Talk:2019 Bolivian general election

Can anybody please help update this page?
More candidates than provided have qualified for the general primary, but I cannot translate the Spanish language. Google translated the El Universo article which I sourced, but it cannot extend to words spoken on video.2601:447:4101:5780:2C2E:6C7E:587C:2241 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Evo Morales reelection?
I read today in on Twitter that the Supreme Electoral Council supported the referendum that President Morales canNOT run for reelection in October. Is this true? Anyone know of anything? Ballers 19 (Talk)  2:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

preliminary results
the TREP figures here are Bolivia only. You need to select "mundo" to get the complete result with more than 10% difference. --Caeschfloh (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

chamber / senate seats
There should be a second percentage for each party, because everyone had 2 votes, 1 presidential, 1 diputado --Caeschfloh (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Mundo and Bolivia sections differ on vote tally
Apparently, I can't source the Mundo section, so we're stuck with Bolivia as the source unless there is is way to source Mundo.2601:447:4100:C120:21F4:F740:6313:EED5 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Center for Economic and Policy Research
I'm increasingly worried that the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is given the same weight as the Organization of American States. The reason to cite the CEPR is cited is because it's apparently the only reknown source to have disputed the audit results. Per WP:NPOV it's alright to show a counter position, but I fear a false balance knowing that a regional organization which was an observer in the elections is given the same weight as a think tank in Washington that was not. I really want to avoid an ad hominem argument, but the CEPR has been described as left-leaning and pro-Bolivarian Revolution. Mark Weisbrot's statements in his BBC interview are not quite impartial either.

Knowing this, I would like to ask everybody to be mindful of due weight and neutrality. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. The people you should be taking your concerns up with are at the International Business Times, and the Guardian... you should not be using your personal opinions and original research as excuses for deleting perfectly relevant and reliably sourced information. If you feel there should be more weight added to the OAS viewpoint, then by all means, use further reliable sourcing and add more details if you see the need. But your current reasoning and that BBC interview do not give you latitudes over policy to call facts gathered from reliable sources "undue", nor are there policies that grant you the ability to revert every edit to this page you don't like (in fact there's a big one that advises specifically against that: WP:OWN). 2. The OAS was almost literally founded on the principle of stopping leftism in the Western Hempisphere, so I find it a bit far reaching to pretend the CEPR cannot be correct in their analysis of the election observer's statements merely because they weren't the direct election observer (in fact, the policy on primary sourcing would specifically only accept data from reliable sources that are not covering themselves). Them being being headquartered in Washington is also irrelevant to the reliability of their analysis, as the OAS is also literally headquartered in Washington.
 * Simply put: Appeals to authority do not substitute the community's policies on reliable sourcing, verifiability and neutrality. So, I kindly suggest you revert your changes or at least restore most of the content to the position I placed it in. If you would like to trim some of what I added, fine. But, deliberately placing the content in another section just because it refutes what one organization said, so as to make it appear as though there is only one "official view", is simply not acceptable behavior. ☕️ (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't make personal accusations against me. Addressing the most important one, if I wanted to revert every new edit in the article I would have deleted the whole CEPR position. I welcome any change that can improve the article, and if I disagree with any of them I do my best to support my position with policies and guiderlines.


 * Months ago the CEPR published a report attributing 40,000 deaths in Venezuela to international sanctions, which was refuted because of inaccuracies, methodological errors and bias.


 * I have to stress the differences between an intergovernmental regional organization and a think tank. The OAS was founded in 1948, more than seventy years ago, while the CEPR was founded in 1999, only twenty years ago. It's interesting that you mention the OAS' alleged intentions to "stop leftism" in the continent, since before the audit the opposition was very skeptical of the organization, critizicing Secretary General Luis Almagro for endorsing Evo Morales' candidacy despite the results of the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum, and that the opposition didn't even want an audit of the elections at first. Needless to say, the times of the Cold War are long gone and the events such as the expulsion of Cuba happened decades ago, and any alleged bias of the OAS should be evaluated with a contemporary perspective.


 * Not only I am worried about the WP:FALSEBALANCE of the report, but also that the article is currently written in a chronologic order. Placing the CEPR as a direct response to the OAS audit would give the false impression that the report was published before Morales' resignation, which is not the case. The portions that are trimmed were direct criticisms to the OAS and not about the audit per se. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamez42. Having seen your edits over a few different South American election articles in recent months, I am beginning to have some serious concerns about your ability to comply with NPOV. You've allowed it to become obvious via your edits that you are not a fan of left-wing governments on the continent – this is not something others should be able to deduce by your edits in mainspace. The CEPR report has been covered by reputable international media and its inclusion should not be such a problem (I noticed that you tried to remove it entirely when it was first added). Number   5  7  15:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I want to apologize because I'm noticing that I could have solved many of the concerns I raised with a little bit more of insight. I'm leaving the edit diff here to point out the last changes I made. I'm seeing that the CEPR has indeed been covered broadly, and while by no means Media bias/Fact check servers as a rule of thumb, the site rates the CEPR's factual reporting high. Once again, I hope my edits have not been or appeared disruptive. Please let me know if there are any other additional problems. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really disruptive. However, the most recent moving around of the text didn't work – something was introduced as contradicting the OAS before the OAS viewpoint was stated. Usually in situations like this you would note a criticism first, then a rebuttal. Number   5  7  18:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still worried that the current phrasing confuses the OAS preliminary declarations with the final audit report. However, I'll leave the article as it is for the time being. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So long as US policy makers continue to have a controlling stake in the OAS, it serves as an arm of Wahington's foreign Policy interests in the region and it doesn't deserve to have any standing on the legitimacy of any election whether that election be in Haiti, Bolivia or any where else.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/256679-haiti-us-interference-wins-elections https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/haitis-doctored-elections-seen-from-the-inside-an-interview-with-ricardo-seitenfus 144.121.24.250 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

If the report is referenced, then for the sake of full disclosure, it should include the information that MIT did not endorse the report, and that the report was commissioned and paid for by CEPR. Laella (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere where it says it was paid for. Number   5  7  11:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no mention of payment. The MIT study provides an independent analysis which is the basis of scientific methodology and as such belongs in the article. "Rehash" isn't a proper description and we have no basis for expecting a priori that the results in the MIT report would be the same as those of CEPR. Mentioning that the CEPR asked the MIT researchers to re-analyse the data is fine. I am not sure what is meant by "it should include the information that MIT did not endorse the report". I didn't see that the page included a statement to that effect, however it is reasonable to provide the researchers workplace. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The study was commissioned by CEPR - by definition that means paid.
 * It is reasonable to provide the researchers workplace as long as it doesn't imply endorsement, or the insinuation that this was a work-related investigation. The article currently states "The OAS findings were later contradicted by a MIT Election Data and Science Lab study" - which does make it sound like a study undertaken by MIT, rather than researchers who happen to work there. Laella (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

CERP report in lead
The CERP report should not be explicitly mentioned in the lead, as this gives it undue weight. My underlying concern here is false equivalences on wikipedia. The OAS report was compiled by dozens of official observers and auditors on the ground and its conclusion was accepted by both sides, leading to the election being overturned. It is only due to the extraordinary status of the OAS report that it is appropriate to mention explicitly in the lead. The CERP report is a work of sloppy armchair analysis. It was cited casually by a few sources, yes, and I won't dispute it being cited in this article for that reason (though the extensive weight it is given certainly degrades the quality of this article). However, to feature the CERP report in the article lead alongside the OAS report is a grotesque false equivalence. It would be far more appropriate to have a sentence saying the OAS conclusions were disputed and to cite the CERP and whatever else, without namechecking it and putting it on a par with the OAS. Zekelayla (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the section above and there was no consensus to remove it. Number   5  7  22:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The concerns raised above by Jamez42 about CERP as a source are generally valid. The point above that citing the CERP report in the article is in line with Wikipedia's policies is also valid. But that discussion does not, at least not explicitly, address whether the CERP report should be mentioned in the lead. Note that the arguments I am raising are quite independent of the problems with the CERP report. Even if it was a good source, that would not mean it should be highlighted in the lead on a par with the objectively important OAS report. The lead should mention key points and events in the election. The OAS monitoring and report was itself a key facet of the election. The CERP report was not. Zekelayla (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Open letter by intellectuals denouncing OAS claims of fraud
A number of intellectuals have denounced the OAS's claims of fraud and said evidence does not support this. This seems worthy of a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This letter is an amplification/rehash of the CERP report, but would be worthy of mention in discussion of the CERP report. Zekelayla (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

OAS final report
The OAS published their final report of the audit, concluding to have found "malicious manipulation" in favor of Evo Morales and "overwhelming" evidence of vote rigging. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This does need to be included. Here is another article by The New York Times.ZiaLater ( talk ) 19:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mebane Report
I have a question about how to include this information: One of the supporters of the theory that there was no fraud, cited in this article, later changed his mind. He is still being quoted in this article as saying he thinks there was no fraud. Even though his report was updated to state that he now thinks there was fraud. How would be the correct way to add that information? The original change I made to the article was this:

"Analysis by Professor Walter R. Mebane at the University of Michigan initially found no evidence that fraud affected the outcome of the election. However, Mebane later changed his opinion concluding that he did believe that it was likely there was enough fraud to avoid triggering a runoff, changing the ultimate outcome of the election."

My addition was reverted with this comment "Your analysis is of the study is WP:OR. The title remains the same: 'Evidence Against Fraudulent Votes Being Decisive in the Bolivia 2019 Election'. You would need to use WP:SECONDARY sources that report on it. But it is acceptable to cite to it, so I left the citation."

I don't understand how this would be Original Research? What I wrote is paraphrased from the report by Mebane. Is there a correct way to show this?


 * This is the text from the report: "'The original draft of this note (everything except this paragraph) was produced on November 5, 2019. On November 13 messages from a couple of people lead me to think the best formula for the counterfactual vote proportion with frauds reallocated, if all “stolen” votes are credited to CC, is (2889359 − 2240920 − 2(22519.8 − 5295.8) − 5295.8)/(6137778 − 5295.8) = 0.09925756(.09866303), which would put the election results below the level need to avoid a runoff election.'"

Laella (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the edit, but if you have a source reporting that he changed his mind, especially if it has a direct quote from him, then it is relevant. For the CEPR report, I added in that ""The New York Times noted, however, that this criticism has "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count" "" I also think that the fact that these are reactions to the preliminary report is chronologically significant. CEPR did a preliminary report on the full information given by the OAS and make an explicit statement that they do not suggest anything about the actual results of the election. I noted other findings outside of the OAS too in the main article. Crmoorhead (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I will try to look, but the source I have is the author's own addition to his paper (the last quote I made above)
 * On the first page, he added a paragraph 8 days after the original was published (according to his dates, as he put them in the paper).
 * Paraphrased, it says "The original... (...except this paragraph) was produced on November 5, 2019. On November 13 messages... lead me to think ...blah blah blah... which would put the election results below the level need to avoid a runoff election."


 * So it was his own change, in his own writing, to his own document - to my mind this is basically a direct quote.
 * Laella (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

His note has been completely misunderstood. I had an email correspondence with him in which he said that the note merely introduces a case in which all the purportedly stolen votes are awarded to Comunidad Ciudadana, which would represent the absolute most extreme interpretation of his analysis, and he takes no position on whether such an interpretation is plausible or not. (It isn't. Doing so would give CC vote share similar to that which they received in the election as a whole, except here it's in the MAS's areas of most fervent support.) Futurebum (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Looking at Mebane's note more closely it is clear that he has calculated a worst-case scenario for Morales. Both of the two assumptions he uses in his updated formula favour Mesa over Morales. Firstly he assumes that all votes that his model identified as "manufactured" (i.e. votes cast under the name of someone who was not going to vote) were awarded to Morales (none to Mesa). He deducts these votes from Morales total and from the total votes cast on the basis that these are not real votes. Secondly, he assumes that all votes that his model identified as stolen from one party and given to another, were in fact stolen from Mesa and awarded to Morales (and so Mesa stole no votes). He therefore deducts these votes from Morales' total and adds the votes to Mesa's total. The total number of votes cast is not effected by this second adjustment. In reality there is no basis for supposing that all "manufactured" and all "stolen" votes went to Morales and Mebane does not attempt to attach a probability to this event. Burrobert (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Worst case scenario for Morales"? Morales needed a 10% margin over Morales, not anyone else. If fraud was taking place (and all of the additional evidence implies that it was attempted), it makes complete sense that they would transfer votes from Mesa to Morales, not from or to anyone else. Every vote from Mesa to another party, or from another party to Morales widens the gap by 1 vote, whereas from Mesa to Morales widens the gap by 2. It's simple maths. What's unlikely about this scenario? Crmoorhead (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, reassigning the purportedly stolen votes to CC would give them a vote share in these areas similar to that which they received in the election as a whole, but now I suppose I will explain my thinking. You want the votes to be reassigned to CC for precisely the same reason that you claim the MAS stole them from CC: Because this is the most efficient means of expanding or reducing a gap between the two parties. You are simply working from the opposite direction. If you read the paper, you'll see that Mebane claimed 22520 'fraudulent' votes, of which 5296 are 'manufactured', which would be 'fake' MAS votes caused by excess turnout, and the remaining 17,224 are claimed to be 'stolen' from other parties. If you count up the 274 mesas he flagged, you get 51,303 valid votes in total. Throw out the 5296 'manufactured' votes and you get 46,007 valid votes remaining. His analysis, as I said, claims 17,224 'stolen' votes, which if reassigned to CC means that, in addition to the 498 they already received before any adjustments, they would get 17,722 in total. If you calculate their vote share, you get (17,772 / 46,007) = 38.63%, which is somehow even higher than the 36.51% that Mesa received in the election in general. This is preposterous in view of the fact that 183 of the 274 mesas flagged by Mebane are in the Tropic of Cochabamba, which I'm counting as the provinces of Chapare, Carrasco, and Tiraque. Many of the others are also very close to this area. I know this is 'original research', but you asked why it was unreasonable, so now I am telling you. You argument doesn't even make sense. Let's say Mebane is right and there really were 17,224 stolen votes. As you said, stealing them from CC would do the most to expand the margin between the MAS and CC, but that doesn't mean there's no advantage to stealing them from other parties as well. A vote is a vote, even is it's coming from a 'non-optimal' source. Also consider that, in aggregate on the 274 mesas cited by Mebane, no party other than the MAS received over 2% of the vote. Futurebum (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, expanding the margin is the ultimate goal. To suggest they give votes away to another party with half the advantage when nobody knew how close things were going to be seems preposterous. Mebane also says in the paper that he believes that the second estimate that says the fraud is significant is the "best formula" and he hasn't changed that since November. The email you show is entirely neutral one way or the other. Secondly, Mebane operates on the assumption that fraudulent votes occurred - he is not saying that no fraud existed, only that according to his "new model", they are not significant enough to turn the election. His model categorically says that fraud existed and it may or may not have changed the actual result of the election. Note that this is counter to the claims of CEPR who said, twice, "there is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find". So you got to pick one. Thirdly, these figures for the mesas and number of votes are entirely taken from the black box new "eforensics model" with no way of us knowing how accurate these figures are except entirely on trust. Your own maths depends on the fact that no more mesas that can be flagged as fraudulent. Truth is, Mebane's model uses Bayesian probability theory and many assumptions to determine these flagged mesas and that requires threshold parameters to be set. Change the parameters, you change the number of fraudulent votes. We have no idea how accurate the eforensics model is at anything as his many election predictions have no ground truth to test against. Mebane should properly be included in the group of people claiming that fraud happened. Crmoorhead (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean about gifting votes to other parties. You are operating from some belief that votes would only ever be taken from CC, never from anyone else, as if reallocating from others had no marginal benefit, and it still does not make sense. If it happened, it was probably to simply award all votes, no matter where they came from, to the MAS and then in some cases to distribute a few token ones elsewhere. The real question is about what the voting in these places actually looks like, as compared to the reported totals. Is there anything anyone can point to which says that Carlos Mesa would get nearly 2 out of every 5 valid votes in rural areas in the Tropic of Cochabamba? I just skimmed non-flagged mesas from those areas and almost the second you move out of that urban zone that encompasses Cochabamba and Sacaba - that is, move away from CC's urban middle-class base - the vote counts for CC get incredibly dire. They're fortunate to get 20 votes on a table outside of a provincial capital. But these ones Mebane has flagged all have, on average, at least 63 CC votes on them? Inconceivable. It's clear on reading Mebane's paper that what he's actually doing in the note is correcting some formulas from the previous paragraph in which he proposed the edge case of giving all the purportedly stolen votes to CC, but his formulas are not actually doing this. The first in effect treats all 'fraudulent' votes as 'stolen' votes from non-CC parties and subtracts them from the MAS's total, and the second makes a distinction between 'manufactured' and 'stolen' votes, but in effect fails to add the stolen votes to CC's total. It's true that this extreme case allows for the purported fraud to have been large enough to change the result, but as I explained previously, a counterfactual version of these mesas with all or even most of the alleged frauds reassigned to CC is implausible.


 * I'll ignore the teeth-gnashing about CEPR. We're in a section titled 'Mebane Report', after all. Mebane's paper has always been extremely up-front about what it's doing. The title is literally, "Evidence Against Fraudulent Votes Being Decisive in the Bolivia 2019 Election." It's an attempt to assess the magnitude of the fraud and determine whether it could've swung the result, not to flatly declare whether there was or wasn't fraud. If you want to make an analysis of your own where you blow out the parameters to get the result you want, then go ahead, but you're not talking about Mebane's paper at that point. I don't like his black box any more than you do, and in fact have my own issues with it, most of which are of course from the opposite direction, like the fact that his counterfactual about the tables in question makes them completely unlike anything around them.


 * I know what you're about. We've interacted before, as I'm sure you recall. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. I see those erroneous EU statistics are on this page as well. You've probably been quite diligent about making sure they remain there. That's called being a Wikipedia contributor, didn't you know? Maybe one day a news organization will see fit to do a little arithmetic - you know, a fact check - but until then I guess noting that they're completely wrong still counts as 'original research'. At any rate, I won't be responding to you again. I came to provide a useful clarification about Mebane's paper, since I saw that the Wikipedia article misrepresented it, not to be lured into a pointless, draining argument. Futurebum (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Before I disappear again, I must tell you I've dusted off my junior high math skills to bring you yet another piece of dreaded original research. Unless I have miscalculated, using Mebane's mean values, the break-even point for the 10-point margin is 12,671 votes stolen from CC. This would imply an average of 48.06 CC votes on each of the mesas in question, for a total vote share of 28.62%. I still do not think this is plausible, but it is an easier case for you to defend than Mebane's boundary case. You're welcome. Futurebum (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are quoting statistics without sources in terms of numbers of votes. Mebane's work lists all the suspect mesas with the total number of votes subdivided into valid and invalid followed by the number of fraudulent votes in the two categories "manufactured" and "stolen". You say Mesa would have needed 2/5 votes in rural areas of Cochabamba and that they were fortunate to get 20 votes (out of how many?) outside the capital but would need to get 63 votes on average (out of how many?) to make a difference. Where are the numbers coming from? And what is the distribution of numbers of votes per mesa? Is "average" the mean or median? You make sweeping claims about numbers all in rural areas, but that is only part of the data and you have no way of estimating what should happen. With regard to Mebane's tables, I don't know what threshold he is using, but it appears that almost all of his flagged data has a greater than 50% MEAN rate of fraudulent votes. Lesser rates of fraud don't seem to figure - this is the trouble with the black box model he is using, asides from the fact that we have no idea how accurate it is. Taking the first few lines from the Chapare region, on page 9 of the report, the mean rate of fraud to total votes is 153/230=66.5%, 105/198=53% and 144/209=68.9% with the ratio of manufactured/stolen being around 1/4 pretty solidly for all cases. Many of the mesas in that region have 210 or so votes on the day - I have no information on the individual breakdown of those votes - even if we only attribute part of those stolen votes to CC, Mesa would be getting the numbers you say are impossible. The alternative is to load a massive share onto Chung, Ortiz or Patzi which would give them percentages WAY above what they achieved anywhere else in the country - they only get 8.8%, 4.3% and 1.3% of the vote. A further statistical analysis would need to be done to see if they were receiving a much lower share than expected in similar regions. For your "easier case", in most difficult of the three regions above 48/198=25% - not a high share of the vote. Assuming CC reported no votes to begin with (unlikely) that would mean only 48/105=46%, less than half, of the stolen votes need to be taken from CC. If they only got 10 reported votes (5% of the share) then they only need one in three stolen votes transferred. They don't need anywhere near 100% of stolen votes to be attributed to them, even in these regions, and that was the worst case of my three examples above. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I swear this is the last time I respond here. And to think, all this started with me simply providing some useful, basic information about Mebane's note. OK, I sent you two separate links to sources for the final Cómputo spreadsheet when we argued on the other talk page a month and a half ago. You really didn't download either? Fine, I will provide them once again. Please download them this time, so I don't have to do this again. Here it is from PablitoActas, or if you don't trust Pablito, then here it is from Édgar Villegas, although Villegas's final Cómputo sheet is missing four mesas, possibly the ones which were annulled. All my statistics are aggregate ones based on the 274 mesas mentioned by Mebane in his annex in the back of his report. Here is a Pastebin of the mesa IDs if you don't want to do the spadework of extracting them from his tables. When I calculated the 10pp break-even point for the mean values, I simply solved the following system of equations. 1: (x + y = 22519.8 − 5295.8). 2: (2889359 − 2240920 − 2y - x − 5295.8)/(6137778 − 5295.8) = 0.1. Where 'x' is the number of votes purportedly stolen from non-CC parties, and 'y' is the number of votes purportedly stolen from CC. As I said, the solution to this problem is y = 12,671. As reported, these mesas already have 498 CC votes in total, so you can calculate the average per mesa by doing: 498 + 12671 = 13,169, then (13,169 / 274) = 48.06 CC votes per mesa. To calculate vote share, you take the number of reported valid votes on these 274 mesas, which is 51,303, then subtract the 5295.8 'manufactured' votes to get 46007.2 valid votes in the counterfactual. Then you calculate vote share as: (13169 / 46007.2) = 28.62%. My observations about the voting trends of these tables is based on taking the final Cómputo sheet, filtering for mesas from Chapare, Carrasco, or Tiraque, marking those flagged by Mebane, and then opening up a Google Maps tab and seeing how the voting trends evolve as you move away from urban centers like Cochabamba-Sacaba. As I said, CC's vote totals are quite good in cities, and even in some municipal capitals like the locality of Villa Tunari, but when you move away from there and into the outlying areas, CC's vote totals plummet to single digits in most cases. For example, in the municipality of Villa Tunari, Mebane flagged 71 mesas and not a single one was from the municipal capital of Villa Tunari. When you said Chung, Ortiz, and Patzi would have to outperform what they did in the rest of the country to make up the votes, you are getting close to the real heart of the problem: the vote totals on Mebane's counterfactual mesas are not credible. I am attacking this from one direction, that Carlos Mesa's counterfactual totals would not be credible, and you are attacking it from the other by talking about Chi and Patzi and so on, but common to both is that the counterfactual vote totals are not credible, to my mind because they do not make sense with those around them. (I know this is original research to the n-th degree, but like two months ago, I wrote a crude simulator to predict vote counts based on CEPR's naive 'random' Monte Carlo method, and one of the pre-made categories I added was Mebane's 274 mesas. You can see from the projection that they look similar to those around them. I could maybe add some options to force cruder matches to avoid possible localized fraud, although I might have to add some controls on that.) If you look at Mebane's computer input/output in his report, it looks like he labels the geographic identifiers at the start and then ignores them for the purposes of the analysis, although it's possible that there's a built-in assumption about their ordering reflecting geographic proximity. I don't know. I'm daunted by the black box too. It's even possible that all these things are supposed to work out in the aggregate and attempting to scrutinize individual counterfactual mesas is a mistake, although it seems like he might have mentioned that in his email to me if it were the case. (I'm not emailing him again!) You said you went through the mesas in the back and his adjustments to them. Did you notice how nearly identical mesas from the same precinct can receive wildly different vote adjustments? Or how severe all the adjustments are? Just to take an example, flip to page 14 and look at the bottom mesa, #35300. If I'm reading his table right, and that's a big 'if', this mesa went from the MAS receiving 169 of 194 valid votes, to 24.4 'manufactured' votes being lopped off, so now 144.6 of 169.6 votes, to then 98.3 votes being declared 'stolen', so the MAS ends up with 46.3 of 169.6 votes. (OK, if the right-most set of columns ['Votes Mean'] is the count of both 'manufactured' and 'stolen', then that's 73.9 'stolen' votes, so 70.7 votes out of 144.6.) Hell, in Mebane's counterfactual, they could have lost this table, even though if you look at the municipality as a whole, you see the same pattern I mentioned: a couple votes at the municipal capital, and then it's a bloodbath in the less-dense outlying areas, but nowhere is there any indication that 48 CC votes are on each of the sheets highlighted. This is generally true for all the mesas he cites. As I said, though, perhaps this isn't a fruitful approach. Hopefully he'll write that second paper and shed some more light on all this. This is really, really my last comment. Bye. Futurebum (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You say that "the vote totals on Mebane's counterfactual mesas are not credible" and yet are using his exact numbers to prove that the level of fraud is implausible because it gives too many votes to CC or other parties. You also say "I'm daunted by the black box too. It's even possible that all these things are supposed to work out in the aggregate and attempting to scrutinize individual counterfactual mesas is a mistake". That is possible, but leaves us with 3 choices. One, that the levels of over 50% fraud in many mesas are credible. This could also imply that Mebane's model is not capable of detecting smaller levels of fraud and that many more than the 274 mesas he flags contain fraudulent votes, in which case the implausibility of transfer votes to CC is ameliorated. As it runs on Bayesian inference, this seems possible and he only flags tables that have significant probability of fraud. Two, they are not credible individually, but meant to be aggregates. I feel less inclined to believe this as hs model works on Bayesian principles, but if this were the case we have the same situation where the fraudulent votes are spread over many more mesas and the swing needed becomes less difficult. And, three, that Mebanes model is simply not credible period, that we, and people using it as evidence for the elections viability, should not use it at all. This might just be something Mebane was playing with because that's what researcher do. It may be highly theoretical with no basis in ground truth and Mebane did not expect to have an effect on decisions about the election at all, never mind be quoted by Morales. His model has been around for a while, but it does not seem to be used by anyone other than himself (according to his own references) and, although he presented on it, I don't think it has been accepted fully by peer review journal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is how research is done, and this could be preliminary work. With regards to the linked tables and geographic similarity, I cannot tell how geographically close or how rural or urban any mesa is from a table. Some in the same municipality have almost 100% votes for MAS, which is concerning, and blocks of 150-200 votes could be rural, urban or right next to each other and have very different results. And that is from the one page you linked to. There is also the issue that OAS pointed out about precincts that reported both before and after the cutoff. We don't have these flagged in Mebane's model and it is claimed that there was a sharp swing here that may be more visible if we had the details. As you know the details of Mebane's report, you will note that many people quoting it's conclusions either do not understand it or cherrypick the conclusions. They will claim that "only" 274 mesas out of 34000 were fraudulent, and not cite high levels of over 50% fraud in those flagged mesa and not mention the note that mentions the "best formula" saying that a run-off is needed. They do not have any good idea how it works with either of our objections.


 * For you own simulations, and the original CEPR work, I will have to look carefully at the key assumptions, but it is clear that they are happy to ignore the core issues pointed out by the OAS and not figure them into their modelling process. There are also some disagreements with the later CEPR commissioned work. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Due weight
I hoped that a undue weight inline would be more helpful than trimming or moving the text, but sadly this does not seem to be the case. In the past, I have already expressed my concern that "regional organization which was an observer in the elections is given the same weight as a think tank per WP:FALSEBALANCE, and now with an individual report. At least a part these concerns is shared by other editors. I'm not sure if in the Washington Post the "Analysis" section is comparable to the Opinion articles, but the cited article was written by the authors of the research, which would make the article a primary source, and WP:OPINION might need to be taken into account.

In any case, my main concern in the lead is about length, not content per se, since the latter is developed in the "External reviews, annulment of election and resignation" section, which means that if there's a feeling that there are too many details included about the OAS reports in the lead, they could also be trimmed and I'd be happy to help with it. The paragraph in the lead about the analyses seems to be longer than the paragraphs of both the results and the aftermath. I would have appreciated a ping or to be asked about what my concerns were. What I fear is that what could be legitimate or helpful imputs are disregarded with character assassination. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Following the same line of thought, was it really necessary to say "This is getting pathetic now"? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) My primary concern is that the two editors trying to diminish mentions of the reports that contradict the OAS are driven primarily by an anti-Morales POV (which is clear from their editing history), and are trying to find policies to justify their attempts to remove such information. The most recent attempt to cast doubt on the MIT report by tagging the Washington Post source (when it was very easy to find secondary coverage of it) is a case in point, hence the aforementioned description of the tagging borne out of frustration of having to deal with this.
 * The OAS report is currently covered in most detail in the introduction, with specific cherrypicked details included in the introduction clearly intended to present it as an open-and-shut case (the inclusion of the text "an outside user who controlled a Linux AMI appliance with "root privileges" — conferring the ability to alter results — accessed the official vote-counting server during the counting" being a particularly egregious example of innuendo). In contrast, the other reports are covered much more briefly. If anything there is possibly still too much weight given to the OAS, but I am not minded to change this.
 * If you are concerned that all are covered in too much detail, we could shorten it to a couple of sentences along the lines of "The Organization of American States conducted an audit that found "clear manipulation" and significant irregularities. The OAS conclusions were contradicted by reports from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Walter R. Mebane at the University of Michigan and researchers at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab" and then leave the details to the aftermath section. Number   5  7  16:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * When you say "two editors", do you mean Laella and me? In the past you haven't specified what is "clear" from the edit history, even less in the case of Laella. Personally as I think I have said in the past, I don't want that merely my editing history in controversial topics is interpreted as a POV.
 * I think the proposed text is a good alternative, with minor changes but with the same structure. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you think it should be written? If we can reach agreement, I'm happy for the new text to replace the existing paragraph. Number   5  7  18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One quick note: Mebane - he later revised his opinion to state that he does believe there was manipulation. I don't care if you leave him out, but he shouldn't be used as a counter to the OAS report, given that he doesn't counter it.
 * Laella (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. I think there should be mention of the publication of the full report, without going into details. I think it's also weird that when mentioning Mebane, he's the only researcher where both his name and his institution are mentioned. For example, members of the OAS observers or Mark Weisbrot are not mentioned. For consistency, I believe either "Walter Mebane" or "University of Michigan" should be included. The text could be more or less as follows (changes in italics): The Organization of American States conducted an audit that found "clear manipulation" and significant irregularities, releasing a full report afterwards. The Center for Economic and Policy Research, Walter Mebane and researchers at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab contradicted the conclusions". Does it sound alright?


 * Could you please elaborate on Mebane's revision? Is there an online source where this is available? --Jamez42 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, I made a section above to discuss it previously. But the quick version: If you go to his published report, and read the bottom paragraph on page 1, it says
 * "The original draft of this note (everything except this paragraph) was produced on November 5, 2019. On November 13 messages from a couple of people lead me to think the best formula for the counterfactual vote proportion with frauds reallocated, if all “stolen” votes are credited to CC, is (2889359 − 2240920 − 2(22519.8 − 5295.8) − 5295.8)/(6137778 − 5295.8) = 0.09925756(.09866303), which would put the election results below the level need to avoid a runoff election.   - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/Bolivia2019.pdf"   Laella (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The OAS report was given weight because they were the official observers of the election and Morales stated he would accept their results. There are a number of findings in this report (and indeed in that of the EU) that are ignored by the CEPR report. The recent report seems no more than a repackaging of the CEPR analysis 4 months later by attempting to link it with MIT as an institution and it has come under considerable and detailed criticism by OAS and several Bolivian newspapers. MIT distanced itself from the finding and there are many reasons to suspect that the study is far from "independent" as one author already signed a petition denouncing the events in Bolivia as a military coup before the OAS even published its report and the other is strongly linked with Evo's political allies.    . More detailed criticisms at can be found.  These were the first Bolivian sources I looked at, but no doubt you can find similar reports and criticisms in El Deber and El Potosi or any of the major newspapers. The recent analysis runs along the same lines as the CEPR one. They run 1000 simulations on how the counts were being reported but if there is reason to doubt the counts, then there is reason to doubt the simulations. They have no field work. The OAS had 36 analysts in the field, operating with the support of the Morales government. The EU also had people in the field. In contrast, the reports claiming no fraud are by people that had already stated that there was a military coup and no fraud before the OAS had published any results, and doing so from a comfortable geographic distance. Simulations can be run many different ways if you choose your assumptions in such a way as to support your initial belief. One would wonder why this took so long to do and if their methodology is peer reviewed. Bolivia needs to move on, not be subject to potentially destabilising reports from Western think-tanks that may do more harm than good. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed the lead paragraph following the discussion in this section. However, I invite other editors to continue improving the due weight of the issue and to reflect the content in a balanced way. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Number 57 removed the mention of the OAS' proposal to summon new elections and appoint a new electoral commission. I want to leave clear that the inclusion of the proposal in the text in no way was meant to "give more weight to the OAS report" or its findings, but rather to mention merely the recommendations as a response to them, without going into the details of why, in sight of the additional comments here. This can be further discussed to decide if it should be included or not. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The OAS and other assessments of the Bolivian election
Editors might be interested in a recent article published by FAIR related to the various reports on the Bolivian election. I’ll mention some of the interesting points it makes:

Firstly its description of the MIT study: "Late last month, MIT Election Data and ScienceLab researchers John Curiel and Jack R. Williams published an analysis of the election results in the Washington Post (2/27/20). The study was commissioned by CEPR to show that its analysis could be independently verified. The MIT researchers concluded that there "is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find," and that "the OAS’s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed.""

Next, the effect of the OAS study and the way it was handled by the media: "The OAS’s lies proved lethal to Bolivians and devastating to their democracy, but the OAS evaded all accountability because, when it mattered most, corporate media shielded it from scrutiny. Between the October election and December 26, Reuters published 128 articles about the political situation in Bolivia that all failed to mention the efforts to get the OAS to retract its bogus statistical claim. Instead, Reuters regurgitated that claim many times without a trace of skepticism (FAIR.org, 12/19/19)."

The FAIR article mentions a letter published in the Guardian : "On December 2, the Guardian published a letter signed by 98 economists and statisticians asking the OAS to retract its false statistical claims".

Here is a quote from that Guardian letter: "In fact, it is easy to show with election data, which is publicly available, that the change in Morales’ lead was neither "drastic" nor "hard to explain". … And the change in Morales’ lead was not "drastic" at all; it was part of a steady, continuous increase in Morales’ lead for hours before the interruption. ... The explanation for the increase in Morales’ margin was therefore quite simple: the later-reporting areas were more pro-Morales than earlier-reporting areas. In fact, the final result was quite predictable on the basis of the first 84% of votes reported. This has been shown through statistical analysis and also by even simpler analysis of the differences in political preferences between later and earlier-reporting areas".

Here is what the FAIR article says about the other "irregularities" mentioned in the OAS report: "Stung by its lies belatedly getting some high-profile criticism, the OAS responded angrily to the study. The researchers looked at only one of the allegations it made, the OAS complained, saying other "irregularities" validated its assessment of the election. Amazingly, the OAS also said it continues to "stand by" its bogus statistical analysis. All elections have some "irregularities" and "vulnerabilities", as any US voter should be well aware. That does not automatically justify throwing the results in the garbage. If it did, any election could be unjustly discredited by unscrupulous monitors. Moreover, CEPR did address other allegations, in the presentation the OAS refused to allow it to make (FAIR.org, 12/19/19)".

The FAIR article concludes with: "At this point, the OAS report on Bolivia’s election should be discarded, except for the purpose of a credible investigation into how such appalling work ever came to be done—and promulgated uncritically, and turned to such devastating effect".

Burrobert (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above article does not seem unbiased as it opens by straight-out claiming that Morales won outright and proceeds to say that the OAS report, the only people appointed by Morales to do the study, is not only incorrect, but "lies". How can the study be "independently verified" when the people doing the verification have already publicly submitted their support of the CEPR simulations in writing? FAIR also have pretty much been solidly saying there was a coup since the start, without any consideration about the nuances of the situation. Truth is, they (and many others), know very little about Bolivia other than Morales is a socialist leader who affected positive change in his country. That is true, but the omnipresent cult of personality, massive levels of corruption, coercion and control over state employees to support MAS and turning a blind eye to narcotics in Chapare and other places are also inescapable facts, as is the fact that Morales overturned a referendum. These people would be very uncomfortable living in Bolivia under MAS and likely would be the same people taking to the streets after the election last year. Those people are not right wing extremists, but young people who saw unfairness in how MAS was controlling the country. Not one of these articles is willing to contemplate any of Morales', or rather MAS, faults. They are not unbiased in any way and anyone who has spent an appreciable amount of time in Bolivia with real Bolivians would be a bit less one-sided about their opinion. And nobody seems to be reading anything in the Bolivian media where there is an abundance of information. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The articles from FAIR, CEPR, the Guardian and Curiel and Williams analysed the OAS report and the election data. All found that there was no evidence of fraud and that the OAS analysis was faulty. The Guardian article says that the analysis is straight forward and the data is available to the public. The trend in Morales’ lead was "not "drastic" at all; it was part of a steady, continuous increase in Morales’ lead" which existed "for hours before the interruption". I think we have seen enough analysis by qualified academics to accept this now. The various articles do not discuss the nature of Bolivian society, whether Morales is a good or bad person, whether Morales was a "socialist leader who affected positive change in his country", whether he "overturned a referendum", whether they would be comfortable or "uncomfortable living in Bolivia under MAS" etc. Those are separate issues and not relevant to the analysis of the election data. Burrobert (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * But the OAS report was echoed by the EU report also, and both organisations consisted of large teams that had access to the materials and people involved in the election. Again, Morales endorsed these investigations. Guardian did not analyse data at all - it is not difficult to find a list of people to object to what they believe to be a "military coup". The petition does not show the people they contacted who refused to sign. FAIR also did not perform academic analysis, they only reported on others' work. The only people who have done this are a small team at CEPR and two people that they commissioned to replicate their work. People whom they know supported their work in that past. This is not rigorous or independent, nor has it gone through the peer review process in an academic journal, despite what you may think. The nature of Bolivian society etc is extremely relevant as it shows the bias of the analysts and those that back them up. They are meant to be organisations solely concerned with truth, yet if they have not had a single concern or criticism about the state of Bolivian affairs that I can find in decades of reporting, then maybe they have alternative motives for their conclusions. You say that Almagro and Longaric's comments are unsurprising - so is this analysis. And the original analysis was made before the full OAS report was even completed. CEPR had already committed to undermining any analysis the OAS was to present. In a CEPR response to the full report, the author very specifically says that they do not seek to verify the legitimacy of the election, only to discredit the OAS and Almagro's handling. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Morales asked the OAS for a report.
 * How do you know the authors of the Guardian letter didn’t analyse or assess the CEPR report? The letter was signed by economists, experts in their field. The letter goes into detail about the significance of the election data indicating that the signatories did more than just provide a signature.
 * What is the point of saying “The petition does not show the people they contacted who refused to sign”? Apart from the fact that it is a letter not a petition, is there any reason to think there were people who were asked to sign and didn’t?
 * How do you know that the MIT researchers were “People whom they know supported their work in that past”? What does 'support' mean in this context?
 * You make some claims about the CEPR’s concern for “the state of Bolivian affairs” etc. I am not interested in discussing this as it takes us away from the analysis of the election results.
 * I find it difficult to believe that the CEPR stated that it does “not seek to verify the legitimacy of the election, only to discredit the OAS and Almagro's handling”. Do you have a reference?
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As there is a lot of overlap between the questions, I will just point you to the CEPR website to look at their initial response to the OAS full report and quote the introduction: "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." This is in response to the full report, released after their own simulations were published and the petition was created. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Two more articles on the response to the recent analysis, including the letter written by MIT saying that they "do not endorse or otherwise offer an opinion on the findings". Karen Longaric said it "lacks scientific and academic value". Indeed, why has this analysis not been subject to peer review in 4 months? Crmoorhead (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As we have already observed in the wiki article, Curiel and Williams were commissioned by CEPR to see if the CEPR results could be independently verified. As far as I can tell this was known from the start and there was no attempt to hide it. I haven't seen any mention that a monetary contract was involved (it may have been) and there is no reason to think that the nature of the relationship between CEPR and Curiel and Williams would effect the outcome of the study. The comments by Karen Longaric and Luis Almagro quoted in the articles you mention are not surprising and need to put into context. One is the Chancellor of Bolivia inaugurated by Jeanine Añez after Morales resigned and the other is the Secretariat General of the OAS. You asked "why has this analysis not been subject to peer review in 4 months?" I assume you mean the CEPR analysis. Doesn't the letter published in The Guardian confirm that other experts have confirmed the CEPR's results? Didn't the CEPR commission Curiel and Williams to have their work peer reviewed? Have the results of the OAS been peer reviewed other than in the articles already mentioned here? Burrobert (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A petition is not academic review. Peer review means you do not previously know the reviewers, and especially not know that they are guaranteed to support your conclusions. Casting out a net to get signatures from sympathetic ears is a PR stunt that only shows that Morales has supporters in the West. The OAS, and indeed the EU, had a multidisciplinary and multinational group of electoral experts whose job it is to be impartial. CEPR are not obligated to be impartial, in fact they are unlikely to publish anything that would be critical of Morales or support the OAS. If their work is so compelling, then why do so many governments (with the obvious exceptions) accept the current government as legitimate? Why did International Socialist accept the findings of the OAS over the CEPR report and state that "Morales did not suffer a coup d'etat"? The OAS and EU reports are far beyond the scope in terms of peer review in academic journals, but the CEPR analysis is a good size. If they want the stamp of legitimacy on this study, they should NOT go to people who are their known friends. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What I find odd is how desperate the interim government is to shut down any potential criticism of the OAS report, even that happening in another country. Going as far as writing a letter to a university whose researchers have published a paper does not appear to be normal behaviour. From an outsider's perspective, it immediately raises the question as to why they are so touchy about this. Number   5  7  16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's hardly odd since the analysis seeks to undermine their legitimacy entirely. Of course it demands a response and further investigation. It's all over the Bolivian press. Furthermore, although you might not view it so, the CEPR report and later analysis are examples of Western interference in Bolivia's sovereignty. That is a subject that people have a lot of resentment towards in Bolivia. They see the suggestion that the people's movement that removed Morales had anything to do with the US as an insult to their own self-determination. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Where you are getting your information that
 * The study by the MIT researchers was "guaranteed to support your [i.e. the CEPR] conclusions"
 * Someone cast out a "net to get signatures from sympathetic ears" (for the Guardian petition I assume you mean).
 * Supports your faith in the impartiality of the OAS. Over half the OAS’s budget comes from the USA.
 * The CEPR would be "unlikely to publish anything that would be critical of Morales or support the OAS"
 * The CEPR went "to people who are their known friends" to have its work independently assessed.
 * Burrobert (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Jack Williams was a signatory on the 2nd Dec petition using the CEPR findings published before the final OAS report on 5th Dec. I cannot find any information on John Cushiel's opinion about anything since his Twitter feed seems to not exist beyond last week, but he achieved his PhD less than a year ago and his academic papers are in rezoning/gerrymandering and public health dentistry. CEPR's opinions are easily verifiable as you just have to go to their website and look at everything they have ever published on Bolivia and the OAS. As for the petition signatories, how do you think it works? The people don't come to them - the information is emailed out to people asking if they would be willing to support it. Many of the signatories are high up in the CEPR, as has been discussed elsewhere. Out of the people that could have carried out an independent analysis for CEPR that could have been peer reviewed, they could have picked somebody other than one of 50 or so people in the whole world that had signed the petition and didn't work for CEPR. To say that the OAS is mostly funded by the US means nothing. Of course they are, as they are the richest nation and one cannot expect Mexico or Bolivia to pay the same. It is another thing to say that this must mean that that every employee and report author considers that as an overriding factor to being a professional in their field. The OAS audit was carried out by 18 different nationalities. Morales invited them to do so, he did not say they were a puppet of the US and they upheld the decision for him to be able to stand in the election in the first place, which the US would certainly never do. The EU audit was not funded in any way by the US and they came up with a similar assessment and the US does not control Socialist International or any of the governments who choose to recognise the OAS audit.


 * The majority of my knowledge and context comes from actually living in or being in constant contact with Bolivia. The perception of events outside of Bolivia is extremely distorted as it is summarised and packaged to a particular market. You may have no interest in the reality of Bolivian society or corruption, but it is relevant to the people of Bolivia. CEPR want to not mention the shortcomings of the MAS government, nor the evidence of manipulation of results. They want to say that, according to a given set of assumptions, the level of corruption would not have changed the results and Evo Morales should still be in power. They have no commentary on the fact that he overrode a referendum to stand for a fourth term. I would urge you to look into independent reports on corruption in Bolivia under Morales. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The conversations here are so dire. His name is John Curiel, not Cushiel. God, you even put it on the article page, too. Someone needs to rein you in, since you fill up these pages with the drivel and exhaust honest people's time and energy with tedious back-and-forths, after which you go back to watching over the page and assiduously shaping it to your POV. A real debate about the election statistics is impossible precisely because the OAS and the current government refuse to share the data on which the OAS's analysis is based. The OAS won't even share their methods. Here, [mailto:irfan.nooruddin@georgetown.edu email] their statistician and ask him for it. Or try asking the TSE. I emailed the OAS's latest bullshitter-for-hire, John Newman, and asked for the data, but he would only give me the code he used to process the data, not the data itself, which I guess was a kind of creative 'fuck you'. Curiel and Williams put theirs right out there, which is how I found that they used 'Recinto' as a unique identifier, which actually weakened their should-be-uncontroversial point that people within precincts tend to vote alike. (Did you know that the mesa assignments within precincts are simply based on the alphabetical ordering of voters' surnames?) The real problem all the bullshitters have is that 80% of the post-interruption tally sheets come from precincts which had already reported other tally sheets before the interruption, and when you use them to project the post-interruption vote totals, a 10+% margin becomes unavoidable, so they need to invent justifications to use worse reference points to claim Morales wasn't going to win. But the anti-debate rages on and on, and you end up with long discussions like this one in which people argue about some chain email someone signed or whatever. Truly, we live in the stupidest of all possible worlds. Thanks for contributing to it. Futurebum (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Futurebum: This is not a forum. This is not a place to have "A real debate about the election statistics". You seem to be the one with tedious back-and-forths (from seeing your user contributions). And you definitely have a non-neutral POV, so accusing others of shaping things to their POV sounds like gaslighting. You are trying to bulldoze people by claiming to have personally analyzed the data, but your opinion has to be backed up by published articles. Finally, your comment is a little close to sounding like a personal attack, try to keep it focused on the article, not the contributors. Laella (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The tedious back-and-forths are all with Crmoorhead, which is why I can speak with such authority about how he operates. If you need any more proof, scroll up above me and you'll find it. I'm not bulldozing anyone. You all are. There's two of you and one of me! Point to a single instance in which I ever got my way on this website. You all have a clear POV which you want to push on the page and you beat down anyone who disagrees, reverting any edits they make. Futurebum (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * He has already made a personal attack on my talk page. Having seen some of his posts on Reddit, he disagrees with every expert that has an opinion other than the one he formed within a day of the election. He posted on another user's page linking to a Reddit post made by him that was a rant on why the TREP count was stopped and seemed to get a similar reception there. I agree with you, this is not a forum, soapbox or publisher of original research. I have qualifications to speak professionally on the mathematics and modelling used in these reports, but I have to be content with parroting what I can see published by experts in the field. Futurebum seems more intent on long diatribes on talk pages than making an effort to fix a simple typo on Curiel's name. If there are other reports by experts corroborating the findings of the CEPR, then there is nothing stopping anyone adding relevant content. I have not heard of any though, and I would certainly add them if I did. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm right about the TREP suspension. Tell me how I'm wrong, please. What I wrote is better-sourced and more honest than anything else written about that event. All I did was combine the first-hand accounts of the people who participated in what happened. Some people received me poorly because it's REDDIT. It's a community populated by ex-pats and middle-class city-dwellers who all speak English and hate the MAS. What did you think, I would publish a novel take on a highly controversial issue and everyone would fall at my feet? And who are these experts? Political organizations like the OAS? The CEPR findings are easy to corroborate. I already did so on a page I linked you before, but I guess you weren't paying attention, so here it is again. It's trivial to reproduce the simple 10.35% margin based on the random descent of the most specific geographic sub-tree. Want their code? Here. What is your criticism of them, anyway? Is it your bloated summary of Rodrigo Salazar Elena's rubbish? Put your devastating criticism of CEPR's analysis on my talk page. I could use a laugh. Look, I know more about this topic than just about anyone, especially you, and I would be glad to contribute references to this page if it weren't for the fact that they'll all get reverted by people with axes to grind. God, I just looked at the page and you deliberately misinterpreted the Mebane 'best' counterfactual after I shared his clarification like two months ago. See? I contributed new information - the author's own explanation! - and guess what happened? It was completely ignored. I know what you are. You're a troll who fights to keep bad information on Wikipedia articles. Sorry if saying that breaks the rules. Who knows, maybe I will start contributing here one day, which will mostly mean engaging in edit wars with you, unfortunately. I'm sure that will be extremely fun and not at all draining and futile like every other interaction we've had. Futurebum (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OAS recommendation in lead
In the lead text:



Should the bolded text be added? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the introduction; this is creep on the agreed text above. It's extremely disappointing to have seemingly reached agreement on something balanced, only for another push to be made. Number   5  7  15:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat the remarks given above: I want to leave clear that the inclusion of the proposal in the text in no way was meant to "give more weight to the OAS report" or its findings, but rather to mention merely the recommendations as a response to them, without going into the details of why, in sight of the additional comments here. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also mention, I find it very strange that the changes and the discussion are called as "another push", since it has been previously argued that the OAS had undue weight and I made the edit to summarize the paragraph. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought it seemed premature to remove the text as it is an accurate summary of the assessment of the elections and consequences. The OAS were clearly involved in the time between the elections and the resignation of Morales and were the official auditors - all parties wanted to know their conclusions. As far as I know, nobody was pushing for CEPR to make an assessment of the elections nor do their assessments carry the same weight in the summary of events. Including them in the introduction, rather than in a section of "reactions" implies that the studies mentioned happened between the OAS study and Morales resigning, which they did not. With regard to CEPR and related analysis, their disagreement is not on the existence of corruption or manipulation (how the OAS conclusions are described) but that this was not significant enough to sway the results according to their simulations. They are not making an assessment of the chain of command, decisions made by the TSE or whether irregularities existed or not, merely that they are irrelevant to the actual result in terms of numbers and the introduction material does not capture that distinction. We also have mention of two, albeit related, studies taking this position with only one, the official OAS one, saying the opposite, yet the EU report came to similar conclusions and internationally speaking, the results of the OAS audit are accepted, particularly with regard to the lack of confidence in the elections results. To me, the OAS one is central enough to the story to be in the introduction because they have a clear role and significant impact, whereas the others do not. The introduction should be a concise summary of significant events whereas the other studies merit inclusion in the main text. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave things as they are. Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't made changes, but I think I make a decent argument for them. OAS recommendations had real life impact on events. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate why? --Jamez42 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The balance in the leading section between the various reports is fine at the moment. Burrobert (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But that point is not a rebuttal against Crmoorhead's reasons, is it? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Server access text
I've tried to remove the text about someone accessing the vote-counting server (an outside user who controlled a Linux AMI appliance with "root privileges" — conferring the ability to alter results — accessed the official vote-counting server during the counting) but it has been reinstated more than once. To me it looks like a classic example of tabloid innuendo; it infers that someone accessed the server to change the result, but without actually providing any evidence that it happened. I am minded to start an RfC to get outside input on whether we should include this or not, but I'll give a chance for the reinstator (and others involved) to consider before doing so. Number  5  7  16:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see points on both sides for this edit. It's in a report but no claim is made that this had any effect on the election. I'll abstain. Asking outside opinions might be a good idea. Burrobert (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * These issues are in both the OAS and EU audits. They are also areas that the OAS set out to inspect as part of the audit on 31st Oct. Being accessed during the count does not seem likely to be something made up and the BBC report I added also mentions that data was directed to these hidden servers during the processing of results. Whether this had enough of a difference in the results is another point, but it is only one element to be taken into account. If someone cheated at sports, they still face disqualification whether or not the extra points they gained were crucial to winning. The game becomes forfeit. The CEPR report hones in on their statistical analysis compared to that done by the OAS, but their ignore issues that are equally concerning whether or not the people running the elections did so in a way that makes them valid. A large number of Bolivians had no faith in the system. If it had been a clear victory with no interruption, there would not have been weeks of protest. The OAS found enough evidence of manipulation to justify the concerns many had had. In Bolivia, eyes are firmly on the next election, not reversing previous decisions. All parties, including MAS, have no interest in reinstalling Evo Morales by pretending everything was normal with the last election. Crmoorhead (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you might be missing my point. I am not suggesting that the fact that someone accessed the server is made up. The issue is that there is no evidence that whoever did that actually changed the results. This is why I described it as tabloid-style innuendo – tabloids know they can't say things that aren't true (for fear of being sued), but they can present things in a way that makes reader think that something happened. If the OAS found actual evidence of manipulation, you are welcome to add that in place of this non-evidence. Number   5  7  22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the server was accessed is not in contention. For those who speak spanish, I will post links, but I can't find this information translated into english.
 * https://www.lostiempos.com/actualidad/pais/20191207/identifican-sergio-martinez-como-asesor-que-manipulo-datos-comicios
 * https://correodelsur.com/politica/20191207_sergio-martinez-el-asesor-del-tse-huyo-del-pais.html
 * Laella (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As for no proof that the people who accessed the server manipulated the results - well, there is proof the database was altered, but it's hard to say what the alterations were precisely. The fact that we can't know what those alterations were, does not mean that the results should be considered valid because of "lack of proof". In the end, altering the database by hand is enough. An election database needs to be kept above suspicion of alteration. Multiple hand edits of the database via sql, without supervision, is enough to taint the credibility of the outcome. Especially when it had been established beforehand that there should be no hand alterations and there should be no unvetted servers. The unauthorized server which they found was used in the elections, did not have the monitoring software which would have shown exactly what had happened. Why connect a server you had agreed not to use, which you knew didn't have the monitoring? Even if the answer is imcompetence, rather than malevolence, it doesn't matter. The irreproachability of the database is lost.
 * For a contested election, There is a higher bar than "we don't know that the person who surreptitiously accessed the server and made alterations, was making malicious alterations."
 * I find somewhat odd your argument that someone who shouldn't have got onto an elections server but did, shouldn't be assumed to be doing something malicious."
 * The report by the auditors is very informative, but also only in spanish. This was the OAS' source for some of the info in their report.
 * https://www.scribd.com/document/434031751/EHC-REP-Consolidado-Resumen
 * Laella (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, your exact words were "it infers that someone accessed the server to change the result, but without actually providing any evidence that it happened" which does imply you question whether it was even accessed, so perhaps poorly worded on your part. Regardless, I already answered why this was still relevant vis-a-vis the OAS stated goals and that tipping the results, which is still an open issue, still does not negate the fact that they left it open to manipulation to a third party who could, and did, access the database remotely. I don't get why you don't see that as a significantly undermining the election, especially as it was under such scrutiny from the start and the results were close. In the context of Bolivia specifically, the audit needed to show something to give people enough faith to accept the results and it would be irresponsible to have discovered all these things and either not report them or say that the irregularities were forgivable and Morales/MAS should be given the benefit of the doubt and be elected in the first round. Morales may not have been directly involved at all, but there are a lot of masistas that have an interest in using all means to keep him as president. There is a great deal of information on the corruption of high up people in the government that used public money as their own piggy bank. All this context matters and is why the audit needed to show a clean and well-organised election. I don't know if you read Spanish, but you should start browsing the Bolivian press where there is no lack of information. Sadly, most western sources seem confident in having an opinion about Bolivia without ever having set foot there or understanding the subtleties of the situation. 13:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said I'm happy for this specific bit of text to be replaced by details of manipulation that there is evidence for – can you engage on this suggestion please. Number   5  7  13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that Laella engaged on that suggestion quite thoroughly and you are asking for us to find evidence and details for statements made by two reputable sources because you don't like how they sound. Ethical Hacking, the tech security company hired by the TSE (under Morales) to audit the elections, stated that there were multiple irregularities and violations of procedure and that "our function as an auditor security company is to declare everything that was found, and much of what was found supports the conclusion that the electoral process be declared null and void". In the report that Laella linked to, they state:


 * ″We CANNOT attest to the integrity of the electoral results because the entire process is null and void due to the number of alterations to the TREP source code, the number of accesses and manual modifications with the maximum privileges to the databases being created during the electoral process and the inconsistencies of the software that arose in the TREP and Computo.″


 * And of course there are similar statements in the OAS and EU reports, but normally all that is required is a secondary source (we have two) summarising or paraphrasing the conclusions of these investigations. Including such details in the main text might be relevant, if overly technical, but I think a bit overkill. We are not requiring similar details on how the CEPR/analysts ran their simulations, only quoting their conclusions.  Crmoorhead (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's worse than that. Not only is there no evidence the data was manipulated; there's no evidence this outside user ever accessed the server in question. That's what controlled means here, no? The OAS insinuated this when they introduced both him and the server in the same bullet point in their executive summary, then spoke of logins to the server, but they failed to substantiate that this was him. The username they mention ('ec2-user') is simply the default AWS user and tells you absolutely nothing at all about who it was. (In fact, there's a few screenshots from the Hacking Report which shows that it was the director of NEOTEC who was using this login.) What's more, if you closely read the OAS's claim, it merely says that the TSE board members and this contractor requested that another server be used, not that the contractor was the one to access to it. ("A solicitud de los vocales del TSE y de un individuo presentado como asesor de los vocales se configuró un servidor...") The basis of the OAS's claims seems to be the DNTIC report that was published as an annex to the OAS report, according to which the contractor was part of the decision to use the server, but it was actually accessed by a DNTIC functionary, then handed over to NEOTEC and Ethical Hacking (SIM SRL) to be configured. This is broadly consistent with a public statement that the contractor wrote in response to the OAS report, in which he vehemently denied that he ever had access to any server, but admits that he was present at the meeting and that he suggested methods to better control the system. He insists that any access to the servers would've been done by NEOTEC, Ethical Hacking, or the DNTIC, which is exactly what the DNTIC report says, and that he had no authority to give orders and that any decisions were made by others. Furthermore, he's often described as an 'advisor', a label he strenuously rejects but one which would seem to indicate that any influence he had was indirect.


 * It's also somewhat odd that these two cited the Ethical Hacking report to back up their misreading of the OAS's claims about Sergio Martínez and the BO20 server, since there's no mention at all of this server in that report, for which Ethical Hacking received a rare bit of criticism from the OAS. What's more, the DNTIC's report states that it was Ethical Hacking who configured the server with NEOTEC. Alvaro Andrade, the CEO of Ethical Hacking, has been interviewed a number of times and yet he's never spoken about this server, even though it's clear his objective is to discredit the election and he always tries to cite as many procedural violations as possible. Why doesn't he mention it? Because it's almost certainly nothing. In fact, I'll bet Ethical Hacking monitored the activity on this server in real time. The proximate cause of the TREP suspension was the detection of an unmonitored server, so it only makes sense that this server's replacement, BO20, was monitored. The OAS's real complaint is that they weren't informed about it beforehand, and of course it emerged in a suspicious context. Also, it must be said that the EU report has nothing to contribute to this discussion because all they do is uncritically summarize the claims in the OAS report, including the now-discredited statistical ones. Those statistics are interesting, too. What Rodriguez et al. showed is that the tally sheets processed after the shutdown were predictable based on the known ones. If that's the case, then the post-shutdown introduction of this server didn't move the needle, which either means it didn't manipulate the data (true) or that it continued to apply a remarkably consistent fraud (false). Unfortunately, most people don't understand these issues well, and will just hand-wave about reports they don't even understand. Futurebum (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Williams and Curiel Report (clarification needed)
In this section all we have on this is harsh criticisms of the OAS report direct from the mouths of the authors while almost nothing at all on what is actually shown in their analysis. We have one line that says "The analysis showed a 94.6% correlation between Morales' vote share in the preliminary count before the cutoff and the final results." This is technical, ambiguous and, when you look at the data, does not really mean anything. I spent some time digesting the analysis posted on the CEPR website that gives more detail and there are a number of errors and lack of methodology in the report. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Map of supposed results from municipalities
There is no way the map in the sidebar is accurate. Overlaying this with population shows MAS winning in municipalities where CC won. I also think it is suspicious that there is no source for the information used to create the map. Searching for sources on google shows that it has not been used by any media outlet. This was uploaded directly to wikipedia by the user who created it.

I think there needs to be a source for the underlying data or it needs to be removed. Laella (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Virtually all maps uploaded to Wikipedia are created by the people who upload them – this is standard practice (otherwise in most cases it'a a copyright violation). Why not actually try asking its creator (Wjx987) where they got the data. There is another map available, which was created by an editor who has a history of working on election articles. Number   5  7  23:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the copyright issues, I was trying to give information about where the map came from. And to explain that there are no maps showing similar information - which could have been a source of data for this one. I left a message for the author, hopefully they reply.
 * I am surprised, given how strict people tend to be about citing references on wikipedia, that the policy for map data would be so lax. Laella (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The original creator of the map has confirmed that the data he used for the map is unavailable. I will replace it with the other map suggestion, unless something better can be found. Laella (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

2019 election citation
The citation for the 2019 election results seems to lead to a dead link. Is it ok to replace it with an archived copy? Comrade GC (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, does anyone know of an archived copy? Comrade GC (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nooruddin WP article
Several edits were made and rather than note the reversions and changes, I will list why here. Only a couple were stated in the edit summary, but we only have limited space.

Claim: It is not clear that Nooruddin was involved in the original OAS report. From the article: "As part of its audit of the results, the Organization of American States (OAS) commissioned me to conduct an independent analysis of the vote returns."

Claim: He does not mention the other study that concluded even more forcefully the existence of fraud. From the article: "This finding was consistent with a separate analysis of the Bolivian election that concluded even more forcefully that the election was fraudulent". The words "separate analysis" in the article are a hyperlink linking to said study.

Claim: The 27 Feb report described as MIT analysis. From MIT and in this article: ""this study was conducted independently of MIT... it should be referred to as a CEPR study"

Change: "a sharp discontinuity around an arbitrary point such as the 95 percent threshold demands explanation" edited to "a sharp discontinuity around an arbitrary point such as the 95 percent threshold" which required explanation. Problem: Trying to mitigate the forcefulness of the statement by changing words in the quote.

Change: He said that while there was no certainty about the events in the election, the OAS audit report is "consistent with irregularities ... that undermine the legitimacy of the process".

Previous wording: "These findings, he says, are consistent with the rest of the findings in the OAS report and also a separate analysis made by Diego Escobari..."

Problem: This is not what he says in the article. He is not saying that the OAS audit report is consistent with irregularities, he is saying that his particular statistical analysis, backed up by another independent similar statistical analysis and that puts the veracity of the results into question, is backed up by the rest of the OAS report not pertaining to the statistical analysis. The OAS report gave several reasons for lack of confidence and trust in the election, the statistical evidence being just one of them. In all major areas of study, there were consistent failures. The direct quote from the WP article has also been directly edited to ameliorate the statement.

WP Article: "This suggests irregularities — at the very least. None of us can know what exactly happened in Bolivia on Oct. 20, 2019. But the comprehensive OAS audit report is consistent with irregularities — or worse — that undermine the legitimacy of the process of that day’s election."

Query: "show" vs "said". I don't know the policy on this. Show seemed fine to me, since he shows it in a diagram, but there may be particular wiki stances about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your wording and method of setting out your points is quite confusing. I’ll attempt to respond to the points that I think you are making. Before I start, your edit that Nooruddin “wrote a similar article via the Washington Post” contains an editorial comment (“similar”) which should be removed. Secondly, ‘via’ means ‘by way of’ so should not be used together with “wrote” unless you are referring to the implement (such as a pen) used to write. Perhaps you meant “published” rather than “wrote” here.


 * Nooruddin says “As part of its audit of the results, the Organization of American States (OAS) commissioned me to conduct an independent analysis of the vote returns”. You have interpreted this as meaning he did the analysis to “backup the analysis he performed as part of the OAS audit team”. I find this a very eccentric way of interpreting his statement. I have changed the wording to exactly what appears in the article which surely is uncontroversial. This was why I said in my original edit that “It is not clear that Nooruddin was involved in the original OAS report”. You should seek consensus if you want to reinterpret what Nooruddin says. Or, if you have another source which says he was part of the original OAS audit, use that source as verification. Later in the article you state “explanation of his original work” which again indicates he was part of the original OAS audit. I have removed that pending proof.


 * In the WP article the line "As part of its audit of the results, the Organization of American States (OAS) commissioned me to conduct an independent analysis of the vote returns" contains a hyperlink to the original Dec 4th OAS report at "audit of results". The diagrams in the WP article are those taken from pages 87 and 88 of the OAS report. Nooruddin did not do a second analysis on behalf of the OAS to then be published in the WP, he gave an explanation of his original work commissioned by them as part of the official audit. Why do you think otherwise? Crmoorhead (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Re: He does not mention the other study that concluded even more forcefully the existence of fraud. Yes you are correct - I missed the hyperlink.
 * The 27 Feb report described as MIT analysis. This is the term used by Nooruddin:”The MIT analysis makes two main arguments: … “. Not an important issue really.
 * Well, I am not his editor, but he refers to the authors of the study in the first instance as "scholars affiliated with the MIT Election Data Science Lab". Crmoorhead (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * “"a sharp discontinuity around … “: I had changed the tense from present to past so could not use Nooruddin’s “demands explanation”. I changed the verb to 'required' as it sounded more neutral than 'demanded' in Wikipedia’s voice.
 * I don't think it necessary to change the tense, but even so "demanded" outside of the quotes would be fine since it accurately reflects the original source. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The “irregularities” edit. My version is taken almost verbatim from the article which is why I used quotes. I don’t really understand what you are trying to say in your explanation. You seem to be bringing in ideas not mentioned in the source.
 * My version:
 * "“He said that while there was no certainty about the events in the election, the OAS audit report is "consistent with irregularities ... that undermine the legitimacy of the process"."


 * The article:
 * "“ None of us can know what exactly happened in Bolivia on Oct. 20, 2019. But the comprehensive OAS audit report is consistent with irregularities — or worse — that undermine the legitimacy of the process of that day’s election”."


 * Why remove the statement "- or worse -" from the middle of the sentence? In the WP article, he goes through the analysis to show a change in vote pattern, then states that this suggests "irregularities - or worse" in the particular part of the report this analysis pertains to. He says that this is consistent - with what? It is consistent with with the rest of the report which he describes as comprehensive. Your interpretation is simply that, out of the blue, he is stating that the entire OAS report is valid to prove that there were irregularities in general, but it makes sense with the flow of the article that the "irregularities" refer to the implications of his analysis. I would understand the interpretation if he were doing a second analysis for the WP, but he is not. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding “says” versus “shows”: says is certainly accurate. Using “shows” in Wikipedia’s voice gives that statement Wikipedia’s authority which we generally want to avoid. That is why when writing about the report by Jack Williams and John Cushiel we say “The researchers stated that … “ rather than “The researchers showed that … “.
 * Thanks for the verification on that. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nooruddin’s connection with the OAS.:I don’t know what Nooruddin’s connection is with the OAS and I don’t know whether he did work as part of the OAS audit report. I am waiting for evidence one way or the other. In the meantime I am using the only source of information available, namely Nooruddin’s statement that he was "commissioned by the OAS to conduct an independent analysis of the vote returns”. I followed the hyperlink to the full OAS report. As far as I can tell Nooruddin’s name does not appear in the report. He may still have conducted research for the OAS report and perhaps he was explaining that work in the Washington Post article but I haven’t seen any evidence for it yet. In those circumstances I would prefer not to make assumptions. It is possible that the OAS gave him their data to work with when it commissioned him and that is why he used the diagram you referred to - but I don’t know and the article doesn’t say.
 * The article does say. It says he did work for the OAS audit, directly linking to the December report and uses the exact same diagrams and explanations. His name is not in the report because nobody has their name in the report. If you are purporting that he is referring to some other audit, then I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of another OAS audit - they only audit an election once. It seems perfectly obvious that he is referring to the audit done by the OAS as commissioned by Morales, not some ghostly other work that there is no evidence of. As is, the article with your wording reads the same way, the only change being that you edited out my reference to him "explaining his previous work". Crmoorhead (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why remove the statement "- or worse. I removed it for brevity as the quote already included the main point. I don’t have a problem adding it back in.
 * Burrobert (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the sentence “As part of its audit of the results, the Organization of American States (OAS) commissioned me to conduct an independent analysis of the vote returns” could be interpreted as meaning that Nooruddin worked on the audit and that he is using the WaPo article to explain the work he had done as part of the OAS report. If we assume that point, then we may want to consider whether to merge Nooruddin’s analysis in the WaPo article with our description of the results from the OAS audit report earlier in the section. Burrobert (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

New NYT article and recent removals
There are some key missing elements from the article, including that they are not saying that fraud did not occur, only that they disagree with the particular metric used. After going through most of the 45-page paper (still pending peer review, BTW), there are several issues with it, especially with their disagreements on the inclusion of data. NYT are taking the authors words on their own work, which hardly seems unbiased. Additionally, the comment about Nooruddin not responding to the NYT request for a full explanation within days seems unfair and too recent for the dust to settle and see whether or not the OAS want to release their full statistical analysis. I have seem some articles and comments from other experts concerning this study that question whether it makes a jot of difference to the validity of the election and Nooruddin himself, in the WP article, said that no statistical analysis can prove or disprove fraud, but his analysis raised questions and was but one piece of evidence in the report. This new paper is a lot more technical than previous ones, but they basically say that there exists a way to do the statistical analysis where you can get rid of the discontinuity. It's a matter of two academics accusing ecah other's methods of being wrong. Except that the OAS were hired to do an audit and Nooruddin's credentials (and others who support him) check out whereas the authors of this paper are seeking to discredit the OAS's statistical evidence, again not the validity of the election, and have less impressive credentials. It will require some more work on my part to explain this in further detail and I am still digesting the paper.

With regard to the commentary in Vox comparing the CEPR studies and the OAS one, the comment on the CEPR and MIT-CEPR studies being essentially replications seems pertinent, as does the comment on Nooruddin's analysis being "entirely appropriate" in methodology. We are also missing a further study, cited by the NYT article authors, that supports electoral fraud. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't bother digesting the paper. Whatever comes out at the other end can't be used on Wikipedia. Stick with what the sources say. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"According to the New York Times... "
"According to The New York Times, the right-wing caretaker government led by Áñez subsequently moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and cement its hold on power." There is no source or reasoning for this opinion in the original article, it isn't even a topic of the study being discussed.

It is not true that Áñez is "staunchly right-wing" I notice several editors seem intent on labeling her that way, but it isn't factual.

Laella (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * She and the government are clearly right wing (and the word staunch wasn't even mentioned here), just as Morales is clearly left-wing. According to Euronews, she's "a self-proclaimed right-wing senator". The Washington Post published an article saying almost exactly the same thing as the NYT one mentioned above (including the right-wing statement – "As a right-wing, pro-American government represses, threatens and jails its leftist opponents"). I am getting extremely tired of this anti-Morales/pro-Áñez POV pushing from two editors who do little else on Wikipedia but advance this agenda. If this nonsense doesn't stop then I will be requesting intervention at WP:ANI. Number   5  7  20:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Keep. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The original quote from the article:
 * "Mr. Morales’s downfall paved the way to a staunchly right-wing caretaker government, led by Jeanine Añez, which has not yet fulfilled its mandate to oversee swift new elections. The new government has persecuted the former president’s supporters, stifled dissent and worked to cement its hold on power."
 * Áñez, her political party, and her government are center-right. They are actually (ironically) fiscally progressive compared to US Democrats, supporting economic regulation, public welfare programs, and other economically progressive policies. Also fwiw, her running mate VP candidate is the founder of Bolivia's Socialist International affiliate party and she has specifically said she is leaning on him for economic policy.
 * And the reason for delaying the elections isn't mentioned in the article - something obviously calculated to sound bad, but ignoring the pandemic which was the reason for the delay, AND that the delay was agreed to (and insisted on) by most politicians from ALL parties. Making it sound like it was a political maneuver is disingenuous.
 * --Laella (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Both of us are living in Bolivia and have a better perspective on the facts and history of the country than the writers of many of these articles. It's genuinely shocking how bad the research is. Áñez went from being a fairly middle-of-the road senator of a centre-right party to an ultra-conservative far-right self-appointed dictator who politically persecutes all her rivals because that is how Western media chose to report it. It makes a good story, but is an oversimplification and propagandised version of reality. I have seen articles written in English from reputable newspapers that use Morales' tweets as their main source of what is happening in Bolivia. This is hardly unbiased. I am not pro-Áñez or anti-Morales, but there needs to be a balanced PoV that is not from people who have an idealised version of the MAS administration. The corruption and human rights abuses are extremely well-documented by third-party human rights organisations. The freedoms and poverty alleviation that Morales brought about are undeniable, but so is the corruption in his party, the police and the judiciary and the propaganda machine run by the party. Do not be naive about this. Áñez and people around her have many issues themselves, but to take every accusation from the opposition, who have every motivation to play dirty, as gospel is not NPOV. I have included information on massacres at Sacaba and Senkata when there was none before. How is this pro-Áñez? In all the articles you have read on Áñez or Bolivia, can you provide a single one that mentions any action she took as an elected representative of Bolivia prior to the 2019 elections? In the 7 months of her presidency, can you point to any articles in English where they mention any of the acts she has taken as president? What mention of her can you find in being involved in the 2019 protests prior to her becoming president? The truth is that almost nobody took an interest in the country except for those that had a positive view on the potential of Morales running a successful socialist nation, and they are disinclined to change their opinion on the matter. The problem is not socialism, it is corruption and having too much power in the presidency. But I digress...


 * The article is on the 2019 election. Including in the lede the opinion of one newspaper, published several thousand miles away from the country in question, of a politician who had no role in said election and no documented role in the protests against Morales after 20 Oct. Do other election pages have similar opinions in their lede? I think not. The original lede read "staunchly right wing" because that is what the NYT puts. I am well aware that Wikipedia is Wrong, but this does not seem relevant to the article and designed to give a political bias. Do you really want that to be your high ground? Both Laella and I could give sources stating Áñez as being centre-right, and Laella mentions in detail that she is socially progressive. Nobody is giving reasoning behind why they want this reinstated and personal accusations and edit wars are not cooperative at all. Please make a case for relevance and NPOV. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Before this turns into a revert war - The sentence has randomly ended up in the middle of a different topic. At least stop putting it back in between 2 sentences about the Covid virus. Continually doing this makes it seem like you are not even reading the text, just taking a stand based on my perceived political beliefs. Laella (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An editor's country of residence has no bearing on their editing status so there is probably no point is mentioning where you live. A person's view of the country where they live is probably different from that of their next door neighbour and certainly much different from that of people who live in other parts of the country. I have created an "Aftermath" section to place information about what happened after the election, including the behaviour of the caretaker government. Since the new election details are mentioned in the leading section they should also appear somewhere in the article itself. We can discuss here whether the nature of the caretaker government should also be in the leading section. Burrobert (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is ironic that you are getting "extremely tired of this anti-Morales/pro-Áñez POV". Because I am much more tired of all of the highly pro-Morales bias and apologists. I have taken pains to be neutral, and I am not Pro-Áñez (I didn't vote for, and won't be voting for, either of them). I think what really stands out is the difference in information being reported inside vs outside of Bolivia, as well as the absolutely bizarre disconnect between the reality in Bolivia vs the US/European media's reporting. On wikipedia, there seems to be a coordinated goal of perpetuating a myth of Morales as some kind of folk hero, rather than the nuanced, flawed, and rather centrist human he really is. And at the same time, rejecting any information about Áñez that doesn't paint her as an ultra-fascist, rather than the nuanced, flawed, and rather centrist human she really is. Morales was not nearly as left-leaning as he is portrayed, Áñez is nowhere near as far to the right. Politics in Bolivia are not predicated on your left-right political spectrum. Parties, candidates and voters are much more fluid in their positions.


 * About the sentence in question ("According to the New York Times...") - the parts of the article that question the OAS report, and that call Áñez right-wing, and accuse her of stifling decent, were quickly added to this, and other Wikipedia pages. But the same editors manage to completely ignore the section in the same article of the NYT, on how CEPR's and other's dissections of the OAS report are not addressing the actual allegations of fraud, despite constantly claiming they somehow "prove" the absence of fraud. It is hypocritical to cherry pick information from a news article, and then accuse the editor who tries to balance the article, of being biased.


 * Remove - The quote itself is an opinion. It is not a particularly insightful opinion, and it isn't from a particularly important person. It certainly isn't one of the most important points to have in the intro to the page.
 * Laella (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And these are not new election details. - They are another analysis of an analysis. And the original analysis wasn't actually instrumental in any of the events anyway. It is really giving way too much importance to a minor detail. Laella (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: From someone who is more familiar with the rules, I would like to know how WP:BLP applies to this. Laella (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no BLP issues here. The statements are sourced to reliable sources. And Burrobert is correct in his statement above that editors should not be claiming to know better because of where they live. The claims of both of you to be unbiased is laughable given your editing histories and would not stand up to scrutiny.
 * Given the Washington Post has written a very similar article, we don't need to write "according to the New York Times". The sentence can just be written as a statement and sourced to both articles. Number   5  7  11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There are actually more rules than just "has 2 reliable sources". Tone matters, and understanding that even reliable news sources can have biased writers. I would like some feedback from people who work on, and are more familiar with BLP issues.
 * Your commenting on things I didn't say isn't helpful to this question. But since you brought it up, you repeatedly accuse others of being biased, but you show a very strong bias yourself. If you have an issue with something particular I write, add it to the talk page, I have no problem discussing it. But stop making vague accusations of how biased I am.
 * Laella (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with BLP issues. Making a statement that someone is right-wing, particularly when they self-identify as such, is not a BLP issue if it is sourced. And in this particular case, it refers to the "right-wing caretaker government" rather than an individual, so BLP isn't even relevant. Please don't wikilawyer like this. You're welcome to take it to the WP:BLPN, but you'll get short shrift. Number   5  7  23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She doesn't identify as right-wing, much less staunchly right-wing. Her party doesn't either. Saying that it's different to talk about "her government" rather than "her" is playing semantics (especially when the original quote says "led by Jeanine Añez"). And I am not taking this anywhere, I am posting it here, so chill out. I am asking for further opinions besides yours though, if you don't mind. Laella (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To be more clear - the part that I am looking for feedback on, isn't the part about being "right-wing". It is the tone of the statement "subsequently moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and cement its hold on power" - which doens't sound NPOV and really "cement its hold on power" seems biased and vague - what does that even mean, other than sounding inflamatory? There's no specific example or citation (in the original article) to back up that claim. It's not factual information, its an emotional opinion by the autor of the article. Laella (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article is very clear: "Áñez has presided over the detention of hundreds of opponents, the muzzling of journalists and a “national pacification” campaign that has left at least 31 people dead, according to the national ombudsman and human rights groups." It also states "In Bolivia, even anti-Morales politicians and activists who once backed Áñez now say her administration has used threats and intimidation to consolidate power.", the latter part supporting the "cement its hold on power" claim. We could just change the wording to "consolidate" rather than "cement its hold on". If it concerns you. Number   5  7  11:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working on it. "consolidate" rather than "cement" is less idiomatic, but doesn't fix the problem - it is still a vague accusation by supporters of the previous administration. What specific example is there of something she did that could be considered "consolidating power"? I'm not saying that examples doesn't exist - but I think saying something that strong needs to be backed up with something concrete. I have the same issues with "persecute Morales' supporters" and "stifle dissent" - examples? These statements are too vague. Also, much of what might fit these examples happened in the early weeks after Morales' resignation, but are mostly resolved now (arrested Morales protesters were released from jail once the protests stopped in November, for example). The deaths were also within 2 weeks of Morales' resignation, and were mostly from 2 specific incidents. I believe they are covered in more detail on another page. A link to "2019 Bolivian protests" and "2019 Bolivian political crisis" might make sense here. Laella (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrase. Not only does the current quote violate WP:LABEL as it is currently phrased, but WP:NPOV as well. I would propose a rephrasing of the Aftermatch section based on the 2019 Bolivian political crisis lede, which is comprehensive enough, which the mention of any abuse of power and violation of human rights if it is so decided.--Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate WP:LABEL – right-wing is not a controversial/contentious term. Can we stop this wikilawyering please. Number   5  7  20:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing Don't accuse other editors of wikilawyering for citing policy, you can simply state why you disagree with their reasoning. I think that the Aftermatch section would help explaining the importance of the elections (although some of these events are covered in the "Controversy" section and could be split) but its vagueness does not help with neutrality. "Right wing" can easily be replaced with Añez's party, "The Democrat Social Movement government led by Áñez". Naming the abuses committed, namely "detention of hundreds of opponents, censorship of journalists at least 31 people dead" is probably better than "persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and consolidate power", without going into detail why. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Citing policies that aren't applicable and trying to bend them to fit an argument is wikilawyering. If editors stop doing this, I won't need to keep pointing it out.
 * Back to the topic at hand, right-wing is a useful flag, as it's a clear contrast with the previous left-wing government (whose orientation can also be noted, but I guess is well-known already). I will add more details of the abuses. Number   5  7  16:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * About the "wikilawyering" I would like to point out that you (Number 57) were the first one to threaten to take me to an "intervention" at WP:ANI (just a few paragraphs higher on this page, in fact). - So apparently "wikilawyering" is only ok when you do it? And any mention of policy you don't like is not ok?


 * Jeanine Áñez and her party are center-right. This is an issue because the English media have over-played her and her party as "extreme-right" (staunchly right-wing in your source), mostly in service to trying to make the ousting of Morales into a left-right battle, which it was not. So, while in most cases I would agree with you that indicating left or right would be enough to give a general indication of the party or person's orientation, I feel like an explicit description is called for here. Also, because Bolivia (and many other countries) actually do not follow the English "left-right" paradigm, simplifying their platform to "right-wing" is factually incorrect - they are socially conservative and economically progressive (meaning their economic foundation is more closely aligned with what you would consider "the left"). The combination of socially left, economically right aligns with Libertarians in the US, but there are no examples of socially right, economically left in the US (that I could find). And again, Áñez is in a coalition with the Socialist International affiliate party (which rejected MAS as an affiliate, because they were not socialist enough, btw). So I think that over-simplification to "right-wing" is a disservice to readers, because it does not help to understand the position of Áñez or her government. Laella (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the "wikilawyering". I feel that a defence is being made from the position of ignorance and lack of experience and in-depth knowledge by quoting Wiki policies along the lines of "Someone wrote it in a reputable source, therefore it must be true and we don't have to have further justification". Reputable sources can get facts wrong, especially if they are not experts in the subject. It's a case for Inaccuracy. The left and right descriptors are true, but not an argument against finer distinctions from reputable sources. Furthermore, the fact that many (even reputable) sources outside Bolivia with limited knowledge of the country describe her as far-right without any qualified reasons for doing so directly contradicts solid assessments made before the events of Oct 2019.  I have yet to see any arguments why she is far-right other than parrotting single-line quotes for elsewhere. From my own experience, what is described as right-wing in Bolivia have many social policies that are decidedly left-wing in the rest of the world.


 * I did find a recent detailed report on Bolivia that states "The parties in the opposition have not managed to form stable alliances. Some of them are organizationally institutionalized and/or socially rooted, but at the regional or local rather than at the national level. The strongest among them are three groups in the center-right: Samuel Doria Medina’s Unidad Nacional (UN), the regionally based Movimiento Demócrata Social (MDS) of governor Rubén Costas of Santa Cruz (which together, for the presidential elections in 2019, formed the Bolivia Dice No alliance with Oscar Ortíz as its candidate), and the faction-ridden Christian Democrats (PDC)" Crmoorhead (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here, I found something that can hopefully better explain: Christian democracy Laella (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering is deliberately misusing Wikipedia policies or guidelines in a debate. Threatening to report editors is not Wikilawyering.
 * If a party/government is described as extreme-right, right and centre-right, it's usually a safe bet that it's somewhere in the middle as the descriptors at either side are usually made by those opposed or in favour of said party/government. Number   5  7  14:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "It's usually a safe bet" is your opinion. The label "right" is more general and ambiguous and not the "average" or a compromise. I quoted several sources that are unbiased reports of Bolivia that say centre-right. The rest of the content disputed as biased is an oversimplification of events. Bolivia is complicated. Corruption exists. Narco interference exists. Propaganda exists. These influences are not fully taken into account in many reports and the Western media isn't interested in the mundane events. Interest in the country is limited and it breeds sensationalism in Western media. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm arguing that "right-wing" is a value-laden word and I'm citing WP:LABEL to support this. It is applicable for the discussion, and wikilawyering accusations shouldn't be thrown around only because you disagree with the reasoning. Several reliable sources articles related to the matter refrain from using said adjectives:

Speaking about the cited BLP policy, while I agree that it doesn't apply to the article, a misunderstanding of the policy should not be confused with wikilawyering, specially when the user had asked more information about said policy, and saying that they are deliberately misusing the policies is simply assuming bad faith. A hostile tone will certainly not help or lead the discussion anywhere.

If it helps, I'd like to propose a phrasing for the Aftermatch section:



Pinging in case they would like to make further propoals. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * some of your references are missing
 * I prefer the current wording for the first part, namely: “Responding to concerns about vote tampering and violent protests, Morales asked the Organization of American States (OAS) to conduct an audit of the vote count. Morales said he would call for a second-round runoff vote with Mesa if the OAS' audit found evidence of fraud”.
 * I note that the WaPo article says “As a right-wing, pro-American government represses, threatens and jails its leftist opponents, the United States has stayed largely silent”.
 * in the second paragraph add a mention of this: “U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet expressed her “concern” last week over “the prosecution of dozens of former government officials and persons related to the previous administration” and “In Bolivia, even anti-Morales politicians and activists who once backed Áñez now say her administration has used threats and intimidation to consolidate power. The targets have included former Morales cabinet ministers and socialist politicians brought up on charges as varied as corruption, sedition and “making illegal appointments.”
 * the third paragraph seems fine except that I would use “says” rather than “insists” which carries a PoV.
 * Burrobert (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:LABEL is for contentious labels. "right-wing" is not contentious, just like the CEPR is labelled "left-wing". My tone is hostile as I am frustrated at having to deal with this POV-pushing from SPAs who are only on Wikipedia for one purpose. I have wasted enough of my time on this; if any further POV changes are made to the article, there will be a report at ANI. Number   5  7  21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Right-wing" has been contested in this discussion and WP:LABEL says that Value-laden labels [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. This is particularly important now that the text section does not currently use attribution. If I recall correctly the term "left-wing" has been contested in other articles, and it could be removed as a label to the CEPR if other editors are alright with it.


 * I can understand that you might be frustrated at users that are not familiar with policies and you can have legitimate concerns about edit behavior, but there's no need to accuse these editors of having "an agenda", for example. Since I haven't been involved in the current discussion from the start, I'm hoping to mediate with a possible alternative text. You can leave your comments, if you wish. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your output, Burrobert. I forgot to mention that the first paragraph is based mostly in the current lede of the article, and that my main concern is repeating information or content from the Controversy section. I take note of your comments; however, I'm not sure if I understood your comments regarding the second paragraph. Are you proposing to include it?


 * I hoped that this proposal would explain how Añez moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and consolidate power, without going into excessive details that could be covered in the Crisis article. While I noticed Bachelet's statements, I think it's important that Áñez vowed to provide compensation to the families of those killed and injured, signed an agreement with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate the violence and repealed the decree that granted inmunity to Armed Forces. On the other hand, I also noted that the article says that Human rights groups denounced the Áñez administration for vetoing the participation of two experts on a commission linked to the Organization of American States to help investigate abuses in Bolivia during the last months of 2019. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any references saying that Morales was responding to international pressure in asking for the audit. Your reference for this phrase is unavailable.
 * Is there a reference stating that there was a legal contract in place between Morales and the OAS regarding the audit? If so, what was in the contract?
 * It seems that some of the victims of the repression are colleagues of Morales, possibly including current or former elected representatives. It would be good to include this.
 * Regarding my comment on the second paragraph, I was suggesting we incorporate the information from the excerpts I quoted in the article in some way, possibly abridged.
 * Regarding the actions you say Áñez has taken to reduce the repression, they can be included if properly sourced of course.
 * you can ignore the part about the US remaining silent about the repression. It wasn't meant for consideration and only included because it was part of the quote.
 * Burrobert (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reference for international pressure #1: https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/10/25/america/1572016162_659330.html
 * Reference for international pressure #2: https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2019/10/25/5db35bc621efa0977a8b4594.html
 * Reference for contract being signed between Bolivia and OAS: https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/bolivia-y-oea-acuerdan-auditoria-vinculante-a-polemicas-elecciones-428752
 * I am not in favor of any of the quotes - it is better to stick to specific facts, instead of vague generalizations.
 * Laella (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, Thank you for doing this.
 * I prefer Jamez42's first sentence.
 * The 2nd sentence "Morales, who had pledged to respect the OAS audit" - it would be technically more correct to say that "Morales, who had agreed the OAS audit would be binding" (it wasn't a promise, it was a negotiated legal agreement)
 * I prefer Burrobert's "Morales said he would call for a second-round runoff vote with Mesa if the OAS' audit found evidence of fraud”." rather than "agreed on 10 November to hold new elections" - he had originally promised to hold a 2nd round (when the agreement for an audit was originally made) - even though he changed to "holding a new election" when the audit came back.
 * "The government led by Áñez subsequently moved to detain several hundred opponents" - "protesters" rather than opponents, and the majority were freed within 2 weeks. I would want to take care not to imply this is ongoing. The vast majority were released without further legal proceedings in November 2019.
 * "start a 'national pacification' campaign that has led to 31 deaths." - I don't think that "national pacification" campaign is the best way to phrase it - it's a euphemism, and it wasn't national, it was restricted to a few specific spots. Also, most of the deaths involved protesters who were armed, some with dynamite who were trying to occupy a gasoline and gas plant, located dangerously close to a residential neighborhood. Something needs to be said about it, but it is a more complex issue than "national pacification campaign"
 * As for the quote from a WaPo article pointed about by Burrobert says - it's an opinion, not fact, and ignores that Áñez has allies on the "left" and "far-left". I also really don't think the United States "staying silent" or not is relevant at all. This is not about the United States.
 * I agree with the rest of the text proposed by Jamez42

Laella (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insight, Laella. As I mentioned above, the text contains information that might already be covered in the "Aftermatch" section, so some extra tweaks to the article overall might be needed. Many thanks for the specifications, I haven't been following the last developments in Bolivia. Could you provide sources regarding the releases and the gas plant operation?


 * Feel free to update the text in the section in these changes are sourced and an agreement is reached on the talk page. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually your first paragraph shouldn’t be in the aftermath section as it relates to the resignation of Morales and so we have already mentioned in above. I don't know why I didn't notice that initially. Your first paragraph could be incorporated into what we already have in one of the above sections. I also noticed that for some reason the assumption of power by Áñez hasn’t been mentioned in the body yet and the best place for it would be straight after the resignation Morales. So the Aftermath section should then begin with your second paragraph and describe what has happened since Anez took power. A good and recent reference for the history since Anez took power is . It mentions the following specific developments in the last 6 months. I have copied the text straight from the article so we would need to choose which events give the best view of the nature of the Anez regime and put the result in our own words. There are other specific examples from your WaPo article but that is from March this year. We could prefix the specific examples with the wording from your second paragraph:


 * ”One of Áñez’s first acts was to authorise the use of lethal force by police and soldiers. The decree was later rescinded, but security forces meanwhile killed up to 28 demonstrators, including in two shootings widely described as massacres. The killings are yet to be investigated”.


 * ”In January, Áñez declared her own candidacy for president in the forthcoming elections – a U-turn on her previous promises”.


 * ”Her administration has leaned on prosecutors to bring corruption, sedition and terrorism charges against dozens of former Mas officials and supporters. Leftwing journalists have been harassed and detained”.


 * "A new law threatening those who “misinform or cause uncertainty” over coronavirus with up to 10 years in jail – with Murillo warning the Mas presidential candidate, Luis Arce, by name – was dropped earlier in May following international outcry".


 * ”Last month, generals in combat uniforms barged into the senate, demanding that the Mas-majority body approve promotions awarded by the Áñez administration. Arturo Murillo, her hardline interior minister, has threatened to deploy fighter jets to the Chapare – a coca-growing region and Mas stronghold – to take on alleged narcotraffickers”.


 * ”At least 13 corruption cases have emerged in the past six months, including in the state oil, telecoms and aviation firms, and medical officials have allegedly used the pandemic to line their pockets”.
 * Burrobert (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Burrobert - I agree that all of those points are important. My only concern with these is: at what point are we no longer talking about the 2019 elections? Response to protesters, and anything that happened in 1-2 months following the elections is probably still relevant, but a law about coronavirus fake news, and the military vs senate fight for military promotion approvals - are not related to the elections at all.
 * Many of those points belong on a page about the current administration. I don't even know if there is a page for the current administration specifically? Laella (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is not currently a page on the activities of the interim government, mainly because a lot of Western interest began and ended with the resignation of Morales. Even the events of that day tend to be easily summarised. That would, of course, be a proper place to put such content, but it would require editors to be well informed and preferably to be able to read the Spanish sources so that they could verify the veracity of what we have been trying to say. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The original disagreement was on bias concerning a single sentence from a single source being used to represent the entire activity of a government over 7 months. This should not be a list of "things wrong with the Áñez administration" and, if it were, perhaps more neutral sources should be chosen. For NPOV, going through every point made with sources backing up one side or another seems exhaustive and unnecessary. I am left-leaning and read the Guardian regularly, but I am cognisant of their bias and they have been proven to be factual incorrect and far-left in a number of places concerning the events in Bolivia. I too would take their stories at face value if I did not actually have first-hand experience of the country for a number of years. They have received "mixed" review on mediabias for fact checking due to numerous failed fact checks over the last 5 years. . It's not just me that thinks so and it is unfortunate that they have decided to take this editorial spin.

I am frustrated at the lack of willingness to read from other sources or read about the subject in detail. Demonstrating knowledge seems less important than quoting scant wiki policy to justify censorship under "I Don't Like It", even when the inclusion of material has sound justification, or including material with the minumum requirement of verification. At the very LEAST, NPOV demands some representation of the government response to accusations or the circumstances under which decisions were made. Furthermore, there is no mention that there might be some credibility to corruption charges of many of those awaiting trial, despite it having been sufficiently noted by third party organisations for many years. Far from being politically ostracised or unable to operate due to persecution, Morales party holds a lot of power in legislative and judicial sectors. Decisions don't take place in a vacuum and it is naive to reduce events to one-sided editorials. There is undue weight given to pieces written far away by people who provide over-simplified versions of events. There is no mention, for instance, of the city sieges, road blocks and concomitant food and fuel shortages that made people genuinely fearful and was the reason for military and police intervention. That decision, which no government would have found easy, never mind one newly formed, did not take place in a vacuum. With regards to arrests of those facing more serious charges, these are not new. Opposition members, many of which are lawyers, had requests for information denied for years by the past administration and now have much freer access to the accounts and spending records they needed. This is well-documented long before the events of 2019, but of no interest to western nations. One of the defining characteristics of the interim government is the uncovering of large-scale corruption, although how that is dealt with is a genuine concern. The police, separate from the government, are also a huge issue. Áñez did not, nor could not, replace the police officers in Bolivia. The whole force was no different under Evo and the same issues existed in his administration with the same inability or unwillingness of the government to hold people accountable. The army are, surprisingly, not so much of a problem and are largely sidelined in the everyday running of the country. All of what I am saying here is easily backed up with references, but it time-consuming and I am hesitant to do so without further agreement because other parties are prone to delete.

I don't see what was particularly wrong with simply stating that Áñez took over as caretaker president with a note on the polemic nature of her tenure. Every one of the suggested items are nuanced issues for which there are dozens of articles discussing both sides in Bolivian media, written by people who understand it much more intimately. This page and section should not be a place to push politics. Look at other general election pages for a model. Even controversial elections like 2018 Venezuelan presidential election do not have a list of actions from the fallout of the next government and generally election pages do not even have an aftermath section. If there is a template we can agree upon for what is suitable it would be much appreciated and it would be better to work together on a more detailed page specifically on the interim government.

In general, I would support a description of the aftermath to include the following:


 * If the Senkata/Sacaba massacres are mentioned, or deaths in general, the national state of affairs it occurred under should also be. We also have a page dedicated the political crisis that can be linked to. Additionally, the number of deaths currently listed counts in the total those casualties inflicted by the other side. Attributing them to forces controlled by the interim government is inaccurate.
 * Human rights abuses in Bolivia are a long-standing issue noted by international observers. This is more prominent in the current climate and not solely attributable to whoever holds the presidency. The pending nature of resolving blame on the government's behalf is notable from an outsiders perspective, but not unusual for a Bolivian government. There are still uninvestigated killings from Morale's presidency and previous incumbents before 2006. To expect resolution in months is naive.
 * The interim government have been making their way through a backlog of corruption cases accumulated over the past decade exacerbated by having access to documents previously denied to them. International bodies have questioned the zealousness of these prosecutions, but have themselves brought their own accusations towards many of the defendants in previous years. There are many guilty people, but innocent people have also been doubtlessly accused and the legal system is clogged. In Bolivia, any citizen can make an arrest without warrant, but the bureaucratic system is slow to process anything. Corruption has also touched the current government, with little preferential treatment from Áñez in prosecutions.
 * The MAS collective holds a great deal of power, arguably equal to or greater than that of the government, in specific regions like Chapare, both chambers of government and the judiciary. This has led to stalemate and stagnation in the process of government on a number of key issues, including release of expenditure, delaying legislature and prevarication of many of the pending charges above.
 * Evo Morales was/is a towering and charismatic figure with much influence at both a national and international level, but several former allies have criticised him for standing in the election of 2019 in the aftermath. His remaining supporters are hardcore political allies. Most of the world has recognised Áñez as the constitution president, but they express "concern" at many of her actions.

I don't think this is particularly favourable to Áñez or Evo and it acknowledges the deep-seated problems that Bolivia faces. But really the key issue is that people aren't reaching further to research any of this. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Media Bias Fact Check is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. See WP:MBFC. Your personal experience with Bolivia has little to do with what we can write on Wikipedia, as what is written here needs to be based on reliable sources (such as the Guardian, per WP:RSP). If you have evidence of the Guardian making factual errors about Bolivia, you should cite it, rather than vaguely alluding to it. Otherwise, I see zero reason to not include material from the Guardian. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the unreliability of that source, thanks. Experience and knowledge should count for something, especially as I can back it up with facts. There is a degenerative pattern of people commenting or forming opinions on a subject they know little about. Falling back to a position of "I don't need to know anything about the subject to edit Wikipedia" is a pretty weak stance to take. In real life, you give weight and listen to people that know about the subject. Instead of stating that knowledge and experience counts for nothing, perhaps engage with the points I am making. A position of ignorance is not a good one to take. I have made several comments on the inaccuracy of the Guardian with regards to specific facts about Bolivia on a number of talk pages, but the articles in question continue to be used nonetheless. The fallback position was that it just had to be verifiable, not correct. How many factual errors do I need to provide before I would get your support on the matter and would it be worth my time? Surely you understand what a biased source looks like? Unbiased sources should provide arguments and statements from both positions and not leave out key information and context. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you would like Wikipedia to work a different way from the way it currently works, you would need to form a consensus to make changes to our policies. As is, appeals to personal experience and knowledge are considered WP:OR, except in the cases where that knowledge allows you to identify WP:RS which can then be used in the article. As for the Guardian, I haven't seen evidence that it is unreliable with respect to current Bolivia politics. Sources need to be evaluated in context (e.g., if it can be shown that the Guardian is wrong in a specific claim, e.g., by being refuted by other reliable sources, that claim may be removed or contextualized with the refutations by other sources). If you think it is generally unreliable on the subject of Bolivia and should not be cited, I recommend starting a discussion on WP:RSN about it, where the discussion can reach a broader audience and any consensus reached can be referred to in future discussions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted content from study
In June 2020, the New York Times reported on a new study by independent researchers Francisco Rodríguez (Tulane University), Dorothy Kronick and Nicolás Idrobo (University of Pennsylvania) which said that the OAS's statistical analysis was flawed, and that the OAS likely used a dataset that excluded 1,500 "late reporting" voting stations. In the study, they use the term "late reporting" to refer to voting stations that had not be assigned any time stamp in the system and it is assumed that all such stations were still counting after the cutoff. When they examine the presence of a "discontinuity" before and after the 95% mark indicated by Nooruddin, they use the term in a technical sense used in the academic literature to mean "the probability of receiving treatment at the cutoff ", noting that the original OAS study does not apply the word in the same sense. Interpreting discontinuity as in the literature, they apply linear local regression, a technique used to create smooth curves from scatterplots, to smooth out the data in the OAS report. Both methods reduce the appearance of a discontinuous jump before and after the cutoff, with the first showing an increase in the MAS share of the vote after the cutoff, followed by a decline in the last 5%, and the second showing an increase in the MAS share of the vote after the cutoff of more than 10%.

If there is confusion about the above, can you please specify where it is? Crmoorhead (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also being less insulting and more cooperative would be helpful. The definitions used in the study are relevant because if they are non-intuitive, then it is important with regards to how they are used in NYT and elsewhere to point this out. Their definition of "late-reporting" isn't what you think it is and "discontinuity" also has entirely different definition which they admit is different to the OAS report. There is no interpretation or analysis on my part, they are statements from footnotes in the study. so it's not OR. By the guidelines, you don't need to be able to verify it is true, only that it is easily checked that came from the source and page I state. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the change myself but I agree with it. The details above are too heavy for readers. By going into that level of detail we obscure the main points which are contained in the NYT article, namely:
 * the study found the OAS analysis of the voting trend to be flawed.
 * the independent study did not consider other problems with the vote that were reported by the OAS.
 * We didn't go into this level of detail with the other studies. If readers are interested they can access the original study through the link to the NYT article. Burrobert (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We mention discontinuities and the term "late-reporting" elsewhere in the article. If the definitions are different or misleading in the NYT and our text from the definitions in the study itself, it makes a difference. If we are citing "improper techniques", then why is not in everyone's interest to state why? Much of the study is secondary sourcing as analysis of the OAS and other reports. For primary content, I believe I have properly sourced it so that it is verifiable by a non-expert as coming from the source. From the guidelines: "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." If you don't agree with the current wording, it could certainly be adjusted to fit that and whether or not there are details on the other studies does not negate that. It is hard to have any real summary on these analyses without using terminology. I am not proposing an essay, just three or four lines for clarification of terminology "which should be defined, or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists." There is nothing wrong with detail and the paragraph is not over-long Crmoorhead (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My problems were that the text is far too technical for the general reader, a fair amount isn't even particularly relevant to the gist of what needs to be said (there is no need for the reader to know that "they apply linear local regression, a technique used to create smooth curves from scatterplots, to smooth out the data in the OAS report.") and that it doesn't really have any particular conclusion, so all the reader gets is that there was a study with some technical details, but is left questioning what it actually means. Number   5  7  18:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * But that was not your grounds for deletion. You said it was "Baffling/impenetrable". We specifically use the term "late-reporting voting stations". In the study, they say that they use "late-reporting" for brevity to mean "booths without preliminary results system time stamps". The entire study centres on whether or not this data was or was not included in the original OAS analysis. If we take it to be late reporting in the usual sense that the data came in late, then it seems like he just left a chunk out for no reason. If it is "late reporting" in another sense, that is not obvious to the reader, then that should be explained. It's also speculation that it even was left out. Similarly, the use of "discontinuity" is noted to be specifically different in the OAS and Rodriguez studies. The whole point is proving that there is not an unexplained discontinuity and we mention the discontinuity in another paragraph. If it's different, it should be made clear and Inaccuracy should be borne in mind. The method they use to do that is a function that turns a plot with huge unexplained jumps to one that doesn't. Mathematically, that's what it does, by taking a moving weighted average. There are parameters to the process, but they do not state what they are in the study, only the end result. It's not surprising behaviour for anyone that knows what that is. It's like saying that adding together two positive numbers together will give you a number bigger than either. And the plots they show where they apply both techniques on p13 are as described.


 * ATM, we have a list of analyses that gives no information on technical details, yet we are reporting on opinions at a surface level which depends very much on what language the commenter is willing to use. There is nothing tangible at all and you can bet that the NYT are more interested in the politics than the statistics.


 * At the end of the day, you don't need to understand it or like it. The question is whether the content is verifiable and not OR or interpretative. I don't believe you read the references to see whether that was the case. I don't believe you read beyond the NYT to assess what is or is not relevant to the discussion. I am not doing wizardry, I am just reading the studies and it's fine to report with unaltered details from that to comment on a secondary source. As with the previous WP article, this is more a storm in a tea cup. Words from the authors on their own work is not unbiased and these articles don't give any details on their methods, just as they quote Nooruddin as not giving details on his method. As far as "all the reader gets is that there was a study with some technical details, but is left questioning what it actually means" goes, it's a complicated issue that several experts in the field disagree on. Boiling it down to a black-and-white or "solved" issue is disingenuous and may not even be possible. 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I described it as baffling/impenetrable because it was too technical and didn't actually really say anything. And of course editors are able to remove/rewrite content if they feel it is not understandable or don't think it's appropriate; this is a core part of the editing process. Number   5  7  14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, you ignore all points and questions I am making. We should not use or reference two terms as being the same when they are applied differently. I directly quoted the guidelines on usage. You don't see why it needs included because you haven't read the report. The content is perfectly verifiable, not OR and is NPOV. It's a complicated issue with details that matter. Your understanding is entirely irrelevant. Do you understand everything on this A-grade featured page? If we are writing on technical analyses, it will have technical terms and describing the method and justification might just matter more than whatever the author has to say to sell their own work as being important. Technically, the quotes are primary sourcing as the person is directly involved. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because something is verifiable, it does not make it suitable for inclusion. My understanding is entirely relevant if I believe readers will also struggle to understand. Number   5  7  16:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OAS and Rebuttals - length
As has happened on other pages, the OAS report and its Rebuttals are taking over the entire page. Obviously this is the right place for it, but... The OAS report and rebuttals are now more words than the rest of the page together. This focus on these reports is giving them way too much importance. These reports had no impact on the elections or their outcome, including the OAS's report. The importance of the OAS initial report (which came after 3 weeks of massive country-wide protests which completely shut down the country), has been heavily overstated. Had the OAS report been in favor of Morales it would not have changed the outcome, because the allegations and proof of fraud did not come from the OAS. The Bolivian legal case for fraud does not hinge on these reports (or even include them).

Further, the rebuttals are all focused on one section of the OAS report. None of the rebuttals address any other aspect of the OAS report, or any of the other allegations of fraud. Assuming for a moment, that the OAS's statistical analysis section is completely wrong, it changes nothing. The actual proof of fraud is significant and sufficient. Adding infinite rebuttals to the statistical analysis may make it look like "overwhelming evidence" but it's actually completely insignificant.

There needs to be a lot more information about other aspects of the elections on this page.

If this section needs to be so detailed, it would be better for the OAS report and rebuttals to be on its own page. Laella (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And there are bound to be more analyses and counterargument in future. As I mentioned in another page, could be better to group them into whether they claim fraud or not and leave out all the comments while moving the detail to another page. I also think that it's devolving into academics disagreeing on increasingly trivial points of difference and the discussions rarely, if ever, mention the reason why this or that method is inappropriate or assumptions made. Trusting press releases on studies with words from the authors themselves is highly biased. Of course they say that their work is superior to everyone else's, and gloss over the reasons in the process. There is room for detail and specifics on Wikipedia. Look at any technical subject. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)