Talk:Evo Morales

Statutory rape case
I just wanted to make a note that this is a major scandal in Bolivia and there is a lot of information that has not been reported, including reactions from major political figures in all parties and relevant information. BLP still applies, but there are ways to report this issue correctly. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * At the moment, the section is a bit ridiculous – five paragraphs and less than 500 words, with four "claimed" (and one "she claims"), two "alleged" and one "purported" (in the same sentence, which also has one of the instances of "claimed"), and a couple of other hedges, while "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions" is presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, BLP applies, to all people mentioned in the article, but so does basic stylistic common sense. --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, there have been a number of edits that have added words here and there that make it sound repetitive and poorly structured. Much of it was worse before I started editing the section and the title had the word "pedophile" in it, which is definitely not good BLP practice and inaccurate. That sentence is clumsy, yes. There are some sentences that seem to indicate that are written by editors who don't have English as a first language. Style and structure are, however, basic corrections that can be easily made. Combining some of the shorter paragraphs or extending them (within reason) is sensible, IMO. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well this whole fiasco is right now a case of she-said-he-said and article should reflect that.31.187.2.117 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is also the issue that Morales being in a relationship with a 19 year-old (or indeed a 16-year-old) is not actually illegal. The evidence seems to point to them having a reasonably long-term romantic relationship, but nothing particularly compelling to say that it began before she was 16. This should be clearly stated, but the accusations and who exactly is making them should be clear. I have not added that commentary because I need to source that statement properly. Looking to other wiki pages with similar content for a model of neutrality would be a good idea. There is no denying that this is, however, a big deal (especially in Bolivia) regardless of how it falls out, nor that is it something that has been discussed about Morales in Spanish-speaking media for a number of years. There are other events that have occurred within Bolivia that are still not reported in this article, or in English language media, and it is generally a struggle to find anyone that has up-to-date knowledge about news in Bolivia to help with that. This may or may not affect your opinion that it is a matter of "she-said-he-said", but I would point to how these matters are dealt with in similar cases. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually the language is so melodramatic and tortured that readers won't take it seriously and will probably burst out laughing. The oddest phrases are:
 * "These became the object of outrage among users". - Very melodramatic.
 * "that Morales had been in a relationship with the minor since the age of 14". - Given that he is 60 now, that means he has been in the relationship for 46 years. Surely the girl has grown up by now.
 * "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - A very odd translation from the Spanish.
 * "Her precise whereabouts are unknown". - Why is that important?
 * "... have been claimed to corroborate a long-term acquaintance between the two". - Morales has a lot of long term acquaintances. Why is one more important?
 * "Members of the vice Ministry of Transparency pointed out that the statement is full of contradictions". - Sounds like we are acting for the prosecution. Also is there really a Ministry of Transparency?
 * Burrobert (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If there is a problem with the language, make an edit to modify it.
 * * Not my wording. Modify as you see fit.
 * * Ambiguous, but obvious from context. An easy fix.
 * * Is it? I mean, make a better translation if you want. If you aren't in a position to do so, perhaps you should not comment on its "oddness". Seems a perfectly valid English sentence to me.
 * * Not particularly, delete it if you wish. It's been said by several articles on the whole subject, why was it relevant to them? It makes a difference if she was smuggled across the border to be with Morales or just living somewhere else, but for the purposes of the wiki, it's not essential.
 * * Acquaintance is not the right word, the transcripts are between lovers. Have a read of them and pick whichever word you think is most appropriate.
 * * The ministry of Transparency is a thing, yes. Agreed that this sentence is clumsy. I don't think that clearly stating the two sides of the case is acting for the prosecution. NPOV is achievable. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I could fix them but I actually find them amusing. A couple of follow ups:
 * "he uses his public acts to sexually hook the minors who attend those acts". - Yes it is a valid English sentence. However, "Public acts" sounds lewd and I am sure that is not what was intended or being referred to.
 * I'll have to look up the Ministry of Transparency to see what it does.
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't find "public acts" remotely lewd, but perhaps you would be ok with "public appearances" or "public actions". The word in Spanish is "actos". It refers to his official appearances and events attended as President. The Ministry of Transparency is linked with the FELCC which aims to detect corruption in state-owned industries and public figures. Corruption is a big problem in Bolivia, so they are kept busy. They have been around for a while. Here is info on corruption in general in Bolivia in English. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

1st President?
Morales is currently listed as the 65th president of Bolivia. However, the argument could be made to list him as the 1st President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The 2009 Bolivian Constitution reset term limits on the president and called for a new general election that year. As well, in Morales' own twitter bio he states to be the First President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisgabwoosh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's a technicality. In common parlance, readers would simply be interested in who was president of the country called Bolivia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, that makes sense. I am interested in knowing how Bolivian (and many Latin American in general) presidents are numbered? For the U.S., for example, Grover Celeveland is named 22nd and 24th president because he served non consecutively, but in Bolivian articles it seems that presidents, even those who served non consecutively, count for one spot. Are interim and short-lived presidents counted when numbering. I've been trying to figure out the method for numbering Latin American presidents for a while. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're not numbered. As an Australian, from time to time I find myself (and see other Australians) reverting OR edits, typically by Americans, who want to number our political position holders. It's just not a tradition here, and nobody "official" has ever gone to the trouble of working out the idiosyncrasies and oddities. It may well be that Bolivia is more like Australia in that respect than the US. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I was always saw it as Prime Ministers not being numbered because it is their party that is elected and they're just the head of it while Presidents are numbered because they are elected separate from their party election. But if this is not the case, should we remove the numbering on Morales' infobox. For Bolivia, the 1st two presidents (Bolivar and Sucre) are numbered and everything from de Lozada (62nd) are numbered. All presidents in between are not numbered. Should I remove the numbering? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be my preference, but I would await the views of others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any two people being president of Bolivia at the same time, which would be the obvious objection to a chronological numbering. There may be a few presidents that came to power in a coup and were not internationally recognised as president of the country, but technically they still had all the power of the president. Some of the presidents were also only placeholders until elections could take place. The current one, of course, but Rodriguez Veltze before that. There are rules that govern the succession of President when one resigns or elections are called prematurely. The Spanish wiki has a full list of numbered presidents, but don't restart the numbering with the Plurinational State and some of them are not numbered. Unlike the US, they are not referred to as being the "65th" president in an official capacity, but that doesn't mean they can't be numbered in a list per se. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I have researched (I myself am Bolivian), Bolivia does not count its presidents numerically but through their legal status. Presidents are classified in two groups. The first group is "Constitucionales" having come to power legally or through quasi-legal means (achieving power through a revolution or coup d’état but later constitutionalised).The rest are either de facto having come to power militarily and never constitutionalised, or interim having been placed in power only until a new president is chosen (As is the current president). As well, there is actually one example of co-presidency that being of René Barrientos and Alfredo Ovando who are the only case of co-presidencies in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to have someone else from Bolivia contributing! I am married to a Bolivian and am living there now (although mainly I am in the UK) and there are many editors that don't know much about the country but write from the perspective of what is reported in Western media which is almost always an inaccurate representation. I spend most of my edits adding information from the main Bolivian news outlets that just aren't reported past the borders. With regard to the numbering, it could also be stated that Morales refers to himself as the 1st President of the new Bolivian nation, which gives the most information. The information about "constitutionales" and "de facto" is interesting. Maybe ths would be useful on the page about presidents, although a source would be needed.Crmoorhead (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is always nice to find a fellow Bolivian. I ended up adding the information about so-called "Constitucionales" (With source of course) to the page for Presidents of Bolivia. As for including Morales as the 1st President of the Plurinational State (the original topic of this discussion), I personally believe it makes sense. Many other pages for presidents of other countries restart the numbering when the state goes through an official name change. The best example I can think of is Colombia. In Wikipedia's list of presidents of Colombia, the numbering resets every time the state reforms (Gran Colombia,Republic of New Granada, Granadine Confederation, United States of Colombia). The current president, Iván Duque, is listed as 33rd president since the formation of the Republic of Colombia in 1886. Rafael Núñez, is listed as the 13th president of the United States of Colombia and the 1st president of the Republic of Colombia. So there is a precedent to do this and, coupled with the fact Morales reset term limits when Bolivia became a Plurinational State, is why I believe it should be added. In the meantime I guess we just wait on a consensus. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * An argument could certainly be made for him being the first President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, although I think few people would refer to him as that. It was the main argument for him to be allowed to run more than twice as President. I don't know in detail how the old constitution compares to the new one, but largely the main bodies are the same. There are some changes in what powers some of the main positions have too. Looking for precedent inf other wiki pages is a good idea. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please anyone provide a source for the entire numbering of Bolivian presidents, otherwise these are arbitrary and need to go. Mewulwe (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They're based off the book by Bolivian presidential historian and ex-president Carlos Mesa. The reset in the numbering is based off the 2009 Constitution which changed the name of the country and allowed Evo Morales to reset term limits on the pretext that his previous terms belonged to a different regime.
 * His giving a list with numbers doesn't prove anything. His numbering could be as arbitrary as anyone's. Do you have evidence that this numbering is in established use? Mewulwe (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The official website of the President of Bolivia, presidencia.gob.bo, used to have an official gallery of presidents numbered in order. The paintings used in most Wikipedia pages on Bolivian presidents come from there. However, the site has since changed and the gallery used an old form of flash which doesn't work on the wayback machine. Evo Morales being numbered as the 1st President of the Plurinational State is in established use. Even his Twitter characterzes him as such. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is such an odd discussion to have. I can only see two contributors who seem to be in favour of this artificial differentation between the Republic and the Plurinational State. This makes it seem like a new country was created - which simply is not the case. Adopting a new constitution does not equal the birth of a new country. Do the Plurinational State and the Republic have two separate pages on Wikipedia? No, because it's the same country. Look at France, for example. They're at their Fifth Republic . Their Presidents' articles simply mention President of France in the infobox. It also is worth mentioning that the Spanish-language Wikipedia says Luis Arce is the 67th President of Bolivia, and I'd be inclined to follow their lead as it is an important official language in Bolivia. So there are ample reasons to go back to the way it had been written until recently. The fact that this change has been reverted countless times by various editors should be a sign that this is not a widely accepted change. In fact, as long as this discussion is running, you should withold from changing the status quo. Takk (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes it seem like a new country was created because that was the argument made by the government at the time. The main claim that a new country was created was that while every other Constitution prior had kept the name "Republic of Bolivia," the new one changed it to the "Plurinational Republic of Bolivia." However, it seems there is no clear consensus anywhere on Wikipedia on how name changes in country's should be handled. While the current count for the Presidents of Colombia starts at the Republic of Colombia resetting it from its predecessor, the United States of Colombia. (Granadine Confederation - United States of Colombia - Republic of Colombia), the pages for the Presidents of Venezuela do not reset the count despite numerous name changes (United States of - Republic of - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). The solution on the Spanish Wikipedia is for all presidents prior to the Constitution to be labelled (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. President of the Republic of Bolivia) with all presidents since Morales labelled (65th, 66th, 67th, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia). This solution is simply wrong since there have been only 3 presidents of the Plurinational State. While a distinction is my preference, it's clear there is no consensus. In the meantime, simply "President of Bolivia" should be used with Arce the 67th since he is the 67th person to officially hold the title. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that it is my preference and will present arguments for discussion:


 * The name of the nation changed from Republic of Bolivia to Plurinational State of Bolivia in all official documents at the national and international levels.
 * The title has also changed to President of the Plurinational State rather than President of the Republic or even President of Bolivia.
 * The new constitution forced Evo Morales to need to be elected for a second time, without having completed his first term fully. This meant that he was allowed to stand a third time in 2014, contrary to the 2009 constitution. This was ruled upon by the Constitutional court on grounds that could justify calling him both the last President of the Republic of Bolivia and first president of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
 * Morales refers to himself as the first president of the Plurinational State (see above). While not president, he's still influential and I don't see that trend disappearing. The Plurinational State is a major change in society in the country with many institutions changing names.
 * While wiki articles may or may not restart counts, that decision seems someone arbitrary and devoid of evidence. The article for France that you quote names the presidents as numbered with 25th being the current, yet the page for the Fifth French Republic lists De Gaule as being the first and the actual website for the presidency lists Macron as being "eighth President of the Fifth Republic of France". Wikipedia isn't always correct.
 * While wikipedia is not always correct, it remains to be said that several countries definitely do number their presidents again, namely the Colombia example, exactly based on the changes of Constitutions and renaming of the country. The 2009 Constitution is sufficiently different enough to warrant renumberings.
 * Not all numberings of presidents in Bolivia are consistent. They have been previously removed. Starting again from a clearly defined point is preferable if we are doing any numbering at all. Other articles also don't have any numbering for presidents either, like Argentina. There is no official numbering in Bolivia.
 * While several people have undone edits, some may be sockpuppets as they have not done any previous edits. Both advocates of the new numbering system know Bolivia well enough to not be advocating this change without reason. The counterargument seems to be "it's confusing" which isn't related at all to whether it's factually incorrect, misleading or appropriate for encyclopedic content. As far as Spanish wikipedia goes, it's not justification to quote other wiki pages! Crmoorhead (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the numbering is confusing and the fact that there is no official numbering should be reason enough not to do it, and to stick to the title "President of Bolivia". Changing "Republic" into "Plurinational State" does not constitute the changing of the name of the country. It was and still is called "Bolivia". But even if it would, that would not be enough reason to start the count from scratch. Take Myanmar as an example. The country was previously referred to as Burma. When the country changed its name, the counting of their presidents did not stop. Same goes for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was called Zaire. Or look at Stevo Pendarovski, who is said to be the 5th President of North Macedonia, even though the country only changed its name last year. So even if you would argue that the country changed names (which I contest) then that's not enough to justify this change. Takk (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But, again, I have already cited cases where renaming the country and a new constitution has restarted the count, both in terms of wikipedia and a contradiction to your example of France where Macron is first and foremost referred to the Eighth President of the Fifth French Republic on the official website for the presidency. It's also been shown that there is precedent for the Bolivian president doing so. Other wikipedia pages are somewhat arbitrary in their numbering and it also depends on how chaotic the history is. For DRC, there was only one president of Zaire and previously there was the Republic of Congo (which is another country) with a total of five in the last 50 years. It's a relatively simple continuity. 67 presidents (plus a few others not officially counted) over a course of almost 200 years is a bit more precarious. Mobutu Seso Seku] is also labelled as President of Zaire, not as 2nd President of DRC, on his page, whereas the current one is labelled as 5th President of DRC. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Narco-state
'''Narco-state ''' During the entire presidency of Evo Morales in Bolivia and the expulsion of the DEA from this country in 2008, drug trafficking has skyrocketed in the country. For all these reasons, the Inter-American Institute for Democracy and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal describe the government of Evo Morales as that of a "narco-state" For his part, researcher Diego Ayo from the Vicente Pazos Kanki Foundation has published a study where he considers that the current structure of the Bolivian State is similar to that of a drug cartel. The coca growers unions are the main drug suppliers for the international market.


 * For WP:NPOV and WP:BLP reasons, this was removed. There are, however, adequate reasons for this theme to be included in some form as it is a common point of discussion both within Bolivia and of independent studies on drug trafficking on the international stage. The page Illegal drug trade in Bolivia is woefully out of date, most references being from more than a decade ago. What it should certainly not be is an accusation that Morales is somehow the drug King of the Chapare. If there is political support from cartels and it is backed up from reputable sources, that is worthy of inclusion. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * everything is correctly cited and deserves to be mentioned in the article. If you feel like it's biased, I can't do anything so you can modify it at will, but you can't delete it just for the sake of it. --Ají Picante (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And by the way, it is not me who is accusing Morales of being a Cartel leader, is the south american media, so this is not something of my imagination. --Ají Picante (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very common but if getting sources you should take care not to use opinion pieces like in the WSJ. If there are important public figures using those words, that might be important. I added several statistics and references. The net worth of the cocaine market in Bolivia and how much cocaine is being produced would be a good addition as well as part that links the Coca Unions with drug cartels and/or the MAS. There are numerous references in the Bolivian media that don't originate from allegations from political persecution in the last year. Sources prior to Nov 2019 would be seen as less biased by some. I am also aware that many farmers turn from necessary foodstuffs to coca because it is more profitable. All this work has me thirsting for a coca mate! Crmoorhead (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I changed the title to avoid susceptibilities. --Ají Picante (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protection
since this article lacks any protection and a lot of the problem edits are from IPs, wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient? aismallard (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Correct, that's what I meant. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Kozloff source
Hi! I reverted your edits removing the source for Nicholas Kozloff. I'm not necessarily opposed to the changes, but given this article's contentious history and out of abundance of caution, I just wanted to make sure as to your reasoning. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This is long overdue, but I still wanted to provide some insight regarding my changes. Kozloff is overall pro-Pink Tide, and his main article can be offer some insight regarding his position: his book Hugo Chávez : Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the United States treats Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, and just like the work referenced in this article, it was written in arguably in the height of the Pink Tide, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Not only should we beware of writing about a political process with a historial perspective instead of a current day one, but also the overrepresentation of American sources in content about Latin America. These factors affect reliability, besides neutrality, and its use should be avoided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely say that this article could use some more contemporary citations reflecting recent historical analysis. However, I'd say that the author's biases aren't' necessarily reflected in the article to the extent that citations to him warrant being removed without something to replace them. I would definitely, on the other hand, consider perhaps delisting this as a GA, given that there are multiple sections that are no longer up to snuff. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m initially opposed to the change for which I had done a partial revert already, but I am also willing to hear more. The concern reflected by the edit summary was not self-evident to me. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation 312 Attribution (minor) Error
Citation 312 referring to a paper authored by Diego Escobari indicates that he is from the University of Texas, the common name of the flagship school of the University of Texas System, UT-Austin. The accompanying link also leads to UT-Austin. In fact Dr. Escobari is a faculty member at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (utrgv.edu), and his paper itself indicates that school, which deserves recognition in proper attribution. Citation 312 itself links to his paper hosted at utrgv.edu, the website of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. 2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The article also lists the co-author (Hoover) first, rather than the primary author (Escobari). Conventionally, the primary author should be listed first. 2603:8080:7A00:CCC0:5139:E3DB:2DAB:39D1 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Linked now to the correct university. As to the second point, the citation actually listed neither author. I've amended it to include author names and other elements necessary for proper citation. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the corrections and my apologies for not being specific on one requested edit: in the main text of the article (not the citation, which is correct now thanks to your fix), the university name "University of Texas" links to the correct university (utrgv.edu), but the text itself would more properly refer to "The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley", as "University of Texas" alone is common parlance for the flagship school, UT-Austin, and most readers of the main article text would (incorrectly) assume that it was the university producing this research. The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and UT-Austin are distinct and separate institutions within the UT System (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_System).  Thank you for your efforts on this article and on Wikipedia. 129.113.55.130 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; full university name is now included. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)