Talk:Bolivia/Archive 2

NPOV
There seems to be a lot of cherrypicking of facts in the section on recent politics. This does not seem to be the correct page for it. The issue is complex and needs more space than can be allocated on a page that is meant to be on an article about Bolivia. There are serious omissions and biases in sources. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The incident with the mayor of Vinto - is it noteworthy enough to be in the history of Bolivia? Are there no acts of violence or intimidation on the part of masistas and those directed by Morales after the election? Does it mention that this occurred because MAS supporters killed someone? The line says "right wing opposition", but this is not in the linked article - it says MAS claimed it was done by "opposition forces" and no mention of their political alignment. As far as we know it was an angry mob from very heavily pro-Morales region taking revenge for violence done. The same article cites the EU and UN as being very concerned about the legitimacy of the election and other viewpoint not represented in this section.


 * We quote Morales saying he was trying to stop the violence of Camacho and Mesa, but the protests led by these two and their supporters were peaceful and subject to violence and intimidation from the government. And the police ended up mutinying because they were tired carrying out these orders.


 * Why would we not present Evo Morales' stated reason for stepping down? We present the interim-government's justification for forcing his resignation after all.  Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Except there are many reputable sources saying that the protests against Morales were peaceful. We don't have any quotes from any other of the many other former presidents on this page on their opinion of their political enemies. Or from the opponents of Morales on why they believed he should go. Crmoorhead (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That Morales resigned after military suggestion and that it is widely regarded as a "coup d'etat". We are missing that the military commanders were allies of Morales and that they were the last people to make a statement to the President about his resignation. Morales lost, and still has not regained, many of his former political allies that represent the unions and his key bases in Bolivia. Many do NOT regard it as a "coup d'etat" - most nations have accepted the interim government as legitimate, albeit with concerns about human rights and corruption, issues equally present under Morales.


 * He did resign after the military suggested it. Why would this not be in a section that is overwhelmingly about Morales' resignation despite saying "2005–present Morales Presidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets"?  Further, it doesn't matter what we personally think about whether it was a coup or not and acceptance of the interim-government also does not change the nature of what put it in power, the statement "widely regarded as a coup" is factually correct.  Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is true that the military advised he should resign, but they were the last people behind almost everyone else you could think of and the wording implies that ONLY the military had a hand in his resignation. This is well-covered. Widely-regarded as a coup is not false as there are many that did say so, but the NPOV comes in the fact that it is also widely regarded as not a coup by many others. It doesn't matter what I think, even if I think that those claiming a coup are not well-aware of the subtleties of Bolivian politics or the speed with which events happened on the day, but it does matter that many governments, organisations and publications are saying it was not a coup. This section does not give that balance. Crmoorhead (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * And several more issues besides. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree about the cherrypicking and it overall reads awkwardly. I don't think most of that even belongs in this article though. It should be a very dry overview. Maybe with links to specific pages about 2019 elections. Laella (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being stripped down to a bare bones presentation but the only portions it seems either of you wish to remove are parts that give a balanced view. The section is "2005–present Morales Presidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets" yet is almost entirely a one-sided presentation that favors the opposition narrative. Nothing about what Evo Morales's presidency did to democratize Bolivia in his nearly 15 years of presidency is mentioned. It seems like this is mostly being used as a way to present the interim-government and US State department's POV as fact when the narrative is in dispute with both MAS and many countries, including Latin American ones, which still support Evo Morales. Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the petroleum crisis, but I know a great deal about Bolivia in the last few years through living there and being married to a Bolivian. People who don't know enough about current events in Bolivia seem happy to summarise the narrative to one that matches their ideology and not the facts. I am not opposed to MAS or socialism in general, but I am opposed to those within that movement involved in massive corruption for many years and enjoying total immunity to prosecution. Corruption is well documented by independent organisations whose job it is to scrutinise these things. Morales did a huge amount, and I am certain it is recorded here in the poverty levels and child mortality among other things, but he was no saint and he did some things after the election that have caused a lot of people to turn from him, including his bases in Bolivia and people in his own party. This is well documented. To boil everything down to the US is a vast simplification and an insult to Bolivian sovereignty. US had nothing to do with Morales' leaving other than to comment that they accepted the interim president as being constitutional. ATM, Western influence in Bolivia is more tantamount to trying to reset the election results. Elections are coming. Esperate, por favor. Crmoorhead (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The US placed sanctions on Bolivia and USAID funded Morales' political opponents, it was absolutely involved in what happened. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So little text, so many accusations. You need to start backing up rumour with fact, not more rumour. USAID is literally what it says - Humanitarian aid from the US. There are a huge number of projects they were involved with - agriculture, education, small businesses. Morales expelled them in 2013 when he had been president already for 8 years. Seems absurd to believe that if they were doing anything else he would have allowed them to operate for so long. All I can find are words from Morales claiming they were "conspiring against the people" and nothing specific. The fact is that Bolivia depends a lot on foreign aid for projects, be that for the Teleferico, the expansion of green energy in ENDE, programs to stop spread of coronavirus, anti-violence programs etc etc. Tell me if you know of these programs and if you know anything about the funding of them? USAID were under negotiations to return to their work in Dec 2019 after 6 years of absence (they were active for 50 years before that). They were active during most of Morales' presidency, it is not a surprise they would seek to return after his departure, but it is a huge leap to say that they were somehow involved with his downfall. Please provide sources for your assertions or they are just unsubstantiated rumour. You don't seem to understand Bolivian politics at all. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Áñez protesters demographics
My comment from the edit: "This statement is both untrue and highly biased. It is absurd to say the interim president does not represent the Bolivian population by religion, when at least 85% of the country consider themselves Catholic or Christian. Likewise, the interim president is not of a different race or background than the majority of Bolivians, being a mestizo of mostly indigenous descent, like over half of the country."

"'Many protesters against the Áñez government have been indigenous Bolivians who claim that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race.[71]'"

Arguments about this statement's awkward phrasing and factual errors aside, this statement is too specific for an article about Bolivia as a whole. Laella (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The line comes almost directly from the article and as I said above, is necessary in presenting a NPOV.  Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just because the line exists, doesn't mean we have to include it. And I think it might be too close to the original - plagiarism? compare the original to above:
 * "Many of those who have come out to protest have been indigenous Bolivians who are angry that the new government is both unelected and does not represent them in terms of both religion and race."


 * Apart from that, this line is not necessary to present NPOV. The point of NPOV isn't to make sure there are the same number of arguments from 2 camps. It is to show 2 sides of a same issue. There aren't 2 sides to this issue. Anez IS a member of the majority religion, and she IS a member of the majority race. These are not opinions. That an interim government wasn't elected is the nature of an interim government, you can't argue that people want to elect their interim governments, if they were elected, they wouldn't be interim. Finally, while many protesters against Anez have been indigenous, so are just as many of her supporters. It isn't a defining characteristic.
 * What is it you think this sentence is countering? Laella (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said. Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags, a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace. I see no reason to delete the line. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is also proceeded by the line "Anez and her cabinet has no indigenous representation" which is demonstrably false, even negating the fact that most people, including Áñez, are mestizo. She had exactly as many indigenous members in her cabinet as Morales. Furthermore, this article can't even spell Áñez properly, so how good is it as a source on being sensitive to the culture of others. Áñez absolutely represents the majority of the religion among indigenous people. Non-Christian religions represent less than 2% of the country whereas 20% are indigenous and 68% are mestizo. What is the policy for pieces from sources that have factual errors? I can equally find articles to say how Morales had many indigenous opponents and that many felt that his government did not represent them. They have been sources elsewhere on wikipedia. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "It is also proceeded by the line "Anez and her cabinet has no indigenous representation" which is demonstrably false" it was an absolute fact at the time the article was written. Maybe add a line after stating that Áñez has since appointed indigenous people to her cabinet if you feel it necessary. Yautja1917 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That's like saying that you got 40% in an exam when you are only half way through. It's absurd to say that "the cabinet contained no indigenous members" when the cabinet was only partially appointed. The Guardian printed a similar story and added the amendment within 12 hrs of publishing it. "True at the time" is no excuse and, as pointed out, that is ignoring that most people are mestizo, even in those appointed. This page is meant to have a brief summary of Bolivian history. Do you really think that "there were no indigenous members in the cabinet (not counting mestizos) for less than a day until Western Media figured out they don't know much about Bolivia" is worthy of note in the history of Bolivia? Adding details by saying that this was only temporarily true does not seem appropriate for this page, and there are more contentious issues that should be included. It is telling that this is only a story in the UK and US. There is nothing about Áñez lack of indigenous representation in Bolivia that I have seen as Morales' cabinet had a similar makeup and he also had criticism from indigenous groups. Neither is particularly noteworthy on this page. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Only a story in the UK and US" is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people.  I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ♦ ♦ She appointed qualified fully-indigenous people to her cabinet within 24 hours of the original appointments. She also continued making appointments after the first 2 days. It might have been worth pointing out if this had gone on for weeks or months, but a few hours? Also, she DID appoint mestizo-indigenous the first day.
 * An issue I see coming up in any talk where people try to divide Bolivia into "indigenous" vs "non-indigenous" - Bolivia only has 5% white citizens (and half of those are Mennonites, who don't get involved in politics). 90% of Bolivians are indigenous or mestizo. Meaning 90% have some indigenous origin, and the vast majority are over 75% indigenous. There are many indigenous disconnected from their heritage, often they will identify as mestizo for lack of knowledge about their origins. Sometimes this includes mixed-indigenous (Aymara-Guarani for example) who do not have any non-indigenous origin, but there is no way to indicate this - you have to pick a tribe or mark mestizo, so many fully indigenous are considered "mestizo". Without disrespecting those indigenous who live their traditional lifestyles, I am bothered by the implication that assimilated indigenous who wear their culture like a costume somehow have more value than those who lost their culture to assimilation (usually through no fault of their own). Or that single-lineage indigenous have more value than multiple-lineage indigenous. Or even that those with traces of European DNA are somehow less "worthy". Indigenous need to be shown respect, that includes those not lucky enough to have been immersed in their heritage. But we need to be very careful when we start to value people's racial purity. When you see people pointing out that there are no "indigenous" on Áñez cabinet, what they really mean is that they don't see anyone wearing non-western clothes. Laella (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The only person bringing up "racial purity" is you. Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines, colonialism made that a factor, not Indigenous nations.  What's more, it's wholly inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all.  Finally, this line right here:  "I am bothered by the implication that assimilated indigenous who wear their culture like a costume" is incredibly racist and frankly you shouldn't be an editor if that's the attitude you have towards practicing indigenous people. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

♦ ♦ No, I am not the one bringing up racial purity. People saying that "there were no indigenous people on her cabinet" even though there were mestizo people on her cabinet, shows that there is some threshold they are looking for. That is a de-facto purity test. So what defines indigenous? What do Bolivian people need to do or show to be indigenous enough? "...inappropriate for wiki editors to decide that mestizo Bolivians should be considered indigenous when that's not the position of indigenous nations or Bolivians at all" I am not the one who decided that. Please explain how you speak for indigenous people and the country of Bolivia. I am trying to point out that according to news sources, Áñez had appointed indigenous to her cabinet within 24 hours. Also, you are wrong about how Bolivians view the subject. Indigenous vs Mestizo is not either/or in Bolivia. Here are some diverse Bolivian opinions on the topic: What you (and most non-Bolivian) fail to understand is that the Mestizo of Bolivia are more indigenous than European or other. Genetic studies show the average Mestizo Bolivian is over 75% indigenous. Now you say that "Indigeneity is not defined by blood lines" So, please, explain what determines "Indigeneity"? How do you define that?
 * "Cinco encuestas realizadas sobre mestizaje e indigenismo dan cuenta de que las personas encuestadas se definen como mestizas y éstas mismas se consideran parte de algún pueblo indígena."
 * "El estudio Barómetro de las Américas 2012, elaborado por el Proyecto de Opinión Pública de América Latina (Lalop, por sus siglas en inglés), es tremendamente revelador al respecto. En la pregunta sobre identificación racial, un 77% de los consultados se considera “mestizo” frente a un 17% que se ve netamente indígena. Sin embargo, al preguntar por sus raíces culturales, un 72% asevera pertenecer a algún pueblo originario."
 * "Basta preguntar a los bolivianos sobre la identidad que se asignan a sí mismos (y se han hecho muchas encuestas al respecto) para que la respuesta revista siempre un carácter dual: la mayoría de la gente se considera “indígena” (parte de los grupos quechua, aymara o guaraní), al mismo tiempo que “mestiza”. "

"You said Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which is true and in agreement with what the line said." Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race, which does NOT agree with what the line says. "Áñez is a member of the majority religion and race" is NOT in agreement with Áñez "does not represent them in terms of both religion and race." It's one or the other, the quote is wrong. "Remember that in addition to her supporters burning Wiphala flags" Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags. Anti-Morales protesters were burning the Wiphala. Ironically Áñez called for people to respect the Wiphala, and specified when taking office, that she planned to keep it as a national symbol. Specifically, the anger over the Wiphala relates to a long-ongoing conflict between lowland and highland indigenous that predates the Spaniards. There is a lot of complicated background to acts of burning the Wiphala, none of it related to Áñez. "a pastor announced “la Biblia está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Nunca más volverá la Pachamama. Hoy Cristo está volviendo a Palacio de Gobierno. Bolivia es para Cristo” when Luis Camacho brought a bible into the government palace." How does something that happened with Camacho have to do with Áñez ? Is that supposed to be proof that Áñez is not a member of the majority religion? "I see no reason to delete the line." You don't see a reason to delete this line, even though it is factually wrong. That seems like a very important reason to delete it to me.

"'Only a story in the UK and US' is a bold statement. Áñez supporters were burning Wiphala flags and there's substantial evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. I assure you, Bolivians were talking about it." "Only a story in the UK and US" may be a bold statement, but it's true. US and UK media went off on their own journey, very unrelated to what was actually happening in Bolivia. It was very surreal. Áñez supporters were not burning Wiphala flags, as I mentioned above. There is no factual evidence of Áñez being racist towards indigenous people. There are photoshopped tweets and comments taken completely out of context. People who lack any knowledge of Bolivian history are applying their own country's prejudices and conflicts onto Bolivia, trying to match their country's issues to Bolivia's issues. Bolivia is not having a race war. Bolivia is also not in a fight of left vs right politics. Insisting on viewing Bolivia through those 2 lenses means you are misunderstanding what is happening in Bolivia. Bolivians were supposedly talking about what? Instead of making vague claims, back something up with links to news articles from legitimate news sources. Laella (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Languages of Bolivia in sidebar
This keeps being edited to leave only "Spanish". The reason given was ''You only need the main, primary, native language of Bolivia. And that language is Spanish. So, therefore, whoever is adding this information is wrong and needs to stop this right now.''

Firstly, Spanish is the only language that is not native to Bolivia. Secondly, it is not true that only the primary language is needed. See Ireland and Switzerland. Spain has an entry for Official language and does not include Catalan or Basque, but as per the reference linking to the 2009 constitution, all 36 are the official languages of Bolivia. I have included Aymara, Quechua and Guarani, as they all have a substantial number of speakers numbering hundreds of thousands, with a link to the others via the article Languages of Bolivia for the sake of brevity. The three others I have mentioned are important enough to be visible in the sidebar. News is reported simultaneously in Spanish, Aymara and Quechua on the main TV channel with three presenters. I would believe something similar with Guarani in Santa Cruz, although I have not been there. Walk into hospitals in Cochabamba or any of the major cities and you will see signs in Spanish and Quechua or Aymara etc. Deleting all languages except for Spanish is incorrect and has happened several times. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The official languages ​​of the State are Spanish and all the languages ​​of the nations and native indigenous peasant peoples, which are Aymara, Araona, Baure, Bésiro, Canichana, Cavineño, Cayubaba, Chácobo, Chimán, that Ejja, Guaraní, Guarasu ' we, guarayu, itonama, leco, machajuyai-kallawaya, machineri, maropa, mojeño-trinitario, mojeño-ignaciano, moré, mosetén, movima, pacawara, puquina, quechua, sirionó, tacana, tapiete, toromona, uru-chipaya, weenye yaminawa, yuki, yuracaré and zamuco. II. The multinational government and departmental governments must use at least two official languages. One of them must be Spanish, and the other will be decided taking into account the use, convenience, circumstances, the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or of the territory in question. The other autonomous governments must use the languages ​​of their territory, and one of them must be Spanish." Crmoorhead (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to be more like vandalism. There have been a lot of poor quality IP user edits in the last few days. The user who wrote the message above (2600:8804:1000:1C5B:45E3:499B:E431:61AA) has made similar changes to a few pages, all of them reverted, but isn't discussing on talk pages. Laella (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrative divisions section
The sentence beginning 'Original indigenous government' needs reworking slightly - perhaps along the lines of 'vested in the local (geographical-administrative units).' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pueblos originarios de Bolivia.png

Notice to editors who delete paragraphs from the page - discuss first, don't delete

 * Personally, I have added some info to the bolivia page. If you disagree with my previous edits- we can talk it out. Seems obvious but needed to be said given today's incident - don't delete enormous amounts of info on this page either recklessly or deliberately with political intent, but discuss here first.

Considering this is indeed a political topic, I would expect there will be no shortage of people wanting to delete certain info and use partisan and questionable reasoning. Examples in the past day, was disputes on Ethical Hacking and David Rosnick. Ie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985021134 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985023721

Of course, edit warring is not okay. Hence if you want to delete such info about Ethical Hacking or David Rosnick, take it to here and make your arguments here and show your proof. And if anyone deletes large amounts of info prematurely using flawed reasoning or no reasoning, do expect an editor to nudge you to give your reasoning on the talk page and to discuss it out first. Cheers from down under. 49.180.129.245 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

wiphala
The Wiphala is the dual national flag of Bolivia. It should be prominently displayed on the wikipedia page. In my opinion, the tricolour flag should keep the coat of arms, and the wiphala should replace the coat of arms next to it on the wiki page. Or, alternatively, the tricolour flag should not have the coat of arms, the coat of arms can stay, and the wiphala should go underneath. This should be done ASAP. Scoutguy5427 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Flag of the Patujú flower
The secondary flag of Bolivia the Wiphala appears on the infobox on this article. Should the Flag of the Patujú flower also be included? It's used in all official acts of state and the page Flag of Bolivia also includes it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on science and technology
Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections or subsections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikki048.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnorman27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Status of the Wiphala
Regarding this, the cited sources refer to it as either a dual flag or the “other national flag”. The IP should respect WP:BRD and discuss here rather than edit war to change the stable version. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"BoIivia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BoIivia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"Multi-ethnic" instead of "plurinational"
The article contains many instances of a non-existent, ostensibly English word, to wit "plurinational". I replaced this monstrosity with the intended meaning, which is "multi-ethnic". The Bolivian government officially calls itself in English "plurinational", but that is merely because they don't know English. Nonetheless my attempt failed, since an automatic blocker was switched on. I wrote to the Bolivian foreigmn minister explaining the blunder: Excelentísimo señor ministro: Yo soy traductor entre español e inglés profesional con una larga carrera: Con mucho gusto le enviaré mi currículum. Parece que se ha vuelto habitual traducir al inglés “Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia” como “Plurinational State of Bolivia”. Sin embargo este término es incorrecto, ya que incluye una palabra, a saber “plurinational”, que no existe en inglés. La palabra latina “natio” significa lo mismo que la palabra griega ethnos (έθνος). Por consiguiente la traducción correcta al inglés del nombre de su país es “Multi-Ethnic State of Bolivia”. Le saluda atentamente

Traductor Banderswipe (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not generally go by personal translations but by what most sources use. The translated word "plurinational" is overwhelmingly used by reliable sources compared to "multi-ethnic". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wrote to the Bolivian government so they can fix the problem. Banderswipe (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The very least Wikipedia can do is provide an English translation of the made-up word "plurinational", which can be found in no dictionary. Banderswipe (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by calling "multi-ethnic" a "PERSONAL" translation? Are you out of your mind? I have already explained in detail why the proposed solution is a stupid blunder committed by bunglers, and why "multi-ethnic is the only correct translation. I would gladly provide further details if those do not suffice. Banderswipe (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you mean to say is you don't give a f*ck about whether Wikipedia is in English or is comprehensible to monolingual English-speakers, so you can toss in some made-up foreign word here and there without explanation. I can tell you are a person of profound integrity. Background in the subprime loan business, I suppose. Banderswipe (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All English-language reliable sources use the word "pluri-national" in this context. That's what we follown, not Your personal opinion which is irrelevant. If you carry on in this vein, and particularly if you carry on with personal attacks against other editors as above, you will be blocked from Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal opinion. It is the correct translation, which happens to diverge from what is usually written. How come important editorial decisions at Wikipedia are made by people who are obviously completely unqualified for the job? Banderswipe (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Spanish words are adopted into English and vice versa all the time. The term "plurinational" seems like a pretty clear-cut case of that. Even accepting a different term should be used (which I nor most sources nor the Bolivian government itself agree with) I don't think "multi-ethnic" translates as well as you think it does. The term "multinational" as in multinational state fits much better. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you read every day is “real” and “objective”, but if a professional translator points out that what you read every day makes no sense, is in a foreign language and is incomprehensible to many people, then that’s just my “personal” view, which by virtue of being “personal”, is worthless and must be ignored. You must have worked all your life in Walmart. Banderswipe (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cut it out. This is your last warning. You're wasting our time. You're clueless on Wikipedia policy. If reliable sources use the word then we use it. If you're going to edit here you need to learn Wikipedia policy. that's all we follow. No one;'s interested in half baked claims of "expertise". DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to what DeCausa is explaining, our job in Wikipedia is not to editorialize but to add information based on available sources. I myself am plenty knowledgeable on Spanish terms given my professional experience as a Spanish-to-English translator, but without an accompanying citation to back my claim, I could not add it to Wikipedia. If you're set on changing the term to "multi-ethnic", I'd suggest perhaps publishing a paper on the term or lobbying the Bolivian government to change its own preferred English name. Who knows, perhaps it will gain widespread adoption, at which point you could change it here. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of "plurinational"
I tried to insert the following explanation of the foreign word "plurinational", but an error was flagged because I had allegedly committed an error of citation. This is the passage that I intended to insert, but in vain, alas: The Bolivian government chose as its official name in English “Plurinational State of Bolivia”, although “plurinational” is not an English word. It is an imitation of the Spanish word “plurinacional”, which is usually translated as “multinational” https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?source=auto&query=plurinacional However the Bolivian Constitution of 2009 makes clear that the “nations” meant here are Bolivia’s various aboriginal ethnic groups. For instance, “Article 2. In view of the pre-colonial existence of the indigenous autochthonous rural nations and peoples and their ancestral dominion over their territories, …”. “Article 98. I. … Interculturality is the instrument for cohesion and harmonious and balanced coexistence among all peoples and nations [of Bolivia].” Constitución Política del Estado (CPE) (7-Febrero-2009) https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/constitucion_bolivia.pdf The usual term in English for what the Constitution calls “nations” is “ethnic groups”. Accordingly, the meaning of the term “plurinational” is “multi-ethnic”. Banderswipe (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Linguee.com source is original research in this instance, so you'll need to rewrite. The reason your citations aren't working is because you have the / in the wrong place. It goes "/ref", rather than the "ref/" as you did twice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add and reiterate that WP:COMMONAME still applies and, as "plurinational" is the overwhelmingly used term both by the government itself and nearly all reliable sources, any attempt to change the term to "multi-ethnic" will be reverted. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong flag
That's the state flag of Bolivia, not the regular civil flag of the country, which lacks the coat of arms. Wikipedia shows the civil flags of Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia and others so it should also show the civil flag of Bolivia. 81.9.195.178 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Railways in Bolivia.png

Dubious statement in Economy section.
In the economy section this quote appears:

"In recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves"

I think this may be out of context from the source with says, "Unlike any time in recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves. Plenty has flowed into coffers of gas companies as well." The context of this quote is the short term boom from gas, rather than a long term economic success. Indeed, it specifically says that this growth is "Unlike recent history".

In fact, Bolivia still ranks close to the bottom in most indices of the size or success of the economy, when compared with its neigbbours. This sentence doesn't give that impression. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bolivia Product Exports (2019).svg