Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Áñez

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

Photos?

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

What do you want photos of? Morales in hiding? If his own military can't find him, good luck getting someone with a camera willing to upload to Wikipedia in there. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Palacio Quemado has a picture of the lamppost where Gualberto Villarroel was hanged. It also has a picture of the Palacio Quemado. One is less haunted, but the other is framed better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Why I moved to "2019 Bolivian transition to democracy"

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

Thanks for the explanation. Reading the guide to Wikipedia when you register should help introduce, but some customs aren't covered - like how it's usually impolite to just move a page out of nowhere. Welcome, we value your contributions! I'm sure you'll be of real value around the Latin America pages :) Kingsif (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I understand your position, but ask you to also understand the fact that this is an encyclopedia that attempts to be neutral, and the personal desires of an editor aren't really relevant when writing content for Wikipedia. I'm sure that, in the same vein, a pro-Morales Bolivian could also make the case that he felt cheated by the upturning of the election, the violence of some of the protests and didn't want the article to be associated with a "transition to democracy". We all learn, though, so don't feel personally attacked - wikipedians were just trying to follow WP:NPOV. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Do I need to say that what happened to Bolivia is a textbook definition of a Coup d'etat.

Obscuring which governments are calling this a coup

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

One source describes them as left. Some would say they are fascist, for example. It is unnecessary to give such expansion in the lead when we structured the response section into ideologies. I'm not obscuring anything, don't try and create some supposed conspiracy behind my clean-up, I'm being mindful of NPOV concerns; your phrasing (with the rest of the pre-existing sentence, but you equally didn't bother to rewrite it) suggests that being left-wing is bad. That is the main issue. Kingsif (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How about we stick to the sources rather than engage in pointless postmodernist debates about how no one truly knows that the Earth revolves around the sun and whether socialist governments are actually left-wing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And then also stick to the WP:NPOV rule that doesn't like painting one particular political leaning as wrong in the lead of an article? Other sources in this article, if you'd like to read some, have a variety of opinions on the political stances of all the countries in Latin America. They're somewhat controversial. We try to tread particularly carefully where that's the case, rather than blast at the start that 'left wing governments call this a loaded term'.

It takes more than a sentence to handle it well. That's what we have body sections for. Expand in the body, the lead doesn't need to as detailed; it's not incorrect that "various Latin American governments have called it a coup", and it's not debatable. Saying left-wing is debatable, especially when not all the left-wing governments have. Kingsif (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My version is that it should say 'some leftist Latin American governments' as the cited RS does. Your claim that mentioning the political persuasion of the governments calling this a coup is to paint them negatively is incomprehensible... just utterly incomprehensible. And there is ZERO dispute as to whether a socialist government is left-wing. "Various" L-American governments is some serious BS that is purely intended to obscure that all the governments calling this a coup (per the body) are leftist allies of Morales, and is intended to mislead readers into thinking there is widespread support among L-American governments for designating this a coup. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that whatever I say, you will decide I am spouting "some BS" and apparently trying to hide important facts. I'm not going to respond further until you've calmed down or get some reality knocked into you. Other editors are free to reply, perhaps engage some of their opinions. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wether or not they are left-wing is irrelevant in this situation. The reaction section is about reporting how internationally-recognized governments have reacted to a given situation. Also, not to argue over logic too much, but if the majority of Latin American countries are "leftist allies" (which most of them aren't), and these "leftist allies" had condemned the event, then subsequently - a majority of Latin American countries would have condemned the event. It's also important to mention that first - not only leftist governments have described the situation as a "coup" and second - not all leftist governments have yet described it as such. Furthermore, such a phrasing implies that left-wing politics or left-wing governments are inherently bad, which is a breach of WP:NPOV. Wether or not a government is left or right-wing should not be something the article concerns itself with. It should merely list which governments issued which reactions - and if interested, the reader can click on the transcluded links to learn more about their politics. Goodposts (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How on Earth is it irrelevant that allies of Morales are going with his language that this was a coup? That's what BBC News[1], Washington Post[2], AFP[3], NY Times[4], The Guardian[5], and CNN[6] reports as relevant context when they describe which governments have mimicked the coup language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, we should also attatch a note to the reactions such as those of Brazil, Colombia and Guaido that they are "right-wing enemies" of Morales and as such their reactions are also invalid? It's either neither or both - picking sides is a violation of WP:NPOV - and do keep in mind this is an article on the Bolivian government resignation, not the Pink Tide. Goodposts (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) The lede does not mention responses by other actors so there are no descriptions of them that need to be added, but thanks for playing. (2) Do RS characterize nuanced responses to events in Bolivia as responses by the "right-wing enemies of Morales"? If not, then we don't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead clearly mentions that the Bolivian opposition rejects the 'coup' allegations. Second, yes they do, as a quick example - "Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s far-right president, said he was pleased to see Mr. Morales go." Goodposts (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) Stop moving the goalposts - first you wanted to describe governments who refused to use the 'coup' language as 'right-wing' enemies of Morales, now you want the Bolivian opposition to be described as 'right-wing' (which is a separate discussion - and again, which needs to be reliably sourced in THAT discussion). (2) Bolsonaro is unquestionably far-right, but he's one leader, he's not mentioned in the lede, and he's not the only one not to resort to the 'coup' language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - I didn't want to do that. I'll assume good faith on your part and say that I was alluding to how that would be the mirror image of what you were doing with "leftist allies" - showing you that both of them are quite improper. I also didn't describe the opposition as "right-wing" (although parts of it may be), don't put words in my mouth. Lastly, the mention of Bolsonaro was in showing you that news outlets were referring to Morales' right-wing opponents, as you specifically requested that be demonstrated to you. Goodposts (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I reject the implication about Iván Duque, he's a good president, and you may characterize him as a "right winger" but he has done more than any other South American government to offer aid to our brothers fleeing Venezuela. He has an incredibly difficult job dealing not only with his own party but our legislative branch as well. We have massive refugee camps in the east, and over three million refugees whom he has welcomed. Secondly I agree with Snoog. The fact of the matter is that three of the four have abysmal human rights records, and lack democracy. One is Nicolas Maduro who has been characterized as a monster by Pedro Sanchez, the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain, then the next two are Nicaragua and Cuba. If it were Peru, or Uruguay or Panama, fair enough, but it's not. Seems to me like taking Kim Jong Un and Khamenei's opinion and then saying "various Asian countries think y." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wether or not Duque is or was a "good president" is not the topic of the conversation and not relevant as to wether or not he was a "right winger". The refugee camps are also irrelevant, as they have nothing to do with this conversation, and the same goes for his supposed issues with the legislative (and isn't it the primary point of the democratic argument that the President cannot just decree whatever he wishes?). Kim Jong Un or Ayatollah Khamenei's (not left wing, by the way) opinions are not listed or cited anywhere in the article, nor were they ever the object of discussion. The reactions part of the article lists the reactions of various governments. Some of them can be characterized as centre-right, right-wing or even far-right, while others fall on the leftist spectrum. In either case that is also irrelevant, as the position of the ruling party of X country on the left-right political spectrum is not a factor in determining wether their statements are valid or relevant. Lastly, this entire argument is moot, as the point that statements should be published for each country and not completely summarized was part of my original proposal. Goodposts (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who brought him up, not myself. I also thought it was rather non-sequitur. And in the lede it says various Latin American Governments have called this a coup, hence this post. This doesn't have anything to do with the international perceptions section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I merely mentioned him in passing and not even by name, as an example of a Latin American leader who isn't a "leftist ally" of Morales. The coup allegation started from Morales himself - we merely state that it is backed up by several Latin American countries, but denounced by the nation's opposition. Goodposts (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected request?

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

I have requested extended confirmed protection. This should also prevent registered account vandals (the most vandals here have had accounts) as well as IPs. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And for what cause should the article be semi-protected? While semiprotection is useful against vandalism, it's important to also note that it discourages new users from contributing to wikipedia. I have so far not seen any major vandalism on this article, that would call for or warrant semi-protection. Goodposts (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedians must understand that different countries may have very different laws

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

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

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

Tone of article.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

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

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

Proposal to rewrite the International Reaction Section

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

I think that we should delineate sections for official reactions, and then perhaps add another non-state sections for relevant regional or global political forces, should their inclusion is relevant. The reactions of the UN, as well as Heads of State are definitely relevant and should be listed. Simply stating that it had "evoked strong reactions from some leaders" is extremely vague and not very informative. So I agree with you on separating reactions, but I'd argue they shouldn't be purged. Should be alphabetized, though. Also, while twitter sources can be used, they aren't prefferable - and should be replaced by published sources where possible. WP:QUOTEFARM should also be avoided, and the published statements should be summarized in a way that conveys the original meaning behind the reaction without directly quoting each word. Goodposts (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are the specific reactions relevant? It's sufficiently informative to our readers to say that reactions to the resignation were mixed, particularly in the Americas. Saying exactly which countries said exactly what is excessive detail. This isn't like the situation in Venezuela where the stances of various countries have a lasting effect on which vying government they conduct diplomacy with. This is (as of yet) a done deal, so a list of reactions is essentially just rehosting a peanut gallery. 199.247.46.4 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My Citation of BLP in a Rollback on the page

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

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

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

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

Deleted Text

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

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

Political crisis?

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

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

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

Verification request

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

@BeŻet: - That source does not mention anything about "gang attacks", in fact it doesn't use the term "gang" or "attack" even once in the entire article. It instead talks mostly of Morales' resignation and subsequent power vacuum and describes two incidents - the first, in which several hundred pro-Morales protesters, some of which carrying sticks, arrived at La Paz and were accused by police of vandalizing offices, and a second, in which police and armed forces joined together with protesters to form barricades to prevent pro-Morales demonstrators from reaching the centre of the town. It does mention that drinking water was cut off to parts of El Paz an El Alto, but states that the reason for that was unknown. Goodposts (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Goodposts, in that case I'll remove that claim as it's unsourced. On a similar note, does this source mention anything about burning police centers? BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Hundreds of supporters of Mr. Morales made their way on late afternoon Monday toward the center of La Paz from the mountains surrounding the city, some of them armed with sticks. As they approached, their chants of “here we go, civil war” could be heard echoing above the city. The police said the armed group had vandalized police offices, causing panic in some neighborhoods where people blocked their doors with old furniture to protect stores and houses. After receiving requests for help from the national police and civilian politicians, the armed forces announced Monday night they would mobilize to defend gas, water and electricity services around the capital. Army and police units will also begin joint patrols around the city, according to the national police."..."For weeks after the disputed election results, demonstrations paralyzed much of the country, and groups supporting the president have roughed up protesters."

As a side note, the article's starting to sound a bit en contra of the protestors in sections against the protestors as per the same article: "There was little to no violence in Santa Cruz, a center of the opposition. A festival-like mood prevailed there, with people celebrating on the streets and waving flags." Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, @BeŻet:. What Alcibiades979 pasted is what the article wrote, more or less the same as my summary. As for your WSJ request - the article mentions a local newspaper had reported that residents of Chepare had allegedly burned "police posts" after an unnamed local activist called for Morales' supporters to "fight back". It then goes on about how Mexico condemned the alleged coup and that 20 government officials had been given asylum in Mexico. Goodposts (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for verifying! BeŻet (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Goodposts (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

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

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

2019 Bolivian Uprising

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

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

Coup d'état?

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

As far as I can tell, there are none. The 2019 Bolivian protests page already exists; this new one seems to have been created to push a point of view, and should be deleted.--Rxtreme (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is one, there are LOTS of sources, if you need more than one please ask. Now please change the title back to what everyone in Bolivia safe a few putschists from the opposition are calling this. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Telesur is far from a reliable source, especially if it involves politics in Latin America. In fact, it's banned. Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Politics

If y'all don't like it, send it to AfD, but a coup "is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means" -- exactly like Guaido in Venezuela. Your support of the coup and opposition to the established government does not change the terminology. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC) @LaserLegs: Just a suggestion to alter terminology of that last sentence; we can't judge editors' political affiliations based on questioning the use of 'coup' - a military merely forcing resignation is a more peaceful coup than most, and English sources are at least hesitant to use the term based on lack of information, so Morales supporters could disagree with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC) LaserLegs, which sources you have that supports the idea that the Morales government was overthrown non-democratic means? Or it's just YOUR opinion. Morales disrespected the results of the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and he then frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election (according to the OEA) to keep the power. Resulting in protests and revolts erupting throughout the entire country. He lost support from his country authorities and from the army. About Venezuela, I got be kidding right? Maduro is far from being a democrat. He is a plain and simple dictator and nothing else.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish language reliable sources are using it freely, e.g. Pagina 12, Argentina and El Universal, Mexico. Spanish for coup = 'golpe'. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif. Página12 is a left-wing newspaper in which most of the articles are opinative and not informative (including the one you linked here). The article on "El Universal" is using the word "coup" in the context of the opinion expressed by the Mexican government. They are not treating this event as a "coup".--SirEdimon (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Página 12 is not so fiercely opinionated I wouldn't call it an RS, though. Fully reading the Universal article, I agree with you there. Will do a source review soon. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Several governments have already referred to the situation in Bolivia as a coup. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For now, altered lead to reflect more accurately. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jay Coop. There's a war of narratives between left and right in Latin America. For now, all the governments that called it a "coup" are left-wing governments.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SirEdimon. All the governments and sources that call it a "resignation" or a "reestablishment of democracy" and not calling it a coup are right-wing or outright fascists. Like the government of Bolsonaro for instance. So any source which pushed you to rename the article to "resigntation" should equally be discarded by your own standard. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How about a compromise in the lead? "The situation in Bolivia has been referred to as either a 'political crisis' or a 'coup' by various observers." Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

JayCoop, thanks heaven someone moved the title to "Evo Morales government resignation". After the fiasco of calling this page "Bolivian 2019 coup d'etat" someone tried to called this "Bolivian transition to democracy". Both titles are hard to swallow for a person following the news from the sources in Bolivia: firstly, Morales resigned in an untenable political situation, secondly Morales won three elections with over 60% of votes. Wikipedia needs editors that understand the NPOV policy and use it wisely.Ciroa (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Página/12 is as opinative, ideological and informative as Clarín, La Nación, Infobae or any other newspaper. You can't say a source isn't reliable because it is "leftist".--Bleff (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Move to...?

• Coup d'état is an extremely loaded term. We don't use that kind of language in wiki voice unless there is overwhelming support for it in RS sources. The community declined to refer to Fidel Castro as a dictator on much the same grounds. The current article title fails multiple guidelines including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:REDFLAG. Let's consider a new name. Suggestions anyone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not to merge with 2019 Bolivian protests?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The topic at hand is notable enough to exist as its own article. Take the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the articles split from the 2019 Hong Kong protests as examples. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bolivian political crisis? --Semsurî (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Evo Morales government resignation?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• It may be a political crisis tomorrow. It may be called a coup by press. Morales may get arrested. Though I supported the title 'coup' based on the pure definition (effectively overthrown, military involvement), I now recognize WP:CRYSTALBALL comes into play. So far, SirEdimon's is the only non-crystal title. The government has resigned. That's about all we can neutrally say at the moment, so I support a quick move to that and then a naming discussion, especially when things become clearer in the coming weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Evo Morales government resignation -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Kingsif. This case is a coup by definition (no one disagrees that the military had a big role in Morales's resignation) but I understand that Wiki doesn't freely use words with negative connotation in titles. So I think "Resignation of Evo Morales" is fine for now. Davey2116 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that, apparently, the entire government resigned not only Morales.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • To the point that the second vice president of the senate has become the highest ranking official. Kingsif (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Since some random new user moved the page, I'm going to be BOLD and instead of revert to 'coup' title, move to Evo Morales government resignation. Kingsif (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I support your move. "2019 Bolivian Transition to Democracy" was an even worse title. It was clearly NPOV.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, you did the right thing, Kingsif. I am surprised this still has not made it to the front page.--Ciroa (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• Because one single user had been changing the title to that from 'coup'. That's not used in sources, either, nor had consensus. But, discussion of a more proper title should start now that there's at least been something political happening. If that's your suggestion, cool, but let people vote. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm merging with 2019 Bolivian protests, which I've renamed 2019 Bolivian election crisis. Philosopher Spock (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• NO YOU ARE NOT. Did you just unilaterally decide to come up with a name and merge two articles that certainly do not cover the same event, despite long ongoing discussion that you have not been part of?! That's pure vandalism, please CEASE. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Philosopher Spock: If you wish to talk about ideas for page titles, please do. Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• How is this not the same event? There would be no resignation without the protests. Philosopher Spock (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Correct. Protests led to resignation. A led to B. See, different. You said it yourself. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why do we need two separate articles when there is so much overlap and the resignation makes no sense without the protests? Philosopher Spock (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• For the same reason we have a separate 2019 Bolivian general election article. Kingsif (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• That includes the campaign and everything before the election when no one knew it would be disputed. Why have three articles when two would suffice? Philosopher Spock (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

1. you can propose a name change. Anyone can. 2. It's a bit early to come up with a longstanding title. This problem occurs with current event articles all the time. The best thing to do is pick a solid neutral title and wait until a more descriptive one appears in common use. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait people. We don't know exactly what it's going on and what will be the results of these events. "2019 Bolivian constitutional crisis" is CRYSTAL in my opinion. Let's stick with "Evo Morales government resignation" for a while and see what happens next. Moving articles all the time like this is counterproductive.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for the US state department narratives, even if most American media is. The events of yesterday are definitionally a coup. The military demanded the resignation of the civilian government, after which a warrant was issued for the arrest of much of the previous government. It's not only a clear cut coup, but a more textbook one than events in Zimbabwe or Turkey, which have been (correctly) classified as such by Wikipedia. Zellfire999 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not it was a coup. As Wikipedia editors our job is not to decide that. Our job as Wikipedia editors is merely to convey what the Reliable Sources state, full stop. As soon as it breaks in to analysis it's WP:NOR. If the NYT runs an article that says "Coup d'État in Bolvia" then we call it a coup, until that point we do not because we don't write our own opinions, no matter how right they may be. The proper venue for calling this a coup without RSs stating it as such is a newspaper, a book, an Op-Ed, etc. but it is not wikipedia. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that our job as Wikipedia editors is not to decide on wether or not it was a coup, but strongly disagree that this designation is irrelevant. Instead, we should list which sources reffer to it as a coup - and leave the judgement to the reader. Goodposts (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the designation of it being a coup is irrelevant far from it, I'm saying from the standpoint of what we do as editors it's irrelevant as what we do is write what the RSs say. If there's disagreement in the RSs then we write what the the disagreement is, thus allowing the reader to decide. But from the standpoint of Wiki editors, Wiki is a tertiary source thus our job is to write based off of primary and secondary sources. It can be the most blatant coup in the world, but if the RSs say it wasn't, then we say it's not. If Jair Bolsonaro gets voted out of office in a free democratic election, and the RSs state that it was a coup then we call it a coup. This is what I meant by it being irrelevant. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 bolivian coup d'etat. It was definitely a coup. It is highly irresponsible not to call it for what it is. He was forced to resign.--Bleff (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is more suitable to use the title like this 2019 Bolivian political crisis because 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat sounds more like taking point of view from Latin American leftist governments as the title violates Wikipedia NPOV (Netral point of view). Evo Morales government resignation can also be used as the title sticks. Hanafi455 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is 100% percent a coup, there is a name for when a head of state is being forced out by the military, its called a coup'd'etat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.18.219.146 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The title should be returned to 2019 bolivian coup d'etat. It is more clear than ever, the military has taken the streets and Morales has been forced to flee the country. The military overthrowing a country's civilian government is definitionally a coup. Wikipedia should be about facts, the perpetrators of a coup should not be able to throw off the label by simply denying it. Zellfire999 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia's own definition of a coup d'état is "the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.[1]". Regardless of your personal views on Morales, this was definitely an unconstitutional seizure of power by the military, to then hand power to another political faction (the opposition of the Movement for Socialism). Not to call it a coup is not merely irresponsible, it's outright incorrect. KarstenO (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a consensus among the Spanish-language press that this was a golpe de estado. Yes:El Pais El Universal Tele Sur Ambito No: Excelsior Forbes Mexico Neutral: La Nacion Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I just skimmed the first one you posted, El País, but to be clear they did not say it was a coup. Rather they interviewed four experts who gave varying opinions as to whether or not it was a coup ie some yes some no. Guess that would be qualified as something of an Op-Ed, same with the second El Universal just asking various people their interpretation of the events, some yes some no, but the two publications do not call it a coup in their own words, and are neutral in the matter.Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Güvercin58 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Relevance of Pablo Iglesias' opinion to this article

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

Went ahead and removed Iglesias' comment. Personally I'd limit the section to governments and relevant international organization (UN, OAS). Was tempted to remove the Corbyn quote on the same basis, but he's slightly more significant as leader of the opposition instead of a third party so I'd rather get a second opinion. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at the Corbyn quote too. I think it'd probably be more relevant for his own page because it's more indicative of his ideology and Labour's new ideology, but oh well, I think there probably wouldn't be consensus for removing it, plus there's a good chance he'll be next PM of the UK, provided he promises Scotland a new vote, and promises the UK a new Brexit vote to get the Lib Dems on board. And haha, Podemos isn't even a third party anymore, it's now the fourth after Vox. I used to live in Spain, their politics are nuts, it was everything short of a holiday in Barcelona when Rajoy got punched. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Removed Corbyn for not being a national leader, not being a politician to a relevant country, and for being sourced by RT (the only other source I could find for it was Daily Mail, almost as bad). Removed UN for being a copy-paste from the source. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Corbyn is cited in credible sources, and in addition RT's article cited the original source, and so there shouldn't be any issue with adding it. Corbyn is a very noteworthy person, although I'll agree this his reaction shouldn't be listed as a "UK" reaction, as he is currently not affiliated with the British government. He also probably shouldn't be listed separately under the "international reactions" section, as that is for reactions given by the governments UN-member states and not leaders of political parties, however influential they may be in a separate world power. Instead - considering there are already quite a few relevant non-state reactions, how about we add a non-state organization heading, as was done in previous articles? I think that sounds like a fair compromise. Goodposts (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I could be persuaded, but I foresee a lot of headaches around deciding which non-state reactions to include. Which reactions are significant? Do we try to achieve geographical balance, or should responses from the Americas be favoured? What about the mixture of criticism and support? --RaiderAspect (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we only include reactions from leaders or official representatives of parties which are either parliamentary-represented, or noteworthy in some other way. They should be summarized only briefly for each country - eg. in Brazil, XYZ supported, ABC condemned - so as to give an "at a glance" look, while not taking up too much time in an exhaustive list. Both criticism and support should be included. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Was this really a Coup?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

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

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

"The disputed government of Venezuela"

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

True, perhaps "Maduro government" just for clarity? Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that option reads as much less POV. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support. This is much clearer to anyone reading which government it is referring to Nathan868 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "Maduro's Venezuelan Government" would be clear enough. Goodposts (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Move request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|}

Yes it's a coup d'état

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

Absolutely it is a coup d'état. There is no question about it. The Bolivians are in the street right now to counter the putsch and the military and police are defending the institutional putschists from them. The problem is that this whole Wikipedia page and the discussion are dominated by equally fascist people who will gladly silence the plight of the indigenous people who saw their democracy robbed. Sinekonata (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this were we talk about accusations of rigged elections?Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What's interesting to note is that Morales was open to new elections after protests occurred. Also, it's interesting to note that the polls conducted right before the election were in line with what the election results turned out to be. In regards to the quick vote issues, rural areas are heavily in favor of Morales, hence the rise in Morales' lead in late quick polls. However, none of that should matter. Rigged election or not, dictator or democratically elected official, he was forced out of office. This is certainly a coup. —SPESH531Other 02:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What is interesting to note is Evo said since the beginning of protest that had there been any evidence of fraud he would launch a re-election. So of course he is endorsing a reelection. However what happened is the military blatantly ask Evo and MAS members to resign, which is, by definition, a coup for sure. Somebody broke the status quo of the article and unilaterally renamed it from a coup to a resignation, which is the problem we face right now. So don't be evasive by showing the non-coup part and conclude there's no coup. --146.96.30.27 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPESH In MSA the letter p doesn't exist and ص represents an emphatic s sound, sides of the tongue are rolled up, the sound is made a bit further back against the alveolar ridge. Thus on your page Spesh would be written سبش in MSA or سفش since often p->f hence پارسی -> فارسی. Also it doesn't matter what we think happened or what we know happened. Just what RSs say. Not our job to analyze no matter how clear a situation may be. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Technically ("WP:RS-technically"), it is not a coup.

When a left-wing (or otherwise unfavorable to the US) government is replaced by a right-wing (or otherwise favorable to the US) one, it is more of a "transition to democracy", while when the opposite happens it is a "coup". While this might seem absurd, it is completely in line with (or, maybe more precisely, a consequence of) the WP:RS policy, since the vast majority of reliable sources are US-based (or otherwise West-based) and this is the terminology they will use. They have already done it countless times. So, until the reliability of sources regarding such topics is revised (if ever), events like this one cannot be called "coups", regardless of the clarity of the situation, as Alcibiades979 said above. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Timeline section

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

I don't think that's a controversial proposal, be WP:BOLD buddy :) Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no rule that articles have to be written as a timeline. If you can make the article flow better - do it! Goodposts (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Certain Western Leaders in the Lede

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

Agree, changed. I also think if the coverage of reactions gets wide enough to consider adding Corbyn, the man's incredibly sketchy history of promoting literal terrorist socialist groups needs to be added - in that sense, he's not a normal Western politician in that way (ignoring ideology, just outright saying 'the ax killers should be in charge'). Kingsif (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think an attempt to ignore Corbyn, a very important political figure and the opposition leader in UK, because of some nonsensical tabloidesque accusations is not how things should be done on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If you read about his history, you'll see it all; besides that, it can be important context (we wouldn't ignore, just qualify): as in, if he's one of the only recognizable western politicians who openly support Morales, there's a major difference compared to his contemporaries, and if he has a history, it's important to recognize the unusualness. As if his support comes with the condition that he's done it worse before. Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what exactly, which "literal terrorist socialist groups" (plural, even) has he been promoting? Recognizing "the unusualness" would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

From his article there's statements like "Corbyn and Ken Livingstone invited Adams, two convicted IRA volunteers and other members of Sinn Féin to Westminster" and "Corbyn supported the campaign to overturn the convictions of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami for the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London"; then there's the entire Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn article to read, including things like "in 2009, Corbyn said he invited "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in parliament". It's not hidden. Kingsif (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, those are not socialist extremist groups. Second of all, you said things like "working with", "promoting". BeŻet (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well Corbyn is indeed not normal Western politician because he doesn't support islamist wahhabii headchoppers, Saudi war crimes in Yemen, renamed al-Qaeda (Syrian Al Nusra Front) and death squads, unlike many Western politicians. Unlike him, Hillary Clinton, as normal Western politician, openly admitted that USA created al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda is on American side in Syria. BobNesh (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that too, but mostly the very openly rants about things; possibly his only similarity with a certain modern US leader. I'm not trying to introduce POV and don't want people to see that, I do just think it can be important context that, regardless of political leaning, he openly goes out and works with even extremist socialist groups, so even though he's breaking from the Western political convention, he's not breaking from his own, i.e. it's not as impressive a stance as it would be coming from other Western politicians. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But he doesn't work with extremist socialist groups. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Replied above. The point really is, when you hear Corbyn, you think 'promotes socialist groups regardless of their operational reality' - but not everyone knows that. If he is ever proposed to be included, those who don't know will see him attached to the UK and assume he has more traditional political approaches and therefore that something special must have happened for him to support Morales, despite it being a regular afternoon for him. That's all I think needs to be conveyed, and I sit here withholding opinions on anything Corbyn says or does, just commenting that he has done such unusual things. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

When you think Corbyn, you think that. There is no need to convey anything about Corbyn simply because you feel about him a certain way. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you never heard of the general you? Or should I have written "when one hears Corbyn". Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But that's what I'm objecting to, it's not a commonly held belief, it's a personal one. BeŻet (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It may be wide enough to put Corbyn in the International Reaction section, that said I'm not sure if it should be wide enough for that though. I'm not really sure if I understand the importance of Bashar Al-Assad calling it a coup, or Iran or Russia for that matter. Maybe Western Democracies just because of the fact that they're democracies but past that it seems a bit over the top. With the situation in Venezuela it makes sense, who fills in embassies, who controls the overseas assets and the possibility that if recognition for Guaido gets high enough he can replace Maduro at the UN. Here though, Morales is in Mexico. Also if the Corbyn name gets an asterisk the whole page will become far more contentious than it already is the last thing this page needs is a bunch of Jeremy Corbyn supporters going ape. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Then it should say world leaders - Western in this context has a very specific meaning, and the source also mentions Turkey etc. - not Western. Your edit reason said that it was changed from world to western because the Americas have already been named. Since when is the world made up of only The Americas and The West. Politically, there's a lot of overlap anyway (geographically they're basically identical), so it seems an illogical 'correction'. World leaders should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let's change it to world leaders then. BeŻet (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No a "normal" western politician? He's the leader of the second most influential political party in one of Europe's most influential nations. He had a regular political career and was selected for his post trough the usual means. There's nothing "not normal" about him. Furthermore, when you accuse him of supporting "literal terrorist groups", please do keep in mind not just NPOV, but WP:BLP - such claims would in most cases be immediately deleted. Goodposts (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are, of course, several sections about it in his article, so I wouldn't worry about BLP in this specific instance; it's only restating things in a published article. I would argue outside the normal - Western world leaders, if nothing else, usually have restraint regarding public statements of any kind that could be controversial (until Twitter, at least). Not that we need to talk more about Corbyn until we start including non-national leaders. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

To bring this back for a moment this is the quote from the Euronews:"In the video above, we show how the so-called "coup d'etat" has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders. Political authorities from Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and Syria have shown their support to Morales and claimed that there has been an orchestrated coup in Bolivia."We have seen world political leaders, not only South American talking about a coup d'état in Bolivia", Bolivian expert in Political Science, Marcelo Arequipa told Euronews. Some European examples are British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or Spanish Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias..."" In the video the world political leaders they talk about are Maduro and the President of Cuba, as well as Dominic Raab the Foreign Minister of the UK. I'm worried that this not be taken out of context. Especially since the exact quote is that the term coup d'etat has caused division amongst world leaders. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote clearly implies political leaders in Europe, categorized earlier as world leaders, have also been talking about a coup. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To make sure I'm understanding you, could you try restate that really simply? As you say, don't want to misinterpret, and I'm a bit confused as to who said what in your Euronews round up at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not my source, it's just the one being referenced for all of this. Essentially when it says world leaders it's referring to the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria etc. It specifically mentions Europeans but then clarifies that as Jeremy Corbyn and Pablo Iglesias. https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/11/evo-morales-resigns-is-bolivia-facing-a-coup-d-etat Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok - yes, that's pretty clear. Europe comes under the world, so it doesn't need much qualifying. Kingsif (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there isn't just one source, there are several. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Salon isn't a RS, I also quoted the Euronews verbatim so there should be no disagreement about the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No you haven't, you quoted a different part and obscured what the source is saying later on. BeŻet (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying from above: I propose that we only include reactions from leaders or official representatives of parties which are either parliamentary-represented, or noteworthy in some other way in a separate section. They should be summarized only briefly for each country - eg. in Brazil, XYZ supported, ABC condemned - so as to give an "at a glance" look, while not taking up too much time in an exhaustive list. If necessary, we could further limit these reactions only to such parties from american countries, world powers and/or intl' organizations. Both criticism and support should be included. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm don't disagree with what you're saying. You'll forgive me if I say this all is slightly aggravating, as the Source is clearly being taken out of context. That works fine in the international reaction section, however this is about the lede. This is what I changed it to, to avoid issue: " according to Euronews, "has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders" however, and[1] the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term" Directly quoting the source. My revision gets rolled back, apparently by directly quoting the article I was obscuring its true meaning. How I know not. Now it reads: "and certain world political leaders have called the events a coup d'état." The article when stating certain world leaders is talking about most of the countries already listed, plus Bashar Al-Assad's government in Syria, which is clearly taking it out of context. Here's the source so you can read it if you like, @Goodposts. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect, we have, in addition to the countries listed, at least Iglesias, Corbyn, Sanders, Lula, to name a few. BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you want the lead to say that the use of the term coup has been divisive? If the source explicitly says that, I see no problem including it. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The source said that and I quoted it exactly and attributed the source to the source, my revision got rolled back for a version that says that certain world leaders call it a coup. I don't particularly want that, I don't think any of this should be included, however I'm proposing that to appease BeZet. His idea however is just that it says that certain world leaders have called it a coup. I also won't roll back his edit as I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The source also says that certain world political leaders describe it as a coup. If we leave that out, it seems that only Morales and "his close allies" call it that, which is very far from the truth. BeŻet (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The current phrase used by the lead is a compromise variant, as the phrase "Western political leaders" was objected to by an editor. It's very well cited, and a summary in this way wouldn't constitue WP:SYNTH, as Synth requires the material to claim or assert something that the individual sources did not - which isn't what's happening here. The reason it was added, as BeZet pointed out, is to balance out the "his close allies", which would imply that only Morales' "close allies" had dubbed it a coup - which clearly isn't the case. Assad's government reaction has nothing to do with the lead, in fact I only added it as I randomly stumbled upon it, while editing Syria-related articles yesterday. Goodposts (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is what I'd have it say: "Morales and allies close to Morales, such as the governments of Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Uruguay, the disputed government of Venezuela have called the events a coup d'état, this term, according to Euronews, "has generated a strong division among the world's political leaders, however and the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term."" This is what it currently says: "Morales and allies close to Morales, such as the governments of Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Uruguay, the disputed government of Venezuela and certain world political leaders have called the events a coup d'état,[1] while the Bolivian opposition and Catholic Church reject the term." Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree, that feels to me as though it asserts that the vast majority of the world disagreed with the label - which is not true and not NPOV-compliant. Goodposts (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what the article literally says. It's a direct quote from the article that he's using as his source for what he said. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Exactly. As not only his "close allies" have called this a coup, we need to make sure the sentence says that. BeŻet (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And yet prohibit it from saying that there's any country that disagrees with it. This is the definition of POV, by the way. Just say, "I don't want to say that in the lede because it's against the narrative that I want to convey." That's the truth, and it actually makes sense. The argument that quoting the article that you're using as a source is POV because it says there's disagreement is of course absurd. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. As Kingif wrote, we can append at the end the sentence talking about the term being divisive. What I was objecting to was removing one piece of information and adding a different one, under the guise of "quoting" the article. Let's include both pieces of information. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it is a fair proposal. Goodposts (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

There isn't consensus. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How so, did we not agree that both pieced of information should be included? If so, what else have you got issues with? BeŻet (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I clearly did read the discussion, which was precisely the same reason why I removed the wording. Alcibiades979 and Kingif have disagreed with the change, and so do I; just that with the explanations in the edit summaries I didn't find it necessary to further explain my arguments. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In the discussion above, Kingif presented a solution himself which we've accepted later on: Perhaps keep the current and add "Euronews writes that the use of the term 'coup' has been divisive." at the end. If you disagree with the changes, specify what you have an issue with so that it can be adressed. Otherwise you cannot claim lack of consensus, and you cannot remove content. Several editors have an issue with saying that only close Morales allies call it a coup. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, it would be preferable to avoid reverting solely due to "no consensus" and instead refer to specific policy- or source-based issues, or at least link to the discussion if you feel there's some relevant discussion being ignored. Repeatedly reverting edits while only stating "there is no consensus", as has been happening quite frequently on this page, could be viewed as status-quo stonewalling and is not productive. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BeŻet: I don't remember that you have provided or pointed out which references use that wording. Coup is not a term widely used by reliable sources and many times it is used with attribution, quoting Morales' allies. As far as I know per WP:NOTUNANIMOUS the consensus should be etablished with 3/4 of the editors, or at least 2/3 of them. With 3/5 editors supporting the previous position, this does not seem to be the case, and even less "wide support". Also remember that consensus changes.

I'm pinging @Kingsif: to know their stance at the new lead proposal. To me and so far it looks like a good middle ground. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Good question, @Jamez42: - what's the new proposal, I cannot see it in the recent comments? Kingsif (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:ZiaLater included the following text in the lead as an alternative: The designation of the terms "coup" and "revolution" to the event has been disputed, with regional and coup studies academics disagreeing with using either term, urging individuals to recognize the complexity of the event instead of disseminating polarizing rhetoric. What I personally like about the change is that it won't be necessary to argue about who said what, and who should be included in the lead. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like that change. It gives context to the dispute, too. I think Zia's version should stay. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This version is based on a single opinion column. That's already a problem, but it also manages to misrepresent the source, implying that academics are in agreement that "black and white" language should be avoided. In fact, the piece quotes an academic who does call it a coup: Rut Diamint, a political scientist at Torcuato Di Tella University in Argentina, agreed with the criticisms of Mr. Morales but added, “None of that justifies a coup d’état.” This is in addition to the concerns raised above that the text implies that "revolution" and "coup" are at all similar in frequency of use, which is flat out false. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this version isn't good at should be removed. It completely downplays that many people, governments, organizations describe it as a coup. Moreover the current version has been forced without any preceding discussion. BeŻet (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

regime change

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

Updates (15/11)

There were updates from the interim president of Bolivia - [7]

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

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

725 Cubans also expelled from the country. [8] --cyrfaw (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Nine Venezuelans with the Bolivarian National Police uniforms and the ruling party logo were also detained. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks again for the updates --cyrfaw (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The recognition of Juan Guaidó and the arrest of Venezuelans seems to have been left out. I have included them. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

NYT reporter story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only is it based off a single opinion column, it's currently the only part of the lead that even mentions the "coup" designation. No consensus was achieved for this move and the replacement of far more relevant reactions with some opinion articles is downright bad. It should either be reverted to the way it was before, in which both sides' positiones were summarized, or it should be deleted entirely. Goodposts (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zellfire999:, @Cmonghost:, @Goodposts:, @Blaylockjam10: I hear you all, but this is not the opinion of the reporter, this is the opinion of scholars. I believe to give it more neutral weight, we could include something like the following:

"Response to the crisis has varied among politicians and governments, with some describing the event as a coup and others calling it a democratic transition. Regional and coup studies academics criticize the use of such binary distinctions, agreeing that the event is too complex for such terms."

Is this better? Laundry lists of government responses and the "us vs. them/east vs. west" narrative in ledes is always bothersome.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that’s better, but I think that having multiple sources in the lead would be ideal. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

While that is a lot better, I don't think that the single NYT source should be given the same level of attention as the official statements of multiple governments per WP:UNDUE. At the same time, mentioning that the term is divisive is fine. I really wouldn't call this an "East vs West" situation, since the vast majority of reactions came from South American countries. Goodposts (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I don't really think that's much better, actually. Claims sourced from Fisher's column need to be attributed. Moreover, the word "agreeing" is a big problem: an NYT opinion column is not even close to being a reliable source for judging academic consensus. What you would need for that is a meta-analysis by other scholars. The column is not a meta-analysis, it's just a collection of responses that Fisher chose to use to bolster his argument. And as I already pointed out, even among the scholars he cites there is not agreement; one of them does use the term "coup". Text like Columnist Max Fisher wrote in the New York Times that the use of binary "coup" or "not coup" distinctions has been criticized by some academics would be superior, but the material should still be moved to the body, perhaps to a new section like "Terminology" or something. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well the reactions of those governments are all listed in the reaction section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: You can't be seriously suggesting that the fact that the ousted government has called the events a "coup" should be relegated to a standalone quote farm. Morales's opinion is mentioned in virtually every news story, regardless of whether the source calls it a "coup" in its own voice. As Zellfire999 said, it would be utterly ridiculous for this not to be mentioned. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: You're a good contributor in this area from my experience working with you on Vzl articles, can I ask you to write up a proposed paragraph with sources to discuss the opinions on the term 'coup' for editors to then discuss including; I think it may be more productive to have an idea of how it would be presented than to argue over hypotheticals. I agree that it is an important part of the story and should be included somehow. Morales is obviously significant, why is his opinion not? Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that, when I have some more time. I'll likely be busy with other things for most of this week, so anyone else should feel free to do it in the meantime rather than waiting for me. Rather than directly writing a paragraph for the lead, I think it could be more productive to write (a) more detailed paragraph(s) discussing the terminology, to be included in the article as a separate section. The lead can then summarize the section (the purpose of the lead being to summarize the article, anyway). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

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

political crisis

Hi

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

• I'm not sure if you're suggesting combining this article with 2019 Bolivian protests, but if so, I think it's a bad idea. The two articles are much too long to merge. Plus, the Protests article makes a good page for discussion of the civil unrest that preceded the military "memorandum" or whatever we end up calling it, because that is a very clear beginning of a new chapter in this story. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 Bolivian protests is a bad title for the events of 10 November, because the political crisis began within the protests in October. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I would argue that the current title of this article (2019 Bolivian political crisis) would be better suited to the 2019 Bolivian protests article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Charles Essie: a mistake from me. I rephrase. *2019 Bolivian political crisis is a bad title for the events of 10 November, because the political crisis began within the protests in October. So it is an alternative title for the first article. For the second, we need another title. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"assumed the presidency"

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

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

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

• BBC
• UPI
• LA Times
• US News and World Report
• WaPo

Even Voice of America uses "declared": [13] We should use the wording used in the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than paraphrasing (without attribution) Añez's statement, especially since her claim to the presidency is disputed (as mentioned in many of these articles). Note that while some Spanish sources use "asumir", we should go with what reliable English sources say rather than attempting to translate Spanish sources directly.

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

Before giving opinions on this, do we have the similar discussion on Guaidó archived? I'd like to review the arguments there. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's at Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC on "himself". The closer found a consensus in favour of using "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Related discussions regarding Guaidó: Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#RfC on "himself". --Jamez42 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks guys - of course, the situations are not exactly the same, but the different considerations and arguments already made on Wikipedia policy can hopefully not need to be repeated if we all review them from that recent discussion first. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevant policy is probably WP:WEIGHT, common terminology, WP:NPOV. I agree with arguments there that just because Telesur has used it does not mean it is excluded if found in RS's. I do not think there is too much negativity to saying she declared herself president, particularly with the levels of context provided on the power vacuum. I also think that at least having a precedent with Guaidó, different situation considered, can be considered.Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Herself I don't have massively strong feelings, but sources show it is the common phrase; whether that be outside of technical terminology and just idiomatic, it is still at least more searchable, which swings it from completely neutral on the matter for me. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Assumed As I stated in my edit summary, the phrasing "assumed the interim presidency" reflects the content of the article, namely the "Assumption of presidency by Áñez", including the line of succession and the session in Bolivia's Senate. Bolivia's situation is quite different from Venezuela's, starting that with the fact that the president and the following line of succession resigned, regardless of the circumstances. The presidency office was not disputed by anyone else before Añez. Plenty of reliable sources use this phrasing as well:

The sources note something interesting that I think should be added to the article: Jeanine assumed temporary control of the Senate after its president and first vice president resigned, which would have allowed her to hold the presidency of the Senate.[14][15]

• BBC Bolivia crisis: Jeanine Áñez assumes interim presidency and Bolivian opposition senator Jeanine Áñez has assumed the interim presidency of the South American country following Evo Morales's resignation. — "declared herself" is used as a image caption, while assumed is used in the title and in a subtitle.
• The Guardian Añez assumes Bolivia's interim presidency as Morales flees – video — "declared herself" is used in the article, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.
• Washington Post Still, she assumed the presidency even though there was no quorum for a formal debate on accepting Morales’ resignation, and no one swore in. — This is a good example that the phrasing does not imply legitimacy, only phrasing. "Declared herself" used.
• EFE With Morales in Mexico, Añez assumes interim presidency of Bolivia — Once again used in title.
• Associated Press Bolivia Clashes After Opposition Leader Assumes as President — Once again used in title. Note that while published by Voice of America, the article was written by Associated Press. "Declared herself" used, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.
• Sky News Clashes after opposition leader Jeanine Anez assumes Bolivian presidency — Once again used in title. "Declared herself" used, but the former phrasing is preferred for the title.

I want to clarify that my main objection with using "declared herself" is the narrowness of the phrasing. Guaidó "declared himself" as president almost two weeks after Maduro's inauguration in a rally, a single and prominent event. Añez's assumption of the office seems to have happened in the same day following a series of events, including the OAS audit report and the military declaration. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

To your first point, we use "declared herself" in the article as well, not just "assumed": Anez declared herself as acting president of Bolivia based on a ruling by the country's constitutional court, as she was the highest-ranking politician in the line of succession after the resignations.

Headlines should probably be given less weight than text from the body of the article; journalists usually don't write their own headlines and they're often written or modified by editors. I note that the articles all include "declared herself" other than EFE, which is extremely short, only a few sentences long. But as I noted above, there are several articles that limit "assumed" to quoting or paraphrasing Añez. I think this is additional evidence that "declared herself" is a more common / widespread phrasing.

To your last point, I'm not sure that "declared herself" is any more narrow than "assumed". I certainly don't have that intuition. They seem equally applicable to me. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Declared Herself - as that is what the sources were saying. It can then be mentioned that the Constitutional Court supported her declaration, as did opposition senators, while Morales and the majority-holding MAS deputies did not. It's no Wikipedia's job to determine wether or not the court or the parliament have the final say. Goodposts (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful, please provide more sources using the phrase if there are others, since sources also use "Assumed". --Jamez42 (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Declared herself - a literal description of what has happened that day, and what most sources say. BeŻet (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet:, since you have disputed the phrasing and knowing that a discussion is not defined by votes, could you please address the sources that I have provided and use the wording? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Declared Herself it's what the NYT says. Honestly this is essentially a discussion about semantics. The two are almost equal in meaning according to Merriam-Webster. I think the only real difference would be semantics, assumed sounds a bit more passive in tone (eg assumed responsibility vs. took responsibility), where as a reflexive/middle tense verb, to declare oneself, has the full active force of the verb. That said, there are a number of variations that are used, I like the NYT. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Separate article about Jeanine Áñez government in English

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

2019 Bolivian protests

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

I believe we can keep it in a single article.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is now being discussed here. Charles Essie (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Forced government resignation

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

There was no forced resignation. The head of the military made a suggestion on live television, without Evo Morales present. This (as has been explained above) is in the Bolivian constitution - the military leaders are allowed to make public suggestions. Evo Morales' response was likewise on live television without the military leaders present. He voluntarily resigned.

I think it further clarifies that this wasn't a forced resignation, the fact the the head of the military who suggested he resign, Cmdr Kaliman, was a longtime supporter of Evo Morales. And even when Evo Morales ordered the armed forces to attack the police and civilians, Kaliman was going to do it (he didn't because a majority of his subordinates threatened to ignore the order, which would have placed half the armed forces at odds with the other half).

Also notable is that Kaliman was immediately removed from service by the interim government. He doesn't have any position in the new government and received no special compensation. 73.25.86.75 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MAS blocked from entering parliament by police

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

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

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

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

Ms Salvatierra had publicly renounced her position, making her legally ineligible to enter the Senate.

(this link is to Bolivia's version of Snopes) https://boliviaverifica.bo/adriana-salvatierra-anuncio-su-renuncia-en-tres-medios/

73.25.86.75 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is calling this a coup?

Current lead has

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

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

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

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

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

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

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