Jump to content

Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,554,592 edits
Line 91: Line 91:
--[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
--[[User:Laella|Laella]] ([[User talk:Laella|talk]]) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


Hey @Laella because I know in my brain I didn't watch Website news only I can think
Hey @Laella because I know in my brain I didn't watch Website news only I can think <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AntiCommunist1|AntiCommunist1]] ([[User talk:AntiCommunist1#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AntiCommunist1|contribs]]) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 21:46, 28 May 2020

coup d'etat once more

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.

Comments and
references		 ↓Part of the Definition of a Coup d'état→ Yes
Fact		 Yes
Claim		 No
Fact		 No
Claim		 Not clear
[1] There were ways to solve the problem with legal meanings which were not used ✔
[2] The military participated in the act (✔) (✔) ✔
[3] The government members were intimitated ✔ ✔
[4] The new regime was based on the army (✔) (✔) ✔
[5] The new regime arrested (oder tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parlament ✔ ✔
[6] The new regime violated the constitution (✔) (✔) ✔
[7] The new regime violated human rights ✔
[8] The new regime tried to suppress the mind of its opposition ✔
  1. ^ The opposition had at least one legal way to defend its position: accept the proposal of Morales for new elections. It is important to note that Morales had already accepted to do these repeated elections under the control of the international committee, a commitee the opposition itself had asked. Still the opposition demanded (and imposed) the resignation of the legal government ("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.).
  2. ^ how can it be, that something is and not is? well in this case it can: the army, at least during the act itself, didn't use it's weapons to abolish the legal government, on the other hand, it didn't protect the legal government, as it should, so it was a passive participation. The chief of the armed forces asked Morales to resign.("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.)
  3. ^ It is true, that the members of the Government and related Institutions that resigned, claimed that they were intimidated and harassed. I don't know if they brought evidences for these claims (although I actually believe them), so I let this as a true claim in the list. It is though a fact, that they found refugee in the Embassy of Mexico. ("Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico". BBC News. BBC. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019.)On the other hand it is true that the Minister of internal affairs announced, that he would arrest the Parliament members of the Party with the absolute majority in the parliament (still belonging to the same party like Morales), if they didn't consent to the decisions of the new regime. "Interim Bolivian Government Threatens Arrest of Opposition Legislators". 18 November 2019. "Journalists & politicians from Morales' party threatened with sedition arrests as Bolivia purges socialist elements". RT International. This is of course an intimidation.
  4. ^ I cannot really take a position here. Actually not more than four days later it proved to be, that the new regime was actually based on the army (Clarín.com. "Bolivia: el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas". www.clarin.com (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-11-17.)(Liberal, El. "Agreden en Londres a ministra de Hong Kong en medio de protesta - El Liberal". www.elliberal.com.ar (in Spanish). Retrieved 2019-11-17.)("Bolivia: el decreto de Jeanine Áñez para quitarle la "responsabilidad penal" a las Fuerzas Armadas ante las protestas". www.clarin.com. Retrieved 17 November 2019.) On the other hand it is true,that the police took part in demonstrations against Morales Collyns, Dan (November 9, 2019). "Bolivian police in La Paz join 'mutiny' against Evo Morales". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on November 10, 2019. Retrieved November 10, 2019. (often denouncing his people and his ethnicity Prashad, Vijay (November 13, 2019). "A Bolivian crisis" – via www.thehindu.com."When the US Supports It, It's Not a Coup". Common Dreams. Archived from the original on 13 November 2019. Retrieved 14 November 2019.)
  5. ^ very few members of the Parlament were arrested but on the other hand, some members of the Governement fleed and many of the members of the election committee (more than 38) were arrested. (Krauss, Clifford (2019-11-13). "Bolivia's Interim Leader Pledges to 'Reconstruct Democracy'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("Clashes rock Bolivia after senator becomes leader". 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("Bolivia's Morales: Some lawmakers barred from assembly". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 2019-11-15.)("The Latest: Argentina urges Bolivians to talk, keep peace". AP NEWS. 11 November 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2019.)
  6. ^ ("Clashes rock Bolivia as new interim leader challenged". The Washington Post. 13 November 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2019.)
  7. ^ ("Bolivia's leader accused of stoking divisions after Morales' exit". Financial Times. 19 November 2019.)
  8. ^ ("Bolivia's leader accused of stoking divisions after Morales' exit". Financial Times. 19 November 2019.)

Thanks for posting, I agree it was a coup as well. MarianAlmazan (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CEPR / MIT Analysis

researchers at MIT (although not with MIT endorsement) did a re-hash of the CEPR analysis. The analysis was paid for by CEPR, and not surprisingly had identical results as CEPR. There is no new or significant material in this report. It is also not based on any first-hand knowledge of Bolivia, or direct analysis of evidence.

  • From CEPR's description of the MIT researchers' study: "Disclosure: In December 2019, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) contracted with the authors to see if the numerical and statistical results of CEPR’s November 2019 study could be independently verified."[1]

I see no value in adding echos of biased material that is already included in the wikipedia article. If the report is referenced, then for the sake of full disclosure, it should include the information that MIT did not endorse the report, and that the report was commissioned and paid for by CEPR. --Laella (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per letter from MIT:

"...they carried out the project they described in their piece as independent contractors to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)... this study was conducted independently of MIT... it should be referred to as a CEPR study..."[2]

MIT has specifically said they don't endorse the study. There is no reason to continue to refer to this study using the name of MIT. Laella (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Support Flags in the Sidebar

108.18.37.199 (talk · contribs) has been adding flags to represent international support to both sides of the conflict. There is no source for this information, and there are some countries that are present on both sides. There's also not a logical seeming reason to include some of these countries, which may have made positive or negative statements, but were inconsequential to the crisis, while countries which were more involved have been left off. Some of these are also wrong - Russia in particular was firmly pro-Morales I would like to see some justification for including these particular countries, and for which side. Preferably with a citation. --Laella (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove them, there's already an international response section (or page - I saw it recently) Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
warning do not delete international support and people have to know  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCommunist1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AntiCommunist1 (talk · contribs):

  1. You have to cite a source. Where are you getting the information?
  2. There is an entire page dedicated to this topic Reactions_to_the_2019_Bolivian_political_crisis
  3. Warning?! Why are you being threatening? You need to explain, not give warnings.

--Laella (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Laella because I know in my brain I didn't watch Website news only I can think — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCommunist1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Williams, Jack. "Analysis of the 2019 Bolivia Election". Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
  2. ^ "Lee la carta del MIT donde niega haber realizado el estudio que pone en duda el fraude electoral". Los Tiempos (in Spanish). 5 March 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&oldid=959457287"