Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis

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 There were ways to solve the problem with legal meanings which were not used ✔ The military participated in the act (✔) (✔) ✔ The government members were intimitated ✔ ✔ The new regime was based on the army (✔) (✔) ✔ The new regime arrested (oder tried to arrest) all members of the government and the parlament ✔ ✔ The new regime violated the constitution (✔) (✔) ✔ The new regime violated human rights ✔ The new regime tried to suppress the mind of its opposition ✔

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

No Excuse for Excluding MIT Researchers' Findings

The fact that MIT researchers were able to confirm CEPR's findings is an essential part of the story of this coup. Whether this was endorsed by MIT or whether it was new information has no bearing on whether this is important, because these findings were what caused the New York Times and especially the Washington post to cover the OAS's report critically. This had a significant effect on restoring Morales' international legitimacy and caused many more people to doubt the methodology and motivations in the OAS report. I also think it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to automatically assume that respected election experts hired to check the data in a study will automatically agree with the study just because they were compensated for their analysis. And the assertion that the CEPR report were not based on "direct analysis of evidence" is just entirely false, and firs-hand knowledge of Bolivia is totally irrelevant to the analysis because they backed up their claims with data and news reports. They were literally analyzing the same data used in the OAS report. But even if someone doubts the analysis, there is no reasonable excuse for removing this from the article aside from politically motivated censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.98.114 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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."

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)

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..."

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)

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)

Just remove them, there's already an international response section (or page - I saw it recently) Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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) 

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)

Hey @Laella because I know in my brain I didn't watch Website news only I can think i don't want to write a private article note because it's too complicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCommunist1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

AntiCommunist1 (talk · contribs): I responded to you on the other article page, but I still want to point out here that knowing something in your brain is not enough. If something is too complicated, ask for help, people will help you. If you write it here in the talk page, some people may even do it for you. But you can't avoid using sources just because you think it's complicated. - Laella (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of Events section / decree no. 4078

The information is presented as though it were chronological, but actually when you read it through, it bounces all over chronologically. One case in point: the decree 4078 is actually mentioned 3 separate times, as though it were 3 different things. This is very confusing. Maybe it would be easiest to bring all of the events into a timeline. Otherwise, somehow it needs to be clarified that the events explained in the events section are not in chronological order. Laella (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)