Talk:Evo Morales: Difference between revisions
Assessment: banner shell, Politics, Biography (Rater) |
|||
(82 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|action2oldid=668633164 |
|action2oldid=668633164 |
||
|action2link=Talk:Evo Morales/GA1 |
|action2link=Talk:Evo Morales/GA1 |
||
|currentstatus=GA |
|||
|topic=Politics and government |
|topic=Politics and government |
||
Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
|itnlink=Special:Diff/925637897 |
|itnlink=Special:Diff/925637897 |
||
|otd4date=2020-01-22|otd4oldid=937064795 |
|otd4date=2020-01-22|otd4oldid=937064795 |
||
|action3 = GAR |
|||
|action3date = 20:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
|action3link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Evo Morales/1 |
|||
|action3result = delisted |
|||
|action3oldid = 1161139951 |
|||
|currentstatus = DGA |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Controversial}} |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{American English}} |
{{American English}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Morales, Evo|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Socialism |
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=GA|politician-priority=high|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Morales, Evo}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Bolivia|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject South America|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=GA}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
{{Annual readership}} |
||
== |
== Statutory rape case == |
||
I just wanted to make a note that this is a major scandal in Bolivia and there is a lot of information that has not been reported, including reactions from major political figures in all parties and relevant information. BLP still applies, but there are ways to report this issue correctly. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 17:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Calls Morales "dictator of Bolivia" which links to "President of Bolivia." Sounds like mischief to me. One of you fine editors want to look into that? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.55.30.7|194.55.30.7]] ([[User talk:194.55.30.7#top|talk]]) 08:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Unfortunately, Wikipedia often suffers from [[WP:Vandalism]], but we try to catch it quickly when it occurs. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 09:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:At the moment, the section is a bit ridiculous – five paragraphs and less than 500 words, with four "claimed" (and one "she claims"), two "alleged" and one "purported" (in the same sentence, which also has one of the instances of "claimed"), and a couple of other hedges, while "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions" is presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, BLP applies, to ''all'' people mentioned in the article, but so does basic stylistic common sense. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I came here to say the same. Could that please be removed? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.99.218.101|81.99.218.101]] ([[User talk:81.99.218.101#top|talk]]) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:: I agree, there have been a number of edits that have added words here and there that make it sound repetitive and poorly structured. Much of it was worse before I started editing the section and the title had the word "pedophile" in it, which is definitely not good BLP practice and inaccurate. That sentence is clumsy, yes. There are some sentences that seem to indicate that are written by editors who don't have English as a first language. Style and structure are, however, basic corrections that can be easily made. Combining some of the shorter paragraphs or extending them (within reason) is sensible, IMO. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 14:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Well this whole fiasco is right now a case of she-said-he-said and article should reflect that.[[Special:Contributions/31.187.2.117|31.187.2.117]] ([[User talk:31.187.2.117|talk]]) 08:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019 == |
|||
::: There is also the issue that Morales being in a relationship with a 19 year-old (or indeed a 16-year-old) is not actually illegal. The evidence seems to point to them having a reasonably long-term romantic relationship, but nothing particularly compelling to say that it began before she was 16. This should be clearly stated, but the accusations and who exactly is making them should be clear. I have not added that commentary because I need to source that statement properly. Looking to other wiki pages with similar content for a model of neutrality would be a good idea. There is no denying that this is, however, a big deal (especially in Bolivia) regardless of how it falls out, nor that is it something that has been discussed about Morales in Spanish-speaking media for a number of years. There are other events that have occurred within Bolivia that are still not reported in this article, or in English language media, and it is generally a struggle to find anyone that has up-to-date knowledge about news in Bolivia to help with that. This may or may not affect your opinion that it is a matter of "she-said-he-said", but I would point to how these matters are dealt with in similar cases. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 14:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Evo Morales|answered=yes}} |
|||
'''Juan Evo Morales Ayma''' ({{IPA-es|ˈeβo moˈɾales}}; born October 26, 1959) is the dictator of [[Bolivia]]. A former [[cocalero]] activist serving as the [[List of presidents of Bolivia|80th]] [[President of Bolivia]] since 2006. Article 168 of the [[Constitution of Bolivia|2009 constitution]] allows the President and Vice-President to put themselves forward for re-election only once, limiting the number of terms to two. |
|||
::: Actually the language is so melodramatic and tortured that readers won't take it seriously and will probably burst out laughing. The oddest phrases are: |
|||
A '''constitutional referendum''' was held in [[Bolivia]] on Sunday, 21 February 2016.<ref name=T>[http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Bolivia-Sets-Date-For-Referendum-On-Evo-Morales-Re-election-20151015-0021.html Bolivia Sets Date For Referendum On Evo Morales Re-election] Telesurv, 15 October 2015</ref> The proposed constitutional amendments would have allowed the president and vice president to run for a third consecutive term under the [[Bolivian Constitution of 2009|2009 Constitution]].<ref name=no>{{cite web|title=Bolivia’s Re-election Referendum: The case for Yes and No|url=http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/bolivias-re-election-referendum-the-case-for-yes-and-no/|publisher=Latin Correspondent|accessdate=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160219103934/http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/bolivias-re-election-referendum-the-case-for-yes-and-no/|archive-date=19 February 2016|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The referendum was voted down by a 51.3% majority. [[User:Net1pro|Net1pro]] ([[User talk:Net1pro|talk]]) 19:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::* "These became the object of outrage among users". - Very melodramatic. |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> —<span style="color:#808080">[[User:Kuyabribri|'''KuyaBriBri''']]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">[[User_Talk:Kuyabribri|''Talk'']]</span></sup> 21:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::* "that Morales had been in a relationship with the minor since the age of 14". - Given that he is 60 now, that means he has been in the relationship for 46 years. Surely the girl has grown up by now. |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
:::* "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - A very odd translation from the Spanish. |
|||
:::* "Her precise whereabouts are unknown". - Why is that important? |
|||
:::* "... have been claimed to corroborate a long-term acquaintance between the two". - Morales has a lot of long term acquaintances. Why is one more important? |
|||
:::* "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions". - Sounds like we are acting for the prosecution. Also is there really a Ministry of Transparency? |
|||
::: [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: If there is a problem with the language, make an edit to modify it. |
|||
== "Military coup" Phrasing == |
|||
:::: * Not my wording. Modify as you see fit. |
|||
:::: * Ambiguous, but obvious from context. An easy fix. |
|||
:::: * Is it? I mean, make a better translation if you want. If you aren't in a position to do so, perhaps you should not comment on its "oddness". Seems a perfectly valid English sentence to me. |
|||
:::: * Not particularly, delete it if you wish. It's been said by several articles on the whole subject, why was it relevant to them? It makes a difference if she was smuggled across the border to be with Morales or just living somewhere else, but for the purposes of the wiki, it's not essential. |
|||
:::: * Acquaintance is not the right word, the transcripts are between lovers. Have a read of them and pick whichever word you think is most appropriate. |
|||
:::: * The ministry of Transparency is a thing, yes. Agreed that this sentence is clumsy. I don't think that clearly stating the two sides of the case is acting for the prosecution. NPOV is achievable. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Yes I could fix them but I actually find them amusing. A couple of follow ups: |
|||
I'd say referring to the current situation as a coup is too POV, but at the very least this needs to be settled before it turns into an edit war. |
|||
:::::* "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - Yes it is a valid English sentence. However, "Public acts" sounds lewd and I am sure that is not what was intended or being referred to. |
|||
[[User:Carlitos9595|Carlitos9595]] ([[User talk:Carlitos9595|talk]]) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::* I'll have to look up the Ministry of Transparency to see what it does. |
|||
:::::[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I don't find "public acts" remotely lewd, but perhaps you would be ok with "public appearances" or "public actions". The word in Spanish is "actos". It refers to his official appearances and events attended as President. The Ministry of Transparency is linked with the FELCC which aims to detect corruption in state-owned industries and public figures. Corruption is a big problem in Bolivia, so they are kept busy. They have been around for a while. Here is info on corruption in general in Bolivia in English. <ref>https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/346_Overview_of_corruption_in_Bolivia.pdf</ref>[[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 15:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
A [[coup d'etat]] is an "overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means." Resignation in cooperation with a military ultimatum easily and objectively fits that definition. --[[User:Hatman92|Hatman92]] ([[User talk:Hatman92|talk]]) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you have any source regarding this "ultimatum"? Asking him to resign is not an ultimatum. An ultimatum is "do X or else we will do Y" [[Special:Contributions/199.247.44.10|199.247.44.10]] ([[User talk:199.247.44.10|talk]]) 05:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:In this case, asking him to resign did represent an ultimatum, being as the party "asking" was the military. It would be an extreme (and certainly not neutral) stretch to suggest that this may have represented anything other than an ultimatum. --[[User:Hatman92|Hatman92]] ([[User talk:Hatman92|talk]]) 06:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I would say the opposite would be the extreme stretch. Luckily we're on Wikipedia, where the only relevant factor is what reliable sources say. So again, do any refer to an "ultimatum" by the military? [[Special:Contributions/199.247.44.10|199.247.44.10]] ([[User talk:199.247.44.10|talk]]) 07:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== 1st President? == |
|||
:::NYT says Military suggested that he resign to restore public order. I cited and quoted this verbatim in the article. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Morales is currently listed as the 65th president of Bolivia. However, the argument could be made to list him as the 1st President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The 2009 Bolivian Constitution reset term limits on the president and called for a new general election that year. As well, in Morales' own twitter bio he states to be the First President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. What do other people think? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Krisgabwoosh|contribs]]) 16:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:No. It's a technicality. In common parlance, readers would simply be interested in who was president of the country called Bolivia. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh ok, that makes sense. I am interested in knowing how Bolivian (and many Latin American in general) presidents are numbered? For the U.S., for example, Grover Celeveland is named 22nd and 24th president because he served non consecutively, but in Bolivian articles it seems that presidents, even those who served non consecutively, count for one spot. Are interim and short-lived presidents counted when numbering. I've been trying to figure out the method for numbering Latin American presidents for a while. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Maybe they're not numbered. As an Australian, from time to time I find myself (and see other Australians) reverting [[WP:OR|OR]] edits, typically by Americans, who want to number our political position holders. It's just not a tradition here, and nobody "official" has ever gone to the trouble of working out the idiosyncrasies and oddities. It may well be that Bolivia is more like Australia in that respect than the US. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Interesting. I was always saw it as Prime Ministers not being numbered because it is their party that is elected and they're just the head of it while Presidents are numbered because they are elected separate from their party election. But if this is not the case, should we remove the numbering on Morales' infobox. For Bolivia, the 1st two presidents (Bolivar and Sucre) are numbered and everything from de Lozada (62nd) are numbered. All presidents in between are not numbered. Should I remove the numbering? [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That would be my preference, but I would await the views of others. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any two people being president of Bolivia at the same time, which would be the obvious objection to a chronological numbering. There may be a few presidents that came to power in a coup and were not internationally recognised as president of the country, but technically they still had all the power of the president. Some of the presidents were also only placeholders until elections could take place. The current one, of course, but Rodriguez Veltze before that. There are rules that govern the succession of President when one resigns or elections are called prematurely. The Spanish wiki has a full list of numbered presidents, but don't restart the numbering with the Plurinational State and some of them are not numbered. <ref>https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Presidentes_de_Bolivia</ref> Unlike the US, they are not referred to as being the "65th" president in an official capacity, but that doesn't mean they can't be numbered in a list per se. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: From what I have researched (I myself am Bolivian), Bolivia does not count its presidents numerically but through their legal status. Presidents are classified in two groups. The first group is "Constitucionales" having come to power legally or through quasi-legal means (achieving power through a revolution or coup d’état but later constitutionalised).The rest are either de facto having come to power militarily and never constitutionalised, or interim having been placed in power only until a new president is chosen (As is the current president).<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2016-01-01|title=Inhalt|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7767/jbla-2016-0101|journal=Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas - Anuario de Historia de America Latina|volume=53|issue=1|doi=10.7767/jbla-2016-0101|issn=2194-3680}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Bolivia|first=Opinión|title=Presidentes (parte 6)|url=https://www.opinion.com.bo/articulo/presidentes-de-bolivia/presidentes-parte-6/20120806141400427148.html|access-date=2020-10-09|website=Opinión Bolivia|language=es}}</ref> As well, there is actually one example of co-presidency that being of [[René Barrientos]] and [[Alfredo Ovando]] who are the only case of co-presidencies in Bolivia. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Good to have someone else from Bolivia contributing! I am married to a Bolivian and am living there now (although mainly I am in the UK) and there are many editors that don't know much about the country but write from the perspective of what is reported in Western media which is almost always an inaccurate representation. I spend most of my edits adding information from the main Bolivian news outlets that just aren't reported past the borders. With regard to the numbering, it could also be stated that Morales refers to himself as the 1st President of the new Bolivian nation, which gives the most information. The information about "constitutionales" and "de facto" is interesting. Maybe ths would be useful on the page about presidents, although a source would be needed.[[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: It is always nice to find a fellow Bolivian. I ended up adding the information about so-called "Constitucionales" (With source of course) to the page for [[Presidents of Bolivia]]. As for including Morales as the 1st President of the Plurinational State (the original topic of this discussion), I personally believe it makes sense. Many other pages for presidents of other countries restart the numbering when the state goes through an official name change. The best example I can think of is [[Colombia]]. In Wikipedia's [[list of presidents of Colombia]], the numbering resets every time the state reforms ([[Gran Colombia]],[[Republic of New Granada]], [[Granadine Confederation]], [[United States of Colombia]]). The current president, [[Iván Duque]], is listed as 33rd president since the formation of the Republic of Colombia in 1886. [[Rafael Núñez ]], is listed as the 13th president of the United States of Colombia and the 1st president of the Republic of Colombia. So there is a precedent to do this and, coupled with the fact Morales reset term limits when Bolivia became a Plurinational State, is why I believe it should be added. In the meantime I guess we just wait on a consensus. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 23:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: An argument could certainly be made for him being the first President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, although I think few people would refer to him as that. It was the main argument for him to be allowed to run more than twice as President. I don't know in detail how the old constitution compares to the new one, but largely the main bodies are the same. There are some changes in what powers some of the main positions have too. Looking for precedent inf other wiki pages is a good idea. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::According to the Oxford English Dictionary a coup is: A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. According to Merriam Webster's a coup is "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Reliable sources are not using the word coup, thus we should not. As a reminder this does fall under BLP. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/coup https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'état [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 08:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Please anyone provide a source for the entire numbering of Bolivian presidents, otherwise these are arbitrary and need to go. [[User:Mewulwe|Mewulwe]] ([[User talk:Mewulwe|talk]]) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Mewulwe}} They're based off the book by Bolivian presidential historian and ex-president Carlos Mesa.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mesa G.|first=Carlos D.|url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005999154|title=Presidentes de Bolivia: entre urnas y fusiles|date=1983|publisher=Editorial Gisbert|location=La Paz, Bolivia}}</ref> The reset in the numbering is based off the 2009 Constitution which changed the name of the country and allowed Evo Morales to reset term limits on the pretext that his previous terms belonged to a different regime. |
|||
::: His giving a list with numbers doesn't prove anything. His numbering could be as arbitrary as anyone's. Do you have evidence that this numbering is in established use? [[User:Mewulwe|Mewulwe]] ([[User talk:Mewulwe|talk]]) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: The official website of the President of Bolivia, presidencia.gob.bo, used to have an official gallery of presidents numbered in order. The paintings used in most Wikipedia pages on Bolivian presidents come from there. However, the site has since changed and the gallery used an old form of flash which doesn't work on the wayback machine. Evo Morales being numbered as the 1st President of the Plurinational State is in established use. Even his Twitter characterzes him as such. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:This is such an odd discussion to have. I can only see two contributors who seem to be in favour of this artificial differentation between the Republic and the Plurinational State. This makes it seem like a new country was created - which simply is not the case. Adopting a new constitution does not equal the birth of a new country. Do the Plurinational State and the Republic have two separate pages on Wikipedia? No, because it's the same country. Look at France, for example. They're at their Fifth Republic . Their Presidents' articles simply mention [[President of France]] in the infobox. It also is worth mentioning that the Spanish-language Wikipedia says Luis Arce is the 67th President of Bolivia, and I'd be inclined to follow their lead as it is an important official language in Bolivia. So there are ample reasons to go back to the way it had been written until recently. The fact that this change has been reverted countless times by various editors should be a sign that this is not a widely accepted change. In fact, as long as this discussion is running, you should withold from changing the status quo. [[User:Takk|Takk]] ([[User talk:Takk|talk]]) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It makes it seem like a new country was created because that was the argument made by the government at the time. The main claim that a new country was created was that while every other Constitution prior had kept the name "Republic of Bolivia," the new one changed it to the "Plurinational Republic of Bolivia." However, it seems there is no clear consensus anywhere on Wikipedia on how name changes in country's should be handled. While the current count for the Presidents of Colombia starts at the Republic of Colombia resetting it from its predecessor, the United States of Colombia. (Granadine Confederation - United States of Colombia - Republic of Colombia), the pages for the Presidents of Venezuela do not reset the count despite numerous name changes (United States of - Republic of - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). The solution on the Spanish Wikipedia is for all presidents prior to the Constitution to be labelled (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. President of the Republic of Bolivia) with all presidents since Morales labelled (65th, 66th, 67th, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia). This solution is simply wrong since there have been only 3 presidents of the Plurinational State. While a distinction is my preference, it's clear there is no consensus. In the meantime, simply "President of Bolivia" should be used with Arce the 67th since he is the 67th person to officially hold the title. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 16:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: I concur that it is my preference and will present arguments for discussion: |
|||
* The name of the nation changed from Republic of Bolivia to Plurinational State of Bolivia in all official documents at the national and international levels. |
|||
* The title has also changed to President of the Plurinational State rather than President of the Republic or even President of Bolivia. <ref>https://www.presidencia.gob.bo/index.php/institucion/organigrama</ref> |
|||
* The new constitution forced Evo Morales to need to be elected for a second time, without having completed his first term fully. This meant that he was allowed to stand a third time in 2014, contrary to the 2009 constitution. This was ruled upon by the Constitutional court on grounds that could justify calling him both the last President of the Republic of Bolivia and first president of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. |
|||
* Morales refers to himself as the first president of the Plurinational State (see above). While not president, he's still influential and I don't see that trend disappearing. The Plurinational State is a major change in society in the country with many institutions changing names. |
|||
* While wiki articles may or may not restart counts, that decision seems someone arbitrary and devoid of evidence. The article for France that you quote names the presidents as numbered with 25th being the current, yet the page for the [[Fifth French Republic]] lists De Gaule as being the first and the actual website for the presidency lists Macron as being "eighth President of the Fifth Republic of France".<ref>https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron</ref> Wikipedia isn't always correct. |
|||
* While wikipedia is not always correct, it remains to be said that several countries definitely do number their presidents again, namely the Colombia example, exactly based on the changes of Constitutions and renaming of the country. The 2009 Constitution is sufficiently different enough to warrant renumberings. |
|||
* Not all numberings of presidents in Bolivia are consistent. They have been previously removed. Starting again from a clearly defined point is preferable if we are doing any numbering at all. Other articles also don't have any numbering for presidents either, like Argentina. There is no official numbering in Bolivia. |
|||
* While several people have undone edits, some may be sockpuppets as they have not done any previous edits. Both advocates of the new numbering system know Bolivia well enough to not be advocating this change without reason. The counterargument seems to be "it's confusing" which isn't related at all to whether it's factually incorrect, misleading or appropriate for encyclopedic content. As far as Spanish wikipedia goes, it's not justification to quote other wiki pages! [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I fully agree that the numbering is confusing and the fact that there is no official numbering should be reason enough not to do it, and to stick to the title "President of Bolivia". Changing "Republic" into "Plurinational State" does not constitute the changing of the name of the country. It was and still is called "Bolivia". But even if it would, that would not be enough reason to start the count from scratch. Take [[List of presidents of Myanmar|Myanmar]] as an example. The country was previously referred to as Burma. When the country changed its name, the counting of their presidents did not stop. Same goes for the [[List of heads of state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo|Democratic Republic of the Congo]], which was called Zaire. Or look at [[Stevo Pendarovski]], who is said to be the 5th President of North Macedonia, even though the country only changed its name last year. So even if you would argue that the country changed names (which I contest) then that's not enough to justify this change. [[User:Takk|Takk]] ([[User talk:Takk|talk]]) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: But, again, I have already cited cases where renaming the country and a new constitution has restarted the count, both in terms of wikipedia and a contradiction to your example of France where Macron is first and foremost referred to the Eighth President of the Fifth French Republic on the official website for the presidency. It's also been shown that there is precedent for the Bolivian president doing so. Other wikipedia pages are somewhat arbitrary in their numbering and it also depends on how chaotic the history is. For DRC, there was only one president of Zaire and previously there was the Republic of Congo (which is another country) with a total of five in the last 50 years. It's a relatively simple continuity. 67 presidents (plus a few others not officially counted) over a course of almost 200 years is a bit more precarious. [[Mobutu Seso Seku] is also labelled as President of Zaire, not as 2nd President of DRC, on his page, whereas the current one is labelled as 5th President of DRC. For Myanmar, they both make a distinction between the title "President" and Head of State for the numbering and also the numbering does not appear in any form on the pages of the presidents themselves. Both countries have different approaches to what numbers appear on the biography pages and list pages, with Colombia taking another approach still. Is there evidence they are actually numbered in the country, or is this something invented by wikipedia users? You are simultaneously arguing that "it makes it seem that they are two separate countries" as a source of confusion and stating that "it was and is called Bolivia". Perhaps drawing a distinction between the Plurinational State and the Republic will help outside the country understand more about Bolivia, which is the goal of an encyclopaedia. In general, it just seems cleaner, but it's backed up by legal rulings in the country and use by Morales, which is more than many numbering systems in use on wikipedia can say. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
::::The circumstances concerning Morales' resignation fit both the OED and Merriam Webster definition of a coup. How are you defining "reliable sources"? There is no such thing as objective reporting, every source in journalism represents its own particular point of view. In this case, establishment Western media, e.g. the NYT, is less likely to refer to what is definitionally a coup as such, because it is not in their interest to do so. Wikipedia should do better than to to nakedly parrot Western sources. --[[User:Hatman92|Hatman92]] ([[User talk:Hatman92|talk]]) 18:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Narco-state == |
|||
::::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources Wiki articles on living people have the highest standards of any articles when it comes to sources. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 04:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
'''Narco-state |
|||
== CIA backed, Fascist Military Coup == |
|||
''' |
|||
During the entire presidency of Evo Morales in Bolivia and the expulsion of the DEA from this country in 2008, drug trafficking has skyrocketed in the country<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lanacion.com.ar/el-mundo/evo-morales-suspendio-las-actividades-de-la-dea-en-bolivia-nid1065652/|title=Evo Morales suspendió las actividades de la DEA en Bolivia|publisher=|language=es|access-date=26 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>. For all these reasons, the Inter-American Institute for Democracy and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal describe the government of Evo Morales as that of a "narco-state"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.intdemocratic.org/confessions-of-evo-morales-the-drug-dealer-chief-of-state/?lang=es|title=Confessions of Evo Morales the Drug Dealer Chief of State|publisher=|language=es|access-date=26 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.larepublica.co/globoeconomia/morales-made-bolivia-a-narco-state-2936769|title=Morales Made Bolivia a Narco State|publisher=|language=es|access-date=26 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> For his part, researcher Diego Ayo from the Vicente Pazos Kanki Foundation has published a study where he considers that the current structure of the Bolivian State is similar to that of a drug cartel<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icees.org.bo/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/el-cartel-de-evo-un-modelo-de-corrupcion-en-bolivia-por-diego-ayo.pdf|title=El Cártel de Evo: un modelo de corrupción en Bolivia|publisher=|language=es|access-date=26 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>. The coca growers unions are the main drug suppliers for the international market<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.infobae.com/america/opinion/2019/03/17/bolivia-narcoestado-cuya-politica-exterior-defiende-el-narcotrafico/|title=Bolivia, narcoestado cuya política exterior defiende el narcotráfico|publisher=|language=es|access-date=26 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>. |
|||
: For [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLP]] reasons, this was removed. There are, however, adequate reasons for this theme to be included in some form as it is a common point of discussion both within Bolivia and of independent studies on drug trafficking on the international stage. The page [[Illegal drug trade in Bolivia]] is woefully out of date, most references being from more than a decade ago. What it should certainly not be is an accusation that Morales is somehow the drug King of the Chapare. If there is political support from cartels and it is backed up from reputable sources, that is worthy of inclusion. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 14:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Dark Days ahead in Bolivia as Evo Morales is ousted in a CIA backed, Fascist Military Coup. Coup leaders are already arresting senior members of Morales' government. After Bolivian opposition supporters burned headquarters of the electoral authority in Sucre, Chuquisaca as votes continued to be counted, and as Carlos Mesa conspires, claiming fraud. The mass arrests are already starting. Fun fact: Morales opponent Carlos Mesa is a member of the group "[[Inter-American Dialogue]]" - the Washington D.C.-based think tank headed by a guy who used to work for ″[[National Endowment for Democracy]]″. The CIA's fingerprints are all over this. Years of brutal oppression, mass arrests & mass murder expected. Next come the show trials & death squads, presided over by CIA backed Fascists. Once again. CIA has a [[United States involvement in regime change|60 year plus record of Coups & Regime Changes in Latin America]]. --[[Special:Contributions/87.170.200.47|87.170.200.47]] ([[User talk:87.170.200.47|talk]]) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: everything is correctly cited and deserves to be mentioned in the article. If you feel like it's biased, I can't do anything so you can modify it at will, but you can't delete it just for the sake of it. --[[User:Ají Picante|Ají Picante]] ([[User talk:Ají Picante|talk]]) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: And by the way, it is not me who is accusing Morales of being a Cartel leader, is the south american media, so this is not something of my imagination. --[[User:Ají Picante|Ají Picante]] ([[User talk:Ají Picante|talk]]) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: Yes, it's very common but if getting sources you should take care not to use opinion pieces like in the WSJ. If there are important public figures using those words, that might be important. I added several statistics and references. The net worth of the cocaine market in Bolivia and how much cocaine is being produced would be a good addition as well as part that links the Coca Unions with drug cartels and/or the MAS. There are numerous references in the Bolivian media that don't originate from allegations from political persecution in the last year. Sources prior to Nov 2019 would be seen as less biased by some. I am also aware that many farmers turn from necessary foodstuffs to coca because it is more profitable. All this work has me thirsting for a coca mate! [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Ad personam]] argumets are always the best ;-) Dan Cohen will explain to you how it happened: [https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1194736386341003266 The Bolivian opposition, OAS, US government and mainstream media manufactured a phony narrative of election fraud, setting the stage for the fascist coup against @evoespueblo.] The self-declared president of Bolivia ("Áñez, racista fuera del Palacio"), who has said "the city is not for Indians", appointed a new cabinet without a single member of the country's indigenous majority. This coup is clearly aimed at restoring Bolivia’s old racist, classist oligarchy. Do US liberals support this? Trump this week, with Erdogan next to him, on Syria: "We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil." The US have been fighting wars to hijack oil, now we're fighting green wars to hijack lithium. |
|||
:*[https://www.thenation.com/article/bolivia-election-oas The Trump Administration Is Undercutting Democracy in Bolivia - Will the US and the Organization of American States once again be able to overturn election results?] |
|||
:*At least six of the key coup plotters are alumni of the infamous [[School of the Americas]], while ''that'' General Kaliman, commander of Bolivia’s armed forces, served in the past as Bolivia’s military and police attachés in Washington. |
|||
:*CEPR' [[Mark Weisbrot]]: "[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-oas-lied-to-the-public-about-the-bolivian-election-and-coup-2019-11-19 The OAS (Organization of American States) lied to the public about the Bolivian election and coup]".--[[Special:Contributions/87.170.200.28|87.170.200.28]] ([[User talk:87.170.200.28|talk]]) 12:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: P.S.: I changed the title to avoid susceptibilities. --[[User:Ají Picante|Ají Picante]] ([[User talk:Ají Picante|talk]]) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== 80th? == |
|||
Why does the article say that he is the 80th president but on the list he is the 67th, and the interim president is the 68th? [[user:Nusent|Nusent]] 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[List of presidents of Bolivia]] gives 67 presidents, but it does not count the interim presidents that served in between the counted presidents, that is my interpretation of it [[User:Lochglasgowstrathyre|Lochglasgowstrathyre]] ([[User talk:Lochglasgowstrathyre|talk]]) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: in template infobx successor : Why Adriana Salvatierra and not <s>Jeanine Áñez</s> ? Salvatierra resigned before being able to act as president. [[Special:Contributions/92.154.41.65|92.154.41.65]] ([[User talk:92.154.41.65|talk]]) 14:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: I removed Jeanine Anez because, currently, noone is able to know what happens next : there is no succession yet till a valid president of the senate is defined or a new election (with which laws ????) occured. [[Special:Contributions/92.154.41.65|92.154.41.65]] ([[User talk:92.154.41.65|talk]]) 17:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Per Mewulwe's lead at [[Jeanine Anez]]. I've removed the numbering, as it can't be sourced & thus verified. The numberings should be removed from ''all'' bios of Bolivian presidents & vice presidents. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Date format == |
|||
According to [[Date format by country]] and other sources<ref>https://gist.github.com/mlconnor/1887156</ref>, Bolivia uses the DD/MM/YY date format instead of MM/DD/YY presented on this article and several other articles on Bolivia [[User:Lochglasgowstrathyre|Lochglasgowstrathyre]] ([[User talk:Lochglasgowstrathyre|talk]]) 09:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
== Page protection == |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Evo Morales|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please change "Adrianna Salvatierra" as acting president to "Jeanine Áñez". I don't understand why this keeps getting reverted. Coming from a Bolivian user myself who literally just made an account to edit this - Adrianna Salvatierra resigned on November 10th, thus discluding her from the presidential line of succession. Since the vice-president, president of the Senate (Salvatierra), and the first vice-president of the Senate have resigned too, Jean Áñez (the second vice-president the Senate of Bolivia) is next in line. [[User:SpicyCheese|SpicyCheese]] ([[User talk:SpicyCheese|talk]]) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> No mention of Adrianna Salvatierra anywhere in the article at present. Thanks, [[User:NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:black">Nici</b>]][[User talk:NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b>]][[Special:Contributions/NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:black">Heart</b>]] 03:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Third presidential term: 2014–2019 == |
|||
The order of mentioning thinks is not at all unimportant. When I first read the article, I only read the beginning of each paragraph and I got the impression, that a so to say "friend" of Morales was against his reelection. In the way I wrote it now, you cannot avoid reading both the information (so, also that he later changed his mind). There is some more information that is actually based on ''facts'' and not just on allegations or opinions of people. I am also not so sure, that someone cannot appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. I mean, right after Anéz got the "presidency", the Court changed the law again. So, either the decisions can change, or Anéz pressed the Court to make a new decision... But I don't have any source about this, so I left it like that. [[User:Yomomo|Yomomo]] ([[User talk:Yomomo|talk]]) 16:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, I hope this helps: <br> |
|||
: '''The Supreme Tribunal of Justice''' had nothing to do with any of this.<br> |
|||
: '''The Supreme Tribunal ''of the Constitution''''' has the task to interpret Bolivian laws, to verify that they are constitutional. They can simply say if something is constitutional or not. They do ''not'' have the power to alter the constitution. <br> |
|||
: '''Inter-American Court of Human Rights''' is an international court that "rules on whether a State has violated an individual's human rights" They are part of the OAS. "The Organization of American States established the Court in 1979 to enforce and interpret the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights" [[Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights]]<br> |
|||
: All member countries of the American Convention on Human Rights have agreed that the treaty will override the country's own laws. Most of the countries in the Americas (including USA) are members. Court rulings apply to all member countries, not just the country specified, unless otherwise indicated.<br> |
|||
: - So the The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution was presented with the argument that the OAS treaty made term limits a human rights violation. The The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution decided that they would allow the argument, pending a decision by the OAS. In the meantime, '''The Supreme ''Electoral'' Tribunal''' approved Evo's reelection application without waiting for a decision by the OAS. |
|||
: The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution did not make any changes to Bolivian law, rather accepted that ''if'' the Treaty made term limits a human rights violation, then Bolivia could not have term limits. - This would have applied to every elected position, not just president. And it would have applied to every member state, not just Bolivia. (incl the USA) <br> |
|||
: Colombia immediately registered a case against term limits as a human rights violation with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Eventually, the court decided that terms limits are a ''not'' human rights violation. <br> |
|||
:Once the interpretation was struck down, automatically the Bolivian constitution was no longer overridden on the point of term limits, which reinstated the Bolivian constitutional law - limiting the president to 2 terms. <br> |
|||
:As for Áñez: The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution, as part of its regular function, certified that Áñez met the Constitutional requirements for succession. <br> |
|||
:I hope this clarifies the situation. [[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks [[User:Laella|Laella]] for your thorough explanation. I still have two questions on this matter: |
|||
*"Eventually, the court decided that terms limits are a ''not'' human rights violation." Do we have a source on this issue? I'm just wondering why Luis Almagro changed his opinion and supported the participation of Morales, when the court of the organization of which he is a president decided for the opposite. |
|||
*I thought that the decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution over Áñez is a disputed issue among law experts. In the way you are writing about it, I become the impression, that there is no dispute on this issue. What is the case now? [[User:Yomomo|Yomomo]] ([[User talk:Yomomo|talk]]) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<br> |
|||
:: I am having trouble finding good resources in English (most are in Spanish). Here are a few links to the OAS statements on term limits as a human rights violation (please note dates) |
|||
::* https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=S-011/18 |
|||
::* https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)010-e |
|||
::If I find more, I will add them. |
|||
:: As for why Almagro decided to support Morales' reelection - That is a topic of some suspicion. [https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article230643599.html Miami Herald opinion: OAS chief gives a boost to Bolivia’s dictatorship. What does he stand to gain?] |
|||
::Technically, at the time Bolivia's Constitutional Tribunal made their ruling, the OAS Court had not made an all-encompassing ruling about term limits. They had only issued a limited document, specific to a few countries in Central America. Even so, it was a strong indicator of how the OAS Court ''would'' rule in such a case. This grey area is what allowed Bolivia to proceed. By the time the OAS court made official statements (2018), Morales was already registered for the next election. Another grey area - technically he should have been disqualified then, but he was allowed to remain on the ballot. |
|||
:: The decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution over Áñez is not controversial legally, it is controversial politically. The Tribunal (consisting of the same members who presided over the decision to allow Morales to run for reelection) has the ultimate authority. They published their decision on Nov 12, 2019. 2 days after Morales' resignation. There was one member of the court who abstained in dissent. They laid out the basis for the succession, including that because the President resigned and left the country, rather than emitting an act of resignation in writing to congress, the constitution does not require congress accept the resignation (it's like resignation by abdication). Specifically it says, the vice-president immediately assumes the role. It then specifies the applicable law of order of succession that leads to Áñez. |
|||
::Sorry, this one is only in Spanish [https://tcpbolivia.bo/tcp/?q=content/comunicado-1 TCPB Comunicado] |
|||
:: --[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 04:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Camacho as activist == |
|||
When the word activist over Camacho's actions in this context and article should be part of this article, then it should at least define the form of the activism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yomomo|Yomomo]] ([[User talk:Yomomo#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yomomo|contribs]]) 10:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:This is agreeable to me. Note that my most recent edit is merely adding a dash to your addition ("right wing" to "right-wing"). [[User:Jaydavidmartin|Jaydavidmartin]] ([[User talk:Jaydavidmartin|talk]]) 11:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks. I'm actually no native speaking english, so sorry for the mistake :-) [[User:Yomomo|Yomomo]] ([[User talk:Yomomo|talk]]) 12:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== NPOV issues == |
|||
Sorry for not putting references here, but I'm a private person and full time working, so, you can look in the respective articles to proof the claims mentioned here. I would very much appreciate, when anyone could help me clear these issues in a more appropriate way, conforming to the Wikipedia rules. |
|||
I see in the whole description of Morales request to become president (for the 4. time) some issues, where I think NPOV is being violated. I would like some more information about these issues, but I cannot read Spanish. |
|||
*It is often mentioned, that Morales himself asked for a limit in the presidency (2 times) and then changed his mind. |
|||
**On the first place: The government under Morales seems to have changed its mind quite often, sometimes for the shake of its supporters and sometimes for the shake of its opponents. One example for the latter, is the autonomy given to regions. Saying "he had promised, but then did something else" without saying that changing opinion is part of a democratic process and of any discourse is an "accusation" that reflects a certain bias against him. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules? |
|||
**Further on: As far as I know, Morales is an elected leader of his party. I see quite often remarks, that say that he is sticking on the president position but I see no reports regarding his being elected there from a large majority of his party, even in the current very difficult situation. He is actually also a kind of [[Apu Mallku|elected king]] for his people, whereby the title is no title for life and no title for a fix period, it is more a title of respect that the person becomes from its people, so long this is the case (if the people don't want him, he loses the title). Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules? |
|||
*It is also mentioned, that his reputation was damaged after a mud campaign over allegation about a liaison to a woman and so on. Although it is quite possible that his reputation was actually damaged, I don't see any sources that have really counted the effect of this campaign on the outcome of the referendum. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules? |
|||
*Over the decision of the supreme court, it is often mentioned, that it was under his control. Not only didn't I find adequate sources supporting this supposition, I didn't also find any mentioning of the impossibility of such an argumentation. By every decision of the supreme court that supports the government, this would be an argument against the decision and by every decision that is against the government, this argument wouldn't make any point. But this is no legal argument, it is only a way to push decisions against the government. I see many opinions about the court's decision, but the actual legal argument of the court is ruffly mentioned. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules? [[User:Yomomo|Yomomo]] ([[User talk:Yomomo|talk]]) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<br> |
|||
::I am having trouble following your writing, but I will try. Maybe it would help if you mentioned specifically what sentence from the article you have issue with? |
|||
::Morales didn't ask for a term limit. He oversaw a completely new constitution. The 2 term-limit was part of the new constitution he oversaw (previously, it was limited to one consecutive term) <br> |
|||
::He did change his mind, and wanted another term - which is why he held a referendum (21F) - he said he would abide by the outcome, and he lost. <br> |
|||
::That is not bias - he said he would not, then he obviously ''did'' run again. <br> |
|||
::I explained the "supreme court" issue above, in response to your previous post. <br> |
|||
::He is not an elected king of his people, and I really dont understand your issue that he is elected by his party? <br> |
|||
::The Zapata controversy has referenced links - what about it is an issue? |
|||
::[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: I don't have time to reply in detail, but I think the references as of 6th Jan 2020 seem solid with regard to several of the issues you raise. Morales could have appointed a successor and MAS would have likely stormed the election without any problem or the corruption that went on. There is a lot of corruption in Bolivia in general, however, and it is fair that a lot of those involved face up to their crimes. Look up some reports on corruption in Bolivia. There are several in English. With regard to the most current allegations, there are holes and misappropriated funds in publicly owned companies - one (Entel) to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I know you cannot read Spanish, but using translate in Google translate is extremely helpful if only for your own personal interest. Morales own personal involvement is not clear at all, but I would say he either knew about it or turned a blind eye to the activities of his associates. As far as I know, there is nothing implicating him directly other than things he financed for his role as President and that was never extravagant in the bigger picture. The Zapata stuff matches all that I know about it that I have heard from Bolivia and seems well researched. Being an elected king... well I doubt that he was ever really elected. It's an honorary title given by a committee of elders as far as I understand it. Like an honorary degree given to a person prominent in the community. There are a lot of them I think. I could be wrong on that, but it is not a king as we would understand it. I am not sure how being leader of the party works, but you need to understand that MAS really came together as a coalition of pre-existing parties and he was the one to bring them together. A lot of the factions that joined up with him to achieve victory are doubting his role now. A new generation of Masistas, like [[Eva Copa]], seem to be fine without him. I know Bolivians who view him as a traitor to the Process of Change. They don't support him, but they support the Process. With regard to the legal argument for Morales changing the rules of his own constitution, I think that a lot of countries don't have terms limits so it is up to them, but the fact that Morales is changing his own rules is what people are very unhappy about, but also in the wider context of discontent with the immunity and corruption of the 14 year government it just made people angry. I invite you to check out the Bolivian press in these matters, even through the lense of Google translate. The rest of the world is way behind.[[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I will add a note here to say that {{u|Yomomo}} exclusively edits Bolivian politics articles, and has shown clear favor towards Morales. Directed at Yomomo: please note that this is a [[WP:GA|Good Article]] and as such has been assessed by Wikipedia as neutral. You can't just declare it POV and start making changes in poor English. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 05:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== first indigenous president == |
|||
There are explanations of this in 2 different places in the article, should they be merged? |
|||
From Personal Life: <blockquote>Morales is ethnically Aymara, and has been widely described as Bolivia's first democratically-elected President from the indigenous majority.[10][6] Although Morales has sometimes been described as the first indigenous president to be democratically elected in Latin America, Benito Juárez, a Mexican of the Zapotec ethnic group, was elected President of Mexico in 1858.[7] |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
In a special note at the end: <blockquote>Morales is described as the first indigenous president of Bolivia in academic studies of his presidency, such as those of Muñoz-Pogossian,[2] Webber,[3] Philip and Panizza,[4] and Farthing and Kohl,[5] as well as in press reports, such as those of BBC News,[6] However, there have been challenges to this claim by critics who have asserted that Morales probably has some European ancestry, and thus on genetic grounds is technically mestizo rather than solely indigenous.[7] Harten asserted that this argument was "misguided[,] wrong[... and] above all irrelevant" because regardless of his genetic makeup, the majority of Bolivians perceive Morales as being the first indigenous president.[7] In Bolivian society, indigeneity is a fluid concept rooted in cultural identity;[7] for instance, many indigenous individuals that have settled in urban areas and abandoned their traditional rural customs have come to identify as mestizo.[8]</blockquote> |
|||
The controversy is not that Morales has some European ancestry. The controversy is that he is not Bolivia's ''first'' indigenous/mestizo president. (Ignoring indigenous presidents from other LATAM countries for the moment) |
|||
The first indigenous/mestizo president of Bolivia would have been either Andrés Santa Cruz Calahumana or Bautista Saavedra Mallea, |
|||
depending on how you calculate. |
|||
There are other Bolivian presidents who were likely mestizo, but their ancestries not known definitively, so it is impossible to prove. |
|||
There were also at least a couple of mestizo presidents who were not democratically elected. |
|||
[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 12:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<br> |
|||
== Gaiagenesis edits == |
|||
There were a lot of edits made by this user on several pages that have been reverted elsewhere. This includes a reference to this source <ref>https://www.primeralinea.info/ingeniero-altera-resultados-para-justificar-supuesto-fraude-y-generar-un-show-mediatico/</ref>. Quite asides from the fact that this is not how it is been reported by any other Bolivian media, I am not sure how reputable or even real the website is. There were also a bunch of other references to the CEPR analysis of the election containing opinion on their analysis and NPOV elements concerning responses to their analysis. This information and further analyses of the election carried out by others is dealt with on other pages and is more up to date there. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 03:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: The website is known to be part of the first large-scale social media influencer campaign of the MAS / Evo Morales presidential campaign. (citations in spanish, if I find english explanations, I will add them) <ref>https://www.chequeabolivia.bo/primera-linea-noticias-portal-enganoso</ref> <ref>https://eldeber.com.bo/141954_guerreros-digitales-operan-medios-digitales-y-cambian-su-estrategia-operativa</ref> - [[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 04:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Gracias por eso! Certainly there is a lot that didn't seem right about it. Thanks for the background. The same information is being used on the [[President of Bolivia]] page but I did not edit that yet as there were a dozen edits made throughout yesterday and it is hard to untangle what should be removed and what not. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Cult of Personality == |
|||
(edit to say: I am re-deleting the comment from the article now that there are sources to say otherwise) |
|||
The article currently states "Unlike his ally Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, the MAS does not revolve around his personality." |
|||
I deleted that opinion, and had the edit reverted with the following comment "reverting removal of sourced content. It is possible that Harten's claims are incorrect, but we would need sourced Reliable Sources to contest his statement." |
|||
My list below includes some smaller, left-biased, media source to show that even more left-leaning media considers Morales to be a Cult of Personality, and it is not an "opposition" opinion. I hope this is what was needed. So here I am posting reliable sources to contest the idea that "Evo Morales is not a Cult of Personality". |
|||
<blockquote>It’s true he was no longer as popular as he had been. It’s true his rule had lately taken on an authoritarian tinge. There were signs of democratic “backsliding” and of an unattractive, Castro-esque personality cult.<ref>{{cite web |last1=editorial |first1=Observer |title=The Observer view on Evo Morales and Bolivia {{!}} Observer editorial |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/17/observer-view-on-evo-morales-and-bolivia |website=The Guardian |publisher=The Guardian |accessdate=13 January 2020 |date=17 November 2019}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>The bonuses and other social programs keep the majority happy, and the result is that Morales enjoys a cult of personality very similar to that of former president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mendez Cabrera |first1=Julio |title=Bolivia’s Perennial President {{!}} Harvard Political Review |url=https://harvardpolitics.com/world/bolivias-perennial-president/ |website=Harvard Political Review |publisher=harvardpolitics.com |accessdate=13 January 2020 |language=en}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>In the past years, Morales has had a conciliatory policy toward agribusiness, while governing on the basis of authoritarianism and a cult of personality.<ref>{{cite web |title=Down With the Right-Wing Coup in Bolivia! |url=https://www.leftvoice.org/down-with-the-right-wing-coup-in-bolivia |website=Left Voice |accessdate=13 January 2020}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>We build an ever more important cult of personality around the figure of Evo Morales. This allowed him to win the second election overwhelmingly...<ref>{{cite web |last1=Webber |first1=Jeffrey |title=Bolivian Horizons: An Interview with Pablo Solón |url=https://solidarity-us.org/bolivian-horizons-an-interview-with-pablo-solon/ |website=Solidarity |publisher=solidarity-us.org |language=en |accessdate=13 January 2020}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>In recent years Evo, as he is widely known, showed increasing signs of believing his own cult of personality, which MAS has promoted in part because of its failure to cultivate a politically viable successor.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hennigan |first1=Tom |title=Bolivia: End came swiftly for Evo Morales but crisis has deep roots |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/bolivia-end-came-swiftly-for-evo-morales-but-crisis-has-deep-roots-1.4079755 |website=The Irish Times |accessdate=13 January 2020 |language=en}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>Bolivia TV’s informative style is typical. Reporters usually appear on screen with the following introduction: “Now we are going to interview residents of this town so that they can express their satisfaction with the new public works carried out by the government of President Morales.” The cult of personality is ubiquitous in government-controlled media.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gumucio Dagron |first1=Alfonso |title=Media and Democracy in Bolivia |url=https://nacla.org/article/media-and-democracy-bolivia |website=NACLA |accessdate=13 January 2020 |language=en}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>A staunch ally of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, Morales can best be described as a “narcissist-Leninist.” Following the steps of late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, he has built a strong personality cult and uses radical leftist rhetoric. |
|||
Critics in Bolivia jokingly refer to him as “Ego” Morales. He has built a $7.1 million museum — the biggest in the country — to glorify his life story in his home village of Orinoca, about six hours by car from the capital. He named it “Museum of the Democratic and Cultural Revolution,” but everybody in Bolivia knows it as “Evo’s Museum.”<ref>{{cite web |last1=Oppenheimer |first1=Andres |title=Bolivia’s election could lead to a ruthless ‘elected dictatorship.’ But no one’s paying attention |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article236312908.html |website=Miami Herald |accessdate=13 January 2020}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>Old complications might compound the economic difficulties that Bolivia will face if a proper political transition is not made. Morales’ party, the Movement for Socialism (MAS), has not sought an alternative to Evo, a reflection of the cult of personality that developed around him which, in the opinion of many experts, is another reason for his fall.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sanz |first1=Juan Antonio |title=Bolivia on a razor's edge |url=https://www.equaltimes.org/bolivia-on-a-razor-s-edge |website=Equal Times |accessdate=13 January 2020 |language=en}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Same source used twice == |
|||
Sources 315 and 319 (from The Guardian, titled "Bolivian president Evo Morales resigns after election result dispute") are the same. |
|||
Could someone please erase one? Thanks in advance! |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/177.230.47.65|177.230.47.65]] ([[User talk:177.230.47.65|talk]]) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: thanks for that. Now corrected. |
|||
:[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== MIT / CEPR study discussion == |
|||
This has been an issue in several articles that want to include the secondary CEPR study. People seem to be doing verbal gymnastics to mention MIT, in order to lend legitimacy to CEPR's rehash study (From CEPR's description of the researchers' study: "Disclosure: In December 2019, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) contracted with the authors ''to see if the numerical and statistical results of CEPR’s November 2019 study could be independently verified.''"[1]. " - So ''not'' an independent study.) |
|||
MIT has unequivocally stated they don't want their name attached to this study. Per letter from MIT: "... this study was conducted independently of MIT... it should be referred to as a CEPR study..."[2] MIT has also stated that the authors should be cited as "independent contractors to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)" and ''not'' as employees of MIT. |
|||
[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Krisgabwoosh}} since this article lacks any protection and a lot of the problem edits are from IPs, wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient? [[User:Aismallard|aismallard]] ([[User_talk:Aismallard|talk]]) 06:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: There are a few things to note about this study and there is an interesting article written by an expert in election modelling that compares the OAS and two CEPR (the original and the one by John Cushiel and Jack R Williams) and discusses the merits and failings of each. <ref>https://vozyvoto.com.mx/LeerBlog/32El-analisis-estadistico-de-las-elecciones-de-Bolivia-Una-orientacion-al-debate</ref>. Cushiel and Williams are quoted often as MIT election experts, but when one examines their credentials they are not as impressive as one might believe. The MIT Politics department has an impressive list of scholars <ref>https://polisci.mit.edu/people/faculty</ref>, none of which appear to be willing to be connected with this study. The Election and Data lab has 5 members and a lot more affiliated graduate and undergraduate students. <ref>https://electionlab.mit.edu/about</ref> Cushiel completed his PhD less than a year ago and his areas of expertise are in public health dentristry and rezoning of voting districts. <ref>https://jcuriel.mit.edu/research</ref> Williams, as far as can be determined, does not have a Masters or Phd and obtained a BA in 2017. <ref>https://jackrw.mit.edu/</ref> Quite aside from that, Williams signed a public document denouncing the interim govenment as a coup with supporting evidence from the original CEPR report before the full OAS report was ever released. The work he is meant to be "independently" verifying. Compare their qualifications as experts with the head of the OAS study, Irfan Nooruddin, who is a Professor at Georgetown University and has written a book on electoral democracy <ref>https://gufaculty360.georgetown.edu/s/contact/00336000014TIakAAG/irfan-nooruddin</ref>, Walter Mebane, who is a professor of both statistics and politics at University of Michigan <ref>https://www.isr.umich.edu/cps/people_faculty_wmebane.pdf</ref> and who said that fraud existed (although he debated whether or not it would change the result of the election) and Diego Escobari, Associate Professor at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and Gary A. Hoover, Head of Economics at the University of Oklahoma who concluded even more forcefully that the election was fraudulent.<ref>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3492928</ref>. The article I mention was also written by a professor-researcher at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences, Rodrigo Salazar Elena, and what he has to say is important because it actually does a comparison of the studies. |
|||
:Correct, that's what I meant. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 06:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: Firstly, when comparing the two CEPR studies, he says "I invite readers to compare the documents and judge for themselves that it is, except in a few details, a replica of the same analysis." They are not claiming anything particularly new. Secondly, that "the prestige of MIT and the Washington Post was enough for many commentators to take for granted the conclusion that CEPR had reached earlier" and that "statistics is a subject that requires training that most of us do not have, so when taking sides in disputes on these issues many will be guided by issues such as reputation and prestige." CEPR have a lot of motivation in getting the MIT name in this. Salazar also says "It must be remembered that the OAS audit presents evidence of different irregularities. Statistical study is only part of the analysis. In this sense, by concentrating the discussion on this aspect, this shows the propagnadistic effect of the relaunch of the CEPR analysis." Thirdly, he says that the CEPR reports don't confront head on the lack of continuity around an arbitrary point in time, which is the basis of the conclusions of the OAS. "A rebuttal of the OAS analysis would have to mention which feature clearly distinguishes voters on either side of the threshold, to account for the jump of about 10%", he says. CEPR avoid this evidence entirely and use other means to attempt to prove the opposite. Fourthly, with regard the the Curiel/Williams and earlier CEPR report, he does not criticise their methods, but points out that they also rely on an assumption of geographic continuity in the results. He also points out that what flaws there are in that assumption. In summing up, he says "If you read a headline like "Simulations from MIT specialists show that Evo won in the first round," it sounds like they're launching rockets into space. Not so, not even close. On the one hand, the OAS analysis has not been properly refuted. On the other hand, the CEPR-MIT analysis is valid only if one is willing to believe in an assumption that is at least as difficult to sustain as that of the OAS audit." Furthermore, there is also a lot of OTHER evidence of fraud or attempted fraud in the OAS report that the CEPR study just ignores as if it is irrelevant and do not answer the question of whether or not the elections should be anulled. CEPR in response to one of these rebuttals of their work state "neither the report by C&W nor their piece in the Monkey Cage proves there was no fraud. C&W did not set out to prove there was no fraud — merely to investigate whether the data supported a specific claim by the OAS. There is no amount of analysis that can suffice to prove there was no fraud." <ref>https://www.cepr.net/guilty-until-proven-innocent-the-diego-escobari-approach-to-bolivias-elections/</ref> They make similar statements on another piece that states "''This analysis is not meant to serve as a validation of the electoral results themselves''. Rather, it is an analysis of the OAS’s actual findings and of the neutrality and rigor of the audit itself. This is not about supporting one political party or candidate over another. Nor is it solely about Bolivia. This is about the need for independent electoral observation in the hemisphere, and about accountability for an organization that has abandoned any semblance of neutrality under the leadership of Secretary General Luis Almagro." |
|||
== Kozloff source == |
|||
: So, in contrast to saying "there is no statistical evidence of fraud" CEPR are saying that whether the elections were valid or not is secondary to their criticism of the OAS. |
|||
{{Ping|NoonIcarus}} Hi! I reverted your edits removing the source for Nicholas Kozloff. I'm not necessarily opposed to the changes, but given this article's contentious history and out of abundance of caution, I just wanted to make sure as to your reasoning. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Ping|Krisgabwoosh}} Hello! This is long overdue, but I still wanted to provide some insight regarding my changes. Kozloff is overall pro-[[Pink tide|Pink Tide]], and his main article can be offer some insight regarding his position: his book ''Hugo Chávez : Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the United States'' treats Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, and just like the work referenced in this article, it was written in arguably in the height of the Pink Tide, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Not only should we beware of writing about a political process with a historial perspective instead of a current day one, but also the overrepresentation of American sources in content about Latin America. These factors affect reliability, besides neutrality, and its use should be avoided. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd definitely say that this article could use some more contemporary citations reflecting recent historical analysis. However, I'd say that the author's biases aren't' necessarily reflected in the article to the extent that citations to him warrant being removed without something to replace them. I would definitely, on the other hand, consider perhaps delisting this as a GA, given that there are multiple sections that are no longer up to snuff. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 21:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I’m initially opposed to the change for which I had done a partial revert already, but I am also willing to hear more. The concern reflected by the edit summary was not self-evident to me. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 18:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== OAS reports and rebuttals (2019 election controversy and resignation - 2019 election) == |
|||
==GA Reassessment== |
|||
This section is absurdly large. It is the largest section on this page right now - 5 paragraphs (over 1200 words). |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Evo Morales/1}} |
|||
There is a note on this section to go to [[2019 Bolivian political crisis]] for more information. |
|||
The rest of this section should be reduced to a short summary. The OAS report and rebuttals are NOT actually about Evo Morales directly. They do not contribute to an understanding of ''Evo Morales''. Also, it falls into the problem on many of Bolivia's pages where basically the exact same information is over-described on many different pages, which means that information has to be updated in too many places when there are updates. |
|||
If no one objects, and no one else wants to do it, I am going to cut this down to one paragraph. |
|||
The details can be added to "2019 Bolivian political crisis" if they are not there already. |
|||
--[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 00:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Citation 312 Attribution (minor) Error == |
|||
: I am inclined to agree, and there will doubtless be more studies both for and against the conclusions of the OAS. We cannot keep adding arguments for and against every study. There is a place for that, as you say. If there are similar presidents with content on wikipedia with precedent, it may be arguable, but seems like this is becoming a battleground to clear or damn Evo's name. These studies don't speak about his personal involvement in the alleged fraud, which would be more pertinent. Seperating into groups of those that say no evidence of fraud, those that say there was evidence of fraud, but it had a negligible or unknown effect on the result, and those that say both there was evidence of fraud and it had an effect on the results could be an idea. [[User:Crmoorhead|Crmoorhead]] ([[User talk:Crmoorhead|talk]]) 01:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Citation 312 referring to a paper authored by Diego Escobari indicates that he is from the University of Texas, the common name of the flagship school of the University of Texas System, UT-Austin. The accompanying link also leads to UT-Austin. In fact Dr. Escobari is a faculty member at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (utrgv.edu), and his paper itself indicates that school, which deserves recognition in proper attribution. Citation 312 itself links to his paper hosted at utrgv.edu, the website of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1|2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1|talk]]) 00:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: can you post your proposed paragraph on the talk page first so that other editors can provide comments before the article is updated? [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 08:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The article also lists the co-author (Hoover) first, rather than the primary author (Escobari). Conventionally, the primary author should be listed first. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1|2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1|talk]]) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::: I don't have a proposed paragraph. I propose to delete the 5 paragraphs about the OAS report and rebuttals. It can be replaced with "reports and rebuttals have been issued, see [[2019 Bolivian political crisis]] for more information, if needed (or something along those lines). Then, polish the remaining information if needed (adding transitions, etc). [[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 21:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Linked now to the correct university. As to the second point, the citation actually listed neither author. I've amended it to include author names and other elements necessary for proper citation. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
. |
|||
:::I appreciate the corrections and my apologies for not being specific on one requested edit: in the main text of the article (not the citation, which is correct now thanks to your fix), the university name "University of Texas" links to the correct university (utrgv.edu), but the text itself would more properly refer to "The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley", as "University of Texas" alone is common parlance for the flagship school, UT-Austin, and most readers of the main article text would (incorrectly) assume that it was the university producing this research. The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and UT-Austin are distinct and separate institutions within the UT System (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_System). Thank you for your efforts on this article and on Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/129.113.55.130|129.113.55.130]] ([[User talk:129.113.55.130|talk]]) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Fair enough; full university name is now included. [[User:Krisgabwoosh|Krisgabwoosh]] ([[User talk:Krisgabwoosh|talk]]) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:52, 30 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evo Morales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Evo Morales was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Statutory rape case
[edit]I just wanted to make a note that this is a major scandal in Bolivia and there is a lot of information that has not been reported, including reactions from major political figures in all parties and relevant information. BLP still applies, but there are ways to report this issue correctly. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- At the moment, the section is a bit ridiculous – five paragraphs and less than 500 words, with four "claimed" (and one "she claims"), two "alleged" and one "purported" (in the same sentence, which also has one of the instances of "claimed"), and a couple of other hedges, while "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions" is presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, BLP applies, to all people mentioned in the article, but so does basic stylistic common sense. --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, there have been a number of edits that have added words here and there that make it sound repetitive and poorly structured. Much of it was worse before I started editing the section and the title had the word "pedophile" in it, which is definitely not good BLP practice and inaccurate. That sentence is clumsy, yes. There are some sentences that seem to indicate that are written by editors who don't have English as a first language. Style and structure are, however, basic corrections that can be easily made. Combining some of the shorter paragraphs or extending them (within reason) is sensible, IMO. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well this whole fiasco is right now a case of she-said-he-said and article should reflect that.31.187.2.117 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is also the issue that Morales being in a relationship with a 19 year-old (or indeed a 16-year-old) is not actually illegal. The evidence seems to point to them having a reasonably long-term romantic relationship, but nothing particularly compelling to say that it began before she was 16. This should be clearly stated, but the accusations and who exactly is making them should be clear. I have not added that commentary because I need to source that statement properly. Looking to other wiki pages with similar content for a model of neutrality would be a good idea. There is no denying that this is, however, a big deal (especially in Bolivia) regardless of how it falls out, nor that is it something that has been discussed about Morales in Spanish-speaking media for a number of years. There are other events that have occurred within Bolivia that are still not reported in this article, or in English language media, and it is generally a struggle to find anyone that has up-to-date knowledge about news in Bolivia to help with that. This may or may not affect your opinion that it is a matter of "she-said-he-said", but I would point to how these matters are dealt with in similar cases. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually the language is so melodramatic and tortured that readers won't take it seriously and will probably burst out laughing. The oddest phrases are:
- "These became the object of outrage among users". - Very melodramatic.
- "that Morales had been in a relationship with the minor since the age of 14". - Given that he is 60 now, that means he has been in the relationship for 46 years. Surely the girl has grown up by now.
- "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - A very odd translation from the Spanish.
- "Her precise whereabouts are unknown". - Why is that important?
- "... have been claimed to corroborate a long-term acquaintance between the two". - Morales has a lot of long term acquaintances. Why is one more important?
- "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions". - Sounds like we are acting for the prosecution. Also is there really a Ministry of Transparency?
- Burrobert (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually the language is so melodramatic and tortured that readers won't take it seriously and will probably burst out laughing. The oddest phrases are:
- If there is a problem with the language, make an edit to modify it.
- * Not my wording. Modify as you see fit.
- * Ambiguous, but obvious from context. An easy fix.
- * Is it? I mean, make a better translation if you want. If you aren't in a position to do so, perhaps you should not comment on its "oddness". Seems a perfectly valid English sentence to me.
- * Not particularly, delete it if you wish. It's been said by several articles on the whole subject, why was it relevant to them? It makes a difference if she was smuggled across the border to be with Morales or just living somewhere else, but for the purposes of the wiki, it's not essential.
- * Acquaintance is not the right word, the transcripts are between lovers. Have a read of them and pick whichever word you think is most appropriate.
- * The ministry of Transparency is a thing, yes. Agreed that this sentence is clumsy. I don't think that clearly stating the two sides of the case is acting for the prosecution. NPOV is achievable. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I could fix them but I actually find them amusing. A couple of follow ups:
- "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - Yes it is a valid English sentence. However, "Public acts" sounds lewd and I am sure that is not what was intended or being referred to.
- I'll have to look up the Ministry of Transparency to see what it does.
- Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't find "public acts" remotely lewd, but perhaps you would be ok with "public appearances" or "public actions". The word in Spanish is "actos". It refers to his official appearances and events attended as President. The Ministry of Transparency is linked with the FELCC which aims to detect corruption in state-owned industries and public figures. Corruption is a big problem in Bolivia, so they are kept busy. They have been around for a while. Here is info on corruption in general in Bolivia in English. [1]Crmoorhead (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I could fix them but I actually find them amusing. A couple of follow ups:
References
1st President?
[edit]Morales is currently listed as the 65th president of Bolivia. However, the argument could be made to list him as the 1st President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The 2009 Bolivian Constitution reset term limits on the president and called for a new general election that year. As well, in Morales' own twitter bio he states to be the First President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisgabwoosh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. It's a technicality. In common parlance, readers would simply be interested in who was president of the country called Bolivia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh ok, that makes sense. I am interested in knowing how Bolivian (and many Latin American in general) presidents are numbered? For the U.S., for example, Grover Celeveland is named 22nd and 24th president because he served non consecutively, but in Bolivian articles it seems that presidents, even those who served non consecutively, count for one spot. Are interim and short-lived presidents counted when numbering. I've been trying to figure out the method for numbering Latin American presidents for a while. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe they're not numbered. As an Australian, from time to time I find myself (and see other Australians) reverting OR edits, typically by Americans, who want to number our political position holders. It's just not a tradition here, and nobody "official" has ever gone to the trouble of working out the idiosyncrasies and oddities. It may well be that Bolivia is more like Australia in that respect than the US. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was always saw it as Prime Ministers not being numbered because it is their party that is elected and they're just the head of it while Presidents are numbered because they are elected separate from their party election. But if this is not the case, should we remove the numbering on Morales' infobox. For Bolivia, the 1st two presidents (Bolivar and Sucre) are numbered and everything from de Lozada (62nd) are numbered. All presidents in between are not numbered. Should I remove the numbering? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- That would be my preference, but I would await the views of others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any two people being president of Bolivia at the same time, which would be the obvious objection to a chronological numbering. There may be a few presidents that came to power in a coup and were not internationally recognised as president of the country, but technically they still had all the power of the president. Some of the presidents were also only placeholders until elections could take place. The current one, of course, but Rodriguez Veltze before that. There are rules that govern the succession of President when one resigns or elections are called prematurely. The Spanish wiki has a full list of numbered presidents, but don't restart the numbering with the Plurinational State and some of them are not numbered. [1] Unlike the US, they are not referred to as being the "65th" president in an official capacity, but that doesn't mean they can't be numbered in a list per se. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- From what I have researched (I myself am Bolivian), Bolivia does not count its presidents numerically but through their legal status. Presidents are classified in two groups. The first group is "Constitucionales" having come to power legally or through quasi-legal means (achieving power through a revolution or coup d’état but later constitutionalised).The rest are either de facto having come to power militarily and never constitutionalised, or interim having been placed in power only until a new president is chosen (As is the current president).[2][3] As well, there is actually one example of co-presidency that being of René Barrientos and Alfredo Ovando who are the only case of co-presidencies in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good to have someone else from Bolivia contributing! I am married to a Bolivian and am living there now (although mainly I am in the UK) and there are many editors that don't know much about the country but write from the perspective of what is reported in Western media which is almost always an inaccurate representation. I spend most of my edits adding information from the main Bolivian news outlets that just aren't reported past the borders. With regard to the numbering, it could also be stated that Morales refers to himself as the 1st President of the new Bolivian nation, which gives the most information. The information about "constitutionales" and "de facto" is interesting. Maybe ths would be useful on the page about presidents, although a source would be needed.Crmoorhead (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is always nice to find a fellow Bolivian. I ended up adding the information about so-called "Constitucionales" (With source of course) to the page for Presidents of Bolivia. As for including Morales as the 1st President of the Plurinational State (the original topic of this discussion), I personally believe it makes sense. Many other pages for presidents of other countries restart the numbering when the state goes through an official name change. The best example I can think of is Colombia. In Wikipedia's list of presidents of Colombia, the numbering resets every time the state reforms (Gran Colombia,Republic of New Granada, Granadine Confederation, United States of Colombia). The current president, Iván Duque, is listed as 33rd president since the formation of the Republic of Colombia in 1886. Rafael Núñez , is listed as the 13th president of the United States of Colombia and the 1st president of the Republic of Colombia. So there is a precedent to do this and, coupled with the fact Morales reset term limits when Bolivia became a Plurinational State, is why I believe it should be added. In the meantime I guess we just wait on a consensus. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good to have someone else from Bolivia contributing! I am married to a Bolivian and am living there now (although mainly I am in the UK) and there are many editors that don't know much about the country but write from the perspective of what is reported in Western media which is almost always an inaccurate representation. I spend most of my edits adding information from the main Bolivian news outlets that just aren't reported past the borders. With regard to the numbering, it could also be stated that Morales refers to himself as the 1st President of the new Bolivian nation, which gives the most information. The information about "constitutionales" and "de facto" is interesting. Maybe ths would be useful on the page about presidents, although a source would be needed.Crmoorhead (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- From what I have researched (I myself am Bolivian), Bolivia does not count its presidents numerically but through their legal status. Presidents are classified in two groups. The first group is "Constitucionales" having come to power legally or through quasi-legal means (achieving power through a revolution or coup d’état but later constitutionalised).The rest are either de facto having come to power militarily and never constitutionalised, or interim having been placed in power only until a new president is chosen (As is the current president).[2][3] As well, there is actually one example of co-presidency that being of René Barrientos and Alfredo Ovando who are the only case of co-presidencies in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any two people being president of Bolivia at the same time, which would be the obvious objection to a chronological numbering. There may be a few presidents that came to power in a coup and were not internationally recognised as president of the country, but technically they still had all the power of the president. Some of the presidents were also only placeholders until elections could take place. The current one, of course, but Rodriguez Veltze before that. There are rules that govern the succession of President when one resigns or elections are called prematurely. The Spanish wiki has a full list of numbered presidents, but don't restart the numbering with the Plurinational State and some of them are not numbered. [1] Unlike the US, they are not referred to as being the "65th" president in an official capacity, but that doesn't mean they can't be numbered in a list per se. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- That would be my preference, but I would await the views of others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was always saw it as Prime Ministers not being numbered because it is their party that is elected and they're just the head of it while Presidents are numbered because they are elected separate from their party election. But if this is not the case, should we remove the numbering on Morales' infobox. For Bolivia, the 1st two presidents (Bolivar and Sucre) are numbered and everything from de Lozada (62nd) are numbered. All presidents in between are not numbered. Should I remove the numbering? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe they're not numbered. As an Australian, from time to time I find myself (and see other Australians) reverting OR edits, typically by Americans, who want to number our political position holders. It's just not a tradition here, and nobody "official" has ever gone to the trouble of working out the idiosyncrasies and oddities. It may well be that Bolivia is more like Australia in that respect than the US. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh ok, that makes sense. I am interested in knowing how Bolivian (and many Latin American in general) presidents are numbered? For the U.S., for example, Grover Celeveland is named 22nd and 24th president because he served non consecutively, but in Bolivian articles it seems that presidents, even those who served non consecutively, count for one spot. Are interim and short-lived presidents counted when numbering. I've been trying to figure out the method for numbering Latin American presidents for a while. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- An argument could certainly be made for him being the first President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, although I think few people would refer to him as that. It was the main argument for him to be allowed to run more than twice as President. I don't know in detail how the old constitution compares to the new one, but largely the main bodies are the same. There are some changes in what powers some of the main positions have too. Looking for precedent inf other wiki pages is a good idea. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please anyone provide a source for the entire numbering of Bolivian presidents, otherwise these are arbitrary and need to go. Mewulwe (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mewulwe: They're based off the book by Bolivian presidential historian and ex-president Carlos Mesa.[4] The reset in the numbering is based off the 2009 Constitution which changed the name of the country and allowed Evo Morales to reset term limits on the pretext that his previous terms belonged to a different regime.
- His giving a list with numbers doesn't prove anything. His numbering could be as arbitrary as anyone's. Do you have evidence that this numbering is in established use? Mewulwe (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- The official website of the President of Bolivia, presidencia.gob.bo, used to have an official gallery of presidents numbered in order. The paintings used in most Wikipedia pages on Bolivian presidents come from there. However, the site has since changed and the gallery used an old form of flash which doesn't work on the wayback machine. Evo Morales being numbered as the 1st President of the Plurinational State is in established use. Even his Twitter characterzes him as such. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- His giving a list with numbers doesn't prove anything. His numbering could be as arbitrary as anyone's. Do you have evidence that this numbering is in established use? Mewulwe (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mewulwe: They're based off the book by Bolivian presidential historian and ex-president Carlos Mesa.[4] The reset in the numbering is based off the 2009 Constitution which changed the name of the country and allowed Evo Morales to reset term limits on the pretext that his previous terms belonged to a different regime.
- This is such an odd discussion to have. I can only see two contributors who seem to be in favour of this artificial differentation between the Republic and the Plurinational State. This makes it seem like a new country was created - which simply is not the case. Adopting a new constitution does not equal the birth of a new country. Do the Plurinational State and the Republic have two separate pages on Wikipedia? No, because it's the same country. Look at France, for example. They're at their Fifth Republic . Their Presidents' articles simply mention President of France in the infobox. It also is worth mentioning that the Spanish-language Wikipedia says Luis Arce is the 67th President of Bolivia, and I'd be inclined to follow their lead as it is an important official language in Bolivia. So there are ample reasons to go back to the way it had been written until recently. The fact that this change has been reverted countless times by various editors should be a sign that this is not a widely accepted change. In fact, as long as this discussion is running, you should withold from changing the status quo. Takk (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- It makes it seem like a new country was created because that was the argument made by the government at the time. The main claim that a new country was created was that while every other Constitution prior had kept the name "Republic of Bolivia," the new one changed it to the "Plurinational Republic of Bolivia." However, it seems there is no clear consensus anywhere on Wikipedia on how name changes in country's should be handled. While the current count for the Presidents of Colombia starts at the Republic of Colombia resetting it from its predecessor, the United States of Colombia. (Granadine Confederation - United States of Colombia - Republic of Colombia), the pages for the Presidents of Venezuela do not reset the count despite numerous name changes (United States of - Republic of - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). The solution on the Spanish Wikipedia is for all presidents prior to the Constitution to be labelled (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. President of the Republic of Bolivia) with all presidents since Morales labelled (65th, 66th, 67th, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia). This solution is simply wrong since there have been only 3 presidents of the Plurinational State. While a distinction is my preference, it's clear there is no consensus. In the meantime, simply "President of Bolivia" should be used with Arce the 67th since he is the 67th person to officially hold the title. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I concur that it is my preference and will present arguments for discussion:
- The name of the nation changed from Republic of Bolivia to Plurinational State of Bolivia in all official documents at the national and international levels.
- The title has also changed to President of the Plurinational State rather than President of the Republic or even President of Bolivia. [5]
- The new constitution forced Evo Morales to need to be elected for a second time, without having completed his first term fully. This meant that he was allowed to stand a third time in 2014, contrary to the 2009 constitution. This was ruled upon by the Constitutional court on grounds that could justify calling him both the last President of the Republic of Bolivia and first president of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
- Morales refers to himself as the first president of the Plurinational State (see above). While not president, he's still influential and I don't see that trend disappearing. The Plurinational State is a major change in society in the country with many institutions changing names.
- While wiki articles may or may not restart counts, that decision seems someone arbitrary and devoid of evidence. The article for France that you quote names the presidents as numbered with 25th being the current, yet the page for the Fifth French Republic lists De Gaule as being the first and the actual website for the presidency lists Macron as being "eighth President of the Fifth Republic of France".[6] Wikipedia isn't always correct.
- While wikipedia is not always correct, it remains to be said that several countries definitely do number their presidents again, namely the Colombia example, exactly based on the changes of Constitutions and renaming of the country. The 2009 Constitution is sufficiently different enough to warrant renumberings.
- Not all numberings of presidents in Bolivia are consistent. They have been previously removed. Starting again from a clearly defined point is preferable if we are doing any numbering at all. Other articles also don't have any numbering for presidents either, like Argentina. There is no official numbering in Bolivia.
- While several people have undone edits, some may be sockpuppets as they have not done any previous edits. Both advocates of the new numbering system know Bolivia well enough to not be advocating this change without reason. The counterargument seems to be "it's confusing" which isn't related at all to whether it's factually incorrect, misleading or appropriate for encyclopedic content. As far as Spanish wikipedia goes, it's not justification to quote other wiki pages! Crmoorhead (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that the numbering is confusing and the fact that there is no official numbering should be reason enough not to do it, and to stick to the title "President of Bolivia". Changing "Republic" into "Plurinational State" does not constitute the changing of the name of the country. It was and still is called "Bolivia". But even if it would, that would not be enough reason to start the count from scratch. Take Myanmar as an example. The country was previously referred to as Burma. When the country changed its name, the counting of their presidents did not stop. Same goes for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was called Zaire. Or look at Stevo Pendarovski, who is said to be the 5th President of North Macedonia, even though the country only changed its name last year. So even if you would argue that the country changed names (which I contest) then that's not enough to justify this change. Takk (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- But, again, I have already cited cases where renaming the country and a new constitution has restarted the count, both in terms of wikipedia and a contradiction to your example of France where Macron is first and foremost referred to the Eighth President of the Fifth French Republic on the official website for the presidency. It's also been shown that there is precedent for the Bolivian president doing so. Other wikipedia pages are somewhat arbitrary in their numbering and it also depends on how chaotic the history is. For DRC, there was only one president of Zaire and previously there was the Republic of Congo (which is another country) with a total of five in the last 50 years. It's a relatively simple continuity. 67 presidents (plus a few others not officially counted) over a course of almost 200 years is a bit more precarious. [[Mobutu Seso Seku] is also labelled as President of Zaire, not as 2nd President of DRC, on his page, whereas the current one is labelled as 5th President of DRC. For Myanmar, they both make a distinction between the title "President" and Head of State for the numbering and also the numbering does not appear in any form on the pages of the presidents themselves. Both countries have different approaches to what numbers appear on the biography pages and list pages, with Colombia taking another approach still. Is there evidence they are actually numbered in the country, or is this something invented by wikipedia users? You are simultaneously arguing that "it makes it seem that they are two separate countries" as a source of confusion and stating that "it was and is called Bolivia". Perhaps drawing a distinction between the Plurinational State and the Republic will help outside the country understand more about Bolivia, which is the goal of an encyclopaedia. In general, it just seems cleaner, but it's backed up by legal rulings in the country and use by Morales, which is more than many numbering systems in use on wikipedia can say. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that the numbering is confusing and the fact that there is no official numbering should be reason enough not to do it, and to stick to the title "President of Bolivia". Changing "Republic" into "Plurinational State" does not constitute the changing of the name of the country. It was and still is called "Bolivia". But even if it would, that would not be enough reason to start the count from scratch. Take Myanmar as an example. The country was previously referred to as Burma. When the country changed its name, the counting of their presidents did not stop. Same goes for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was called Zaire. Or look at Stevo Pendarovski, who is said to be the 5th President of North Macedonia, even though the country only changed its name last year. So even if you would argue that the country changed names (which I contest) then that's not enough to justify this change. Takk (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Presidentes_de_Bolivia
- ^ "Inhalt". Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas - Anuario de Historia de America Latina. 53 (1). 2016-01-01. doi:10.7767/jbla-2016-0101. ISSN 2194-3680.
- ^ Bolivia, Opinión. "Presidentes (parte 6)". Opinión Bolivia (in Spanish). Retrieved 2020-10-09.
- ^ Mesa G., Carlos D. (1983). Presidentes de Bolivia: entre urnas y fusiles. La Paz, Bolivia: Editorial Gisbert.
- ^ https://www.presidencia.gob.bo/index.php/institucion/organigrama
- ^ https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron
Narco-state
[edit]Narco-state During the entire presidency of Evo Morales in Bolivia and the expulsion of the DEA from this country in 2008, drug trafficking has skyrocketed in the country[1]. For all these reasons, the Inter-American Institute for Democracy and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal describe the government of Evo Morales as that of a "narco-state"[2][3] For his part, researcher Diego Ayo from the Vicente Pazos Kanki Foundation has published a study where he considers that the current structure of the Bolivian State is similar to that of a drug cartel[4]. The coca growers unions are the main drug suppliers for the international market[5].
- For WP:NPOV and WP:BLP reasons, this was removed. There are, however, adequate reasons for this theme to be included in some form as it is a common point of discussion both within Bolivia and of independent studies on drug trafficking on the international stage. The page Illegal drug trade in Bolivia is woefully out of date, most references being from more than a decade ago. What it should certainly not be is an accusation that Morales is somehow the drug King of the Chapare. If there is political support from cartels and it is backed up from reputable sources, that is worthy of inclusion. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- everything is correctly cited and deserves to be mentioned in the article. If you feel like it's biased, I can't do anything so you can modify it at will, but you can't delete it just for the sake of it. --Ají Picante (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- And by the way, it is not me who is accusing Morales of being a Cartel leader, is the south american media, so this is not something of my imagination. --Ají Picante (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very common but if getting sources you should take care not to use opinion pieces like in the WSJ. If there are important public figures using those words, that might be important. I added several statistics and references. The net worth of the cocaine market in Bolivia and how much cocaine is being produced would be a good addition as well as part that links the Coca Unions with drug cartels and/or the MAS. There are numerous references in the Bolivian media that don't originate from allegations from political persecution in the last year. Sources prior to Nov 2019 would be seen as less biased by some. I am also aware that many farmers turn from necessary foodstuffs to coca because it is more profitable. All this work has me thirsting for a coca mate! Crmoorhead (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S.: I changed the title to avoid susceptibilities. --Ají Picante (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Evo Morales suspendió las actividades de la DEA en Bolivia" (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 October 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "Confessions of Evo Morales the Drug Dealer Chief of State" (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 October 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "Morales Made Bolivia a Narco State" (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 October 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "El Cártel de Evo: un modelo de corrupción en Bolivia" (PDF) (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 October 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "Bolivia, narcoestado cuya política exterior defiende el narcotráfico" (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 October 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Page protection
[edit]@Krisgabwoosh: since this article lacks any protection and a lot of the problem edits are from IPs, wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient? aismallard (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, that's what I meant. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Kozloff source
[edit]@NoonIcarus: Hi! I reverted your edits removing the source for Nicholas Kozloff. I'm not necessarily opposed to the changes, but given this article's contentious history and out of abundance of caution, I just wanted to make sure as to your reasoning. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Krisgabwoosh: Hello! This is long overdue, but I still wanted to provide some insight regarding my changes. Kozloff is overall pro-Pink Tide, and his main article can be offer some insight regarding his position: his book Hugo Chávez : Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the United States treats Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, and just like the work referenced in this article, it was written in arguably in the height of the Pink Tide, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Not only should we beware of writing about a political process with a historial perspective instead of a current day one, but also the overrepresentation of American sources in content about Latin America. These factors affect reliability, besides neutrality, and its use should be avoided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd definitely say that this article could use some more contemporary citations reflecting recent historical analysis. However, I'd say that the author's biases aren't' necessarily reflected in the article to the extent that citations to him warrant being removed without something to replace them. I would definitely, on the other hand, consider perhaps delisting this as a GA, given that there are multiple sections that are no longer up to snuff. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I’m initially opposed to the change for which I had done a partial revert already, but I am also willing to hear more. The concern reflected by the edit summary was not self-evident to me. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Likely no longer meets criteria. There are some immediate failures: citation and clarification needed tags, update tags—the latter being especially significant, given that coverage ends around 2021. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- This could be dealt with by removing much of the information that was added after GA status was achieved, excepting of course where such information is of vital importance to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Citation 312 Attribution (minor) Error
[edit]Citation 312 referring to a paper authored by Diego Escobari indicates that he is from the University of Texas, the common name of the flagship school of the University of Texas System, UT-Austin. The accompanying link also leads to UT-Austin. In fact Dr. Escobari is a faculty member at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (utrgv.edu), and his paper itself indicates that school, which deserves recognition in proper attribution. Citation 312 itself links to his paper hosted at utrgv.edu, the website of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. 2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article also lists the co-author (Hoover) first, rather than the primary author (Escobari). Conventionally, the primary author should be listed first. 2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Linked now to the correct university. As to the second point, the citation actually listed neither author. I've amended it to include author names and other elements necessary for proper citation. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the corrections and my apologies for not being specific on one requested edit: in the main text of the article (not the citation, which is correct now thanks to your fix), the university name "University of Texas" links to the correct university (utrgv.edu), but the text itself would more properly refer to "The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley", as "University of Texas" alone is common parlance for the flagship school, UT-Austin, and most readers of the main article text would (incorrectly) assume that it was the university producing this research. The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and UT-Austin are distinct and separate institutions within the UT System (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_System). Thank you for your efforts on this article and on Wikipedia. 129.113.55.130 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough; full university name is now included. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the corrections and my apologies for not being specific on one requested edit: in the main text of the article (not the citation, which is correct now thanks to your fix), the university name "University of Texas" links to the correct university (utrgv.edu), but the text itself would more properly refer to "The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley", as "University of Texas" alone is common parlance for the flagship school, UT-Austin, and most readers of the main article text would (incorrectly) assume that it was the university producing this research. The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and UT-Austin are distinct and separate institutions within the UT System (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_System). Thank you for your efforts on this article and on Wikipedia. 129.113.55.130 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Linked now to the correct university. As to the second point, the citation actually listed neither author. I've amended it to include author names and other elements necessary for proper citation. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class socialism articles
- High-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Bolivia articles
- Top-importance Bolivia articles
- B-Class South America articles
- Top-importance South America articles
- WikiProject South America articles
- B-Class Indigenous peoples of the Americas articles
- Top-importance Indigenous peoples of the Americas articles
- Indigenous peoples of the Americas articles