Talk:2019 Bolivian political crisis/Archive 4

Requested move 15 November 2019
2019 Bolivian political crisis → ? – Many have said that it was too early to coin the events a coup d'etat previously. I think the nature of the events have now made this increasingly clear. Although I believe the mere nature of the military forcing the civilian government to resign speaks for itself, events have continued to escalate. The military and police are now violently repressing pro-Morales protests, with many protesters killed today, the President has been forced to flee after he claims a warrant was issued for his arrest (and it has been confirmed he would be prosecuted if he returned), and the self-proclaimed new President is of disputed legitimacy with the MAS majority refusing to recognize her. Furthermore, even many western sources have now referred to the event as a coup d'etat, as well as many governments. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment this information need further clarification and more events related to this because many mainstream media refused to refer the events in Bolivia as "coup d'etat". Even in spanish Wikipedia, there was strong debate and disagreements about what the title is. This situation is more complex and many editors and policians divided whether the events is coup or not. "Bolivian political crisis" still the most neutral title until more information progressed regarding coup or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.213.38.127 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * First Washington Post source is an opinion piece of an adviser to Bernie Sanders. Second source is not clear. Third source is Página/12, a Kirchnerism newspaper (Kirchner is a longtime ally of Morales). Before we make a determination on the terminology, take the time to let this settle. This is a recent and ongoing event. What we are hearing from scholars is to avoid the labeling entirely, with even the Sanders adviser agreeing to this idea somewhat.ZiaLater ( talk ) 03:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The distinction between a "coup" and a "revolution" is often a value judgement rather than an objective description. There's no consistent standard on this wiki for the use of "coup" vs. "revolution". For example, the military was also involved in the ousting Morsi in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia, but both these events are labeled as "revolutions" on this website. Because there is no consistent standard, and because the word "coup" is controversial on this topic, the article should not include the term in in its title. "2019 Bolivian political crisis" is fine. Jogarz1921 (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as headline of this article. Military and civil police is killing and wounding people - more than 5 killed and about 75 wounded in one day just in order to suppress one political point of view and keep in power one new political faction that came on power without using election or other legal terms. This is not a mere political crisis as it is killing and hurting of people opposing of removal of president and not just a president of their country. One more indication that this is coup d'état is US support and imminently recognition for new non elected interim president that in their hurry for power grab did not event get Bolivia Congress to vote for her - because USA already had many fingers in various coup d'état in Bolivia in their recent history this is valid point. UK press is less subjective in this case because it lacks past role in Bolivia and for example The Guardian clearly says this is coup d'état . There is also many other sources calling this event coup and there is no reason for editors here - except if they are not involved in staging coups worldwide -  to seek some "neutral point of view" by declaring use of military and police including brutal force against people in situation when elected president fled country as mere political crisis.


 * And on top of all new so called "president" of Bolivia promoted immediately many new military commander clearly indicating her connections with military in order to get power and stay there. What possible could one senate member know about military and their commanders in just one day as "president" if she is not already colluding with them before or just there to read from script prepared for her? She knows in one day the best man for chief of staff, general commander of the army, head of Bolivian Air Force and head of Bolivian Navy. In one same day - ridiculous. In end picture in this reference says more than a thousand of words.


 * And for example - think yourself - would you call coup - if - for example - some senator in US - lets say from California - ousted Trump and proclaimed itself a president circumventing all legal means and with military backings and help, while US president in such case escape for lets say to UK - Would that be coup or just some usual political crisis in US?


 * While this is not a situation that some military commander take direct power this is still a a coup - ″A coup d'état, also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction″ - from wikipedia. Clearly here one political faction with help of some military and police units using non-democratic means sized power in Bolivia.


 * And ridiculous as is Juan Guaidó - one more non-elected "president" - recognize his fellow new non-elected "president" of Bolivia - love birds. Any similarities in technique of coup tried in Venezuela and now in Bolivia are coincidental just for naive persons or persons supporting this coups while stating otherwise and pretending to be something else than propagandist.


 * Revolutions are historically done(including first ones - US and French - change from monarchy) by people in order to replace one constitutional order with another usually in case of mass oppression or change current constitutions with another different, why is word "revolution" used in some articles in Wikipedia to describe some recent events in countries like Egypt where coup in end was done I don't know but it seems to me like similarly word "democracy" lately is used to promote and describe many non-democratic doings and events - it is just a mask for people behind actual events in order to passivize plebs. In Bolivia one the same constitutions is still in use - no revolution there. Loesorion (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Considering the intervention of the military and the police against elected government and it being forced to resign under duress, I believe it is suitable to name these events a coup, since it would be consistent with other events in history where military forces were involved in placing a right-wing government in power by undemocratic means, for examples see 1964 Bolivian coup d'état or 1976 Argentine coup d'état, 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état, 1923 Bulgarian coup d'état among many others. BlindNight (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose The current move proposal only serves as a discussion to oppose the current title or not. "2019 Bolivian political crisis" seemed to be the less controversial, less divisive rename alternative. While some may thing that this title does not describe the events as well as others, other proposals seemed to have had more opposition, and there seemed to be a consensus to move the last title. As I have stated, if this position changes and a move is still requested, a move proposal with a specific alternative should be made. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics. One of the sources provided precisely says that the European Union ha refused to call the events a coup, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has recognized Añez as interim president. Since the events before and after the resignation are being discussed, I encourage other editors to read the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt article talk page, where extensive discussions about the topic have taken place. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment While this was clearly a coup, we have to use wording that agrees with most reliable sources, which, alas, are very careful when describing the event. BeŻet (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support: It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate. "On Sunday, the head of Bolivia’s military called on Evo Morales to resign from the presidency. Minutes later, Morales was on a plane to Cochabamba where he did just that. These facts leave little doubt that what happened in Bolivia this weekend was a military coup [...] The mainstream press has bent over backwards, and tied itself in more than a few tangled knots, to avoid drawing this conclusion." Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Editors on Wikipedia are not entitled to have their own opinion on if this was a coup or not. Their opinion simply doesn't matter here. What matters is what the reliable sources say. To call it a coup, it would have to exist a strong consensus in the media about it and the word would have to be widely used in most media outlets which it's not the case here. As stated above by Jogarz1921 the distinction between a "coup" and a "revolution" is not very clear and in this case we shouldn't use this word unless there is a strong consensus in the RS.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose As and I have said, scholars do not agree with the binary terminology (coup vs. revolution). Giving this a neutral title would be the only way to abide by WP:NPOV. If any article were to have "coup" in the title, it would have been the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, but we agreed not to use the terminology (though I argued this to be a coup attempt since there were armed actions involved. What,  and I were working on was a more specific, neutral title. That would be 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis. This is a crisis affecting the governance of Bolivia. Simple fix, simple title.ZiaLater ( talk ) 23:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support Calling it a coup is indeed neutral - it's literally what happened. Yes, several "reliable sources" (e.g. the NYT, the Washington Post, etc) have refrained from calling it a coup, but that's because they are biased towards a US-centric view (to put it nicely). I second everything that, , , and have said. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move to coup d'etat, per above. If anything, the article title should address that the military had a primary role in ousting the president. Davey2116 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning more towards 2019 Bolivian military memorandum as proposed above. It's more accurate and less controversial. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Spanish Wikipedia has now adopted the coup title after a majority in the discussion there deemed it more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all I need. 2019 Bolivian coup d'état now has my support. Charles Essie (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They have not 'adopted' anything. Discussion is ongoing and consensus is yet unclear; an editor unilaterally changed the title. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support for coup d'état. It is important to remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As many other editors have stated above, US and UK media cannot be followed blindly in this context because they are biased (a) toward the appearance of objectivity, even when that leads to errors, and (b) toward the interests of US and UK governments. (Manufacturing Consent would likely be an enlightening read for a number of opposing editors.)


 * I also want to point out that the editors above who state that "scholars do not agree with the binary terminology" are playing fast and loose with the facts, given that the only source for this is an opinion column. (I have pointed this out several times on this page and have yet to receive an adequate response.) Contrary to that column, a number of academics have indeed called what is going on in Bolivia a coup. For example, in this El País article, two of the four academics interviewed stated that it was a coup, one said that it was not a coup, and another stated that it had elements of both a coup and a military insurrection. Here are some more sources for consideration that accurately refer to this coup as what it is:


 * Finally, the proposed title meets all five of our title criteria, and in most of them, surpasses the current title. It is more recognizable than "political crisis", more natural, more precise, equally concise, and consistent with the titles of similar articles, such as 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and many others. We should follow Spanish Wikipedia in giving this article an accurate and recognizable title, and that means calling it a coup. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Again. Those who are in favor of moving to "coup" show the overwhelming majority of reliable sources nominally calling the event a "coup" (not opinion articles like those posted here). Again, we have to remember that we, as WP's editor, are not entitled to have our own opinion. Here on WP our opinions and analysis (Even if well-grounded. Even if we're experts) don't matter. What matter are the RS. And, in this case, the name must be "widely used in reliable sources". Let's stick to the WP's policies--SirEdimon (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Here in Indonesian Wikipedia, there are two articles with different name than other language does.
 * The first article is 2019 Bolivian protests, which in Indonesian version named 2019 Bolivian post-election crisis same as French-language ones, the other is resignation of Evo Morales government, which have been called 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis in Indonesian version.
 * The term "governmental crisis" is relatively new for Wiki editors but it should be used.
 * You can visited Indonesian version of two articles about Bolivia crisis. Hanafi455 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The two sources you yourself present, The Nation and The Intercept, have a known and documented bias of their own. Your suggestion that we ignore multiple reliable sources because of an assumed 'western bias' and instead follow only sources that align with your own bias is a bit flaccid. As far as keeping with titles of 'similar articles', please list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) As you must be aware, all sources have a point of view. The Nation and The Intercept (which are considered reliable sources per WP:RSP) clearly present where they're coming from, unlike many other sources cited in this discussion which purport to have a view from nowhere and end up obfuscating the facts as a result. But as you'll see if you read my comment more carefully, I am not in fact suggesting that we follow only sources that align with [my] own bias, but rather demonstrating that some reliable sources use coup, making it an appropriate option for the title of this page. We can then use WP:CRITERIA to decide among our options. My position is that "coup" is superior by these criteria, being far more precise than "political crisis", consistent with other similar articles' titles, and recognizable, among other things. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As for your request to list a few articles with 'coup' in the title in which the military took no actions and made no threats, I don't know why that would be relevant. In this case, the military did take action: it demanded Morales's resignation. Surely you're not suggesting such demands aren't backed by an implicit threat of violence? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 'some sources use coup' and 'it's recognizable' is just not convincing justification enough for using such a contentious, sides-taking label in the title of the article. It certainly warrants mention, preferably with attribution. Not in the title. I don't know why that would be relevant? When you try to compare apples with oranges it's not relevant to point out that they look and taste different? Your characterization of events is one long stretch. Yes, I suppose one could technically call making a statement an 'action' but that's not really what most people mean when they think of military action. You say 'demanded' which is, again, not technically incorrect, but is about the most unfavorable possible interpretation of the words they actually used. As such the claim of 'implicit threat of violence' is met with my implicit eye roll. If "the military made a suggestion that could be interpreted as implicitly threatening" is your definition of a coup d'etat, I don't know what to tell you. Compare and contrast to what you're describing as 'similar'. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2002, after fatal clashes between supporters of the government and opposition, the military demanded that Hugo Chávez resign. Unlike Morales, Chávez did not comply and was then arrested by the military. If Chávez had resigned and fled the country rather than being arrested, this would still be considered a coup d'état, given that the military stepped in to remove the existing president. (Chávez and his supporters later executed a bloodless counter-coup.) What defines the current events in Bolivia as a coup is not the body count, but the involvement of the military. Rolling your eyes at the facts won't change them. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't backed by RSs, and we don't do OR. User cmonghost pointed out a couple of sources that refer to the event as a coup and then pointed out that they are considered RS per WP:RSP however they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship so they shouldn't take precedence over articles by the NYT for instance, as WP:UNDUE especially in the lead.
 * The Intercept: "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept."
 * The Nation: "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy."
 * I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacy, specifically, hasty generalization, and an appeal to irrational premises and its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venue. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The moment that Reuters, The BBC, The Washington Post, the NYT, The New Yorker or a majority of them start using the word coup, I'll be the first to change the name, but until that point RSs don't use the word coup, and we don't do original research. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, the discussion with the IP above was getting into OR territory and doesn't seem like it will go anywhere. However you seem to misunderstand what a reliable source is. You say they also both have large asterisks next to them for bias and partisanship, as if this should immediately rule them out in comparison to the other sources you've listed. However, as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for determining reliability, and indeed, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Both sources meet these criteria, and indeed, being an adversarial investigative journalism site, The Intercept has more independence from Western state governments supporting the coup than the NYT, WaPo, etc., which rely on access to powerful sources of information for their reporting.
 * I also disagree with the axiom hitherto stated that all sources are biased thus clearly biased sources can and must be used by necessity. The argument is a rhetorical fallacy If we're playing spot-the-fallacy, yours is straw man, because I didn't say that. What I am saying is that context matters, and we should take into account potential bias from all sources, not just left-wing ones.
 * its conclusions are not supported by WP:RSP, which is an actual authority in this venue Wrong on both counts. (a) The fact that the Nation and the Intercept are reliable is in fact supported by WP:RSP. (b) WP:RSP is not "an actual authority", it's an explanatory supplement to WP:RS. It is a useful reference, not a set of binding rules. This is made clear in the lead: Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
 * I will lay this out one more time, since you seem to be confused about what my argument actually is.
 * Reliable sources use "coup", "crisis", "resignation", and many other terms. This gives us a number of potential options for the title.
 * Turning to our title criteria to decide amongst our options, coup is superior.
 * — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea that certain sources that call it a coup are "biased" is a bit rich. All sources are biased one way or another, there is no such thing as non ideological news. The New York Times, for instance, has a longstanding history of backing regime change. Many more Spanish language sources have referred to the events as a coup,   and the facts of the event i.e. the military forcing the civilian government from power, support that terminology. Zellfire999 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't analyze your sources in depth right now, but at first sign, I can say that, at least, two of your sources are not reliable. Telesur is not reliable per WP:RESOURCES. Página 12 is also not reliable. It belongs to Víctor Santa María, a politician affiliated to the Justicialist Party in Argentina. This is a politic newspaper heavily leaned towards "Kirchnerism", "Peronism" and left-wing politics in South America.--SirEdimon (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ownership of a paper is not, in itself, compelling evidence that it is unreliable. For example, The Washington Post is considered reliable on Wikipedia despite being owned by Jeff Bezos, who stands to gain or lose from many of the events covered by the paper. To consider Página 12 unreliable we would need to see evidence of a lack of error correction, fact-checking, etc. In any case, the other two sources cited by appear very solid. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind that original research does not apply to talk pages. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as headline of this article. The key moment of the political transition was the call of the head of the military for Evo Moralez to step down. Anez could only become "interim president" because the military backed her. According to the constitution it would not have been her call. The recent decree by the new coup-president Anez also shows the might the military now has.--Derim Hunt (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose to rename the article as a "coup", because it would implicate the title is backing only one side, and the narrative of a "coup" is widely contested. The military suggestion for Morales to resign was based in article 20 paragraph b. of the Bolivian N°1405 Law, which allows the head of the military to make "suggestions" to the president. Also we have to consider that in a coup, normally the forces that perpetrate it asumme the government. However, in this case, the military nor the head of oposition Carlos Mesa (the alleged participant in the coup) assumed the government. Maybe that was the reason the Organization of American States did not call the event as a coup neither many goverments like US, Argentine, Brasil, Chile and Peru. Here we have some media sources where the narrative of a coup is rejected:


 * https://apnews.com/3886ecb25be54066a393c40dec81e384
 * https://theglobepost.com/2019/11/13/bolivia-no-coup/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/15/bolivian-coup-that-wasnt/
 * https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/11/12/bolivian-bishops-say-evo-morales-resignation-was-not-coup
 * https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/wire/andres-oppenheimer-bolivia-s-morales-says-he-was-ousted-by/article_d091a0bd-65bf-5b07-9522-978f6665374f.html
 * https://bangordailynews.com/2019/11/18/opinion/contributors/evo-morales-ouster-in-bolivia-was-not-a-coup-just-a-blunder/
 * --Elelch (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that all the sources cited here are either opinion articles or articles summarizing the opinions of nations or groups, such as the United States or Bolivian bishops. They should be given as much weight as opinion articles arguing in favour of the 'coup' designation, which is to say very little. It is also unsurprising that the OAS and some of its member states are reticent to call this coup what it is, given the primary role they played in fomenting it. Given their high degree of involvement, they can't be considered reliable sources for what our article should be called. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The only role OAS played was to expose the electoral fraud performed by Evo Morales government, which was the real cause of his resignation.--Elelch (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In reality, they also called for a second round of elections and have subsequently supported the coup government. Given this involvement, it would be laughable to treat them as a neutral arbiter of truth, as you appear to suggest in your original !vote. (Moreover, multiple statistical analyses, such as by CEPR and UMich professor Walter Mebane, have also suggested that the allegations of electoral fraud are quite dubious and were unlikely to affect the result of the election in any case.) The reason for his resignation, as has been stated by numerous outlets (including Western ones) as well as Morales himself, was that the military demanded he do so. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the result of OAS audit concluded that they were inconsistency in the electroal process, that the "informatic system was manipulated" and that "it was unlikely statistically that Evo Morales have reached the 10% difference needed to avoid a second round". I think that means fraud. That was so evident that Evo Morales accepted to redo the election. What is very laughable is that it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpetrators (military and Carlos Mesa) did not assume the government.--Elelch (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, the findings of the OAS are dubious and have been convincingly disputed by other analyses. For example, the supposed statistical unlikeliness of Morales's win is straightforwardly explained by the fact that his base is located in rural areas that report later. This article gives a good overview: (Note that I am not proposing to include this source in our own article.) It should also be noted that without evidence, Morales's agreeing to redo the election is not an admission to electoral fraud—you're free to interpret it as such, but I think it's more likely that the OAS report was simply one of a number of sources of pressure on Morales, also including the protests, the police mutiny, and increasing pressure from other nations.
 * it would be the first "coup d'état" in which the perpretators ... did not assume the government. This is not true. What definition of coup are you going by? It is by no means out of the ordinary for the military to install someone else as leader after carrying out a coup. One obvious example is that the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état was perpetrated by the military, but installed businessman and opposition member Pedro Carmona as president. (It's also unclear to me why you name Carlos Mesa as a perpetrator of the coup. While he's obviously a leading figure in the opposition, I don't know that there's evidence suggesting he conspired with Kaliman or other military figures before they decided to remove Morales.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the source you gave to support the rejection of an electoral fraud is a source yo recognize is not reliable to be added to the article. Also, your comparison with the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état is not suitable, because Pedro Carmona had no rigth to take office as president. For the contrary, Yanet Añez was the person in the presidential line of succession according with Bolivian Constitution, so much so that Bolivia´s Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal endorsed it. As you can see, the narrative of a coup is not credible.--Elelch (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The source I gave to support the rejection of fraud is an opinion/analysis piece (much like the ones you originally linked above), which is why it's not suitable for the article, not because it's inaccurate or because Jacobin is unreliable. (As far as I know, there's no consensus on whether Jacobin is reliable or not, likely because it mostly produces opinion and analysis rather than original reporting, to my knowledge.) I linked the article for your edification; you are welcome to read it if you'd like to learn something. Otherwise, I don't really see a point to continuing this now-very-tangential discussion. I will point out though that the president of the coup government's name is actually Jeanine, not "Yanet", and she was only next in the line of succession because several MAS candidates ahead of her, such as Adriana Salvatierra, were forced to resign — and their resignations were not formal, written resignations but merely statements on television. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The military only suggested the resignation of Morales not the whole line of succession. García Linera and the heads of parlament chambers resigned because Morales requested it in order to allege a coup d'état later. Do not forget that the presidency of Añez has been supported by bolivia´s constitutional court. It is really very strange the coup d'état you see, in which the perpetrators did not take charge of the country, the congress was not disolved and the new president, endorsed by the constitutional court, has already sent to congress a bill to call up for new elections... what a coup d'état!--Elelch (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support 2019 Bolivian Coup d'état The military told the president its time to go. POV represented by those who refuse to call this a coup despite this. Pretty much a no brainer. KasimMejia (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose- calling it a 'political crisis' is appropriate at this point. Calling it a coup is not neutral because of the negative connotations.  Surely, a hot issue.  After things stabilize and the legitimacy of the present government is determined this can be revisited.  Meanwhile, it is better to be neutral about it by calling it a crisis.  Jip Orlando (talk)
 * See WP:DUCK calling a duck a duck is fully neutral. A coup is a coup. KasimMejia (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If there is an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the Anatidae family, then it is not a duck, period. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post are not zoologists. The correct analogy is that the zoologists are calling it a duck, but the media has decided to call it a chicken because someone bought stocks in Perdue Farms. The media do not have a neutral point of view, not when it comes to highly charged political events; if you're really interested in getting it right, cite the zoologists directly.JoshuaChen (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the page, you're missing the point. The essay is directed towards sockpuppet investigations. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for 2019 Bolivian Coup d'état - as KasimMejia wrote, it is a pretty clear situation, the military has forced president to step down and is violently crushing the protests (dozens of dead as of yesterday). All detailed arguments were written by other users previously. StjepanHR (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support - to rename article as  2019 Bolivian coup d'état. It’s no secret that the army told Evo Morales you got to go or else, even after he offered to hold new elections. The new right wing government in power led by a small number of the elite from the non-indigenous minority is backed by the army and police. It has resulted in the suspension of certain laws and a campaign against political and civilian supporters of Morales. All this fits the text book definition of a coup.Resnjari (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - to rename article as 2019 Bolivian coup d'état.
 * The fact that the law for the Bolivian Army says it's a "Fundamental responsbility" for the Army to "Analyze internal and external conflict situations, to suggest to whom correspond the appropriate solutions." takes away all the threatening connotations of the suggestion of his resignation (See Article 20, paragraph B in )


 * The Bolivian Army suggestion makes sense given that it was made after:
 * a long (since October 21 to November 10) civil strike and blokades in all cities asking the president to resign because of the then alleged rigged elections,
 * the president threats on October 25 to surround the cities in which the strikes were asking an audit of the elections
 * negative from the police to follow orders from high command on November 9 (which was in charge of president supporters) ,
 * confirmation on November 10 by the OAS international audit team that "The audit team cannot validate the results of this election and therefore recommends another electoral process" (penultimate paragraph on, )
 * a message to the nation later same day on November 10 from the president telling he'll make new elections (but making clear he'll not resign from office and doesn't mention OAS result)
 * still the people asks for his resignation and snipers shoots some protesters (posession of firearms is forbidden by law)


 * Further, Bolivia was without president for two days (since November 10 to November 12) until Jeanine Añez proclaims herself as president because she was the highest-ranking politician in the line of succession after Mr. Morales and other top officials stepped down, the probable reason the legislative quorum wasn't supporting her was because more than 66% (25 of 36 seats) of senate belongs to the then ex-president MAS party . Notice that her party is P.P.B - C.N which is not the one the ex-president accused of making a coup d'état (Mesa's party is FRI. and Camacho is president of the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, the second or third largest city of Bolivia, affiliated to another party MNR ).


 * As of today, November 22 current interim president presents a law proposal to call for elections


 * RobertoOropeza (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — RobertoOropeza (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment A pretty strong majority here seems to back the reversion to the original title (and it probably should never have been moved to begin with), but for anyone still doubting it is a coup, the interim government is now arresting MAS leaders and is investigating Morales for "terrorism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What consensus are you talking about? Where are your sources? Again, your opinion doesn't matter here. In fact, any opinion or analisys from WP editors matters here. ONLY THE SOURCES.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that many "reliable sources" DO refer to it as a coup as demonstrated above, if a politician was reported by media to have "been put to death by means of gunshot by a critic" would Wikipedia be unable to call it an assassination unless the media outlets used that word? Virtually the entire elected civilian government was forced to resign by the military. There is no dispute whatsoever as to that. That is, by definition, a coup. The majority of people who have commented here agree with that assessment, and Spanish Wikipedia has already adopted it. "Neutral language" is not neutral when it obscures the facts rather than illuminates them. Zellfire999 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Without going into detail or getting involved in the discussion for the time being, I have to remind that the Spanish Wikipedia has not "already adopted it", and that the current title resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, again, show the reliable sources calling it a nominally a "coup". You didn't show it until now. Second, this "civilian government" frauded an election and disrespected the results of a referendum. I'm not pointing this out on this discussion, because my opinion or analysis doesn't matter here (as well as any WP's editor opinion). Third, Wikipedia cannot call an "assassination", an "assassination" unless the sources call it an "assassination". Wikipedia ONLY reproduces what is written on the reliable sources. We don't produce knowledge. We reproduce knowledge. If you don't understand that I suggest you to read WP:OR very carefully.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support to call it what it is: a coup. The media are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. It is well known that mainstream media are capable of bias. It is well known that the owners of major media, as well as many of their well-paid journalists, have their own political agendas and shared class-interests with the right wing actors. If the media decide to manufacture consent, Wikipedia-editors should not allow themselves to be made the lackeys of the ruling interests of our society. Instead, to simply apply the definition of "coup d'état" to the events that have unfolded would be far more accurate than regurgitating whatever comes out of media outlets with a vested interest in misrepresenting facts. Even though that would technically be "original research"--god forbid!!!!!! In reality, dogmatic adherence to policies, in situations where they should not apply, is just an excuse to uphold the status quo.


 * To demonstrate my point, here are numerous articles that refer to the coup as a coup: []. But some bootlicker would complain that these are left-wing or anti-American sources with this or that known bias. Well guess fucking what, the outlets refusing to call it a coup are biased too. There's no neutral, just left and right. You're just choosing to side with the right because of your own fucking political leanings, unconsciously or not. Find another fucking way of determining your precious fucking "objectivity."JoshuaChen (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Addendum: earlier in this thread Cmonghost pointed out this article that actually goes out of its way to interview academics on whether the coup can, technically, be considered a coup. Instead of citing blog posts from Jeff Bezos' personal propaganda rag, maybe y'all should look for the opinions of academics (or articles that cite academics). That'd probably be the best way find the correct terminology without breaking your rule on original research.


 * Also, apparently y'all have a policy called "CONTEXTMATTERS," so we don't actually have to bend the rules. Stop relying on right-wing sources.JoshuaChen (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yknow, if you're this hostile to how Wikipedia works, you're welcome to go start your own. Nobody is forcing you here. 199.116.171.69 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I want to provide a list of sources that reject the term of "coup" for the events that was included by in the Spanish Wikipedia.


 * https://theglobepost.com/2019/11/13/bolivia-no-coup/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/15/bolivian-coup-that-wasnt/
 * https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/11/12/bolivian-bishops-say-evo-morales-resignation-was-not-coup
 * https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/wire/andres-oppenheimer-bolivia-s-morales-says-he-was-ousted-by/article_d091a0bd-65bf-5b07-9522-978f6665374f.html
 * https://bangordailynews.com/2019/11/18/opinion/contributors/evo-morales-ouster-in-bolivia-was-not-a-coup-just-a-blunder/
 * https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/juan-camilo-gomez-bolivia-evo-morales-mexico-amlo-asilo-fuentes-confiables-sot-cnnee/
 * https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2019/11/11/jair-bolsonaro-tras-la-renuncia-de-evo-morales-la-palabra-golpe-se-usa-mucho-cuando-pierde-la-izquierda-cuando-ganan-es-legitimo/
 * https://www.eldeber.com.bo/156394_oea-el-golpe-se-dio-cuando-evo-quiso-quedarse-en-el-poder-en-primera-vuelta
 * https://www.voanoticias.com/a/bolivia-evo-morales-promueve-violencia/5168196.html
 * https://www.abc.es/opinion/abci-bolivia-transicion-201911170101_noticia.html
 * https://peru21.pe/opinion/sumas-y-restas-sandro-venturo/ola-y-contra-ola-en-bolivia-noticia/
 * https://www.diariolasamericas.com/america-latina/pastrana-tilda-evo-morales-usurpador-la-par-maduro-n4187522
 * https://es.euronews.com/2019/11/11/evo-morales-deja-la-presidencia-de-bolivia-ha-sido-un-golpe-de-estado
 * https://americanuestra.com/carlos-mesa-no-hubo-golpe-de-estado-y-evo-morales-rompio-la-linea-de-sucesion-intencionalmente/
 * https://www.infobae.com/america/opinion/2019/11/12/no-hay-golpe-en-bolivia-evo-morales-cae-por-una-insurreccion-popular/
 * https://www.larazon.es/internacional/20191117/uqumhcignzb5npt7btylpbhmwu.html
 * https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/mauricio-macri-todos-estamos-preocupados-bolivia-nid2305350
 * https://www.efe.com/efe/america/politica/guaido-dice-que-no-puede-hablarse-de-golpe-estado-contra-evo-morales/20000035-4108530
 * https://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/renuncia-de-evo-morales-no-fue-un-golpe-de-estado/1347226
 * https://www.razonpublica.com/index.php/internacional-temas-32/12415-bolivia-mas-alla-del-golpe-que-no-fue.html


 * There are plenty of references that don't use the term. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support, it's a coup, and at Wikipedia, we call coups what they are. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Bolivian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miserlou (talk • contribs) 25 November (UTC)


 * Comment On november 23, Bolivia´s Congress has unanimously passed a law to annul the contested Oct. 20 elections and pave the way for a new vote without former President Evo Morales. Take note of the fact that Bolivia´s Congress is dominated (majority) by Movement for Socialism, the political Party of Evo Morales. So, I dont know what kind of coup is this in which the party of the alleged overthrew president endorses such a law. For me it is another proof that there was not a coup.--Elelch (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état as name of the article, because it's a coup by its definition. BobNesh (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support for Bolivian coup d'état. Those that argue that Wikipedia should not name it a coup because that would be "choosing a side", don't you realise that's exactly what you're doing by denying irrefutable facts? --Bleff (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move to 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. It's an accurate and non-judgemental descriptive title. Furthermore, it better meets the "naturalness" criteria from the naming convention guidelines. "Political crisis" is a vague, undefined term that can mean anything from political scandals to parliamentary elections  that don't end in majority governments.  --Surachit (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to point out that, despite repeated claims to the contrary, several editors, including myself and, have provided reliable sources in both English and Spanish that use the word "coup" (or "golpe") to describe the events in question. Repeatedly claiming that such sources do not exist or have not been provided will not make it true. It is easy to scroll up, read the comments, and see it for yourself. WP:ICANTHEARYOU comes to mind. Here again are some sources referring to the events as a coup:
 * Given that both "coup" and various other names are used by reliable sources, our decision here should be based on our naming guidelines: There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. I have yet to see a compelling argument that "political crisis" is superior on these grounds. The facts of the event also support the name "coup": the military intervened by asking the elected head of state to resign.
 * I also want to point out that per WP:TITLE Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Political crisis" is ambiguous because it could refer to the protests around the election, the repression of protesters by the new government, or various other political issues (indeed, in news reports, the word "crisis" is used to refer to all of these, and in fact was used even before the coup took place), whereas this article is about the coup itself. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I originally closed this as "no consensus" with the following rationale; upon request, I've reopened the request for more discussion, but if someone other than me closes, I hope that the original close is taken into account. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is an incredibly hard close to make. The word "coup" is an incredibly emotive word that bogs down discussions both on and off the encyclopedia. In my personal opinion, I believe the forced resignation of Morales constituted a coup. But Wikipedia isn't a place for personal opinions. There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. The existence of no consensus over whether it constitutes a coup cuts through the entirety of the reliable sources, not just here. While more editors in this discussion prefer the term "coup", looking at the entire talk page, it seems as if the designation as such is still incredibly controversial and needs a consensus going forward."


 * Support The military ousted the government, while there was little public consensus, making it a coup. Many reliable sources are also calling it as such. -Antondimak (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Independently of whether someones support it or opposes it, when the army removes an elected president it is a coup. I cite the definition of wikipedia's own article Coup d'état: "[...] is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction". Fjsalguero (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Even disregarding the overwhelming amount of sources calling it is a coup, the historical prevalence of exactly similar coups in this region (including Bolivia itself), the suspension of the democratic process, the lack of public consensus for this regime change, and the complete absence of credible evidence of election fraud, the fact that an elected leader and members of his party were forced to flee the country under threat of violence from the military and police is the axiomatic definition of a military coup. Water is wet, a duck is a duck, and this is a coup, full stop. Bigwigge (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) — Bigwigge (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment A fact that demonstrate that there was not a coup is that in november 23 the bolivian congress controlled by Evo Morales legislators, approved unanimously a bill that nullified the October20 elections and called up for new elections. The bill was sent to current president Añez who signed it into law later. It means that the MAS (political party of Evo Morales) does not consider his leader´s resignation as a coup. Also, it means Evo Morales legislators recognises it was an electroal fraud.--Elelch (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is the resignation of Evo Morales not a coup: Introduction
Comment I am increasingly worried that this move proposal is growingly turning into a poll and moving away from a discussion. Many of the votes state as a rationaly simply that "It is a coup", without quoting Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or rebutting or addressing other issues addressed. In this regard, I would to do my best to provide a detailed explanation of why the title "2019 Bolivian coup d'état" violates WP:NPOV and should be avoided.

For starters, I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. For example, expressed support for a move, but at first leaned towards the "2019 Bolivian military memorandum" title. While I'm at it, I also want to emphasize again that the current title in the Spanish Wikipedia resulted in an unilateral move by an editor. An administrator intervention determined that there were 14 votes in favor of the "coup" title, 13 against and two neutrals/abstentions, which is way far from being a consensus. In any case, each Wikipedia is independent, and the move should be decided on these policies and guidelines, and its arguments supporting them, not because a different title has been adopted in another language.

, you have cited the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt several times and I would like to respond to you directly, hoping that in the process it also contributes arguments to the discussion. As it has been stated previosly, the main difference between Morales and Chávez is that the latter did not resign; or at least in practice. General Lucas Rincón Romero, the highest-ranking Venezuelan military officer, annouced at the moment that Chávez had accepted the resignation. While there is an agreement that at the very least Chávez accepted to resign orally (Meza, Alfredo; Lafuente, Sandra. El acertijo de abril, 2012) it currently isn't known for certain if Chávez did resign in writing. However, this is important because it has been argued that if Chávez resigned and there was a power vacuum, there would have not been a coup. Indeed, then Defense Minister José Vicente Rangel reportedly suggested Chávez: No firmes, Hugo, para que sea un golpe de Estado (Don't sign, Hugo, so it will be a coup d'état) (and according to some versions, Fidel Castro, but that's another kettle of fish).

The subject of the 2002 is very controversial and hotly debated (including if there was power vacuum, and why then Vicepresident Diosdado Cabello did not assume the presidency) but I would like to focus on a more important difference. There's a moment that can be pinpointed as an agreement between scholars on when the coup exactly happened: El Carmonazo, known in English as the Carmona Decree. Why would that be? Besides Pedro Carmona not being in the line of succession, I would read the decree to give you an idea:

So, yeah. The Carmona Decree basically dissolved all of the power branches in the stroke of a pen, dismissing elected officials, which is why it started being recognized widely as a coup. The moment when the decree was read out in public was filmed, in case you want to get an idea of how shocking this was. Needless to say, this is not the case in Bolivia, and this is one of many reasons of why the 2002 coup comparison to the crisis in Bolivia does not hold water. The Constitutional Tribunal accepted the transfer of power and Congress, which has a MAS party majority, accepted Añez as interim president until elections took place. Recently it seems that the term "coup" is used to mean a rupture in the constitutional order of a country, but even in this country it seems not to be the case.

While other historic coups have been cited, I think that important comparisons can be drawn from this case study: Evo Morales' resignation seems to have not been disputed, the power was assumed by someone in the succession line (albeit debatable) and elected officials seem to continue in their offices normally, even if they belong to the MAS: the National Assembly, the Supreme Tribunal, governors, mayors...this was not the case in 2002, and I am sure that neither was it in many of the other cases of coups that have happened. It should also be mentioned that arguably Añez has had more international recognition than Carmona, another important aspect.

Summary of arguments, per the Spanish Wikipedia discussion
As I have I mentioned previously, in the Spanish Wikipedia a table was created to summarize the arguments from both sides. Just to make sure it is read in this talk page, I will translate it:

Analysis of the events
I like to use the comparison of the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état because it shows that a coup does not have to be illegitimate to be a coup, just like any other coup that has overthrown a dictatorship to restore a democracy and does not come to my mind at this moment. In December 1957 dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez just carried out a referendum to determine if his term as leader would be extended. The elections were widely considered to be unfair and he won. On 1 January, colonel Hugo Trejo led an uprising by the Aviation in Maracay, and a few weeks afterwards, on 23 January, the Army joined Venezuelans that protested against the dictatorship. The same day, Pérez Jiménez left in the presidential plane to the Dominican Republic.

I have commented that "The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics." A coup should have a greater involvement of the military and not just a simple declaration. As I explained in the case of the 2002 coup, that alone would sow doubt in if the events constitute a coup. I explained this in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt talk page and I have encouraged to read the page before, but just to make sure that it is read, I will copy it here:


 * The uprising does not meet the characteristics of a coup or a coup attempt: there were no attempts to seize the executive power or any means that would help the defectors to do so: unlike previous coups are attempts in Venezuela, there were no captures or attacks of military or political targets, there wasn't a seizure of the state broadcast station or placement of roadblocks and the like; all of these are characteristic of a coup, have happened before in Venezuela and have happened in coups in other countries. There were no tanks rolling into the streets or clashes between the military (...)

The two events that I think most of when I describe these events are the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état. Like with any current event, there were controversies if to call them as a coup, or if they could be considered as something else such as an uprising. However, these conditions seems to be met along with widespread coverage calling the events a coup. In any case, I still recommend reading the respective articles talk pages to look for some insight. However, there are still notable differences, such as the degree of involvement of military and the active dispute of power.

While am at it, I would also want to address the accusations against the OAS and comment that the opposition at first was very skeptical of the organizations. After all, Secretary General Almagro didn't oppose Morales' candidacy despite the results of the referendum that forbid him from running. The opposition didn't want Morales to run for a reelection and did not want an audit on the results. Besides, I'll make a special mention of, who commented that "Bolivian major newspapers and news sources, 'including sources with previously heavy pro-Evo Morales slants', are not calling the events a coup." (Prensa Escrita).

Conclusions
I may not be addressing many of the concerns or arguments provided in the discussion, but I hope to have given a different perspective on the situation. There are plenty of reliable sources that don't refer to the events as a coup either, should we really come to make a table comparing each source and their use of the term like we did in the Venezuelan uprising article?

I don't care if the positions stay the same, I only want this decision to be taken while being informed and that I can provide a little more of insight with this comment.

The closing admin should give no weight to votes that do not include arguments or comments based on policies or guidelines. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Replies

 * Thank you very much for this lengthy and detailed analysis and for your exhaustive work on the article. Most of the "votes" in favor of moving it to "coup" don't cite ANY sources or policies to support it. Just says: "I support because I THINK...". Again, I must repeat it exhaustively: "Where the sources?". Moving this article without sources to support it would be a major and ridiculous mistake.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have provided sources multiple times now and so has . You even replied to their comment including some Spanish sources. Why are you acting as if they have not been provided? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to stress once again that this move proposal was started incorrectly. It's a proposal to disagree with the current title, not to move to another specific one. This is not the case. It's clear from reading the RM that it is a proposal to move to 2019 Bolivian coup d'état, and the initial "2019 Bolivian political crisis → ?" is obviously just an error in using the template, given that immediately below, it says "2019 Bolivian political crisis → 2019 Bolivian coup d'état". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. (I left a note on 's talk page alerting them to the error, in any case.) It's not clear to me whether was confused by this, or just stating a preference for military memorandum over coup d'état. In any case, I don't think it really matters as they eventually came around to supporting the RM anyway. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a proposal to move the title to "coup" specifically (I am the original creator of this article, and that was the original name), and I think this was made pretty clear. Apologies for the formatting error, but people have understood the nature of the discussion and the clear consensus is to return the article to its original name. Zellfire999 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I initially supported "military memorandum" because I thought it would be less controversial. But facts are facts, controversy or no. I'm onboard for 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. Charles Essie (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify: you stated that you changed your vote because the article was moved in the Spanish Wikipedia. Could you say if you stand by this, given the situation? And if there are other reasons, could you please explain which are these facts? Thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to be perfectly honest I really don't have a title preference other than it not being 2019 Bolivian political crisis because I think 2019 Bolivian protests should have that title since it details everything that happened since the 2019 Bolivian general election (i.e,. As for the "facts", I was referring to above arguments that what happened here more or less fits the definition of a coup d'état. Charles Essie (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll use this as an opportunity to sum up my arguments before the RM is closed again. First I want to note that many of the arguments in the table and in your analysis have little to no bearing on whether or not the events we are discussing constitute a coup. What they appear to be instead are a discussion of whether or not the coup was good or bad. For example, stating that The Plurinational Constitutional Court of Bolivia ... has validated the constitutional presidential succession is not relevant: if Morales had been assassinated, rather than being forced to step down, we would still refer to it as an "assassination" even if the subsequent power transfer were validated by the court. Another example is the mention of the 21 days of civic strike made by the Bolivian population; I am not aware of any definition of "coup d'état" that precludes the possibility of protests. In fact, many coups are preceded by protests (e.g., 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état, 2009 Honduran coup d'état, 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, and many many others).

In an earlier comment, you yourself say that The definition of a coup should not be defined by its consequences, but by its characteristics. I agree! The key point here is that the military asked the president to leave office. Would he have resigned without this? Likely not: per the NYT, Mr. Morales appeared intent on weathering the storm until his generals abandoned him on Sunday. This is no doubt why several sources refer to it as a coup, despite obfuscation from various news organizations. I want to echo who said It would not be ideal to suggest that Wikipedia follows the same standards as regular news media. News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate.

Finally, a summary of my comparison of the two titles based on our WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Precision is the main one that coup wins, in my view, which has consequences for some of the other criteria as well.
 * Recognizability No clear winner, IMO. Both phrases have been used to describe the events, although "crisis" has also been used to describe other recent events, such as subsequent human rights violations.
 * Naturalness Unclear which is more natural, but I think readers who are looking for information about Morales's resignation would be more likely to look for "coup" than "crisis", which is broader.
 * Precision The current title is hopelessly imprecise. A search for "bolivia political crisis" makes it clear that "political crisis" is vague (as mentioned by ) and could have many possible referents. For example, The Guardian says Bolivia was plunged into a deepening political crisis this week after Evo Morales ... was forced to step down—the "crisis" is the events following the coup, not the coup itself. In contrast, "coup d'état" has one clear referent: Morales's resignation. (This is one reason the move to "political crisis" was a mistake, by the way; "government resignation" lacks context but at least has a specific referent.)
 * Conciseness Coup d'état is shorter than political crisis, but only barely. No clear winner, IMO.
 * Consistency Similar articles typically have a title that refers to the event itself, rather than the surrounding events. For example, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article is about the overall political dispute, whereas there is a separate article for the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. This article focuses on the events surrounding Morales's (forced) resignation, so it should have an appropriate title. As other editors have mentioned, a separate crisis article could also be warranted, but this article is about the coup.

I look forward to hearing what others think, with whatever time remains before the RM is closed again. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV holds more power than WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in this case, per the lede of Article titles:
 * This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. ... It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.
 * If there is no NPOV, it should not be included.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be useful for you to give a clear articulation of why you believe the title 2019 Bolivian coup d'état violates WP:NPOV, rather than simply assert that it does. As a simple descriptor of what took place, it's not clear that "coup" is non-neutral at all. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who is in constant contact with my fiancee in Bolivia, I have a more detailed knowledge on the subtleties of what has been going on in recent weeks. The term "coup" should not be used in this case for a number of reasons. The use of the term is an oversimplification of the events of Sun 10th by many news sources, including those in Spanish, that originate from outside of Bolivia itself. The fact is that many things happened between the 8:30am announcement of the findings of irregularities in the election and the eventual resignation or Morales in the late afternoon of the same day. The military did indeed recommend that Morales resign, but from the point of view of controlling civil unrest and public safety. Previously in the day, he had already received public calls to resign from the opposition figures, civil leaders, union leaders and the chief of police and a number of key government ministers had already resigned. Morales' position was already becoming untenable in a matter of hours. Furthermore, Gen. Kaliman who made the request, was a long-time supporter of Morales. The table given by another user gives reasons why the constitutional process led to Anez becoming interim president and points out that other figures could have taken up the presidency had they not resigned. One could make the argument that they had been pressured to do so, but certainly this was not by the military as they had done so before Kaliman's public statement. There are, and have always been, large numbers of Morales' MAS party still remaining in the government, including as President of the Senate. I would also say that, if it were a coup, the military would have some say in who takes power, whereas those making the request in this case were not advocating any change of government except for the resignation of the president - something which many people had also called for, including the referendum result. Morales had already committed to new elections, so military opinion had not changed that. The replacement of the heads of the military on the inauguration of a new president is a constitutional requirement, so does not imply that Anez is in some way tied to the military. Many sources create their own narrative to these events. Furthermore, Anez is not standing as President in the upcoming election, she is merely fulfilling her constitutional responsibility until a democratic election can be arranged. In general, there should be a lot more of an attempt to recognise sources from within Bolivia rather than external opinions with no understanding of the Bolivian constitution (formulated by Morales' own government) or a detailed chronology of the events of Sun 10th. A couple of articles that may be relevant (in Spanish). One is a poll of Bolivians asking whether they consider it to be a coup or not and the second has more detail on those military heads that are supposed instigators of the coup. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion
It's not a coup because state department says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.70.252 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Decisions
Seeing above that there was not a consensus, I recommend that we try to make a more concrete decision. Also, please be aware of Canvassing as there were previously links to this talk page on other platforms apparently attempting to influence this discussion.

Below are the two most popular recommended moves:


 * 2019 Bolivian governmental crisis
 * 2019 Bolivian coup d'état

Please provide your support decision in the desginated section.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bolivian governmental crisis

 * Support: This is strictly out of support of the WP:NPOV. Describing something as coup is undue to many just as describing this as a popular revolt is undue to just as many. Scholars also agree that the term "coup" carries weight, and "challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray". I understand that one main argument of those supporting the coup move is that we should not be "unbiased", which is against a main principal of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. As Wikipedia users, we should all be supporting this policy above our own personal opinions.


 * NPOV explicitly states:
 * "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."


 * Removing a NPOV title tarnishes the entire article from the start and a consensus removing this NPOV title is null and non-negotiable as it violates an equally significant viewpoint (see quote above). Therefore, a closing administrator should not move this article to a coup title in accordance with one of the main pillars of Wikipedia.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the point of adding all this extra section structure. This is a RM about 2019 Bolivian coup d'état and there has already been a great deal of discussion about it; if you want to request that the page be moved to your preferred title, you should open another RM about it when this one is closed.
 * You should also stop representing that NYT article as if it summarizes the views of scholars ("Scholars agree..."). This is misleading, and I've pointed that out many times already. What it represents are the views of a few scholars hand-picked by Max Fisher to support his opinion/analysis piece. It is not at all clear that scholars agree that "coup" is non-neutral. In fact, several scholars have acknowledged that based on the definition of "coup", this was one. Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, and many others have also made statements describing it as a coup. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, what knowledge of Bolivia, if any, do Chomsky and others have? I am in contact with Bolivia on a daily basis and reading their media regularly. I have been there a number of times and know what the feeling in the country was towards Evo (and more generally MAS). A great many of those articles calling it a coup are relying on an outside perception of a country that they know had dictators in the past and are not up to date and getting basic facts wrong. The Guardian is particularly bad in this regard - I have nothing against them as a publication, but they are just wrong in this instance and are not reporting on the full story. In general, there is a woeful lack of sources from Bolivia itself that show the acts of the government and the events surrounding or precipitating the deaths that are not reported on and fly in the face of the accusations against the interim government. While Bolivia may not have complete freedom of the press, they are not that constrained, and are in fact freer to report now than they were under Morales. Countries that are less free in the press such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Mexico (according to a freedom of the press metric by Freedom House, though I have read the same elsewhere) are the ones that are calling this a coup. Many people were writing on this political crisis with too little knowledge and a portion of them don't want to back down on initially reporting it as coup. There is no discussion of Gen Kaliman who was the military head who made the request to Morales. No mention of the fact that his cabinet was already crumbling with resignations before the military request, nor that similar requests had been made by political leaders, civic leaders, union leaders and the chief of police or the fact that the police had mutinied against the government as they felt they should be there for the people, not for the MAS party. I mean, this is important for context - the military did not give this advice in isolation and it is their job to advise the President on national security. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that one main argument of those supporting the coup move is that we should not be "unbiased" This is also a misrepresentation. Here is additional context from the comment you link:
 * News media sometimes gain more from presenting themselves as unbiased than state the obvious, and that's not something Wikipedia should want to imitate. In this case, that would mean not using the word coup despite it being appropriate.
 * The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is that regular news media's proximity to and dependence on those who hold power can lead to obfuscation in an attempt to avoid flak and maintain access to newsmakers. You are using WP:OR, which violates one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I understand that this is a controversial situation, but until we have something that fulfills all three core principles (NPOV, verifiable and not original research), I do not see a reason that the "coup" wording should be used. If you can provide something that can meet this criteria, I may change my position.ZiaLater ( talk ) 20:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not OR to make a determination about what sources are reliable in what contexts—we do this on Wikipedia all the time when analyzing the reliability of sources. OR applies to claims made in articles, not on talk pages. In any case, the propaganda model has been extensively documented and its findings replicated in numerous contexts. I've cited some reliable sources above that do use the word "coup", so I'm not sure what the RS issue is—there are sources that use both, so we should take the other criteria into account when deciding, as I've argued. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument is pushing a WP:OR title, though. You are using a linguist argument to push a title based on your interpretation of the propaganda model (i.e. your own unique opinion on reliable sources instead of the opinion of reliable sources, WP:OR). This is ignoring the multitude of reliable sources that do not explicitly describe this as a coup. What you are saying is moot since you are not a reliable source. Once this is widely described as a coup, then it warrants inclusion, but this is not the case as of now.ZiaLater ( talk ) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment: There is not a widespread use of describing the events as a coup in reliable sources. However, there are multiple stories by reliable sources detailing how there is not agreement about describing the events as a coup. Here are the sources. It is a highly contested opinion to describe this event as a coup, therefore the title should not include the coup terminology.ZiaLater ( talk ) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur, and these articles are somewhat out of date now. The dust has settled and many people were jumping the gun, if you'll pardon the expression, on calling it coup. Very little on BBC, Guardian or elsewhere in the UK on all the activities and interactions of the interim government. The pro-Morales protests were minor in comparison to the nationwide protests in multiple cities against Morales and many of the former were funded by handouts from MAS party officials. Indigenous people in El Alto were actually dismantling roadblocks by pro-Evo supporters because of the disruption. Almost everything is back to normal in Bolivia in terms of civil unrest now. Evo Morales is a person of interest of Interpol now as he was linked to organising continued civil unrest. Apologies for the lack of references, but a lot of this is old news in Bolivia and it is difficult to find the original stories from 2-3 weeks ago. All are in Spanish. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bolivian coup d'état
By my count, there were 18 in favor of restoring the original name of the page, and only 7 for retaining the current name. I'm not sure how one can conclude there was no consensus. Zellfire999 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I concluded this from a third party's previous analysis and because many support arguments are contrary to Wikipedia's policies. In a few examples, here are three anti-WP:NPOV arguments (Users - Prinsgezinde, KasimMejia, Bleff) and 3 anti-WP:Verifiable arguments: (Users - Iamextremelygayokay, cmonghost, JoshuaChen). That paired with the "I believe this happened" support arguments (WP:OR) makes support for moving this to a "coup" biased against reliable sources and more of a personal opinion argument.


 * Including "coup" in the title violates the three core content policies (it is not NPOV, verifiable or avoiding original research to title this a "coup"). Per Consensus: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also as said above, a consensus is superseded by Wikipedia's core policies. I want a reason to support this, but out of respect for policies, this is not verifiable by being widely supported by sources.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting my and others' arguments. For instance, I already explained above that Prinsgezinde's argument is not anti-NPOV; and my argument is not anti-WP:V, it is pro-WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is a Wikipedia guideline. If you disagree, please explain why rather than casting unsubstantiated aspersions. Moreover, reliable sources have in fact referred to it as a coup, as I have now pointed out many times, so it's difficult for me to understand how it could be "biased against reliable sources" or original research. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It plainly states in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Also, WP:POVNAMING states that "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". I do not see the majority of reliable sources describing this as a coup. A Google News search of "Bolivia coup" results in many unreliable sources in the following order; an opinion article in The Guardian, Salon, Consortium News, Grayzone (formerly part of AlterNet) and Anadolu Agency (see Reliable sources/Perennial sources). These are not reliable sources and at the very most, their views must be attributed in the article's body if they were to be included, not for title material. So, Wikipedia editors supporting the coup title are performing WP:OR as they are reaching a conclusion not widely supported by reliable sources and violating WP:NPOV because the "coup" term carries a lot of POV weight. Cmonghost, seeing that you are a linguist who frequents talk pages constantly, one can see how you could overlook how Wikipedia articles are constructed. Please familiarize yourself with Core content policies and possibly WP:Fringe.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 10:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Kindly stop personalizing the discussion. It's not clear what my occupation has to do with anything we are currently discussing and it's now the second time you have mentioned it. Please stop.
 * In any case, the existence of sources that you judge as unreliable using the word "coup" does not invalidate the existence of reliable sources that also use "coup", including The Nation and The Intercept, which you have studiously ignored. I am sure that Consortium News and Anadolu Agency would also agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green; that does not make the sky brown or the grass pink. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)