![]() | 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 |
There seems to be a lot of cherrypicking of facts in the section on recent politics. This does not seem to be the correct page for it. The issue is complex and needs more space than can be allocated on a page that is meant to be on an article about Bolivia. There are serious omissions and biases in sources. Crmoorhead ( talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being stripped down to a bare bones presentation but the only portions it seems either of you wish to remove are parts that give a balanced view. The section is "2005–present Morales Presidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets" yet is almost entirely a one-sided presentation that favors the opposition narrative. Nothing about what Evo Morales's presidency did to democratize Bolivia in his nearly 15 years of presidency is mentioned. It seems like this is mostly being used as a way to present the interim-government and US State department's POV as fact when the narrative is in dispute with both MAS and many countries, including Latin American ones, which still support Evo Morales. Yautja1917 ( talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
My comment from the edit: "This statement is both untrue and highly biased. It is absurd to say the interim president does not represent the Bolivian population by religion, when at least 85% of the country consider themselves Catholic or Christian. Likewise, the interim president is not of a different race or background than the majority of Bolivians, being a mestizo of mostly indigenous descent, like over half of the country."
"Many protesters against the Áñez government have been indigenous Bolivians who claim that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.[71]"
Arguments about this statement's awkward phrasing and factual errors aside, this statement is too specific for an article about Bolivia as a whole. Laella ( talk) 14:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Many of those who have come out to protest have been indigenous Bolivians who are angry that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.
♦ ♦ No, I am not the one bringing up racial purity. People saying that "there were no indigenous people on her cabinet" even though there were mestizo people on her cabinet, shows that there is some threshold they are looking for. That is a de-facto purity test. So what defines indigenous? What do Bolivian people need to do or show to be indigenous enough?
...inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all
I am not the one who decided that. Please explain how you speak for indigenous people and the country of Bolivia. I am trying to point out that according to news sources, Áñez had appointed indigenous to her cabinet within 24 hours.
Also, you are wrong about how Bolivians view the subject. Indigenous vs Mestizo is not either/or in Bolivia. Here are some diverse Bolivian opinions on the topic:
What you (and most non-Bolivian) fail to understand is that the Mestizo of Bolivia are more indigenous than European or other. Genetic studies show the average Mestizo Bolivian is over 75% indigenous. Now you say that "Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines" So, please, explain what determines "Indigeneity"? How do you define that?
You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said.
Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which does NOT agree with what the line says. "Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race" is NOT in agreement with Áñez "does not represent them in terms of both religion and race." It's one or the other, the quote is wrong.
Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags
Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags. Anti-Morales protesters were burning the Wiphala. Ironically Áñez called for people to respect the Wiphala, and specified when taking office, that she planned to keep it as a national symbol. Specifically, the anger over the Wiphala relates to a long-ongoing conflict between lowland and highland indigenous that predates the Spaniards. There is a lot of complicated background to acts of burning the Wiphala, none of it related to Áñez.
a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace.
How does something that happened with Camacho have to do with Áñez ? Is that supposed to be proof that Áñez is not a member of the majority religion?
I see no reason to delete the line.
You don't see a reason to delete this line, even though it is factually wrong. That seems like a very important reason to delete it to me.
"Only a story in the UK and US" is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it.
"Only a story in the UK and US" may be a bold statement, but it's true. US and UK media went off on their own journey, very unrelated to what was actually happening in Bolivia. It was very surreal. Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags, as I mentioned above. There is no factual evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. There are photoshopped tweets and comments taken completely out of context. People who lack any knowledge of Bolivian history are applying their own country's prejudices and conflicts onto Bolivia, trying to match their country's issues to Bolivia's issues. Bolivia is not having a race war. Bolivia is also not in a fight of left vs right politics. Insisting on viewing Bolivia through those 2 lenses means you are misunderstanding what is happening in Bolivia. Bolivians were supposedly talking about what? Instead of making vague claims, back something up with links to news articles from legitimate news sources. Laella ( talk) 03:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This keeps being edited to leave only "Spanish". The reason given was You only need the main, primary, native language of Bolivia. And that language is Spanish. So, therefore, whoever is adding this information is wrong and needs to stop this right now.
Firstly, Spanish is the only language that is not native to Bolivia. Secondly, it is not true that only the primary language is needed. See Ireland and Switzerland. Spain has an entry for Official language and does not include Catalan or Basque, but as per the reference linking to the 2009 constitution, all 36 are the official languages of Bolivia. I have included Aymara, Quechua and Guarani, as they all have a substantial number of speakers numbering hundreds of thousands, with a link to the others via the article Languages of Bolivia for the sake of brevity. The three others I have mentioned are important enough to be visible in the sidebar. News is reported simultaneously in Spanish, Aymara and Quechua on the main TV channel with three presenters. I would believe something similar with Guarani in Santa Cruz, although I have not been there. Walk into hospitals in Cochabamba or any of the major cities and you will see signs in Spanish and Quechua or Aymara etc. Deleting all languages except for Spanish is incorrect and has happened several times. Crmoorhead ( talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The sentence beginning 'Original indigenous government' needs reworking slightly - perhaps along the lines of 'vested in the local (geographical-administrative units).' Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Considering this is indeed a political topic, I would expect there will be no shortage of people wanting to delete certain info and use partisan and questionable reasoning. Examples in the past day, was disputes on Ethical Hacking and David Rosnick. Ie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985021134 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985023721
Of course, edit warring is not okay. Hence if you want to delete such info about Ethical Hacking or David Rosnick, take it to here and make your arguments here and show your proof. And if anyone deletes large amounts of info prematurely using flawed reasoning or no reasoning, do expect an editor to nudge you to give your reasoning on the talk page and to discuss it out first. Cheers from down under. 49.180.129.245 ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wiphala is the dual national flag of Bolivia. It should be prominently displayed on the wikipedia page. In my opinion, the tricolour flag should keep the coat of arms, and the wiphala should replace the coat of arms next to it on the wiki page. Or, alternatively, the tricolour flag should not have the coat of arms, the coat of arms can stay, and the wiphala should go underneath. This should be done ASAP. Scoutguy5427 ( talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The secondary flag of Bolivia the Wiphala appears on the infobox on this article. Should the Flag of the Patujú flower also be included? It's used in all official acts of state and the page Flag of Bolivia also includes it. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections or subsections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nikki048.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tnorman27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this, the cited sources refer to it as either a dual flag or the “other national flag”. The IP should respect WP:BRD and discuss here rather than edit war to change the stable version. DeCausa ( talk) 21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
BoIivia and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 11#BoIivia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
✠ SunDawn ✠
(contact) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The article contains many instances of a non-existent, ostensibly English word, to wit "plurinational". I replaced this monstrosity with the intended meaning, which is "multi-ethnic". The Bolivian government officially calls itself in English "plurinational", but that is merely because they don't know English. Nonetheless my attempt failed , since an automatic blocker was switched on. I wrote to the Bolivian foreigmn minister explaining the blunder: Excelentísimo señor ministro: Yo soy traductor entre español e inglés profesional con una larga carrera: Con mucho gusto le enviaré mi currículum. Parece que se ha vuelto habitual traducir al inglés “Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia” como “Plurinational State of Bolivia”. Sin embargo este término es incorrecto, ya que incluye una palabra, a saber “plurinational”, que no existe en inglés. La palabra latina “natio” significa lo mismo que la palabra griega ethnos (έθνος). Por consiguiente la traducción correcta al inglés del nombre de su país es “Multi-Ethnic State of Bolivia”. Le saluda atentamente
Traductor Banderswipe ( talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried to insert the following explanation of the foreign word "plurinational", but an error was flagged because I had allegedly committed an error of citation. This is the passage that I intended to insert, but in vain, alas: The Bolivian government chose as its official name in English “Plurinational State of Bolivia”, although “plurinational” is not an English word. It is an imitation of the Spanish word “plurinacional”, which is usually translated as “multinational”<ref>
https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?source=auto&query=plurinacionalCite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).However the Bolivian Constitution of 2009 makes clear that the “nations” meant here are Bolivia’s various aboriginal ethnic groups. For instance, “Article 2. In view of the pre-colonial existence of the indigenous autochthonous rural nations and peoples and their ancestral dominion over their territories, …”. “Article 98. I. … Interculturality is the instrument for cohesion and harmonious and balanced coexistence among all peoples and nations [of Bolivia].”<ref>Constitución Política del Estado (CPE) (7-Febrero-2009)
https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/constitucion_bolivia.pdfCite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).The usual term in English for what the Constitution calls “nations” is “ethnic groups”. Accordingly, the meaning of the term “plurinational” is “multi-ethnic”.
Banderswipe (
talk) 23:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That's the state flag of Bolivia, not the regular civil flag of the country, which lacks the coat of arms. Wikipedia shows the civil flags of Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia and others so it should also show the civil flag of Bolivia. 81.9.195.178 ( talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In the economy section this quote appears:
"In recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves"
I think this may be out of context from the source with says, "Unlike any time in recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves. Plenty has flowed into coffers of gas companies as well." The context of this quote is the short term boom from gas, rather than a long term economic success. Indeed, it specifically says that this growth is "Unlike recent history".
In fact, Bolivia still ranks close to the bottom in most indices of the size or success of the economy, when compared with its neigbbours. This sentence doesn't give that impression. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:44, 23 March 2023 (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 |
There seems to be a lot of cherrypicking of facts in the section on recent politics. This does not seem to be the correct page for it. The issue is complex and needs more space than can be allocated on a page that is meant to be on an article about Bolivia. There are serious omissions and biases in sources. Crmoorhead ( talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being stripped down to a bare bones presentation but the only portions it seems either of you wish to remove are parts that give a balanced view. The section is "2005–present Morales Presidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets" yet is almost entirely a one-sided presentation that favors the opposition narrative. Nothing about what Evo Morales's presidency did to democratize Bolivia in his nearly 15 years of presidency is mentioned. It seems like this is mostly being used as a way to present the interim-government and US State department's POV as fact when the narrative is in dispute with both MAS and many countries, including Latin American ones, which still support Evo Morales. Yautja1917 ( talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
My comment from the edit: "This statement is both untrue and highly biased. It is absurd to say the interim president does not represent the Bolivian population by religion, when at least 85% of the country consider themselves Catholic or Christian. Likewise, the interim president is not of a different race or background than the majority of Bolivians, being a mestizo of mostly indigenous descent, like over half of the country."
"Many protesters against the Áñez government have been indigenous Bolivians who claim that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.[71]"
Arguments about this statement's awkward phrasing and factual errors aside, this statement is too specific for an article about Bolivia as a whole. Laella ( talk) 14:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Many of those who have come out to protest have been indigenous Bolivians who are angry that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.
♦ ♦ No, I am not the one bringing up racial purity. People saying that "there were no indigenous people on her cabinet" even though there were mestizo people on her cabinet, shows that there is some threshold they are looking for. That is a de-facto purity test. So what defines indigenous? What do Bolivian people need to do or show to be indigenous enough?
...inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all
I am not the one who decided that. Please explain how you speak for indigenous people and the country of Bolivia. I am trying to point out that according to news sources, Áñez had appointed indigenous to her cabinet within 24 hours.
Also, you are wrong about how Bolivians view the subject. Indigenous vs Mestizo is not either/or in Bolivia. Here are some diverse Bolivian opinions on the topic:
What you (and most non-Bolivian) fail to understand is that the Mestizo of Bolivia are more indigenous than European or other. Genetic studies show the average Mestizo Bolivian is over 75% indigenous. Now you say that "Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines" So, please, explain what determines "Indigeneity"? How do you define that?
You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said.
Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which does NOT agree with what the line says. "Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race" is NOT in agreement with Áñez "does not represent them in terms of both religion and race." It's one or the other, the quote is wrong.
Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags
Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags. Anti-Morales protesters were burning the Wiphala. Ironically Áñez called for people to respect the Wiphala, and specified when taking office, that she planned to keep it as a national symbol. Specifically, the anger over the Wiphala relates to a long-ongoing conflict between lowland and highland indigenous that predates the Spaniards. There is a lot of complicated background to acts of burning the Wiphala, none of it related to Áñez.
a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace.
How does something that happened with Camacho have to do with Áñez ? Is that supposed to be proof that Áñez is not a member of the majority religion?
I see no reason to delete the line.
You don't see a reason to delete this line, even though it is factually wrong. That seems like a very important reason to delete it to me.
"Only a story in the UK and US" is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it.
"Only a story in the UK and US" may be a bold statement, but it's true. US and UK media went off on their own journey, very unrelated to what was actually happening in Bolivia. It was very surreal. Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags, as I mentioned above. There is no factual evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. There are photoshopped tweets and comments taken completely out of context. People who lack any knowledge of Bolivian history are applying their own country's prejudices and conflicts onto Bolivia, trying to match their country's issues to Bolivia's issues. Bolivia is not having a race war. Bolivia is also not in a fight of left vs right politics. Insisting on viewing Bolivia through those 2 lenses means you are misunderstanding what is happening in Bolivia. Bolivians were supposedly talking about what? Instead of making vague claims, back something up with links to news articles from legitimate news sources. Laella ( talk) 03:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This keeps being edited to leave only "Spanish". The reason given was You only need the main, primary, native language of Bolivia. And that language is Spanish. So, therefore, whoever is adding this information is wrong and needs to stop this right now.
Firstly, Spanish is the only language that is not native to Bolivia. Secondly, it is not true that only the primary language is needed. See Ireland and Switzerland. Spain has an entry for Official language and does not include Catalan or Basque, but as per the reference linking to the 2009 constitution, all 36 are the official languages of Bolivia. I have included Aymara, Quechua and Guarani, as they all have a substantial number of speakers numbering hundreds of thousands, with a link to the others via the article Languages of Bolivia for the sake of brevity. The three others I have mentioned are important enough to be visible in the sidebar. News is reported simultaneously in Spanish, Aymara and Quechua on the main TV channel with three presenters. I would believe something similar with Guarani in Santa Cruz, although I have not been there. Walk into hospitals in Cochabamba or any of the major cities and you will see signs in Spanish and Quechua or Aymara etc. Deleting all languages except for Spanish is incorrect and has happened several times. Crmoorhead ( talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The sentence beginning 'Original indigenous government' needs reworking slightly - perhaps along the lines of 'vested in the local (geographical-administrative units).' Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Considering this is indeed a political topic, I would expect there will be no shortage of people wanting to delete certain info and use partisan and questionable reasoning. Examples in the past day, was disputes on Ethical Hacking and David Rosnick. Ie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985021134 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985023721
Of course, edit warring is not okay. Hence if you want to delete such info about Ethical Hacking or David Rosnick, take it to here and make your arguments here and show your proof. And if anyone deletes large amounts of info prematurely using flawed reasoning or no reasoning, do expect an editor to nudge you to give your reasoning on the talk page and to discuss it out first. Cheers from down under. 49.180.129.245 ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wiphala is the dual national flag of Bolivia. It should be prominently displayed on the wikipedia page. In my opinion, the tricolour flag should keep the coat of arms, and the wiphala should replace the coat of arms next to it on the wiki page. Or, alternatively, the tricolour flag should not have the coat of arms, the coat of arms can stay, and the wiphala should go underneath. This should be done ASAP. Scoutguy5427 ( talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The secondary flag of Bolivia the Wiphala appears on the infobox on this article. Should the Flag of the Patujú flower also be included? It's used in all official acts of state and the page Flag of Bolivia also includes it. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections or subsections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nikki048.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tnorman27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this, the cited sources refer to it as either a dual flag or the “other national flag”. The IP should respect WP:BRD and discuss here rather than edit war to change the stable version. DeCausa ( talk) 21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
BoIivia and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 11#BoIivia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
✠ SunDawn ✠
(contact) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The article contains many instances of a non-existent, ostensibly English word, to wit "plurinational". I replaced this monstrosity with the intended meaning, which is "multi-ethnic". The Bolivian government officially calls itself in English "plurinational", but that is merely because they don't know English. Nonetheless my attempt failed , since an automatic blocker was switched on. I wrote to the Bolivian foreigmn minister explaining the blunder: Excelentísimo señor ministro: Yo soy traductor entre español e inglés profesional con una larga carrera: Con mucho gusto le enviaré mi currículum. Parece que se ha vuelto habitual traducir al inglés “Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia” como “Plurinational State of Bolivia”. Sin embargo este término es incorrecto, ya que incluye una palabra, a saber “plurinational”, que no existe en inglés. La palabra latina “natio” significa lo mismo que la palabra griega ethnos (έθνος). Por consiguiente la traducción correcta al inglés del nombre de su país es “Multi-Ethnic State of Bolivia”. Le saluda atentamente
Traductor Banderswipe ( talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried to insert the following explanation of the foreign word "plurinational", but an error was flagged because I had allegedly committed an error of citation. This is the passage that I intended to insert, but in vain, alas: The Bolivian government chose as its official name in English “Plurinational State of Bolivia”, although “plurinational” is not an English word. It is an imitation of the Spanish word “plurinacional”, which is usually translated as “multinational”<ref>
https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?source=auto&query=plurinacionalCite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).However the Bolivian Constitution of 2009 makes clear that the “nations” meant here are Bolivia’s various aboriginal ethnic groups. For instance, “Article 2. In view of the pre-colonial existence of the indigenous autochthonous rural nations and peoples and their ancestral dominion over their territories, …”. “Article 98. I. … Interculturality is the instrument for cohesion and harmonious and balanced coexistence among all peoples and nations [of Bolivia].”<ref>Constitución Política del Estado (CPE) (7-Febrero-2009)
https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/constitucion_bolivia.pdfCite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).The usual term in English for what the Constitution calls “nations” is “ethnic groups”. Accordingly, the meaning of the term “plurinational” is “multi-ethnic”.
Banderswipe (
talk) 23:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That's the state flag of Bolivia, not the regular civil flag of the country, which lacks the coat of arms. Wikipedia shows the civil flags of Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia and others so it should also show the civil flag of Bolivia. 81.9.195.178 ( talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In the economy section this quote appears:
"In recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves"
I think this may be out of context from the source with says, "Unlike any time in recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves. Plenty has flowed into coffers of gas companies as well." The context of this quote is the short term boom from gas, rather than a long term economic success. Indeed, it specifically says that this growth is "Unlike recent history".
In fact, Bolivia still ranks close to the bottom in most indices of the size or success of the economy, when compared with its neigbbours. This sentence doesn't give that impression. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)