Talk:Evo Morales/Archive 1

Deleted "Criticism from the Left" section

I have removed this section:

“ Many progressive overseas academics, politicians, journalists and commentators have glowingly characterized the Evo Morales regime as "radical", "revolutionary" and part of an "anti-imperialist bloc". Academics as diverse as Noam Chomsky, Ignacio Ramonet, Emir Sader, Heinz Dietrich, Marta Hanecker and Immanuel Wallerstein have described Evo Morales as part of a new leftist wave sweeping Latin America. What is striking about these academic celebrants of President Morales, is the total absence of any empirical analysis of his recent political trajectory and the socio-economic and public policies implemented during his first 15 months in office. ”

This is a criticism of the left, not Morales. Or more accurately a criticism of 'academic celebrants of President Morales'. That is fine, but it has no place in an article about Morales. Especially when it is mis-titled as 'from the left'. If there is relevant critical 'empirical analysis of his recent political trajectory and the socio-economic and public policies implemented' please provide it. Edzillion 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE UNREFERENCED MESTIZO CLAIMS

An unsigned editor or group of editors continues to claim that Morales is of Mestizo descent and offers no references at all. I have found nothing whatsoever from any reliable source that backs this claim. The only associations I have found between his name and the word Mestizo is descriptions whether the group of people referred to as such support him or do not. Most sites state that they do not. If unsigned editors want to make such claims about his descent than they must find a reliable source that states such and provide it, otherwise they should go get themselves a blog and stop vandalizing this article. If this continues I will request semi-protection for this page. Multiple sources have been provided from the likes of the BBC and PBS Frontline stating unequivocally that he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia - no source at all has been provided claiming otherwise.

--Wowaconia 16:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources that prove that Morales is or isn't of mestizo descent, so I'm not editing the article, but I'm compelled to add that the last name Morales is of Spanish origin, so it is unlikely that he is of "pure" indigenous descent, hence (according to the definition of "mestizo"), making him a mestizo, like most of the bolivian population.

-- Another User, May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.73.28 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

like with many colonized indigenous nations, indigenous people were often forced to take "civilized" names and religion, usually from the origin of their colonizers. not everyone was subject to this same treatment (treatment doled out by colonizers varied by who was in charge from area to area) so it is quite possible that Evo's father (since he is the one with a Spanish surname) was from an area of agressive colonization and "saving of the savages." His mother's surname appears to have remained indigenous. UNSIGNED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.80.36.13 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Generalizations about Bolivian people's religious beliefs need a reference

The article has a ref that backs up the statement that "His parents, while Catholic, worshipped the Aymaran earth goddess Pachamama, often with offerings of coca leaves and alcohol." An unsigned editor or group of editors continues to try and alter this to say "Like most Bolivians, his parents while Catholic, worshipped the Aymaran earth goddess..." The Reference given only speaks about his parent's beliefs if you want to make claims about the majority of the Bolivian people than a reference proving your claims must be provided. Otherwise your claim will be promptly removed because it fails under wikipedia's No Original Research guideline.

--Wowaconia 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional information that could be added

Dear everyone,

Maybe a little could be mentioned about President Morales' other national policies, such as his agrarian reform policies to help the poor rural indigenous peasant communities. This is to give a broader picture of the President's efforts to improve welfare of his people. Dingodangodongo 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

birth, parentage, and formative early years conspicuously missing

Birth, parentage, and formative early years now included.--Wowaconia 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Top

Trey Stone: you changed this:

Capitalizing on resentment of US meddling in general

to this:

Capitalizing on cocalero resentment of U.S. anti-coca policies

This was not a helpful edit. Although Morales emerged from the cocalero movement, the bulk of his and MAS's support is in the highlands of the altiplano, among the miners and so on, for whom the coca eradication policies are not a decisive issue. Anti-U.S. resentment runs deeper than that and encompasses, among other things, the disasterous neoliberal economic policies of the 1990s. -- Viajero | Talk 13:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

i don't think it's true that all Morales's opponents are unquestioningly "neoliberal" as this article suggests. true, in the post-Cold War period there has been a general opening up in terms of trade and investment with the U.S., but this happened with administrations across the ideological spectrum. and a lot of Latin American politicians, center-right included, are keen on exploiting anti-American populist sentiment.

i mean, as far as i can tell Chile is very open with us economically, but just because the current Socialist president has not gone on a wholesale crusade against neoliberalism doesn't mean he hasn't been pursuing leftist policies that promote general welfare and more income equality. J. Parker Stone 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Travels

Hello, I took out the following paragraph for four reasons:

1. The paragraph wasn't well-written. 2. It seemed to be purporting gossip rather than fact. 3. Its information was cited from an obviously biased website. 4. The questionable website was even advertised in the text, which I believe is against WP guidelines.

Here is the paragraph:

"Morales, it is important to note here, has also been caught traveling twice to Libya for meetings with Muammar Gaddafi. Agents from Colombia's FARC rebels and former Shining Path guerrillas from Peru have also been tied to Morales and his MAS movement (see www.narcoguerrilla.com for more information)."

I just rewrote it, SqueakBox 19:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to still have to question the use of that source and ask that it be taken out until you can get something more than what looks like right-winged propaganda to back up this obviously-biased statement. I mean, I'm sure I can find a website that says President Bush is in league with the Jews to take over the world, but that doesn't mean its true! The website you source for the controversial information it provides has no business being in the opening statement of the article and negates any possibility of taking the article's NPOV seriously.

(Please sign with ~~~~. I disagree about the site, which I did not place here. It looks okay to me, not comparable with conspiracy theory stuff. Just because something is right wing doesn't make it wrong, SqueakBox 19:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 19:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if you look at the site, and WHOIS its domain registration, you can find no information about who is putting the speculation up there. Furthermore, they specifically hired a gobetween (Domain by Proxy, Inc.) so they wouldn't have to put up who they were. If they feel no need to source their webpages for the accusations that they make, then one would hope they would at least put their names behind it, but they don't. Therefore, maybe there can be other, more credible sources used instead of an obviously malicious and perhaps even misleading website such as www.narcoguerrilla.com. For the time being, I will continue to advocate for its removal. Any comments? Thanks for the tilde advice. Hastalavictoria 19:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

From the links on the left hand side they may be related to utexas.edu. It links back to this article. Can't see where it confirms data included in the section. Other comments would be appreciated, SqueakBox 22:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page is obviously garbage. The idea that the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the Shining Path are influencing Bolivian politics today is absurd. --Descendall 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Presidential Aspirations

This page will probably need some rewriting very soon. Morales is widely expected to win a plurality in the elections today, but not gain a majority. In this situation, I believe that the Congress, in which Morales' foes dominate, chooses the president. However, his opponant has apparantly said that he does not want to be chosen if he is beaten by Morales in the election. I would assume that if Morales wins a plurality but a right-winger is chosen by Congress, there would be massive protests and strikes in La Paz, and leftist bastions liks El Alto would erupt in rebellion again. I don't know nearly enough about the situation or the Constitution of Boliva to write this stuff up, though. Viajero is usually very knowledgeable about these things, perhaps he could help out?

Also, it might be good to put the current event thing on this page, seeing as the elections are today. --Descendall 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that there is no mention of today's election on Elections in Bolivia. --Descendall 19:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on this article and will help out where possible. --Viajero | Talk 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Web reference #10, discussing support from Aznar, is misleading since it comes from non-objetive journalists. Must be edited or look for an spanish newspaper reference -- Isradelacon

First Indian President

Is he the first Indian President in Bolivia? If so, that's something that should be mentioned. --Revolución (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He is not, but he will be if he assumes office. I have taken note of this. --Bletch 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It now says he would be the first president "of indigenous origins". That makes it sound (to me) like nobody with any indigenous ancestry has ever been a head of state in Latin America. DanKeshet 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC in South America, the term indigeno/indigena (sp?) is often used to describe people of full indigenous origins, as opposed to mestizos (mixed Indian/European) ancestry. I will say that I'm not 100% satisfied with the phrasing either; one cannot expect that everybody going to that page will be aware of that distinction. Any ideas? --Bletch 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just get rid of origins: "he is the only indigenous President in...". Origins is what makes it sound like ancestry rather than current ethnic identification. DanKeshet 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the fact that he is by genetic origin Aymara is what is important. He is one of the few leaders in the world not descended from the European or Oriental royalty. This is a precedent for the Aymara and other indigenous groups in the America.

Not really a precedent for 'other indigenous groups' because Alejandro Toledo from Peru is also an actual inka's descendant Isradelacon

To be named the first Aymara president he has to be a pure descendent's of Aymara tribes, he is Mestizo, his lastname from Spanish Origin (MORALES) denotes this.

Alejandro toledo is most definatly mestizo calling himself the "cholo from harvard". I agree that Evos indigenous status is about more than bloodlines but about cultural identification and practice, he speaks fluent Quechua and Aymara.24.69.65.202 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evo Morales is actually a mestizo, just like Toledo.

Saying that Morales is the first indigenous President is misleading, probably inaccurate (depending on the interpretation of "indigenous" and "mestizo") and hardly verifiable. First of all his last name is of Spanish origin and since he doesn't come from a reservation or some sort of endogamous community, it is unlikely that he is of "pure" indigenous descent. Second, as was stated before, there have been several "mestizo" presidents in Latin America before him, one of such examples being president Toledo from Peru (who is probably no less "indigenous" than Morales). Finally, and this addresses the "cultural heritage" point of view. Morales has a mestizo cultural heritage, i.e., he not only speaks some quechua and practices indigenous rituals but also speaks spanish, plays soccer, was probably was baptized, etc. I'd like to add that he always speaks in spanish during speeches and, except for a few words or lines perhaps, he doesn't use native languages (quechua or aymara) in rallies or gatherings, which makes me think he's not fluent in them, in opposition to what was stated before.

--Jamestronic, may 2008

President-Elect

Can we call him the "president-elect" yet? --12.217.121.245 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, same as Manuel Zelaya, SqueakBox 14:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He is the President Elect. He won over 54% of the tallied votes, however votes from the rural areas which account for about 7% of the national total have yet to be officially recorded. Mr Morales is extremely popular with the rural voters and its almost sure he will get the 7%. His opponent already called him to congratulate him and publically conceded defeat. December 24, 2005 - 02:16 AM

Source for quote

"Morales credited the U.S. ambassador for the success of MAS: 'Every statement [Rocha] made against us helped us to grow and awaken the conscience of the people.'" [1] - as far as I can tell, this is the source story for this quote. If anybody knows otherwise, please fix this. Thanks. - 30 december 2005

Photo

Could we use a picture that makes him look respectable and dignified? There are plenty of photos like that. They are not the exception. After all the George W. Bush article doesn't use the "dubya-the-chimpanzee-look-alike" picture either.

--69.158.24.254 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the fact that the photos show him dressed casually, and often in a multi-coloured sweater, you might like to take a look at this BBC report. (Come to think of it, something on this subject could be put into the article - or is that too trivial?) Vilcxjo 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are better photos of the guy, but the chompa sports him, and is symbolic of his devotion to humankind, the common man, and his ancestral lineage. European-controlled Illuminati pawns like to dress in suits with ties to symbolise Masonic affiliation and the 'noose' around their neck. Bush looks like an idiot even in his most 'dignified' photos. I like the fact that Evo Morales looks human in his photographs. I am not impressed by suits and other Illuminati symbolism.

OK, first of all that's an unsigned comment, I have no idea who you are. Secondly, "suits and other Illuminati symbolism". OK. Prove to me that wearing suits are a symbol of the "Illuminati" and I will accept it. Otherwise, try to use constructive comments. The first sentence was fine (except I assume you meant "suits" and not "sports"): you didn't need to spoil it with the rubbish about the Illuminati.

WikiReaderer 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vilcxjo comment/Jumper

His jumper has become a massive symbol of him and is selling all across Bolivia, I think a section on it should be created. --Horses In The Sky 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree and have mentioned the jumper in the opening and then in the ttransfer of powers section. I don't believe this needs a separate section but its mention in the opening is fully justified. Both the jersey and the lack of tie today are very important facets of Morales and have attracted a huge amount of attention, SqueakBox 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I think that having an Iconic Jumper section might provide greater background and information? I hope that the section is alright. Also, I heavily borrowed and moved SqueakBox's text from the transfer of powers section. Best. --akds 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, SqueakBox 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous Leaders in America

I was wondering... Apart from Evo Morales and Benito Juárez, how many other indigenous people have become leaders of their nations in the American continent? Could we develop an article with a list of such leaders? Perhaps not only presidents, but also state governors... or it could be general, listing leaders from indigenous people anywhere in the world for countries that were formerly colonies of another (usually European) country... I have searched my best, but found no other indigenous presidents than Morales and Juárez... am I sadly wright or have I not searched well enough? TrollDeBatalla

• Well, in recent times there's been Alejandro Toledo and Lucio Gutiérrez at least (Hugo Chávez, despite some media reports, is not indigenous, but of mixed ancestry), but you're right that historically there've been very few indigenous state leaders in the post-colonial Americas. I agree it would be good to have a list or category but perhaps we could see if there are any other examples. For indigenous political figures specifically from the U.S. there's already Category:Native American leaders and Category:Native American activists under Category:Native American people. Perhaps we should have a whole Category:Americas indigenous people--Pharos 06:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I also support this article. I have been extremely curious to know how many people of indigenous have risen to power in the Americas! Btw Hugo Chavez is not considered indigenous he is mixed african, european, and indigenous descent. But there could also be a list of which leaders claim some indigenous ancestry. --69.216.143.218 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweater image

Alas, with the wholesale removal of images of uncertain status, we are left with no picture of Morales in his characteristic striped chompa. (I particularly liked the one of him with King Juan Carlos, in view of the snooty remarks of the Spanish media.) Can anyone find one which we can use? It strikes me as a wonderful illustration of the nature of the man, far more than mere words can convey. Vilcxjo 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Morales indigenous status

Re wrote :'the country's self-proclaimed "first Amerindian president". He has claimed to be the first indigenous person to lead the nation of Bolivia as its head of state in over 500 years since the Spanish Conquest.' A.) No citation for this self-proclamation. B.) Unless someone can point out a significant differance between self-proclamation and claiming, it's redundant. C.) It suggests that Morales is masquerading as indigenous, which is an odd claim to be making without substantiation.

Also removed the following sentence, as his ethnicity and wardrobe are of peripheral to the primary cause for interest in Evo, which is his policies. The sentence trivialized its subject. Also, the bit about "aroused huge interest" is non-encyclopedic and, frankly, lacks gravitas.

Durito 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweater, again : is this subsection really necessary?

I moved to the talk page (here) this subsection, titled "iconic sweater":

"Having aroused much interest in his choice of dress after being pictured in his striped sweater with world leaders during his world tour, there was speculation that he would wear it to the official inauguration, where he actually dressed in a white shirt without tie (itself unheard of in Latin America in modern times for a head of state at their own inauguration) and a black jacket that was not a part of a conventional suit. The sweater (actually an alpaca-wool chompa, of the English word jumper) has since become a symbol of him and is selling all across Bolivia. The popularity and recognition of the sweater has led many to speculate and philosophize over its significance, inspiring some to call it a protest “metaphorically knit of [Bolivia’s] basic unsatisfied needs”, with others comparing it to “the uniform of les sans culottes of the French Revolution.” However, it has also been subject to ridicule and reportedly left various “members of Spanish press and society appalled” after Morales appeared in the sweater with King Juan Carlos. [2] [3]."

I do not believe it is appropriate in an encyclopedia, and is even a bit depreciative. Is there a subsection titled "cowboy hat" under George W. Bush's entry? I therefore removed it, submitting it to debate on this page (please wait for the debate to take place before reverting this move). It is simple noise (or word pollution, if you prefer). Beside, such anecdotes tend to be quickly outdated and lose any kind of (little) interest it might have presented at some time. The comparison to the "sans culottes" is as silly, IMO, as it "been subject to ridicule". If I take the time to argue this point, it is because I also believe it is a way of diverting attention from the really important issues, such as natural gas ones (see the past Bolivian Gas War which led to his election in the first place). Tazmaniacs 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To have an entire section on it may well be OTT. But I think complete removal of it is equally mistaken. There is an existing section headed "Style", in which a (somewhat foreshortened) reference to the chompa would be entirely appropriate. Underlying this is the question of whether the only thing of significance about a national leader is his policies, rather than his personal nature – or (more accurately) whether it is possible/meaningful to separate them out, as if they were two entirely unconnected aspects of the one individual. It would, IMO, be a dangerous oversimplification to regard EM's attitude to his own ethnicity as being of marginal (at best) relevance to his political significance. His choice of attire, in defiance of convention, is part of his conscious decision to make a point of his ethnic identity, and hence a part of his political identity. Vilĉjo 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps the original text over-emphasized the subject. I still, however, feel it deserves some mention in the entry (for reasons stated above and previously). I've put a truncated version of text in the Style subsection. Finally, the text is not (and was not) meant to denigrate Evo. --akds 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Some observations

One: Evo Morales is NOT an indian, although now it's useful for him to pass for one, he's a halfbreed, a mestizo. In spanish, the word 'mestizo' doesn't have the demeaning undertone that 'halfbreed' has in English, it's plainly descriptive, and accepted as such. Two: Although bolivian andean natives do have a relationship with the coca leaf, and it does have 'medical uses' (I can't come up with a better expression now, sorry), all the needs for legal consumption could be satisfied with much fewer cultivation fields. The Coca growers of Chapare know that their produce goes to drug production, they just don't care, and are in cahoots with them. But they know that the international community wouldn't back them up if they confess that. It's all a show, and a show for the international community and their NGO's. Although a study proving this could easily dismissed as biased, mentioning that the coca grown in the country exceeds by far the demand for it, SHOULD BE POINTED OUT. It must be done. (I'm Ipetiset). 01:05, 2 May 2006.

The Wikipedia isn't a place to present your own beliefs, so it's a bit of a waste of time trying to saying someone 'should' do something here, nor is the Wikipedia a place to make weird comments about Cuba (as you did on the Cuba talk page). You can put your criticisms about coca production potentially overexceeding domestic demand in the article, but you can't say 'someone should do this' or 'farmers know the real truth' and such like, because that makes this article biased. Also, a better phrase than halfbreed in English, a word that sounds exceptionally racist, is 'mixed ethnicity'. Hauser 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this because it is not NPOV and was in the wrong section. "Evo Morales and MAS do not have a clear program; it is clear what he is against (he is a rousing speaker) but less obvious what his alternative proposal is. (See Ideology below.) In any case,"--YellowLeftHand 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw "mestizo" does not translate to "halfbreed" It is translated to "mixed". Do you have proof that he is Mestizo?

Bolivia is a perfect example of the atrocious degree of USA-interference with other countries. So what if Coca-production exceeds the 'demand', according to your uncited beliefs. The people of Tawantinsuyu have grown Coca as THE plant of their culture for hundreds of years, and it goes back thousands of years before that era, as well. Also, hello, the CIA have been caught red-handed as the LARGEST distributor of cocaine in the world, as well as a distributor of opium. Just look at the Mena, Arkansas incidents, or the several DEA officers like Cele Castillo who have come out with statements about how the USA government sells drugs and controls the drug trade in the Americas and elsewhere. If you're going to demonise Evo, you might as well also make mention of the thousand-fold worse crimes of the United State of America. I'm really getting tired of uninformed North Americans and Europeans (who get nearly all of their information from the heavily distorted and William Randolph Hearst-esque television news) going around flaunting their stupid opinions as though they mean anything. Get a clue--do some research for once. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The coca leaf is part of their culture and has been for hundreds of years. However, the coca leaf they used was the one grown in the Yungas region, the one with the shorter leaf and softer stem. The one grown in the Chapare can not be used for any ritual or chewed by indigenous people since its leaves are too large and its stem is too hard to chew. In the Chapare region, the region where Evo Morales started his political career, the coca was introduced in the late 40's and early 50's to satisfy the demand of drug traffickers and taking advantage of the fact that many miners had been left without a job in the highlands. Therefore practically all of the coca produced in the Chapare region, basically all of the coca which exceeds the internal market demand, is used for cocaine.

206.41.50.6 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The comment above is correct. Yungas coca is the only coca that is fit for human consumption. And Matthew above should also be aware that coca in pre-columbian times was only available to the indigenous elite and only for particular ceremonies as it was sacred. To say that it was part of the daily life is very missleading. In fact spanish colonizer used it as a weapon to subyugate the natives.

Sorry but Evo Morales is an aymara pure descendent if you want a PURE Inca South American Indian descendent .The ayamaras with the quechuas were the two main Nations of the Inca Empire.And mestizo or mixed ethnicity is Alejandro Toledo, in Peru they call him cholo.

If he was an aymara pure descendent his lastname would not be MORALES, a spanish surname.

Coca NPOV

The treatment given in the coca sub-section doesn't seem too even-handed. The BBC, a source that is probably not biased strongly in favor of the American point of view, states some things that are more relevant than the fact that Princess Anne drank coca tea, yet detract from the pro-coca argument. This fact, for instance, seems far more pertinent: "The new Bolivian administration has called for a 1961 UN convention which declares coca an illegal narcotic to be scrapped, allowing it to export coca-based products which could include tea bags, soap, shampoo, biscuits, wine, and even diet pills." Source: [[4]]

I increased the amount of info on this please review and comment again if there is still a problem.--Wowaconia 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Autonomy

The "autonomic movement" lead by 6 Governors (Prefectos) of the opposition does not represent the general view of the population. Recently, a referendum was held in which autonomic systems would be applied in those department where this choice was the most voted. However, leaders of the opposition have strongly resist this results and tried to turn them against the government. The people, in general, hopes for a better distribution of wealth and services (education, health, justice) more independent from the central government. This idea, was turn into a more radical interpretation of autonomy, by those Governors from the eastern part of the country, crying out even the word "Independence!". This have shed light on the real intentions of this leaders and a higher approval to Evo Morales' policies by the common people. Further, only 4 departments have voted "yes" to autonomy, whereas the rest voted "no". In despite of those results, two Governors, going against the law of the referendum, intended to ignore this result forcing the people of those department to ask for their demission with march and big street meetings. This events unveiled the lack of authority of the Cochabamba's Governor, who immediately started a trip to US and several countries of Europe abandoning his charge in despite of the delicate situation of the city. Reyes Villa (Cochambamba's governor) decided that the best policy is to talk against "Evo Morales' authoritarianism" rather than admitting his responsibilities on riots that ended the life of several citizens. I am sure that this is something that should be clearly depicted in order to avoid the manipulation of people's opinion with some other non-clear intentions. Hangyakusha 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Rebelde

Autonomy Map

While I'm admittedly not as well-versed in Bolivian current affairs as I'd like to be, I'm skeptical of the map image claiming that La Paz and Cochabamba are "strongly" pursuing autonomy at this political moment. I don't think Cochabamba has sought autonomy in any aggressive fashion since Reyes Villa left office, and La Paz overwhelmingly voted to retain Evo during the recall elections in August. Unless someone can cite a recent source claiming that these two Departments are actively seeking autonomy, I'm going to take this image down. I'm not disputing the claims about Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, or Tarija. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.151.192 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Efforts of USA to eradicate Coca?

"Morales is the leader of Bolivia's cocalero movement – a loose federation of coca leaf-growing campesinos who are resisting the efforts of the United States government to eradicate coca in the province of Chapare in southeastern Bolivia". I never heard such a thing before. On the contrary, I heard that Mr Morales is a great President, loved by everyone in his country. This strange new sounds like a typicial fake from USA propaganda towards all politicians refusing to be their yes-men. But the most wondering thing is how you can easily write- as it was normal - that USA is trying to eradicate something from an other sovereign state! I heard that Americans lost every civil education and every respect for law and order different from theirs, but I never suspected that this way of thinking went so far. So, remember that Bolivia is a sovereign state and USA has no right to interfere in its internal matters, ok? This is basic in International law. I know that Bush overthrew every law, every right and every International diplomacy, but he will surely reply to a USA or International tribunal as soon as people will come back to normal civil relations. Please, respect the neutrality of Wikipedia, not reporting American propaganda and not showing political peoples under a right-wing point of view. Val

1st the article shows that Morales gained his political support by organizing coca growers for the legal production of coca for such things as tea. This movement grew in opposition to the Bolivian government under President Hugo Banzer that looked as if it wanted to eradicate all coca. Bolivian President Banzer was not forced to do this by the US but it was a condition that he act against the illegal growth of coca (the kind Morales is likewise against) for cocaine production if he wanted to receive grants from the US Federal government. Morales and his supporters said Banzer and those who followed him in the office where going too far and destroying legal coca growing alongside the illegal. Even as president, Morales continues to be the head of this union of coca growers advocating expanded legal consumption of coca. There is no evidence the US did anything to impede a soverign state's decison, Banzer could have said that the grant was not worth endangering the legal production of coca for teas and such - he chose to pursue the grant money. All this information is already in the article, please read it in its entirity before claiming Wikipedia is making propaganda. If you have other questions that would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read the whole article, feel free to express them here.--Wowaconia 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bolivian Information Forum

I think this website merits an external link - it is not a blog, it is a site that has background information about Bolivia and hosts reports, bulletins and news items from reputable sources like Oxfam and the UK NGO Christian Aid. Also, it is written by experts on Bolivia - from the homepage: "Most of the BIF's founding members have expertise in and direct experience of Bolivia or Latin America in general. All members participate in a personal capacity.

The BIF currently produces a regular bulletin which is written by experts in Bolivia and in the UK and also includes frequent guest contributions from practitioners and reporters on development and human rights issues."

Also the page about Evo Morales is a referenced article, not a blog. Pexise 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone declares themself an expert on their website does not mean that they are. Your case would be bolstered if you could find out who their members are, what their qualifications are and which ones wrote any of the information you wish to provide a link to.

The page you say is an article http://www.boliviainfoforum.org.uk/inside-page.asp?section=3&page=31 and wish to include in the External links segment has no author listed, it offers no quotations of referrences on the page and in a note tacked on the bottom says "Sources : this account borrows from the book by Pablo Stefanoni and Hervé Do Alto: 'Evo Morales de la coca al Palacio' (La Paz: Malatesta, 2006)]" not only is it impossible to tell which parts were from the book and which parts the unnamed author or authors of the article invented, but with only this as a reference it is preferrable to find the book and use that as a legitimate referrence rather than this dubious article.--Wowaconia 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wowaconia - please assume good WP:FAITH, I am not trying to sabotage this article or promote some sort of blog. I find this website useful because of its background information and also the news and bulletins on the website. I think it is a credible source because it uses material from well established international organisations such as Oxfam: [5] and well established authors and regional experts such as Hugh O'Shaughnessy (See article 5 in this bulletin) [6]. It might be worth having a good look at the website and the information that's on it, I'm sure you'll see that it's not some "invented" website and that the sections are all well researched, using good sources (for example UNDP on the social statistics section). Let me know what you think. Pexise 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article that you originaly placed in the external links segment has no claim of authorship at all by anyone. The fact that they copied an Oxfam America website article and posted it on their own site does not mean that they are associated with that group, there is not even a disclaimer showing that they received official permission from Oxfam to use the article. If you wish to place a link to the Oxfam article then it would be preferrable to link to the real Oxfam site directly instead of this reprint. The forum site says "Most of BIF's founding members have expertise in and direct experience of Bolivia or Latin America in general." Even with this claim there are no names of these suppossed experts and no list of current members, even if we assumed that they weren't just declaring their founders experts, we don't know if those people are still around. They say there site was begun in 2006 and then had to be relaunched in May 2007 so are their re-launcers as supposedly expert as their founders?

They call themselves "a group of people interested in the country and keen to make information about recent political and social developments in Bolivia more easily available to a UK-based audience." They are not a news service, they merely reprint other people's stories, so they are closer to a blog then they are to the Associated Press. Hugh O'Shaughnessy is a respected figure but we are not informed if he is a member of the group, if they are just reprinting a story of his, etc. There is no claim of affiliation whatsoever. We know nothing about the forum except they claim at one time to have been founded by unkown experts and "they are keen" to spread information about Bolivia.--Wowaconia 12:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wowaconia - once again, I ask you to assume good faith. I think it is reasonable to assume that the claim on the site that the founder members are 'experts' should be accepted, and that it is quite far fetched to think that founder members would disappear after a year of the organisation's activity. Also, please look on the contact us page where you will see the name of Dr Cath Collins as the main point of contact for the organisation. Google her - I think you will agree that she qualifies as an 'expert'. (Pexise)

I think you are mistaken in your expansive definition of the good faith guidelines of wikipedia. Good faith is to be given to other editors that even if you disagree with them you should not assume that they are out to wreck the project. You should avoid insulting them, being rude, or edit warring. Are you saying that I have been rude to you? The wikipedia guidelines do not call on editors to not be skeptical of external self-published websites in fact they demand a high level of skepticism. See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#SELF

(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability

(emphasis added) “Sources of dubious reliability: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).”

If you can cite where I have been rude to you please do so. If not Please stop accusing me of bad faith, accusing others of bad faith without cause is defined by wikipedia as bad faith in itself see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith

If you where unfamiliar with the fact that wikipedia's guidelines about good faith do not call on editors to drop their skeptism on external third party self-published sources than please stop using the term.

Again Dr Cath Collins may be the contact person for the group, but the doctor does not in anyway lay claim to any authorship to anything on the site. If they actually listed who wrote their articles then you would have a more convincing arguement. How can they claim that their articles were authored by experts when they make no claim of authorship at all?--Wowaconia 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When I asked you to assume good faith, I was actually referring to the general principle of WP:FAITH which is that: "In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." You seem to be assuming that I am in some way trying to damage this article, when in fact I am trying to improve the article by adding a link to a website which is a useful source of information. Regarding authorship, the website does not claim to be a blog, or a self published website, it claims to be the website of an organisation which provides information about Bolivia. I am happy to believe this claim. According to your criteria, the information should have a poor reputation for fact checking. Can you point to a single factual error on the website, or in any of the material on the website? (Pexise)

Where have I suggested you are out to harm the project? I have merely been pointing out that the external link you wish to add does not fall within Wikipeida standards. I too looked at the forum's website in its entirety and the only name they list anywhere is Dr Cath Collins I don't subscribe to their Bulletin as it seems you do, and even that had only one additional name. So I applaud you in your ability to have found the only two names that the forum even offers. They list no editorial staff, no oversight committee, no membership list, no list of authors, no founding members, nothing but the contact person and they also accredit a single article in their latest copy of a bulletin you have to sign up to receive. I don't call myself an expert on Bolivia (or anywhere else for that matter) and that is why wikipedia would not link any external pages that I might create because Wikipedia's standards call for experts - so it is not a question whether I as a non-expert can find an error in a self-published external website on Bolivia, but if the authors of that website are actually recognized as experts. As it is, they are not even recognizable because they don't state their names.--Wowaconia 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you email the organization if you are unsure about their claim that their material is written by experts? If their response is inadequate, I will concede that the site does not qualify for a link. Pexise 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I? Becuase I'm not the one arguing they're a reliable expert source.--Wowaconia 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - you're the one arguing that their claim to be experts is false. I would assume this to be true unless other evidence is provided. If you email them and they are unable to substantiate this claim, I will accept that they are lying in their claim. I just assume that if they say they are experts, then they are - otherwise why would they make the claim? Pexise 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In accord with Wikipedia’s standards the burden of evidence falls not upon me contesting the addition of a link to the forum but upon you who wish to add said link. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I repeat that I do not think you are in any way trying to hurt the project by proposing said link but I continue to point out that the forum is not a reliable source as per the policies of Wikipedia and therefor is not worthy of any links or mentions on any page that is not specifically about the forum itself (and I doubt that the site is notable enough to merit its own wiki-article). I point out again that the site lists no editorial staff at all, which makes it unsuitable according to WP:V#Questionable_sources which says “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.”--Wowaconia 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd be quite happy to write to them, but I'm not sure whether you'd be satisfied with me posting their response, hence my suggestion that you send them an email. Pexise 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest edition of the Bolivia Information Forum Bulletin features an article by Steve Davison, Joint Chair of the Unite Union. Unite is the biggest trade union in the UK.

Experts so far established as writing for the Bolivia Information Forum: Hugh O'Shaughnessy, renowned Latin American journalist and author; Dr Cath Collins, Research Fellow on Latin America at Chatham House; Steve Davison, Joint Chair of Unite the Union. I'm sorry, but is this not enough to establish the site as reliable? Pexise 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Davison a member of the forum or are they just reprinting a piece of his? So far the only member to be named is Collins if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't seem to me that they met the qualifications, but I welcome the opinion of other wiki-editors on this. User:Pexise, I salute your continued perseverance on this. If other editors do not weigh in, I think you deserve to raise the issue in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Wowaconia 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article by Davison: "Steve Davison shares his impressions of the visit with BIF Bulletin" - he is contributing specifically to the bulletin, so obviously is involved or friendly with the Forum. Pexise 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bolivia Information Forum features on the Eldis website [7] the knowledge database of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at Sussex University, one of the word's leading development studies research centres, based in the UK. Pexise 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This website seems at best a borderline case. Since the contested source for this article is a particular page on the website, which helpfully lists its own source, which itself sounds like the kind of academic publication Wikipedia editors are more comfortable with, why not check it out and cite it? Llajwa 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually looked at that book, btw -- one of the authors is an Argentine sociologist, I think -- it seems like a good book. Llajwa 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the use of the website as a source for a section in the article, I have suggested that it is a useful external link for English language information about Evo Morales and Bolivia in general. The website is recognised and cited by the Institute of Development Studies, I think that qualifies it as reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Pexise 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A week has now passed since I pointed out that the Forum is referenced by IDS and there has been no comment objecting to the site's inclusion. I therfore propose that I add the site as an external link. If there is still no objection in the next 24 hours I will add the site. Pexise 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of doing that you should follow the Wikipedia:Requests for comment criteria. Your certainty that the site mets the qualifications for inclusion appears to be equal to my feeling that it fails to do so. Following the Wikipedia:Requests for comment should call other editors to weigh in and then we can go with the consensus that results from that.--Wowaconia 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Autonomy criticisms

Suggest removal of unsourced and badly written last paragraph in the criticism section about autonomies. Pexise 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, that whole segment was inserted by unsigned editor 200.119.212.32 on 14:41, 30 April 2007 and should have been deleted the same day. As its was original research, unreferrenced claims, and read like a POV editorial I deleted it in accord with Wikipedia guidelines.--Wowaconia 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The unreferenced figure of "up to one million" for the January 2007 demonstration against Morales in Santa Cruz, a city of roughly 1.5 million seems dubious, even accounting for out of city arrivals.

Telesphorus (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Telesphorus

Actually it is possible. According to wikipedia the city, according to a 2006 estimate, has 1,528,683 habitants. The entire department, again according to the wikipedia article, had 2,433,602 people living in the department in the year 2005. Due to a great wave of internal migration, my personal and unscientific guess is that the population has increased by at least 250,000, although obviously I can not corroborate this. However, this so called "march" was given the name of "Cabildo del Millon" because supposedly a million people attended. Although in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, there is an article which mentions that an estimate was made of 902,000 people present in this march in favor of autonomy and against the government led by Evo Morales. Jaime morijo (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Show

First President to be interviewed by John Stewart? Catchpole 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think JS has also interviewed President Musharaf of Pakistan. However, a link to the DS could be included in the article, possibly also a section in the article (as it is noteworthy from an english language point of view). Pexise 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy

Could the Criticism and Controversy sections be merged? They don't seem to be discussing separate categories of things, and the Criticisms section as it stands covers only one subject.

WikiReaderer 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) --igordebraga ≠ 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim

The more I look at this section the more ridiculous it appears - Evo Morales is the first pure Aymara president, saying that former presidents were Amerindians is just plain silly, can someone either improve the 'Claims to Amerinidian Primacy' section or it will have to go as it is highly dubious. Pexise 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the title for the sub-section was bulky and oddly worded, so I changed it. Months ago people kept inserting claims that he was not the first Ameri-Indian president, despite all the reliable news sources I cited that said so. Finally someone posted a sentence in the intro that showed what all the controversy was about "This claim has created controversy,[5] however, due to the number of mestizo presidents who came before him.[6]" Apparently it is a question of how much heritage it takes to be called an Ameri-Indian, it is said that previous presidents had at least half of their genetics from Ameri-Indian ancestors but Evo has 100% of his genetics from Ameri-Indians. So some people feel that declaring Evo the first Ameri-Indian President is the same as declaring previous Presidents "half-bloods" who can't really lay claim to their own ancestry. The whole sub-section could use more sources, but it seems worthy of mention as far as I can tell.--Wowaconia 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the paragraph still needs some work, at the moment the sentence reads: "Evo Morales has declared himself the first Amerindian president, a controversial claim due to the amerindian heritages of such prior Bolivian presidents as Mariano Melgarejo (1864), Carlos Quintanilla (1939), René Barrientos (1964), Juan José Torres (1976), Luis García Meza (1980), and Celso Torrelio Villa (1981)." As you say, these are all mestizo presidents, mestizo meaning mixed race.

This sentence would make no sense if it began "Evo Morales declared himself the first pure amerindian president". It would only make sense if it read "Evo Morales has declared himself the first president with an Amerindian heritage" which is certainly not the case. Also, why have those selected presidents been singled out as the ones that are supposed to be Amerindians? Nearly all of presidents prior to Morales (and there were humdreds) were mestizo and therefore had an Amerindian heritage. I mean look at the picture of this guy: Mariano Melgarejo - not only does he look nothing like an Amerindian, he also gave away vast swathes of indian territory to Brazil!

I'm sorry, but this section appears to completely misunderstand the demographics of Latin America, and it is also unsourced. The comments from Mario Vargas Llosa are noteworthy, but the start of this section needs to be changed. Pexise 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About this discussion and the question of whether there were previous presidents with an indigenous heritage, I would like to point out that Victor Hugo Cardenas, Vice President from 1993-1997 and of indigenous descent, has not been mentioned. I suggest adding the following lines to the end of the first parragraph: "In addition, Víctor Hugo Cárdenas, indigenous of Aymaran descent, was the Vice President of Bolivia from 1993 to 1997. He was the first indigenous politician to ever reach such high electoral office in Bolivia or South America." I think it is relevant to mention Victor Hugo in this respect. If no one has an objection I will add these sentences.ajfernandez

In response to the comment above saying that Mariano Melgarejo does not "look" like an Amerindian, I believe we should refrain from making such statements as they can easily be interpreted as racist. I do not think it is appropriate to judge whether someone comes from a certain ethnicity or not only by his appearance, specially in Latin America where centuries of "mestizaje" make the line between indigena and mestizo very blurry. I consider myself mestizo and would not like someone to tell me that I have no indigenous descent just because the color of my skin is not "brown" enough. Claims of ethnicity might be hard to prove, but if Evo Morales says he is indigenous, then we believe him, and if Mariano Melgarejo says he is of indigenous descent then why should we not believe him? It is another thing that you do not like him because of the Brazil issue, but that has nothing to do with his heritage. ajfernandez —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, this issue is getting really confused, I think we need to be clear about things:

1. Evo Morales has never claimed to be the first Bolivian president with an indigenous heritage - that would be plain ridiculous.

2. I have never said that any of the above mentioned ex-presidents are not mestizo, and by that rationale that they do not have an indigenous heritage.

3. I appreciate that the race issue in Latin America is complex, but a distinction can be made between mestizo and pure amerindian. Evo claims to be pure amerindian. Mariano Melgarejo is clearly not pure amerindian, he is mestizo.

Also, the mention of Victor Hugo Cardenas is noteworthy, but not sure that it belongs in this section. -- Pexise (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The title "Controversy" followed by..... "has declared himself the first Amerindian president, a CONTROVERSIAL claim etc. is itself imflamatory and void of any substance."

Yes! The above writer is correct in that EMA has never claimed to be the 1st Prez with pure Aymara blood or anything remotely suggestive of that. But what does not sit well with some in South America is the fact that in Bolivia, a country with a self-described majority indigenous population according to the last census, he IS the first to not only admit he is native but to proudly display and honor his native heritage, whereas the others who preceeded him and may have had native origins either hid it or assuaged the issue. This is precisely the difference with Victor Hugo Cardenas, who always claimed to be an intellectual and although accepting his Aymara heritage, it was Bolivian media and his running mate Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada who always presented him as "an Aymara".

Now, one of the threaders points out that the last name "Morales" or "Cardenas" for that matter, are of Spanish origin as though that was proof of a Castillan, Catalan or Basque great grandfather. Well, it is not so! Colonial-Native relations are complex always. As in many other parts of the continent, when we (natives in Bolivia) were enslaved (legally until 1952), very often all the pongos-slaves working for the owner were given HIS name automatically. I've met many north-american natives and blacks whose names are quite Anglociced and I wouldn't present that in itself as proof that they are mixed-blood. However, if the person presents him/herself as "Mixed" or "Black" or "Mohawk", I go with that and respect his right to self-identify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llatunka (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I'll be doing the GA review. Because this is such a long article with a history of discussion, I'd like to take some time to review that discussion and the article history. I'll be leaving detailed comments later (Monday), once I've had the chance to review everything in detail. --JayHenry (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm terribly sorry to do this, but the {{fact}} tag does make this a "quick fail" situation. Those tags need to be fixed before an article can be nominated for GA. That said, this is a very difficult topic on which a lot of good work has done and you should be quite proud. World leaders are so often contentious that the articles are hopeless. This is coming along nicely; it is better than most of our world leader articles. Rather than just failing, I'd like to offer some pointers that may be worth considering going forward.

• Images are quite good. Thank goodness for that Brazilian news agency that has released their photos under a Creative commons license! Image:Evo_Morales_and_Felix_Patzi.jpg and Image:Walter Chávez.jpg are the only fair use images. Do we think that these images are really needed? Now, I understand the neither image is easily replaceable. But does the image of Morales with his cabinet really tell us anything? Food for thought.
• I don't want to do a sentence-by-sentence thing about the prose. I think it's okay for GA purposes. All articles could benefit from a copy edit.
• Structure. The structure of this article needs some thought and revision. Why, for example, is the inauguration section out of chronological order? What is the difference between controversy and criticism? Better yet, could these sections instead be integrated to where the events arose in the chronology? A recent Featured Article on a fairly controversial political figure was Ronald Reagan. Could elements of that structure be applied here?
• References. What's the story behind evomorales.net? Who produces that site? Is it a reliable source? (Just asking, because I don't know.) Also, there are some sources that aren't consistently formatted. Let's try to get accessdates on all web sources, language specified for all non-English sources, and make sure everything has its source stated.
• The lead section could probably summarize more of the article. Because this is a long one, a four paragraph lead is probably appropriate. See WP:LEAD for some pointers.
• Stability. You guys have done a good job of maintaining stability on a pretty difficult article. I commend you for that! That's the effort of diligent sourcing. To get this to GA standard, your big challenge will be sourcing the details about his ethnicity.

Hopefully these remarks provide some constructive guidance on how to move the article forward. I am very impressed with the work you've done on this difficult subject, and I hope you continue your quest to improve it. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to let me know. --JayHenry (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia's 1st Dictator?

Under President Morales' picture are the words 'Bolivia's 1st Dictator.' This is offensive and ridiculous, considering Bolivia has a long history of military juntas and dictators, and Morales is neither. Is this the work of a hacker? Can that be deleted?

Done. Pexise 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

De acuerdo. What should also be deleted is the following section added by someone with a very peculiar idea of what Wikipedia is. It reads as follows:

"In defense of Ponchos Rojos The writer of this article **MAYBE** lying. He does not know where was taken place the so called “dog tortures”. The name of the place it is not “wala chaca”. The correct name is “kala çhaca”, that means just “Bridge of stone”, from aymara language “kala”, ’stone’ and “chaca”, ‘bridge’. Second it was not a torture; it was just ritual to send a bad luck to the enemies. Third, he says that Ponchos rojos “proudly” show their arms “to members of the press”. Another lie. Ponchos Rojos never say that they don’t have arms. On the contrary they show them at the parades.

We support- I - different views of historical points, but please do so in a graceful and tangible way."

Ok, this is just plain ridiculous and does not make any sense. It should be deleted. Also, may I ask why someone deleted the section I added on Evo Morale's sentence by the constitutional tribunal for not paying child support? What could be a more legitimate source than the sentence itself. Is it because the sentence is in Spanish? Or is it because I need to back it up with a newspaper article? Because I can do that, so if someone could tell me if this is the case I will find an article describing what happened (which is already described in the sentence literaly). Please, I would appreciate some feedback. I believe this should be mentioned in the controversy section. The sub-section reads as follows:

" Constitutional Tribune Sentence for court ordered child support On June 23rd, 2004, Evo Morales was sentenced by the Bolivian justice for not paying child support to his son. As a congressman, at the time, he appealed to his parliamentary immunity to avoid payment. The mother, Marisol Peredo, appealed to the ultimate instance of the Bolivian legal system, the Constitutional Tribune, who declared that Evo Morales had acted against the "life and well being of his son, violating human rights in accordance with the San José de Costa Rica International Treaty". The amount accumulated was something more than USD 500 total. A court order was directed to deduct the monthly sum of 1,400 Bs for child support from his parliamentary income. Source: Constitutional Tribune Sentence http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gov.bo/resolucion9719.html" ajfernandez

certainly interesting fact about the person, but does this really constitute meaningful "controversy" in relation to the more political consequential (and certainly more debated) topics addressed in the section? Maybe there is some other place to put a short reference in the article? --David Barba (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Preamble

I removed a line in the preamble that stated that the fact that he was the first fully indigenous president was controversial. The line mentioned `mestiso' presidents. By definition, this excludes `fully indigenous'. Hence, it did not seem relevant. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I added some more information about his initial majority in the December 2005 election and then his increased majority in the August 2008 referendum. These figures are, I think, important. Second, I added some information about MAS and its political philosophy. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article split

the article seems to be getting a little long. Maybe some sections can be merged as subsections? For example, the constitution stuff can be moved into his domestic policy.

In a similiar vein, I think we can split off the foreign policy article along the lines of Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez. I have created Foreign policy of Evo Morales, however I did not as yet add and remove it here. Pending consensus here I will move move it and then add more on to his foreign policy. (oddly, there is nothing with Venezuela) Lihaas (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Remove Catholic from the president's Religious beliefs

the president has publicly stated numerous times that he doesn't have a religion. He is not catholic, and he constantly attacks the Catholic Religion in Bolivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.157.124 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's a source for this, and it's the government information agency, so quite trustworthy: [8] Pexise (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatherhood

I've added the neutrality tag to this section. It's an awful lot of material for a single edit and I feel like there's going to be some dispute over the information. I'd like to encourage any interested parties to discuss the section with civility and not let it get into edit warring. If I'm wrong, and no one else feels the section is controversial, please remove the tag post haste. --Leodmacleod (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's not written in encyclopedic style and is a lot of text for an issue of marginal relevance to the main reason for his notability - i.e. his career as a politician and social leader. I would suggest heavily cutting the section and adding some balance. Pexise (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree I don't think this issue deserves over 50k bytes, besides it should be noted that ErnestoJustiniano.org is a blog, or some some sort of social network where anybody can write articles, powered by WordPress so it falls under WP:BLPSPS. Perhaps it should be consulted with User:Gabrielferrer contribs (who introduced that section in January but got deleted) or User:Tupac Katari contribs (who restored it now) to see if they would accept a briefer text written with a more neutral language. Perhaps a section of Family and talk about his mother. siblings and children, no more than a couple of paragraphs. Erebedhel - Talk 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it's sourced to a blog. I notice there are no other sources other than ernestojustiniano.org. I am going to delete the section based the fact that it is contentious material with questionable sourcing, as set out in the rules set out in WP:BLP. Pexise (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ErnestoJustiniano.org

FYI, I have posted a question on RSN regarding the reliability of ErnestoJustiniano.org. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this and the above section, clearly the material was totally inappropriate; it was a long string of damaging accusations of questionable relevance, poorly sourced to blogs, YouTube, and polemical websites. According to [9], a reliable source, Morales has acknowledged having children out of wedlock. That is really all the article needs to say, and not in its own special section mislabeled as "personal life." Perhaps if we can find sourcing, we can expand that to "Morales has acknowledged having children out of wedlock, a fact that some political opponents have attempted to use against him." But really that is the maximum; we don't need the buckets and buckets of mud. EvanHarper (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section

Politicians are always involved in controversy; if there were no political controversies, there would be no need for politicians. A politician with an important position, such as a national leader, will be involved in many controversies, and these controversies will be covered by the media (possibly even ginned up by more partisan elements in the media.) It is not clear why Morales's article should have a "controversies" section; yes, these are real occurrences, and they are covered in reliable sources. But creating a special section to scrape up anything negative that can be found about Morales strikes me as a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Some of these controversies, such as the conflict with white lowland departments over the distribution of proceeds from mineral wealth, clearly are an important part of Morales's political career. Others, such as the resignation of a minor political adviser, probably are not.

As a comparison, Barack Obama's article does not mention Van Jones, and mentions Tony Rezko in exactly one sentence. The current "controversies" section is the equivalent of a Barack Obama bio that has a "Controversies" section featuring controversy over the health care bill side-by-side with "controversy" over his use of cocaine while in college. EvanHarper (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the things weren't even controversies; I've left the only genuine controversy here, and moved the rest to Presidency of Evo Morales. This provides the beginning of some structure, and will help coordinate the various places these issues are covered. The content needs improving there, and then summarising here. I'll try and do a bit. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that'll do for now. Needs a lot more work though. Rd232 ^talk 13:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S involvment

The accusation of U.S involvement in the coup attempt is being treated as fact. The reference is from a left leaning think tank and not credible. Like chavez, Morales has engaged in anti U.S diatrabes. We should not take his accusation as fact.Unicorn76 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Evo Morales is known for his repeated accusations of U.S. involvement in Bolivia's internal affairs, and if you'd ask him, he would never deny accusing the U.S. government of influencing social movements' leaders in order to undermine his popularity, so I guess the accusations are indeed plain facts (not the actual U.S. involvement). You can regularly find his accusations on the news that are published in the government's official information agency website . I find that reference useful, as it depicts a feature of his current foreign policy. 190.11.66.97 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Alfonso Encinas

Union Activity Section

The Union Activity section of the article is almost entirely sourced to the broken link www.evomorales.net. The second paragraph makes several large claims, which if to be taken seriously require substantive sourcing. A complete re-write seems most appropriate.

Removed Link

I've just removed the link below from the article as it appears to be a defunct website. The message on the holding page request the owner to re-register however, so on the chance that the site might come back I've saved the link here (with a spelling correction).

• www.evomorales.net - Information site about Morales and Bolivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.125.202 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

no mention of tipnis? more detail of DEA expulsion?

I happen to be a vocal supporter of Morales, but the TIPNIS controversy is certainly important and merits mention. It's a larger part of the critiques of Morales that actually come from the left and include several indigenous voices.

Also, the page should go into more detail about why he kicked the DEA out of Bolivia -- US agencies have a history of antidemocratic actions in Bolivia, and perhaps the most blatant such action involved the "Cocaine Coup" of 1980. Former DEA agent Michael Levine -- whose skills as an investigator and researcher are renowned and unimpeachable -- had published a book, "The Big While Lie" ("La Guerra Falsa" in spanish) which related his experiences trying to convict the narco-kingpin Roberto Suarez. After he arrested 2 of Suarez's lieutenants, the CIA arranged for the charges to be dropped and they fled the US, after which CIA assets in Bolivia tied to the Suarez cartel (including several military officers from the old Banzer dictatorship, and ex-SS Nazi Klaus Barbie) exacted revenge on the civilian government for having collaborated with the DEA: they overthrew the elected government in a very bloody coup that became known as the "Cocaine Coup." The book from Levine, himself an agent of the US Government and DOJ (DEA), confirms CIA involvement in the coup and CIA ties to not only the dictatorship (and Klaus Barbie) but also the Suarez cartel. So, with this obviously controversial episode having been confirmed by one of the DOJ's most scrupulous agents (Levine), Morales used Levine's book as part of the pretext for giving the DEA the boot from Bolivia: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/03/bolivian-president-uses-former-dea-agent-s-book-send-message-world. The other main reason was that, as stated in the article, Morales has long been an advocate for decriminalizing Coca growing for traditional users who don't intend to make cocaine out of it; he frames the US insistence on spraying this traditional crop where it grows indigenously (Bolivia and Peru, though not Colombia where it didn't originally grow) as a neo-colonial enterprise that flagrantly disregards (and in fact criminalizes) indigenous tradition and undermines the sovereignty of countries where the crop is sprayed. So, that notion, along with the book by Levine, was the context for the DEA getting thrown out of the country. I think this should be detailed more in the article, it only briefly mentions that the DEA will not be admitted back after Morales's re-establishing diplomatic relations with the US -- it doesn't really say why they were booted in the first place. And the DEA being kicked out of a country has never happened before, so it's a hugely historic event in the failed neo-colonial project known as the "War on Drugs." 68.193.168.214 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never be interested in these events. It's a biased view on every article. --Justana (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The article now has an entire paragraph, properly referenced, devoted to the TIPNIS controversy. Regarding the issue of why Morales' government expelled the DEA from Bolivia (and refused to allow it to return), I believe that it would be inappropriate to provide a lengthy discussion of the DEA's history in the country, given that this is not directly relevent to Morales' life and presidency itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

worth mentioning

Under Morales Bolivia became a founding member of the 'Bank of the South' (BancoSur) which seems a significant institution to me. That should probably be mentioned as that organisation has a significant influence in Latin America. On May 1st, 2012, he/they re-nationalised the Spanish owned electricity provider which supplied 73 %. First news left the question which compensation would be paid, if any, unaddressed. 144.136.192.22 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A well grounded president

Has a head of state's aircraft ever had airspace clearance revoked in mid-flight before today? Hcobb (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is worth editing in anyway as thoroughly notable and easily ref'd. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Evo calls current Bolivian president "El Indio"

http://elcomercio.pe/mundo/642638/noticia-evo-morales-se-siente-indio-boliviano-discriminado-ante-barack-obama

So can we report that use of the term? Hcobb (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This ref doesnt source its a perjorative term, strikes me the anon editor is using his western assumptions about a very different culture re the words El Indio. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is pejorative, but it has been repurposed by those who have been labeled with it in a manner not entirely unlike how certain groups in the United States have embraced labels meant to hold them apart as part of what holds them together. If you get my drift. What? I have to use the "N" word? Fine. I'm nerdy and proud of it. So there. Hcobb (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Read more at: Racism_in_South_America#Bolivia Hcobb (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a flaky article (though can be improved) but yes, what you are saying makes a lot of sense, both the traditional derogatory meaning of the term and the re-claiming of it by Indian ppl, including Morales. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And an even better background article for Evo.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/23/20050623-112430-1607r/?page=all

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/16/bolivias-budding-cult-of-evo

Hcobb (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"El Indio", should be referenced as a self-applied name or deleted, as "Indio" has historically a deep racist connotation, I think...

1st indigenous president

"Widely regarded as the country's first democratically elected president to come from the indigenous population" - What does "widely regarded as" mean? Either he is or he isn't. And again: "Morales identifies as ethnically Aymara, and has been widely described as Bolivia's first democratically-elected President from the indigenous majority." So is he or isn't he? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello there Mr Toad! I can appreciate your confusion on this issue, but the current wording has been chosen very specifically to reflect the nuance of the particular situation. Problematically, it really isn't a case of "Either he is or he isn't". A major reason for this is that it is very difficult to actually ascertain who is "indigenous" and who is not in Bolivia (and in many other parts of Latin America more widely). As with all racial categories, "indigenous" is more a fluid cultural construct than a set-in stone biological determinant; thus, Morales himself has both Aymara and European ancestry, and yet identifies as an Aymara indigenous person. Conversely, many other Bolivians – particularly in the urban areas of the eastern departments – share that same ancestral heritage, yet reject any assertion that they might be "indigenous" and instead identify as mestizo. In the Bolivian case, it has been argued that several previous presidents have similarly had Aymara or Quechua ancestral heritage yet did not explicitly identify as "indigenous"; hence, it can be argued (and has been argued) that technically, Morales is not the country's first indigenous president. However, what the sources on Bolivia make clear is that Morales' significance is that he is the nation's first president to proudly self identify as indigenous, and it is that factor which has won him the support of the country's indigenous majority, as well as support from many other self-described indigenous groups across the Americas. So it's a case of adhering to the point made by the reliable sources on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have appended an explanatory note to the end of that particular sentence, so hopefully that clears some things up for future readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

mas

while I appreciate the word más does mean more (though spelt mas it also means but) is there any evidence that the political party Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) has any connection to the word? I think we require a reliable source for the edit linking the word with the movement. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In this context, MAS (fully capitalised) is an acronym for Movimiento al Socialismo. It is a standard means of referring to the political party in Bolivia, in journalistic reports on the nation, and in publications within the remit of Bolivian studies; for instance, Sven Harten's important book on the subject is titled The Rise of Evo Morales and the MAS. Hence, it is not an explicit and intentional reference to the word más, although might operate as a bit of a double entendre I suppose. I hope that clears things up a bit, SqueakBox. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is a double entendre it can be added to the MAS article but with a reliable source that it is considered such, its highly likely given the potency of the word más for political sloganeers in Spanish speaking countries but without a reliable source we couldnt presume. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We'd need that reliable source if we were to include such information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Far left vs leftist

I would deny Evo Morales being of the far-left. far-left usually consists of anarchists, communists and libertarian socialists, those who want abolition of state, wages, capitalism etc. Evo Morales is a democratic socialist. i.e. not only is he not a revolutionary socialist, but he does not want to abolish the state. THIS IS NOT FAR-LEFT. There are many government around the world, particularly in Europe who are democratic socialists, NONE of which are levelled far-left, they are labelled left-wing. DocHeuh (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While there are commentators who do characterise Morales as far left (particularly in the mainstream Western media; see for instance this article from The Economist), I agree that this is a contentious issue, largely because there is no singular agreed upon definition of "far left". What an anarchist would deem "far left" differs from what a centrist or a conservative might, and so on. However, I for one would agree with your assessment that Morales should not be categorised as "far left" in this article; whatever his personal beliefs, his administration has been nowhere near as radical in its pursuit of a socialist society as (for instance) the Venezuelan government has. For all of Morales' rhetoric, it has not nationalised anything of great significance and hasn't sought to abandon a liberal economic model. That being said, I should point out that nowhere in this article do we currently label Morales as being "far left" anyway, so this isn't really a problem to begin with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Furthermore, as a European, the only democratic socialist government on the continent that I am aware of is the recently-elected Syriza government in Greece. We do have quite a few social democratic governments on the centre and centre-left of the political spectrum, but even though some of them have the word "socialist" in the name, it would be misleading to label them as "democratic socialists" when none actually call for the ultimate establishment of a socialist society. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

98.228.128.35 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)This article is a good example of why most intelligent people regard Wikipedia as a joke. A drug-dealing Communist portrayed as some sort of hero. Makes me want to puke!

If you are as intelligent as you like to think, then maybe you'd be aware that Morales is no communist, and while there are certainly concerns about the results of coca production in the Andes, no one has seriously accused Morales of even manufacturing cocaine, let alone dealing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A source that actually explores the ideology and government style of Morales and places it in the context of common left and right approaches would be a better option for this than a source that merely uses an adjetive. Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For more information on this topic, go to horseshoe theory. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Indigenous Andean religion or Roman Catholicism?--92.242.58.11 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Or a syncretic mix of both, perhaps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity and indigeneity

I agree that it is significant that Evo identifies as Aymara and that most people accept him as such. I disagree with having so much detail in the Lead about this, especially citing several academic studies by name. That kind of detail belongs in the body of the article; the Lead is to be a summary of major issues.Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; the lede merely mentions that he is Aymara and is recognised as the first indigenous president of Bolivia. It does not cite several academic studies by name, indeed it does not cite any. Are you perhaps referring to the Note, which is linked to from the lede but is not actually part of it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Dictator" of Bolivia

Calls Morales "dictator of Bolivia" which links to "President of Bolivia." Sounds like mischief to me. One of you fine editors want to look into that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.55.30.7 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia often suffers from WP:Vandalism, but we try to catch it quickly when it occurs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I came here to say the same. Could that please be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.218.101 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

Juan Evo Morales Ayma (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈeβo moˈɾales]; born October 26, 1959) is the dictator of Bolivia. A former cocalero activist serving as the 80th President of Bolivia since 2006. Article 168 of the 2009 constitution allows the President and Vice-President to put themselves forward for re-election only once, limiting the number of terms to two.

A constitutional referendum was held in Bolivia on Sunday, 21 February 2016. The proposed constitutional amendments would have allowed the president and vice president to run for a third consecutive term under the 2009 Constitution. The referendum was voted down by a 51.3% majority. Net1pro (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

"Military coup" Phrasing

I'd say referring to the current situation as a coup is too POV, but at the very least this needs to be settled before it turns into an edit war. Carlitos9595 (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A coup d'etat is an "overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means." Resignation in cooperation with a military ultimatum easily and objectively fits that definition. --Hatman92 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any source regarding this "ultimatum"? Asking him to resign is not an ultimatum. An ultimatum is "do X or else we will do Y" 199.247.44.10 (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case, asking him to resign did represent an ultimatum, being as the party "asking" was the military. It would be an extreme (and certainly not neutral) stretch to suggest that this may have represented anything other than an ultimatum. --Hatman92 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say the opposite would be the extreme stretch. Luckily we're on Wikipedia, where the only relevant factor is what reliable sources say. So again, do any refer to an "ultimatum" by the military? 199.247.44.10 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

NYT says Military suggested that he resign to restore public order. I cited and quoted this verbatim in the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary a coup is: A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. According to Merriam Webster's a coup is "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Reliable sources are not using the word coup, thus we should not. As a reminder this does fall under BLP. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/coup https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'état Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The circumstances concerning Morales' resignation fit both the OED and Merriam Webster definition of a coup. How are you defining "reliable sources"? There is no such thing as objective reporting, every source in journalism represents its own particular point of view. In this case, establishment Western media, e.g. the NYT, is less likely to refer to what is definitionally a coup as such, because it is not in their interest to do so. Wikipedia should do better than to to nakedly parrot Western sources. --Hatman92 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources Wiki articles on living people have the highest standards of any articles when it comes to sources. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CIA backed, Fascist Military Coup

Dark Days ahead in Bolivia as Evo Morales is ousted in a CIA backed, Fascist Military Coup. Coup leaders are already arresting senior members of Morales' government. After Bolivian opposition supporters burned headquarters of the electoral authority in Sucre, Chuquisaca as votes continued to be counted, and as Carlos Mesa conspires, claiming fraud. The mass arrests are already starting. Fun fact: Morales opponent Carlos Mesa is a member of the group "Inter-American Dialogue" - the Washington D.C.-based think tank headed by a guy who used to work for ″National Endowment for Democracy″. The CIA's fingerprints are all over this. Years of brutal oppression, mass arrests & mass murder expected. Next come the show trials & death squads, presided over by CIA backed Fascists. Once again. CIA has a 60 year plus record of Coups & Regime Changes in Latin America. --87.170.200.47 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Im glad not everyone is as dumb as you are. --Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ad personam argumets are always the best ;-) Dan Cohen will explain to you how it happened: The Bolivian opposition, OAS, US government and mainstream media manufactured a phony narrative of election fraud, setting the stage for the fascist coup against @evoespueblo. The self-declared president of Bolivia ("Áñez, racista fuera del Palacio"), who has said "the city is not for Indians", appointed a new cabinet without a single member of the country's indigenous majority. This coup is clearly aimed at restoring Bolivia’s old racist, classist oligarchy. Do US liberals support this? Trump this week, with Erdogan next to him, on Syria: "We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil." The US have been fighting wars to hijack oil, now we're fighting green wars to hijack lithium.

• The Trump Administration Is Undercutting Democracy in Bolivia - Will the US and the Organization of American States once again be able to overturn election results?
• At least six of the key coup plotters are alumni of the infamous School of the Americas, while that General Kaliman, commander of Bolivia’s armed forces, served in the past as Bolivia’s military and police attachés in Washington.
• CEPR' Mark Weisbrot: "The OAS (Organization of American States) lied to the public about the Bolivian election and coup".--87.170.200.28 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

80th?

Why does the article say that he is the 80th president but on the list he is the 67th, and the interim president is the 68th? Nusent 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List of presidents of Bolivia gives 67 presidents, but it does not count the interim presidents that served in between the counted presidents, that is my interpretation of it Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

in template infobx successor : Why Adriana Salvatierra and not Jeanine Áñez ? Salvatierra resigned before being able to act as president. 92.154.41.65 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed Jeanine Anez because, currently, noone is able to know what happens next : there is no succession yet till a valid president of the senate is defined or a new election (with which laws ????) occured. 92.154.41.65 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Mewulwe's lead at Jeanine Anez. I've removed the numbering, as it can't be sourced & thus verified. The numberings should be removed from all bios of Bolivian presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format

According to Date format by country and other sources, Bolivia uses the DD/MM/YY date format instead of MM/DD/YY presented on this article and several other articles on Bolivia Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

Please change "Adrianna Salvatierra" as acting president to "Jeanine Áñez". I don't understand why this keeps getting reverted. Coming from a Bolivian user myself who literally just made an account to edit this - Adrianna Salvatierra resigned on November 10th, thus discluding her from the presidential line of succession. Since the vice-president, president of the Senate (Salvatierra), and the first vice-president of the Senate have resigned too, Jean Áñez (the second vice-president the Senate of Bolivia) is next in line. SpicyCheese (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Already done No mention of Adrianna Salvatierra anywhere in the article at present. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 03:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Third presidential term: 2014–2019

The order of mentioning thinks is not at all unimportant. When I first read the article, I only read the beginning of each paragraph and I got the impression, that a so to say "friend" of Morales was against his reelection. In the way I wrote it now, you cannot avoid reading both the information (so, also that he later changed his mind). There is some more information that is actually based on facts and not just on allegations or opinions of people. I am also not so sure, that someone cannot appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. I mean, right after Anéz got the "presidency", the Court changed the law again. So, either the decisions can change, or Anéz pressed the Court to make a new decision... But I don't have any source about this, so I left it like that. Yomomo (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, I hope this helps:

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice had nothing to do with any of this.

The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution has the task to interpret Bolivian laws, to verify that they are constitutional. They can simply say if something is constitutional or not. They do not have the power to alter the constitution.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an international court that "rules on whether a State has violated an individual's human rights" They are part of the OAS. "The Organization of American States established the Court in 1979 to enforce and interpret the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights" Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights

All member countries of the American Convention on Human Rights have agreed that the treaty will override the country's own laws. Most of the countries in the Americas (including USA) are members. Court rulings apply to all member countries, not just the country specified, unless otherwise indicated.

- So the The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution was presented with the argument that the OAS treaty made term limits a human rights violation. The The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution decided that they would allow the argument, pending a decision by the OAS. In the meantime, The Supreme Electoral Tribunal approved Evo's reelection application without waiting for a decision by the OAS.

The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution did not make any changes to Bolivian law, rather accepted that if the Treaty made term limits a human rights violation, then Bolivia could not have term limits. - This would have applied to every elected position, not just president. And it would have applied to every member state, not just Bolivia. (incl the USA)

Colombia immediately registered a case against term limits as a human rights violation with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Eventually, the court decided that terms limits are a not human rights violation.

Once the interpretation was struck down, automatically the Bolivian constitution was no longer overridden on the point of term limits, which reinstated the Bolivian constitutional law - limiting the president to 2 terms.

As for Áñez: The Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution, as part of its regular function, certified that Áñez met the Constitutional requirements for succession.

I hope this clarifies the situation. Laella (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Laella for your thorough explanation. I still have two questions on this matter:

• "Eventually, the court decided that terms limits are a not human rights violation." Do we have a source on this issue? I'm just wondering why Luis Almagro changed his opinion and supported the participation of Morales, when the court of the organization of which he is a president decided for the opposite.
• I thought that the decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution over Áñez is a disputed issue among law experts. In the way you are writing about it, I become the impression, that there is no dispute on this issue. What is the case now? Yomomo (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding good resources in English (most are in Spanish). Here are a few links to the OAS statements on term limits as a human rights violation (please note dates)

• https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=S-011/18
• https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)010-e

If I find more, I will add them.

As for why Almagro decided to support Morales' reelection - That is a topic of some suspicion. Miami Herald opinion: OAS chief gives a boost to Bolivia’s dictatorship. What does he stand to gain?

Technically, at the time Bolivia's Constitutional Tribunal made their ruling, the OAS Court had not made an all-encompassing ruling about term limits. They had only issued a limited document, specific to a few countries in Central America. Even so, it was a strong indicator of how the OAS Court would rule in such a case. This grey area is what allowed Bolivia to proceed. By the time the OAS court made official statements (2018), Morales was already registered for the next election. Another grey area - technically he should have been disqualified then, but he was allowed to remain on the ballot.

The decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Constitution over Áñez is not controversial legally, it is controversial politically. The Tribunal (consisting of the same members who presided over the decision to allow Morales to run for reelection) has the ultimate authority. They published their decision on Nov 12, 2019. 2 days after Morales' resignation. There was one member of the court who abstained in dissent. They laid out the basis for the succession, including that because the President resigned and left the country, rather than emitting an act of resignation in writing to congress, the constitution does not require congress accept the resignation (it's like resignation by abdication). Specifically it says, the vice-president immediately assumes the role. It then specifies the applicable law of order of succession that leads to Áñez.

Sorry, this one is only in Spanish TCPB Comunicado

--Laella (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Camacho as activist

When the word activist over Camacho's actions in this context and article should be part of this article, then it should at least define the form of the activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomomo (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is agreeable to me. Note that my most recent edit is merely adding a dash to your addition ("right wing" to "right-wing"). Jaydavidmartin (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually no native speaking english, so sorry for the mistake :-) Yomomo (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Sorry for not putting references here, but I'm a private person and full time working, so, you can look in the respective articles to proof the claims mentioned here. I would very much appreciate, when anyone could help me clear these issues in a more appropriate way, conforming to the Wikipedia rules.

I see in the whole description of Morales request to become president (for the 4. time) some issues, where I think NPOV is being violated. I would like some more information about these issues, but I cannot read Spanish.

• It is often mentioned, that Morales himself asked for a limit in the presidency (2 times) and then changed his mind.
  • On the first place: The government under Morales seems to have changed its mind quite often, sometimes for the shake of its supporters and sometimes for the shake of its opponents. One example for the latter, is the autonomy given to regions. Saying "he had promised, but then did something else" without saying that changing opinion is part of a democratic process and of any discourse is an "accusation" that reflects a certain bias against him. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules?
  • Further on: As far as I know, Morales is an elected leader of his party. I see quite often remarks, that say that he is sticking on the president position but I see no reports regarding his being elected there from a large majority of his party, even in the current very difficult situation. He is actually also a kind of elected king for his people, whereby the title is no title for life and no title for a fix period, it is more a title of respect that the person becomes from its people, so long this is the case (if the people don't want him, he loses the title). Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules?
• It is also mentioned, that his reputation was damaged after a mud campaign over allegation about a liaison to a woman and so on. Although it is quite possible that his reputation was actually damaged, I don't see any sources that have really counted the effect of this campaign on the outcome of the referendum. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules?
• Over the decision of the supreme court, it is often mentioned, that it was under his control. Not only didn't I find adequate sources supporting this supposition, I didn't also find any mentioning of the impossibility of such an argumentation. By every decision of the supreme court that supports the government, this would be an argument against the decision and by every decision that is against the government, this argument wouldn't make any point. But this is no legal argument, it is only a way to push decisions against the government. I see many opinions about the court's decision, but the actual legal argument of the court is ruffly mentioned. Do we have more information on this issue and is there a way to make the argument more objective and according to the Wikipedia rules? Yomomo (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am having trouble following your writing, but I will try. Maybe it would help if you mentioned specifically what sentence from the article you have issue with?

Morales didn't ask for a term limit. He oversaw a completely new constitution. The 2 term-limit was part of the new constitution he oversaw (previously, it was limited to one consecutive term)

He did change his mind, and wanted another term - which is why he held a referendum (21F) - he said he would abide by the outcome, and he lost.

That is not bias - he said he would not, then he obviously did run again.

I explained the "supreme court" issue above, in response to your previous post.

He is not an elected king of his people, and I really dont understand your issue that he is elected by his party?

The Zapata controversy has referenced links - what about it is an issue?

Laella (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply in detail, but I think the references as of 6th Jan 2020 seem solid with regard to several of the issues you raise. Morales could have appointed a successor and MAS would have likely stormed the election without any problem or the corruption that went on. There is a lot of corruption in Bolivia in general, however, and it is fair that a lot of those involved face up to their crimes. Look up some reports on corruption in Bolivia. There are several in English. With regard to the most current allegations, there are holes and misappropriated funds in publicly owned companies - one (Entel) to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I know you cannot read Spanish, but using translate in Google translate is extremely helpful if only for your own personal interest. Morales own personal involvement is not clear at all, but I would say he either knew about it or turned a blind eye to the activities of his associates. As far as I know, there is nothing implicating him directly other than things he financed for his role as President and that was never extravagant in the bigger picture. The Zapata stuff matches all that I know about it that I have heard from Bolivia and seems well researched. Being an elected king... well I doubt that he was ever really elected. It's an honorary title given by a committee of elders as far as I understand it. Like an honorary degree given to a person prominent in the community. There are a lot of them I think. I could be wrong on that, but it is not a king as we would understand it. I am not sure how being leader of the party works, but you need to understand that MAS really came together as a coalition of pre-existing parties and he was the one to bring them together. A lot of the factions that joined up with him to achieve victory are doubting his role now. A new generation of Masistas, like Eva Copa, seem to be fine without him. I know Bolivians who view him as a traitor to the Process of Change. They don't support him, but they support the Process. With regard to the legal argument for Morales changing the rules of his own constitution, I think that a lot of countries don't have terms limits so it is up to them, but the fact that Morales is changing his own rules is what people are very unhappy about, but also in the wider context of discontent with the immunity and corruption of the 14 year government it just made people angry. I invite you to check out the Bolivian press in these matters, even through the lense of Google translate. The rest of the world is way behind.Crmoorhead (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I will add a note here to say that Yomomo exclusively edits Bolivian politics articles, and has shown clear favor towards Morales. Directed at Yomomo: please note that this is a Good Article and as such has been assessed by Wikipedia as neutral. You can't just declare it POV and start making changes in poor English. Kingsif (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

first indigenous president

There are explanations of this in 2 different places in the article, should they be merged?

From Personal Life:

Morales is ethnically Aymara, and has been widely described as Bolivia's first democratically-elected President from the indigenous majority.[10][6] Although Morales has sometimes been described as the first indigenous president to be democratically elected in Latin America, Benito Juárez, a Mexican of the Zapotec ethnic group, was elected President of Mexico in 1858.[7]

In a special note at the end:

Morales is described as the first indigenous president of Bolivia in academic studies of his presidency, such as those of Muñoz-Pogossian,[2] Webber,[3] Philip and Panizza,[4] and Farthing and Kohl,[5] as well as in press reports, such as those of BBC News,[6] However, there have been challenges to this claim by critics who have asserted that Morales probably has some European ancestry, and thus on genetic grounds is technically mestizo rather than solely indigenous.[7] Harten asserted that this argument was "misguided[,] wrong[... and] above all irrelevant" because regardless of his genetic makeup, the majority of Bolivians perceive Morales as being the first indigenous president.[7] In Bolivian society, indigeneity is a fluid concept rooted in cultural identity;[7] for instance, many indigenous individuals that have settled in urban areas and abandoned their traditional rural customs have come to identify as mestizo.[8]

The controversy is not that Morales has some European ancestry. The controversy is that he is not Bolivia's first indigenous/mestizo president. (Ignoring indigenous presidents from other LATAM countries for the moment) The first indigenous/mestizo president of Bolivia would have been either Andrés Santa Cruz Calahumana or Bautista Saavedra Mallea, depending on how you calculate. There are other Bolivian presidents who were likely mestizo, but their ancestries not known definitively, so it is impossible to prove. There were also at least a couple of mestizo presidents who were not democratically elected. Laella (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaiagenesis edits

There were a lot of edits made by this user on several pages that have been reverted elsewhere. This includes a reference to this source . Quite asides from the fact that this is not how it is been reported by any other Bolivian media, I am not sure how reputable or even real the website is. There were also a bunch of other references to the CEPR analysis of the election containing opinion on their analysis and NPOV elements concerning responses to their analysis. This information and further analyses of the election carried out by others is dealt with on other pages and is more up to date there. Crmoorhead (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The website is known to be part of the first large-scale social media influencer campaign of the MAS / Evo Morales presidential campaign. (citations in spanish, if I find english explanations, I will add them) - Laella (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Gracias por eso! Certainly there is a lot that didn't seem right about it. Thanks for the background. The same information is being used on the President of Bolivia page but I did not edit that yet as there were a dozen edits made throughout yesterday and it is hard to untangle what should be removed and what not. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Cult of Personality

(edit to say: I am re-deleting the comment from the article now that there are sources to say otherwise)

The article currently states "Unlike his ally Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, the MAS does not revolve around his personality." I deleted that opinion, and had the edit reverted with the following comment "reverting removal of sourced content. It is possible that Harten's claims are incorrect, but we would need sourced Reliable Sources to contest his statement."

My list below includes some smaller, left-biased, media source to show that even more left-leaning media considers Morales to be a Cult of Personality, and it is not an "opposition" opinion. I hope this is what was needed. So here I am posting reliable sources to contest the idea that "Evo Morales is not a Cult of Personality".

It’s true he was no longer as popular as he had been. It’s true his rule had lately taken on an authoritarian tinge. There were signs of democratic “backsliding” and of an unattractive, Castro-esque personality cult.

The bonuses and other social programs keep the majority happy, and the result is that Morales enjoys a cult of personality very similar to that of former president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

In the past years, Morales has had a conciliatory policy toward agribusiness, while governing on the basis of authoritarianism and a cult of personality.

We build an ever more important cult of personality around the figure of Evo Morales. This allowed him to win the second election overwhelmingly...

In recent years Evo, as he is widely known, showed increasing signs of believing his own cult of personality, which MAS has promoted in part because of its failure to cultivate a politically viable successor.

Bolivia TV’s informative style is typical. Reporters usually appear on screen with the following introduction: “Now we are going to interview residents of this town so that they can express their satisfaction with the new public works carried out by the government of President Morales.” The cult of personality is ubiquitous in government-controlled media.

A staunch ally of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, Morales can best be described as a “narcissist-Leninist.” Following the steps of late Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, he has built a strong personality cult and uses radical leftist rhetoric. Critics in Bolivia jokingly refer to him as “Ego” Morales. He has built a $7.1 million museum — the biggest in the country — to glorify his life story in his home village of Orinoca, about six hours by car from the capital. He named it “Museum of the Democratic and Cultural Revolution,” but everybody in Bolivia knows it as “Evo’s Museum.”

Old complications might compound the economic difficulties that Bolivia will face if a proper political transition is not made. Morales’ party, the Movement for Socialism (MAS), has not sought an alternative to Evo, a reflection of the cult of personality that developed around him which, in the opinion of many experts, is another reason for his fall.

Laella (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Same source used twice

Sources 315 and 319 (from The Guardian, titled "Bolivian president Evo Morales resigns after election result dispute") are the same. Could someone please erase one? Thanks in advance! --177.230.47.65 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks for that. Now corrected.

Burrobert (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

MIT / CEPR study discussion

This has been an issue in several articles that want to include the secondary CEPR study. People seem to be doing verbal gymnastics to mention MIT, in order to lend legitimacy to CEPR's rehash study (From CEPR's description of the 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]. " - So not an independent study.)

MIT has unequivocally stated they don't want their name attached to this study. Per letter from MIT: "... this study was conducted independently of MIT... it should be referred to as a CEPR study..."[2] MIT has also stated that the authors should be cited as "independent contractors to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)" and not as employees of MIT. Laella (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a few things to note about this study and there is an interesting article written by an expert in election modelling that compares the OAS and two CEPR (the original and the one by John Cushiel and Jack R Williams) and discusses the merits and failings of each. . Cushiel and Williams are quoted often as MIT election experts, but when one examines their credentials they are not as impressive as one might believe. The MIT Politics department has an impressive list of scholars , none of which appear to be willing to be connected with this study. The Election and Data lab has 5 members and a lot more affiliated graduate and undergraduate students. Cushiel completed his PhD less than a year ago and his areas of expertise are in public health dentristry and rezoning of voting districts. Williams, as far as can be determined, does not have a Masters or Phd and obtained a BA in 2017. Quite aside from that, Williams signed a public document denouncing the interim govenment as a coup with supporting evidence from the original CEPR report before the full OAS report was ever released. The work he is meant to be "independently" verifying. Compare their qualifications as experts with the head of the OAS study, Irfan Nooruddin, who is a Professor at Georgetown University and has written a book on electoral democracy , Walter Mebane, who is a professor of both statistics and politics at University of Michigan and who said that fraud existed (although he debated whether or not it would change the result of the election) and Diego Escobari, Associate Professor at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and Gary A. Hoover, Head of Economics at the University of Oklahoma who concluded even more forcefully that the election was fraudulent.. The article I mention was also written by a professor-researcher at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences, Rodrigo Salazar Elena, and what he has to say is important because it actually does a comparison of the studies.

Firstly, when comparing the two CEPR studies, he says "I invite readers to compare the documents and judge for themselves that it is, except in a few details, a replica of the same analysis." They are not claiming anything particularly new. Secondly, that "the prestige of MIT and the Washington Post was enough for many commentators to take for granted the conclusion that CEPR had reached earlier" and that "statistics is a subject that requires training that most of us do not have, so when taking sides in disputes on these issues many will be guided by issues such as reputation and prestige." CEPR have a lot of motivation in getting the MIT name in this. Salazar also says "It must be remembered that the OAS audit presents evidence of different irregularities. Statistical study is only part of the analysis. In this sense, by concentrating the discussion on this aspect, this shows the propagnadistic effect of the relaunch of the CEPR analysis." Thirdly, he says that the CEPR reports don't confront head on the lack of continuity around an arbitrary point in time, which is the basis of the conclusions of the OAS. "A rebuttal of the OAS analysis would have to mention which feature clearly distinguishes voters on either side of the threshold, to account for the jump of about 10%", he says. CEPR avoid this evidence entirely and use other means to attempt to prove the opposite. Fourthly, with regard the the Curiel/Williams and earlier CEPR report, he does not criticise their methods, but points out that they also rely on an assumption of geographic continuity in the results. He also points out that what flaws there are in that assumption. In summing up, he says "If you read a headline like "Simulations from MIT specialists show that Evo won in the first round," it sounds like they're launching rockets into space. Not so, not even close. On the one hand, the OAS analysis has not been properly refuted. On the other hand, the CEPR-MIT analysis is valid only if one is willing to believe in an assumption that is at least as difficult to sustain as that of the OAS audit." Furthermore, there is also a lot of OTHER evidence of fraud or attempted fraud in the OAS report that the CEPR study just ignores as if it is irrelevant and do not answer the question of whether or not the elections should be anulled. CEPR in response to one of these rebuttals of their work state "neither the report by C&W nor their piece in the Monkey Cage proves there was no fraud. C&W did not set out to prove there was no fraud — merely to investigate whether the data supported a specific claim by the OAS. There is no amount of analysis that can suffice to prove there was no fraud." They make similar statements on another piece that states "This analysis is not meant to serve as a validation of the electoral results themselves. Rather, it is an analysis of the OAS’s actual findings and of the neutrality and rigor of the audit itself. This is not about supporting one political party or candidate over another. Nor is it solely about Bolivia. This is about the need for independent electoral observation in the hemisphere, and about accountability for an organization that has abandoned any semblance of neutrality under the leadership of Secretary General Luis Almagro."

So, in contrast to saying "there is no statistical evidence of fraud" CEPR are saying that whether the elections were valid or not is secondary to their criticism of the OAS.

Crmoorhead (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The narrative of a rigged election in 2019 that the Trump-regime/OAS peddled to support the coup has been thoroughly debunked. MAS’s support is mainly from indigenous Bolivians in the countryside, so it takes longer for their ballots to be collected and counted than those of the better-off city dwellers who support MAS’s neoliberal opponents. As the votes came in from rural areas, there was a swing to MAS in the vote count. By pretending that this predictable and normal pattern in the election results was evidence of "election fraud" in 2019, the OAS bears responsibility for unleashing a wave of violence and death that, in the end, has only delegitimized the OAS itself. Fast Forward to the election in 2020: rarely have a people so firmly and democratically repudiated US efforts to dictate how they will be governed. --217.234.69.211 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

OAS reports and rebuttals (2019 election controversy and resignation - 2019 election)

This section is absurdly large. It is the largest section on this page right now - 5 paragraphs (over 1200 words). There is a note on this section to go to 2019 Bolivian political crisis for more information. The rest of this section should be reduced to a short summary. The OAS report and rebuttals are NOT actually about Evo Morales directly. They do not contribute to an understanding of Evo Morales. Also, it falls into the problem on many of Bolivia's pages where basically the exact same information is over-described on many different pages, which means that information has to be updated in too many places when there are updates. If no one objects, and no one else wants to do it, I am going to cut this down to one paragraph. The details can be added to "2019 Bolivian political crisis" if they are not there already. --Laella (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, and there will doubtless be more studies both for and against the conclusions of the OAS. We cannot keep adding arguments for and against every study. There is a place for that, as you say. If there are similar presidents with content on wikipedia with precedent, it may be arguable, but seems like this is becoming a battleground to clear or damn Evo's name. These studies don't speak about his personal involvement in the alleged fraud, which would be more pertinent. Seperating into groups of those that say no evidence of fraud, those that say there was evidence of fraud, but it had a negligible or unknown effect on the result, and those that say both there was evidence of fraud and it had an effect on the results could be an idea. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

can you post your proposed paragraph on the talk page first so that other editors can provide comments before the article is updated? Burrobert (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a proposed paragraph. I propose to delete the 5 paragraphs about the OAS report and rebuttals. It can be replaced with "reports and rebuttals have been issued, see 2019 Bolivian political crisis for more information, if needed (or something along those lines). Then, polish the remaining information if needed (adding transitions, etc). Laella (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

.

Confusing chronology

I know this is a really sensitive subject, but the article currently gives no indication of how Morales ended up in Mexico; the first mention of Mexico in the body of the text is "In December 2019, Morales moved from Mexico to Argentina, where he was also granted political asylum". Can someone familiar with the situation add something about the initial asylum in Mexico? --Dylan Thurston (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dylan Thurston. Yes there is a gap there that needs to be filled. Burrobert (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)