Jump to content

Talk:Bolivia–United States relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV

[edit]

I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.) Mangostar (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a biased article. Relations, I believe, are not at all congenial at the moment. The fact that it was written by the US government explains much of its bias. Issues at present: Coca eradication - a much more disputed issue than stated in the article and Morales evicted the DEA from Bolivia in late 2008 Autonomous movement - Morales believes this to be fermented by the US ambassador Water privatisation in 2003 - Urged by World Bank and IMF, many Bolivians blame the US for this Until this article is revised it should definitely remain in dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.176.177 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Goldberg

[edit]

needs his own article now that he is persona non grata. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's got his own now. Baseballbaker23 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

[edit]

This article needs some major improvement. Pexise (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted a large number of strong factual claims all of which lack any citationMylos (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were cited to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5539 which was properly marked as a dead link. However, a search of the Internet Archive turned up an archived copy of the source, which appears to support the statements; indeed some of them are a close paraphrasing of it. —rybec 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I am doing this right (I am new here). If there are citations directly supporting the claims (not just of somebody making the claims) that are universally accessible, then by all means the content I erased belongs. But all I can see at the cite now that I can access it archived copy is somebody making the claims, no actual documentation of evidence for the claims. Perhaps Rybec may want to report that Zunes makes these claims, but claims alone are not facts without documentation for them.Mylos (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bolivia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bolivia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include America's accusation of Morales rigging the election and backing the coup gov

[edit]

Should there at least be a new updated solid section where American media, gov and OAS had pushed public claims that former bolivian leader Morales had rigged the elections. Then later the trump admin backed the new "coup" or "successor" gov that overthrew Morales. And the independant MIT study that later cast doubt on OAS claims of election rigging. And its bias and funding. It seens really relevant and important history to add.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-politics/study-casting-doubt-on-bolivian-election-fraud-triggers-controversy-idUSKBN20O2BT

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/06/01/oas-anti-venezuela-pro-us-bias-right-wing-hypocrisy/

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/ MangoTareeface9 (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title name change

[edit]

@Albertaont: Hi! I wanted to take a moment to explain further why I undid your last edition. You can take a look at the lengthy discussions that took place on how to name the 2019 events in Bolivia; there isn't an agreement to call them a "coup", and even less that it had a backing of the US. As such, the proposed title was in violation of WP:NPOVTITLE. Along the same vein, I suggest you restore the previous version of the section, as opinion pieces aren't reliable sources. Please let me know if I can help on this regard. Kind regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Feel free to add additional context if you believe this is not NPOV. The content added is not merely an opinion piece, it is published in r/s and references other r/s which all highlight multiple instances of interference in the elections. The original edits do not reference this at all, and were a selective attempt to push a non-NPOV in 2021. In regards to the discussions, that was closed in December 2019 and additional information has come to light subsequently. If you wish to add additional sources, please use ones more recent than those immediately after the elections in late 2019. Albertaont (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Albertaont:@NoonIcarus:. The article is an opinion piece and it is tagged as such at the bottom (Cntrl+F and type "Topics").[1] Further, even if it wasn't an opinion piece, claims that the 2019 crisis was a coup and that the U.S. backed it are both contested allegations and stating them as fact violates NPOV. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Silence reigns on the US-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia | Mark Weisbrot". the Guardian. 2020-09-18. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bolivia–United_States_relations&oldid=1206360987"