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)

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).

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)

I'm not sure why this is even up for discussion. At the time it was apparent it was a coup, and since more evidence has been revealed to indicate it. With the sentencing of Jeanine Áñez to prison for her actions during this should be the "nail in the coffin" on this one. Detsom (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the continued concern both nationality and internationally over judicial independence in the processes against Áñez, calling it a coup would still be NPOV. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This was definitely a coup, no question. The title needs to change to reflect this. Enigma91 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The most common reaction I can find in the media around the term "coup" is that experts disagree over whether this crisis was a coup. That's the NPOV fact that is currently reflected in the article.

It's apparent that the use of the term coup is very important to English speakers. It's also very important within Bolivia, where "golpe" is a shibboleth used by members and allies of el MAS and almost no one else.

The article could be improved by the addition of a section which directly addresses the discussion that took place around the term.

Some points and sources for a section on "Use Of The Term Coup" might include:

• The AP said it's very important to figure out if the crisis was a coup on November 11, 2019, because it determined the legitimacy of an incoming government. [1]
• Morales called the riots and protests a coup long before the military deserted him. In response, Carlos Mesa claimed that the alleged fraud amounted to a coup. [2]
• When General Williams Kaliman made his "suggestion" and deserted Morales at least one US politician chose to call that a coup on Twitter. Some other politicians in the US and Nicaragua and some periodicals waited until Morales fled Bolivia. [3] [4] [5]
• Some high profile Twitter accounts and probably some media sources called Áñez's assumption of the presidency a coup. Some others used the word coup when the massacres started.
• Still others who use the term coup do not differentiate at what point the crisis was properly called a coup.
• There is a list in the lead section of references that discuss this question. Some of those have direct quotes from expert opinions for and against the inclusion of the word. Those opinions should be included in a section like this.
• The Washington Post draws a distinction between "old coups" and "new coups", implying a shifting or nebulous definition or character to coups. It quotes an expert who points out that 80% of coups involve explicit threats of force, leaving 20% that do not. [6]
• The section could discuss other crises which people have hesitated to call coups, such as the 1997 Turkish military memorandum which is sometimes called the "post-modern coup".
• The section could discuss examples of coups in which the military had a "soft touch" or was only tangentially involved, such as the Tunisian "medical coup", referenced in The Washington Post article above.
• The section could discuss comparisons to the many acknowledged Coups d'état in Bolivia.

Some of these last points may cross the line into original research, but I'm confident that there's enough material in secondary sources to make something of this shape a worthwhile addition to the article. Dan Kuck (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Elections

Including rose-tinted purple prose about the Election bill, and claiming that MAS "returned to government," is completely baseless. The coup government has "delayed" elections three times, has sold off huge amounts of public assets, massacred protesters, broken diplomatic relations with several countries, and they did all of this with a "President" that appointed herself without quorum. The Washington Post has repeatedly retracted their support for the coup. 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

fascist coup

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/bolivia-coup-evo-morales-jeanine-anez

This article is going pretty light on covering the more shocking actions of the Anez government.50.194.115.156 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not just going light, this article--especially if you see earlier versions before a minority of my suggested edits were accepted, it's fawning over Añez and doing everything to legitimize her and ignore reality. It was written by far right supporters of Añez, or at least of the 2019 coup.66.177.158.156 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Jacobin Magazine. Right wingers? A Marxist/Leninist magazine is right wing. Are you nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.214.104.61 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this wiki article. Also Jacobin is definitely not Marxist Leninist, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.158.156 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Which of the versions is better?

Recently a communist with an anonymous IP made a whitewash on the page and a user insists that it should be left like this.

I think my version should be kept because the other clearly misrepresent the sources to represent the Bolivian government and its supporters in a positive light, omitting the buses attacks made by the Pro-Morales protestors that were mentioned in the source and the source`s claim that the public distaste towards his continued re-elections was one of the reasons for the crisis, among other errors.

In addition, he says the opposition was moving to the "far-right" and miners that were attacked were indigenous and the attackers were Pro-opposition, I did not find this information in the sources.Lucasdmca (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lucasdmca:@Ip says: For clarity, can each of you respond with the original wording in contention and how you propose is should be changed? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am voting for the "communist". "... go ahead reagardless" of what? Burrobert (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I will put the current version(that IP says supports) of each sentence on top and the wording(that I support) before the edit of the anonymous IP below

the second vice president of the Senate, seized power. She announced she would be assuming the presidency

the second vice president of the Senate and the highest-ranking official remaining in the line of succession after the resignations, announced she would be assuming the presidency

source2

The police claimed the Morales supporters had vandalized police offices, inciting panic in some neighborhoods where people blocked their doors with furniture to protect stores and houses

The police said the armed group had vandalized police offices, causing panic in some neighborhoods where people blocked their doors with furniture to protect stores and houses.

source

The next few days were marked by protests and roadblocks on behalf of Morales' supporters. In Cochabamba, Sacaba and Senkata, civilians were massacred by government security forces who fired on peaceful pro-Morales demonstrations

The next few days were marked by protests and roadblocks on behalf of Morales' supporters. In Cochabamba, Sacaba and Senkata, civilians were killed during clashes with security forces

source23

BBC Mundo published an article suggesting that five main reasons combined to force Morales to resign: the disputed OAS audit results, the opposition from the military and police, the ongoing riots, the growing radicalization of the political opposition toward the far-right

BBC Mundo published an article suggesting that five main reasons combined to force Morales to resign: the disputed OAS audit results, the opposition from the military and police, the ongoing protests, the growing radicalization of the political opposition, and the public distaste towards his continued re-elections, and discontent among the opposition with his multiple election victories

source

The Morales government called on supporters to gather in the capital city of La Paz to defend the elected government, with reports of clashes between pro-Morales groups and opposition protesters

The Morales government called on supporters to gather in the capital city of La Paz "defend" him, with reports of pro-Morales groups attacking buses of opposition protesters.

source

indigenous miners from Potosí were shot and injured, reportedly by pro-opposition snipers

two miners from Potosí were shot and injured, reportedly by snipers

source Lucasdmca (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you would end a sentence with the word "regardless". Shouldn't you explain what it is regardless of? I think that is the point that the communist was making. Burrobert (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, Some edits made by the communist may have improved the article, I just want to change the sentences that I listed in my previous post. Lucasdmca (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

=== Proposed revisions ===

@Lucasdmca:@Ip says: Ok, looking at this and based on my own knowledge it seems that many of these sentences have issues on both sides. I will try to rewrite them as best I can in the order the sentences were listed and provide reasoning.

Jeanine Áñez, the second vice president of the Senate and highest-ranking official remaining, proclaimed herself President of the Senate in the absence of the previous Senate president Adriana Salvatierra and the first vice president of the Senate Rubén Medinaceli. Moments later, Áñez declared herself interim President of Bolivia, claiming constitutional succession.

Ip says' claim that she "seize power" is a bit too POV for me, but the claim by Lucasdmca that she was in the in the of succession is also false. However, it seems to be frequently forgotten that Áñez first declared herself President of the Senate in the absence of Salvatierra and Medincaeli and used that as a basis for claiming succession to the presidency.

The police claimed (Ip says: the Morales supporters; Lucasdmca: the armed group) had vandalized police offices, inciting panic in some neighborhoods where people blocked their doors with furniture to protect stores and houses.

Based on the source provided, it seems like Morales supporters is correct but that's only based off of the first part of the article as I do not have a subscription to the WSJ to see the rest. As such, I cannot weigh in on this one too much though I lean in favor of "Morales supporters"

The next few days were marked by protests and roadblocks on behalf of Morales' supporters. In Senkata and Sacaba, at least 19 pro-Morales protesters were killed in clashes with security forces in what was denounced as a massacre.

The events in Senkata and Sacaba have been identified by most sources even in Bolivia as massacres and there was an official inquiry into it. Massacres is the right word here. Further, the corresponding article also describes the events as a massacre in the title

BBC Mundo published an article suggesting that five main reasons combined to force Morales to resign: the disputed OAS audit results, the opposition from the military and police, the ongoing protests, the growing radicalization of the political opposition, and public opposition towards his move to end term-limits.

The version by Lucasdmca here is better. Radicalization? Yes. Towards the far-right? In some cases like Luis Fernando Camacho, you could argue yes. However, the opposition also includes centrist parties like Civic Community, Third Way parties like the Third System Movement, and social democratic parties like the National Unity Front which can't really be described as far-right. Further, the version by Ip says omits the fifth point for some reason (unintentionally perhaps?). At the same time, I rewrote the fifth point to be more concise, linking to the 2016 term-limit referendum for further information on public opposition while omitting "distaste" from the sentence.

Members of MAS called on supporters to gather in the capital city of La Paz to "defend Morales" and the results of the vote, with reports of clashes between pro-Morales groups and opposition protesters.

Here there seems to be an issue with which part of the source each individual wants to include. The Yahoo article states that there were calls both to defend Morales and the results of the election. So instead of fighting over which one to include, just include both. In this case also, Ip says' wording on clashes between protesters is more neutral.

two miners from Potosí were shot and injured, reportedly by snipers

The sourced article mentions nothing about them being indigenous or the snipers being from the opposition.

Overall in seeing these sentences, there's a noticeable favouring of either side by both editors, especially in describing events perpetrated by their preferred side. I hope that these revisions are a reasonable compromise and expect the both of you to engage in the talk page before starting an edit war nex time. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I more or less trust your Krisgabwoosh sense of NPOV, and sleeping dogs and such. I didn't necessarily subscribe to the previous version by the IP, just the blatant non neutral anti socialism edit and deleting by the user, struck me as non constructive, and as such I undid and asked for the issue to be taken to this page.Ip says (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"just the blatant non neutral anti socialism edit and deleting by the user, struck me as non constructive" Just to clarify, as already said, I am not the author of the version you say is "anti-socialist" it was only the original version written by other editors before the edit of the anonymous IP, as you can see if you look at the revisions before April. Lucasdmca (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh, I agree with the revisions that you proposed.Lucasdmca (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So if there is consensus, should I add in the revisions? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Lucasdmca (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And I probably shouldn't have clicked on your user page Lucasdmca, my mistake hehe. Both of you have a nice day, it's been a pleasure.Ip says (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bandera de la flor de patujú.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carta de Jorge Gonzalo Terceros Lara a Embajador Argentina del Gobierno de Mauricio Macri agradeciendo envío de pertrechos militares.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)