![]() | 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2019 Bolivian political crisis → ? – Many have said that it was too early to coin the events a coup d'etat previously. I think the nature of the events have now made this increasingly clear. Although I believe the mere nature of the military forcing the civilian government to resign speaks for itself, events have continued to escalate. The military and police are now violently repressing pro-Morales protests, with many protesters killed today, the President has been forced to flee after he claims a warrant was issued for his arrest (and it has been confirmed he would be prosecuted if he returned), and the self-proclaimed new President is of disputed legitimacy with the MAS majority refusing to recognize her. [1] [2] [3] Furthermore, even many western sources have now referred to the event as a coup d'etat, as well as many governments. [4] [5] [6] Zellfire999 ( talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
follow only sources that align with [my] own bias, but rather demonstrating that some reliable sources use coup, making it an appropriate option for the title of this page. We can then use WP:CRITERIA to decide among our options. My position is that "coup" is superior by these criteria, being far more precise than "political crisis", consistent with other similar articles' titles, and recognizable, among other things. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats, I don't know why that would be relevant. In this case, the military did take action: it demanded Morales's resignation. Surely you're not suggesting such demands aren't backed by an implicit threat of violence? — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why that would be relevant? When you try to compare apples with oranges it's not relevant to point out that they look and taste different? Your characterization of events is one long stretch. Yes, I suppose one could technically call making a statement an 'action' but that's not really what most people mean when they think of military action. You say 'demanded' which is, again, not technically incorrect, but is about the most unfavorable possible interpretation of the words they actually used. As such the claim of 'implicit threat of violence' is met with my implicit eye roll. If "the military made a suggestion that could be interpreted as implicitly threatening" is your definition of a coup d'etat, I don't know what to tell you. Compare and contrast to what you're describing as 'similar'. 199.247.44.170 ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship, as if this should immediately rule them out in comparison to the other sources you've listed. However, as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for determining reliability, and indeed,
Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.Both sources meet these criteria, and indeed, being an adversarial investigative journalism site, The Intercept has more independence from Western state governments supporting the coup than the NYT, WaPo, etc., which rely on access to powerful sources of information for their reporting.
I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacyIf we're playing spot-the-fallacy, yours is straw man, because I didn't say that. What I am saying is that context matters, and we should take into account potential bias from all sources, not just left-wing ones.
its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venueWrong on both counts. (a) The fact that the Nation and the Intercept are reliable is in fact supported by WP:RSP. (b) WP:RSP is not "an actual authority", it's an explanatory supplement to WP:RS. It is a useful reference, not a set of binding rules. This is made clear in the lead:
Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpretators ... did not assume the government. This is not true. What definition of coup are you going by? It is by no means out of the ordinary for the military to install someone else as leader after carrying out a coup. One obvious example is that the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état was perpetrated by the military, but installed businessman and opposition member Pedro Carmona as president. (It's also unclear to me why you name Carlos Mesa as a perpetrator of the coup. While he's obviously a leading figure in the opposition, I don't know that there's evidence suggesting he conspired with Kaliman or other military figures before they decided to remove Morales.) — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If there is an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the Anatidae family, then it is not a duck, period.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.I have yet to see a compelling argument that "political crisis" is superior on these grounds. The facts of the event also support the name "coup": the military intervened by asking the elected head of state to resign.
Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."Political crisis" is ambiguous because it could refer to the protests around the election, the repression of protesters by the new government, or various other political issues (indeed, in news reports, the word "crisis" is used to refer to all of these, and in fact was used even before the coup took place), whereas this article is about the coup itself. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is an incredibly hard close to make. The word "coup" is an incredibly emotive word that bogs down discussions both on and off the encyclopedia. In my personal opinion, I believe the forced resignation of Morales constituted a coup. But Wikipedia isn't a place for personal opinions. There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. The existence of no consensus over whether it constitutes a coup cuts through the entirety of the reliable sources, not just here. While more editors in this discussion prefer the term "coup", looking at the entire talk page, it seems as if the designation as such is still incredibly controversial and needs a consensus going forward.
Comment I am increasingly worried that this move proposal is growingly turning into a poll and moving away from a discussion. Many of the votes state as a rationaly simply that "It is a coup", without quoting Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or rebutting or addressing other issues addressed. In this regard, I would to do my best to provide a detailed explanation of why the title "2019 Bolivian coup d'état" violates WP:NPOV and should be avoided.
For starters, I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. For example, @ Charles Essie: expressed support for a move, but at first leaned towards the "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" title. While I'm at it, I also want to emphasize again that the current title in the Spanish Wikipedia resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus. In any case, each Wikipedia is independent, and the move should be decided on these policies and guidelines, and its arguments supporting them, not because a different title has been adopted in another language.
@
Cmonghost:, you have cited the
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt several times and I would like to respond to you directly, hoping that in the process it also contributes arguments to the discussion. As it has been stated previosly, the main difference between Morales and Chávez is that the latter did not resign; or at least in practice. General
Lucas Rincón Romero, the highest-ranking Venezuelan military officer, annouced at the moment that Chávez had accepted the resignation. While there is an agreement that at the very least Chávez accepted to resign orally (Meza, Alfredo; Lafuente, Sandra. El acertijo de abril, 2012) it currently isn't known for certain if Chávez did resign in writing. However, this is important because it has been argued that if Chávez resigned and there was a power vacuum, there would have not been a coup. Indeed, then Defense Minister
José Vicente Rangel reportedly suggested Chávez: No firmes, Hugo, para que sea un golpe de Estado
(Don't sign, Hugo, so it will be a coup d'état) (and according to some versions, Fidel Castro, but that's another kettle of fish).
The subject of the 2002 is very controversial and hotly debated (including if there was power vacuum, and why then Vicepresident Diosdado Cabello did not assume the presidency) but I would like to focus on a more important difference. There's a moment that can be pinpointed as an agreement between scholars on when the coup exactly happened: El Carmonazo, known in English as the Carmona Decree. Why would that be? Besides Pedro Carmona not being in the line of succession, I would read the decree to give you an idea:
Article I Designated Pedro Carmona Estanga President of Venezuela in charge of the Executive Branch.
(...)
Article III Suspended the National Assembly, with new elections to be held no later than December 2002.
(...)
Article VIII Reorganized public offices to recuperate autonomy and independence, removing officials illegitimately named to their posts as members of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Comptroller General, and members of the National Electoral Council. These positions would be filled as soon as possible with consultation of the Ministers and Advisory Council.
So, yeah. The Carmona Decree basically dissolved all of the power branches in the stroke of a pen, dismissing elected officials, which is why it started being recognized widely as a coup. The moment when the decree was read out in public was filmed, in case you want to get an idea of how shocking this was. Needless to say, this is not the case in Bolivia, and this is one of many reasons of why the 2002 coup comparison to the crisis in Bolivia does not hold water. The Constitutional Tribunal accepted the transfer of power and Congress, which has a MAS party majority, accepted Añez as interim president until elections took place. Recently it seems that the term "coup" is used to mean a rupture in the constitutional order of a country, but even in this country it seems not to be the case.
While other historic coups have been cited, I think that important comparisons can be drawn from this case study: Evo Morales' resignation seems to have not been disputed, the power was assumed by someone in the succession line (albeit debatable) and elected officials seem to continue in their offices normally, even if they belong to the MAS: the National Assembly, the Supreme Tribunal, governors, mayors...this was not the case in 2002, and I am sure that neither was it in many of the other cases of coups that have happened. It should also be mentioned that arguably Añez has had more international recognition than Carmona, another important aspect.
As I have I mentioned previously, in the Spanish Wikipedia a table was created to summarize the arguments from both sides. Just to make sure it is read in this talk page, I will translate it:
It is a coup d'etat | It is not a coup d'etat |
---|---|
Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of the intervention of the Armed Forces on 10 November, when he was asked to resign. According to article 245 of the National Constitution, the Armed Forces cannot deliberate or carry out political acts, and according to Art. 246, only receive orders from the President of the Republic. | Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of a civil unrest process that was already ongoing for several weeks and that started in a part of the population that considered the 20 October elections as fraudulent.
The "recommendation" made by the Armed Forces of Bolivia was made at 4:45 p.m., on 10 November , and Morales and Garcia Linera (the presidency and vice presidency, respectively) resignation speech was transmitted at 4:55 p.m. on state television from the Chimoré airport, in an act that noticeably made in advance and that would have taken place whetever or not the Armed Forces had pronounced. |
The OAS denounced "irregularities" that are common in any electoral process, which was stressed by Morales, who accepted the questioning regardless and summoned new elections. The alleged electoral fraud is not accredited, according to the CEPR. [13] | The OAS published a report concluding that the was fraud, and as a consequence President Evo Morales summoned new election and arranged to change the members of the Electoral Tribunal, implicitly accepting there was fraud. |
It is a coup because the Evo Morales resignation was a consequence of the request of the Armed Forces, of the police quartering, and of the aggressions and threats that his family has suffered. Therefore, the decision was taken under pressure and not freely. Likewise, meeting to deliberate and "suggest" the resignation of the president implies political action in violation of Art. 245 and 246 of the National Constitution, which is above any national law, including 1405. | It is not a coup because the Bolivian Armed Forces did not request, but only "suggested" Morales to resign as a solution of the crisis. Such action is legal because it is protected by Article 20 of Law No. 1405 (Organic Law of the Armed Forces) that literally indicates that it is an attribution of the military high command to "Analyze the internal and external conflict situations, to suggest to whom appropriate appropriate solutions." |
The resignation took place immediately after the request for resignation by the Armed Forces. The constitutional mandate of Morales concluded in January, so the fraud allegations should not have affected him. | It is not a coup becuase Evo Morales resignation was first requested first by the opposition forces as a solution to the electoral fraud crisis that was ongoing for several day. The suggestion by the Armed Forces came later. For the opposition, the departure of Evo Morales was necessary because his presence in power did not guarantee that in the new elections fraud would not be committed again. |
The acts of harassment, threats, kidnappings, house fires, etc, were carried out towards members of the political party of Morales (MAS), and were possible due to the police quartering that took several days, in breach of their constitutional obligations (Art. 251 of the Bolivian Constitution). The Presidents and first Vice-President of the Senate and deputies, and their relatives, were threatened by supporters of Camacho and Mesa until they resigned. | The resignation suggestion by the Armed Forces was addressed only to Evo Morales, but not to the Vice President or to the presidents of the legislative chambers who willingly resigned, meaning that any one of them, all of Morales' party, could have assumed the presidency as his replacement if they had wanted to. Acts of harassment and theats also ocurred by Morales supporters against the opposition, like the threat to destroy the house of candidate Mesa or the announcement of "now yes, civil war" by MAS supporters. |
There were not protests, but rather brutal attacks and threats against MAS officials and members | Citizen protests against the fraud cannot be accused as "pressure" to resign, since protests are a constitutional right. Evo Morales did exactly the same in 2003-2004 propitiating the fall, also by resignation, of the legitimate government of that time and nobody called those acts as a coup d'etat. |
The coup does not necessarily entail the formation of a dictatorship. Numerous historical examples where coups or coup attempts did not result in changes of government or found a constitutional channel. | The alleged coup leaders, candidate Mesa and Mr. Camacho or the military, have not taken over the power, a requirement that defines the coup d'etat, but rather the person that assumed power is the one legally correspondeded to according to the line of succession. |
The police quarterd in breach of their constitutional obligations. Once the coup was completed, the police proceeded to repress to reestablish order and received the support of the Armed Forces, which have decreed the state of emergy without any direct order (which must come from an acting President, as established in Article 245 of the Bolivian Constitution.) | It is not a coup because in power vacuum situations the Armed Forces and police have to fulfill their obligation to protect the order against the confrontation between the two sides, supporters of Evo vs. opposition. |
Numerous lawmakers and officials of the Morales party are injured, shelteredor exiled as a result of the coup. They have also received threats against themselves and their families, without having due guarantees by security force. Likewise, military and police forces prevent MAS legislators from entering the Senate. | Numerous supporters of the opposition have been threatened by MAS supporters (Evo Morales' party). The congress continues in functions and with an absolute majority of the Evo Morales party, so they could well choose one among their ranks to assume the presidency, but they willingly refused to participate in the sessions. |
The existence of a coup d'etat does not invalidate that could then be a constitutional exit. There is police repression against protesters calling for the return of the constitutional order, the second Vice President of the Senate declared himself president in front of an empty congress with little more than 8 legislators, without a quorum, and on 13 Novembe MAS legislators, the majority party in Congres, were prevented to
frente a un congreso vacío con poco más de 8 legisladores, sin quorum necesario y el día miércoles 13 de noviembre se evitó que legisladores del MAS, partido de mayoria en el congreso entered to session |
The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia, whose members had been elected during the Evo Morales administration, has validated the constitutional presidential succession. |
Several countries, political leaders, intellectuals and social organizations have described the events as coup d'etat. The OAS has not been impartial in any case. Repression and censorship exist against indigenous and peasant mobilizations from the Alto and from Santa Cruz in the city of La Paz | Several countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, have rejected that it is a coup d'etat, while others, such as Peru and Colombia, have refused to qualify it as such. The Organization of American States, through its Secretary General, has indicated rather that if there was a coup d'etat, it occurred when Evo Morales perpetrated the fraud pretending to remain in power illegitimately. |
There are precedents of very similar events where the president is forced to resign by "suggestion" of the Armed Forces and historically called coups such as the coup d'etat in Argentina of 1955, Venezuela of 2002, Honduras of 2009, Guatemala of 1954 and Dominican Republic of 1963, among others, in which the constitutional order was violated. In this case, Law No. 1405 is such is below the hierarchy of articles. | "Similar" events in other countries actually differ in the fact that in those other countries there was no standard such as Law No. 1405 of Bolivia whose Article 20 expressly enables the military high command to suggest to the president what actions he should take in situations of conflict |
The resignation of Morales and his vice president was made minutes after the suggestion of resignation made by the Armed Forces. To say that the resignation was due to military pressure is to ignore the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population. | |
The pronouncement of the Armed Forces was made after the government was waiting for the Armed Forces to repress the protesters, at a time when Bolivia was in a peaceful civic strike in the cities for 19 days, in where no weapons were taken against the citizens by the people who were abiding by the strike nor was the food supply prevented, and two days after the police refused to continue repressing the population. | |
In September 2019 the President of Peru ordered the dissolution of the congress in a fact cataloged by the opposition forces, by several jurists and by some press media as "coup d'etat", while the president and another sector of the population maintains that the dissolution was legal. The article is finally not called "coup d'etat", but rather Dissolution of the Congress of the Republic of Peru , although in the very body the qualification of "coup" is included. | |
On november 23 the bolivian congress controlled by Evo Morales legislators (in both chambers), approved a bill that nullified the October20 elections and called up for new elections. The bill was sent to president Añez who signed it into law, which means the implicit recognition of Añez as a legitimated president. |
I like to use the comparison of the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état because it shows that a coup does not have to be illegitimate to be a coup, just like any other coup that has overthrown a dictatorship to restore a democracy and does not come to my mind at this moment. In December 1957 dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez just carried out a referendum to determine if his term as leader would be extended. The elections were widely considered to be unfair and he won. On 1 January, colonel Hugo Trejo led an uprising by the Aviation in Maracay, and a few weeks afterwards, on 23 January, the Army joined Venezuelans that protested against the dictatorship. The same day, Pérez Jiménez left in the presidential plane to the Dominican Republic.
I have commented that "The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics." A coup should have a greater involvement of the military and not just a simple declaration. As I explained in the case of the 2002 coup, that alone would sow doubt in if the events constitute a coup. I explained this in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt talk page and I have encouraged to read the page before, but just to make sure that it is read, I will copy it here:
The uprising does not meet the characteristics of a coup or a coup attempt: there were no attempts to seize the executive power or any means that would help the defectors to do so: unlike previous coups are attempts in Venezuela, there were no captures or attacks of military or political targets, there wasn't a seizure of the state broadcast station or placement of roadblocks and the like; all of these are characteristic of a coup, have happened before in Venezuela and have happened in coups in other countries. There were no tanks rolling into the streets or clashes between the military (...)
The two events that I think most of when I describe these events are the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état. Like with any current event, there were controversies if to call them as a coup, or if they could be considered as something else such as an uprising. However, these conditions seems to be met along with widespread coverage calling the events a coup. In any case, I still recommend reading the respective articles talk pages to look for some insight. However, there are still notable differences, such as the degree of involvement of military and the active dispute of power.
While am at it, I would also want to address the accusations against the OAS and comment that the opposition at first was very skeptical of the organizations. After all, Secretary General Almagro didn't oppose Morales' candidacy despite the results of the referendum that forbid him from running. The opposition didn't want Morales to run for a reelection and did not want an audit on the results. Besides, I'll make a special mention of @ Laella:, who commented that "Bolivian major newspapers and news sources, 'including sources with previously heavy pro-Evo Morales slants', are not calling the events a coup." ( Prensa Escrita).
I may not be addressing many of the concerns or arguments provided in the discussion, but I hope to have given a different perspective on the situation. There are plenty of reliable sources that don't refer to the events as a coup either, should we really come to make a table comparing each source and their use of the term like we did in the Venezuelan uprising article?
I don't care if the positions stay the same, I only want this decision to be taken while being informed and that I can provide a little more of insight with this comment.
The closing admin should give no weight to votes that do not include arguments or comments based on policies or guidelines. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one.
This is not the case. It's clear from reading the RM that it is a proposal to move to 2019 Bolivian coup d'état, and the initial "2019 Bolivian political crisis → ?" is obviously just an error in using the template, given that immediately below, it says "2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état".
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
(I left a note on
Zellfire999's talk page alerting them to the error, in any case.) It's not clear to me whether
Charles Essie was confused by this, or just stating a preference for military memorandum over coup d'état. In any case, I don't think it really matters as they eventually came around to supporting the RM anyway. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@
Jamez42: I'll use this as an opportunity to sum up my arguments before the RM is closed again. First I want to note that many of the arguments in the table and in your analysis have little to no bearing on whether or not the events we are discussing constitute a coup. What they appear to be instead are a discussion of whether or not the coup was
good or
bad. For example, stating that The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia ... has validated the constitutional presidential succession
is not relevant: if Morales had been assassinated, rather than being forced to step down, we would still refer to it as an "assassination" even if the subsequent power transfer were validated by the court. Another example is the mention of the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population
; I am not aware of any definition of "coup d'état" that precludes the possibility of protests. In fact, many coups are preceded by protests (e.g.,
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état,
2009 Honduran coup d'état,
2013 Egyptian coup d'état, and many many others).
In an earlier comment, you yourself say that The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics
. I agree! The key point here is that the military asked the president to leave office. Would he have resigned without this? Likely not: per the
NYT, Mr. Morales appeared intent on weathering the storm until his generals abandoned him on Sunday.
This is no doubt why
several
sources
refer
to
it as a coup,
despite obfuscation from various news organizations. I want to echo
Prinsgezinde who said It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate
.
Finally, a summary of my comparison of the two titles based on our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Precision is the main one that coup wins, in my view, which has consequences for some of the other criteria as well.
Bolivia was plunged into a deepening political crisis this week after Evo Morales ... was forced to step down—the "crisis" is the events following the coup, not the coup itself. In contrast, "coup d'état" has one clear referent: Morales's resignation. (This is one reason the move to "political crisis" was a mistake, by the way; "government resignation" lacks context but at least has a specific referent.)
I look forward to hearing what others think, with whatever time remains before the RM is closed again. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. ... It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
It's not a coup because state department says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.70.252 ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Seeing above that there was not a consensus, I recommend that we try to make a more concrete decision. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing as there were previously links to this talk page on other platforms apparently attempting to influence this discussion.
Below are the two most popular recommended moves:
Please provide your support decision in the desginated section.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
"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. ... 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."
I understand that one main argument of those supporting the coup move is that we should not be "unbiased"This is also a misrepresentation. Here is additional context from the comment you link:
News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate.
The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers.You are using WP:OR, which violates one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I understand that this is a controversial situation, but until we have something that fulfills all three core principles (NPOV, verifiable and not original research), I do not see a reason that the "coup" wording should be used. If you can provide something that can meet this criteria, I may change my position.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment: There is not a widespread use of describing the events as a coup in reliable sources. However, there are multiple stories by reliable sources detailing how there is not agreement about describing the events as a coup. Here are the sources. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] It is a highly contested opinion to describe this event as a coup, therefore the title should not include the coup terminology.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
By my count, there were 18 in favor of restoring the original name of the page, and only 7 for retaining the current name. I'm not sure how one can conclude there was no consensus. Zellfire999 ( talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Also as said above, a consensus is superseded by Wikipedia's core policies. I want a reason to support this, but out of respect for policies, this is not verifiable by being widely supported by sources.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Also, WP:POVNAMING states that
"If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". I do not see the majority of reliable sources describing this as a coup. A Google News search of "Bolivia coup" results in many unreliable sources in the following order; an opinion article in The Guardian, Salon, Consortium News, Grayzone (formerly part of AlterNet) and Anadolu Agency (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). These are not reliable sources and at the very most, their views must be attributed in the article's body if they were to be included, not for title material. So, Wikipedia editors supporting the coup title are performing WP:OR as they are reaching a conclusion not widely supported by reliable sources and violating WP:NPOV because the "coup" term carries a lot of POV weight. Cmonghost, seeing that you are a linguist who frequents talk pages constantly, one can see how you could overlook how Wikipedia articles are constructed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Core content policies and possibly WP:Fringe.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Whether the events Sunday in Bolivia constitute a coup d'état is now the subject of debate in and outside the nation. ... Bolivia's "coup" is largely a question of semantics
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
But the Cold War-era language of coups and revolutions demands that such cases fit into clear narratives. ... Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray.
And, as so often with the big names of Latin America — where the word "coup" is supercharged ... how you see what has happened to him is often dependent on your own political ideology. On the left, he's seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
So…was it a coup? Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Countries are debating why Evo Morales left power. Did he leave power of his own volition or was it a coup? There are two different responses to that question based on which country is speaking.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The discussion over whether it was a coup falls largely along ideological lines. Left wing supporters of Morales point like to point to a long history of military coups in Latin America, while critics of the former president point to the 14 years he spent in power, in violation of constitutional term limits. ... But political experts say the events hardly resemble a classic coup scenario. ... In a typical coup, the military usually take a more proactive role, taking up arms against the sitting ruler and installing one of their own in the presidential palace, at least temporarily.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Since I have not received feedback of the sources chart, I have gone ahead and started a chart to do a briefing of the sources offered in the move proposal (not the whole talk page). It seems that indeed it has come to it. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS/P | Sources presented | Described as coup | Described as another term | Quotes coup | Quotes rejection of coup | How the source uses these terms: | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N/A Discussion not started |
"Transition" | ABC | ![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia en transición
Opinion article. Author uses the term "transition" to describe the events | ||
![]() |
Unrest | Al Jazeera | ![]() |
![]() |
Two killed as unrest continues in Bolivia.
Uses "unrest" to describe the events Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup." | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | America | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bolivian bishops say Evo Morales’ resignation was not a coup
Article refers to Morales' resignation after protests. Quotes Bolivian bishops position, who reject the term, and Morales, who uses it | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Uprising | America 2.1 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Carlos Mesa: “No hubo golpe de estado y Evo Morales rompió la línea de sucesión intencionalmente”
Sources uses "popular uprising" to describe the events. Quote candidate Carlo Mesa rejecting the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the term | |
![]() |
Turmoil | Anadolu Agency | ![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia: Anez celebrates military's 209th anniversary.
The closest term used to describe the events is "turmoil" Quotes Morales and his supporters using "coup" | ||
![]() |
Resignation | Associated Press | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
United States: Bolivian president wasn’t forced out by coup
Uses "the situation in Bolivia". Mentions Morales and other officials resnations Quotes declarations that use the term "coup" or reject it | |
N/A Discussion not started |
"Ouster" | Bangor Daily News | ![]() |
Evo Morales ouster in Bolivia was not a coup, just a blunder
Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup". | |||
![]() |
Crisis | BBC | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia crisis: Morales 'should be prosecuted' upon return
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Uses the term "coup" when quoting Morales and citing that Añez has rejected the term. Uses the term "mutiny" when describing police officers that joined the protests. Quote Morales denouncing a coup attempt. | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Deutsche Welle |
Evo Morales anuncia nuevas elecciones en Bolivia
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Diario las Américas | ![]() |
Pastrana tilda a Evo Morales de usurpador a la par de Maduro
Interview with former Colombian president Pastrana, who defined Morales as a usurper comparable to Nicolás Maduro | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | EFE | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Guaidó dice que no puede hablarse de golpe de Estado contra Evo Morales
Quotes Juan Guaidó, who rejects the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the word | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Electoral fraud | El Deber | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
OEA: "El golpe se dio cuando Evo quiso quedarse en el poder en primera vuelta"
Quotes the declarations in the OAS about the situation, namely Secretary General Luis Almagro, who said that if a coup occured, it was committed by Morales. | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Eldiario.es | ![]() |
![]() |
La comunidad internacional pasa de puntillas sobre el golpe de Estado de Bolivia
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Uses "crisis" once. Quotes parties that have used the term "coup" and those that have refuse to do so. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | El País | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
El País' tag for the news about the situation is named "
Political crisis in Bolivia
¿Es un golpe de Estado lo que ha pasado con Evo Morales en Bolivia? Article quotes four experts. Two consider the situation as a coup, while the two remaining "shade" | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Euronews | ![]() |
![]() |
Who is Jeanine Áñez, Bolivia's interim president?
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Quotes Evo Morales describing the events and an expert as a "coup" Evo Morales political asylum: Is Bolivia facing a coup d'etat? Uses "coup" when quoting Morales, experts and foreign politicians ¿Se puede considerar golpe de Estado la renuncia de Evo Morales en Bolivia y su salida del país? Quotes politicians that use "coup" and experts that reject the term | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Excelsior | ![]() |
![]() |
[
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/renuncia-de-evo-morales-no-fue-un-golpe-de-estado/1347226
'Renuncia de Evo Morales no fue un golpe de Estado’] Source uses "resignation" to describe the events. Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis and clashes | France24 | ![]() |
Bolivian security forces engage in deadly clashes with pro-Morales supporters
Describes events as "political crisis" and "clashes". Quotes Evo Morales describing the interim government as a dictatorship. | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Global Post | ![]() |
![]() |
Why Bolivian President Evo Morales’ Resignation Was Not a Coup
Opinion piece "My research (...) strongly suggests that although the military’s actions were undoubtedly political, they could be better described as an exercise in self-restraint and preservation rather than coup-like aggression. Their goal was to avoid being placed in the unenviable position of propping up a disgraced leader by cracking down on an angry and determined public." Quotes Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution as a comparison. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Infobae | ![]() |
![]() |
Infobae's tag for the news about the situation is named
Crisis in Boliva
Uses "crisis" to describe the events. Uses "crisis" to describe the events. Quotes Jair Bolsonaro, who rejects the term. No hay golpe en Bolivia: Evo Morales cae por una insurrección popular Opinion article. Author rejects the use of "coup" and uses "popular insurrection" to describe the events. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | La Nación | ![]() |
![]() |
La renuncia de Evo Morales: "Todos estamos preocupados por Bolivia", dijo Mauricio Macri
Quotes Mauricio Macri's foreign affairs ministers, who says that "There are not the elements to describe this as a coup d'état" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | La Razón | ![]() |
¿Por qué no hubo golpe de Estado en Bolivia?
Source rejects the use of "coup" to describe the events | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
None | Opinión |
Emboscada y ataque criminal a mineros potosinos deja dos heridos de bala
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions anti-Morales protesters shot reportedly by snipers. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Página/12 | ![]() |
![]() |
Los nueve responsables del golpe en Bolivia
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event Los artistas, contra el golpe en Bolivia Uses "coup" as title | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Uprising | Página Siete | ![]() |
![]() |
Fiel a Evo hasta el final, Kaliman sacó a las tropas amenazado por su Estado Mayor
Explains details of the army mutiny 70% de encuestados afirman que hubo revuelta social y no un golpe Refers to polls and public perception. According to the poll, 70% of respondents believe that what happened was a "social revolt", while 25% of them believed that a coup took place | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Peru21 | ![]() |
![]() |
Ola y contra ola en Bolivia
Opinion article. Author uses "crisis" to describe the events and rejects the use of "coup" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Público | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
La UE apoya a Jeanine Áñez como presidenta interina de Bolivia y rechaza calificar la situación como golpe de Estado
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Notes that the European Union rejected the term. Quotes the EU supporting "new elections" to prevent a "vacuum of power, quotes Nicolás Maduro and Alberto Fernández calling the events as a "coup". | |
![]() |
None | Reuters |
Morales amenaza con convocar a sus bases y cercar ciudades de Bolivia
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions warning by Evo of rural supporters surrounding cities. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Electoral fraud | Roanoke | Andres Oppenheimer: Bolivia's Morales says he was ousted, but election fraud was his downfall | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
None | Telam | ![]() |
"
Arrestan al vicepresidente del MAS y buscan a una ex ministra acusada de ordenar actos violentos".
Article mentions arrest of MAS politician Gerardo García. | |||
![]() |
Coup | TeleSur | ![]() |
"
Gobierno de facto de Bolivia avanza en la criminalización del MAS".
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. | |||
![]() |
"Coup" | The Guardian | ![]() |
The article cited is " It’s not just a ‘coup’: Bolivia’s democracy is in meltdown". Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup". | |||
![]() |
Coup | The Intercept | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Coup That Ousted Bolivia’s Evo Morales Is Another Setback For Latin American Socialism
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Quotes Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders defining the events as a "coup", but notes that "Much of the U.S. mainstream media, meanwhile, has been reticent to call what happened in Bolivia a coup." | |
![]() |
Crisis | The New York Times | ![]() |
![]() |
‘I Assume the Presidency’: Bolivia Lawmaker Declares Herself Leader
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup." | ||
![]() |
"Coup" and "resignation" | The Washington Post | ![]() |
![]() |
"
Many wanted Morales out. But what happened in Bolivia was a military coup". Opinion article. The author uses the term "coup".
Alvaro Vargas Llosa: The Bolivian 'coup' that wasn't Opinion article. The author rejects the term "coup". "But let us be clear: There has been no coup in Bolivia except the one Morales tried to engineer." | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Political and social effervescence | Voice of America | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Expertos: Evo Morales promueve la violencia desde el exterior
Describes the situation as "political and social effervescence" Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup", as well as parties that use it |
Looking at the chart, it doesn't seem that there are that many sources offered that call the event a coup. There are way more reliable references that refer to the events as a crisis, and when they do refer to the situation as a coup, it is through opinion pieces. The only notable exception is The Intercept, which according to WP:RSP, "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2019 Bolivian political crisis → ? – Many have said that it was too early to coin the events a coup d'etat previously. I think the nature of the events have now made this increasingly clear. Although I believe the mere nature of the military forcing the civilian government to resign speaks for itself, events have continued to escalate. The military and police are now violently repressing pro-Morales protests, with many protesters killed today, the President has been forced to flee after he claims a warrant was issued for his arrest (and it has been confirmed he would be prosecuted if he returned), and the self-proclaimed new President is of disputed legitimacy with the MAS majority refusing to recognize her. [1] [2] [3] Furthermore, even many western sources have now referred to the event as a coup d'etat, as well as many governments. [4] [5] [6] Zellfire999 ( talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
follow only sources that align with [my] own bias, but rather demonstrating that some reliable sources use coup, making it an appropriate option for the title of this page. We can then use WP:CRITERIA to decide among our options. My position is that "coup" is superior by these criteria, being far more precise than "political crisis", consistent with other similar articles' titles, and recognizable, among other things. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats, I don't know why that would be relevant. In this case, the military did take action: it demanded Morales's resignation. Surely you're not suggesting such demands aren't backed by an implicit threat of violence? — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why that would be relevant? When you try to compare apples with oranges it's not relevant to point out that they look and taste different? Your characterization of events is one long stretch. Yes, I suppose one could technically call making a statement an 'action' but that's not really what most people mean when they think of military action. You say 'demanded' which is, again, not technically incorrect, but is about the most unfavorable possible interpretation of the words they actually used. As such the claim of 'implicit threat of violence' is met with my implicit eye roll. If "the military made a suggestion that could be interpreted as implicitly threatening" is your definition of a coup d'etat, I don't know what to tell you. Compare and contrast to what you're describing as 'similar'. 199.247.44.170 ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship, as if this should immediately rule them out in comparison to the other sources you've listed. However, as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for determining reliability, and indeed,
Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.Both sources meet these criteria, and indeed, being an adversarial investigative journalism site, The Intercept has more independence from Western state governments supporting the coup than the NYT, WaPo, etc., which rely on access to powerful sources of information for their reporting.
I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacyIf we're playing spot-the-fallacy, yours is straw man, because I didn't say that. What I am saying is that context matters, and we should take into account potential bias from all sources, not just left-wing ones.
its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venueWrong on both counts. (a) The fact that the Nation and the Intercept are reliable is in fact supported by WP:RSP. (b) WP:RSP is not "an actual authority", it's an explanatory supplement to WP:RS. It is a useful reference, not a set of binding rules. This is made clear in the lead:
Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpretators ... did not assume the government. This is not true. What definition of coup are you going by? It is by no means out of the ordinary for the military to install someone else as leader after carrying out a coup. One obvious example is that the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état was perpetrated by the military, but installed businessman and opposition member Pedro Carmona as president. (It's also unclear to me why you name Carlos Mesa as a perpetrator of the coup. While he's obviously a leading figure in the opposition, I don't know that there's evidence suggesting he conspired with Kaliman or other military figures before they decided to remove Morales.) — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If there is an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the Anatidae family, then it is not a duck, period.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.I have yet to see a compelling argument that "political crisis" is superior on these grounds. The facts of the event also support the name "coup": the military intervened by asking the elected head of state to resign.
Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."Political crisis" is ambiguous because it could refer to the protests around the election, the repression of protesters by the new government, or various other political issues (indeed, in news reports, the word "crisis" is used to refer to all of these, and in fact was used even before the coup took place), whereas this article is about the coup itself. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is an incredibly hard close to make. The word "coup" is an incredibly emotive word that bogs down discussions both on and off the encyclopedia. In my personal opinion, I believe the forced resignation of Morales constituted a coup. But Wikipedia isn't a place for personal opinions. There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. The existence of no consensus over whether it constitutes a coup cuts through the entirety of the reliable sources, not just here. While more editors in this discussion prefer the term "coup", looking at the entire talk page, it seems as if the designation as such is still incredibly controversial and needs a consensus going forward.
Comment I am increasingly worried that this move proposal is growingly turning into a poll and moving away from a discussion. Many of the votes state as a rationaly simply that "It is a coup", without quoting Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or rebutting or addressing other issues addressed. In this regard, I would to do my best to provide a detailed explanation of why the title "2019 Bolivian coup d'état" violates WP:NPOV and should be avoided.
For starters, I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. For example, @ Charles Essie: expressed support for a move, but at first leaned towards the "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" title. While I'm at it, I also want to emphasize again that the current title in the Spanish Wikipedia resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus. In any case, each Wikipedia is independent, and the move should be decided on these policies and guidelines, and its arguments supporting them, not because a different title has been adopted in another language.
@
Cmonghost:, you have cited the
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt several times and I would like to respond to you directly, hoping that in the process it also contributes arguments to the discussion. As it has been stated previosly, the main difference between Morales and Chávez is that the latter did not resign; or at least in practice. General
Lucas Rincón Romero, the highest-ranking Venezuelan military officer, annouced at the moment that Chávez had accepted the resignation. While there is an agreement that at the very least Chávez accepted to resign orally (Meza, Alfredo; Lafuente, Sandra. El acertijo de abril, 2012) it currently isn't known for certain if Chávez did resign in writing. However, this is important because it has been argued that if Chávez resigned and there was a power vacuum, there would have not been a coup. Indeed, then Defense Minister
José Vicente Rangel reportedly suggested Chávez: No firmes, Hugo, para que sea un golpe de Estado
(Don't sign, Hugo, so it will be a coup d'état) (and according to some versions, Fidel Castro, but that's another kettle of fish).
The subject of the 2002 is very controversial and hotly debated (including if there was power vacuum, and why then Vicepresident Diosdado Cabello did not assume the presidency) but I would like to focus on a more important difference. There's a moment that can be pinpointed as an agreement between scholars on when the coup exactly happened: El Carmonazo, known in English as the Carmona Decree. Why would that be? Besides Pedro Carmona not being in the line of succession, I would read the decree to give you an idea:
Article I Designated Pedro Carmona Estanga President of Venezuela in charge of the Executive Branch.
(...)
Article III Suspended the National Assembly, with new elections to be held no later than December 2002.
(...)
Article VIII Reorganized public offices to recuperate autonomy and independence, removing officials illegitimately named to their posts as members of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Comptroller General, and members of the National Electoral Council. These positions would be filled as soon as possible with consultation of the Ministers and Advisory Council.
So, yeah. The Carmona Decree basically dissolved all of the power branches in the stroke of a pen, dismissing elected officials, which is why it started being recognized widely as a coup. The moment when the decree was read out in public was filmed, in case you want to get an idea of how shocking this was. Needless to say, this is not the case in Bolivia, and this is one of many reasons of why the 2002 coup comparison to the crisis in Bolivia does not hold water. The Constitutional Tribunal accepted the transfer of power and Congress, which has a MAS party majority, accepted Añez as interim president until elections took place. Recently it seems that the term "coup" is used to mean a rupture in the constitutional order of a country, but even in this country it seems not to be the case.
While other historic coups have been cited, I think that important comparisons can be drawn from this case study: Evo Morales' resignation seems to have not been disputed, the power was assumed by someone in the succession line (albeit debatable) and elected officials seem to continue in their offices normally, even if they belong to the MAS: the National Assembly, the Supreme Tribunal, governors, mayors...this was not the case in 2002, and I am sure that neither was it in many of the other cases of coups that have happened. It should also be mentioned that arguably Añez has had more international recognition than Carmona, another important aspect.
As I have I mentioned previously, in the Spanish Wikipedia a table was created to summarize the arguments from both sides. Just to make sure it is read in this talk page, I will translate it:
It is a coup d'etat | It is not a coup d'etat |
---|---|
Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of the intervention of the Armed Forces on 10 November, when he was asked to resign. According to article 245 of the National Constitution, the Armed Forces cannot deliberate or carry out political acts, and according to Art. 246, only receive orders from the President of the Republic. | Evo Morales' departure from the presidency is a direct consequence of a civil unrest process that was already ongoing for several weeks and that started in a part of the population that considered the 20 October elections as fraudulent.
The "recommendation" made by the Armed Forces of Bolivia was made at 4:45 p.m., on 10 November , and Morales and Garcia Linera (the presidency and vice presidency, respectively) resignation speech was transmitted at 4:55 p.m. on state television from the Chimoré airport, in an act that noticeably made in advance and that would have taken place whetever or not the Armed Forces had pronounced. |
The OAS denounced "irregularities" that are common in any electoral process, which was stressed by Morales, who accepted the questioning regardless and summoned new elections. The alleged electoral fraud is not accredited, according to the CEPR. [13] | The OAS published a report concluding that the was fraud, and as a consequence President Evo Morales summoned new election and arranged to change the members of the Electoral Tribunal, implicitly accepting there was fraud. |
It is a coup because the Evo Morales resignation was a consequence of the request of the Armed Forces, of the police quartering, and of the aggressions and threats that his family has suffered. Therefore, the decision was taken under pressure and not freely. Likewise, meeting to deliberate and "suggest" the resignation of the president implies political action in violation of Art. 245 and 246 of the National Constitution, which is above any national law, including 1405. | It is not a coup because the Bolivian Armed Forces did not request, but only "suggested" Morales to resign as a solution of the crisis. Such action is legal because it is protected by Article 20 of Law No. 1405 (Organic Law of the Armed Forces) that literally indicates that it is an attribution of the military high command to "Analyze the internal and external conflict situations, to suggest to whom appropriate appropriate solutions." |
The resignation took place immediately after the request for resignation by the Armed Forces. The constitutional mandate of Morales concluded in January, so the fraud allegations should not have affected him. | It is not a coup becuase Evo Morales resignation was first requested first by the opposition forces as a solution to the electoral fraud crisis that was ongoing for several day. The suggestion by the Armed Forces came later. For the opposition, the departure of Evo Morales was necessary because his presence in power did not guarantee that in the new elections fraud would not be committed again. |
The acts of harassment, threats, kidnappings, house fires, etc, were carried out towards members of the political party of Morales (MAS), and were possible due to the police quartering that took several days, in breach of their constitutional obligations (Art. 251 of the Bolivian Constitution). The Presidents and first Vice-President of the Senate and deputies, and their relatives, were threatened by supporters of Camacho and Mesa until they resigned. | The resignation suggestion by the Armed Forces was addressed only to Evo Morales, but not to the Vice President or to the presidents of the legislative chambers who willingly resigned, meaning that any one of them, all of Morales' party, could have assumed the presidency as his replacement if they had wanted to. Acts of harassment and theats also ocurred by Morales supporters against the opposition, like the threat to destroy the house of candidate Mesa or the announcement of "now yes, civil war" by MAS supporters. |
There were not protests, but rather brutal attacks and threats against MAS officials and members | Citizen protests against the fraud cannot be accused as "pressure" to resign, since protests are a constitutional right. Evo Morales did exactly the same in 2003-2004 propitiating the fall, also by resignation, of the legitimate government of that time and nobody called those acts as a coup d'etat. |
The coup does not necessarily entail the formation of a dictatorship. Numerous historical examples where coups or coup attempts did not result in changes of government or found a constitutional channel. | The alleged coup leaders, candidate Mesa and Mr. Camacho or the military, have not taken over the power, a requirement that defines the coup d'etat, but rather the person that assumed power is the one legally correspondeded to according to the line of succession. |
The police quarterd in breach of their constitutional obligations. Once the coup was completed, the police proceeded to repress to reestablish order and received the support of the Armed Forces, which have decreed the state of emergy without any direct order (which must come from an acting President, as established in Article 245 of the Bolivian Constitution.) | It is not a coup because in power vacuum situations the Armed Forces and police have to fulfill their obligation to protect the order against the confrontation between the two sides, supporters of Evo vs. opposition. |
Numerous lawmakers and officials of the Morales party are injured, shelteredor exiled as a result of the coup. They have also received threats against themselves and their families, without having due guarantees by security force. Likewise, military and police forces prevent MAS legislators from entering the Senate. | Numerous supporters of the opposition have been threatened by MAS supporters (Evo Morales' party). The congress continues in functions and with an absolute majority of the Evo Morales party, so they could well choose one among their ranks to assume the presidency, but they willingly refused to participate in the sessions. |
The existence of a coup d'etat does not invalidate that could then be a constitutional exit. There is police repression against protesters calling for the return of the constitutional order, the second Vice President of the Senate declared himself president in front of an empty congress with little more than 8 legislators, without a quorum, and on 13 Novembe MAS legislators, the majority party in Congres, were prevented to
frente a un congreso vacío con poco más de 8 legisladores, sin quorum necesario y el día miércoles 13 de noviembre se evitó que legisladores del MAS, partido de mayoria en el congreso entered to session |
The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia, whose members had been elected during the Evo Morales administration, has validated the constitutional presidential succession. |
Several countries, political leaders, intellectuals and social organizations have described the events as coup d'etat. The OAS has not been impartial in any case. Repression and censorship exist against indigenous and peasant mobilizations from the Alto and from Santa Cruz in the city of La Paz | Several countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, have rejected that it is a coup d'etat, while others, such as Peru and Colombia, have refused to qualify it as such. The Organization of American States, through its Secretary General, has indicated rather that if there was a coup d'etat, it occurred when Evo Morales perpetrated the fraud pretending to remain in power illegitimately. |
There are precedents of very similar events where the president is forced to resign by "suggestion" of the Armed Forces and historically called coups such as the coup d'etat in Argentina of 1955, Venezuela of 2002, Honduras of 2009, Guatemala of 1954 and Dominican Republic of 1963, among others, in which the constitutional order was violated. In this case, Law No. 1405 is such is below the hierarchy of articles. | "Similar" events in other countries actually differ in the fact that in those other countries there was no standard such as Law No. 1405 of Bolivia whose Article 20 expressly enables the military high command to suggest to the president what actions he should take in situations of conflict |
The resignation of Morales and his vice president was made minutes after the suggestion of resignation made by the Armed Forces. To say that the resignation was due to military pressure is to ignore the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population. | |
The pronouncement of the Armed Forces was made after the government was waiting for the Armed Forces to repress the protesters, at a time when Bolivia was in a peaceful civic strike in the cities for 19 days, in where no weapons were taken against the citizens by the people who were abiding by the strike nor was the food supply prevented, and two days after the police refused to continue repressing the population. | |
In September 2019 the President of Peru ordered the dissolution of the congress in a fact cataloged by the opposition forces, by several jurists and by some press media as "coup d'etat", while the president and another sector of the population maintains that the dissolution was legal. The article is finally not called "coup d'etat", but rather Dissolution of the Congress of the Republic of Peru , although in the very body the qualification of "coup" is included. | |
On november 23 the bolivian congress controlled by Evo Morales legislators (in both chambers), approved a bill that nullified the October20 elections and called up for new elections. The bill was sent to president Añez who signed it into law, which means the implicit recognition of Añez as a legitimated president. |
I like to use the comparison of the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état because it shows that a coup does not have to be illegitimate to be a coup, just like any other coup that has overthrown a dictatorship to restore a democracy and does not come to my mind at this moment. In December 1957 dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez just carried out a referendum to determine if his term as leader would be extended. The elections were widely considered to be unfair and he won. On 1 January, colonel Hugo Trejo led an uprising by the Aviation in Maracay, and a few weeks afterwards, on 23 January, the Army joined Venezuelans that protested against the dictatorship. The same day, Pérez Jiménez left in the presidential plane to the Dominican Republic.
I have commented that "The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics." A coup should have a greater involvement of the military and not just a simple declaration. As I explained in the case of the 2002 coup, that alone would sow doubt in if the events constitute a coup. I explained this in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt talk page and I have encouraged to read the page before, but just to make sure that it is read, I will copy it here:
The uprising does not meet the characteristics of a coup or a coup attempt: there were no attempts to seize the executive power or any means that would help the defectors to do so: unlike previous coups are attempts in Venezuela, there were no captures or attacks of military or political targets, there wasn't a seizure of the state broadcast station or placement of roadblocks and the like; all of these are characteristic of a coup, have happened before in Venezuela and have happened in coups in other countries. There were no tanks rolling into the streets or clashes between the military (...)
The two events that I think most of when I describe these events are the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état. Like with any current event, there were controversies if to call them as a coup, or if they could be considered as something else such as an uprising. However, these conditions seems to be met along with widespread coverage calling the events a coup. In any case, I still recommend reading the respective articles talk pages to look for some insight. However, there are still notable differences, such as the degree of involvement of military and the active dispute of power.
While am at it, I would also want to address the accusations against the OAS and comment that the opposition at first was very skeptical of the organizations. After all, Secretary General Almagro didn't oppose Morales' candidacy despite the results of the referendum that forbid him from running. The opposition didn't want Morales to run for a reelection and did not want an audit on the results. Besides, I'll make a special mention of @ Laella:, who commented that "Bolivian major newspapers and news sources, 'including sources with previously heavy pro-Evo Morales slants', are not calling the events a coup." ( Prensa Escrita).
I may not be addressing many of the concerns or arguments provided in the discussion, but I hope to have given a different perspective on the situation. There are plenty of reliable sources that don't refer to the events as a coup either, should we really come to make a table comparing each source and their use of the term like we did in the Venezuelan uprising article?
I don't care if the positions stay the same, I only want this decision to be taken while being informed and that I can provide a little more of insight with this comment.
The closing admin should give no weight to votes that do not include arguments or comments based on policies or guidelines. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one.
This is not the case. It's clear from reading the RM that it is a proposal to move to 2019 Bolivian coup d'état, and the initial "2019 Bolivian political crisis → ?" is obviously just an error in using the template, given that immediately below, it says "2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état".
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
(I left a note on
Zellfire999's talk page alerting them to the error, in any case.) It's not clear to me whether
Charles Essie was confused by this, or just stating a preference for military memorandum over coup d'état. In any case, I don't think it really matters as they eventually came around to supporting the RM anyway. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@
Jamez42: I'll use this as an opportunity to sum up my arguments before the RM is closed again. First I want to note that many of the arguments in the table and in your analysis have little to no bearing on whether or not the events we are discussing constitute a coup. What they appear to be instead are a discussion of whether or not the coup was
good or
bad. For example, stating that The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia ... has validated the constitutional presidential succession
is not relevant: if Morales had been assassinated, rather than being forced to step down, we would still refer to it as an "assassination" even if the subsequent power transfer were validated by the court. Another example is the mention of the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population
; I am not aware of any definition of "coup d'état" that precludes the possibility of protests. In fact, many coups are preceded by protests (e.g.,
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état,
2009 Honduran coup d'état,
2013 Egyptian coup d'état, and many many others).
In an earlier comment, you yourself say that The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics
. I agree! The key point here is that the military asked the president to leave office. Would he have resigned without this? Likely not: per the
NYT, Mr. Morales appeared intent on weathering the storm until his generals abandoned him on Sunday.
This is no doubt why
several
sources
refer
to
it as a coup,
despite obfuscation from various news organizations. I want to echo
Prinsgezinde who said It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate
.
Finally, a summary of my comparison of the two titles based on our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Precision is the main one that coup wins, in my view, which has consequences for some of the other criteria as well.
Bolivia was plunged into a deepening political crisis this week after Evo Morales ... was forced to step down—the "crisis" is the events following the coup, not the coup itself. In contrast, "coup d'état" has one clear referent: Morales's resignation. (This is one reason the move to "political crisis" was a mistake, by the way; "government resignation" lacks context but at least has a specific referent.)
I look forward to hearing what others think, with whatever time remains before the RM is closed again. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. ... It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
It's not a coup because state department says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.70.252 ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Seeing above that there was not a consensus, I recommend that we try to make a more concrete decision. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing as there were previously links to this talk page on other platforms apparently attempting to influence this discussion.
Below are the two most popular recommended moves:
Please provide your support decision in the desginated section.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
"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. ... 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."
I understand that one main argument of those supporting the coup move is that we should not be "unbiased"This is also a misrepresentation. Here is additional context from the comment you link:
News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate.
The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers.You are using WP:OR, which violates one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I understand that this is a controversial situation, but until we have something that fulfills all three core principles (NPOV, verifiable and not original research), I do not see a reason that the "coup" wording should be used. If you can provide something that can meet this criteria, I may change my position.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment: There is not a widespread use of describing the events as a coup in reliable sources. However, there are multiple stories by reliable sources detailing how there is not agreement about describing the events as a coup. Here are the sources. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] It is a highly contested opinion to describe this event as a coup, therefore the title should not include the coup terminology.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
By my count, there were 18 in favor of restoring the original name of the page, and only 7 for retaining the current name. I'm not sure how one can conclude there was no consensus. Zellfire999 ( talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Also as said above, a consensus is superseded by Wikipedia's core policies. I want a reason to support this, but out of respect for policies, this is not verifiable by being widely supported by sources.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Also, WP:POVNAMING states that
"If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". I do not see the majority of reliable sources describing this as a coup. A Google News search of "Bolivia coup" results in many unreliable sources in the following order; an opinion article in The Guardian, Salon, Consortium News, Grayzone (formerly part of AlterNet) and Anadolu Agency (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). These are not reliable sources and at the very most, their views must be attributed in the article's body if they were to be included, not for title material. So, Wikipedia editors supporting the coup title are performing WP:OR as they are reaching a conclusion not widely supported by reliable sources and violating WP:NPOV because the "coup" term carries a lot of POV weight. Cmonghost, seeing that you are a linguist who frequents talk pages constantly, one can see how you could overlook how Wikipedia articles are constructed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Core content policies and possibly WP:Fringe.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Whether the events Sunday in Bolivia constitute a coup d'état is now the subject of debate in and outside the nation. ... Bolivia's "coup" is largely a question of semantics
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
But the Cold War-era language of coups and revolutions demands that such cases fit into clear narratives. ... Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray.
And, as so often with the big names of Latin America — where the word "coup" is supercharged ... how you see what has happened to him is often dependent on your own political ideology. On the left, he's seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
So…was it a coup? Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Countries are debating why Evo Morales left power. Did he leave power of his own volition or was it a coup? There are two different responses to that question based on which country is speaking.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The discussion over whether it was a coup falls largely along ideological lines. Left wing supporters of Morales point like to point to a long history of military coups in Latin America, while critics of the former president point to the 14 years he spent in power, in violation of constitutional term limits. ... But political experts say the events hardly resemble a classic coup scenario. ... In a typical coup, the military usually take a more proactive role, taking up arms against the sitting ruler and installing one of their own in the presidential palace, at least temporarily.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Since I have not received feedback of the sources chart, I have gone ahead and started a chart to do a briefing of the sources offered in the move proposal (not the whole talk page). It seems that indeed it has come to it. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS/P | Sources presented | Described as coup | Described as another term | Quotes coup | Quotes rejection of coup | How the source uses these terms: | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N/A Discussion not started |
"Transition" | ABC | ![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia en transición
Opinion article. Author uses the term "transition" to describe the events | ||
![]() |
Unrest | Al Jazeera | ![]() |
![]() |
Two killed as unrest continues in Bolivia.
Uses "unrest" to describe the events Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup." | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | America | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bolivian bishops say Evo Morales’ resignation was not a coup
Article refers to Morales' resignation after protests. Quotes Bolivian bishops position, who reject the term, and Morales, who uses it | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Uprising | America 2.1 | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Carlos Mesa: “No hubo golpe de estado y Evo Morales rompió la línea de sucesión intencionalmente”
Sources uses "popular uprising" to describe the events. Quote candidate Carlo Mesa rejecting the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the term | |
![]() |
Turmoil | Anadolu Agency | ![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia: Anez celebrates military's 209th anniversary.
The closest term used to describe the events is "turmoil" Quotes Morales and his supporters using "coup" | ||
![]() |
Resignation | Associated Press | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
United States: Bolivian president wasn’t forced out by coup
Uses "the situation in Bolivia". Mentions Morales and other officials resnations Quotes declarations that use the term "coup" or reject it | |
N/A Discussion not started |
"Ouster" | Bangor Daily News | ![]() |
Evo Morales ouster in Bolivia was not a coup, just a blunder
Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup". | |||
![]() |
Crisis | BBC | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bolivia crisis: Morales 'should be prosecuted' upon return
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Uses the term "coup" when quoting Morales and citing that Añez has rejected the term. Uses the term "mutiny" when describing police officers that joined the protests. Quote Morales denouncing a coup attempt. | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Deutsche Welle |
Evo Morales anuncia nuevas elecciones en Bolivia
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Diario las Américas | ![]() |
Pastrana tilda a Evo Morales de usurpador a la par de Maduro
Interview with former Colombian president Pastrana, who defined Morales as a usurper comparable to Nicolás Maduro | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | EFE | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Guaidó dice que no puede hablarse de golpe de Estado contra Evo Morales
Quotes Juan Guaidó, who rejects the use of "coup". Quotes Morales' use of the word | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Electoral fraud | El Deber | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
OEA: "El golpe se dio cuando Evo quiso quedarse en el poder en primera vuelta"
Quotes the declarations in the OAS about the situation, namely Secretary General Luis Almagro, who said that if a coup occured, it was committed by Morales. | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Eldiario.es | ![]() |
![]() |
La comunidad internacional pasa de puntillas sobre el golpe de Estado de Bolivia
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Uses "crisis" once. Quotes parties that have used the term "coup" and those that have refuse to do so. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | El País | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
El País' tag for the news about the situation is named "
Political crisis in Bolivia
¿Es un golpe de Estado lo que ha pasado con Evo Morales en Bolivia? Article quotes four experts. Two consider the situation as a coup, while the two remaining "shade" | |
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Euronews | ![]() |
![]() |
Who is Jeanine Áñez, Bolivia's interim president?
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Quotes Evo Morales describing the events and an expert as a "coup" Evo Morales political asylum: Is Bolivia facing a coup d'etat? Uses "coup" when quoting Morales, experts and foreign politicians ¿Se puede considerar golpe de Estado la renuncia de Evo Morales en Bolivia y su salida del país? Quotes politicians that use "coup" and experts that reject the term | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Excelsior | ![]() |
![]() |
[
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/renuncia-de-evo-morales-no-fue-un-golpe-de-estado/1347226
'Renuncia de Evo Morales no fue un golpe de Estado’] Source uses "resignation" to describe the events. Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis and clashes | France24 | ![]() |
Bolivian security forces engage in deadly clashes with pro-Morales supporters
Describes events as "political crisis" and "clashes". Quotes Evo Morales describing the interim government as a dictatorship. | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | Global Post | ![]() |
![]() |
Why Bolivian President Evo Morales’ Resignation Was Not a Coup
Opinion piece "My research (...) strongly suggests that although the military’s actions were undoubtedly political, they could be better described as an exercise in self-restraint and preservation rather than coup-like aggression. Their goal was to avoid being placed in the unenviable position of propping up a disgraced leader by cracking down on an angry and determined public." Quotes Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution as a comparison. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Infobae | ![]() |
![]() |
Infobae's tag for the news about the situation is named
Crisis in Boliva
Uses "crisis" to describe the events. Uses "crisis" to describe the events. Quotes Jair Bolsonaro, who rejects the term. No hay golpe en Bolivia: Evo Morales cae por una insurrección popular Opinion article. Author rejects the use of "coup" and uses "popular insurrection" to describe the events. | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | La Nación | ![]() |
![]() |
La renuncia de Evo Morales: "Todos estamos preocupados por Bolivia", dijo Mauricio Macri
Quotes Mauricio Macri's foreign affairs ministers, who says that "There are not the elements to describe this as a coup d'état" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Resignation | La Razón | ![]() |
¿Por qué no hubo golpe de Estado en Bolivia?
Source rejects the use of "coup" to describe the events | |||
N/A Discussion not started |
None | Opinión |
Emboscada y ataque criminal a mineros potosinos deja dos heridos de bala
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions anti-Morales protesters shot reportedly by snipers. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Página/12 | ![]() |
![]() |
Los nueve responsables del golpe en Bolivia
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event Los artistas, contra el golpe en Bolivia Uses "coup" as title | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Uprising | Página Siete | ![]() |
![]() |
Fiel a Evo hasta el final, Kaliman sacó a las tropas amenazado por su Estado Mayor
Explains details of the army mutiny 70% de encuestados afirman que hubo revuelta social y no un golpe Refers to polls and public perception. According to the poll, 70% of respondents believe that what happened was a "social revolt", while 25% of them believed that a coup took place | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Crisis | Peru21 | ![]() |
![]() |
Ola y contra ola en Bolivia
Opinion article. Author uses "crisis" to describe the events and rejects the use of "coup" | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Coup | Público | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
La UE apoya a Jeanine Áñez como presidenta interina de Bolivia y rechaza calificar la situación como golpe de Estado
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Notes that the European Union rejected the term. Quotes the EU supporting "new elections" to prevent a "vacuum of power, quotes Nicolás Maduro and Alberto Fernández calling the events as a "coup". | |
![]() |
None | Reuters |
Morales amenaza con convocar a sus bases y cercar ciudades de Bolivia
Article predates Añez's assumption of power. Mentions warning by Evo of rural supporters surrounding cities. | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
Electoral fraud | Roanoke | Andres Oppenheimer: Bolivia's Morales says he was ousted, but election fraud was his downfall | ||||
N/A Discussion not started |
None | Telam | ![]() |
"
Arrestan al vicepresidente del MAS y buscan a una ex ministra acusada de ordenar actos violentos".
Article mentions arrest of MAS politician Gerardo García. | |||
![]() |
Coup | TeleSur | ![]() |
"
Gobierno de facto de Bolivia avanza en la criminalización del MAS".
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. | |||
![]() |
"Coup" | The Guardian | ![]() |
The article cited is " It’s not just a ‘coup’: Bolivia’s democracy is in meltdown". Opinion piece. The author uses the term "coup". | |||
![]() |
Coup | The Intercept | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Coup That Ousted Bolivia’s Evo Morales Is Another Setback For Latin American Socialism
Uses the term "coup" when describing the event. Quotes Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders defining the events as a "coup", but notes that "Much of the U.S. mainstream media, meanwhile, has been reticent to call what happened in Bolivia a coup." | |
![]() |
Crisis | The New York Times | ![]() |
![]() |
‘I Assume the Presidency’: Bolivia Lawmaker Declares Herself Leader
Uses "crisis" to describe the events Quotes that Morales maintain "he was a victim of a coup." | ||
![]() |
"Coup" and "resignation" | The Washington Post | ![]() |
![]() |
"
Many wanted Morales out. But what happened in Bolivia was a military coup". Opinion article. The author uses the term "coup".
Alvaro Vargas Llosa: The Bolivian 'coup' that wasn't Opinion article. The author rejects the term "coup". "But let us be clear: There has been no coup in Bolivia except the one Morales tried to engineer." | ||
N/A Discussion not started |
Political and social effervescence | Voice of America | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Expertos: Evo Morales promueve la violencia desde el exterior
Describes the situation as "political and social effervescence" Quotes experts that reject the use of "coup", as well as parties that use it |
Looking at the chart, it doesn't seem that there are that many sources offered that call the event a coup. There are way more reliable references that refer to the events as a crisis, and when they do refer to the situation as a coup, it is through opinion pieces. The only notable exception is The Intercept, which according to WP:RSP, "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)