Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Requested move 15 November 2019[edit]

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)
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.[1][2][3] Furthermore, even many western sources have now referred to the event as a coup d'etat, as well as many governments.[4][5][6] Zellfire999 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


  • 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 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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[7] 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 [8]. There is also many other sources calling this event coup [9][10] 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[11] 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 [12].
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.[13] 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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."[1] Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Strong support Calling it a coup is indeed neutral - it's literally what happened. Yes, several "reliable sources" (e.g. the NYT, the Washington Post, etc) have refrained from calling it a coup, but that's because they are biased towards a US-centric view (to put it nicely). I second everything that Prinsgezinde, BlindNight, Loesorion, and Zellfire999 have said. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup d'etat, per above. If anything, the article title should address that the military had a primary role in ousting the president. Davey2116 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning more towards 2019 Bolivian military memorandum as proposed above. It's more accurate and less controversial. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Spanish Wikipedia has now adopted the coup title after a majority in the discussion there deemed it more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That's all I need. 2019 Bolivian coup d'état now has my support. Charles Essie (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
They have not 'adopted' anything. Discussion is ongoing and consensus is yet unclear; an editor unilaterally changed the title. (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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: [2] [3]
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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [4] same as French-language ones, the other is resignation of Evo Morales government, which have been called 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis in Indonesian version [5].
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)
  • 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. (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
(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)
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)
'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'. (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,[14][15][16][17] 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)
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)
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)
@Alcibiades979:@Cmonghost: Please bear in mind that original research does not apply to talk pages. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [6] (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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Support 2019 Bolivian Coup d'état The military told the president its time to go. POV represented by those who refuse to call this a coup despite this. Pretty much a no brainer. KasimMejia (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [18])
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 [19]
  • negative from the police to follow orders from high command on November 9 (which was in charge of president supporters) [20],
  • 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 [21], [22])
  • 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) [23]
  • still the people asks for his resignation and snipers shoots some protesters (posession of firearms is forbidden by law) [24]
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[25], 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 [26]. Notice that her party is P.P.B - C.N[27] which is not the one the ex-president accused of making a coup d'état [28] (Mesa's party is FRI. [29] and Camacho is president of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, the second or third largest city of Bolivia, affiliated to another party MNR [30]).
As of today, November 22 current interim president presents a law proposal to call for elections [31]
RobertoOropeza (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC) RobertoOropeza (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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."[32][33]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talkcontribs) 01:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • 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: [[7]]. 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)
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)
Yknow, if you're this hostile to how Wikipedia works, you're welcome to go start your own. Nobody is forcing you here. (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as name of the article, because it's a coup by its definition. BobNesh (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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: [8] [9][10][11][12]
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)
  • 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)

    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)
  • 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)
  • 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 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)

Extended comment by Jamez42[edit]

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

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[edit]

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.[13] 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[edit]

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).


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)


  • 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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)

@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)

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)
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)
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. [34] [35]Crmoorhead (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

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


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)

2019 Bolivian governmental crisis[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)

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.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] 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)

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. [43] 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)

2019 Bolivian coup d'état[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)



  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^ "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
  37. ^ 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.
  38. ^ 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.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ "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.
  42. ^ "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.
  43. ^


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)

  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:
Discussion not started
"Transition" ABC ☑Y ☑Y Bolivia en transición

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

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable Unrest Al Jazeera ☑Y ☑Y Two killed as unrest continues in Bolivia.

Uses "unrest" to describe the events

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

Discussion not started
Resignation America ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Uprising America 2.1 ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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 ☑Y ☑Y Bolivia: Anez celebrates military's 209th anniversary.

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

Quotes Morales and his supporters using "coup"

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable Resignation Associated Press ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
"Ouster" Bangor Daily News ☑Y Evo Morales ouster in Bolivia was not a coup, just a blunder

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

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable Crisis BBC ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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.

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

Article predates Añez's assumption of power.

Discussion not started
Resignation Diario las Américas ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Resignation EFE ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Electoral fraud El Deber ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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.

Discussion not started
Coup ☑Y ☑Y 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.

Discussion not started
Crisis El País ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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"

Discussion not started
Crisis Euronews ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Resignation Excelsior ☑Y ☑Y [

'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"

Discussion not started
Crisis and clashes France24 ☑Y 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.

Discussion not started
Resignation Global Post ☑Y ☑Y 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.

Discussion not started
Crisis Infobae ☑Y ☑Y 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.

Discussion not started
Resignation La Nación ☑Y ☑Y 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"

Discussion not started
Resignation La Razón ☑Y ¿Por qué no hubo golpe de Estado en Bolivia?

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

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.

Discussion not started
Coup Página/12 ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Uprising Página Siete ☑Y ☑Y 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

Discussion not started
Crisis Peru21 ☑Y ☑Y Ola y contra ola en Bolivia

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

Discussion not started
Coup Público ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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".

Yes Check Circle.svg 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.

Discussion not started
Electoral fraud Roanoke Andres Oppenheimer: Bolivia's Morales says he was ousted, but election fraud was his downfall
Discussion not started
None Telam ☑Y "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 ☑Y "Gobierno de facto de Bolivia avanza en la criminalización del MAS".

Uses the term "coup" when describing the event.

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable "Coup" The Guardian ☑Y The article cited is "It’s not just a ‘coup’: Bolivia’s democracy is in meltdown". Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup".
Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable Coup The Intercept ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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."

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable Crisis The New York Times ☑Y ☑Y ‘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."

Yes Check Circle.svg Generally reliable "Coup" and "resignation" The Washington Post ☑Y ☑Y "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."

Discussion not started
Political and social effervescence Voice of America ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y 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)

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.
Later commentary - I think 2019 Bolivian coup d'état is by far the most appropriate title. We don't call the 1973 Chilean coup d'état a "political crisis", we call it a coup. Time to call a spade a spade. The military forced Morales and his supporters out of office with the assistance of a Luis Fernando Camacho's far-right militias and installed a relatively low-ranking politician (ie, not second in line) from an unpopular party (Anez's party ranks ~4%). A variety of non-partisan observers disagreed with the OAS report (basing the conclusion that the election was rigged solely on the OAS report is weak considering historically rocky Bolivia-OAS relations - would you trust Russia and Ukraine's commentary on each other's elections?)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: Hi! I'm definitely not pleased with the title (but still with almost all of the content, I must say, it's really a lot und good work). Still I find that puting "coup d'état" in the title is scholarly not appropriate. On the one hand, as far as I know, Morales himself pointed out, that it is a "clever" coup d etat, exactly because of its "fine" character. You can see my (not professional) analysis about that here. Anyway, this doesn't mean at all, that I think, that the title should remain like this. I tried to make a compromise by putting a question mark in the title, but this was not accepted. Another way would be to put the title coup d etat (which according to my not professional analysis actually is the most appropriate) and to make a tablet concerning this issue immediately after the title. OR. Let the title like it is and make a) a title with coup d etat with minimal comments and a redirekt hier and b) a tablett immediately after the title Political crisis here, that makes it clear with wide letters, that coup d etat would be an alternative title that is being discussed. Greetings Yomomo (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Since everyone is still adding their opinions. I would like to add that Bolivian political crisis seems very appropriate to me. First, because there is a lot more to the situation than just the transition in government, however you insist on qualifying it. Second, in Bolivia, which has a long history of Coup d'Etat, they are not calling it a Coup, something which they haven't shied away from in the past. Local interpretation could be considered.
In english media Coup vs not-Coup has become a stand-in for supporting or opposing Evo Morales. There is no way to put Coup in the title without expressing bias favoring Morales. 'Crisis' is enough to indicate that there is controversy and doesn't indicate a bias. Laella (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)



Interim government recognition map[edit]

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)

Maybe at the responses page? Kingsif (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
Ok, then --cyrfaw (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic Council published a superb map regarding the recognition of Añez. I suggest that the creation or modification of a map is resumed. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good inclusion, mainly because the map is dated 14 Nov and the interim government had only been in existence for 3 days. Some, like Canada, have since changed their stance on the new government [1] in light of the OAS report. Would be nice to see how the world is reacting to the interim government within the last few weeks, but mainly the western world appears to have got bored beyond the first week of violence. Any articles I have seen are mainly centred on Morales' activities outside of Bolivia. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crmoorhead: Of course; we can use AC's map as a reference, but we can improve any other information, specially if it is outdated. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
Which source says that politicians, scholars and journalists are divided about it? BeŻet (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@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)
@BeŻet: That is for reliable sources to determine. Please don't shoot the reliable source messenger.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That's just one NYTimes article that mentions the word uprising. BeŻet (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
Some sources calling the event an uprising, and/or revolution: (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@Jamez42: @ZiaLater: I am still waiting for the sources – which sources makes the exact claim mentioned in the article: international politicians, scholars and journalists are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising. I was hoping you would provide them as quickly as you revert my changes introducing a template there to indicate a problem that is being discussed here. BeŻet (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You are not waiting for sources. This is a case of Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT. Move on.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am asking you to point at a source making that claim. What I don't like here is your behaviour. Simply point at the source that is making that claim. BeŻet (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
If you keep removing the tag without providing the source, you might get a temporary ban from editing. BeŻet (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: This is your final warning. Point at the source making the above claim and thus resolve this discussion. BeŻet (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: I'm warning you both, your behaviour is unacceptable. BeŻet (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BeŻet: The current text has not two, not three, but eight sources that summarizes the position:
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. - BuzzFeed News

The world immediately became as divided as Bolivia itself over how to describe the events.The Mexican and Russian governments followed Morales’ lead and decried it as a “coup.” They were joined by left-wing luminaries like US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and, slightly more hesitantly, senator Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, US president Donald Trump said the departure of Morales “preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard.” The conservative governments in Washington and London both recognized opposition senator Jeanine Añez as de facto interim president. (...) Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.

- Quartz
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. - Foreign Policy (Quoting journalist's position).

The United States has recognized Áñez as the president, but the region and world remains divided. (...) The events in Bolivia have served to divide Latin America as to the impetus behind Morales’ departure and now whether Jeanine Áñez is the head of state.

- Atlantic Council
After President Evo Morales resigned at the weekend, Bolivians and others the world over are asking whether his decision to step down the result of a legal process – or not? - Univisión
Now, on the other hand, it seems to be the third time this week that you violate the three revert rule.[14][15][16][17]
Please stay calm and self revert, or otherwise you might be the one that gets blocked. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It may also be a good time to quote WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet:, you are getting to the point where this seems irrational. You are a user who manipulates articles and places what sources do not say. You are the one who reverts in a Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT manner that needs reversion. It is not an edit war if it is reverting unhelpful edits that have no consensus whatsoever. On top of that, you have gamed the system in your attempts to push a narrative. It appears that per WP:NOTHERE, further actions should be taken if this continues, preferably to a suitable noticeboard instead of an article talk pages.

As my last act of good faith before advocating for further action, here is a list of sources that support the lede:

Unless you can reach a consensus here, BeŻet, one cannot respect your intentions. If you have valid wording concerns, please make proposals instead of crying foul. Make the change you want to see and do not leave unsightly tags. We are trying our best here, so please at least make proposals.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finally presenting some sources, because now, finally, we can discuss them. As you can see, going through your own sources, none of them support the claim that the opinion amongst scholars etc. is divided between coup and uprising. What you have here is WP:SYNTH. We can't have this discussion until you actually show the sources. Now that you have, let's finally discuss them. You have states yourself, clearly, that the sources only state that the term coup is debatable. Now, do you understand my concern that none of the courses explicitely say that there is a divide between uprising and coup? The wording, which I have proposed, and I have tried introducing, was about just stating that the word coup is debated. But there is no debate of coup vs uprising. Calling the event an uprising is WP:FRINGE. Do you finally understand what the issue is and what my concerns are? Have you read WP:SYNTH and are certain that those guidelines are not violated? Will you participate in this discussion and try to resolve the issue at hand? Will you accept that there is in fact a debate about this topic and a template in the article is called for? BeŻet (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, let me address your accusation that I have manipulated what the sources say. As I, and several other editors pointed out, you were the person in the wrong, and I was accurately describing what the article was saying. If you are not certain about this, please refer to the discussion where multiple editors explained this to you. BeŻet (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@BeŻet:, the sources say otherwise. The lede is a summary of the article, so of course there are going to be multiple sources used together. This is not WP:FRINGE as multiple reliable sources have said the same thing; the terms used are dvided between coup and uprising. And before you attribute this to "Western" or "European" academics, scholars, etc. in the lede, that is WP:OR. The sources clearly state opinions are divided between "experts" and such, in general, without detailing where the individuals are from. I am trying to get ahead of the curve with you, because I know you will try to pull something from somewhere next... Overall, this does not warrant a template. It would be best if you suggest some different wording on the talk page before we possibly introduce it, but other than that, sources agree that the terminology is debated. The current wording clearly presents what reliable sources are sharing.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That's simply not true. I think maybe this is where the confusion arises: you seem to think there's a binary between coup/democratic uprising. However it's nonsensical to think that those people who perhaps don't think coup is the right term automatically think it's a democratic uprising. That's a very fringe opinion. I don't think any respected scholar would call this event a democratic uprising; you might find a single example, but that hardly represents the community as a whole. Moreover, the sources clearly don't say that. They simply don't: none of the examples given say that. None of them. You didn't present any source that clearly states that scholars (plural) are divided between coup and uprising. This situation warrants a template that you keep reverting, and I will introduce it once again because clearly there are issues here. The solution here is clearly remove the "popular uprising" bit and, if you insist, keep the bit that says the opinion is divided about whether it was a coup or not. BeŻet (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the Quartz source:
"Two academics quizzed by Spanish newspaper El Pais this week said the departure of a president at the military’s behest is the definition of a coup. A third argued that it can’t be a coup if the president has no legitimacy, having allegedly rigged an election and bent the constitution to his will. A fourth, Margarita López Maya of the Central University of Venezuela, said there are elements both of a coup and of a popular insurrection, and likened it to the Venezuelan military overthrowing a dictator in 1958 in order to hold democratic elections."
As you can see, scholars are divided. Some call it a coup. Some say it is not a coup because Morales allegedly rigged democracy. Some call it a mix of both coup and popular uprising. Plainly put, "scholars ... are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising".----ZiaLater (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
We clearly interpret the sources differently. This source says that a single scholar calls it a mix of a coup and a popular insurrection. That's correct right? Am I wrong in saying that? A single scholar. A mix of both. So how is this the same as making this specific claim, that scholars are divided between a coup and democratic/popular uprising? It's not. It's clearly, unequivically not. It's WP:FRINGE again. So, once again, we should remove the bit about democratic uprising, because it does simply not reflect reality, and in order to tell the truth, we should simply state that scholars are divided about it being a coup and not a coup. That's something I can accept. BeŻet (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@BeŻet and ZiaLater: What about this wording: International politicians, scholars and journalists are divided on the issue of whether the event can be accurately described as a coup. It seems to be that this would be a more accurate characterization of the totality of the sources cited, as well as fitting better into the paragraph. I also want to point out that there are way too many sources cited, and several of the sources cited are just examples of one side or the other ("it's a coup" or "it's not a coup"); it seems to me like this is improper WP:SYNTH and we should only be citing sources that summarize the dispute. Let me know what you think. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@BeŻet: If I may, because I forgot to mention it in my response and WP:SYNTH has already been called upon, as far as I understand SYNTH consists in having sources A and B, while concluding that A + B = C, where C isn't explicitly stated in any of the two sources. As we have showed, this is not the case. Again, WP:LETITGO. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
You haven't showed that, as I've explained multiple times now. BeŻet (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

CEPR affiliations[edit]

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)

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)
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)
@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)
But this is not an opinion from CEPR. BeŻet (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Could you please stop removing content you don't like? BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@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)
@ZiaLater: That's not what the source says. Stop introducing those changes and removing content. BeŻet (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)

@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)

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
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)
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. (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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. (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
They are stasticians. Talking about statistics related to the election. Keep up. BeŻet (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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. (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:RSOPINION should be the policy quoted. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
It wasn't a clarification, just a comment. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)

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)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also a serious policy, yet tenaciously ignored by the editors not wanting to mention the open letter. BeŻet (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the open letter, but the fact is that the CEPR gave a report and were involved in this letter before the OAS had given their full investigation is important in assessing the validity of their conclusions. It's not hard to find 96 people to agree to sign a letter. The CEPR report criticises the OAS by saying that they ran statistical simulations that proved the claimed counts were credible within some bounds, but they did not interview witnesses or have access to the polling cards. As far as I know, they have nobody in Bolivia at all and, lest we forget, Morales approved the OAS investigations. The statistical simulations assume that all the counts coming in are accurate and uses that supposition to extrapolate what might have happened, but the OAS report points to the existence of servers that were allowing constant manipulation of results from outside forces of many thousands of forged voting slips. I think it is important to highlight the timeline and credibility of the CEPR report as I cannot see where they would have access to the information needed to makes such a judgement nor have seen their response to the existence of the extra servers and forged votes. Crmoorhead (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not our job to assess the validity of anyone's conclusions. That would be WP:OR. This is the same reason why we are not writing about how OAS has a lot of American influence, is a controversial organisation with a clear political stance and described as unreliable by a lot of people. That would also be WP:OR. BeŻet (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be disingenuous to give CEPR equal footing with the OAS report that carried out the investigation with approval from Morales himself. The chronology of their conclusions in response to the preliminary report as opposed the the final detailed report makes a difference. I am not advocating not mentioning these things, but the grounds of their objections and the lack of response to the existence of continual manipulation of results through servers controlled by outside forces is contextually important and people can make up their own minds. I am bringing this up on the talk page as that is the proper place to discuss neutrality of sections of the article. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The existence of "servers" is just a claim they have made. Whether one should believe what OAS is saying or not is up to the reader, but that should have no effect on other sources, groups, reports and claims. Regardless, the open letter should be mentioned, and I will repeat one more time for the people in the back: associating the open letter with CEPR is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. BeŻet (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
BeŻet So we aren't allowed to make the observation that the names at the top are related? But if we find a source were someone else mentions that link then we can quote it? That seems crazy. I mean there is this [2] NYT article that specifically notes "Those critics, however, have not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count." There is no reason to doubt or not mention the specific findings of the OAS. There is a lot of detail in their report [3] and the summary is pretty clear about the existence [4] Please read this [5] article giving a lot of detail on all four levels of corruption investigated and why the CEPR report is wrong. If you read it, you will see that the merely extrapolate the votes after the stoppage with a random variable and claim that it falls within reasonable bounds in their particular simulation. If the original count, as shown in detail in the appendices to the report, is stuffed with duplicates of votes and being interfered with via other servers, then it casts doubt on their conclusions. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crmoorhead: We are not here to make "observations". If were, should we observe that the Washington-based OAS, a Cold-war organisation that was explicitely setup to halt the spread of leftist governments, and that the American government explicitely describes as an organisation promoting US interests in the Western hemisphere, isn't as "independent" as the media claims? That USA has been involved in nearly every single anti-left transition of power in South America and probably every violent coup, that there are hundreds of documented cases of USA funding anti-left propaganda and blatant lies in the region, that American companies have paid editors on Wikipedia to promote anti-Morales activists (luckily, unsucessfuly due to our strong policies)? What other "observations" should we make? Feel free to believe in the server story, but again, that's just your belief. And NYT talking points don't matter either - didn't the server story appear after the letter was written? So what's the point of saying that those critics – if they are the same critics NYT is referring to (it's not clear so we are dealing with WP:SYNTH) – have not adressed the server story, or the "stuffed votes" story? If we are making "observations" and just trying "context" for the reader, should we then give the reader enough context to understand that perhaps we shouldn't believe everything that OAS says and consider that it is statistically likely that the US government is, once again, as it was countless times before, getting involved, through an organisation that they have strong influence over? See, I am not saying we should include all this, but I'm just showing you that everything is subjective and adding "context" and "observations" is WP:NPOV, and therefore not wanting to include the letter is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any objective consideration. BeŻet (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I feel that you are really trying to sell your own political agenda here. The chronology of the investigation into hidden servers and fake votes is pretty clear from the links I provide and they were one of the things stated that were in the accusations and were being investigated from the 31st Oct. It did not appear after the CEPR report at all, an the NYT mention this. The biased nature of the OAS seems to be your own opinion and Evo Morales himself has not questioned the veracity of their findings and, indeed, he did agree to their investigation. There is no dispute of this in Bolivia, even among his own party. The OAS president is from Uruguay and served under the socialist Mujica government. They recommended that Morales stay as president after the initial calls for his resignation by opposition parties as they wanted constitutional continuity. Morales did not have a US embassador, but he did have one in the OAS, and so did every other left wing government with the notable exception of the current Venezuelan government. The link you provide is to the US policy for advancing their interests from within the OAS. This merely proves the existence of such a policy. Every nation has their own policy on how to advance their interests in the OAS. This is literally the job of the foreign office of every nation on the planet. But this is not a forum and we are going off on a tangent. I am making edits based on my knowledge of Bolivian politics as I keep up to date with their media and current events on a daily basis. Read their newspapers online, even using google translate if you cannot read the original Spanish. It is all too easy to write a story based on what "you think you know" about Bolivia based on dictatorships in the past. Second hand information is not good enough when writing factual content. This is not the 70s any more. Bolivians are more aware of their history than you are as well as having a greater motivation of not going back to those days. To say that Latin America has no sense of self-determination is to speak from a position of ignorance and is condescending to the people of Bolivia. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I feel like you completely missed the point of what I said above. BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @BeŻet and Crmoorhead: for summary statements similar to last time. Though Zia and Jamez have been involved, they don't seem to be involved in this overarching conflict at the moment. Can you tell me the issue, how it relates to CEPR mentions in the article, and what your views are? As said, I'm not faultless, but discussions go round in circles, get off topic, and never culminate in agreement; I'm just trying to help keep things on track before walls of text on politics appear. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsif. My summary: I believe the letter should be mentioned in the article. Associating it with CEPR is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, unless a source explicitely states that. An attempt to "add context" or "background" will always be subjective, as the editor writing it will be the one choosing what context or background is necessary. As I've demonstrated in my comment above, we could add some background on past US influence/interventions in the region, but I don't believe we should, because, again it introduces bias (which is something Crmoorhead appears to have misunderstood as I said I don't want to include that information). BeŻet (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I don't have a problem in mentioning the letter, but it is extremely relevant that both the letter and the previous publication of the CEPR were made prior to the publication of the full OAS report and were made without access to any of the resources that were provided to the investigation. They also, as the NYT mentions, don't address the key issues of servers being accessed during the results and the existence of fake votes. Mentioning both is fine, but the chronology is important, as well as more current events. I think the current content reflects this. While the CEPR link for some of the names may count as OR and may not qualify based on policy alone, the open letter states five of the names explicitly as being part of CEPR., so is definitely not OR to state this. [6] I would question the neutrality of their analysis given their reputation with regard to Venezuela. While we can quote credible sources and I guess every input is valid, it's important to at least bear the possibility of bias in mind on the talk page. I did not say that Bezet wanted to include any of the content about US involvement in the article, merely that his comments in the talk page were promoting his own political leanings and telling a story that, to me, went against the first-hand information and experience that I have with modern day Bolivia. Quoting activities of governments 30-40 years ago does not say anything about the self-determination of the Bolivian people and gives a blank cheque to the transgressions of the MAS government. It's a very different political and social landscape now. Without quoting recent sources from Bolivia itself, it's all just speculation without any understanding of what it going on. Sadly, this seems to apply to a lot of the English language reporting of events. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You both make good arguments. I will respond directly to the context question you both raise: elsewhere on Wikipedia, when people comment on situations it is a good thing to ask 'who are they and why are they relevant to this subject' - including them otherwise can be UNDUE or be introducing the opinion of someone unqualified to give it - if an outside source establishes their relevance, this is generally accepted not as SYNTH. We would have to consider in this case if the extent of the connection would be effectively a separate matter to the letter, and thus if attaching the peoples' other backgrounds would be OR. However, simply stating that signatories have an interest in Latin American politics doesn't feel like it goes against policy.
It's a fact that an open letter was published. I would argue that if the names of individual signatories and their positions (e.g. Chomsky positioned as a scholar and an expert) are included, it is due balance to also state that political background. The names do not need to be included, though.
It also seems important to say that the letter came before OAS report. If the letter is getting a write-up, a representative amount of RS comments about it should be included, so that it is more than just the letter as a primary source for existing - which could involve NYT. However, no coverage about the letter should go beyond the needs of the article as a whole.
Saying all this, the current version (if I'm reading the right part), which Crmoorhead seems to approve of, does not seem to include anything that BeŻet was worried about. Included below as a quote, can I ask if this version is generally approved?
An analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) disputed the OAS's preliminary findings and criticized what it called a "politicization of the electoral observation process." The co-director of the think-tank, Mark Weisbrot, stated the OAS showed "no evidence – no statistics, numbers, or facts of any kind" to support its claim of electoral manipulation. CEPR concluded that due to Morales' voter base being in more rural regions, the results from peripheral areas received towards the end of the count were more likely to be in his favour. The New York Times noted, however, that this criticism has "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count".
Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with the above text as is. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

References break[edit]


Subsection on Domestic Policy and New Cabinet[edit]

I have removed this twice already on the grounds that the quoted articles on the appointment of an indigenous free parliament are incorrect. The Guardian article has a disclaimer on its original claim of "indigenous free" that reads "This article was amended on 15 November 2019 to include the fact that more ministers were sworn in at a second ceremony on 14 November 2019, including Martha Yujra Apaza, wearing the traditional pollera skirt, as culture and tourism minister." It is then implied that her inclusion of an indigenous member happened "after an outcry" in the NYT article, but apart from this one line in that article there appears to be no evidence that she was not originally intended for the position or of any supposed outcry. There is also the fact that the Guardian and NYT commented on events were not yet concluded and this is obscured by the article content. [1]There were further ceremonies on the 15th and 18th Nov, including another indigenous representative. [2][3] For what it's worth, indigenous blood is not clear cut in Bolivia - it is a very mixed population and these assertions are being made only by some Western media and not at all by Bolivians. Furthermore, there is not much difference, if any, between the indigenous representation in Morales' cabinet and Áñez'. [4] This article [5] comments that "Morales had different cabinets and in many of them the predominance was of collaborators of middle and upper classes of the main cities of the country" and goes further to note that the new administration, in addition to the wipala, flies a further flag that is representative of the eastern indigenous peoples, which Morales did not do. I would encourage further discussion on this and removal of the disputed narrative of the text in relation to this if there is agreement on the premature and implicit conclusions therein. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been a few days since I asked about this. Since the interim government has at least two indigenous ministers and flies a second indigenous flag in addition to the wiphala, the Guardian article is misleading. There was also a comment about the new head of the army swearing to take orders from Anez with a link that did not even mention the new army commanders, so it was removed. There is no evidence provided to imply that the relationship is anything out of the ordinary for between president and military commanders, and unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, it's dangerous to imply this with the previous wording. Again, as above, there are implications made here that the interim government has a demographic that is wildly different to Morales', which is not true. See the link above to Morales' government. Both had business leaders, both had a less than average (although not no) indigenous representation when compared to the population. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crmoorhead: It has been a few days since I asked about this See WP:NODEADLINE. There is no need to be hasty when making changes which you already know are disputed. It's also good practice to ping editors who you know may be interested in specific changes.
Edits that are based on original research (e.g., Wikipedia editors comparing Áñez's cabinet to Morales's cabinet) are not appropriate, and the content you deleted was well-sourced. There is nothing wrong with adding more information, but please stop removing information that is sourced and relevant. I have re-added it while retaining your improvements. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
But that is exactly my point, it is not well sourced. The appointment of the indigenous member was not a "later change" as the text states as it is the role of a new president to assign ministers, just as it is in many countries. These cabinet appointments were not finished by the time the Guardian wrote its article even after the disclaimer was added. Hualla is also indigenous. "Initial cabinet" is wrong as the initial cabinet was chosen over 5 days. The initial cabinet contained at least two indigenous members. I think quoting wikipedia policies to defend a point of view which is factually wrong is not good practice. Number one policy is it is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, even using others as proxy. The fact that Morales had not more indigenous representation and was "predominantly made up of middle and upper class from the main cites" is extremely relevant. I provided links for these statements, which are not under dispute. The guardian's statement is extremely disputable, especially in the light of further inclusion of indigenous flags and activities not stated here. Furthermore, you keep adding back in the statement that the head of the military pledged to "take orders" from the president. I mentioned above that the reference does not contain this information. Again, not well sourced. This is multiple reverts you have made on the same text. Every time I made the change, I explained why the sources, or source, is poor. The statement "both Morales and Anez cabinets were composed of business leaders and a less than average representation of indigenous peoples" or however I put it is not original research, it is true and backed up by the sources I gave. What is the objection to this as a factual piece of neutral pov content? Crmoorhead (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crmoorhead: I took the liberty of moving your comment here, as it seemed to be addressed to me. Feel free to move it back if that was where you intended to put it.
The Guardian source is not the only source that states that the "initial" cabinet did not contain any indigenous members. See also: [18] [19]. I don't see any dispute in reliable sources about this. If you think it's more accurate, we could reword it as "her initial cabinet appointments" or something, rather than the "initial cabinet", but I don't see a justification for removing it wholesale, as you've done.
The source cited does in fact say that the military pledged to take orders from Áñez, which is why I re-added it. Please read it again carefully.
Comparing Morales' and Áñez's cabinets is OR because it constitutes editorial synthesis, or combining two sources to make a point not made in either. You would need to provide a source that says their cabinets were similar in order to implement this change. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how you don't see the problem with the statement that the initial cabinet is indigenous free. The Guardian and NYT are dated 13th Nov, where the first line of the paragraph directly contradicts this with undeniable evidence that the cabinet had not yet been fully appointed. Do you understand what the cabinet is? It seems not. The Buenos Aires times makes no mention of even one indigenous member, so you see the problem with that article? When the cabinet is appointed, there are at least two indigenous members. The three articles here are demonstrably false statements - it's easy to check who the cabinet is and when they were appointed. There are photos of them being sworn in on each date. Why are we including false statements in this section? NYT say there was a backlash that somehow affected the decision, but there is no evidence of it I have seen from Bolivia. The Buenos Aires Times says there was a storm about tweets in 2013, but that is not related to the appointment of the cabinet. It is an attempt to link it, but it is not based in fact. Not a single tweet or comment or photo shows this backlash existed, never mind, as the NYT claim, forced changes in the intended government. This section lacks neural POV to the point that it ignores factual evidence over the premature judgement of these publications. Again, check the dates. The whole section has an agenda to set up the story that the interim government is racist and fueled by the military, despite having no more diverse makeup or any different relationship with the military when compared to Morales government. Do you dispute the makeup of Morales government or have evidence to imply any difference between how the military is between governments? That is what the article suggests, lacking neutrality. If you paid attention to any news from Bolivia, rather than second hand information from selected publications that are more than a month old, you would see how the indigenous people have been represented and respected by the new government. This is simply because they are the nation of Bolivia - it's a no brainer if you know the country. Many indigenous people are against Morales and MAS, and many people the interim government too, but the president has engaged with them in a respectful way and flies two indigenous flags as symbols of inclusivity. How does this square with the tenor of the Guardian's opinion? Could it be that these are, at best, unreliable, and at worst downright false? Again, Wikipedia's number one function is as an encyclopedia, not to regurgitate provably inaccurate material to support a political standpoint without proper understanding. The statements about Áñez's cabinet ARE making a point - they explicitly say she has no or too few indigenous people. If this point is weakened by the fact that she is not radically different that Morales government, it casts doubt on that point and those conclusions. I tried removing them altogether and I tried countering them with alternative evidence. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, changing the way we describe the appointments is fine by me. What's not on is removing sourced and relevant information because you personally think that it's wrong — I recommend having a look at WP:GREATWRONGS. Your statements about trying to "counter" views that you disagree with are worrying in this regard. We go by reliable sources, not by editors' opinions, frustrating as that may be in some cases. You're entitled to a personal opinion that, e.g., Áñez's cabinet is very similar to Morales's, but for that to be in cluded on Wikipedia, a reliable source would need to say something along the lines of "Áñez's cabinet is very similar to Morales's". If you have one, go ahead and add it, but be careful of synthesis. I've restored the material about the new commander, as it's relevant to the section and supported by the source, but left out the quotation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If the claims about the initial cabinet, not fully appointed until 18th Nov, but written about on 13th Nov are the sole characterisation of the government provided by Wikipedia, then I think there is grounds for removal, updating or reevaluation of those sources, especially when there is contradictory evidence that is more recent. Once sources are there, it should not be the case that they are there forever as with current events it is possible that initial characterisations are wrong. It's physically impossible for them to make an assessment about a process that was not yet complete, so those are my grounds for objection on those being our sole resources. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
My "opinion" that Morales cabinet was similar is not an an opinion. How can the makeup of a government cabinet be a matter of opinion? I can't have an opinion of whether these people have the job or not. They are on public record as being part of his government, just as all members of his governments have been. I provided a link to a major Bolivian newspaper showing the full membership of Morales' latest cabinet and a statement from the NYT saying that Morales government was composed "predominantly of the middle and upper classes from the main cities" (relevant to saying Áñez's included "prominent Bolivian business people") and you removed both citing "original research". I think that is along the lines of "Áñez's cabinet is very similar to Morales's". Crmoorhead (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
When I heard about the heads of the military being replaced, I asked the Bolivians I know if that was normal (because of course it seems odd) and they said that it was something that all new presidents do, the same as electing a new cabinet. Given the implication in several sources that Áñez came to power in a military coup, mentioning the formation of a new military command and saying that the new chief pledged to take orders from her would naturally set alarm bells ringing for the reader. In this context, we must take more care to be neutral. I think that the "domestic policy" should underline what the interim government has done in terms of significant legislation or unusual events. For neutrality, I think that it should be mentioned that all this is perfectly normal according to the Bolivian constitution. Specifically, Article 172 which says that the among the President's duties and obligations are "To designate and substitute the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Commanders of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy" and "To hold the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and to deploy them for the defense, independence and territorial integrity of the state." Article 246 also that states that "The Armed Forces are subordinate to the President of the State and receive their orders administratively through the Minister of Defense as an intermediary, and with respect to technical aspects, from the Commander in Chief."[6] So either we can add in all that extra information, or just accept that this is of no special importance and not quibble about it being removed. There is certainly nobody else reporting on this, despite the context, so why is it so valuable to include? Why do you think it is significant? Crmoorhead (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's physically impossible for them to make an assessment about a process that was not yet complete, so those are my grounds for objection on those being our sole resources. As I have said several times, you're welcome to add additional details, as you've done already. It remains the case that the initial appointment did not contain any indigenous people, and this has given significant weight in multiple reliable sources.
My "opinion" that Morales cabinet was similar is not an an opinion. How can the makeup of a government cabinet be a matter of opinion? What is a matter of opinion is whether that is relevant or noteworthy to include in the article. What you are doing is cobbling together multiple sources, one that says Áñez's cabinet contained prominent businesspeople, and another that says Morales's cabinet contained middle-class and upper-class people from the cities, and trying to use them to say "Áñez's cabinet was similar to Morales's cabinet". That's called synthesis: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
When I heard about the heads of the military being replaced, I asked the Bolivians I know if that was normal (because of course it seems odd) and they said that it was something that all new presidents do, the same as electing a new cabinet. This is original research.
Given the implication in several sources that Áñez came to power in a military coup, mentioning the formation of a new military command and saying that the new chief pledged to take orders from her would naturally set alarm bells ringing for the reader. In this context, we must take more care to be neutral. Neutrality does not mean representing all views, it means representing all views expressed in reliable sources.
I think that it should be mentioned that all this is perfectly normal according to the Bolivian constitution. […] So either we can add in all that extra information, or just accept that this is of no special importance and not quibble about it being removed. Actually, there is no reason to add in any that information unless it has received coverage in reliable sources. (Note that your Bolivian friends don't count unless they have been published in a reliable source.) What the constitution says is not relevant to our article unless a reliable secondary source has made that connection for us. See WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Crmoorhead and Cmonghost: You're far from the only editors doing it, but there's a new wall of text debate here every week. Very little seems to come from such extended arguments, in part because only two or three seem to take part in each of them. If it seems to be coming to this in the future, I kindly request that you ask for third opinion, if just so I can follow the arguments myself. If you want 3O now, could you summarize the arguments quickly for me, and I'll weigh in as best as I can? Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I would welcome a 3O on the "domestic policy" section. I think some issues have been resolved through rewording, but it is still a problem that premature opinions on the anti-indigenous nature of the cabinet are being propped up by reverts. The timeline of the quoted articles (13/14th) compared to the appointments made (up until the 18th) does not match up with the fact there are at least two indigenous members in a cabinet that we have quoted someone as saying "shows no signs that [Áñez] intended to reach across the country's deep political and ethnic divide". If indeed, as is the case, the fully appointed interim cabinet has no less or more representatives of indigenous origin or the business community than under Morales, how does one prove or provide sources to show that there is nothing particularly notable about her cabinet? One of Morales' cabinets can be found on articles like this.[7], but the information can be found on any of his government ministers from the past decade and more of government. This is not the first link I have provided to show why Áñez's cabinet is not notably anti-indigenous. My original edit was "both her and Morales; government contained business leaders and some, although less than average, representation of indigenous people" was reverted. I don't get the accusations of opinion or original research in these circumstances and I think it is a fair comparison. I don't see how two articles making comments about the makeup of the respective governments is synthesis. Similarly, all but a couple of fringe sources are making a political comment about the appointment of a new military or the general swearing to take orders from the President, how does one that show that this is not an unusual and it is the normal motions of government of the constitution, without quoting the said constitution? This says pretty explicitly what the role of the President is in this regard, but is claimed not usable. It just seems that any reference, claim of personal knowledge of Bolivia or evidence I give is reverted by stating policies rather than looking at the evidence to make a reassessment. Crmoorhead (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the above comment by Crmoorhead pretty clearly illustrates the issues at hand here.
  • If indeed, as is the case, the fully appointed interim cabinet has no less or more representatives of indigenous origin or the business community than under Morales, how does one prove or provide sources to show that there is nothing particularly notable about her cabinet? — Crmoorhead would like our article to say that "there is nothing particularly notable about [Áñez's] cabinet" but is unable to find a source that actually does so, and has resorted to synthesis: citing one article about Morales's cabinet, one about Áñez's, and then inserting their own opinion, not found in either source, that the cabinets are similar.
  • Similarly, all but a couple of fringe sources are making a political comment about the appointment of a new military or the general swearing to take orders from the President — Here NYT and The Guardian are referred to as "fringe sources".
  • how does one that show that this is not an unusual and it is the normal motions of government of the constitution, without quoting the said constitution? Again, Crmoorhead would like our article to state that Áñez's reorganization of the military was not remarkable, but has no source that does so, so is attempting to pull in a primary source and interpret it.
  • It just seems that any reference, claim of personal knowledge of Bolivia or evidence I give is reverted by stating policies rather than looking at the evidence to make a reassessment. — Not all references have been reverted, only ones that are improperly used (e.g., for the purposes of synthesis). "Claims of personal knowledge" are also known as original research and are not usable on Wikipedia, as I've already explained. Policies like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are important to maintain the reliability of the encyclopedia.
Contrary to the suggestion above that I'm reverting all of the changes, I have actually only removed material where it violates policy, and I have only restored material that is relevant and well-sourced. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crmoorhead and Cmonghost: Reading these, I agree that some of Crmoorhead's preferred versions are SYNTH-y: using a source describing Anez's cabinet and another about Morales' to cite a sentence saying that neither are abnormal doesn't work. You can use those sources to say that both cabinets are similar in make up, preferably with a bit of detail directly from each source. Equally, removing information to re-establish something now outdated needs at least an update tag before consensus on incorporating the new information is reached. Reading the sources, I think that the current version of the text in the article is good - it could note that there were only 2 indigenous members in Morales' cabinet, but I'd be careful about how to source it. If you can't find a source that connects it to the current crisis or compares with Anez, it would be safest to just give the statement of 'Morales' government had X' at the end of the part. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I agree with most of this, but would it not still be synthesis to say that the cabinets are similar in makeup when neither source actually says that? Such a statement would reflect the editor's opinion rather than the content of the sources—both in terms of the judgement of the two cabinets as similar and in terms of the relevance of the comparison to Morales's cabinet in the first place. I also think that if we can't find a source connecting Morales's cabinet to the current crisis, then the safest move is actually not to include it at all. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if a source connecting Morales' cabinet to some of the crisis can be used, only then would the statement be relevant; I feel that including direct information from the sources would mean that wikivoice doesn't need to say 'they are similar', it could say 'Anez has X and Morales also had X'. Based on the if. However, a mention of it neutrally at the end - I find this relevant just from the already established context of this crisis; it involves a transition of power, so the background can be useful. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I am not saying that the Guardian and NYT are fringe sources, but that in this case we are leading the reader to conclusions and implications that can be regarded as fringe or unsubstantiated. With the best intentions, I can only cite my own personal knowledge of the politics of Bolivia (common knowledge in the country) and parts of the Constitution (cited elsewhere in this article) in order to express surprise at how the section reads. Requiring an article to explicitly state that the selection of the cabinet, appointment of new military commanders and the nature of their oath is normal in order to counter the above is pretty unrealistic. If things are unusual, they are commented on, if not, then the appointments are simply recorded as occurring without saying "this is normal", especially if it is not part of the discourse. Do you understand what I am saying? We are not giving any weight to any of the many resources reporting these activities and yet failing to note that there is anything unusual about any of it. I urge for further and more recent information to backup the implied narrative here, preferably one a little closer to home or quoting a witness or an expert in the area. Given the history of the region, the military renewal and oaths would be extremely alarming and relevant if they were out of the ordinary. There is a difference between saying "the Head of the Military swore to obey Áñez" and "the Head of the Military swore to obey Áñez as the constitutionally designated Commander in Chief". Which is true and which is more neutral?Crmoorhead (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand that it seems strange to mention, explain, and cite, when things are normal. Except we do often do that on Wikipedia, even with US-related articles, especially when reliable sources mention it. If you can find better sources, or propose an alternative phrasing to be discussed, please do. That may be easier than debating over theoretical points at this point, where it seems to be going nowhere? Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I am still relatively new to the Wikipedia editing process. My source for them pledging to take orders from Áñez being normal was from the Bolivian constitution, Article 172 which says that the among the President's duties and obligations are "To designate and substitute the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Commanders of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy" and "To hold the position of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and to deploy them for the defense, independence and territorial integrity of the state." Article 246 also that states that "The Armed Forces are subordinate to the President of the State and receive their orders administratively through the Minister of Defense as an intermediary, and with respect to technical aspects, from the Commander in Chief." The above was rejected as being a primary source that I could not use without an intermediate source commenting on this. Áñez refers to herself as being in this role [8] and Morales is described as this in 2012 and 2016. [9][10]. Maybe a sentence stating that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces would be appropriate? As far as military appointments go, it will take a lot of work to show the history of various appointments and whether it is normal or now as I can't find a single resource that lists all the previous incumbents of the positions. I know that Kaliman was appointed in 2018 and in 2016 the top position was held by someone else. They are not commented on in English-language media. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I found some extra information to support the changes in military changes. The military high commmand (all positions) are subject to what is called the "Ley Orgánica de las Fuerzas Armadas (LOFA)" which is a law that sets term limits of 1-2 years subject to the decision of the President. [11] It seems the norm that this is one year as the previous appointments have been 13th Nov 2019 [12] (current), 24th Dec 2018 [13], 11th Dec 2017 [14], 29th Dec 2016 [15], 30th Dec 2015 [16], 18th Dec 2014 [17], 13th Dec 2013 [18] and 3rd Dec 2012 [19]. The names of those in all appointed positions are given in the links. Very few names pop up more than once and none for the same position, feel free to check. The top position was held by, inverse order, Williams Carlos Kaliman Romero (2018), Yamil Octavio Borda (2017), Luis Orlando Ariñez Bazzán (2016), Juan Gonzalo Durán (2015), Omar Jaime Salinas Ortuño (2014), Víctor Baldivieso Haché (2013) and Edwin de la Fuente Jeria (2012) The 2013 appointment citation also specifically mentioned the LOFA and says "The current military authorities were appointed on December 3 of last year [2012] and in accordance with the Organic Law of the Armed Forces, having completed one year of management in in compliance with this law". As I said, this is something well-known in Bolivia that has importance with reference to Áñez appointing new commanders being normal whereas it might not be in other countriesCrmoorhead (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, we can't just take 'the constitution says X' to argue that this definitely happened in this case. And a president by definition is, in most countries, commander-in-chief. That's not the issue. We'd need an actual outside source that either says what happened or that connects the constitution to this instance. Wikipedia can't, that is textbook OR. Similarly, that La Razon source about military changes is just about the change in 2017, which could be used to source the idea that "there is a law that sets term limits of 1-2 years subject to the decision of the President" (and nothing else). Again, saying 'I checked and nobody seems to have lasted more than a year' is OR. Sadly, "something well-known in Bolivia" isn't usable as a source, as much as things like that could help. It's nothing against you, and it's not trying to hide information, it's just being able to verify claims. None of this is really usable, that's the problem. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Trim and summarize pre-resignation material that belongs in 2019 Bolivian protests[edit]

It was my understanding from this discussion that events leading up to the Morales resignation would be handled in 2019 Bolivian protests, the resignation and subsequent events would be in this article, and an evident resolution to the political crisis—whether it's civil war, new elections, or something else—would be covered in an article as yet unwritten. If I was mistaken, let me put the proposal forward here and now. It's desperately needed, because both articles, especially this one, are swimming in redundancies that make them appear as low quality resources. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean redundancies between the Bolivian Protests article and this one, or within this article? Which ones are you referring to. The Bolivian protests one seems to be a fairly detailed day by day account whereas this article has only short paragraphs on the protests themselves. Can you clarify what parts you want to object to please as both are fairly long articles by now. I would say that the political crisis is more general than the protests, especially as time goes on, as the protests lasted around 4 weeks and the details on the elections, audits and interim government don't strictly fall into the protests category. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This article needlessly repeats information from previous articles. There is so much background rehash that the government resignation isn't reached until Section 2.5. This takes up roughly 10,000 characters in a very long—and continuously expanding—article. (The glut even repeats the infobox photo from the Protests article for no apparent reason.) To fix this, the "Background" section should be merged with the first 3 subsections of "Events", and significantly condensed into summary style. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Previous articles? As I said, "political crisis" is much more general than "protests" and includes concurrent events that don't fall under the protests such as the OAS investigation and the resignations of the government. The political crisis is likely to span the six months until and including the next elections, although there will likely be need for another article on the activities of the interim government. There is a lot of more recent political events that are not being reported on much in Western media as the topic isn't as hot as it was a few weeks ago, but obviously these things are still progressing at speed in Bolivia itself. The government resignation in 2.5 requires some previous sections as the situation is complex and it pertains to why many do not consider it a military coup. I did move a large chunk from the background to a section in "Events" already and there might be more that can be done there. The material relating to the audit spans from 31st Oct to 4th Dec, so I put it before the government resignations as it began before the 10 Nov resignations, but it also encompasses a longer time period. I don't think the background section is too long now, and I don't know if there is a taboo against duplicate material between articles. If there is sufficient duplicate material, perhaps it needs its own page? Crmoorhead (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

coup d'etat once more[edit]


I actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit though, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d'état in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments about this already, I don't want to repeat them here, the following tablet analyses the situation anyway and tries to compress these arguments). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer is:YES:

2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia.

In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d'état and (through the question mark) point out that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d'état (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without being threatened...). The change in the title is thereafter the only that respects at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia (which is actually definitely NOT being respected with the "political crisis" title) and respects also consensus.

A comment about the Tablet: the references are actually a combination of comments and references. I couldn't find a way to separate them, without making it extreme difficult to read the tablet. The tablet should be simple, in order to make the arguments easy to see.

Comments and
↓Part of the Definition of a Coup d'état→ Yes
Not clear
[20] There were ways to solve the problem with legal meanings which were not used
[21] The military participated in the act (✔) (✔)
[22] The government members were intimitated
[23] The new regime was based on the army (✔) (✔)
[24] The new regime arrested (oder tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parlament
[25] The new regime violated the constitution (✔) (✔)
[26] The new regime violated human rights
[27] The new regime tried to suppress the mind of its opposition
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^ The opposition had at least one legal way to defend its position: accept the proposal of Morales for new elections. It is important to note that Morales had already accepted to do these repeated elections under the control of the international committee, a commitee the opposition itself had asked. Still the opposition demanded (and imposed) the resignation of the legal government ("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.).
  21. ^ how can it be, that something is and not is? well in this case it can: the army, at least during the act itself, didn't use it's weapons to abolish the legal government, on the other hand, it didn't protect the legal government, as it should, so it was a passive participation. The chief of the armed forces asked Morales to resign.("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.)
  22. ^ It is true, that the members of the Government and related Institutions that resigned, claimed that they were intimidated and harassed. I don't know if they brought evidences for these claims (although I actually believe them), so I let this as a true claim in the list. It is though a fact, that they found refugee in the Embassy of Mexico. ("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.)On the other hand it is true that the Minister of internal affairs announced, that he would arrest the Parliament members of the Party with the absolute majority in the parliament (still belonging to the same party like Morales), if they didn't consent to the decisions of the new regime. "Interim Bolivian Government Threatens Arrest of Opposition Legislators". 18 November 2019. "Journalists & politicians from Morales' party threatened with sedition arrests as Bolivia purges socialist elements". RT International. This is of course an intimidation.
  23. ^ I cannot really take a position here. Actually not more than four days later it proved to be, that the new regime was actually based on the army (Clarí "Bolivia: el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas". (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-11-17.)(Liberal, El. "Agreden en Londres a ministra de Hong Kong en medio de protesta - El Liberal". (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-11-17.)("Bolivia: el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas". Retrieved 17 November 2019.) On the other hand it is true,that the police took part in demonstrations against Morales Collyns, Dan (November 9, 2019). "Bolivian police in La Paz join 'mutiny' against Evo Morales". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on November 10, 2019. Retrieved November 10, 2019. (often denouncing his people and his ethnicity Prashad, Vijay (November 13, 2019). "A Bolivian crisis" – via"When the US Supports It, It's Not a Coup". Common Dreams. Archived from the original on 13 November 2019. Retrieved 14 November 2019.)
  24. ^ very few members of the Parlament were arrested but on the other hand, some members of the Governement fleed and many of the members of the election committee (more than 38) were arrested. (Krauss, Clifford (2019-11-13). "Bolivia's Interim Leader Pledges to 'Reconstruct Democracy'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("Clashes rock Bolivia after senator becomes leader". 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("Bolivia's Morales: Some lawmakers barred from assembly". Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("The Latest: Argentina urges Bolivians to talk, keep peace". AP NEWS. 11 November 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2019.)
  25. ^ ("Clashes rock Bolivia as new interim leader challenged". The Washington Post. 13 November 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2019.)
  26. ^ ("Bolivia's leader accused of stoking divisions after Morales' exit". Financial Times. 19 November 2019.)
  27. ^ ("Bolivia's leader accused of stoking divisions after Morales' exit". Financial Times. 19 November 2019.)

Short history of the recent political situation in Bolivia[edit]

OR politics/ NOTAFORUM

This is one more template that tries to set facts apart from claims. I think there are two things not mentioned in the article, that are not at all irrelevant to our topic: Number 11 to 13 and number 25. Any references that support or contradict the analysis are of course welcome.

and comments
Topic Fact Claim Don't
[1] A referendum took place to the question, if Morales could candidate for a third time. Morales lost the referendum with a rather small difference: 48,7% to 51,3%.
[2] Immediately before the referendum there was a mud campaigne from media of the opposition. Theme of the campagne was the accusation, that Morales had a liaison with a younger woman and a child with a her.
[3] The child never appeared, the woman was condemned for financial flaws.
[4] There was no court against the media
[5] Morales lost the referendum because of the campaigne
[6] A group of Morales party made a request at the constitutional court to still give him permission to candidate
[7] The court was not independend but unter control of the party of Morales
[8] The courts decision was based on the fact, that the constitution of bolivia ( Art. 13 Abs. IV) demands respect of human rights conventions, specially of the american convention of human rights, which states (Art. 23) the right of every citizen to candidate for presidancy without putting a limit
[9] Bolivia has the second largest natural gas reserves in south America
[10] Morales governement inhibited large companies to use this reserves only for their own profit and used most of the win for the good of the people (like Norway)
[11] Bolivia has also large Lithium reserves
[12] Lithium is an important metal for the evolving "green" industry. Ist important for reusable batteries.
[13] Morales canceled shortly after the elections and shortly before his fall at least one contract (with a German company) concerning lithium, because they gave a small percentage for the people
[14] On the elections of Okt. 2019 the party of Morales had a majority (but for the first time after 14 years no absolut majority)
[15] The difference to the second party was more than 10%, something that means, no second round is needed
[16] Immediately after the elections there were confirmed irregularities
[17] There were irregularities in the elections
[18] The party of Morales was responsible for these irregularities
[19] there was a coup d etat against Morales
[20] The new regime doesn't represent at all the people of Bolivia
[21] The new regime claims to speak in the name of the catholic church (without of course asking the pope)
[22] The new regime made already decisions that suppress human rights
[23] You can actually call these decisions as the beginning of a civil war
[24] Almost all of the deaths took place after Morales government was replaced from the new regime
[25] Short after the beginning of the crisis that led to the fall of Morales, the shares of a company, that has to do with lithium, topped
  1. ^ "Bolivia passes law to allow Morales to run for fourth term". Reuters. 26 September 2015.. I don't understand spanish, but I suppose you can find more sources about the event in the sources of the following wikipedia article. I would be glad, if someone could put the right sources in the right position.w:es:Gabriela_Zapata
  2. ^ "Bolivia passes law to allow Morales to run for fourth term". Reuters. 26 September 2015.. I don't understand spanish, but I suppose you can find more sources about the event in the sources of the following wikipedia article. I would be glad, if someone could put the right sources in the right position.w:es:Gabriela_Zapata
  3. ^ "Bolivia passes law to allow Morales to run for fourth term". Reuters. 26 September 2015.. I don't understand spanish, but I suppose you can find more sources about the event in the sources of the following wikipedia article. I would be glad, if someone could put the right sources in the right position.w:es:Gabriela_Zapata
  4. ^ "Bolivia passes law to allow Morales to run for fourth term". Reuters. 26 September 2015.. I don't understand spanish, but I suppose you can find more sources about the event in the sources of the following wikipedia article. I would be glad, if someone could put the right sources in the right position.w:es:Gabriela_Zapata. An extra source here would be the register of every court case in Bolivien, but I don't know spanish, so I cannot find it.
  5. ^ actually I believe that this is a fact, but have no reference, like a survey or the same, to support this. So, this is why I put it as a claim. Even if there is a survey, you have to find out if it s reliable... If someone has a source about this, please put it here.
  6. ^ "Bolivia's President Evo Morales to Run Again Despite Referendum Ruling it Out". The Guardian. December 18, 2016. Archived from the original on December 19, 2016. Retrieved December 19, 2016.
  7. ^ there are only claims in the newspapers and no investigation took place (or was even asked from the opposition?)
  8. ^ Tribunal Constitucional permite a Evo Morales reelegirse para un cuarto mandato. El presidente de Bolivia podrá participar en las elecciones de 2019 después de que se suspendieran los artículos de la Constitución que prohibían la reelección. In: El País, 29. November 2018.
  9. ^ Webber, Jeffrey R. (2011). From Rebellion to Reform in Bolivia: Class Struggle, Indigenous Liberation, and the Politics of Evo Morales. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1608461066.
  10. ^ Sivak, Martín (2010). Evo Morales: The Extraordinary Rise of the First Indigenous President of Bolivia. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-62305-7.
  11. ^ Anlauf, Axel (2016). "Greening the imperial mode of living? Socio- ecological (in)justice, electromobility, and lithium mining in Argentina". In Pichler, Melanie; Staritz, Cornelia; Küblböck, Karin; Plank, Christina; Raza, Werner; Ruiz Peyré, Fernando (eds.). Fairness and Justice in Natural Resource Politics.Ellsworth Dickson (2017). "South Americs'a prospective - The Lithium Triangle". Resource World. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  12. ^ "Disposable Batteries - Choosing between Alkaline and Lithium Disposable Batteries". Archived from the original on 6 January 2014. Retrieved 10 October 2013."Battery Anodes > Batteries & Fuel Cells > Research > The Energy Materials Center at Cornell". Archived from the original on 22 December 2013. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
  13. ^ FAZ. It is also interesting to cite the cited words of one the companies members that was interviewed: "the last word was still not said FAZ
  14. ^ there is actually absolute no report that claims the opposite. See please all relative references in the article about the elections and the polls before and after it.
  15. ^ The elections were canceled after some days on grounds of cheating, so there is no clear answer to this question
  16. ^ OAS had to this point nothing more than evidence, no proof
  17. ^ the commitee that did the control was also approved by the party of Morales
  18. ^ The inverstigations just started, so we don't have any proof about this until now. Maybe ist true, maybe not. Its very doubtfull, if the investigations will be independent under the actual government. In the recent history is the case of a trojan not exactly rare - see for example how the second world war started
  19. ^ this is a discussion in another template
  20. ^ the new Governor belongs to a party that has less than 6% of the votes. See again please all the relevant references in the article about these elections and the polls before and after it
  21. ^ As far as I know, the Pope has taken no position to this issue until now.
  22. ^ giving the army the ability to kill without getting in danger to be accused of murder or excessive use of power in "extreme" situations {Cite web|url= el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas|last=Clarí||language=es|access-date=2019-11-17}}Liberal, El. "Agreden en Londres a ministra de Hong Kong en medio de protesta - El Liberal". (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-11-17."Bolivia: el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas". Retrieved 17 November 2019.
  23. ^ My opinion is actually that this is a fact, it's an open attack against the right of the people to react. But I still wanted to put it as a theme for discussion, maybe in another template
  24. ^ 2 deaths before the 10th of November, 21 one after. See please the relevant references in the article about protest in Bolivia
  25. ^ (tesla shares) I don't claim here, that this was the reason for the situation. Nobody except very few persons can really know this. But even if it's totally irrelevant to the situation, it's really interesting to note how the financial market reacts to political crises, dictatorships or whatsoever

I should also write somewhere, that the reach regions want to separate from the poor. And that in these regions there is a strong representation of ethnic groups of colonialism forces.

It is also important to point out, that Morales is an Apu Mallku. Although the translation of this term in the english pages is often "king", it has actually very little to do with this notion as we know it in western countries, as this title is given to a person from its people and is no permanent title: an Apu Mallku is no longer one, when his people think he doesn't deserve it. It reminds a little bit on the notion of the leader analyzed by pierre Clastres in his book about the tribes in Amazons. Before Morales three Mallkus had to leave this position in less than 4 years...

Pretty much all this stuff is unusable as it is opinion. Far from being recent, a lot of it is trying to justify why Morales lost the referendum 3 years ago and the decision of the Constitutional court. It's seen as undemocratic because that was what the referendum was for and he was the one who constructed the Constitution in 2009. He is seen as changing the rules to suit himself. By 2019 he had already served more than the two full terms according to the Constitution and the objections were not only solely based on the term limits, but rather on corruption and coercion within the stagnated MAS government. The natural resources as being a supposed motivation for a coup does not really enter into it and needs referencing. Many sources eg [1] state that the lithium is not so important a motivator. It is much more economical to get lithium elsewhere and there is not a shortage of alternatives. All of your other comments date to events up until the first week of the interim government and, even had it been backed up by sources, is not recent. By your own admission, you can't read Spanish. There are ample sources from Bolivia such as La Razon, Pagina Siete, Los Tiempos, El Deber etc that give more information than what is reported in the rest of the world. Being strongly connected with Bolivia and having lived there for a time during the last two years, I can testify that there is a tendency to oversimplify and inject a Western bias in order to interpret the events there. People fit the facts to match their opinions rather than the other way round. Military coups happened in Bolivia and elsewhere with US backing around 30 years ago - it is not appropriate to lift and apply a template from history to the current day. They have a more acute sense of their own history than you do and many safeguards have been legislated against to prevent dictatorships and military juntas from reoccurring. These include limiting terms on the president and the leadership of the military. Most European sources have no interest in Bolivia, generally speaking and the reporting in the wake of Morales' resignation is rather chaotic and at odds with how things were being reported in Bolivia itself from any number of sources. Morales' is a hero of the Western left and distant observers have a tendency to ignore the problems with the country while at the same time undermining the interim government any way they can without having read a page of sources from the country itself or having been there. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, saying that this table is trying to support Morales from a romantic "left" point of view. So there could be of course much of bias. On the other hand, this is also the case for you (from the other side). So let's stay by the facts and see, which of the things reported here are unsupported or really irrelevant. Please take the points one to one and support your position. The fact that you have connections to Bolivia and maybe are against Morales, should drive you to a more careful approach, than just rejecting referenced facts as "opinion". This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid and I hope that you will too.

You are also arguing, that the Media are currently reporting corruption and so on. This is still not without problems. You know quite well, that if this is a dictatorship, it will of course not allow media to express their free mind and it will of course try to corroborate the reputation of the party of Morales (this even if it is NOT a dictatorship) in order to become as much support from the population as possible. As far as I know, there were media, that belonged to MAS. Is it allowed for them to express their opinion and what is their opinion? Even if they are allowed to express their mind, it would be quite risky to mention any of the media after the decree of Anez (even she now took it back), for reasons I hope you understand. And about corruption: I already red in another article, that the government of Morales had tried to bring a law against corruption in police and army, which he then had to drop because of the reactions of these institutions. Is this true or not? Do you have Spanish sources about this theme? Or do you find this theme also irrelevant?

One more question: I read in the news, that this should be an interim government caring only about making new elections. I red though, that they are making also laws concerning financial issues and working with companies, as well themes about exterior relations. Is this true and are they allowed to do this? Thanks! Yomomo (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Yomomo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not from any side. The Bolivian media is certainly reporting on events that are harmful to Añez and some matters cannot be disputed, such as government appointments, the results of external investigations, Bolivian legal procedures, pieces written before the events of the election and direct quotes and interviews from people not aligned with Anez. That you are saying that the media belongs to MAS is evidence that you believe that MAS is corrupt, so why defend them too strongly? Bear in mind, however, that plenty of the MAS politicians are good people and they want to see corruption within their own party purged as much as anyone else. MAS still have a plurality in both chambers of government. The state newspaper was called Cambio under MAS and the state owned TV was boliviatv, but these are not sources I use. These are also one of the central areas of corruption being investigated, specifically the Minister for Communication called Lopez and the Neurona scandal. What these people are being charged with is still relevant to the discourse, whether they are found guilty or not, but there is not much question that there was a lot going on. I don't know about charges being dropped, but there were certainly accusations of corruption, and convictions, in the military and the police in the past. There was also the same in government and there is a transparency commission that is dedicated to that (ironically, also being investigated). I don't know about any of the financial issues or with companies. They cannot really do this, however, as MAS control both houses of parliament and everything must pass through them. Some things like foreign policy are more under control of the ministers because their purview is described by existing law. Quite a few of the corruption charges involve state owned companies which are now under control of the interim government. The new people in charge are finding huge gaps and unexplained irregularities in accounts. Allegedly, anyway. But ENTEL is saying there is a 1.2 billion BOB gap in accounts and the gas people are saying that the reserves were being deliberately overstated by 15%. People that work for state companies found deductions from their pay and were forced to attend MAS events. The last is one I knew about that was only reported in the media since the directors of the company ended up being investigated for corruption. I have relevant links for all these, but it is a major undertaking to retrieve them all and will be done in a separate article if it is relevant. The interim government will rightly be subject to the same scrutiny over their actions, especially the deaths, as nobody in a government position right now will be there in six months. Morales is somewhat ubiquitous in Bolivia. His face is everywhere, from huge billboards at every Teleferico station, to the sides of milk cartons, but the tide has been turning against him for some time and a lot of his own party members are not interested in furthering his cause. Eva Copa, president of the Senate, and the El Alto MAS collective are not attending his convocation in Argentina, for example. The process of change can continue without him as it is more important than one person. Feel free to explore these issues in your own time though as this is not the place to discuss personal experience. I should not give such a lengthy reply, TBH.Crmoorhead (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Corruption charges article[edit]

While we have some statements from Murillo, arrests and arrest warrants in this article, there is a lot going on in Bolivia and a lot of detail on what these alleged charges are and who are persons of interest in terms of corruption and, to a lesser extent, terrorism, sedition and coersion. There is enough for a new article, but I am not sure on the etiquette on creating one. At the moment, these are just accusations but the details may be relevant and as the weeks and months go on I expect a lot more evidence and details on trials will come to light. All Bolivian newspapers are publishing daily on the development of these charges. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OAS Report[edit]

I am surprised that there has been little discussion on the Organization of American States report, since it has come out upon analysis that there are quite a few problems with the way this report was done and handled, and with a few congressmen even sending a letter to OAS for clarity. [2] [3]

Hooded-wanderer (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


There has been quite a lot of discussion of this in this talk page and also the section "Allegations of electoral fraud and OAS audit" in the article. The OAS were invited to investigate the allegations of fraud by Morales who said he would stand by the results. Mexico was one of the countries overseeing the OAS audit and the audit itself involved 18 different nationalities of observers including many political allies of Morales. The CEPR's original criticism and the public letter came out before the final report was released. Quite aside from questions on the organisation's neutrality, they are unlikely to back down on this issue but they include a disclaimer saying "This analysis is not meant to serve as a validation of the electoral results themselves. Rather, it is an analysis of the OAS’s actual findings and of the neutrality and rigor of the audit itself." As I mentioned elsewhere, the CEPR have no access to the resources and interviews used to perform an audit. The beginning of the OAS report sets out the problems with the elections in order of seriousness from page 3 [1] (in Spanish). As far as I can tell, the existence of a server allowing access to results, the existence of someone who had root level access to that server remotely and the accessing of that server during the count (and in fact after the main count had been stopped) is fairly clear with evidence. But there are a lot of things to see in that section that I won't list here, mainly that those in charge deliberately lied to the public. The opinion of the CEPR has shifted from saying there was no need to question the results or the validity of the election to saying that the OAS didn't do it properly and that there should exist another organisation (perhaps more politically allied with them) to perform such audits. Regardless, no such organisation exists. The Spanish-speaking members of the OAS have not said anything explicitly to question the audit findings as far as I know, the main point of contention being that Morales should have been allowed to continue serving as President until 2020 and new elections. This is something that the OAS and Amalgro also said, because they wanted some kind of continuity, but events in Bolivia were really out of control of anyone and things have been relatively calm for 6 weeks now. The second link you provide is dated 25th Nov, again before the release of the final report and the link to the letter they sent leads to "page not found". Including their response to the full report is probably pertinent, but their disclaimer is also relevant, as is the mainstream acceptance of their results by member states. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^