Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 12 November 2019

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

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

---

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

Support I have to say this is a very interesting proposition and not one that popped into my head. "Military memorandum" is a good way to look at it - that it was decision taken by a civilian government, but only after a military demand. It is more or less proven by this point that the resignations were triggred by the armed forces' declarations, and were seeing this being cited as a military intervention not only by Morales' allies, but also neutral and western countries, such as Spain. Meanwhile, I also agree that while "government resignation" is something that happened, it strips the act itself of the context in which it took place. At the same time, "military memorandum" avoids the use of the word "coup", which I know has been very contentious and was the cause of much dispute. I believe that this proposition is NPOV compliant enough, as it avoids language that either praises or condemns the event. Though I'd definitely be interested to hear other editors thoughts on the subject. PS. One issue, though, could be in finding sources, which reliably reffer to the situation as such. Goodposts (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Against We should just follow what the sources say. This takes the contention out of it all. Wiki has a list of RSs for news articles there are a couple of others that can be added like NYT, and we say what they say. That way it's entirely straight forward. I'm also reticent to change the name with such a recent event. I think it's better to let it play out, then the result will be more clear, and well sourced. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Against the request of resignation that bolivian armed forces sent to Evo Morales was not an "ultimatum" but a "suggestion", which is a legal atributtion the military have. The article 20 of the Law N°1405 (Organic law of bolivian armed forces) states:

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

If we analize de facts strictly, the bolivian armed forces acted according to law.--Elelch (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment this title "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" seems too spesific as the title indicates in favor of military opinion, which violates NPOV. The current title "Evo Morales government resignation" also too spesific only for Evo Morales government and not about other politicians. For me, this title should be 2019 Bolivian political crisis because more politicians and officials other than Evo Morales government also resigned as well. For example police Chief. For me, 2019 Bolivian political crisis seems to more neutral. Indonesian Wikipedia has the article about it (Krisis pasca-pemilu Bolivia 2019). But this title, Along with 2019 Bolivian protests should be separated, like 2013–2014 Thai political crisis and 2014 Thai coup d'état there are two different things despite related events. This is a reason why you should request like this:

2019 Bolivian political crisis

I think it is my opinion about the article title. Hanafi455 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. The English version of this article now place under Article title dispute tag POV-title same as Spanish version of Wikipedia does as there was a strong disagreement over what the article title was. There was a coup, resignation, memorandum, etc. Many of editors were disagree. I think English and Spanish Wikipedias are only two versions of Wikipedia whose the article title is disputed. But not for French, Portuguese or Persian version does because there are simply translate from Spanish or English version with local sources. But because English was global language, the discussion is very interesting for editors around the world. Hanafi455 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Move to 2019 Bolivian political crisis This move request is falling off the edge of the world, and the clock is ticking. Let's be honest, no consensus will emerge about any military coup, at least until it becomes blatantly irrefutable. But the current "government resignation" title is way too narrow and bland. Let's move it to "political crisis" - which it clearly is, because there are at least two opposing factions and a general air of national instability - and then later we can debate more specific terms. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad the title has been changed to "political crisis". Now as to "military memorandum: it has a certain logic to it, but most English readers won't understand the phrase. Outside of Wikipedia, I can find no such usage. If another title change is sought, it would be better to use a more familiar term for the military's action. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedurally move back to the status quo (coup) before moving to 2019 Bolivian military memorandum: Evo said since the beginning of protest that had there been any evidence of fraud he would launch a re-election. So of course he is endorsing a reelection. However what happened is the military blatantly ask Evo and MAS members to resign, which is, by definition, a coup for sure. Somebody broke the status quo of the article and unilaterally renamed it from a coup to a resignation, which is the problem we face right now. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Political crisis is an aftermath of the memorandum and should be written in a different article. This article should focus on memorandum. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The "status quo" which existed for a few hours, you mean. 199.247.47.19 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course. The Wikipedia policy on status quo does not depend on how long the it lasts. If we do not procedurally move back it would be an endorse of the vandalism done by the one who AFAIK has already been banned from editing Wikipedia. Albeit the fact that right now there's no enough evidence to call this a genuine coup and the fact that memorandum is more neutral, this procedure should not be omitted. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I changed it to the current title (look, still here) and, besides having the most unofficial votes at that point, it also got a lot of positive responses from uninvolved editors. I'd argue if there's a status quo, it's the current title. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment 2019 Bolivian Military memorandum: this title violates NPOV as the article only explains the broad issue with military opinion. Evo Morales government resignation is better title, but is too bland because only explains resignation of Evo Morales and Its government while not mentioned other officials and politicians that resigned

I think, this article needs neutral name to accompained both left and right viewpoints about political situations in Bolivia. Hanafi455 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the "military" title. Places too much emphasis on the military's statement when the subject of the article is the resignation. Support 2019 Bolivian Political Crisis as this covers the broader topic. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 06:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the military memorandum title. Its too narrow. Fraud reports and the elections audits are part of this too. Also oppose coup, it is not used by reliable sources. --MaoGo (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Against the BobNesh opinion. because the title is too narrow to describe broader political turmoil in Bolivia and that title violates NPOV. Why not 2019 Bolivian political crisis? That title is more neutral than current and requested title. Hanafi455 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How does 2019 Bolivian coup d'état violate NPOV? The military forced Morales out of the country and installed an unelected leader. Seems like it's unequivocally a coup, and I'm not really sure why you'd use the more vague 2019 Bolivian political crisis instead. That said, both are more accurate than the current title Evo Morales government resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• Oppose memorandum. The memorandum is just a document, so all that would belong would be coverage of the document itself, the lead-up to its creation, and its effects. The article's current focus is on the event with ancillary coverage of the document, but if the page were renamed, it would need to focus on the document with ancillary coverage of the event. Compare Zimmermann Telegram with American entry into World War I, a document that prompted an event; if there were only one article, it would probably be on American entry. The document shouldn't be the focus of an article unless it gets a lot of coverage that needs to be split out of the event article. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposed or 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Ralbegen (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment This discussion is very interesting because I create the Indonesian Wikipedia article about it. The content is exactly same as in English despite still incomplete, but the title was very different than other languages. You can see that article on this link [1]. This title is more exactly like "Bolivian governmental crisis" or "Bolivian political crisis". After i create that article on Indonesian Wikipedia, i think that the latter title "2019 Bolivian political crisis" was more suitable and neutral because it is focused of broader topics, not just about Military memorandum which forced Morales to resign. Hanafi455 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Coup" is inherently violating neutrality, since it is contested and controversial. I believe it is misleading to refer to this as a coup as the election fraud, and the fact the new president is not military, complicates the image of a coup.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as the average Wikipedia reader will have no idea what a "military memorandum" is, and thus interested readers are less likely to ever find this page. Axedel (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - has that term been used anywhere other than Turkey. I agree with the others who suuggest "2019 Bolivian political crisis" -- Beardo (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the title should be changed to something else, but definitely not this. The military "suggestion" is only part of this article, and not the main focus. DinoGuy101010 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the proposer and supporters have presented no sources that refer to this as "military memorandum". The sources I've read call it various things. Some call it a coup, others say it was the result of a popular uprising, but everyone agrees that the Morales government resigned. Until there is a consensus among reliable sources about what to call it, "Evo Morales government resignation" is as good a title as any and better than most. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The term ″military memorandum″ is obscure (there isn’t even a Wikipedia article for it) and I haven’t read any source that uses it. I have seen sources that call it a coup d′etat, so ″2019 Bolivian coup d′etat″ would be the best title if you want to emphasize the involvement of the military & police. But given all of the dimensions of what’s going on, ″2019 Bolivian political crisis″ seems like the best title right now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Oppose I haven’t seen any sourcing for the term “military memorandum”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogarz1921 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment editors who support title change to "Military memorandum" need to visit Indonesian language version of the article instead [2]. I know that many user's support the title "Military memorandum" but because this article focused about broad Topic, ranged from audits, military pressure, resignation, and many more, "2019 Bolivian political crisis" is more neutral title of the article despite in Indonesian Wikipedia it called "Bolivian governmental crisis" but you can used "2019 Bolivian coup d'etat" if you want to more emphasize about role of Military and police. Hanafi455 (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support moving to 2019 Bolivian political crisis for now, with discussion on the title continuing after the move. It is truly a feat of Wikipedia-style consensus resulting in an outcome that no one is happy with that "Evo Morales government resignation" both a) doesn't accurately describe the event at hand and b) doesn't even follow proper Wikipedia naming conventions. Morgan695 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We have had many discussions before regarding what is and is not coup in the past. Describing this as a "military memorandum" is putting this event in a small scope and ignoring the popular demonstrations against Morales. Such wording also suggests that it was only the military, in turn pushing the opinion that this was a coup.

For the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, I agreed with calling the event a coup attempt since academics described the event as such mainly because there was armed action to overthrow a government. In certain ways, the Bolivian event is similar to the 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis, which was not widely labeled as a coup. In both cases, the military did not take armed action, they simply made statements. In Peru, the military said they recognized the Vizcarra government. In Bolivia, they urged Morales' government to resign.

Now, the same academics that called the Venezuelan events a "coup attempt" are saying that the binary rhetoric of describing such events as a coup or revolution is outdated. In this New York Times article it states: "Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray". I think as Wikipedia editors, we have to agree with the academics on this and have to find a "neutral" or "grey" way to describe these events moving forward. With the way the world has become more polarized recently, things may be more difficult, but it is our responsibility to work together to make Wikipedia as neutral and accurate as possible.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is such an obvious thing that I don't understand why this hasn't already been renamed 2019 Bolivian political crisis. There are two sides of this crisis, each calling it something different, each having some validity and supported by numerous sources. 2019 Bolivian political crisis is neutral and accurate. Everything else is either blatantly picking a side (coup) and/or not describing the entire situation (government resignation and military memorandum). ---Sleeker (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sleeker: I agree, somewhat. The neutral terminology I have thought of for this and future events similar to this is XXXX governmental crisis. The term "political crisis" is also vague when the crisis is specifically jeopardizing the government. So, I suggest 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater: I so agree at this point. You can checked on Indonesian-language version of the article [3]. (Krisis pemerintahan Bolivia 2019). But you can also can contributed in the Indonesian version of the article which has different name than other languages. Hanafi455 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus looks extremely unlikely to develop. I encourage closing this move proposal per WP:SNOW. However, there seems to be an inclination to support renaming as "political crisis". --Jamez42 (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, It seems unlikely for consensus to develop around this idea by this point. I'd support 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis as an alternative. Goodposts (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Support The correct title would be 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat as this article describes events where the military forces a democratically elected president out of office and unleashes terror and violence upon his supporters, but this is still an improvement over the current title. --★ Regicollis^T·C 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Each Wikipedia is independent, and if we are to move the article to "coup" it should be on an agreement based on policies and reliable sources. The talk page even has an extensive chart summarizing each of the sides' arguments, and at the very least it should be considered before deciding to to the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Again. Those who are in favor of moving to "coup" show the overwhelming majority of reliable sources nominally calling the event a "coup" (not opinion articles like those posted here). Again, we have to remember that we, as WP's editor, are not entitled to have our own opinion. Here on WP our opinions and analysis (Even if well-grounded. Even if we're experts) don't matter. What matter are the RS. And, in this case, the name must be "widely used in reliable sources". Let's stick to the WP's policies--SirEdimon (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

WP:NOTAFORUM

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

Jamez42's reverts

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

While I encourage both of you to stop reverting each other over this, I have to say that I also don't really understand how BeŻet's text is not supported by the source. @Jamez42: can you please explain in more detail? The quote about how national institutions normally can't resolve such a "massive grouping of violations" seems to make it pretty clear that he recommends an external probe because of the large number of violations. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also generally confused at both versions. I guess I'll have to read that source over, but I'd like to hear about the disputed text. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Jamez' edits are correct, and BeŻet's are wrong. Here are the two plus the article:

Jamez: "to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the country may need outside help to investigate a 'massive' number of human rights violations amid post-election violence and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico"

BeŻet: "declared that due to the "massive" number of human rights violations, the country may need outside help and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico, so that the findings are seen as credible"

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

BeŻet implicitly and explicitly attributes the need for an international commission is due to the massive number of human rights violations. But the article clearly states that the investigation of these is the purpose not the cause of the international commission, the cause or necessity of the international commission, in lieu of a national one, being to assuage doubts over the validity of findings. Also by lacking reference to the polarizing nature of the conflict, it implicitly states that the reason for a lack of confidence in the findings is due to the government. The original article containing "polarizing nature" lets the reader make his or her own decision about the matter.

Jamez' correctly states that it is to give added legitimacy to the investigations due to the polarizing nature of the conflict, which is exactly what the article states, as can be seen in the quote given hitherto.

Thus the version of Jamez' is preferable as it better summarizes the content of the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: I think you're mistaken about that. Please reread the article carefully, keeping in mind that it is actually longer than the single paragraph you are quoting. Here is a breakdown of what Abrão said:

Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence — here, he specifies what is needed: an external probe.

to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country — here, he specifies the goal of the probe: to ensure that findings are seen as credible.

“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said — here is the part that you and Jamez42 keep overlooking where he provides the reason that an external investigation is needed rather than simply an internal one: national institutions are typically not prepared to deal with such a huge number of violations.

The version Jamez42 inserted does not better summarize the content of the article. It is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the first paragraph of the article. In contrast, BeŻet's version summarizes the entirety of Abrão's comments, including the reason that an outside probe was recommended rather than simply an internal investigation, i.e., because the volume of violations exceeds the typical capacity of national institutions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because “[n]ormally in these situations... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations.""

Bam, zero rhetorical flourish, includes both parts; for my pulitzer nomination you can simply refer to me by my nom de plume. Anyhow, turning my VPN back on now. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As recommended by MOS:QUOTE, we should try to write things in our own words and avoid quoting where not necessary. As the source clearly and unequivocally states that an external, rather than national probe, is required, because of the "massive" number of violations, it is frankly quite obvious to me that stating this is completely uncontroversial. Trying to imply that it isn't the number of violations, but rather the divided nature of the country, which is just a secondary reason (or even just a side note), is misrepresenting what is actually being said. cmonghost has explained this quite nicely. This situation also definitely does not warrant Jamez42 messaging me that my recent changes "do not accurately reflect the content of the sources provided" and I'd like to call him out on this. Such interventions should be reserved for bigger violations, not disagreements about very specific points, which are not even receiving wider support of other editors. BeŻet (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki is a group project, not an individual endeavour, so fear not young BeŻet, fore I am here to help. I just scrolled over that section, and it contains six quotes in four paragraphs probably about 50% of the content is currently quotations, however certainly the seventh would be the hair that broke the camel's back! Such being the case, your wish is my command: "The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because they say that national institutions often lack the means to properly investigate large quantities of violations." Voila! Remember when submitting my nomination, Alkibiades is spelt in the greek way with a k, or kappa if I may be so bold. I find often with disagreements it's best to cut the gordian knot and rewrite the section in question, particularly when this is done by a third party with a fresh pair of eyes to go over the source in question without the possible knowledge of past animosities to hinder the critical eye for detail. I think we can all agree that the sentence I wrote is an accurate summation, completely without rhetorical flair, and so bland in nature as to make it a kin to a strong sedative. Perfection itself for such questions of NPOV. Regards, Alkibiades Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Alcibiades979: Could I please ask you to refrain from snarky comments and labelling someone who has been on wikipedia nearly a decade longer than you as "young".

@Jamez42: All I can see here are some mental gymnastics. We have a headline stating "Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe". This is what I'm saying, this is what the article is saying, but apparently you think that the headline is incorrect and your subjective interpretation is the correct one, so correct in fact that you feel the need to reprimend me in a message to me for apparently misrepresenting what the article is saying. You say "context matters", yet you seem to complete ignore it. National institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations clearly means that since there is a massive grouping of violations, national institutions aren't prepared to resolve them. Is this something you are disagreeing with? If so, why, when it's so clearly written there? BeŻet (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Also may I just add that suggesting that he may be talking about Mexico in that quote is just... wild. BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Not-young BeŻet, my sincerest apologies. I must confess that I have paid dearly for botox, and in my country being called young is high praise indeed. But then again I am South American, and in the Southern Hemisphere things are different. What's more rest assured that I would never publicly, nor privately question the maturity of someone for arguing on an online message board. Regards, Alkibiades PS: as recompense for this misunderstanding, allow me to gift you the rewritten summary of the article: "The head of a regional human rights commission has suggested an international inquiry to investigate human rights abuses because they say that this would add credibility in a deeply divided country, and because they say that national institutions often lack the means to properly investigate large quantities of violations." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you intended to offend, I think it would help everyone out if you communicated in a more straightforward and less affected way. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I deeply regret that, once again, you disregard my response, calling it "mental gymnastics". I am not disputing that article states that such "massive" violations took place, and if the article was not fully procted I would have included more content discussed here. The issue at hand is what the article says the outside help was needed for. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: And once again I have to ask, is the article's headline wrong in claiming that Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe, a claim you seem to be disputing? BeŻet (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: No. Again, the title states what, which is not the question in the change, but rather why. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If I say "These human rights violations merit an outside probe to ensure that the findings are seen as valid. Typically national institutions aren't equipped to handle such a massive number of violations on their own", the second proposition is clearly a justification for the first. This is how normal discourse works. If I say "You should avoid eating too much fast food. Typically there are negative health effects if you eat fast food every day", the second sentence is obviously a justification/explanation of the recommendation in the first sentence. People don't just say things in isolation for no reason. Why do you think he said it if it was not a rationale for the involvement of outside institutions? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The synonym of "merit" is "justify", ergo, the headline says that the external probe is justified because of the massive number of violations; in other words, he calls for an external probe because of the number of violations. This is what this sentence means. BeŻet (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources, this whole subsection is actually WP:BLP. Why? Because it's not sourced. The only sources that call what has happened, "Human Rights Violations" specifically relate it to after the Bolivian Elections, which occurred on October 20th, lest we forget Morales was president for an additional 3 weeks after this before his resignation. Meaning as of today half of this has occurred under the Presidency of Morales and half of under Áñez. However, this all is a subsection of Áñez' presidency. The sources do relate that most deaths have occurred since Morales' resignation. However as it stands there's not a single source accusing Áñez of human rights violations. So this section can be renamed "Unrest" or "Protests" as a subsection of Áñez' presidency but then "human rights violations" falls unless it is only in the context that they "have continued", or it can be its own section, but as it currently stands it is WP:BLP as it takes sources out of context, and uses WP:OR to accuse the presidency of a living person of Human Rights Violations. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Since this wording is so contentious, I request permission to trim some words and phrases for the sake of concision for a long article, and clarity for the reader. "After a three-day trip to Bolivia, Paulo Abrão, who heads the IACHR, declared that due to the "massive" number of human rights violations amid post-election violence, and to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the country may need outside help to investigate the situation and recommended Bolivia to coordinate with an international panel of experts, similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico." The text in bold would be removed. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Two days without objections, so I just made the change. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Image lacking context

A man holds up what he describes as a fresh ballot sheet found in the streets of La Paz

The image seen on the right hand side used to accompany a paragraph mentioning the how some people allegedly found some ballot sheets. Since this paragraph has been removed, I have removed the image.
@Jamez42: without that paragraph it's completely out of context and has no place in the article. You've claimed it "illustrated irregularities", but that becomes WP:OR without any accompanying context. BeŻet (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Thanks for the removal, if the paragraph had gone. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the Discussion that End the Discussion

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

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

The Washington Post and Guardian links you refer to are clearly labelled as opinion. Opinion pieces have little to no bearing here. Jacobin and Common Dreams are unabashed partisan outlets. Criticism of the actions of the post-resignation government have no relevance to how we classify the resignation that put them there. The debate is over, though. See above. 199.247.44.42 (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Jacobin is as partisan as any other outlet out there. BeŻet (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77, please stop vandalizing the page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why all the sudden links in this section of the talk section that are more than 3 weeks old to support the idea that there was a coup? There is a lot more recent evidence to show that it was not, including details on the fraud and the situation in the military and other circumstances relevant to the events of Nov 10th (see the section on the article for Evo Morales). Where are the sources that are from Bolivia instead of second-hand opinion that skip most of the facts. The violence has not continued, reparations have been given to families and the elections are coming. The MAS party has been participating in both chambers where they hold majorities. They have a candidate for the next election. They also tried to pass a law granting immunity from criminal proceedings for many of those accused of corruption and other charges - except that even one member of their own party gave an impassioned speech against the obvious attempt to escape responsibility and said that she had been threatened to tow the party line to vote for this legislation and it made her sick. There is video footage of these things happening in parliament. They are not disputable. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crmoorhead: How come I can't find anything online about this law granting immunity from criminal proceedings? BeŻet (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Because the media written in English is inaccurate and you aren't checking the media in Bolivia. A lot of these articles being quoted in English language media and opinion skip many facts that are easily found in Bolivian media. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

− −

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

My issue is that I am in contact with Bolivia 2-3 times a day, have been there in 2018 and 2019 (not as a tourist) and am keeping up to date via their media. There are a lot of facts missing from many reports from otherwise good sources. The issue is a lot more complex that the short opinion pieces from many papers or the outright bias of people that, for some reason, refuse to recognise the shady goings-on in the MAS party or the involvement of narcotraficantes in the Chapare region where deaths occurred. People are forced to attend MAS rallies and continue blockades, they have their jobs, lives and crops threatened for not supporting Morales. This is manifest in many places and that is why there are arrests happening. Here is a representative of MAS party speaking about being threatened by people who want to save their own skins more than serve the people they were elected by. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz_g_QdL0A8. Please, try taking more information closer to the source. The OAS committee was formed to investigate the allegations of fraud and accepted by Morales to do so. After their investigation, they are no longer accusations. Even those running the elections are confirming it. One wonders what investigations and by whom would be acceptable to those still believing there was no fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

I don't think you know what is going on in the country. Are you disputing that Anez was constitutionally next in line, or claiming that she was planning to take the presidency or remain president after elections, or that the MAS party is working towards elections? I mean all these things are easily checked. Do you read the news from Bolivia or have any contacts there? Crmoorhead (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

− − Calling that statement "unbiased" is obscene, and ignoring the bias of the existing article is to be blind to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.125 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There are relevant links to the corruption found by the OAS: . Again, there should be more effort to confirm with the events happening in Bolivia and the activities of the interim government with the intention of new elections. I will gather more relevant links if I find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is relevant to the anti-government protests following the election. https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/12/7/sin-evo-el-chapare-empieza-dividirse-aumenta-la-tension-239668.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Extended content

In the following analysis I m trying to make a distinction between facts and claims according to the fundamental principles NPOV and Verifiability. For the actual sources, you have already enough in the article, so you can check them out. If you are the quick type or you want to see the end at the beginning :-) just read the conclusion, where I m actually proposing a title that can really have a consensus AND represents NPOV. If you are not immediately convinced by the proposal, then you can also read the analysis. History Topic Fact Claim Don't know A referendum took place to the question, if Morales could candidate for a third time. Morales lost the referendum, but still with 48,7%. ✔ Immediately before the referendum there was a mud campaign from media of the opposition. Theme of the campaign was the accusation, that Morales had a liaison with a younger woman and a child with a her. ✔ The child never appeared, the woman was condemned for financial flaws. ✔ There was no court against the media ✔ Morales lost the referendum because of the campaign ✔ ✔ A group of Morales party made a request at the constitutional court to still give him permission to candidate ✔ The court was not independent but under control of the party of Morales ✔ 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 presidency without putting a limit ✔ Bolivia has large natural gas reserves ✔ Morales government 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) ✔ Bolivia has also large Lithium reserves ✔ Lithium is an important metal for the evolving "green" industry. Ist important for reusable batteries. ✔ Morales cancelled shortly before the elections contracts with big companies (also German) concerning lithium, because they gave a small percentage for the people ✔ On the elections of Okt. 2019 the party of Morales had a majority (but for the first time after 14 years no absolute majority) ✔ The difference to the second party was more than 10%, something that means, no second round is needed ✔ Immediately after the elections there were confirmed irregularities ✔ There were irregularities in the elections ✔ The party of Morales was responsible for these irregularities ✔ there was a coup d etat against Morales ✔ ✔ ✔ The new regime doesn't represent at all the people of Bolivia ✔ The new regime made racist announcements against ethnic groups, that represent the absolute majority of the people of Bolivia ✔ The new regime pretends to speak in the name of the catholic church (without of course asking the pope) ✔ The new regime made already decisions that oppress human rights ✔ You can actually call this decision as the beginning of a civil war ✔ The supporters of Morales decided to stop their reactions ✔ Due to this decision a civil war was avoided ✔ Short after the fall of Morales the shares of a company, that has to do with lithium, reached a high ✔ I should also white 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. Putsch The following tablet analyses the change of the regime according to two factors: is it just a claim or not, and, is it a characteristic of a coup d etat or not. It's not at all complete, it doesn't have to be. What you can read here should be enough for the argument. ↓Topic\Part of the Definition of a Putsch→ Yes Fact Yes Claim No Fact No Claim There were ways to solve the problem with legal meanings which were not used ✔ The military participated in the act ✔ ✔ The government members were intimidated ✔ The new regime was based on the army ✔ ✔ The new regime arrested (or tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parlament ✔ The new regime violated the constitution ✔ ✔ The new regime violated human rights ✔ The new regime tried to supress the mind of its opposition ✔ Conclusion I actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d etat 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). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer ist: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 etat and (through the questionmark) that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d etat (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without having to confront the army...). I hope that this suggestion will be accepted as soon as possible, in order to respect at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is actually definitely NOT being respected (not taking position is definitely not a neutral position; if you have a different mind, I am eager to see it :-) )Yomomo (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)— Yomomo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comments All I see is WP:OR by a WP:SPA. A lot of "my opinion". You are not a reliable source.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Section POV tags

Is there an explanation for the section tags? Want to see if there is a way to fix any issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The Anti-Áñez protests section does not summarize the protests in a neutral way, instead focusing on some attacks and alleged panic caused by them. It's very biased, and therefore should cover things in a wider manner and in a more neutral way. BeŻet (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That section actually seems pretty balanced with the response of Áñez and the human rights concerns section.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Deaths under her administration and a blank cheque for soldiers that may have been responsible are not favourable in any way. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fworld%2fthe_americas%2fvenezuelas-struggling-opposition-seeks-to-tap-into-uprising-wave-across-south-america%2f2019%2f11%2f16%2f435ce4da-071c-11ea-9118-25d6bd37dfb1_story.html%3f https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2019/1112/Bolivia-president-resigns-flees-country-without-successor https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/mercosur/brazilian-soybean-farmers-in-bolivia-make-up-political-movement-that-overthrew-evo-morales/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/19/protests-chile-bolivia-may-have-common-think/ https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-coup-in-bolivia https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/evo-morales-finally-went-too-far-bolivia/601741/ 93.42.26.191 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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.[4][5][6][7]

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:

• "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"; "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": These are journalists stating that the use of the term "coup" is debatable. This explains "journalists are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising".

• "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"; "So… was it a coup? Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question."; "But political experts say the events hardly resemble a classic coup scenario.": These are scholars stating that the use of the term "coup" is debatable. This explains " scholars ... are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising".

• "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.": These are politicians stating that the use of the term "coup" is debatable. This explains "International politicians, ... are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising".

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)

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

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

• Manifestaciones en La Paz, Bolivia en contra el fraude electoral y el gobierno de Evo Morales.jpg

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

CEPR affiliations

Figured I would explain this edit:

• Mark Weisbrot: Founder of CEPR
• Stephanie Kelton: CEPR's 20th Anniversary Party Host
• Ha-Joon Chang: CEPR Fellow, also a CEPR's 20th Anniversary Party Host
• Jayati Ghosh: supporter and affiliate of Weisbrot and CEPR's work
• James K Galbraith: Commonly works with EPI beside CEPR
• Thea Lee: Commonly works with EPI beside CEPR
• Oscar Ugarteche: Common presenter at CEPR events

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.93.42.26.191 (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:

• Economists Call on Media to Report "Overwhelming Evidence" Regarding Venezuelan Election Results - CEPR-led group responding to the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election
• Economists Call on Congress to Mitigate Fallout from Ruling on Argentine Debt - CEPR-led group calling for debt-relief for the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration

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. 93.42.26.191 (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. 93.42.26.191 (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)

@93.42.26.191: There's a lot to unpack here. First, they describe themselves as economists and statisticians in the letter they wrote. Secondly, nobody's claiming this is an academic paper, it's clearly labelled as an open label. Thirdly, of course an open letter is a statement of opinion. Fourthly, how on Earth is labelling them as scholars misleading if we are talking about an opinion they are presenting? Finally, calling it tabloid garbage is quite extraordinary - we are talking about several respected scholars, not an opinion of a completely random group of people. I am returning this content to the article, because the only acceptable argument, from all of the ones presented above, is WP:DUE, which I strongly disagree with and there are no grounds to support it. BeŻet (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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 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 and the summary is pretty clear about the existence Please read this 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. 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)