Talk:Bolivia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikki048 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnorman27 (article contribs).

Aircraft Inventory

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Versions	In service	Notes
Trainers
Aerotec T-23 Uirapuru	Brazil	trainer	T-23	7
k-8	China	trainer	K-8	6
Beechcraft T-34 Mentor	United States	trainer	FMA T-34B	21
Canadair T-33 Silver Star	Canada	Attack/Trainer	AT-33A	19
Lancair 320	United States	trainer		1
NEIVA T-25 Universal	Brazil	trainer		6
Pilatus PC-7 Turbo Trainer	Switzerland	trainer		9
Helicopters
AS 350 B3	France	utility helicopter		2
Eurocopter AS 532 Cougar	France	transport		2
Aérospatiale SA 315 Lama	France	utility helicopter	SA 315B	2	one was suffered an accident months ago, 4 people died at least
Bell UH-1 Iroquois	United States	utility helicopter	UH-1H	12
Bell UH-1 Iroquois	United States	utility helicopter	UH-1H	15
Bell 212 Twin Huey	United States	utility helicopter		14
Transports
Basler BT-67	United States	transport		1	An upgraded turboprop powered DC-3
Beechcraft Baron	United States	Utility	55	2
Beechcraft Bonanza	United States	utility	V35	2
Beechcraft King Air	United States	staff transport	Super King Air 200	4
BAE Systems 146	United Kingdom	transport	146–100	4
CASA C-212 Aviocar	Spain	transport		3
Cessna 152	United States	utility		10
Cessna 172 Skyhawk	United States	utility	172K	2
Cessna 185 Skywagon	United States	utility		2
Cessna 206 Stationair	United States	utility		11
Cessna 210 Centurion	United States	utility		4
Cessna 310	United States	utility		1
Cessna 402	United States	utility	402B	1
Cessna 421 Golden Eagle	United States	utility	421B	1
Convair 580	United States	transport		2
Fokker F27 Friendship	Netherlands	transport	F27-400M	4
Learjet 25	United States	VIP transport	25B 25D	1 1
Lockheed C-130 Hercules	United States	transport	C-130A C-130B C-130H	2 4 1
McDonnell Douglas DC-10	United States	transport	DC-10-10F /DC-10-30F	2	acquired in late 2007
Piper PA-34 Seneca	United States	utility		2
Rockwell Sabreliner	United States	VIP transport	Sabreliner 60	1

References

Áñez protesters demographics

My comment from the edit: "This statement is both untrue and highly biased. It is absurd to say the interim president does not represent the Bolivian population by religion, when at least 85% of the country consider themselves Catholic or Christian. Likewise, the interim president is not of a different race or background than the majority of Bolivians, being a mestizo of mostly indigenous descent, like over half of the country."

"Many protesters against the Áñez government have been indigenous Bolivians who claim that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.[71]"

Arguments about this statement's awkward phrasing and factual errors aside, this statement is too specific for an article about Bolivia as a whole. Laella (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The line comes almost directly from the article and as I said above, is necessary in presenting a NPOV. Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because the line exists, doesn't mean we have to include it. And I think it might be too close to the original - plagiarism? compare the original to above:

Many of those who have come out to protest have been indigenous Bolivians who are angry that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.

Apart from that, this line is not necessary to present NPOV. The point of NPOV isn't to make sure there are the same number of arguments from 2 camps. It is to show 2 sides of a same issue. There aren't 2 sides to this issue. Anez IS a member of the majority religion, and she IS a member of the majority race. These are not opinions. That an interim government wasn't elected is the nature of an interim government, you can't argue that people want to elect their interim governments, if they were elected, they wouldn't be interim. Finally, while many protesters against Anez have been indigenous, so are just as many of her supporters. It isn't a defining characteristic.

What is it you think this sentence is countering? Laella (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said. Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags, a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace. I see no reason to delete the line. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is also proceeded by the line "Anez and her cabinet has no indigenous representation" which is demonstrably false, even negating the fact that most people, including Áñez, are mestizo. She had exactly as many indigenous members in her cabinet as Morales. Furthermore, this article can't even spell Áñez properly, so how good is it as a source on being sensitive to the culture of others. Áñez absolutely represents the majority of the religion among indigenous people. Non-Christian religions represent less than 2% of the country whereas 20% are indigenous and 68% are mestizo. What is the policy for pieces from sources that have factual errors? I can equally find articles to say how Morales had many indigenous opponents and that many felt that his government did not represent them. They have been sources elsewhere on wikipedia. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"It is also proceeded by the line "Anez and her cabinet has no indigenous representation" which is demonstrably false" it was an absolute fact at the time the article was written. Maybe add a line after stating that Áñez has since appointed indigenous people to her cabinet if you feel it necessary. Yautja1917 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That's like saying that you got 40% in an exam when you are only half way through. It's absurd to say that "the cabinet contained no indigenous members" when the cabinet was only partially appointed. The Guardian printed a similar story and added the amendment within 12 hrs of publishing it. "True at the time" is no excuse and, as pointed out, that is ignoring that most people are mestizo, even in those appointed. This page is meant to have a brief summary of Bolivian history. Do you really think that "there were no indigenous members in the cabinet (not counting mestizos) for less than a day until Western Media figured out they don't know much about Bolivia" is worthy of note in the history of Bolivia? Adding details by saying that this was only temporarily true does not seem appropriate for this page, and there are more contentious issues that should be included. It is telling that this is only a story in the UK and US. There is nothing about Áñez lack of indigenous representation in Bolivia that I have seen as Morales' cabinet had a similar makeup and he also had criticism from indigenous groups. Neither is particularly noteworthy on this page. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Only a story in the UK and US" is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

♦ ♦ She appointed qualified fully-indigenous people to her cabinet within 24 hours of the original appointments. She also continued making appointments after the first 2 days. It might have been worth pointing out if this had gone on for weeks or months, but a few hours? Also, she DID appoint mestizo-indigenous the first day.

An issue I see coming up in any talk where people try to divide Bolivia into "indigenous" vs "non-indigenous" - Bolivia only has 5% white citizens (and half of those are Mennonites, who don't get involved in politics). 90% of Bolivians are indigenous or mestizo. Meaning 90% have some indigenous origin, and the vast majority are over 75% indigenous. There are many indigenous disconnected from their heritage, often they will identify as mestizo for lack of knowledge about their origins. Sometimes this includes mixed-indigenous (Aymara-Guarani for example) who do not have any non-indigenous origin, but there is no way to indicate this - you have to pick a tribe or mark mestizo, so many fully indigenous are considered "mestizo". Without disrespecting those indigenous who live their traditional lifestyles, I am bothered by the implication that assimilated indigenous who wear their culture like a costume somehow have more value than those who lost their culture to assimilation (usually through no fault of their own). Or that single-lineage indigenous have more value than multiple-lineage indigenous. Or even that those with traces of European DNA are somehow less "worthy". Indigenous need to be shown respect, that includes those not lucky enough to have been immersed in their heritage. But we need to be very careful when we start to value people's racial purity. When you see people pointing out that there are no "indigenous" on Áñez cabinet, what they really mean is that they don't see anyone wearing non-western clothes. Laella (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The only person bringing up "racial purity" is you. Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines, colonialism made that a factor, not Indigenous nations. What's more, it's wholly inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all. Finally, this line right here: "I am bothered by the implication that assimilated indigenous who wear their culture like a costume" is incredibly racist and frankly you shouldn't be an editor if that's the attitude you have towards practicing indigenous people. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

♦ ♦ No, I am not the one bringing up racial purity. People saying that "there were no indigenous people on her cabinet" even though there were mestizo people on her cabinet, shows that there is some threshold they are looking for. That is a de-facto purity test. So what defines indigenous? What do Bolivian people need to do or show to be indigenous enough?

...inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all

I am not the one who decided that. Please explain how you speak for indigenous people and the country of Bolivia. I am trying to point out that according to news sources, Áñez had appointed indigenous to her cabinet within 24 hours.

Also, you are wrong about how Bolivians view the subject. Indigenous vs Mestizo is not either/or in Bolivia. Here are some diverse Bolivian opinions on the topic:

• "Cinco encuestas realizadas sobre mestizaje e indigenismo dan cuenta de que las personas encuestadas se definen como mestizas y éstas mismas se consideran parte de algún pueblo indígena."
• "El estudio Barómetro de las Américas 2012, elaborado por el Proyecto de Opinión Pública de América Latina (Lalop, por sus siglas en inglés), es tremendamente revelador al respecto. En la pregunta sobre identificación racial, un 77% de los consultados se considera “mestizo” frente a un 17% que se ve netamente indígena. Sin embargo, al preguntar por sus raíces culturales, un 72% asevera pertenecer a algún pueblo originario."
• "Basta preguntar a los bolivianos sobre la identidad que se asignan a sí mismos (y se han hecho muchas encuestas al respecto) para que la respuesta revista siempre un carácter dual: la mayoría de la gente se considera “indígena” (parte de los grupos quechua, aymara o guaraní), al mismo tiempo que “mestiza”. "

What you (and most non-Bolivian) fail to understand is that the Mestizo of Bolivia are more indigenous than European or other. Genetic studies show the average Mestizo Bolivian is over 75% indigenous. Now you say that "Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines" So, please, explain what determines "Indigeneity"? How do you define that?

You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said.

Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which does NOT agree with what the line says. "Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race" is NOT in agreement with Áñez "does not represent them in terms of both religion and race." It's one or the other, the quote is wrong.

Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags

Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags. Anti-Morales protesters were burning the Wiphala. Ironically Áñez called for people to respect the Wiphala, and specified when taking office, that she planned to keep it as a national symbol. Specifically, the anger over the Wiphala relates to a long-ongoing conflict between lowland and highland indigenous that predates the Spaniards. There is a lot of complicated background to acts of burning the Wiphala, none of it related to Áñez.

a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace.

How does something that happened with Camacho have to do with Áñez ? Is that supposed to be proof that Áñez is not a member of the majority religion?

I see no reason to delete the line.

You don't see a reason to delete this line, even though it is factually wrong. That seems like a very important reason to delete it to me.

"Only a story in the UK and US" is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it.

"Only a story in the UK and US" may be a bold statement, but it's true. US and UK media went off on their own journey, very unrelated to what was actually happening in Bolivia. It was very surreal. Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags, as I mentioned above. There is no factual evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. There are photoshopped tweets and comments taken completely out of context. People who lack any knowledge of Bolivian history are applying their own country's prejudices and conflicts onto Bolivia, trying to match their country's issues to Bolivia's issues. Bolivia is not having a race war. Bolivia is also not in a fight of left vs right politics. Insisting on viewing Bolivia through those 2 lenses means you are misunderstanding what is happening in Bolivia. Bolivians were supposedly talking about what? Instead of making vague claims, back something up with links to news articles from legitimate news sources. Laella (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Languages of Bolivia in sidebar

This keeps being edited to leave only "Spanish". The reason given was You only need the main, primary, native language of Bolivia. And that language is Spanish. So, therefore, whoever is adding this information is wrong and needs to stop this right now.

Firstly, Spanish is the only language that is not native to Bolivia. Secondly, it is not true that only the primary language is needed. See Ireland and Switzerland. Spain has an entry for Official language and does not include Catalan or Basque, but as per the reference linking to the 2009 constitution, all 36 are the official languages of Bolivia. I have included Aymara, Quechua and Guarani, as they all have a substantial number of speakers numbering hundreds of thousands, with a link to the others via the article Languages of Bolivia for the sake of brevity. The three others I have mentioned are important enough to be visible in the sidebar. News is reported simultaneously in Spanish, Aymara and Quechua on the main TV channel with three presenters. I would believe something similar with Guarani in Santa Cruz, although I have not been there. Walk into hospitals in Cochabamba or any of the major cities and you will see signs in Spanish and Quechua or Aymara etc. Deleting all languages except for Spanish is incorrect and has happened several times. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"The official languages ​​of the State are Spanish and all the languages ​​of the nations and native indigenous peasant peoples, which are Aymara, Araona, Baure, Bésiro, Canichana, Cavineño, Cayubaba, Chácobo, Chimán, that Ejja, Guaraní, Guarasu ' we, guarayu, itonama, leco, machajuyai-kallawaya, machineri, maropa, mojeño-trinitario, mojeño-ignaciano, moré, mosetén, movima, pacawara, puquina, quechua, sirionó, tacana, tapiete, toromona, uru-chipaya, weenye yaminawa, yuki, yuracaré and zamuco. II. The multinational government and departmental governments must use at least two official languages. One of them must be Spanish, and the other will be decided taking into account the use, convenience, circumstances, the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or of the territory in question. The other autonomous governments must use the languages ​​of their territory, and one of them must be Spanish." Crmoorhead (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be more like vandalism. There have been a lot of poor quality IP user edits in the last few days. The user who wrote the message above (2600:8804:1000:1C5B:45E3:499B:E431:61AA) has made similar changes to a few pages, all of them reverted, but isn't discussing on talk pages. Laella (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrative divisions section

The sentence beginning 'Original indigenous government' needs reworking slightly - perhaps along the lines of 'vested in the local (geographical-administrative units).' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pueblos originarios de Bolivia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary censorship and Reverting to last good edit

My last bad edit was simply using Grammarly to correct some mistakes from other editors, and click publish but it somehow came out weird and was not on purpose. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/984985592 I also tried to fix those errors but it was reverted really quickly before I had the chance. I don't mind at all with material scientist reverting my bad edits. I however do mind alot and am very disappointed when he also deletes all my GOOD edits, and that should be investigated if this proves to be a trend. But I am willing to take this to the talk page if anyone wants to argue but just don't censor illegally. As I have done nothing wrong prior to one bizarre accidental computer error.

Discuss on the talk page, don't delete everything. That's how wiki should work. And personally, I do Disagree with Material scientist who used a single minor unintentional mistake to then later delete all my edits like the ones where I wrote thatAnez issued a decree to give security forces immunity from criminal charges and a massacre did occur against the indigenous people and the fact that new york times, a reputed paper had stated the OAS methods were flawed yet fueled chaos in the country and gave my sources to back that info. All my info is backed by sources and should not be censored yet was deleted and censored ONLY because of just a single computing error that wasn't even intentional.

Again can't stress this more than enough, discuss, don't delete prematurely. I reverted to my last good edit plus finally fixed a few of those grammatical errors that I targeted prior to the buggy external Wikipedia computer errors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/984984458 If you disagree- discuss here and we will talk it out but don't make flawed excuses to delete ALL my edits because of one singular mistake that wasn't at all deliberate but a computing error. 49.180.129.245 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)