This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Bolivian political crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A news item involving 2019 Bolivian political crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 November 2019. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
OR
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit though, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d'état in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments about this already, I don't want to repeat them here, the following tablet analyses the situation anyway and tries to compress these arguments). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer is:YES: 2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia. In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d'état and (through the question mark) point out that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d'état (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without being threatened...). The change in the title is thereafter the only that respects at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia (which is actually definitely NOT being respected with the "political crisis" title) and respects also consensus. A comment about the Tablet: the references are actually a combination of comments and references. I couldn't find a way to separate them, without making it extreme difficult to read the tablet. The tablet should be simple, in order to make the arguments easy to see.
|
Thanks for posting, I agree it was a coup as well. MarianAlmazan ( talk) 01:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should be called a coup as well. Not sure if you even need the question mark really because there's a preponderance of evidence that it's a coup, but overall I like your approach and appreciate the through analysis. I think [3] is a bit more clear-cut than you're aware though. He clearly was intimidated and harassed (protesters committed a number of violent acts towards specific MAS government officials, including literally burning down his sister's house) [1].
It is now more clear than ever- both in the increased doubt of the alleged fraud and in the behavior of the supposedly temporary regime in repressing dissent, arresting and threatening the political opposition, and continuing to delay elections- that this was a coup. It fits virtually every element of the definition. Zellfire999 ( talk) 12:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Including rose-tinted purple prose about the Election bill, and claiming that MAS "returned to government," is completely baseless. The coup [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] government has "delayed" elections three times [8] [9] [10] [11], has sold off huge amounts of public assets [12] [13], massacred protesters [14] [15] [16], broken diplomatic relations with several countries [17], and they did all of this with a "President" that appointed herself without quorum [18]. The Washington Post has repeatedly retracted their support for the coup [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. If you consider Evo Morales running with the approval of the courts to be "illegitimate," then surely an unelected "president" who denies elections that were supposed to be done a month after the interim government was formed is far more "illegitimate."
It is absolutely embarrassing to pretend that this is even a contentious issue. It isn't. Everyone who was trumpeting Evo's removal has been back pedaling for a year.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 12:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état – In 2022, the consensus seems to have shifted in favour of calling it a coup, compared to the consensus when this article was created. Let's establish that using this move discussion. See for example this WaPo article or this article by MIT Press. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I have searched the term in international news networks that mentioned it this year, to see if there was any change. Few results, it's not much of international news anymore, so it's not enough coverage to consider a change in the focus (meaning, the old consensus should still apply). I found those.
As you can see, both mention the "coup", but only as something the Bolivian government claims, not in an editorial voice. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Notes
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia contributions, so I decided to put this in the talk section instead of the article itself. In 2020, a couple news articles dropped from the New York Times and Washington Post, that basically admitted the original OAS report was wrong. Here's the WaPo article and here's the NYT article. I believe there are others as well, but these were the first I found on the search.
To me, this is a bit more...unambiguous? denouncement of the OAS' repot, as both the NYT and WaPo were in support of Evo Morales' forced removal from office and used the OAS report as backup beforehand. It's something that I think needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article; the largest papers of note supporting the OAs and then later coming out against the OAS, after the Anez government had seized power, is an important part of these events to talk about. 50.220.136.42 ( talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Really? A section to discuss tweets and facebook posts and accounts? Does any of that stuff have any impact beyond the niche microworld of social networks? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Bolivian political crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A news item involving 2019 Bolivian political crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 November 2019. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
OR
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I actually support the title of a coup d etat. On a cold blooded analysis I must admit though, that this doesn't represent NPOV. On the other hand not mentioning coup d'état in the title violates exactly in the same way NPOV (there are quite enough arguments about this already, I don't want to repeat them here, the following tablet analyses the situation anyway and tries to compress these arguments). Is there a title that can achieve consensus and reflect both these edges? my answer is:YES: 2019 Coup d etat (?) in Bolivia. In this way we mention the fact that the situation has (actually almost all of) the characteristics of a coup d'état and (through the question mark) point out that there are also characteristics, that don't represent a coup d'état (I mean: die Cocaleros are now actually deciding, who their new leader will be, without being threatened...). The change in the title is thereafter the only that respects at last the NPOV fundamental principle of Wikipedia (which is actually definitely NOT being respected with the "political crisis" title) and respects also consensus. A comment about the Tablet: the references are actually a combination of comments and references. I couldn't find a way to separate them, without making it extreme difficult to read the tablet. The tablet should be simple, in order to make the arguments easy to see.
|
Thanks for posting, I agree it was a coup as well. MarianAlmazan ( talk) 01:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should be called a coup as well. Not sure if you even need the question mark really because there's a preponderance of evidence that it's a coup, but overall I like your approach and appreciate the through analysis. I think [3] is a bit more clear-cut than you're aware though. He clearly was intimidated and harassed (protesters committed a number of violent acts towards specific MAS government officials, including literally burning down his sister's house) [1].
It is now more clear than ever- both in the increased doubt of the alleged fraud and in the behavior of the supposedly temporary regime in repressing dissent, arresting and threatening the political opposition, and continuing to delay elections- that this was a coup. It fits virtually every element of the definition. Zellfire999 ( talk) 12:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Including rose-tinted purple prose about the Election bill, and claiming that MAS "returned to government," is completely baseless. The coup [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] government has "delayed" elections three times [8] [9] [10] [11], has sold off huge amounts of public assets [12] [13], massacred protesters [14] [15] [16], broken diplomatic relations with several countries [17], and they did all of this with a "President" that appointed herself without quorum [18]. The Washington Post has repeatedly retracted their support for the coup [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. If you consider Evo Morales running with the approval of the courts to be "illegitimate," then surely an unelected "president" who denies elections that were supposed to be done a month after the interim government was formed is far more "illegitimate."
It is absolutely embarrassing to pretend that this is even a contentious issue. It isn't. Everyone who was trumpeting Evo's removal has been back pedaling for a year.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 12:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état – In 2022, the consensus seems to have shifted in favour of calling it a coup, compared to the consensus when this article was created. Let's establish that using this move discussion. See for example this WaPo article or this article by MIT Press. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 21:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I have searched the term in international news networks that mentioned it this year, to see if there was any change. Few results, it's not much of international news anymore, so it's not enough coverage to consider a change in the focus (meaning, the old consensus should still apply). I found those.
As you can see, both mention the "coup", but only as something the Bolivian government claims, not in an editorial voice. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Notes
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia contributions, so I decided to put this in the talk section instead of the article itself. In 2020, a couple news articles dropped from the New York Times and Washington Post, that basically admitted the original OAS report was wrong. Here's the WaPo article and here's the NYT article. I believe there are others as well, but these were the first I found on the search.
To me, this is a bit more...unambiguous? denouncement of the OAS' repot, as both the NYT and WaPo were in support of Evo Morales' forced removal from office and used the OAS report as backup beforehand. It's something that I think needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article; the largest papers of note supporting the OAs and then later coming out against the OAS, after the Anez government had seized power, is an important part of these events to talk about. 50.220.136.42 ( talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Really? A section to discuss tweets and facebook posts and accounts? Does any of that stuff have any impact beyond the niche microworld of social networks? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)