held no later than December 2002.

(...)

Article VIII Reorganized public offices to recuperate autonomy and independence, removing officials illegitimately named to their posts as members of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Comptroller General, and members of the National Electoral Council. These positions would be filled as soon as possible with consultation of the Ministers and Advisory Council.

So, yeah. The Carmona Decree basically dissolved all of the power branches in the stroke of a pen, dismissing elected officials, which is why it started being recognized widely as a coup. The moment when the decree was read out in public was filmed, in case you want to get an idea of how shocking this was. Needless to say, this is not the case in Bolivia, and this is one of many reasons of why the 2002 coup comparison to the crisis in Bolivia does not hold water. The Constitutional Tribunal accepted the transfer of power and Congress, which has a MAS party majority, accepted Añez as interim president until elections took place. Recently it seems that the term "coup" is used to mean a rupture in the constitutional order of a country, but even in this country it seems not to be the case.

While other historic coups have been cited, I think that important comparisons can be drawn from this case study: Evo Morales' resignation seems to have not been disputed, the power was assumed by someone in the succession line (albeit debatable) and elected officials seem to continue in their offices normally, even if they belong to the MAS: the National Assembly, the Supreme Tribunal, governors, mayors...this was not the case in 2002, and I am sure that neither was it in many of the other cases of coups that have happened. It should also be mentioned that arguably Añez has had more international recognition than Carmona, another important aspect.

Summary of arguments, per the Spanish Wikipedia discussion

As I have I mentioned previously, in the Spanish Wikipedia a table was created to summarize the arguments from both sides. Just to make sure it is read in this talk page, I will translate it:

It is a coup d'etat It is not a coup d'etat
Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of the intervention of the Armed Forces on 10 November, when he was asked to resign. According to article 245 of the National Constitution, the Armed Forces cannot deliberate or carry out political acts, and according to Art. 246, only receive orders from the President of the Republic. Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of a civil unrest process that was already ongoing for several weeks and that started in a part of the population that considered the 20 October elections as fraudulent.

The "recommendation" made by the Armed Forces of Bolivia was made at 4:45 p.m., on 10 November , and Morales and Garcia Linera (the presidency and vice presidency, respectively) resignation speech was transmitted at 4:55 p.m. on state television from the Chimoré airport, in an act that noticeably made in advance and that would have taken place whetever or not the Armed Forces had pronounced.

The OAS denounced "irregularities" that are common in any electoral process, which was stressed by Morales, who accepted the questioning regardless and summoned new elections. The alleged electoral fraud is not accredited, according to the CEPR.[33] The OAS published a report concluding that the was fraud, and as a consequence President Evo Morales summoned new election and arranged to change the members of the Electoral Tribunal, implicitly accepting there was fraud.
It is a coup because the Evo Morales resignation was a consequence of the request of the Armed Forces, of the police quartering, and of the aggressions and threats that his family has suffered. Therefore, the decision was taken under pressure and not freely. Likewise, meeting to deliberate and "suggest" the resignation of the president implies political action in violation of Art. 245 and 246 of the National Constitution, which is above any national law, including 1405. It is not a coup because the Bolivian Armed Forces did not request, but only "suggested" Morales to resign as a solution of the crisis. Such action is legal because it is protected by Article 20 of Law No. 1405 (Organic Law of the Armed Forces) that literally indicates that it is an attribution of the military high command to "Analyze the internal and external conflict situations, to suggest to whom appropriate appropriate solutions."
The resignation took place immediately after the request for resignation by the Armed Forces. The constitutional mandate of Morales concluded in January, so the fraud allegations should not have affected him. It is not a coup becuase Evo Morales resignation was first requested first by the opposition forces as a solution to the electoral fraud crisis that was ongoing for several day. The suggestion by the Armed Forces came later. For the opposition, the departure of Evo Morales was necessary because his presence in power did not guarantee that in the new elections fraud would not be committed again.
The acts of harassment, threats, kidnappings, house fires, etc, were carried out towards members of the political party of Morales (MAS), and were possible due to the police quartering that took several days, in breach of their constitutional obligations (Art. 251 of the Bolivian Constitution). The Presidents and first Vice-President of the Senate and deputies, and their relatives, were threatened by supporters of Camacho and Mesa until they resigned. The resignation suggestion by the Armed Forces was addressed only to Evo Morales, but not to the Vice President or to the presidents of the legislative chambers who willingly resigned, meaning that any one of them, all of Morales' party, could have assumed the presidency as his replacement if they had wanted to. Acts of harassment and theats also ocurred by Morales supporters against the opposition, like the threat to destroy the house of candidate Mesa or the announcement of "now yes, civil war" by MAS supporters.
There were not protests, but rather brutal attacks and threats against MAS officials and members Citizen protests against the fraud cannot be accused as "pressure" to resign, since protests are a constitutional right. Evo Morales did exactly the same in 2003-2004 propitiating the fall, also by resignation, of the legitimate government of that time and nobody called those acts as a coup d'etat.
The coup does not necessarily entail the formation of a dictatorship. Numerous historical examples where coups or coup attempts did not result in changes of government or found a constitutional channel. The alleged coup leaders, candidate Mesa and Mr. Camacho or the military, have not taken over the power, a requirement that defines the coup d'etat, but rather the person that assumed power is the one legally correspondeded to according to the line of succession.
The police quarterd in breach of their constitutional obligations. Once the coup was completed, the police proceeded to repress to reestablish order and received the support of the Armed Forces, which have decreed the state of emergy without any direct order (which must come from an acting President, as established in Article 245 of the Bolivian Constitution.) It is not a coup because in power vacuum situations the Armed Forces and police have to fulfill their obligation to protect the order against the confrontation between the two sides, supporters of Evo vs. opposition.
Numerous lawmakers and officials of the Morales party are injured, shelteredor exiled as a result of the coup. They have also received threats against themselves and their families, without having due guarantees by security force. Likewise, military and police forces prevent MAS legislators from entering the Senate. Numerous supporters of the opposition have been threatened by MAS supporters (Evo Morales' party). The congress continues in functions and with an absolute majority of the Evo Morales party, so they could well choose one among their ranks to assume the presidency, but they willingly refused to participate in the sessions.
The existence of a coup d'etat does not invalidate that could then be a constitutional exit. There is police repression against protesters calling for the return of the constitutional order, the second Vice President of the Senate declared himself president in front of an empty congress with little more than 8 legislators, without a quorum, and on 13 Novembe MAS legislators, the majority party in Congres, were prevented to

frente a un congreso vacío con poco más de 8 legisladores, sin quorum necesario y el día miércoles 13 de noviembre se evitó que legisladores del MAS, partido de mayoria en el congreso entered to session

The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia, whose members had been elected during the Evo Morales administration, has validated the constitutional presidential succession.
Several countries, political leaders, intellectuals and social organizations have described the events as coup d'etat. The OAS has not been impartial in any case. Repression and censorship exist against indigenous and peasant mobilizations from the Alto and from Santa Cruz in the city of La Paz Several countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, have rejected that it is a coup d'etat, while others, such as Peru and Colombia, have refused to qualify it as such. The Organization of American States, through its Secretary General, has indicated rather that if there was a coup d'etat, it occurred when Evo Morales perpetrated the fraud pretending to remain in power illegitimately.
There are precedents of very similar events where the president is forced to resign by "suggestion" of the Armed Forces and historically called coups such as the coup d'etat in Argentina of 1955, Venezuela of 2002, Honduras of 2009, Guatemala of 1954 and Dominican Republic of 1963, among others, in which the constitutional order was violated. In this case, Law No. 1405 is such is below the hierarchy of articles. "Similar" events in other countries actually differ in the fact that in those other countries there was no standard such as Law No. 1405 of Bolivia whose Article 20 expressly enables the military high command to suggest to the president what actions he should take in situations of conflict
The resignation of Morales and his vice president was made minutes after the suggestion of resignation made by the Armed Forces. To say that the resignation was due to military pressure is to ignore the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population.
The pronouncement of the Armed Forces was made after the government was waiting for the Armed Forces to repress the protesters, at a time when Bolivia was in a peaceful civic strike in the cities for 19 days, in where no weapons were taken against the citizens by the people who were abiding by the strike nor was the food supply prevented, and two days after the police refused to continue repressing the population.
In September 2019 the President of Peru ordered the dissolution of the congress in a fact cataloged by the opposition forces, by several jurists and by some press media as "coup d'etat", while the president and another sector of the population maintains that the dissolution was legal. The article is finally not called "coup d'etat", but rather Dissolution of the Congress of the Republic of Peru [es], although in the very body the qualification of "coup" is included.
On november 23 the bolivian congress controlled by Evo Morales legislators (in both chambers), approved a bill that nullified the October20 elections and called up for new elections. The bill was sent to president Añez who signed it into law, which means the implicit recognition of Añez as a legitimated president.

Analysis of the events

I like to use the comparison of the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état because it shows that a coup does not have to be illegitimate to be a coup, just like any other coup that has overthrown a dictatorship to restore a democracy and does not come to my mind at this moment. In December 1957 dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez just carried out a referendum to determine if his term as leader would be extended. The elections were widely considered to be unfair and he won. On 1 January, colonel Hugo Trejo led an uprising by the Aviation in Maracay, and a few weeks afterwards, on 23 January, the Army joined Venezuelans that protested against the dictatorship. The same day, Pérez Jiménez left in the presidential plane to the Dominican Republic.

I have commented that "The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics." A coup should have a greater involvement of the military and not just a simple declaration. As I explained in the case of the 2002 coup, that alone would sow doubt in if the events constitute a coup. I explained this in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt talk page and I have encouraged to read the page before, but just to make sure that it is read, I will copy it here:

The uprising does not meet the characteristics of a coup or a coup attempt: there were no attempts to seize the executive power or any means that would help the defectors to do so: unlike previous coups are attempts in Venezuela, there were no captures or attacks of military or political targets, there wasn't a seizure of the state broadcast station or placement of roadblocks and the like; all of these are characteristic of a coup, have happened before in Venezuela and have happened in coups in other countries. There were no tanks rolling into the streets or clashes between the military (...)

The two events that I think most of when I describe these events are the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état. Like with any current event, there were controversies if to call them as a coup, or if they could be considered as something else such as an uprising. However, these conditions seems to be met along with widespread coverage calling the events a coup. In any case, I still recommend reading the respective articles talk pages to look for some insight. However, there are still notable differences, such as the degree of involvement of military and the active dispute of power.

While am at it, I would also want to address the accusations against the OAS and comment that the opposition at first was very skeptical of the organizations. After all, Secretary General Almagro didn't oppose Morales' candidacy despite the results of the referendum that forbid him from running. The opposition didn't want Morales to run for a reelection and did not want an audit on the results. Besides, I'll make a special mention of @Laella:, who commented that "Bolivian major newspapers and news sources, 'including sources with previously heavy pro-Evo Morales slants', are not calling the events a coup." (Prensa Escrita).

Conclusions

I may not be addressing many of the concerns or arguments provided in the discussion, but I hope to have given a different perspective on the situation. There are plenty of reliable sources that don't refer to the events as a coup either, should we really come to make a table comparing each source and their use of the term like we did in the Venezuelan uprising article?

I don't care if the positions stay the same, I only want this decision to be taken while being informed and that I can provide a little more of insight with this comment.

The closing admin should give no weight to votes that do not include arguments or comments based on policies or guidelines. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

  • Thank you very much for this lengthy and detailed analysis and for your exhaustive work on the article. Most of the "votes" in favor of moving it to "coup" don't cite ANY sources or policies to support it. Just says: "I support because I THINK...". Again, I must repeat it exhaustively: "Where the sources?". Moving this article without sources to support it would be a major and ridiculous mistake.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sources multiple times now and so has Zellfire999. You even replied to their comment including some Spanish sources. Why are you acting as if they have not been provided? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. This is not the case. It's clear from reading the RM that it is a proposal to move to 2019 Bolivian coup d'état, and the initial "2019 Bolivian political crisis → ?" is obviously just an error in using the template, given that immediately below, it says "2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. (I left a note on Zellfire999's talk page alerting them to the error, in any case.) It's not clear to me whether Charles Essie was confused by this, or just stating a preference for military memorandum over coup d'état. In any case, I don't think it really matters as they eventually came around to supporting the RM anyway. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a proposal to move the title to "coup" specifically (I am the original creator of this article, and that was the original name), and I think this was made pretty clear. Apologies for the formatting error, but people have understood the nature of the discussion and the clear consensus is to return the article to its original name. Zellfire999 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I initially supported "military memorandum" because I thought it would be less controversial. But facts are facts, controversy or no. I'm onboard for 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Charles Essie (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie:, just to clarify: you stated that you changed your vote because the article was moved in the Spanish Wikipedia. Could you say if you stand by this, given the situation? And if there are other reasons, could you please explain which are these facts? Thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be perfectly honest I really don't have a title preference other than it not being 2019 Bolivian political crisis because I think 2019 Bolivian protests should have that title since it details everything that happened since the 2019 Bolivian general election (i.e,. As for the "facts", I was referring to above arguments that what happened here more or less fits the definition of a coup d'état. Charles Essie (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: I'll use this as an opportunity to sum up my arguments before the RM is closed again. First I want to note that many of the arguments in the table and in your analysis have little to no bearing on whether or not the events we are discussing constitute a coup. What they appear to be instead are a discussion of whether or not the coup was good or bad. For example, stating that The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia ... has validated the constitutional presidential succession is not relevant: if Morales had been assassinated, rather than being forced to step down, we would still refer to it as an "assassination" even if the subsequent power transfer were validated by the court. Another example is the mention of the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population; I am not aware of any definition of "coup d'état" that precludes the possibility of protests. In fact, many coups are preceded by protests (e.g., 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état, 2009 Honduran coup d'état, 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, and many many others).

In an earlier comment, you yourself say that The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics. I agree! The key point here is that the military asked the president to leave office. Would he have resigned without this? Likely not: per the NYT, Mr. Morales appeared intent on weathering the storm until his generals abandoned him on Sunday. This is no doubt why several sources refer to it as a coup, despite obfuscation from various news organizations. I want to echo Prinsgezinde who said It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate.

Finally, a summary of my comparison of the two titles based on our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Precision is the main one that coup wins, in my view, which has consequences for some of the other criteria as well.

  • Recognizability No clear winner, IMO. Both phrases have been used to describe the events, although "crisis" has also been used to describe other recent events, such as subsequent human rights violations.
  • Naturalness Unclear which is more natural, but I think readers who are looking for information about Morales's resignation would be more likely to look for "coup" than "crisis", which is broader.
  • Precision The current title is hopelessly imprecise. A search for "bolivia political crisis" makes it clear that "political crisis" is vague (as mentioned by Surachit) and could have many possible referents. For example, The Guardian says Bolivia was plunged into a deepening political crisis this week after Evo Morales ... was forced to step down—the "crisis" is the events following the coup, not the coup itself. In contrast, "coup d'état" has one clear referent: Morales's resignation. (This is one reason the move to "political crisis" was a mistake, by the way; "government resignation" lacks context but at least has a specific referent.)
  • Conciseness Coup d'état is shorter than political crisis, but only barely. No clear winner, IMO.
  • Consistency Similar articles typically have a title that refers to the event itself, rather than the surrounding events. For example, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article is about the overall political dispute, whereas there is a separate article for the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. This article focuses on the events surrounding Morales's (forced) resignation, so it should have an appropriate title. As other editors have mentioned, a separate crisis article could also be warranted, but this article is about the coup.

I look forward to hearing what others think, with whatever time remains before the RM is closed again. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV holds more power than WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in this case, per the lede of Wikipedia:Article titles:
This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. ... It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
If there is no NPOV, it should not be included.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful for you to give a clear articulation of why you believe the title 2019 Bolivian coup d'état violates WP:NPOV, rather than simply assert that it does. As a simple descriptor of what took place, it's not clear that "coup" is non-neutral at all. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is in constant contact with my fiancee in Bolivia, I have a more detailed knowledge on the subtleties of what has been going on in recent weeks. The term "coup" should not be used in this case for a number of reasons. The use of the term is an oversimplification of the events of Sun 10th by many news sources, including those in Spanish, that originate from outside of Bolivia itself. The fact is that many things happened between the 8:30am announcement of the findings of irregularities in the election and the eventual resignation or Morales in the late afternoon of the same day. The military did indeed recommend that Morales resign, but from the point of view of controlling civil unrest and public safety. Previously in the day, he had already received public calls to resign from the opposition figures, civil leaders, union leaders and the chief of police and a number of key government ministers had already resigned. Morales' position was already becoming untenable in a matter of hours. Furthermore, Gen. Kaliman who made the request, was a long-time supporter of Morales. The table given by another user gives reasons why the constitutional process led to Anez becoming interim president and points out that other figures could have taken up the presidency had they not resigned. One could make the argument that they had been pressured to do so, but certainly this was not by the military as they had done so before Kaliman's public statement. There are, and have always been, large numbers of Morales' MAS party still remaining in the government, including as President of the Senate. I would also say that, if it were a coup, the military would have some say in who takes power, whereas those making the request in this case were not advocating any change of government except for the resignation of the president - something which many people had also called for, including the referendum result. Morales had already committed to new elections, so military opinion had not changed that. The replacement of the heads of the military on the inauguration of a new president is a constitutional requirement, so does not imply that Anez is in some way tied to the military. Many sources create their own narrative to these events. Furthermore, Anez is not standing as President in the upcoming election, she is merely fulfilling her constitutional responsibility until a democratic election can be arranged. In general, there should be a lot more of an attempt to recognise sources from within Bolivia rather than external opinions with no understanding of the Bolivian constitution (formulated by Morales' own government) or a detailed chronology of the events of Sun 10th. A couple of articles that may be relevant (in Spanish). One is a poll of Bolivians asking whether they consider it to be a coup or not and the second has more detail on those military heads that are supposed instigators of the coup. [35] [36]Crmoorhead (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

It's not a coup because state department says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.70.252 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions

Seeing above that there was not a consensus, I recommend that we try to make a more concrete decision. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing as there were previously links to this talk page on other platforms apparently attempting to influence this discussion.

Below are the two most popular recommended moves:

  • 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis
  • 2019 Bolivian coup d'état

Please provide your support decision in the desginated section.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolivian governmental crisis

Wikipedia:NPOV explicitly states:
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
Removing a NPOV title tarnishes the entire article from the start and a consensus removing this NPOV title is null and non-negotiable as it violates an equally significant viewpoint (see quote above). Therefore, a closing administrator should not move this article to a coup title in accordance with one of the main pillars of Wikipedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point of adding all this extra section structure. This is a RM about 2019 Bolivian coup d'état and there has already been a great deal of discussion about it; if you want to request that the page be moved to your preferred title, you should open another RM about it when this one is closed.
You should also stop representing that NYT article as if it summarizes the views of scholars ("Scholars agree..."). This is misleading, and I've pointed that out many times already. What it represents are the views of a few scholars hand-picked by Max Fisher to support his opinion/analysis piece. It is not at all clear that scholars agree that "coup" is non-neutral. In fact, several scholars have acknowledged that based on the definition of "coup", this was one. Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, and many others have also made statements describing it as a coup. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, what knowledge of Bolivia, if any, do Chomsky and others have? I am in contact with Bolivia on a daily basis and reading their media regularly. I have been there a number of times and know what the feeling in the country was towards Evo (and more generally MAS). A great many of those articles calling it a coup are relying on an outside perception of a country that they know had dictators in the past and are not up to date and getting basic facts wrong. The Guardian is particularly bad in this regard - I have nothing against them as a publication, but they are just wrong in this instance and are not reporting on the full story. In general, there is a woeful lack of sources from Bolivia itself that show the acts of the government and the events surrounding or precipitating the deaths that are not reported on and fly in the face of the accusations against the interim government. While Bolivia may not have complete freedom of the press, they are not that constrained, and are in fact freer to report now than they were under Morales. Countries that are less free in the press such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Mexico (according to a freedom of the press metric by Freedom House, though I have read the same elsewhere) are the ones that are calling this a coup. Many people were writing on this political crisis with too little knowledge and a portion of them don't want to back down on initially reporting it as coup. There is no discussion of Gen Kaliman who was the military head who made the request to Morales. No mention of the fact that his cabinet was already crumbling with resignations before the military request, nor that similar requests had been made by political leaders, civic leaders, union leaders and the chief of police or the fact that the police had mutinied against the government as they felt they should be there for the people, not for the MAS party. I mean, this is important for context - the military did not give this advice in isolation and it is their job to advise the President on national security. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that one main argument of those supporting the coup move is that we should not be "unbiased" This is also a misrepresentation. Here is additional context from the comment you link:
News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate.
The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmonghost: The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers. You are using WP:OR, which violates one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I understand that this is a controversial situation, but until we have something that fulfills all three core principles (NPOV, verifiable and not original research), I do not see a reason that the "coup" wording should be used. If you can provide something that can meet this criteria, I may change my position.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR to make a determination about what sources are reliable in what contexts—we do this on Wikipedia all the time when analyzing the reliability of sources. OR applies to claims made in articles, not on talk pages. In any case, the propaganda model has been extensively documented and its findings replicated in numerous contexts. I've cited some reliable sources above that do use the word "coup", so I'm not sure what the RS issue is—there are sources that use both, so we should take the other criteria into account when deciding, as I've argued. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmonghost: Your argument is pushing a WP:OR title, though. You are using a linguist argument to push a title based on your interpretation of the propaganda model (i.e. your own unique opinion on reliable sources instead of the opinion of reliable sources, WP:OR). This is ignoring the multitude of reliable sources that do not explicitly describe this as a coup. What you are saying is moot since you are not a reliable source. Once this is widely described as a coup, then it warrants inclusion, but this is not the case as of now.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: There is not a widespread use of describing the events as a coup in reliable sources. However, there are multiple stories by reliable sources detailing how there is not agreement about describing the events as a coup. Here are the sources.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] It is a highly contested opinion to describe this event as a coup, therefore the title should not include the coup terminology.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and these articles are somewhat out of date now. The dust has settled and many people were jumping the gun, if you'll pardon the expression, on calling it coup. Very little on BBC, Guardian or elsewhere in the UK on all the activities and interactions of the interim government. The pro-Morales protests were minor in comparison to the nationwide protests in multiple cities against Morales and many of the former were funded by handouts from MAS party officials. Indigenous people in El Alto were actually dismantling roadblocks by pro-Evo supporters because of the disruption. Almost everything is back to normal in Bolivia in terms of civil unrest now. Evo Morales is a person of interest of Interpol now as he was linked to organising continued civil unrest. [44] Apologies for the lack of references, but a lot of this is old news in Bolivia and it is difficult to find the original stories from 2-3 weeks ago. All are in Spanish. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bolivian coup d'état

By my count, there were 18 in favor of restoring the original name of the page, and only 7 for retaining the current name. I'm not sure how one can conclude there was no consensus. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zellfire999: I concluded this from a third party's previous analysis and because many support arguments are contrary to Wikipedia's policies. In a few examples, here are three anti-WP:NPOV arguments (Users - Prinsgezinde, KasimMejia, Bleff) and 3 anti-WP:Verifiable arguments: (Users - Iamextremelygayokay, cmonghost, JoshuaChen). That paired with the "I believe this happened" support arguments (WP:OR) makes support for moving this to a "coup" biased against reliable sources and more of a personal opinion argument.
Including "coup" in the title violates the three core content policies (it is not NPOV, verifiable or avoiding original research to title this a "coup"). Per Wikipedia:Consensus: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also as said above, a consensus is superseded by Wikipedia's core policies. I want a reason to support this, but out of respect for policies, this is not verifiable by being widely supported by sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my and others' arguments. For instance, I already explained above that Prinsgezinde's argument is not anti-NPOV; and my argument is not anti-WP:V, it is pro-WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is a Wikipedia guideline. If you disagree, please explain why rather than casting unsubstantiated aspersions. Moreover, reliable sources have in fact referred to it as a coup, as I have now pointed out many times, so it's difficult for me to understand how it could be "biased against reliable sources" or original research. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmonghost: It plainly states in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Also, WP:POVNAMING states that "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". I do not see the majority of reliable sources describing this as a coup. A Google News search of "Bolivia coup" results in many unreliable sources in the following order; an opinion article in The Guardian, Salon, Consortium News, Grayzone (formerly part of AlterNet) and Anadolu Agency (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). These are not reliable sources and at the very most, their views must be attributed in the article's body if they were to be included, not for title material. So, Wikipedia editors supporting the coup title are performing WP:OR as they are reaching a conclusion not widely supported by reliable sources and violating WP:NPOV because the "coup" term carries a lot of POV weight. Cmonghost, seeing that you are a linguist who frequents talk pages constantly, one can see how you could overlook how Wikipedia articles are constructed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Core content policies and possibly WP:Fringe.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly stop personalizing the discussion. It's not clear what my occupation has to do with anything we are currently discussing and it's now the second time you have mentioned it. Please stop.
In any case, the existence of sources that you judge as unreliable using the word "coup" does not invalidate the existence of reliable sources that also use "coup", including The Nation and The Intercept, which you have studiously ignored. I am sure that Consortium News and Anadolu Agency would also agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green; that does not make the sky brown or the grass pink. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ "Was There a Coup in Bolivia?". The Economist (The $650bn binge). 16/11/18. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/AKurmanaev/status/1195477516422656006
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50431093
  4. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/killed-unrest-continues-bolivia-191114164711003.html
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/13/its-not-just-coup-bolivias-democracy-is-meltdown/
  6. ^ https://www.publico.es/internacional/ue-apoya-jeanine-anez-presidenta-rechaza-calificar-golpe.html
  7. ^ https://www.pagina12.com.ar/231054-los-nueve-responsables-del-golpe-en-bolivia
  8. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20191116-bolivia-s-pro-morales-supporters-in-deadly-clashes-with-police
  9. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/morales-bolivia-military-coup
  10. ^ https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/bolivia-evo-morales-coup-brazil-intercepted/
  11. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/13/who-is-jeanine-anez-bolivia-s-interim-president
  12. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/bolivia-anez-celebrates-militarys-209th-anniversary/1646402
  13. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/bolivia-anez-celebrates-militarys-209th-anniversary/1646402
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
  15. ^ https://www.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/politica/2019/11/17/golpe-de-estado-en-bolivia-victor-flores-olea-9478.html
  16. ^ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/bolivia-criminalizacion-partido-mas-20191119-0008.html
  17. ^ https://www.eldiario.es/internacional/comunidad-internacional-puntillas-golpe-Bolivia_0_964854367.html
  18. ^ https://www.pagina12.com.ar/231770-los-artistas-contra-el-golpe-en-bolivia
  19. ^ http://www.vertic.org/media/National%20Legislation/Bolivia/BO_Ley_Organica_Fuerzas_Armadas.pdf
  20. ^ https://lta.reuters.com/articulo/elecciones-bolivia-idLTAKBN1X50FQ-OUSLT
  21. ^ https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-50355750
  22. ^ http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Electoral-Integrity-Analysis-Bolivia2019.pdf
  23. ^ https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-099/19
  24. ^ https://www.dw.com/es/evo-morales-anuncia-nuevas-elecciones-en-bolivia/a-51190738
  25. ^ https://www.opinion.com.bo/articulo/pais/emboscada-ataque-criminal-mineros-potosinos-deja-heridos-bala/20191110133141736356.html
  26. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/world/americas/evo-morales-mexico-bolivia.html
  27. ^ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_generales_de_Bolivia_de_2014#Resultados
  28. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_%C3%81%C3%B1ez
  29. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/11/evo-morales-resigns-is-bolivia-facing-a-coup-d-etat
  30. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Mesa
  31. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Fernando_Camacho
  32. ^ https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2019/11/20/bolivia-la-presidente-interina-jeanine-anez-envio-un-proyecto-de-ley-al-congreso-para-convocar-a-elecciones-generales/
  33. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/22/bolivia-evo-morales-terrorism-sedition-interim-government
  34. ^ https://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201911/411096-bolivia-arresto-vicepresidente-mas-gerardo-garcia.html
  35. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/seguridad/2019/12/1/fiel-evo-hasta-el-final-kaliman-saco-las-tropas-amenazado-por-su-estado-mayor-239081.html
  36. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/12/1/70-de-encuestados-afirman-que-hubo-revuelta-social-no-un-golpe-239091.html
  37. ^ "AP Explains: Did a coup force Bolivia's Evo Morales out?". The Associated Press. 2019-11-11. Retrieved 2019-12-04. Whether the events Sunday in Bolivia constitute a coup d'état is now the subject of debate in and outside the nation. ... Bolivia's "coup" is largely a question of semantics{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  38. ^ Fisher, Max (2019-11-12). "Bolivia Crisis Shows the Blurry Line Between Coup and Uprising". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-12-04. But the Cold War-era language of coups and revolutions demands that such cases fit into clear narratives. ... Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray.
  39. ^ Zabludovsky, Karla (14 November 2019). "Bolivia Is The Internet's Latest Rorschach Test". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 2019-12-04. And, as so often with the big names of Latin America — where the word "coup" is supercharged ... how you see what has happened to him is often dependent on your own political ideology. On the left, he's seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  40. ^ Haldevang, Max de (15 November 2019). "The world's as divided about Bolivia's alleged coup as Bolivians themselves". Quartz. Retrieved 2019-12-04. So…was it a coup? Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  41. ^ Johnson, Keith. "Why Is Evo Morales Suddenly No Longer President of Bolivia?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2019-12-04. It's not a coup in any sense of the word, and Bolivia and Latin America have experience with actual coups. The army did not take charge of Bolivia. Morales, despite his protestations that police had an arrest warrant for him, is not in custody or even being sought.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  42. ^ "Bolivia reflects the deep polarization crisis in Latin America". Atlantic Council. 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-12-04. Countries are debating why Evo Morales left power. Did he leave power of his own volition or was it a coup? There are two different responses to that question based on which country is speaking.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  43. ^ "Coup or not a coup? Bolivia's Evo Morales flees presidential crisis". Univision (in Spanish). 12 November 2019. Retrieved 2019-12-04. The discussion over whether it was a coup falls largely along ideological lines. Left wing supporters of Morales point like to point to a long history of military coups in Latin America, while critics of the former president point to the 14 years he spent in power, in violation of constitutional term limits. ... But political experts say the events hardly resemble a classic coup scenario. ... In a typical coup, the military usually take a more proactive role, taking up arms against the sitting ruler and installing one of their own in the presidential palace, at least temporarily.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  44. ^ http://www.la-razon.com/nacional/Denuncia-Evo-notificacion-Interpol-Mexico-terrorismo_0_3265473461.html

Sources

Since I have not received feedback of the sources chart, I have gone ahead and started a chart to do a briefing of the sources offered in the move proposal (not the whole talk page). It seems that indeed it has come to it. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Source itself refers to event only as coup in its own words
  Source itself does not refer to event coup in its own words
  Source does not comment on the event in its own words
  Source predates Morales' resignation and Añez's assumption of power
WP:RS/P Sources presented Described as coup Described as another term Quotes coup Quotes rejection of coup How the source uses these terms:
N/A
Discussion not started 		"Transition" ABC checkY checkY Bolivia en transición

Opinion article. Author uses the term "transition" to describe the events

Generally reliable Unrest Al Jazeera checkY checkY Two killed as unrest continues in Bolivia.

Uses "unrest" to describe the events

Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup."

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation America checkY checkY checkY Bolivian bishops say Evo Morales’ resignation was not a coup

Article refers to Morales' resignation after protests.

Quotes Bolivian bishops position, who reject the term, and Morales, who uses it

N/A
Discussion not started 		Uprising America 2.1 checkY checkY checkY Carlos Mesa: “No hubo golpe de estado y Evo Morales rompió la línea de sucesión intencionalmente”

Sources uses "popular uprising" to describe the events.

Quote candidate Carlo Mesa rejecting the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the term

float Discussion in progress Turmoil Anadolu Agency checkY checkY Bolivia: Anez celebrates military's 209th anniversary.

The closest term used to describe the events is "turmoil"

Quotes Morales and his supporters using "coup"

Generally reliable Resignation Associated Press checkY checkY checkY United States: Bolivian president wasn’t forced out by coup

Uses "the situation in Bolivia". Mentions Morales and other officials resnations

Quotes declarations that use the term "coup" or reject it

N/A
Discussion not started 		"Ouster" Bangor Daily News checkY Evo Morales ouster in Bolivia was not a coup, just a blunder

Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup".

Generally reliable Crisis BBC checkY checkY checkY Bolivia crisis: Morales 'should be prosecuted' upon return

Uses "crisis" to describe the events

Uses the term "coup" when quoting Morales and citing that Añez has rejected the term.

Motín de policías en Bolivia: agentes de varias ciudades se declaran en rebeldía contra el gobierno de Morales, quien denuncia un "golpe de Estado"

Uses the term "mutiny" when describing police officers that joined the protests.

Quote Morales denouncing a coup attempt.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis Deutsche Welle Evo Morales anuncia nuevas elecciones en Bolivia

Article predates Añez's assumption of power.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation Diario las Américas checkY Pastrana tilda a Evo Morales de usurpador a la par de Maduro

Interview with former Colombian president Pastrana, who defined Morales as a usurper comparable to Nicolás Maduro

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation EFE checkY checkY checkY Guaidó dice que no puede hablarse de golpe de Estado contra Evo Morales

Quotes Juan Guaidó, who rejects the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the word

N/A
Discussion not started 		Electoral fraud El Deber checkY checkY checkY OEA: "El golpe se dio cuando Evo quiso quedarse en el poder en primera vuelta"

Quotes the declarations in the OAS about the situation, namely Secretary General Luis Almagro, who said that if a coup occured, it was committed by Morales.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Coup Eldiario.es checkY checkY La comunidad internacional pasa de puntillas sobre el golpe de Estado de Bolivia

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event.

Uses "crisis" once. Quotes parties that have used the term "coup" and those that have refuse to do so.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis El País checkY checkY checkY El País' tag for the news about the situation is named "Political crisis in Bolivia

¿Es un golpe de Estado lo que ha pasado con Evo Morales en Bolivia?

Article quotes four experts. Two consider the situation as a coup, while the two remaining "shade"

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis Euronews checkY checkY Who is Jeanine Áñez, Bolivia's interim president?

Uses "crisis" to describe the events

Quotes Evo Morales describing the events and an expert as a "coup"

Evo Morales political asylum: Is Bolivia facing a coup d'etat?

Uses "coup" when quoting Morales, experts and foreign politicians

¿Se puede considerar golpe de Estado la renuncia de Evo Morales en Bolivia y su salida del país?

Quotes politicians that use "coup" and experts that reject the term

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation Excelsior checkY checkY [https://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/renuncia-de-evo-morales-no-fue-un-golpe-de-estado/1347226

'Renuncia de Evo Morales no fue un golpe de Estado’]

Source uses "resignation" to describe the events.

Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup"

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis and clashes France24 checkY Bolivian security forces engage in deadly clashes with pro-Morales supporters

Describes events as "political crisis" and "clashes".

Quotes Evo Morales describing the interim government as a dictatorship.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation Global Post checkY checkY Why Bolivian President Evo Morales’ Resignation Was Not a Coup

Opinion piece

"My research (...) strongly suggests that although the military’s actions were undoubtedly political, they could be better described as an exercise in self-restraint and preservation rather than coup-like aggression. Their goal was to avoid being placed in the unenviable position of propping up a disgraced leader by cracking down on an angry and determined public."

Quotes Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution as a comparison.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis Infobae checkY checkY Infobae's tag for the news about the situation is named Crisis in Boliva

Bolivia: la presidente interina Jeanine Áñez envió un proyecto de ley al Congreso para convocar a elecciones generales

Uses "crisis" to describe the events.

Jair Bolsonaro, tras la renuncia de Evo Morales: “La palabra ‘golpe’ se usa mucho cuando pierde la izquierda. Cuando ganan, es legítimo”

Uses "crisis" to describe the events.

Quotes Jair Bolsonaro, who rejects the term.

No hay golpe en Bolivia: Evo Morales cae por una insurrección popular

Opinion article. Author rejects the use of "coup" and uses "popular insurrection" to describe the events.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation La Nación checkY checkY La renuncia de Evo Morales: "Todos estamos preocupados por Bolivia", dijo Mauricio Macri

Quotes Mauricio Macri's foreign affairs ministers, who says that "There are not the elements to describe this as a coup d'état"

N/A
Discussion not started 		Resignation La Razón checkY ¿Por qué no hubo golpe de Estado en Bolivia?

Source rejects the use of "coup" to describe the events

N/A
Discussion not started 		None Opinión Emboscada y ataque criminal a mineros potosinos deja dos heridos de bala

Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions anti-Morales protesters shot reportedly by snipers.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Coup Página/12 checkY checkY Los nueve responsables del golpe en Bolivia

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event

Los artistas, contra el golpe en Bolivia

Uses "coup" as title

N/A
Discussion not started 		Uprising Página Siete checkY checkY Fiel a Evo hasta el final, Kaliman sacó a las tropas amenazado por su Estado Mayor

Explains details of the army mutiny

70% de encuestados afirman que hubo revuelta social y no un golpe

Refers to polls and public perception. According to the poll, 70% of respondents believe that what happened was a "social revolt", while 25% of them believed that a coup took place

N/A
Discussion not started 		Crisis Peru21 checkY checkY Ola y contra ola en Bolivia

Opinion article. Author uses "crisis" to describe the events and rejects the use of "coup"

N/A
Discussion not started 		Coup Público checkY checkY checkY La UE apoya a Jeanine Áñez como presidenta interina de Bolivia y rechaza calificar la situación como golpe de Estado

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event.

Notes that the European Union rejected the term. Quotes the EU supporting "new elections" to prevent a "vacuum of power, quotes Nicolás Maduro and Alberto Fernández calling the events as a "coup".

Generally reliable None Reuters Morales amenaza con convocar a sus bases y cercar ciudades de Bolivia

Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions warning by Evo of rural supporters surrounding cities.

N/A
Discussion not started 		Electoral fraud Roanoke Andres Oppenheimer: Bolivia's Morales says he was ousted, but election fraud was his downfall
N/A
Discussion not started 		None Telam checkY "Arrestan al vicepresidente del MAS y buscan a una ex ministra acusada de ordenar actos violentos".

Article mentions arrest of MAS politician Gerardo García.

float Deprecated Coup TeleSur checkY "Gobierno de facto de Bolivia avanza en la criminalización del MAS".

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event.

Generally reliable "Coup" The Guardian checkY The article cited is "It’s not just a ‘coup’: Bolivia’s democracy is in meltdown". Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup".
Generally reliable Coup The Intercept checkY checkY checkY The Coup That Ousted Bolivia’s Evo Morales Is Another Setback For Latin American Socialism

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event.

Quotes Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders defining the events as a "coup", but notes that "Much of the U.S. mainstream media, meanwhile, has been reticent to call what happened in Bolivia a coup."

Generally reliable Crisis The New York Times checkY checkY ‘I Assume the Presidency’: Bolivia Lawmaker Declares Herself Leader

Uses "crisis" to describe the events

Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup."

Generally reliable "Coup" and "resignation" The Washington Post checkY checkY "Many wanted Morales out. But what happened in Bolivia was a military coup". Opinion article. The author uses the term "coup".

Alvaro Vargas Llosa: The Bolivian 'coup' that wasn't

Opinion article. The author rejects the term "coup".

"But let us be clear: There has been no coup in Bolivia except the one Morales tried to engineer."

N/A
Discussion not started 		Political and social effervescence Voice of America checkY checkY checkY Expertos: Evo Morales promueve la violencia desde el exterior

Describes the situation as "political and social effervescence"

Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup", as well as parties that use it

Looking at the chart, it doesn't seem that there are that many sources offered that call the event a coup. There are way more reliable references that refer to the events as a crisis, and when they do refer to the situation as a coup, it is through opinion pieces. The only notable exception is The Intercept, which according to WP:RSP, "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." --Jamez42 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 Bolivian protests

Hi Anti Morales protests ended and began pro-Morales. I think we should add that protests ended and create a new article about pro-Morales. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can keep it in a single article.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is now being discussed here. Charles Essie (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updates (15/11)

There were updates from the interim president of Bolivia - [34]

  • Breaks ties with the Venezuela's Maduro government, recognizes Guaido.
  • Assesses the withdrawal of UNASUR.
  • Withdraws from ALBA

--cyrfaw (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

725 Cubans also expelled from the country. [35] --cyrfaw (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nine Venezuelans with the Bolivarian National Police uniforms and the ruling party logo were also detained. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some of the political activities of the interim government as I think it's due to write about what the interim government is doing while (apparently) preparing the next election. BeŻet (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the updates --cyrfaw (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition of Juan Guaidó and the arrest of Venezuelans seems to have been left out. I have included them. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

political crisis

Hi

The problem the political crisis began before the resignation of Morales.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

regime change

a usa orchestrated regime change becomes just another political crisis for the wikipedia propaganda machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.24.199 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

Interim government recognition map

Should we create a map on the countries that recognize the interim government and who does not, similar to the Venezuelan leadership crisis one? I already have the sources on who each governments position. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe at the responses page? Kingsif (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful of creating a map only for Añez's recognition. Unlike Venezuela, Morales already stepped down from power and I feel that countries have been more vocal on the definition of the events rather that on her recognition. The Spanish Wikipedia has an article for the responses to the 2014 Venezuelan protests, and its map focuses on their stance: if they have criticized the government, the "human rights violations" and have called for the "respect of freedom of expression; if they have merely expressed concern and called for dialogue; if they have supported the government the events as "destabilization" or a "coup", and if they have broken diplomatic relations with the country. I would recommend a similar map that also includes the recogniztion of the interim government. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then --cyrfaw (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM

Extended content

Seriously, what's the point in wikipedia dealing with current events? Other than amplifying propaganda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.24.199 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article about Jeanine Áñez government in English

In Spanish Wikipedia, there was a separated article about Jeanine Áñez administration [36]. Because Spanish Wikipedia had separate article about her administration, i think English should Made a separated article about her government because in new infobox about Bolivian crisis there was red link about Jeanine Áñez government. Can someone create this article in English? With translate from original spanish one Hanafi455 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bolivia's Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal endorsed Áñez as the interim president"

I tried to verify this claim and found mixed results. One of the sources for this statement indeed states that the tribunal "endorsed Anez". The other says that they confirmed the lawfulness of the process that led to her taking office, but does not say it "endorsed" her. This WaPo article states that Bolivia’s top constitutional court issued a statement late Tuesday laying out the legal justification for Añez taking the presidency — without mentioning her by name. I think it is quite a stretch to say that the court endorsed Áñez if it did not even mention her by name. I have added the Washington Post source and adjusted the wording accordingly (change will be implemented on main article just after this comment is posted). If I have any of the facts wrong here, please let me know. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmonghost: The word "endorsed" was introduced after the content was added, I think that by @BeŻet:, as an attempt to make the sentence sound more neutral, but the Tribunal simply approved the transfer of power. I will look for the original sentence and come back if there are any additional problems. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42's reverts

@Jamez42: I am quite confused as to why you insist on removing content that is clearly backed by sources. The headline of the article quite clearly says: Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe. Later the article says: Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations. It is clear as rain that Abrão calls for the external probe because of the massive violations. Yet you keep changing this fragment, and even messaged me, suggesting that I am not reflecting what sources say. I am really not sure what else I can do other than suggest you read everything very carefully in the article, word by word. BeŻet (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I encourage both of you to stop reverting each other over this, I have to say that I also don't really understand how BeŻet's text is not supported by the source. @Jamez42: can you please explain in more detail? The quote about how national institutions normally can't resolve such a "massive grouping of violations" seems to make it pretty clear that he recommends an external probe because of the large number of violations. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also generally confused at both versions. I guess I'll have to read that source over, but I'd like to hear about the disputed text. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jamez' edits are correct, and BeŻet's are wrong. Here are the two plus the article:
Jamez: "to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the country may need outside help to investigate a 'massive' number of human rights violations amid post-election violence and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico"
BeŻet: "declared that due to the "massive" number of human rights violations, the country may need outside help and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico, so that the findings are seen as credible"
Original Article: "Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the head of a regional human rights commission told Reuters on Tuesday."
BeŻet implicitly and explicitly attributes the need for an international commission is due to the massive number of human rights violations. But the article clearly states that the investigation of these is the purpose not the cause of the international commission, the cause or necessity of the international commission, in lieu of a national one, being to assuage doubts over the validity of findings. Also by lacking reference to the polarizing nature of the conflict, it implicitly states that the reason for a lack of confidence in the findings is due to the government. The original article containing "polarizing nature" lets the reader make his or her own decision about the matter.
Jamez' correctly states that it is to give added legitimacy to the investigations due to the polarizing nature of the conflict, which is exactly what the article states, as can be seen in the quote given hitherto.
Thus the version of Jamez' is preferable as it better summarizes the content of the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979: I think you're mistaken about that. Please reread the article carefully, keeping in mind that it is actually longer than the single paragraph you are quoting. Here is a breakdown of what Abrão said:
Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence — here, he specifies what is needed: an external probe.
to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country — here, he specifies the goal of the probe: to ensure that findings are seen as credible.
“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said — here is the part that you and Jamez42 keep overlooking where he provides the reason that an external investigation is needed rather than simply an internal one: national institutions are typically not prepared to deal with such a huge number of violations.
The version Jamez42 inserted does not better summarize the content of the article. It is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the first paragraph of the article. In contrast, BeŻet's version summarizes the entirety of Abrão's comments, including the reason that an outside probe was recommended rather than simply an internal investigation, i.e., because the volume of violations exceeds the typical capacity of national institutions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because “[n]ormally in these situations... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations.""
Bam, zero rhetorical flourish, includes both parts; for my pulitzer nomination you can simply refer to me by my nom de plume. Anyhow, turning my VPN back on now. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As recommended by MOS:QUOTE, we should try to write things in our own words and avoid quoting where not necessary. As the source clearly and unequivocally states that an external, rather than national probe, is required, because of the "massive" number of violations, it is frankly quite obvious to me that stating this is completely uncontroversial. Trying to imply that it isn't the number of violations, but rather the divided nature of the country, which is just a secondary reason (or even just a side note), is misrepresenting what is actually being said. cmonghost has explained this quite nicely. This situation also definitely does not warrant Jamez42 messaging me that my recent changes "do not accurately reflect the content of the sources provided" and I'd like to call him out on this. Such interventions should be reserved for bigger violations, not disagreements about very specific points, which are not even receiving wider support of other editors. BeŻet (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is a group project, not an individual endeavour, so fear not young BeŻet, fore I am here to help. I just scrolled over that section, and it contains six quotes in four paragraphs probably about 50% of the content is currently quotations, however certainly the seventh would be the hair that broke the camel's back! Such being the case, your wish is my command: "The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because they say that national institutions often lack the means to properly investigate large quantities of violations." Voila! Remember when submitting my nomination, Alkibiades is spelt in the greek way with a k, or kappa if I may be so bold. I find often with disagreements it's best to cut the gordian knot and rewrite the section in question, particularly when this is done by a third party with a fresh pair of eyes to go over the source in question without the possible knowledge of past animosities to hinder the critical eye for detail. I think we can all agree that the sentence I wrote is an accurate summation, completely without rhetorical flair, and so bland in nature as to make it a kin to a strong sedative. Perfection itself for such questions of NPOV. Regards, Alkibiades Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for going ahead and explaining the rationaly. It also showds that my edit summaries and reasons were made clear in the past. I will copy the article's passages, even if it means repeating things established:

COCHABAMBA, Bolivia (Reuters) - Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the head of a regional human rights commission told Reuters on Tuesday.

After a three-day visit to Bolivia, Paulo Abrão, who heads the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), recommended Bolivia coordinate with an international panel of experts similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico.

“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said in an interview in Cochabamba, a region hard hit by the violence.

The lead of the article includes two "to"s. The first, may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election, explains the purpose of the investigaiton, and the second, to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, explains the reason. it is not a "secondary reason or even just a side note".

The second quote is in a totally different context. Paulo is more broad, and the article just mentioned the 43 students dissapearances in Mexico. It doesn't explain if the massive violations (in this paragraph) mean in general, Mexico or Bolivia. More importantly, if it was, Paulo is quoted saying before national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations, which could go hand in hand with the reason in the lead, that findings would not be seen as credible because national institutions aren’t prepared to investigate the violations. WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is not complyed because the original word choice, word order and sentence structure needs to be retained. Changing the phrases changes the meaning. Context matters. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcibiades979: Could I please ask you to refrain from snarky comments and labelling someone who has been on wikipedia nearly a decade longer than you as "young".
@Jamez42: All I can see here are some mental gymnastics. We have a headline stating "Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe". This is what I'm saying, this is what the article is saying, but apparently you think that the headline is incorrect and your subjective interpretation is the correct one, so correct in fact that you feel the need to reprimend me in a message to me for apparently misrepresenting what the article is saying. You say "context matters", yet you seem to complete ignore it. National institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations clearly means that since there is a massive grouping of violations, national institutions aren't prepared to resolve them. Is this something you are disagreeing with? If so, why, when it's so clearly written there? BeŻet (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also may I just add that suggesting that he may be talking about Mexico in that quote is just... wild. BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Not-young BeŻet, my sincerest apologies. I must confess that I have paid dearly for botox, and in my country being called young is high praise indeed. But then again I am South American, and in the Southern Hemisphere things are different. What's more rest assured that I would never publicly, nor privately question the maturity of someone for arguing on an online message board. Regards, Alkibiades PS: as recompense for this misunderstanding, allow me to gift you the rewritten summary of the article: "The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because they say that national institutions often lack the means to properly investigate large quantities of violations." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not you intended to offend, I think it would help everyone out if you communicated in a more straightforward and less affected way. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: I deeply regret that, once again, you disregard my response, calling it "mental gymnastics". I am not disputing that article states that such "massive" violations took place, and if the article was not fully procted I would have included more content discussed here. The issue at hand is what the article says the outside help was needed for. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: And once again I have to ask, is the article's headline wrong in claiming that Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe, a claim you seem to be disputing? BeŻet (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: No. Again, the title states what, which is not the question in the change, but rather why. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I say "These human rights violations merit an outside probe to ensure that the findings are seen as valid. Typically national institutions aren't equipped to handle such a massive number of violations on their own", the second proposition is clearly a justification for the first. This is how normal discourse works. If I say "You should avoid eating too much fast food. Typically there are negative health effects if you eat fast food every day", the second sentence is obviously a justification/explanation of the recommendation in the first sentence. People don't just say things in isolation for no reason. Why do you think he said it if it was not a rationale for the involvement of outside institutions? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The synonym of "merit" is "justify", ergo, the headline says that the external probe is justified because of the massive number of violations; in other words, he calls for an external probe because of the number of violations. This is what this sentence means. BeŻet (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the sources, this whole subsection is actually WP:BLP. Why? Because it's not sourced. The only sources that call what has happened, "Human Rights Violations" specifically relate it to after the Bolivian Elections, which occurred on October 20th, lest we forget Morales was president for an additional 3 weeks after this before his resignation. Meaning as of today half of this has occurred under the Presidency of Morales and half of under Áñez. However, this all is a subsection of Áñez' presidency. The sources do relate that most deaths have occurred since Morales' resignation. However as it stands there's not a single source accusing Áñez of human rights violations. So this section can be renamed "Unrest" or "Protests" as a subsection of Áñez' presidency but then "human rights violations" falls unless it is only in the context that they "have continued", or it can be its own section, but as it currently stands it is WP:BLP as it takes sources out of context, and uses WP:OR to accuse the presidency of a living person of Human Rights Violations. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this wording is so contentious, I request permission to trim some words and phrases for the sake of concision for a long article, and clarity for the reader. "After a three-day trip to Bolivia, Paulo Abrão, who heads the IACHR, declared that due to the "massive" number of human rights violations amid post-election violence, and to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the country may need outside help to investigate the situation and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico." The text in bold would be removed. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two days without objections, so I just made the change. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this anything BUT a coup is political bias in favour of the coup

I must congratulate all the coup-supporters, your attempts to dissemble and stall the correct naming of this article have certainly succeeded in artificially suppressing the nature of these events to every google searcher, thereby pushing the popular narrative towards support for the coup in these crucial early days. Similar things happened in Chile in 1973, just without the online component. We know that social media and the internet are more and more becoming battlegrounds for real geopolitical conflict, and I'm very sad to watch it happening here on wikipedia, where something that is a blatant, textbook definition of a coup is not labeled as such, despite overwhelming evidence, and for cynical political purposes. To say the unsaid: we all know that this will go down in history as a coup, and every day it is not labeled as such is another day that wikipedia and its users are obfuscating truth and providing tangible political benefit for one side of a real political conflict. Bigwigge (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"(...) with international politicians, scholars and journalists divided on if a coup had occurred."

I don't see how the sources say that scholars and journalists are divided. We have plenty of people calling it a coup, plenty of people not taking a stance, and then a small fringe group of people who explicitly say it wasn't a coup. We don't say that scholars are divided about global warming, we shouldn't say this here. What we should say however that many people do call it a coup. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are not groups of scholars and journalists from relaible source explicitly calling this a coup. Provide sources that show this viewpoint is widely used and this discussion can further. Using a logical fallacy by comparing global warming and the events of Bolivia is an invalid argument.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which source says that politicians, scholars and journalists are divided about it? BeŻet (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Who calls this a "democratic uprising" (???) and is this extremely fringe opinion as popular as the opinion that it's a coup? BeŻet (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: That is for reliable sources to determine. Please don't shoot the reliable source messenger.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one NYTimes article that mentions the word uprising. BeŻet (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to guess what the more accurate wording is, you need to base this on reliable sources. You are making a claim, that is not backed by sources. BeŻet (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Not trying to guess, just attempting to find appropriate wording that works for you. The sources state both, so what do you think?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a specific claim: that the opinion is divided between two descriptors. This needs support in the sources, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. BeŻet (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources calling the event an uprising, and/or revolution: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fworld%2fthe_americas%2fvenezuelas-struggling-opposition-seeks-to-tap-into-uprising-wave-across-south-america%2f2019%2f11%2f16%2f435ce4da-071c-11ea-9118-25d6bd37dfb1_story.html%3f https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2019/1112/Bolivia-president-resigns-flees-country-without-successor https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/mercosur/brazilian-soybean-farmers-in-bolivia-make-up-political-movement-that-overthrew-evo-morales/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/19/protests-chile-bolivia-may-have-common-think/ https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-coup-in-bolivia https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/evo-morales-finally-went-too-far-bolivia/601741/ 93.42.26.191 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources show that scholars are divided: those who have an opinion mostly call it a coup. We can't claim the opinion is divided if the sources don't say that. BeŻet (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: @ZiaLater: Could you please show which sources explicitly claim that the opinion amongst scholars is divided between coup and uprising. The sources presented do not make that claim, and I implore you to stop reverting any change questioning that. BeŻet (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CEPR affiliations

Figured I would explain this edit:

Whenever something occurs in Latin America, you will often see this group of individuals and others release a joint statement on CEPR's site. They are CEPR affiliates.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is quintessential WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Second of all, you don't get to decide what goes into the article, and what doesn't. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt what I'm referring to: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. BeŻet (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Per WP:UNDUE, there seems to be enough opinion from CEPR in the article. In the section there are two paragraphs, one from the OAS and one from CEPR. This is balanced. A good compromise would be recognizing them as CEPR affiliates and including this information in CEPR's paragraph.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not an opinion from CEPR. BeŻet (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Could you please stop removing content you don't like? BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: See WP:Attribute. Labeling them broadly as "economists" takes away from their affiliations and devotions. Should be good now.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: That's not what the source says. Stop introducing those changes and removing content. BeŻet (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: It is not even from a reliable source, per WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.. Unless we are properly attributing this information, it must be removed.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the rules. This is absolutely a reliable source. Are you suggesting that we can't use this source to support the claim that a letter has been signed? That's preposterous. It IS properly attributed, per source. BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: and @Jamez42: after your changes basically all content about CEPR has been removed. Please be careful as this can be seen as censorship. BeŻet (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you both to return information about CEPR that you've decided to remove, otherwise I'll have to do a deep revert. BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Ping not received. In any case, besides the arguments explained above, I think the paragraph in question is more appropriate to the election article, and once again I'm particularly worried about WP:UNDUE. I don't know what you mean aying that "basically all content about CEPR has been removed", since their original rebuttal is explained at length in the paragraph above. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about that particular section. I will wait for other editors to get involved and voice their opinions. BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: I have to point out once again that you have violated WP:3RR. May you self revert before that? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several reverts were required to deal with your disruptive actions and violations. I have now self-reverted but expect other editors to intervene and set things straight. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet:Once again I ask you to please stop personal attacks, accusing me of "disruptive actions and violations". Just like I don't accuse you of "not liking the content" when you make removals, I expect you to do the same since I try to provide a rationale based in policies. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop warring before the article gets locked down again! As to this issue: I was expecting to see a lot of CEPR occurrences throughout the article, but surprisingly there is just the two sentences. I don't see how that is an overload of material. Since the removed text follows those two sentences, I suggest we can eliminate the appearance of undue weight by joining the two paragraphs and trimming some of the excess wording. I think I can do this if you all agree. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue at hand is that the source does not claim that the letter is written by CEPR, this is original research. BeŻet (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Zia and James, this is WP:UNDUE. As Jamez also pointed out this is about the Political Crisis in Bolivia. This source seems better suited to an article about the elections. The OAS report is important because it played a part in the end of Morales' rule, but having a rebuttal by some random uni professors, while interesting, doesn't particularly play apart in the political crisis.93.42.26.191 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the letter talks specifically about the political crisis in Bolivia. I encourage you to read it. BeŻet (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SteveStrummer: If we can narrow things out and properly attribute to CEPR, that would be perfect. I do want to bring something to attention though. CEPR will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives.
A few examples:
Just wanted to bring this to attention.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CEPR will often choose professionals to sign - that's a hell of an accusation. Also, I am repeating myself once again, that the RS does not in any way describe the economists as a CEPR group. BeŻet (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a RS and this isn't an article, rather it's just an oped/open letter by a group of people. I also fail to see how an op-ed by a group of economists is relevant to a political crisis in Bolivia. I wouldn't ask a lawyer for medical advice, a doctor about car issues, or an economist about anything at all. If they were a group of political scientists specializing in Latin America or Historians of Bolivia at least it wouldn't be a false claim to authority, and all that aside the opinion, regardless of who its from is out of place in this article since this is about the political crisis, not the perception of the election. 93.42.26.191 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are stasticians. Talking about statistics related to the election. Keep up. BeŻet (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet: Well, CEPR has been using this type of advocacy for awhile. The Center for Public Integrity shared in a 2004 article titled "Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars President Hugo Chavez takes his case to America's streets" details on the CEPR-Venezuela Information Office-Global Exchange links and how the group would issue similar letters.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say anything of that sort. It just mentions a letter authored by CEPR, it doesn't talk about regular sending of letters. Moreover, it tells us nothing about the current letter. This is wild original research. BeŻet (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You keep calling this an article, it's not, it's an oped. If you click the link, you'll see in bold letters right next to the title, "OPINION". You can describe them as "statisticians" but they describe themselves almost uniformly as economists in the opinion that they wrote. What's more is that this isn't an academic article either, this is an opinion piece there's a world of difference which is readily apparent to all those who have read academic articles. This is an academic article it's done by academics uses the scientific rmethod, it's written in an academic journal, it's been cited over 200 times by other academics or in your words "scholars" assessing its claims, validities, and methods. What this article had in comparison to show its scholarly rigor was a link to the CPR article, and an allusion to doing univariate regression. Along with the assumption that "because area x voted for morales in 2015, it thus voted for him exactly the same in 2019," and if such were the case we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and have one election ever and be done with the process from thence on out; "Poland elected the Law and Justice party thus they need never have another election again, because according to economists, they'll vote the same way" which is of course patently absurd. This is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, there's zero that's scholarly about it, so labelling the authors as scholars is misleading in the extreme since their's no scholarly work to back up what they're saying. This is tabloid garbage presented with a bow around it in order to trick the reader of the wiki article in to thinking that there's actually something behind the claims. 93.42.26.191 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, per WP:NEWSORG. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION should be the policy quoted. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same point is made in WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Unclear why you felt there was a need to correct this. Both are relevant. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a clarification, just a comment. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@93.42.26.191: There's a lot to unpack here. First, they describe themselves as economists and statisticians in the letter they wrote. Secondly, nobody's claiming this is an academic paper, it's clearly labelled as an open label. Thirdly, of course an open letter is a statement of opinion. Fourthly, how on Earth is labelling them as scholars misleading if we are talking about an opinion they are presenting? Finally, calling it tabloid garbage is quite extraordinary - we are talking about several respected scholars, not an opinion of a completely random group of people. I am returning this content to the article, because the only acceptable argument, from all of the ones presented above, is WP:DUE, which I strongly disagree with and there are no grounds to support it. BeŻet (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BeŻet just violated WP:3RR to push their POV. Is this a serious policy or not? They should refrain from their disruptive behavior or be blocked.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to the Discussion that End the Discussion

The Washington Post has rescinded its previous opinion about the "Bolivian Coup that Wasn't"[1], and has joined news organizations from The Jacobin[2] to the Guardian[3] in admitting[4] that what took place was, in fact, a coup[5][6][7]. Al Jazeera[8] has noted the fear of the indigenous community following the crisis[9], and all news agencies have noticed the brutal violence[10] taken by the military against pro-Morales protesters[11] following Anez's decree, opposed by human rights organizations[12], granting impunity for the army in repressing protests[13][14], which has been decried by even the OAS[15], and which the government was forced to repeal[16]. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at least 23 protesters have been killed and over 715 injured[17] as a result of this decree.

The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has condemn the interim government and its abuses[18]. This debate is over, it was fake to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77 (talk • contribs)

The Washington Post and Guardian links you refer to are clearly labelled as opinion. Opinion pieces have little to no bearing here. Jacobin and Common Dreams are unabashed partisan outlets. Criticism of the actions of the post-resignation government have no relevance to how we classify the resignation that put them there. The debate is over, though. See above. 199.247.44.42 (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobin is as partisan as any other outlet out there. BeŻet (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77, please stop vandalizing the page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


They are only in the article because of the edits that I had made to document the points of controversy, and I was responding to posts that used the earlier editorials in those outlets that had been used to justify this euphemistic title. The outlets that were once pretending that there was a good faith debate around the use of "Coup" to describe the ouster of a legitimate civilian government by an implied threat by the army and police is, no matter whether you agree with the result or not, a coup.

− −

This discussion is ignoring the editorialization and leading phrasings in the article, which ignores many important elements of the events in Bolivia and minimizes (and often buries) the very minute amount of articles that oppose its blatantly anti-Morales and pro-Anez slant that it bothered to include, primarily to ridicule.

− − You cannot pretend that this is an unbiased article when it uses **blatant** peacock phrases such as "exposed" and literally refers to Anez as "legitimate" and ignores the actual events going on in the country to tell us in the introduction that the government has "committed to working with [the interim government] towards new elections," which is an unacceptable phrasing for an "unbiased" article to use outside of a direct quote.

− − Calling that statement "unbiased" is obscene, and ignoring the bias of the existing article is to be blind to the facts.

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/19/bolivia-is-falling-into-grips-brutal-right-wing-regime/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/bolivia-coup-evo-morales-mas-jeanine-anez. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/26/bolivia-rightwing-military-dictatorship. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/morales-bolivia-military-coup. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/bolivia-coup-evo-morales-jeanine-anez. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/world/americas/bolivia-morales-news.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/30/whats-next-bolivia-after-military-coup. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2019/11/bolivia-evo-morales-victim-coup-191116001618613.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/bolivia-morales-indigenous-communities-fear-setbacks-191202150500458.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. ^ https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780118421/8-killed-in-bolivia-as-protesters-call-for-return-of-ousted-president-evo-morale. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/19/bolivia-interim-government-adopts-abusive-measures. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  12. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/11/bolivia-derogar-norma-impunidad-fuerzas-armadas/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/11/17/america/1574014107_965320.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ https://orinocotribune.com/a-carte-blanche-for-impunity-evo-morales-on-decree-exempting-the-army-of-responsibility-for-repression/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2019/296.asp. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. ^ http://www.radiohc.cu/en/noticias/internacionales/208588-bolivia-forced-to-repeal%C2%A0controversial-immunity-decree-for-armed-forces. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  17. ^ https://twitter.com/CIDH/status/1195857559527284736. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1051531. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&oldid=930154183"