![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: moved to '2019 Bolivian political crisis' by User:Jamez42 on 15 November. New requested move opened below.( non-admin closure) Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Evo Morales government resignation → 2019 Bolivian military memorandum – This seems to fit every characteristic of a military memorandum ( example 1 example 2). Army gives an ultimatum to president to resign, which results in his resignation. Calling this article "Morales government resignation" makes it seem as if it was voluntary, while it was forced by the army KasimMejia ( talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Article 20.- The attribution and responsabilities of the military high command are: [...] b. To analyze inner and foreign troubled situations to suggest to whom it may concern the apropiate solutions.
Against, agree with Hanafi455,
2019 Bolivian political crisis would be a better NPOV title.
Degen Earthfast (
talk)
22:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support I think 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat is the only truly accurate title, but 2019 Bolivian military memorandum would be an improvement over the current misleading title. Zellfire999 ( talk) 23:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose don't see any WP:Reliable Sources. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The subject of the article is too broad to mention only the military declaration, without considering the fraud reports, protests and audit. All of these factors resulted in the resignation. The consequence should be the title at best, not the causes. To include the whole situation, 2019 Bolivian political crisis may be better. Still, I would like to warn against WP:TOOSOON and consider that this an ongoing situation. Once definite government is constituted the discussion may be easier. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Although 2019 Bolivian coup d'état would be even better. BobNesh ( talk) 10:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Bolivian military memorandum, and 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. The primary role of the military in the resignation is by far the most important component here, whether we call it a "coup" or not. Davey2116 ( talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
'Support Even though 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat would be even better in my opinion, this is still an improvement over the current title. Antondimak ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Support The correct title would be 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat as this article describes events where the military forces a democratically elected president out of office and unleashes terror and violence upon his supporters, but this is still an improvement over the current title. --★ Regicollis T· C 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears that this article was moved to 2019 Bolivian political crisis. I think we stick with that (at least for now) per above arguments.
Charles Essie (
talk)
18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Support It appears that this article is about Morales and his cabinet's removal from office and not the entire political crisis that began after the election. I also think that 2019 Bolivian military memorandum is a much more accurate title than 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Update The Spanish-language article has adopted the name "coup". Maybe we should follow suit. Charles Essie ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I must congratulate all the coup-supporters, your attempts to dissemble and stall the correct naming of this article have certainly succeeded in artificially suppressing the nature of these events to every google searcher, thereby pushing the popular narrative towards support for the coup in these crucial early days. Similar things happened in Chile in 1973, just without the online component. We know that social media and the internet are more and more becoming battlegrounds for real geopolitical conflict, and I'm very sad to watch it happening here on wikipedia, where something that is a blatant, textbook definition of a coup is not labeled as such, despite overwhelming evidence, and for cynical political purposes. To say the unsaid: we all know that this will go down in history as a coup, and every day it is not labeled as such is another day that wikipedia and its users are obfuscating truth and providing tangible political benefit for one side of a real political conflict. Bigwigge ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
@
Jamez42: I am quite confused as to why you insist on
removing content that is clearly backed by sources. The headline of the article quite clearly says: Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe
. Later the article says: Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations
. It is clear as rain that Abrão calls for the external probe because of the massive violations. Yet you keep changing this fragment, and even messaged me, suggesting that I am not reflecting what sources say. I am really not sure what else I can do other than suggest you read everything very carefully in the article, word by word.
BeŻet (
talk)
21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence— here, he specifies what is needed: an external probe.
to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country— here, he specifies the goal of the probe: to ensure that findings are seen as credible.
“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said— here is the part that you and Jamez42 keep overlooking where he provides the reason that an external investigation is needed rather than simply an internal one: national institutions are typically not prepared to deal with such a huge number of violations.
( edit conflict) @ Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for going ahead and explaining the rationaly. It also showds that my edit summaries and reasons were made clear in the past. I will copy the article's passages, even if it means repeating things established:
COCHABAMBA, Bolivia (Reuters) - Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the head of a regional human rights commission told Reuters on Tuesday.
After a three-day visit to Bolivia, Paulo Abrão, who heads the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), recommended Bolivia coordinate with an international panel of experts similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico.
“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said in an interview in Cochabamba, a region hard hit by the violence.
The lead of the article includes two "to"s. The first, may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election
, explains the purpose of the investigaiton, and the second, to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country
, explains the reason. it is not a "secondary reason or even just a side note".
The second quote is in a totally different context. Paulo is more broad, and the article just mentioned the 43 students dissapearances in Mexico. It doesn't explain if the massive violations (in this paragraph) mean in general, Mexico or Bolivia. More importantly, if it was, Paulo is quoted saying before national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations
, which could go hand in hand with the reason in the lead, that findings would not be seen as credible because national institutions aren’t prepared to investigate the violations.
WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is not complyed because the original word choice, word order and sentence structure
needs to be retained. Changing the phrases changes the meaning. Context matters. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
14:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
National institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violationsclearly means that since there is a massive grouping of violations, national institutions aren't prepared to resolve them. Is this something you are disagreeing with? If so, why, when it's so clearly written there? BeŻet ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe, a claim you seem to be disputing? BeŻet ( talk) 15:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The image seen on the right hand side used to accompany a paragraph mentioning the how some people allegedly found some ballot sheets. Since this paragraph has been removed, I have removed the image.
@
Jamez42: without that paragraph it's completely out of context and has no place in the article. You've claimed it "illustrated irregularities", but that becomes
WP:OR without any accompanying context.
BeŻet (
talk)
22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post has rescinded its previous opinion about the "Bolivian Coup that Wasn't" [2], and has joined news organizations from The Jacobin [3] to the Guardian [4] in admitting [5] that what took place was, in fact, a coup [6] [7] [8]. Al Jazeera [9] has noted the fear of the indigenous community following the crisis [10], and all news agencies have noticed the brutal violence [11] taken by the military against pro-Morales protesters [12] following Anez's decree, opposed by human rights organizations [13], granting impunity for the army in repressing protests [14] [15], which has been decried by even the OAS [16], and which the government was forced to repeal [17]. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at least 23 protesters have been killed and over 715 injured [18] as a result of this decree.
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has condemn the interim government and its abuses [19]. This debate is over, it was fake to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77 ( talk • contribs)
− −
− − You cannot pretend that this is an unbiased article when it uses **blatant** peacock phrases such as "exposed" and literally refers to Anez as "legitimate" and ignores the actual events going on in the country to tell us in the introduction that the government has "committed to working with [the interim government] towards new elections," which is an unacceptable phrasing for an "unbiased" article to use outside of a direct quote.
− − Calling that statement "unbiased" is obscene, and ignoring the bias of the existing article is to be blind to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.125 ( talk) 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the following analysis I m trying to make a distinction between facts and claims according to the fundamental principles NPOV and Verifiability. For the actual sources, you have already enough in the article, so you can check them out. If you are the quick type or you want to see the end at the beginning :-) just read the conclusion, where I m actually proposing a title that can really have a consensus AND represents NPOV. If you are not immediately convinced by the proposal, then you can also read the analysis. History
I should also white somewhere, that the reach regions want to separate from the poor. And that in these regions there is a strong representation of ethnic groups of colonialism forces. PutschThe following tablet analyses the change of the regime according to two factors: is it just a claim or not, and, is it a characteristic of a coup d etat or not. It's not at all complete, it doesn't have to be. What you can read here should be enough for the argument.
ConclusionI actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d etat in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments about this already, I don't want to repeat them here). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer ist:YES: 2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia. In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d etat and (through the questionmark) that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d etat (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without having to confront the army...). I hope that this suggestion will be accepted as soon as possible, in order to respect at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is actually definitely NOT being respected (not taking position is definitely not a neutral position; if you have a different mind, I am eager to see it :-) ) Yomomo ( talk) 12:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)— Yomomo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CommentsAll I see is WP:OR by a WP:SPA. A lot of "my opinion". You are not a reliable source.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
Is there an explanation for the section tags? Want to see if there is a way to fix any issues.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It was my understanding from this discussion that events leading up to the Morales resignation would be handled in 2019 Bolivian protests, the resignation and subsequent events would be in this article, and an evident resolution to the political crisis—whether it's civil war, new elections, or something else—would be covered in an article as yet unwritten. If I was mistaken, let me put the proposal forward here and now. It's desperately needed, because both articles, especially this one, are swimming in redundancies that make them appear as low quality resources. SteveStrummer ( talk) 04:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how the sources say that scholars and journalists are divided. We have plenty of people calling it a coup, plenty of people not taking a stance, and then a small fringe group of people who explicitly say it wasn't a coup. We don't say that scholars are divided about global warming, we shouldn't say this here. What we should say however that many people do call it a coup. BeŻet ( talk) 11:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
international politicians, scholars and journalists are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising. I was hoping you would provide them as quickly as you revert my changes introducing a template there to indicate a problem that is being discussed here. BeŻet ( talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
You are not waiting for sources. This is a case of Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT. Move on.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
On the left, he’s seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.- BuzzFeed News
- QuartzThe world immediately became as divided as Bolivia itself over how to describe the events.The Mexican and Russian governments followed Morales’ lead and decried it as a “coup.” They were joined by left-wing luminaries like US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and, slightly more hesitantly, senator Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, US president Donald Trump said the departure of Morales “preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard.” The conservative governments in Washington and London both recognized opposition senator Jeanine Añez as de facto interim president. (...) Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.
It’s not a coup in any sense of the word, and Bolivia and Latin America have experience with actual coups. The army did not take charge of Bolivia. Morales, despite his protestations that police had an arrest warrant for him, is not in custody or even being sought.- Foreign Policy (Quoting journalist's position).
- Atlantic CouncilThe United States has recognized Áñez as the president, but the region and world remains divided. (...) The events in Bolivia have served to divide Latin America as to the impetus behind Morales’ departure and now whether Jeanine Áñez is the head of state.
After President Evo Morales resigned at the weekend, Bolivians and others the world over are asking whether his decision to step down the result of a legal process – or not?- Univisión
@ BeŻet:, you are getting to the point where this seems irrational. You are a user who manipulates articles and places what sources do not say. You are the one who reverts in a Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT manner that needs reversion. It is not an edit war if it is reverting unhelpful edits that have no consensus whatsoever. On top of that, you have gamed the system in your attempts to push a narrative. It appears that per WP:NOTHERE, further actions should be taken if this continues, preferably to a suitable noticeboard instead of an article talk pages.
As my last act of good faith before advocating for further action, here is a list of sources that support the lede:
Unless you can reach a consensus here, BeŻet, one cannot respect your intentions. If you have valid wording concerns, please make proposals instead of crying foul. Make the change you want to see and do not leave unsightly tags. We are trying our best here, so please at least make proposals.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"Two academics quizzed by Spanish newspaper El Pais this week said the departure of a president at the military’s behest is the definition of a coup. A third argued that it can’t be a coup if the president has no legitimacy, having allegedly rigged an election and bent the constitution to his will. A fourth, Margarita López Maya of the Central University of Venezuela, said there are elements both of a coup and of a popular insurrection, and likened it to the Venezuelan military overthrowing a dictator in 1958 in order to hold democratic elections."
International politicians, scholars and journalists are divided on the issue of whether the event can be accurately described as a coup.It seems to be that this would be a more accurate characterization of the totality of the sources cited, as well as fitting better into the paragraph. I also want to point out that there are way too many sources cited, and several of the sources cited are just examples of one side or the other ("it's a coup" or "it's not a coup"); it seems to me like this is improper WP:SYNTH and we should only be citing sources that summarize the dispute. Let me know what you think. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 23:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Figured I would explain this edit:
Whenever something occurs in Latin America, you will often see this group of individuals and others release a joint statement on CEPR's site. They are CEPR affiliates.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.BeŻet ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.. Unless we are properly attributing this information, it must be removed.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: and @ Jamez42: after your changes basically all content about CEPR has been removed. Please be careful as this can be seen as censorship. BeŻet ( talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
CEPR will often choose professionals to sign- that's a hell of an accusation. Also, I am repeating myself once again, that the RS does not in any way describe the economists as a CEPR group. BeŻet ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, per WP:NEWSORG. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Unclear why you felt there was a need to correct this. Both are relevant. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
BeŻet just violated WP:3RR to push their POV. Is this a serious policy or not? They should refrain from their disruptive behavior or be blocked.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @ BeŻet and Crmoorhead: for summary statements similar to last time. Though Zia and Jamez have been involved, they don't seem to be involved in this overarching conflict at the moment. Can you tell me the issue, how it relates to CEPR mentions in the article, and what your views are? As said, I'm not faultless, but discussions go round in circles, get off topic, and never culminate in agreement; I'm just trying to help keep things on track before walls of text on politics appear. Kingsif ( talk) 16:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Kingsif: I don't have a problem in mentioning the letter, but it is extremely relevant that both the letter and the previous publication of the CEPR were made prior to the publication of the full OAS report and were made without access to any of the resources that were provided to the investigation. They also, as the NYT mentions, don't address the key issues of servers being accessed during the results and the existence of fake votes. Mentioning both is fine, but the chronology is important, as well as more current events. I think the current content reflects this. While the CEPR link for some of the names may count as OR and may not qualify based on policy alone, the open letter states five of the names explicitly as being part of CEPR., so is definitely not OR to state this. [5] I would question the neutrality of their analysis given their reputation with regard to Venezuela. While we can quote credible sources and I guess every input is valid, it's important to at least bear the possibility of bias in mind on the talk page. I did not say that Bezet wanted to include any of the content about US involvement in the article, merely that his comments in the talk page were promoting his own political leanings and telling a story that, to me, went against the first-hand information and experience that I have with modern day Bolivia. Quoting activities of governments 30-40 years ago does not say anything about the self-determination of the Bolivian people and gives a blank cheque to the transgressions of the MAS government. It's a very different political and social landscape now. Without quoting recent sources from Bolivia itself, it's all just speculation without any understanding of what it going on. Sadly, this seems to apply to a lot of the English language reporting of events. Crmoorhead ( talk) 22:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
An analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) disputed the OAS's preliminary findings and criticized what it called a "politicization of the electoral observation process." The co-director of the think-tank, Mark Weisbrot, stated the OAS showed "no evidence – no statistics, numbers, or facts of any kind" to support its claim of electoral manipulation. CEPR concluded that due to Morales' voter base being in more rural regions, the results from peripheral areas received towards the end of the count were more likely to be in his favour. The New York Times noted, however, that this criticism has "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count".
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: moved to '2019 Bolivian political crisis' by User:Jamez42 on 15 November. New requested move opened below.( non-admin closure) Celia Homeford ( talk) 11:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Evo Morales government resignation → 2019 Bolivian military memorandum – This seems to fit every characteristic of a military memorandum ( example 1 example 2). Army gives an ultimatum to president to resign, which results in his resignation. Calling this article "Morales government resignation" makes it seem as if it was voluntary, while it was forced by the army KasimMejia ( talk) 17:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Article 20.- The attribution and responsabilities of the military high command are: [...] b. To analyze inner and foreign troubled situations to suggest to whom it may concern the apropiate solutions.
Against, agree with Hanafi455,
2019 Bolivian political crisis would be a better NPOV title.
Degen Earthfast (
talk)
22:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support I think 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat is the only truly accurate title, but 2019 Bolivian military memorandum would be an improvement over the current misleading title. Zellfire999 ( talk) 23:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose don't see any WP:Reliable Sources. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 00:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The subject of the article is too broad to mention only the military declaration, without considering the fraud reports, protests and audit. All of these factors resulted in the resignation. The consequence should be the title at best, not the causes. To include the whole situation, 2019 Bolivian political crisis may be better. Still, I would like to warn against WP:TOOSOON and consider that this an ongoing situation. Once definite government is constituted the discussion may be easier. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Although 2019 Bolivian coup d'état would be even better. BobNesh ( talk) 10:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Support 2019 Bolivian military memorandum, and 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. The primary role of the military in the resignation is by far the most important component here, whether we call it a "coup" or not. Davey2116 ( talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
'Support Even though 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat would be even better in my opinion, this is still an improvement over the current title. Antondimak ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Support The correct title would be 2019 Bolivian coup d'etat as this article describes events where the military forces a democratically elected president out of office and unleashes terror and violence upon his supporters, but this is still an improvement over the current title. --★ Regicollis T· C 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears that this article was moved to 2019 Bolivian political crisis. I think we stick with that (at least for now) per above arguments.
Charles Essie (
talk)
18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Support It appears that this article is about Morales and his cabinet's removal from office and not the entire political crisis that began after the election. I also think that 2019 Bolivian military memorandum is a much more accurate title than 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Update The Spanish-language article has adopted the name "coup". Maybe we should follow suit. Charles Essie ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I must congratulate all the coup-supporters, your attempts to dissemble and stall the correct naming of this article have certainly succeeded in artificially suppressing the nature of these events to every google searcher, thereby pushing the popular narrative towards support for the coup in these crucial early days. Similar things happened in Chile in 1973, just without the online component. We know that social media and the internet are more and more becoming battlegrounds for real geopolitical conflict, and I'm very sad to watch it happening here on wikipedia, where something that is a blatant, textbook definition of a coup is not labeled as such, despite overwhelming evidence, and for cynical political purposes. To say the unsaid: we all know that this will go down in history as a coup, and every day it is not labeled as such is another day that wikipedia and its users are obfuscating truth and providing tangible political benefit for one side of a real political conflict. Bigwigge ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
@
Jamez42: I am quite confused as to why you insist on
removing content that is clearly backed by sources. The headline of the article quite clearly says: Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe
. Later the article says: Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations
. It is clear as rain that Abrão calls for the external probe because of the massive violations. Yet you keep changing this fragment, and even messaged me, suggesting that I am not reflecting what sources say. I am really not sure what else I can do other than suggest you read everything very carefully in the article, word by word.
BeŻet (
talk)
21:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence— here, he specifies what is needed: an external probe.
to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country— here, he specifies the goal of the probe: to ensure that findings are seen as credible.
“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said— here is the part that you and Jamez42 keep overlooking where he provides the reason that an external investigation is needed rather than simply an internal one: national institutions are typically not prepared to deal with such a huge number of violations.
( edit conflict) @ Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for going ahead and explaining the rationaly. It also showds that my edit summaries and reasons were made clear in the past. I will copy the article's passages, even if it means repeating things established:
COCHABAMBA, Bolivia (Reuters) - Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country, the head of a regional human rights commission told Reuters on Tuesday.
After a three-day visit to Bolivia, Paulo Abrão, who heads the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), recommended Bolivia coordinate with an international panel of experts similar to one formed to investigate the disappearance of 43 students in Mexico.
“Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations” of human rights, Abrão said in an interview in Cochabamba, a region hard hit by the violence.
The lead of the article includes two "to"s. The first, may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election
, explains the purpose of the investigaiton, and the second, to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country
, explains the reason. it is not a "secondary reason or even just a side note".
The second quote is in a totally different context. Paulo is more broad, and the article just mentioned the 43 students dissapearances in Mexico. It doesn't explain if the massive violations (in this paragraph) mean in general, Mexico or Bolivia. More importantly, if it was, Paulo is quoted saying before national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations
, which could go hand in hand with the reason in the lead, that findings would not be seen as credible because national institutions aren’t prepared to investigate the violations.
WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is not complyed because the original word choice, word order and sentence structure
needs to be retained. Changing the phrases changes the meaning. Context matters. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
14:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
National institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violationsclearly means that since there is a massive grouping of violations, national institutions aren't prepared to resolve them. Is this something you are disagreeing with? If so, why, when it's so clearly written there? BeŻet ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Human rights violations in Bolivia merit outside probe, a claim you seem to be disputing? BeŻet ( talk) 15:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The image seen on the right hand side used to accompany a paragraph mentioning the how some people allegedly found some ballot sheets. Since this paragraph has been removed, I have removed the image.
@
Jamez42: without that paragraph it's completely out of context and has no place in the article. You've claimed it "illustrated irregularities", but that becomes
WP:OR without any accompanying context.
BeŻet (
talk)
22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post has rescinded its previous opinion about the "Bolivian Coup that Wasn't" [2], and has joined news organizations from The Jacobin [3] to the Guardian [4] in admitting [5] that what took place was, in fact, a coup [6] [7] [8]. Al Jazeera [9] has noted the fear of the indigenous community following the crisis [10], and all news agencies have noticed the brutal violence [11] taken by the military against pro-Morales protesters [12] following Anez's decree, opposed by human rights organizations [13], granting impunity for the army in repressing protests [14] [15], which has been decried by even the OAS [16], and which the government was forced to repeal [17]. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at least 23 protesters have been killed and over 715 injured [18] as a result of this decree.
The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has condemn the interim government and its abuses [19]. This debate is over, it was fake to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77 ( talk • contribs)
− −
− − You cannot pretend that this is an unbiased article when it uses **blatant** peacock phrases such as "exposed" and literally refers to Anez as "legitimate" and ignores the actual events going on in the country to tell us in the introduction that the government has "committed to working with [the interim government] towards new elections," which is an unacceptable phrasing for an "unbiased" article to use outside of a direct quote.
− − Calling that statement "unbiased" is obscene, and ignoring the bias of the existing article is to be blind to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.125 ( talk) 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In the following analysis I m trying to make a distinction between facts and claims according to the fundamental principles NPOV and Verifiability. For the actual sources, you have already enough in the article, so you can check them out. If you are the quick type or you want to see the end at the beginning :-) just read the conclusion, where I m actually proposing a title that can really have a consensus AND represents NPOV. If you are not immediately convinced by the proposal, then you can also read the analysis. History
I should also white somewhere, that the reach regions want to separate from the poor. And that in these regions there is a strong representation of ethnic groups of colonialism forces. PutschThe following tablet analyses the change of the regime according to two factors: is it just a claim or not, and, is it a characteristic of a coup d etat or not. It's not at all complete, it doesn't have to be. What you can read here should be enough for the argument.
ConclusionI actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d etat in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments about this already, I don't want to repeat them here). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer ist:YES: 2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia. In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d etat and (through the questionmark) that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d etat (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without having to confront the army...). I hope that this suggestion will be accepted as soon as possible, in order to respect at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is actually definitely NOT being respected (not taking position is definitely not a neutral position; if you have a different mind, I am eager to see it :-) ) Yomomo ( talk) 12:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)— Yomomo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CommentsAll I see is WP:OR by a WP:SPA. A lot of "my opinion". You are not a reliable source.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
Is there an explanation for the section tags? Want to see if there is a way to fix any issues.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It was my understanding from this discussion that events leading up to the Morales resignation would be handled in 2019 Bolivian protests, the resignation and subsequent events would be in this article, and an evident resolution to the political crisis—whether it's civil war, new elections, or something else—would be covered in an article as yet unwritten. If I was mistaken, let me put the proposal forward here and now. It's desperately needed, because both articles, especially this one, are swimming in redundancies that make them appear as low quality resources. SteveStrummer ( talk) 04:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how the sources say that scholars and journalists are divided. We have plenty of people calling it a coup, plenty of people not taking a stance, and then a small fringe group of people who explicitly say it wasn't a coup. We don't say that scholars are divided about global warming, we shouldn't say this here. What we should say however that many people do call it a coup. BeŻet ( talk) 11:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
international politicians, scholars and journalists are divided between describing the event as a coup or a popular uprising. I was hoping you would provide them as quickly as you revert my changes introducing a template there to indicate a problem that is being discussed here. BeŻet ( talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
You are not waiting for sources. This is a case of Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT. Move on.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
On the left, he’s seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.- BuzzFeed News
- QuartzThe world immediately became as divided as Bolivia itself over how to describe the events.The Mexican and Russian governments followed Morales’ lead and decried it as a “coup.” They were joined by left-wing luminaries like US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, and, slightly more hesitantly, senator Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, US president Donald Trump said the departure of Morales “preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard.” The conservative governments in Washington and London both recognized opposition senator Jeanine Añez as de facto interim president. (...) Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.
It’s not a coup in any sense of the word, and Bolivia and Latin America have experience with actual coups. The army did not take charge of Bolivia. Morales, despite his protestations that police had an arrest warrant for him, is not in custody or even being sought.- Foreign Policy (Quoting journalist's position).
- Atlantic CouncilThe United States has recognized Áñez as the president, but the region and world remains divided. (...) The events in Bolivia have served to divide Latin America as to the impetus behind Morales’ departure and now whether Jeanine Áñez is the head of state.
After President Evo Morales resigned at the weekend, Bolivians and others the world over are asking whether his decision to step down the result of a legal process – or not?- Univisión
@ BeŻet:, you are getting to the point where this seems irrational. You are a user who manipulates articles and places what sources do not say. You are the one who reverts in a Wikipedia:DONTLIKEIT manner that needs reversion. It is not an edit war if it is reverting unhelpful edits that have no consensus whatsoever. On top of that, you have gamed the system in your attempts to push a narrative. It appears that per WP:NOTHERE, further actions should be taken if this continues, preferably to a suitable noticeboard instead of an article talk pages.
As my last act of good faith before advocating for further action, here is a list of sources that support the lede:
Unless you can reach a consensus here, BeŻet, one cannot respect your intentions. If you have valid wording concerns, please make proposals instead of crying foul. Make the change you want to see and do not leave unsightly tags. We are trying our best here, so please at least make proposals.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"Two academics quizzed by Spanish newspaper El Pais this week said the departure of a president at the military’s behest is the definition of a coup. A third argued that it can’t be a coup if the president has no legitimacy, having allegedly rigged an election and bent the constitution to his will. A fourth, Margarita López Maya of the Central University of Venezuela, said there are elements both of a coup and of a popular insurrection, and likened it to the Venezuelan military overthrowing a dictator in 1958 in order to hold democratic elections."
International politicians, scholars and journalists are divided on the issue of whether the event can be accurately described as a coup.It seems to be that this would be a more accurate characterization of the totality of the sources cited, as well as fitting better into the paragraph. I also want to point out that there are way too many sources cited, and several of the sources cited are just examples of one side or the other ("it's a coup" or "it's not a coup"); it seems to me like this is improper WP:SYNTH and we should only be citing sources that summarize the dispute. Let me know what you think. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 23:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Figured I would explain this edit:
Whenever something occurs in Latin America, you will often see this group of individuals and others release a joint statement on CEPR's site. They are CEPR affiliates.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.BeŻet ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.. Unless we are properly attributing this information, it must be removed.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: and @ Jamez42: after your changes basically all content about CEPR has been removed. Please be careful as this can be seen as censorship. BeŻet ( talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
CEPR will often choose professionals to sign- that's a hell of an accusation. Also, I am repeating myself once again, that the RS does not in any way describe the economists as a CEPR group. BeŻet ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, per WP:NEWSORG. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Unclear why you felt there was a need to correct this. Both are relevant. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
BeŻet just violated WP:3RR to push their POV. Is this a serious policy or not? They should refrain from their disruptive behavior or be blocked.-- SirEdimon ( talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @ BeŻet and Crmoorhead: for summary statements similar to last time. Though Zia and Jamez have been involved, they don't seem to be involved in this overarching conflict at the moment. Can you tell me the issue, how it relates to CEPR mentions in the article, and what your views are? As said, I'm not faultless, but discussions go round in circles, get off topic, and never culminate in agreement; I'm just trying to help keep things on track before walls of text on politics appear. Kingsif ( talk) 16:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Kingsif: I don't have a problem in mentioning the letter, but it is extremely relevant that both the letter and the previous publication of the CEPR were made prior to the publication of the full OAS report and were made without access to any of the resources that were provided to the investigation. They also, as the NYT mentions, don't address the key issues of servers being accessed during the results and the existence of fake votes. Mentioning both is fine, but the chronology is important, as well as more current events. I think the current content reflects this. While the CEPR link for some of the names may count as OR and may not qualify based on policy alone, the open letter states five of the names explicitly as being part of CEPR., so is definitely not OR to state this. [5] I would question the neutrality of their analysis given their reputation with regard to Venezuela. While we can quote credible sources and I guess every input is valid, it's important to at least bear the possibility of bias in mind on the talk page. I did not say that Bezet wanted to include any of the content about US involvement in the article, merely that his comments in the talk page were promoting his own political leanings and telling a story that, to me, went against the first-hand information and experience that I have with modern day Bolivia. Quoting activities of governments 30-40 years ago does not say anything about the self-determination of the Bolivian people and gives a blank cheque to the transgressions of the MAS government. It's a very different political and social landscape now. Without quoting recent sources from Bolivia itself, it's all just speculation without any understanding of what it going on. Sadly, this seems to apply to a lot of the English language reporting of events. Crmoorhead ( talk) 22:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
An analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) disputed the OAS's preliminary findings and criticized what it called a "politicization of the electoral observation process." The co-director of the think-tank, Mark Weisbrot, stated the OAS showed "no evidence – no statistics, numbers, or facts of any kind" to support its claim of electoral manipulation. CEPR concluded that due to Morales' voter base being in more rural regions, the results from peripheral areas received towards the end of the count were more likely to be in his favour. The New York Times noted, however, that this criticism has "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count".