Talk:2019 Bolivian protests

Infobae claiming that Costas was "the only independent member of the TSE"
As per title, there is an attributed claim in the article about Costas being the only independent member of the TSE. I am wondering whether it is relevant to include? I personally think that a description used by one relatively small website (Infobae) isn't of great importance. Note that the claim wasn't even attributed before I intervened. BeŻet (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what do you mean with a "relatively small website"? As far as I know Infobae is one of the main news outlets in Argentina. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It has a 753 global, and 13 Argentinian Alexa Internet rank. And we are talking about Bolivia. BeŻet (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not relevant to include. It wasn't mentioned by either of the other sources cited. I'm actually not sure why we need to be citing Infobae at all when we have an English-language source in the article already. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are mant other sources that refer to Antonio Costas as the only independent member of the tribunal, or the very least the only critical voice.


 * While for the importance, the Infobae article, whose reliability has not been put into question, goes into depth in some of the details: Antonio was the only member of the board that abstained to allow Evo run for reelection, and in a previous interview in April Costas already expressed concerners regarding the election. Not to mention that his resignations was motivated by the suspension of the announcement of the results. I have said it before and I'll repeat it: nothing in WP:NONENG forbids the content from a non-English reliable source to be included in an article. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that being Argentinian is kind of irrelevant - Infobae is a major news outlet across Latin America and kind of covers everything across the region. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody's questioning whether content from a non-English reliable source is to be included in an article. The question is whether the descriptor, "only independent", is relevant to include if only used by a media outlet. It's a far-reaching description, that suggests other members of the TSE are somehow "not independent". It's bias. BeŻet (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Translate from Spanish wikipedia
Can somebody translate from Spanish to english and added them to English Wikipedia article. It is very interesting to give more information:

"===28 de octubre===

Se intensifica la contestación con numerosos bloqueos y enfrentamientos con las fuerzas del orden y entre manifestantes a favor y en contra del Presidente Morales en La Paz, Cochabamba y Santa Cruz.

La Paz, Bolivia

Ante los bloqueos de los puntos estratégicos que impedían la normal circulación de vehículos y de transporte público en la mañana, la demanda del servicio de transporte Mi Teleférico, fue tan masiva que se colapsó.​ La Dirección Departamental de Educación de La Paz informó que las labores educativas serian normales, sin embargo, el Magisterio asumió un paro de 24 horas, con suspensión de actividades escolares.

Integrantes del Sindicato Mixto de Mineros de Huanuni y otros centros, llegaron a la ciudad de La Paz para respaldar al presidente Evo Morales, en una movilización que se abrió paso con el uso de cachorros de dinamita, infringiendo la Ley 400 (Artículo 8)​ y el Decreto Supremo 2888. El estruendo de las dinamitas seguía el recorrido por el Prado paceño. “Pedimos disculpas a la población por el ruido de las dinamitas, es parte de nuestras costumbres”, dijo el secretario general del Sindicato de Trabajadores Mineros de Huanuni, David Choque. A su lado se encontraba el máximo dirigente de la Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), Juan Carlos Guarachi. Mientras los mineros llegaban a la plaza Obelisco, los funcionarios públicos se apostaron en el sector para recibirlos con aplausos. Insultaron y agredieron a vecinos y estudiantes de la facultad de Ingeniería de la Universidad Mayor de San Andrés que bloqueaban el sector.

Se realizó un cabildo en horas de la tarde, en la avenida Costanera de La Paz se escucharon voces que demandaban la salida de Morales como solución al conflicto social, que derivó en ataques violentos de seguidores del Presidente contra vecinos que bloquean pacíficamente las calles, denunciando fraude electoral.

Con palos y piedras, personas afines al Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS) y chóferes atacaron en la mañana a viviendas y un automóvil particulares en la zona Sur de La Paz, los vecinos filmaron esos hechos y publicarlos en redes sociales

Source: (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestas_en_Bolivia_de_2019)

Indonesian Wikipedia already add some Spanish language article to they version of article with local language. Hanafi455 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

YouTube screenshot
In case this needs to be discussed: I have removed the YouTube screenshot as it does not belong in the article: YouTube is not a usable source on Wikipedia, and the caption is an editor's interpretation of what is seen, and therefore counts as WP:SYNTH. BeŻet (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Did... did you watch the video? It's a report from a local RS, and the caption was from the news report. The source is not YouTube, it's the legitimate news company producing it, and is valid as much as any newspaper article with a commons image. Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no source provided for the image and for the caption. BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? --Jamez42 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As with all commons images, it needs a source to be uploaded. And you acknowledged the source was a video... are you being deliberately dense? Of course the image had a source. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the description of the image isn't WP:BLUESKY and the caption is making a claim beyond that what is visible on the image, it needs a source for that statement. This should be obvious really. BeŻet (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You opened with There is no source provided for the image - I assumed that you were suggesting the image not having a source was your reason for disqualifying the caption. In any case, the source for the image is also the source for the caption, it could have easily been copied from commons. Of course, in the interest of not making the article too image-heavy and messy, I don't mind the image being removed - I only respond because of your initial statements that YouTube is not a usable source and that the caption is an editor's interpretation of what is seen, when neither of these are in any way true. YouTube can be used, and the video gave the detail that was in the caption (and perhaps should have been copied over from commons). As long as we agree on those points, we're good. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While YouTube can be indeed used as a source in certain scenarios, the caption is indeed an interpretation of what an editor is seeing, and we need to provide a source for that claim as explained above. BeŻet (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this information needs to be sourced. The piece of paper is referred to in the caption as a fresh ballot sheet found in the streets of La Paz; a source is required to indicate that this is an accurate description of what the paper is and where it was found. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As said before, it is not an editor's interpretation, it is a summary of what a man being interviewed says in the video, which is the source for the image. Which is equal to any text source. But to calm you, I've added the video link with timecode to the man in the ref. Unlike the narration, he isn't captioned. It's a reliable news source, not OR of a video as you keep saying. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If the source for the caption is just what the interviewee says, then it should be attributed; I've done so. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was something like that ('claims' maybe) before, but got cut down. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Nation
You tagged a section of text describing (with attribution) an analysis by The Nation as being potentially undue, as well as changing the wording in which the information was presented. I have partially reverted this change because (a) it made the text more awkward and (b) it led to some statements sourced from The Nation being unattributed. If you feel that the order changes are important, we can discuss them here.

As for the undue weight tag, WP:RSP says:
 * 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.

However, I don't think this means that any and all content from The Nation should be considered undue. Due and undue weight has to be judged in the context of the article and the source in question. Could you please explain why you think this specific text is undue? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I myself would like to add that several reliable sources have mentioned her racism and therefore it seems to me it's due to talk about it. BeŻet (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the content at hand, the flag burning and patch cutting, is explicitly interpreted as a surge in racism. Fortunately the title of the section starts with "Accusations", but as I stated about the "religiou bigotry" claims, it's important that the information isn't taken out of context, and in the case of the former, most importantly, that it isn't an isolated event. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just having read the rationale for the wording change, sorry for that. Could you please elaborate on how it is awkward? It was taken almost verbatim from the source and important information has been removed, such as that the flag burning took place in the Legislative Assembly. As I replied above, this is important for the inclusion of the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the awkwardness largely stems from the inversion of causal/chronological order. It is confusing to present the fires set by Morales supporters before the events that led to them setting fires, especially since the events that led to the fires (burning the wiphala and cutting it off the uniforms) are the events that are actually related to the topic of the section, whereas the fires are more tangential. I'm certainly not opposed to including the other info you mentioned (I thought I preserved it in my most recent edit) but I think the info should be presented in a logical order. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with cmonghost 👻 - there are many reports of racist incidents, such as the graffiti of racist slogans on public universities and the burning/cutting/stomping of wiphala flags. I previously avoided linking to many of them, as they came primarily from twitter sources and a lot of them weren't that noteworthy, but now with publications issuing entire articles about them, they should definitely be mentioned. Goodposts (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nature of protests changing
Since the coup happened, the people protesting have changed, and right now we are dealing with a few days of protests against Anez. I think this creates an interesting technical challenge as the nature of the protests has changed, and this should be entailed somehow in the article. It is likely that the Anez protests can last for quite some time. We also need to account for the people killed in the latter protests (two victims so far). I just wanted to start the discussion about how to deal with this situation. Should both protests be covered in separate articles or in the same one? How does that affect the infobox? BeŻet (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Minding WP:CRYSTAL. For the time being, protests are protests, and they can be still addressed in the same article; at least until new elections take place or the protests adopt quite different tactics. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL applies to speculations within an article and is irrelevant here. What I'd like to preemptively discuss is how to deal with protests that are likely to go on for longer. BeŻet (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As is, this is just a prose list of protests. Where context exists in sources, the context is given. More overall info should be added to the lead, however, basically saying "protests took a different turn after the first round halfway succeeded". Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You make a good point about the infobox. The goals, individuals involved, etc of the two sets of protests are diametrically opposed so the infobox is quickly becoming inaccurate. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the infobox part. It can simply be removed as infoboxes are not always perfect places to convey all information.ZiaLater ( talk ) 03:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some problems that I think that will come up. We have removed the causes and the goals from the infobox, and the timeline is being split between anti and pro-MAS protests, when both of them have taken place both before and after Morales' resignation. Maybe the goals and causes of the Pro-Morales' protests can be places in the political crisis article, and a protests section developed. Any thoughts? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Why i added OAS 10 November statement
Yesterday, i found that on Spanish and French Wikipedia, there are a statement about a OAS about election audit investigation, the statement originally was ini Spanish, then translated in French. When i found the statement. It is very interesting to add the statement on Indonesian and English Wikipedia as well and translate the originally Spanish source. But in case of english, there are two versions, in Spanish and English translation with additional official English source from the same organization.

The statement from OAS on Spanish like this, and the statement was translated to French and Indonesian Wikipedias :

''Desde la Secretaría General de la OEA reiteramos la disposición para cooperar en la búsqueda de las soluciones democráticas para el país, es por ello que en virtud de la gravedad de las denuncias y análisis respecto al proceso electoral que me ha trasladado el equipo de auditores nos cabe manifestar que la primera ronda de las elecciones celebrada el 20 de octubre pasado debe ser anulada y el proceso electoral debe comenzar nuevamente, efectuándose la primera ronda tan pronto existan nuevas condiciones que den nuevas garantías para su celebración, entre ellas una nueva composición del órgano electoral. Por supuesto, aun resta el detallado informe final al respecto que se tramitara conforme los supuestos establecidos.''

But why in English the statement from OAS was removed because is interesting to see the evidence of election fraud. I'm from Indonesia but i was very interesting about current situation in Bolivia throughout internet so i contributed in Wikipedia. Hanafi455 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. The Spanish article distinguishes the Secretary General from the audit observer team. We should also bear in my that different Wikipedias have different policies, and the fact remains that the quote would remain incomplete. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Should be renamed Second Bolivian Civil War.
Rural areas are seeing police surrendering to protesters and the protesters taking arsenals of guns. The trade unions are declaring a siege of the capital. Blood shed and murder is already sky rocketing under the dictatorship. Call it what it is. AHC300 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet.
 * While a civil war might seem imminent, this article shouldn't be moved to Second Bolivian Civil War until that actually happens, per WP:CRYSTAL. And even when (and if) the war starts, it will probably have a separate article, while this one will discuss the protests as pre-war events or as an uprising phase preceding the war. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Multiple parties to conflict
The article right now makes it out to be a bit too much a binary between Evo on one side and protesters + new admin on the other side. Especially now with Áñez taking the presidency there groups that called for Evo to resign are also protesting/making statements against the new Áñez admin, not really clear that all of the people that are protesting against Anez are supportive of Evo/MAS, e.g https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/11/16/el-alto-cumple-su-quinto-dia-de-movilizaciones-entre-division-debilitamiento-237575.html 88.95.176.49 (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest having two infoboxes? Though all are protests in Bolivia in 2019, suitable context should be given pre- and post- Morales resignation. If that means splitting the timeline, it's not a hard solution. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to this. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I like the idea of having two infoboxes, but I don't know how feasible/common it is. I should mention, though, that I can't find in the article mention of protesters opposing both MAS and Añez. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two infoboxes probably is the way to go. After all, there's no more "Evo Morales administration" and the "opposition" are no longer the opposition. Charles Essie (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether two infoboxes are enough. We have now a situation where a person from a small and unpopular party has become president, and many people opposing her – however not all of them are calling for the return of Moralez, so there are indeed multiple parties to the conflict with different demands. Having said that, there are two chapters in the protests, so perhaps two infoboxes is the best we can do for now. BeŻet (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also be open to the possibility of splitting this into two articles, one for the anti-Morales protests and one for the anti-Áñez/pro-Morales protests. Aside from both being protests, they're quite different. Is there a good reason to keep them all on the same page? (Each article's lead would obviously link to the other.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the same way there's a page for Venezuelan protests 2014-present, this could be a main page for all 2019 protests, each split to their own pages in a logical way? Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditionally agree the current article would be main Article for all 2019 protests in Bolivia Bolivia but separated them into pro-morales, anti-morales and internasional reactions regarding situation in Bolivia. Hanafi455 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: split the article
Perhaps a simple solution would be to split pre-coup protests (anti-Morales) and post-coup protests (anti-Áñez) into two separate articles, so each would have its own infobox and each would be smaller in size that the current combined article, which would certainly increase the readability. This would also make a nice timeline: 1) pre-coup protests 2) coup 3) post-coup protests. Only the names of the two new articles would have to be figured out. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this makes sense, probably the most difficult bit will be choosing good names for both... BeŻet (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is simple, this article will remained as this today but will be main article for all 2019 protests and political crisis in Bolivia with all separated articles be created. The new template was already created as "2019 Bolivian crisis" as there are many separated articles involving this situation. Like "Crisis in Venezuela"Hanafi455 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose three new pages: Timeline of the 2019 Bolivian protests, 2019 Anti-Morales protests in Bolivia, 2019 Pro-Morales protests in Bolivia. I personally think the last two should be split more by before/after resignation (2019 Bolivian election protests and Protests during the 2019 Bolivian political crisis or similar), but comments above suggest the affiliation is a preferable split. Edit: to split by affiliation, to me, seems illogical and won't ease in understanding without again trying to add context partway through Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging again :) Kingsif (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I can definitely see how the current way the articles are organized could confuse readers, especially readers that just casually read trough the lead and infobox, instead of the whole article. Plus, although they are related, the two aren't the same event. Goodposts (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! Although I haven't received it, I think it is because of the multiple ping template. I still support the idea of moving Pro-Morales protests from the main Protests article to the Political crisis one, but as more content is added a split will be needed. Format wise, I think a timeline may be the best alternative. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I'll send separate pings...  ... Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually did receive the original ping. At Template:Reply to it says that pings should be sent as long as the number of users to be pinged does not exceed 50. Anyway, I support the proposal to split the articles as outlined. As for names, as long as they are consistent with the article currently named "political crisis", it works for me. (e.g., if that article is renamed "military memorandum" or "coup d'état", the article about the relevant protests should also be moved accordingly) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All background content should be (re)moved from this article to 2019_Bolivian_political_crisis and focus the reporting in relation to it's title. There is hardly any mention in the article's lead about the protests itself. Just place a link to the aforementioned article already containing extensive background information. Also support to split this article, yet "Anti-Morales" is not very neutral in its tone and doesnt represent the actual happenings; the whole issue was rather anti MAS and pro crisis to create an environment of political transition. Amaruapu (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support titles: 2019 Bolivian election protests and Protests during the 2019 Bolivian political crisis are both accurate and neutral.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be dedicated to the original protests leading up to the resignation, and the Political Crisis article picks up from there. That would involve some merging of material from this article to the other. If the situation heats up to civil war or something like that, a third article would be needed. A Timeline article is not a bad idea but it wouldn't add or subtract material from the main articles. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Since it's been nearly a month, I'll assume there are no other opinions and that this can move to a formal split discussion? Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Referendum map image undue?
I don't understand the point of including the referendum map image. This was a popular referendum, so regions are completely meaningless in displaying information, and this could be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that the difference between the Yes and No vote was larger than in reality. I'd support removing the image, as it serves no purpose. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the map should be removed. Land masses don't decide referendums, people do. The map is hopelessly misleading and not helpful. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The map paints five out of eight provinces with the no option, a 62.5% of the provinces compared to 51% of the vote. This is only a difference of 11.5%, this type of maps are common in electoral maps. To be more accurate, the map could be painted with shades, having darker shades depending on the lead, but in the meantime the current one should not be deleted since it is useful to illustrate the results and the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just removed it. Sorry, but this is not a convincing argument at all. It doesn't matter that it's 62.5% of provinces at all, this seems like an attempt at massaging the numbers to achieve a specific outcome. BeŻet (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your arguments don't seem convincing at all either. "No look larger than Yes" should not be a reason to remove the map, unless the map was inaccurate, but there isn't. Besides, I already pointed out how these maps are common in election articles and proposed a solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is misleading and pointless, especially in its current form. It should be removed, as it could be easily seen as manipulation. BeŻet (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is accurate and useful, especially in its current form. It should not be removed, as it can hardly be seen as manipulation. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Snarkily mimicking the words of another editor is rude and unproductive. These maps are useful in elections where geography makes a difference, e.g., where there are electoral districts which each get a specified number of seats. They are not useful for referenda, where one person has one vote. Moreover, there is a great deal of work on how this kind of map is misleading. Here is a short article about it from NatGeo for your reference:. It's about the US and how different states have different numbers of electoral votes; it also applies here given that different parts of Bolivia have differing populations. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any argument explaining why the map is useful, nor have you countered our concerns regarding how the map is misleading and has no place here. Showing the map serves no purpose as it completely ignores population density and, when a reader quickly goes through the article, creates the wrong impression that the difference between the votes was higher than in reality. This is why it could be seen as manipulation, and why we have big concerns regarding using the image. BeŻet (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was being serious when I repeated the same wording.
 * Do you think you could help trying to edit the map? I did explain the numerical differences between the provinces and the votes and the need to illutrate the results, but I would like help to improve the image instead of just removing it. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no point for the map to be there, it doesn't help understand anything discussed in the article, while achieving the opposite. It simply shouldn't be there. BeŻet (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to address any of our concerns, I will remove the image. BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Map updated
I can see about adding shading. Jamez42 is right about the use of such maps in election articles.ZiaLater ( talk ) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Context is important, and as and I have argued, using a regional map in this context is misleading. It doesn't really matter whether you shade it or not, although that would constitute a slight improvement. Referenda are votes by individuals, not by regions, and it is misleading to collapse them by region in this way. Moreover, the article doesn't mention anything that would make the map relevant: it simply says that the amendment was rejected 51.3 to 48.7 without mentioning anything about geography. So what's the justification for including it? A case could be made for its inclusion on the page about the referendum, but I don't see how it's useful here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it would make sense if the body of the article mentioned anything about regions, or if regions were somehow relevant here (like, say, in the Brexit referendum); neither is the case. Finally, the image doesn't even show where it's got the data from. BeŻet (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * New map file uploaded. Please continue to discuss and gain consensus.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the new shading just proves our point – it really doesn't present anything of value, there aren't some crazy regional discrepancies that need to be highlighted. We have asked several times now, and I ask one final time: what is the purpose of the map, and the justification for including it? Does its use justify the big potential of misrepresentation of reality to a careless reader? BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and the image. The shades could be a little lighter, but I do think it is an improvement, once again, I think you should make a proposal instead of advocating for the deletion of the image. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says that Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals.. This means that I you think that there could be a better image for the section (say for example, results by municipality), you should be WP:BOLD and include it. Regardless, the image is relevant to illustrate the results of the 2016 referendum, which is one of the main reasons why the protests started. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think you should make a proposal instead of advocating for the deletion of the image" - excuse me, but why? I am proposing the removal of the image. The image has no place here and I've explained why? Are you telling me that I'm not allowed to do that? That's bizarre. Are you ever going to address any of our concerns? The content you've quoted from MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE in no way defends your case. This image is not significant, which is exactly what we've been arguing from the beginning. Once again, since there is no consensus supporting the inclusion of the image, unless you address our concerns about relevance, significance and manipulation, this image will have to be removed. BeŻet (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained why quoting MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. That my arguments have been repeatedly disregarded by you does not mean that I have not addressed these concerns. Let me remind you that precisely since you are the one proposing the removal, you should the one that obtains consensus. I have proposed to improve the image as a possible image, and ZiaLater uploaded one, but it takes two to tango. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You added the map. Shortly thereafter it was removed. It is up to you to develop a consensus for its inclusion. You don't get to add content to an article and insist that it remain in the article while not acknowledging arguments to the contrary. It has now been explained to you multiple times why the image is not relevant to the article and you have not provided a substantive response. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the map. A week ago. Around twelve users have edited the article until the image was contested, along with three unregistered editors. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like to point out the part of WP:ONUS that says that once content has been on a page for a week, there is no longer a need to justify its inclusion? You added content, it was challenged, now it's time for you to explain why it should be included. Given that the article makes no reference to geography when discussing the results, and that popular referenda involve the votes of people and not landmasses, why do you believe that the map is significant or relevant? Please be specific rather than simply stating that it "illustrates the results", which would be the case for literally any visualization (e.g., a bar plot, a pie chart, etc.) and has no bearing on whether or not the illustration chosen is actually appropriate. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a map with even lighter shades to the geographical basis is not given as much weight. I have already quoted both MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, both of which are rationale for having kept the image or arguing for its inclusion. On a geographical scope, the maps that have been included show a contrast between the Santa Cruz Department (historically opposed to Morales, see 2008 unrest in Bolivia) and the rural areas. Both of these aspects are mentioned in the article and later reflected in the 2018 elections. The point remains that the image is important to illustrate the results, as well as the opposition to Morales' election. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot reinterpret Wikipedia rules and what is consent needed for whenever you wish. There doesn't seem to be consensus regarding using the image, an argument you have used for blocking inclusion of other content on the page several times before. You haven't presented any argument to support your case. You've quoted MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE that simply says that images "are often an important illustrative aid to understanding", which is a basic truism that in no way supports your case and in no way addresses any of the concerns raise. It's a non-argument. There is no mentioning of regions in the article, or how different voting results in different regions were significant, or anything else that justifies the image. What it does do however, something we have mentioned several times now, is potentially creating a false picture of the final result of the referendum that was very close. If you cannot address these concerns, we cannot include the image. Simple as that. BeŻet (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel this discussion is not going anywhere.                 Pinging editors in question for feedback from third parties. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, so there is no room for misunderstandings. I would like to cite WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, consensus is also built through editing, specifically WP:SILENCE, specifically The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.. I am not ignoring the rest of the policy, my point is that this time the consensus should be built towards the revert, not necessarily towards the image. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not surprising for a discussion to go nowhere when one end of the dispute is unwilling or unable to provide a substantive rationale for their position. The question that I bolded in my previous response is still open for you to answer at any time. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. In terms of this article, I don't feel the map adds much. The necessary background on the referendum here is that it was controversial, so actual figures and distribution are extra. So if it's controversial it would be simpler to remove. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a lot of time to edit in the past few days, which was the reason I didn't take part in this discussion before. Anyway, since I was tagged - I really don't see the reason as to why this map was added. The map is made to demonstrate which regions voted in which way in the constitutional referendum - and I don't see how that is relevant at all to the subject at hand. If editors insist that the result of the referendum ought to be included in the article, then I think a far more appropriate way to display that information would be trough either a bar graph or a pie chart. The regional breakdown simply isn't relevant or useful to the article. The map's proper place is in the constitutional referendum's article - where it is appropriately placed. For these reasons, I opine that it ought to be removed and if necessary, replaced with either of the options I've mentioned above. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the fact that several editors are questioning the inclusion of the map, I will now remove it, until its inclusion is justified. BeŻet (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not add the map that we did not agree to include. BeŻet (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the edit summary and this talk page, the map was changed once again. If you're not satisfied with the geographical basis I offered, you could try replying. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Several editors have told you they disagree with you and think the map should not be here. They do not agree there is anything of value added by it. They told you that they think it looks like a manipulation. Despite what you told us above, the article does not discuss any territorial aspect regarding the referendum. Please remove it now. BeŻet (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:CONSENSUSCHANGES and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. I have made another bold edit, different from the first one, and having had responded as requested I attempted to make the changes accordingly. The article does discuss territorial aspects of the elections results and the protests. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a bold edit, you just changed the shades of the map! The article does not discuss territorial aspects of the referendum. Please remove the map immediately. BeŻet (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Manifestaciones en La Paz, Bolivia en contra el fraude electoral y el gobierno de Evo Morales.jpg

NPOV and out of date
A brief read through of the lede alone shows many issues. This would prompt a reexamination of the content of this page in general. Some I have fixed, but there should be awareness of this. There is also a woeful lack of sources from Bolivia which have a lot more detailed and accurate information.


 * Áñez was described in the lede as "declaring herself" president twice and no mention of the constitutional sucession.
 * CEPR analysis described as MIT analysis with a damning quote from the authors without regard to the significance (or lack of it) of the study. This is also given top importance in the first few lines, despite being disputed, and mentioned before the official audit of the elections. It is not proper background as it was published 4 months after the events. This page should describe the events of the Bolivian protests.
 * Number of victims described as at least 14 when there is an IACHR report from Dec 2019 describing at least 36.
 * Violence against MAS members described, but not by anyone else or violence against peaceful demonstrators in opposition. No mention of why people felt that way, vis a vis the political and social opposition against ongoing corruption in MAS.
 * Morales described as giving in to "demands of police and army to resign". They were not demands, and the pressure came from other quarters too, including Morales' former allies. There are many details to discuss here, but the summary of the hour by hour events of Sun 10th November are well documented and oversimplified to support one political viewpoint as it currently stands.
 * "Protest have continued" - this hasn't been accurate for a long time. Protests finished a long time ago, even before the end of 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to this, much of the article is written in present rather than past tense. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have suggestions to fix these issues? I can try to help as best I can with copyedits, and I'm sure you have better access to sources . Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have some suggestions. I can get sources, but it might be a slow process as I will need to look back through local sources several months ago. There are some references used on other pages that give assessments that are less reactionary than what occurred at the time and a more balanced POV with regard to the above points. Those are easier to get but I think it is not good practice to take too much from other pages. The present tense can be more easily fixed and I have the IACHR report handy and will add info from it pretty soon. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Attack on Vinto mayor
The 6th November entry contains a possibly erroneous piece of information. It states that the attackers urinated on Ms. Guzman. While one of our sources states that, I had not read that detail in half a dozen reports of the events, including the interview given by the woman herself used as one of our three references. If this is true, I would expect it to have been mentioned elsewhere as it seems pretty extreme. AA quick google search is not showing up any corroborating evidence for this. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Añez loyalists"
The infobox presents two sides to the conflict: "Morales loyalists" and "Áñez loyalists". This gives the impression that the MAS opposition or anti-Morales movement during the 2019 Bolivian protests was led by Jeanine Áñez. However Áñez, as a Beni senator prior to the protests, had a relatively minor role during the crisis itself with more prominent figures such as Carlos Mesa and Luis Fernando Camacho being nominally considered the main actors behinds the protests, and it was only after Morales' resignation that she was summoned by the Congress to take up the role of interim president. (Source). The infobox should be changed to more accurately reflect the roles each person had in the conflict.--Metroxed (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think both sides should be renamed 'Morales administration' and 'Political opposition', which is a more neutral term that better reflects what the actual sides were. If there is no opposition, I will effectuate the change.--Metroxed (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe read Charles Essie's comment addressing that exact suggestion from two years ago? Basically: no. There was dissension within the administration, the fall of which happened before protests ended. And the real opposition and political opposition are not a circle. Kingsif (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Áñez loyalists is the wrong term though, for the reasons laid out above. She just wasn't that important for the majority of the time frame that this article covers. Mesa and Camacho were in the streets protesting prominently, and not on behalf of Áñez. Against Morales. Furthermore the Bolivian Workers Centre, who called for Morales' resignation, are part of the MAS bases and among the most anti-Áñez factions in Bolivia. They created a lot of trouble for her during the interim presidency, including two weeks of road blocks in July/August of 2020. Same for the Socialist Falance. They are both as far from Áñez loyalists as you can get! The best description is "anti-Morales" as what united them was not even a rejection of his political party, but a rejection of the former president himself. A similar argument could be made on Morales loyalists as it's an over-generalisation to say that they were protesting or acting because they were loyal to him. Case in point, the police and the army are labelled as both, without any change in leadership until after  10 November. Then she changed the leadership as is custom for not only every new President, but something that Morales did every year. They were involved in the protests, yes, but not under the category of "loyalists".Crmoorhead (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It used to be pro- and anti- Morales until that was deemed non-neutral, what other compromise do you suggest? Kingsif (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I checked the previous discussion after reading your comment. The pro- and anti- Morales discussions seems to involve both the infobox and splitting the page into two parts. The non-neutral dispute involved the latter and I agree it is better to split it that way. With regards the infobox (under "Multiple parties to conflict") it was suggested by yourself, with some parties in agreement, to have a split infobox. I would definitely agree with that solution. The disagreement wasn't that splitting the infobox in general, but on splitting it into more than two.


 * Before 11th November 2019, I would characterise the parties as being pro- and anti- Morales, and afterwards pro- and anti- Áñez. "anti" may be too strong a term for those not supporting Morales in that the COB, and indeed General Williams Kaliman, were political allies of Morales and his party, but thought he should resign. I can't think of a better way to put it though and it is more accurate than saying the parties supporting the resignation of Morales and protesting before November 10th were in any way pro-Áñez. She just wasn't a leading figure there. To make things more complicated, the COB, police and the army only became anti-Morales on the weekend starting 9th Nov. Possibly Red Ponchos too. This could be dealt with as in the existing infobox with the dates mentioned on when they switched sides. The COB should be labelled as anti-Áñez after her inauguration. The Red Ponchos too, though that is complicated as some of them supported Áñez. They are not a monolithic organisation and even awarded Áñez a poncho of her own and people like Felipe Quispe have been anti-Morales for a long time. They were and are a major source of criticism of Morales within the Aymara indigenous communities. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, if you could create an infobox reflecting (sourced) alignments like this and add to talk for discussion, we could ask for more eyes at WikiProject politics or something. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Impact of wildfires
Just reading further into these issues, it would be great to see the impact of wildfires on the reasoning behind these protests. I don't have the capacity to add this to the article, so placing the comment here if someone else can look into it. Jamzze (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)