Talk:Jeanine Áñez

Active discussions

She has no right to declare herself president of BoliviaEdit

The article claims "she became the highest-ranking official in the line of succession to the presidency of Bolivia" but that's simply untrue. According to ARTICLE 161.3 of Bolivia's Constitution "The Chambers shall meet in Pluri-National Legislative Assembly to [...] To accept or reject the resignation of the President of the State and of the Vice President of the State." This did NOT happen as they didn't have quorum to hold sessions. Thus the president still IS Evo Morales, even after signing his resignation. This needs to be corrected as soon as possible. Wikipedia is a place to INFORM the truth, not to assert one's opinion on a matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NausAllien (talkcontribs) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where the truth on any left/socialist state or figure is whatever the US State department decides is the truth. Constitutions, facts and history do not matter, only power matters. TKeWhite (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

SenatorEdit

Does she cease to be a senator when she takes on this interim presidency ? Will she automatically return to being a senator afterwards, does anyone know ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Technicalities not laid out in the Bolivian constitution, possibly because it's a very unlikely scenario (the instructions on what to do specifically stop at the 3rd in line of succession, she's 5th). So she'll be developing the precedent as she goes along. So, no, we don't know. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What is her political position, on anything?Edit

We are told "Her politics have been described as fiercely anti-Evo Morales". That tells me very little at all. They could be in the same party, and just happen to hate each other. Can someone pelase make this a little better? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Use a translator here; https://twitter.com/JeanineAnez

Mr.User200 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This page appears to have been written almost exclusively by her supporters, and should be considered suspect by Wikipedia standards. Qphilo (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Or by people who understand the word "libel". Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Fact checked, 3 out of 4 Tweets are real.
Source: https://elcomercio.pe/mundo/latinoamerica/jeanine-anez-estos-son-los-agresivos-tuits-contra-originarios-e-indigenas-que-borro-la-presidenta-interina-de-bolivia-noticia/

Mr.User200 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

81st President or notEdit

Is she the President of Bolivia or not? Enough with this claims to be stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, per @Mewulwe:'s lead, we should leave out the numbering (81st) as it can't be sourced. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Per the line of succession, she immediately becomes President. The constitution does not outline whether it is in an acting capacity or if she must call elections; it implies that she does not. The number is apparently controversial, as different counts include different people (you really think they would keep a list, but alas, there does not seem to be one). The Wikipedia article places her 68th. Leave out a number if the content is in dispute. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
According to multiple sources, she's declared herself "interim President". Apparently doing so even though the Senate lacked a quorum to appoint her. — Red XIV (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the numbering from all Bolivian presidents & vice presidents articles. Such numbering had no source. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019Edit

The section that reads "Due to the military's involvement in the resignations, the events have been called a coup d'état by several critics." is somewhat incorrect. The military was at no point involved in his resignation. The protests were started and lead by civic leaders all the 21 days of protest. Near the end the only thing the military did was suggest his resignation to appease the people. All the police and military said during the period of protest was that they would not raise their guns against the population which does not really qualify as "involvement in the resignation." Due to this I recommend changing the section that says "due to military's involvement in the resignation" to "despite the lack of the military's involvement in the resignation" Sammyender (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Sammyender: Removed the sentence. The reference was only citing French politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon and France's Communist Party, among others. There's no agreement to include the term as a widely accepted word. Many thanks for the notification! --Jamez42 (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019Edit

Please change the picture to the current picture of her as the President of Bolivia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Jeanine_A%C3%B1ez_-_Interim_President_of_Bolivia.jpg CurrentEventsBO (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also should mention that she became the interim president without achieving a quorum, thus balancing MAS's illegimate claim and Jeanine's "emergency and just interim" claim. --146.96.147.137 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have updated it while checking it out based on an additional quality improvement, but with extreme prejudice to delete if the CC tag proves to be false. As in, there's a copyright claim in the description - sometimes people (C) but have allowed for CC use, but it's not always the case. @146.96.147.137: where did you get the image from? Kingsif (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Found it: that's not free. It may qualify as fair use, but it's headed to be deleted on commons. Kingsif (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Political Views - Indigenous PeopleEdit

Holds that indigenous are satanic and shouldn't be living in cities: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1660&bih=830&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNTd4NOvi0hIWrAQrzty5CtclHbVwQ%3A1573673833313&sa=1&ei=aVvMXebcEs6WsQWeurq4Ag&q=bolivian+coup+d%27etat+indigenous+satanic+twitter&oq=bolivian+coup+d%27etat+indigenous+satanic+twitter&gs_l=img.3...1903.2712..2793...0.0..0.434.1164.0j2j2j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.FYauFzZ1pYk&ved=0ahUKEwimtc7u9-flAhVOS6wKHR6dDicQ4dUDCAc&uact=5#imgrc=0dtz5rWy9F_i0M: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.34.9 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A Google image search is a very unreliable source on which to hang a negative claim about a living person. So far the tweet in question doesn't seem to be verified. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Not to revive a dead post, but I want to clarify that this tweet (along with several others) was verified to be fake. Áñez didn't say this, and Áñez is herself indigenous.--Laella (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I saw elsewhere that at least some of what she said was verified, but the assertion that she is anti-indigenous is generally preposterous. So many indigenous people in Bolivia and three times as many mestizo. It would be no surprise if Áñez has some indigenous blood in her ancestry - most people do. Quite apart from that, there is inclusion all over the country and she has stated on multiple occasions her support for the wipala, patujú and the cultures of her country. Many on the left in the West have an idealised version of Morales and seek to undermine her existence using these accusations and assumptions within days of her becoming President. Similar with Camacho, but I don't know much about him or statements he has made. Crmoorhead (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, although I do not understand why, that Morales is being highly idealized.
There is only one real tweet of Áñez with text that is "inflammatory" - that one was the basis of most of the fake tweets (the two other real quotes that are controversial are comments about photos) --- the problem is that the tweet, which certainly does not sound good, has been taken out of context. It was part of a larger controversy in the country at that time. The tweet was poorly phrased, but in context, is not at all racist.
In 2013, the topic of the "Aymara New Year" caused a lot of anger nationwide. Morales knew it would be controversial when he did it, and he courted that controversy. First, because he replaced "Corpus Cristi", a Catholic holiday, with this new holiday. Morales had a goal to diminish the power of the Catholic church. It would be easy to argue the church had too much power previously, and reducing their power was a good thing. Many people welcomed this change, even Catholics, but Morales was confrontational in his approach. Given the large Catholic majority of the country, it was going to cause some upset.
Secondly, Many of the indigenous who were not of the majority Aymara/Quechua groups, were worried that Morales would come to favor his own Aymara over other indigenous groups. When Morales announced this non-historically accurate Aymara holiday, it seemed to confirm that fear. The Aymara New Year ultimately was the only indigenous holiday Morales named. In 2018, in an attempt to sooth the persistent anger, Morales re-named the holiday "Año Nuevo Andino Amazónico y del Chaco" (Referencing the three main eco-regions of the country). Like much of what Morales did towards the end, it felt like too little, too late (and was impossibly long to say).
--- Now, in that context, you can understand the tweet, from 2013:

Que año nuevo aymara ni lucero del alba!! satànicos, a Dios nadie lo reemplaza!!

What New Year or Morning Star!! Satanists, no one replaces God!!

You can see she kind of hits at both the controversy of the invention of a new "Aymara" holiday and the replacement of a Catholic holiday.
It's not elegant, but it's not racist. And she was far from being the only Bolivian upset about this.
"It would be no surprise if Áñez has some indigenous blood in her ancestry - most people do." - This kind of represents the problem with how people think of this. They think it is like indigenous in the United States, that most people who claim native heritage have 2-15% indigenous ancestry. In Bolivia, the genetic composition of the average Bolivian is 70-80% indigenous [1]
Bolivia has only 5% white people (and 20% of those are non-integrated Menonites, 2% are Arabic, 2% other non-European white... so more like 4% European white people who live amongst the Bolivians). Further, the white people are spread throughout the country and do not represent a unified block (other than the Mennonites, who live in colonies and tend not to vote).
So it seems like the "white right-wing extremists" referenced so often in english media coverage is highly over-blown.
Further complicating the way the indigenous population is calculated, the Bolivian census attempted to catalog the different groups of indigenous in the census, but many mestizo, and some indigenous are not sure of their exact indigenous origin. In the census, anyone not sure was cataloged as "mestizo". The Bolivian census also had the common flaw that there was no clear way to show someone of mixed indigenous ancestries, so many of those ended up in the "mestizo" category as well, despite having no non-indigenous ancestry. This gave 41% indigenous in the most recent census, but experts agree the real number is higher.
Áñez probably does not have just "some" indigenous ancestry, it is highly likely that she is more indigenous than not.
One further thing that might cause confusion - The indigenous of the Eastern lowlands are not closely related to those of the highlands, and are generally lighter-skinned, taller and have what could look like more European features, compared to the Aymara and Quechua. This may lead people to believe that they are mixed or have a higher percentage of European ancestry than is accurate.
I would like to add more of this information to the main article, but it will have to wait until I have time to find english references for everything. Laella (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous assertion that Evo Morales banned Catholicism is currently in this semi-locked entry.Edit

Whoever posted that should lose their editing privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DD16:2C00:E8C4:46A2:EE50:E62E (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the citation refutes it. The guardian article says Morales supported removing references to Catholicism from Bolivia's constitution. The Wikipedia article says Morales banned Catholicism. Obviously a deliberate falsehood inserted into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derelanian (talkcontribs) 23:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This clearly wasn't supported by the source so I removed it. If someone wants to re-add a description of how the Bolivian was secularized under Morales, including the claim from the Guardian article about the Bible being banned from the presidential palace, you should probably find another source that goes into more detail. Zrowny (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reinstated with only the basics; note that assertions of "deliberate falsehood" is not WP:AGF - I wrote it intending to paraphrase the Guardian so as not to get close to copyvio of a strong source, don't assume malintent. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable including this claim at all. The Guardian article is very unclear about what "banning the bible" means or what recognizing Pachamama "instead of" the Catholic Church means and I can't find any other source that describes what these actually mean. Relying on an oblique reference to this in a larger article seems against WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Something that mentions that Bolivia was an explicitly Catholic state until being secularized by the 2009 constitution is a much more attributable claim. This Bloomberg article references this, for example: (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/bolivia-faces-power-vacuum-and-more-chaos-after-morales-quits) There's also Evo Morales and the Roman Catholic Church already, so maybe a link to that would make sense? Zrowny (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
However, the Guardian is the only RS to mention her anti-indigenous tweets, and it does so in this context. If you want it to be expanded with the wider references about religion under Morales, that's not a bad idea. Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BirthdayEdit

The Spanish version states her to be born on 13th of June, not August. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdiace (talkcontribs) 07:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, it's locked at that version. The source from her own government page says August. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

SenatorEdit

Hi Do you have sources that she is not senator from now? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's assumed that becoming President precludes one from being a senator. A source would obviously be appreciated, because of WP:BLUESKY. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Indians with shoes!! What next?Edit

"implied that indigenous people were not genuine for wearing shoes": This reads awkwardly in English. A clearer form would be "questioned the authenticity of indigenous activists who wore pants and shoes."

During the first 23 days in the presidency, the deaths were more than 23, only indigenous people.

Separate controversy sections should be avoided where possible, and in this case I see no reason not to include her "controversial" views with the rest. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2019Edit

Please change "She describes herself as a Christian" to "Despite her indigenous roots she describes herself as a Christian" because she is of indigenous heritage. DuaaaLipa (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source? And anyone can be Christian, regardless of ethnicity, so that phrasing is completely inappropriate. Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add link to new Jeanine Anez Wikiquotes pageEdit

It's already on the left side (with commons). Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Added project box Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ReligionEdit

Do we know if she is a Catholic or an Evangelical Protestant?

policies as anti-indigenousEdit

It is a fact that Áñez's views have been described as "anti-indigenous" (in the Guardian, the Nation, the AFP, the CBC, and other mainstream news sources). Whether or not you agree with this characterization is a separate issue. @Kingsif: you wrote that "having no indigenous cabinet members does not make policies anti-indiginous (e.g. there are no jews in the UK cabinet, are you going to call it anti-semitic?)" First of all, it looks like you didn't read the Guardian source, which calls Áñez "anti-indigenous" on the basis of her remarks, not the makeup of her cabinet. Moreover, your comparison is inherently flawed. 20-41% (depending on estimates) of Bolivians are of indigenous descent, whereas only 0.4% of Britons are Jewish. If Jews made up somewhere between a fifth and a half of the population of the UK, having a cabinet with no Jewish representation probably would indeed be called anti-Semitic. -Alexanderj (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderj: first, I've moved your comment to a new section. Since you dumped it in between different comments of an old discussion... But, to respond, I did read the article. I also was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you meant the make up of her cabinet, because her comments (out of context tweets from over 6 years ago!) have absolutely no bearing on her policies and everyone knows that. Her official stances as a politician are much different. Her policies are inclusive. Her views may not be, but she apparently has the sense to cut the racism when in power. Kingsif (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: It is not just her comments, but her policies which have been described as "anti-indigenous." The articles linked argue the following:
"The former leader’s supporters have decried heavy-handed policing in street protests and say they are being targeted for being indigenous in appearance or dress." "Áñez’s choice of cabinet showed no signs that she intended to reach across the country’s deep political and ethnic divide." -The Guardian
"Her rise to power has reignited some of the anti-indigenous sentiment that was so dominant in Bolivia before Morales' administration." -US News & World Report
Again, you can disagree with these newspapers and Morales supporters in their characterization of Áñez's policies as anti-indigenous, but it is a fact that they are describing her political position as anti-indigenous. -Alexanderj (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a fact. All those quotes say is that with her as leader, people in the streets are behaving more racist. Please, tell me how that is a policy. I don't disagree that Áñez is probably quite racist. But you are trying to spin separate facts into calling them her policies when it's very cut and dry - the only political statement she has made on indigenous issues is that the wiphala will remain an official flag. There's a controversy section that exists entirely to show that even though that looks good there is more context. Futhermore, we have not included all her political stances in the lead, and there is zero reason why this one would belong there above drugs, religion, and Venezuela. So it's not going in at all, but if it were, it would have to be that her policies are inclusive, because officially they are. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"All those quotes say is that with her as leader, people in the streets are behaving more racist. Please, tell me how that is a policy." You are ignoring the quotes from the Guardian which are right above your comment. "The former leader’s supporters have decried heavy-handed policing in street protests and say they are being targeted for being indigenous in appearance or dress." (Emphasis added). "Áñez’s choice of cabinet showed no signs that she intended to reach across the country’s deep political and ethnic divide." (Emphasis added). These quotes all address policy. -Alexanderj (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I was literally talking about those quotes. You seem to have misread the term wikt:policing, as in, about police, not policy. And a choice of cabinet is not a policy, as my very first comment said - you know, the one you quickly responded to by saying it wasn't about the cabinet anyway? Get a dictionary and stop pulling at straws. Ignoring a political divide is not a policy. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You have an overly narrow view of what policy includes. Political scientists will tell you that policing is a function of policy. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith here, so I've posted to WP:3O to get another opinion. -Alexanderj (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying my best, but each of your rebuttals is less credible than the one before. One google books link is nothing on the actual definition of policy, I'm afraid. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've come from 30, and having read the disputed text and the sources used as references, my opinion is that while both of your views have merit, I would argue against the inclusion of the disputed text. I agree that the sources state that Áñez has been described as having anti-indigenous views, however there is a distinction between having political views and having a political position. I don't believe the sources referenced clearly state that Áñez's "political position has been described as... anti-indigenous" as stated in the lede. Hope this helps. Cjhard (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @VisaBlack: In case you're not sure where the talkpage is, it's here. Basically: sources (including the not-RS ones you provide!) agree that Áñez has been racist to indigenous people. Some say that the public has been freely expressing more anti-indigenous views since she came to power; some say the security forces have been treating indigenous people worse. But do you know what none of that is equal to, and what no sources actually do? Yes, none of them describe her political position as anti-indigenous. And, as said above, the lead is for an overview that none of her other political stances have made it into, so insisting on a POV unsourced statement that's not even the most pertinent is 100% pushing your own political agenda onto the article. Or do we go ahead and list that she's "anti-Maduro, anti-drug trafficking, anti-rape, anti-police brutality, and sent a racist tweet one time six years ago"? There's an entire section dedicated to describing the racism controversy. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cjhard: Are you still up for giving another opinion or is there another form of arbitration here? Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I've provided 3 different sources, one containing her own recently deleted tweets that show her politics are anti-indigenous. The line isn't about policies, its about her personal politics and the citations confirm this. It isn't some new claim, she has been consistent in her anti-indigenous rhetoric. Kingsif is engaged in blatant advocacy editing. VisaBlack (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Her personal views and her political views are different. I would say if you want to add a separate sentence saying "And she has been described as racist", feel free (with better sources than those, like the Guardian from the racism section that I wrote...) EXCEPT that would probably be undue for the lead, and possibly a WP:BLP violation based on quality and universality of the claim (for example, right-wing sources...). Yes, she's racist. But she hasn't actually done anything racist in a political role, let alone given a statement or made a policy. Can you see where I'm coming from? If RS's publish that someone credible sees her political position as racist, I would add it. But they haven't. Please refrain from making personal attacks or you will be reported. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Kingsif, You are in the minority, the only person who dissented besides you was one who didn't realize the line is talking about her personal politics, not her public policies. The edit stands. VisaBlack (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You don't get to unilaterally make that decision, nor say that someone who came specifically to look over it doesn't count. If you could look at this from outside your openly communist (I just gave your userpages a look) bubble for a moment, please? Or are we at an impasse, at which point we wait for dispute resolution, without the potential BLP violation on the article. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@VisaBlack:, you are pushing for a change that has been disputed; not only by one editor, but to. @Kingsif: Both, please be mindful that the only exception to the three reverts rule is vandalism, which is not the case. Waiting for the intervention of a third party with the stable version is probably the best option. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing that the article has been protected, so fortunately that will make things easier. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I will be sure to contact other editors so they can also weigh in so this one person's opinion is dictating what can be added to the page. In response to Kingsif, you are now blatantly lying about me in order to continue this advocacy editing. I didn't say the second opinion didn't count, I was referencing the fact that the second person you reference mentioned her policies (like you did) when again, the line says nothing about her policies and is talking about her personal political beliefs/motivations. Again, it is just gross to see one person so tightly controlling the narrative on such a vitally important page. I will be sure to have others include their references to continue furthering the point that only Kingsif are actually disputing in terms of substance. VisaBlack (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@VisaBlack: Per WP:CANVASS, be sure to notify a whole group of editors and not only a part of it. I also ask you to stop personal attack against other editors. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@VisaBlack: perhaps that's where you're seeing it differently. You say the line is about her personal political beliefs/motivations, when it's not. It's about her overall political position (as it says), and relating to official stances made when in power. Re. your other comments, please stop mud-slinging. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: Can I ask you directly for a 3O on the issue? I generally trust your judgment. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Guardian article referencing her anti-indigenous cabinet is not only inaccurate, but biased. Within 12 hrs of this being published, it changed from "being indigenous free" to "initially indigenous free". To suggest change happened as a result of a backlash is not something I have seen reported by any Bolivian source material I have read. The fact is that the appointment of the cabinet and major government positions takes several days and to report that it is anti-indigenous when only the first initial appointments were made is premature at best and dishonest at worst. There exist several indigenous people in high positions in this interim government and Áñez has been meeting and creating dialogue with representatives of that community since the very start. The wipala is being flown at every government building as normal and in every photo she appears in. She has spoken publicly about these accusations on the BBC (at 4:25) [1] It also makes sense to compare with Morale's own cabinet in terms of indigenous representation. Truth is that there is very little difference and to characterise her appointments as anti-indigenous is not based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talkcontribs) 20:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox imageEdit

Please keep the infobox image as of this edit. Other images show Áñez looking down or have heavy contrast while she is in the middle of speaking.

If there is a need to change, please provide some images here so we can make a decision together.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The big issue with that image is that she looks like she's smirking. That's quite a loaded expression and can create opinions of her in a reader's mind before they read anything. Given that there's images of equal quality taken from the same 5-second span of video, most of those would be better. There are also images of better quality, though these don't show her looking at the camera. Kingsif (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Update Tag and New ArticleEdit

Asides from a couple of assertions that are reactionary, the section on her tenure as President is badly out of date. There is nothing beyond the first few days of her becoming President and we are now two months in. Needless to say, a lot has happened since then. Some of this is included in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page, but there is a case that we should create a new page for this. It seems undue to have her whole presidency characterised by the first few days when Bolivia was in general very unstable and major activities have been left out. Largely that is due to English language media not reporting on events once the country calmed down, but this is no excuse and should perhaps be noted somewhere if appropriate. I don't know what wikipedia guidelines say on this. Crmoorhead (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradictory cleanup templateEdit

The section states that Áñez assumed the presidency on 11 November, one day after Morales' resignation. It then writes that Áñez said the senate would convene on 12 November to accept Morales' resignation and confirms this when the same section states that she declared herself acting president on 12 November. Correct me if I'm wrong but Áñez can't have assumed the presidency if Morales' resignation hadn't even been accepted yet. It's contradictory and confusing. Sisuvia (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Morales, Linera, Salvatierra et al resigned on 10 November, but the Constitution stipulates that it still has to be accepted formally in the Senate and I think that needs to be called by the President. While Áñez was logically next in line, it also needed to be verified by the Constitutional Court as technically the Constitution does not account for the Vice President and the two heads of the Chambers all vacating their positions simultaneously. Furthermore, those that met to formalise the acceptance of the resignation of Morales were hindered by a boycott of the ruling MAS party. MAS did return to government fairly soon afterwards and negotiated various deals to prevent further chaos, but a further Senate session took place in January 2020 in order to formally accept the resignations once again, this time with MAS involved. Mainly this is because Morales and a few others were starting to claim that they had never really resigned in the first place because this formal acceptance by the Senate did not have the correct quota.
On the 11th, she was more "President in waiting" as the decision was still pending approval from the Constitutional court and a formal acceptance by the Senate in unusual circumstances. The text of the article seems incorrect and not consistent with the reference. BBC Mundo says, on the 11th: "In statements to the Unitel television station, the second vice president of the Senate, the opposition Jeanine Áñez, said she was willing to temporarily assume the leadership of the State if it were necessary before the cascade of resignations.. However, as Áñez herself clarified, the Legislature would have to be called to take into account the resignations and resolve the question of who is responsible for assuming the presidency." That happened on the 12th. The opening part of the section should be modified. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
After looking through the Bolivian news from the time, there were two separate sessions of the Senate. The one on the 11th dealt with formally accepting the resignations and occurred at 4pm. The one on the evening of the 12th dealt with formally accepting her as president. Both sessions were boycotted by MAS.[2] [3]Crmoorhead (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
♦ Actually, the mechanism by which Morales, García Linera and Salvatierra were removed from the presidency / line of succession, was NOT the presidential resignation. The constitutional court affirmed that both Morales and García Linera had legally abdicated. Salvatierra resigned from the her position before being confirmed as president, thereby losing her spot in the succession. Salvatierra's resignation did not require senate approval. Anez was simply next in line in the succession, making her the presumptive president. The constitutional court declared her succession legal and automatic. https://tcpbolivia.bo/tcp/?q=content/comunicado-1.
I found an english translation of the relevant articles of the constitution:

Article 169 I. In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days. II. In case of temporary absence, the Vice President shall assume the Presidency for a term not to exceed ninety days.

Article 170 The mandate of the President of the State shall end in the following circumstances: upon his or her death; by the presentation of his or her resignation to the PluriNational Legislative Assembly; by definitive absence or impediment; by the imposition of a final condemnatory sentence in a criminal matter; or by the revocation of his or her mandate.

Morales (and Garcia Linera) lost the presidency "by definitive absence"[4] - definitive absence does not require intervention or acceptance by the congress.
There is a lot of confusion over the phrase "she declared herself". This is from an error in translation which has unfortunately been perpetuated. The phrase they are translating from is "Ella se declaró presidente". In spanish, there is something called "reflexive verbs", verbs where an action taken is self-referring. So for example, "Ella se murió" means she died, but the exact translation is more like "she died herself". The meaning of the phrase "Se declaró" is more like "She announced". The meaning as most english speakers seem to be taking of "She proclaimed herself" would actually be written "Se auto-declaró". The real translation should have been something like "She announced her status as president".
As a (hopefully) more clear example: "Se declaró culpable" means he declared himself guilty. This doesn't mean he is making himself guilty. It means he is announcing his status as guilty.
Áñez in no way had the political or military power to insert herself into the presidency. She quickly announced that she was next in succession because a lot of people weren't sure who was next and there was fear that the military would declare martial law. The phrase "se declaró presidente" was used by news outlets to describe that she had announced that she was the interim president.
Laella (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I considered mistranslation of the reflexive phrase, but it seems a basic mistake to make and I think more likely that they prefer the story that the US installed her using the Bolivian military regardless of facts. The BBC Mundo excerpt I quoted is pretty clear that Áñez was going through the proper channels and sadly there is a lot of ignorance and assumptions made by Western media that ignore context or facts to the contrary. There is some confusion maybe on my part since as far as I remember (it's been a while since this was current and the legal situation is confusing), all of Morales, Linera and Salvatierra claimed their resignations were invalid for constitutional reasons. I also read that Eva Copa said that Salvatierra had negotiated the presidency but they were not happy to accept her terms relating to immunity for her father and so she resigned. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think there was also discussion of using the same terminology as with Juan Guaidó, and the use of 'declared himself' was very long-argued over there. The keys of the situation were considered more than the very-inconsistent English translations. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I am unfamiliar with the discussion about Guaidó - what was the conclusion? How did they make the decision for Áñez? This article states "Áñez declared herself president of the Senate and acting president of Bolivia in front of a session of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly." This is citing an article which translated says "Áñez was sworn-in as president" and with no mention of becoming president of the senate. This is both confusing and wrong. Is the decision to say "She declared herself president" something that has to be used? Or can it be corrected?
@Crmoorhead: I try to give reporters the benefit of the doubt in the mistranslation, but there are lots people who are happy to take advantage of a mistake.
Morales and Linera resigned, then left the country. The resignations would not have been valid if they had stayed in the country. (well, if they had stayed and their resignations had been rejected). But, because they left the country, after an informal resignation and without congressional approval to leave the country, it triggered an abdication. I suspect this was a legal miscalculation on their part. (but that is pure speculation of mine). MAS ratified the resignation as "abandonment of duty" on Nov 20. Morales and Linera continued to claim the resignation wasn't valid after that, but it was a political argument, not a legal argument. [5]
Salvatierra resigned, according to Eva Copa, in a deal to keep her father's legal problems out of court (caso tractores). But she's given varied and unconvincing explanations, consistently insisting that Morales and Linera were involved with her decision. There is a theory that Salvatierra's resignation was part of a plan to return Evo to power.[6] This is the only explanation that addresses why Salvatierra resigned and then tried to take it back. Her resignation did not need to be ratified by congress, so it wasn't invalid.

Re. 'declared himself/herself', it was something of a compromise between 'he was declared' (because of the disputes, it could be asked, by whom) and 'appointed himself' (which is definitely coup-leaning terminology) - I don't think it was based in translation at all. Another discussion can certainly be had, if anything about who had the authority is not even in the source. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that these discussions wouldn't have included a discussion of Spanish grammar. The meaning 'declared himself/herself' is wrong. Se declaró is reflexive passive. Like all verbs conjugated this way, the emitter is unidentified. So any discussion of "by whom" is moot. "it is used to show lack of agency in passive reflexive speech"[7] A more correct translation would be "she was declared president". Even though english readers may be uncomfortable with the lack of declaring agent, it is closer to the intention of the source (Bolivian media). I don't understand why a group of online editors would get to change the meaning of something 'as a compromise' - it means what it means, whether or not people like it.
It is important to note, the spanish translation of 'declared himself/herself' would be "se auto declaró" which is not seen in unbiased media, nor in Bolivian media.
Laella (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The point on reflexive phrases is not true. 'She declared' would be 'Declaró', 'se declaró' refers to declaring oneself. Passive 'se' is not the same thing as reflexive verbs and this is not a reflexive verb anyway. This is an active construction where 'se' (herself) is the object of the verb (declare). Here is an article on Juan Guaido where a leftist paper uses 'declararse' to say Juan Guaido declared himself president[8], it is a phrase also commonly used by critics to say she and others self-declared. Here is another which which uses 'se declaró' interchangeably with 'autoplacamarse' (to proclaim oneself)[9]. They are absolutely saying she declared herself president. And regardless, there are dozens of articles from anti-Morales English papers of note that simply say "She declared herself president". NY Times[10] Washington Post[11]Seeing as the phrase is used in so many reputable sources in English where there can be no doubt as to the meaning, and the only current source for 'she was declared president' is a single right-leaning Bolivian newspaper, more context needs to be added as the consensus on the matter, even among anti-Morales sources, is not nearly as simple as the article presently implies. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall "declared himself" being the result of any sort of compromise. We use "declared himself" for Guaidó after an RfC because that is what was used in reliable sources, as appears to be the case here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV on Human Rights violationsEdit

After making corrections on factual errors in the Senkata/Sacaba section, there are several problems in the new sections.

The first sentence says that Áñez started a media campaign against criticism, but the linked article neither links this to Áñez or her government. In fact, it quotes that much of the abuse came from those he worked with in the newspaper. This is followed by a request for the government to investigate, but this implies that the government was not involved in the harassment. I am sure I could find statements from them on this matter.

    Will Change to Human rights organization Amnesty International warned Añez that she is "is duty-bound to immediately stop human rights violations or be ready to be held accountable by national and international mechanisms." [12]

--Cexilian (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The second statement is not about Áñez, but about the communication minister who has not been in that position since a couple of weeks after the date of the article. She also did not close the radio stations, but cut state funding to them because they claimed it was an unnecessary expense and that they were operating as propaganda for the previous administration. Yes, the MAS government funded programs of misinformation with public money. Note there are many Aymara and Quechua radio and TV stations that remain in Bolivia. This was not an attempt to silence the language,

    I  will update this to the page on Roxana Lizagarra's page and remove it from this page. --Cexilian (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In the third sentence, it mentions the arrest of two activists, but the linked article mentions their release the following day.

    I updated the reference to an article that mentions the arrest and  political persecución directly. --Cexilian (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 

With regard to BoliviaTV, as he says in the referred article, it "is a matter of myopia not seeing that Bolivia Tv is a company of the State, of the people." The problem is the government literally own that particular TV channel (and there are others that are not state owned). Of course the government are directing programming. And that this is a policy particular to Áñez should be contrasted with the communications minister above saying that her predecessor under MAS was "one of the most corrupt ministers the government had" - the grounds for the withdrawal of the money funding the propaganda machine of the radio systems.

The tone is about censorship in the media in Bolivia, but if all the sources of these events are from Bolivian media, how much censorship can there be? The Bolivian media I read regularly has plenty of criticism of Áñez and her government. I may note that media censorship was worse under Morales, yet his page does not mention this at all. In general, there is a lot of cherry-picking from the linked articles and much of it does not actually relates to Áñez personally. As a side note, it is probably overdue that we have a page on the activities of the interim government including, which does not seem to be anywhere, the evidence being uncovered of massive corruption of the previous administration. This is not a pro-Áñez statement, just a general request for awareness of NPOV. So far, there are no counterarguments from the other side, including statements made in the linked articles.

    There actually aren't sources for most of the repression that is ongoing in the Bolivia. The few sources that I have been able to find are only the tip of the iceberg. This is why I find it especially troubling that you deleted the whole section instead of just making these comments and seeing if I respond and fix them. Especially since you had already edited the section on the massacres of Senkata and Sacaba, it seems strange to also take that section out, which you don't mention any issues with that section in this thread. As to whether the actions of the Añez government are related to her personally, I think this is not a hard line you can make regarding a president. I checked the pages on Pinochet and he has sections on the human rights violations that occurred under his administration as well. The observations made regarding the human rights violations are cited reliable international organizations such as the ICHR and Amnesty International. --Cexilian (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't remove any of the content, that was a more senior editor than me that made that decision. The fact remains that you are taking what you like from the articles you have chosen and interpreting in a way different than is in the articles themselves. Áñez is a far cry from Pinochet and the remarks pertaining to him were made a long time after the event. I had no objection to the mention of deaths at Senkata and Sacaba, I thanked you for that addition, but you had key facts wrong that skewed the paragraph. You also did not mention that they were invited to perform an investigation by Áñez. I am also in Cochabamba right now and I am glad somebody else is using the Bolivian media as sources, but you missing a great deal of the story. It is not an argument to say that the Bolivian media is biased as they have plenty of criticism of the government to make up content here and elsewhere. It is also not an argument to say "most of it is not reported" as then how do you ever know the difference between rumour and fact? How do you know the difference between propaganda and truth? The media do, however, have more criticism of the previous administration, and not without good reason. There is no mention anywhere on wikipedia on the state corruption that occurred, even though it is pretty irrefutable. If you are Bolivian, do you really doubt that there were not hundreds of people involved in fraud on a wide scale? You should know all about state employees being forced to go to Morales' rallies and having deductions from their pay "to the party" without consent. The fact that you put in the story about the offer to the Senkata victims in December and then willfully omitted the later offer seems like you are picking and choosing what you like. If you genuinely did not know about the offer, then perhaps you are not well-informed enough to be contributing in an unbiased way. I am not pro-Áñez, there are several former colleagues that have things to say about her and some of her decisions have not been good, but equally there have been some good decisions and the same could be said for any of the other presidential candidates. All of them are tainted in some way and are risky. Crmoorhead (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Crmoorhead (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, CR; one of the best ways to handle differing views on these contentious subjects is for everyone to beware bias, whatever they agree with. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


♦ "There actually aren't sources for most of the repression that is ongoing in the Bolivia. The few sources that I have been able to find are only the tip of the iceberg."

There aren't any sources because it isn't real. The only "repression" right now is the toque de queda, which is saving lives. MAS is spreading misinformation about Covid19 being a hoax to get people to resist quarantine. The truth is that "repression" is saving their lives. Áñez has acted decisively in a country with insufficient medical resources (but lots of soccer fields). When Bolivians survive the virus, it will be largely thanks to Áñez. --Laella (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this discussion now that the censorship, repression and political persecution has been ratified by the http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Black-November-English-Final_Accessible.pdf. It supports the edits I made regarding censorship and repression and I urge you to read it as I will be using it as a sources for the edits regarding the human rights abuses --Cexilian (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Cexilian


Either she will come out if it politically strong due to her decisive action on Covid19 (action which other leaders are adopting) or they won't have the manpower to enforce it if people want to not comply. There could be more violence against and by police in the future. Economically, it could also be a disaster, although there are measures to help people. We just don't know how it will play out. I've seen the misinformation being sent out too. The action on coronavirus might merit being mentioned in the policies section. We need a new page on the activities of the interim government really as there is not so much beyond December on most pages.Crmoorhead (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We need a new page on the activities of the interim government really as there is not so much beyond December on most pages.

I agree. Having been in Cochabamba throughout all this time I know there aren't sources for most of what happened because I was an eyewitness to the repression. I'm actually concerned for my safety even adding the information that is sourced from Bolivian Press, So perhaps the Section shouldn't be censorship, but rather "political repression" is a more accurate term for the actions that were sourced. So if we are going to change it, it's not by erasing it, but by renaming it more accurately. Erasing the concrete and documented actions that happened are not in the interest of the expansion of information. How easy do you think it is to find a source about censorship that is ongoing anyways, that in itself is a conundrum. To @Crmoorhead "but you missing a great deal of the story." Of course it is a WIP, if you see information missing then please add it.

The media do, however, have more criticism of the previous administration, and not without good reason. There is no mention anywhere on wikipedia on the state corruption that occurred, even though it is pretty irrefutable. If you are Bolivian, do you really doubt that there were not hundreds of people involved in fraud on a wide scale? You should know all about state employees being forced to go to Morales' rallies and having deductions from their pay "to the party" without consent.

If there is media that reported on it then why don't you update his page regarding the matter? Cexilian (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


I have a collection of references about the various corruption charges and things to do with the previous government from half a dozen or more Bolivian papers. The trouble is that it is hard to keep up with it all and it requires its own page, probably under the activities of the interim government. There should certainly be a section on political persecution, but it should be balanced with the alleged charges where appropriate. The interim government operate as if they are on borrowed time - MAS can conceivably win the next election - so its understandable they have motivation to do a lot very quickly. I don't doubt that this has lead to overzealousness and false accusations in places, that could be termed persecution, but it is also true that many of those claiming persecution such as Quintana, Coca and Romero were almost certainly involved in corruption at the highest level. Both should find content on any wiki page, as should Elio Montes. it is also hard to quantify persecution. There are mechanisms to combat corruption in at multiple levels in Bolivia, such as the FELCC, but if we can't trust the anticorruption people, it leaves a huge question mark that must be assessed by other parties. In the bigger picture, there is no doubt that there were hundreds of people involved in corruption. It is not political persecution to find huge holes in state companies and then bring prosecution against those implicated. Sources on censorship can be found from third party studies that examine international press freedom, and similar reports can be found on corruption at all levels. The reason I don't buy censorship being a major goal of the present government is that I have seen plenty of material that is critical of the current government, and slightly more than I would see under the Morales administration. It is public record that MAS tried to get papers to change some of their headlines last year and the organisations refused.


Being an eyewitness to the repression is a vague statement without saying what circumstances you were witness to. I understand there is sensitivity about posting online about that. Your edits, however, go beyond what you may have witnessed into accusations of events you could not possibly know about. I highlighted the problems with how you were reporting the sources. Bolivian media have no objection to reporting deaths or arrests of political dissidents, or critical quotes from those arrested. POlice, and to a lesser extent, army, repression on behalf of the interim government is hard to gauge and even harder to attribute to the top level of government. The reason is that a lot of people being accused of brutality etc in the police are the same people doing the same things as they did under Morales. The police have not been replaced by the government. There is a problem with the police that is unaffiliated with the government. Sure, I may add some of the sourced material to other pages, including the criticisms of Áñez, but it is a lot of work, especially when there are many misconstrued issues and Western biases that need some care to bring to NPOV. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


The persecution that I cited was in regards to the persecution of journalists, artists, and influencers, not any MAS affiliates. The Bolivia TV source was about the imposition of programming that although it is a state channel, this "imposition of programming" is a new policy by the interim govt. At the moment its difficult to tell which of the MAS persecutions are legitimate and which are contrived, as they are all still in detention. However, the other sources such as Amnesty International noted that

"The organization is concerned about the attacks and harassment denounced by journalists and human rights defenders, as well as by accusations of “inciting unrest” made by the Minister of Communications against journalists. We remind the government that only the judiciary has the power to determine criminal responsibilities".

"Jeanine Añez, who has proclaimed herself interim president, is duty-bound to immediately stop human rights violations or be ready to be held accountable by national and international mechanisms" [13]

IACHR said

"preocupan a la CIDH la situación de restricciones a la labor de periodistas y de los medios de comunicación en la última semana. Entre los hechos, se registran amenazas para el cierre de canales de televisión; retención de funcionarios; quema de instalaciones de radios; y presiones contra los trabajadores de la prensa." [14]

It is in this context the the specific factual instances were cited. Its not just cherry picking, climate of repression in which attacks on journalists and human rights defenders have been documented by international human rights organizations, the ones I cited are specific cases.

Regarding bias, you talk a lot about MAS and are constantly comparing this to Morale's government. How is this relevant to the page on Añez? I'm starting to wonder if you perhaps are lacking a Neutral POV. Regarding "Your edits, however, go beyond what you may have witnessed into accusations of events you could not possibly know about. I highlighted the problems with how you were reporting the sources. " Besides the Bolivia TV citation, what did I write which was not properly sourced? I am not writing the things which I was an eyewitness to, as I know I can't because I don't have references beyond myself. I used press releases and reports from IAHR and Amnesty International. To date none of the issues brought up by these institutions have been addressed by the interim president. The president is the commander in chief and is the primary person responsible for military actions as is noted in the Amnesty press release as well as in the constitution. However, because she has not faced a trial regarding these actions as of yet, I recognize that we cannot say that the actions have been committed by her. However, they are issues that are being addressed by international human rights organizations regarding her governance and cannot be discarded.--Cexilian (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

In one of the previous comments, the following sub-header ("which") accidentally got erased. Also, there has been a lot of irregularity of the indentation of the conversation and spacing between comments. For the sake of keeping this very long conversation readable, I hope we can be a little more careful with the formatting. It becomes very difficult to see where each comment begins/ends. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talkcontribs) 03:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the format of replies is extremely confusing and hard to respond to. The press releases and reports you give are prime examples of what I am talking about. Both of them date from within 10 days of the resignation of Evo Morales. As you will remember, there was huge uncertainty at this time and, what's more, neither organisation was in Bolivia as far as I know. They were responding to a genuine fear that things spiral out of control which led to a lot of speculation. Citing reactionary sources from 5 months ago is not good sourcing. There are relevant changes since then. You say that "To date none of the issues brought up by these institutions have been addressed by the interim president". I can give several instances where this is just not true from those two sources alone. Amnesty International for an immediate repeal of the immunity of police and army to charges - this happened. IACHR requested that the government work towards reparations for the families of those affected. This is being done. I mentioned before that you misrepresented this information by not being up to date on the story. The IACHR have published at least two press releases relating to this matter since the start of 2020 as well as the December 2019 report. In both they have, understandably, criticisms that there are human rights violations going on in Bolivia, but they also all say that they are working with the Bolivian government to resolve these. It also does not suggest that the interim government, never mind Áñez, is complicit. There are plenty of people wanting revenge against people no longer in government. Ignore them and you get accused of negligence and failing to protect citizens. Put guards around the intended targets and you get accused of surveillance and intimidation. Both have happened. Carlos Romero's persecution complaints were rejected by the IACHR.[15] The government's grip on the police is also rather tenuous. Dealing with abuses by the police is a greater matter than government - the same people were being accused of abuses and violence against anti-Morales' protesters a week after the election. [16][17]This is a much greater problem that will take longer than 6 months to fix, and the government has taken action against police officers acting inappropriately. It can be argued that it is not enough. Similar with the FELCC. There are mechanisms, but whether they are working or not is another thing. Whether the government have other priorities right now is also a pertinent question.
With regard to the persecution of journalists, you worded it specifically that Áñez had begun a huge media campaign targeting journalists, which was a statement out of the blue with no references. I still have no idea about what you are meant to have been an eyewitness to other than to perhaps disagree with how the papers report things here. I have not a problem with mentioning a campaign if you have sources, I am not in the business of protecting Áñez or her government, but there has also been exaggeration from supporters of Morales and MAS from outside of Bolivia. It's very hard to gauge what is going on, but if you want stories, just go to any major Bolivian newspaper and type in "periodista", "CIDH" or "persecucion" etc. [18][19]Even better, check out the National Association of Bolivian Press.[20][21] [22][23] It is not difficult to find these stories and accurately depict both sides. Like I say, there should be a seperate page for all of the activities of the present government, both good and bad. I think that it is very soon and too politically charged to have on Áñez' page. Every charge levelled at Áñez has been made against Morales and key people in his government with more evidence and time passed. You question my NPOV in mentioning MAS, but I merely mention them to provide contrast and to provide the other side to the story you are omitting. With regard to Lizagarra, it is pertinent to mention how things were run before and the idea that there was a massive propaganda machine in operation. The degree to which MAS consolidated power and control over 14 years is completely relevant to why radical changes need to be made. I find it hypocritical that people want to cast the first stone with the interim government and yet are quite happy to brush the sins of the previous 14 years under the carpet. That is more prevalent outside of Bolivia than inside, but it is something to be wary of when writing on wikipedia in English. And a reason not to leave out parts of referenced articles that provide said context or reasoning.

Crmoorhead (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Crmoorhead: To be clear - you are addressing Cexilian in your previous comments, I made the formatting cleanup, but not the comments you are talking about. I completely agree with you. --Laella (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that was for Cexilian and anyone who has an interest in reading it who might feel the same way. Thanks for the polite reminder on formatting. Crmoorhead (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-50434174/bolivia-crisis-morales-should-face-justice-if-he-returns?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fcez2dj9ke4qt%2Fjeanine-anez&link_location=live-reporting-map
  2. ^ "If there is no quorum in the ALP, the emergency vote can be appealed" (in Spanish). 11 November 2019.
  3. ^ "Anez assumes the presidency to pacify the country" (in Spanish). 12 November 2019.
  4. ^ (PDF) https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bolivia_2009.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ "El MAS reconoce la sucesión por renuncia y abandono de funciones de Evo y Álvaro - Diario Pagina Siete". www.paginasiete.bo (in Spanish).
  6. ^ "En el MAS apostaban al regreso de Evo tras renuncias de la cadena sucesoria - Diario Pagina Siete". www.paginasiete.bo (in Spanish).
  7. ^ "Se - Definición - WordReference.com". www.wordreference.com (in Spanish).
  8. ^ https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Los-encuentros-secretos-con-EE-UU-y-las-negociaciones-entre-Maduro-y-la-oposicion-de-Guaido
  9. ^ https://www.lacapital.com.ar/el-mundo/la-senadora-jeanine-anez-se-declaro-presidenta-y-dijo-que-llamara-elecciones-n2542223.html
  10. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/world/americas/evo-morales-mexico-bolivia.html
  11. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/morales-supporters-reject-interim-president-deepening-bolivias-crisis/2019/11/13/8ff38680-061f-11ea-9118-25d6bd37dfb1_story.html
  12. ^ "Bolivia: Jeanine Añez must immediately repeal decree giving impunity to Armed Forces personnel". Amnesty International. 18 November 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  13. ^ "E Facebook Twitter Bolivia: Jeanine Añez must immediately repeal decree giving impunity to Armed Forces personnel". Retrieved 2 April 2020.
  14. ^ "CIDH alerta riesgo de impunidad para violaciones de DDHH en Bolivia y hace llamado al diálogo nacional para alcanzar una solución constitucional para la crisis".
  15. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2020/3/16/cancilleria-ratifica-que-cidh-cerro-el-expediente-de-romero-249769.html
  16. ^ http://www.elalteno.com.bo/bolivia/20191107/la-llajta-vivio-una-jornada-de-violencia-sangre-y-muerte
  17. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2020/3/6/periodo-de-sesiones-cidh-vuelve-observar-vulneracion-ddhh-en-bolivia-248893.html
  18. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2020/3/12/defensoria-pide-nnuu-vigilancia-presencia-de-relatores-especiales-en-bolivia-249469.html
  19. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2020/3/7/el-washington-post-critica-el-silencio-de-trump-ante-una-ola-de-persecucion-del-gobierno-de-anez-248907.html
  20. ^ http://www.anp-bolivia.com/
  21. ^ http://www.anp-bolivia.com/denuncian-agresion-a-periodistas-y-un-ministro-se-disculpa/
  22. ^ http://www.anp-bolivia.com/agredieron-a-periodista-de-aplp-radio-online/
  23. ^ https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/11/15/anpb-aplp-reprochan-actitud-de-periodistas-argentinos-contra-boliviana-237565.html

"Which" TagEdit

"They just had elections. What elections are these?"

@HiLo48: Why didn't you research or ask a question first? The elections of Oct 2019 were annulled. There will be a new election once Coronavirus restrictions are limited. Do you have any other questions? --Laella (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, why is that article written as if all readers will know what you have just rudely told me? Wikipedia is not purely for aficionados of Bolivian politics. It needs to make it clear for all readers at that point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The link to the 2020 Bolivian general election is given in the sentence you tagged, so the election has already been identified. I also feel that the description of "interim" president and government explains the temporary nature of their roles. Crmoorhead (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to be rude. Crmoorhead already pointed out that the information about the election is linked to in that sentence.
But, I wouldn't argue that the article needs a lot of work. This is a highly controversial topic and every edit seems to require a huge discussion, and there is difficulty coming to consensus. It is an awkward and painfully slow way to develop the article. So I would agree that the article isn't as coherent as it should be. But we are trying to refine it bit by bit. --Laella (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Actions as interim presidentEdit

Half of the content in this section related to the first 3 days of her presidency. She has been president for 5 months and we are generally missing on a lot of information. The majority of content since the end of violence in November has been added my myself. I will add some major developments in an NPOV manner and I welcome others to add articles with a preference for Bolivian press. The period should be characterised by corruption charges against former legislators and human rights concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmoorhead (talkcontribs) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Decree 4078Edit

I added a section related to this as it is a major point in her presidency and one of the things that she is most known for both inside and outside of Bolivia. Most sources I have read lack information or are NPOV so it's hard to strike a balance here and there are doubtless details missing. I made a seperate section as the protest period section was getting too long. I plan on expanding the later activities and political history over the coming weeks. If it is too much for a biography, we should consider a new page on the activities of the interim government as many pages on Wikipedia are restricted to reporting events within a few weeks or days of Morales' resignation. Crmoorhead (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ReorganisationEdit

I wanted to suggest that the sections for "political opinions" and activities as interim president be merged and grouped into more coherent sections eg Foreign policy, political reforms etc The section of the interim presidency is growing and needs divided further, IMO. Some of the "political opinions" are better described in her activities as a Senator or policy changes made while president. Taking the page for Evo Morales as a model, sections for political career before and after becoming president seem a more natural structure than subsections of "Career". I'd also suggest moving the "religious beliefs" into "personal life" unless there is any evidence to support that her policies are particularly driven by her religious beliefs. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The changes above are implemented, but there is still more work to be done under "Policies as President". Namely:

  • Possible more efficient categorisation.
  • More on anti-drugs measures (there is a lot in Bolivian press about this)
  • More about coronavirus quarantine measures and controversies (particularly directive 4231).
  • More social policies.
Crmoorhead (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
One more thing. The material that was removed was a duplicate of material in the lede that said Áñez has been described as right-wing and anti-Morales, but using a different set of references than the initial statement. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

New editsEdit

Hello, I have made two edits adding information regarding UN criticism of one of the coronavirus response measures, and statements made in the Washington Post and New York Times regarding oppression of journalists and political opponents. I was surprised to find the latter information absent from this article since it's being reported in such well-regarded papers of note. I have made sure to word these as neutrally as possible, simply stating that these are statements from those sources rather than objective truths. If I have done anything wrong please feel free to clean it up as I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you! --181.118.15.105 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions and welcome to Wikipedia! El_C 01:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - I'm glad you're still around after we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. Feel free to ask questions and engage, at Bolivia and Venezuela articles :) Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be interested that decree 4321 concerning spread of disinformation on Coronavirus was repealed a month ago on 15th May and is covered quite well in the Bolivian press, including the publication you cite. If you are adding comments about international condemnation, you should check the information is up to date. The UN responded with "Se reconoce la apertura y disposición de las autoridades a las preocupaciones de actores nacionales e internacionales." [1] There was some motivation behind the decree as there was/is a great deal of misinformation being spread about coronavirus in Bolivia such as it was a conspiracy of the government, people should not obey quarantine, that things like eating chuño would keep you safe and the temperature sensors used by the police could turn you blind. Doctors and ambulances were also assaulted and stoned in areas where this propaganda was strong. I mentioned at an earlier date that there was a lot of coronavirus news to be added and, as with most things related to current events in Bolivia, it is not uncomplicated. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's much more to be added. I was going to add allegations from ie: Human Rights Watch that the government is using the pandemic to arrest political opponents (I know of multiple cases where they present people's membership in opposition WhatsApp groups as evidence against them) but I also know that Latin American English Wikipedia editors skew heavily right-wing and would find any excuse to delete whatever edits I make. So I intend to wait for 6+ months down the line, when English speaking papers of note start reporting on things much later, only then would it be accepted here. The Bolivian media is heavily pro-government and uncritically print the government's words as fact, which is why if you read this article you would think that Añez is an everyday normal president, rather than a highly divisive figure who was meant to only be an interim president with no mandate for substantial actions beyond simply organising elections, yet has been acting like an elected one, and painting any opposition to her as terrorists or foreign agitators. Last month, the military barged into the congress and forced it to pass a law Añez proposed at the threat of violence. Arturo Murillo, her interior minister, threatened the opposition presidential candidate with arrest. Basically, this article does a disservice to reality, which is that Bolivia has an unelected authoritarian government, but I doubt I will be allowed to fix it even if I was 100% neutral and simply cited reputable sources. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

- Hi 181.118.15.105,
"I also know that Latin American English Wikipedia editors skew heavily right-wing and would find any excuse to delete whatever edits I make. So I intend to wait for 6+ months down the line"
I would like to point out to you, that is not a good approach. Labeling editors as "right-wing" and predicting that people will be deleting your edits makes it look like you are seeking confrontation. Don't assume you know anything about other editors, you are probably wrong, and it's insulting. The point is to work together, not try to outlast people by waiting 6 months (and in 6 months, the same people are most likely still going to be watching this page). Also, a few of the editors are Bolivian and are many very well informed, not everyone is depending on english papers, so don't think you are the only one with any knowledge. You should also be aware that your own view may be biased (we are all biased, and should try to recognize our own biases). Bolivian sources of Bolivian news are actually reasonably good, sources like facebook and pagina12 may give you an unbalanced view.
Try to approach this as a work of cooperation, not a way to impose your views, and you should have no problems working with people who disagree with you, so no need to try to "outlast" everyone else.
Some of the specific topics you are talking about here - they didn't happen, or didn't happen the way you describe, be very careful to research from multiple sources before you post things to the article.
  • Human Rights Watch that the government is using the pandemic to arrest political opponents - someone already pointed out to you that this decree was revoked over a month ago. Quote from HRW: "Human Rights Watch is not aware of any case in which the government has expressly invoked the March 25 decree to prosecute an individual for free speech."
Also, some of those things are about Bolivia, but not specific to Áñez, Since this page is about Áñez, it should stay focused on her.
Laella (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
With regard to the Bolivian press, it is not so biased and there are daily criticisms of the government in all the major newspapers. If you would like to provide a list of those publications which you think are not acceptable, then it might be worth coming to an agreement in order to provide better information for the article. Regardless, some reports from the Bolivian press are objectively true, such as whether or not the cited decree was repealed a month ago and the exact wording of the UN response to that. The wording of official statements made by the President or her ministers or the nature of accusations made for corruption are also not disputable. There is no doubt that there was large-scale corruption, it is reported by several international observers over the last decade. Some are politically aligned with MAS, some are non-aligned agents and some are aligned with Añez. Carlos Romero, a former minister, had his claim of political persecution rejected by the UN ombudsman, and that is not an isolated case, so not all cries of political persecution are true, especially since not all of the people being prosecuted are political opponents. With regard to older material on Añez, the source material is from long before she was president and her activities and comments as an elected official are not really disputable. For my part, I am certainly left-wing, but have a lot of personal experience with Bolivia and find the sensationalism of Western reports distastefully inaccurate and biased. Criticism of Añez and additions to this article are not objectionable in any way, but take care in being up to date. You used Pagina Siete as your source for the decree on coronavirus, but the fact that the same newspaper reported on its withdrawal 2 days later (and a month ago) shows lack of due diligence. With regard to the military, if I have the right story, it is related to the fact that the Senate have not approved promotions in the military for over 4 months without reason. Normally it is a trivial procedure that takes days and the number of officers (at varying levels) is around 20. It's not a major thing, but constitutionally it is highly irregular and without precedent. For me, it is not something super important and an example of tit-for-tat politics. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Laella for example says 'don't cite pagina12' while defending the clearly right-wing slanted Bolivian mainstream press and putting a clear right-wing slant on their recounting of events - the idea that the military interrupting a sitting of elected officials is anything but a clear threat is absurd, they are the military. In context with Añez' getting super cozy with the military - which is mentioned in both the New York Times and Washington Post now, so you cannot deny it - it's incredibly obvious. The fact that both of you are trying to justify this, something that you would no doubt condemn if it happened under Morales or elsewhere, really shows what people trying to actually get the truth through are up against here. Let me guess, you think that the protestors who were massacred last year under Añez after she conveniently pardoned them from criminal responsibility were 'terrorists', correct? You think it's normal for an unelected government to take sweeping executive action and persecute its opponents? I find it especially telling that Laella talks to me like I'm not Bolivian. Laella, you are speaking to someone who was granted tentative refugee status in Argentina because the new government sent the police to my apartment multiple times in response to me posting on Facebook about the Senkata massacre. Have a little bit of respect as you deny what's being reported in the international media, please. It's extremely weird that Crmoorhead is talking about MAS. It seems like deflection is the name of the game here. This page is about Añez and we are discussing her present government. The repression that she's instituted is not balanced out by the previous government doing what you think is similar. We do not need to add 'however, Morales did this too' to every single edit about Añez. And you say that I'm not doing due dilligence? You, Laella, and KingSif have by far the most edits on this page yet it reads like a glowing review of a beloved elected president. Negative articles about Añez from months ago in papers of note are conspicuously missing.

'Spreading false information is a problem. they tried to make it illegal. It didn't work & was controversial, so they retracted the law.'

This is not true. The police themselves have been using COVID-19 misinformation to peg people with additional charges alongside it.

In one case from April for example, a man was arrested for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. But not just that - here is how the police justified the arrest according to El Deber:[2]

'The police chief said that Jara misinformed people, spread hate, identified with the cause of MAS, attacked the current government and called it tyrannical, a dictatorship and accused it of taking power in a coup. He also sent messages calling for a coup and called what happened in Senkata massacre.'

There is simply no reason for them to talk about the man's political affiliation and his opinions about the government unless that's part of why he's being targetted. If he was simply arrested for COVID-19 misinformation, that's all that they would say.

So, among the list of evidence against him, some of them legitimate, such as spreading misinformation about the pandemic, we have:

He likes the opposition political party.

He criticised the government.

He referred to a massacre with a term the government does not like.

There is no reason for this to be presented as 'evidence' unless the government considers these acts worthy of arrest.

Most notable is that the news article considers the legitimate charges to not be very important - in the first paragraph, they say only that he sent messages attacking the government and supported MAS. That says a whole lot. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion sectionEdit

The religion section makes it sound like she is a religious person but a secular politician. But she has always been a very overtly religious politician and her presidency has been marked by overtly religious actions. Along with entering the presidential palace with a giant bible while screaming 'The bible returns to the palace!', she has also been pressing religion on the populace. For example, The Guardian reports that her government has been using military helicopters[3] to 'bless' the nation with holy water, that schools are closed yet church services are allowed, etc. If I can get more sources together, would I be allowed to edit this section to be more accurate?

I assume you are the same IP as above? If you can sign your comments with ~~~~ it would really help. And the answer is yes - if you can find reliable sources and don't use WP:SYNTH to make a religious argument out of them, you can add it. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Church services are not being allowed, until they are in an area in "phase 1" of reopening. This is the same as what every other country is doing - phased openings. I don't see what that has to do with schools staying closed though. This is pretty typical everywhere.
Bolivia is a country that is 92.5% Christian, including 78% Catholic. Although the country is laico (no official religion) some religious holdovers - like swearing-in on a bible - are simply still in use. Bolivia is not the only country that is non-religious officially, but still includes some religious artifacts.
Here is the bible used to swear-in in Argentina (it's also giant): https://www.diariodecuyo.com.ar/argentina/Cristina-la-unica-que-juro-en-soledad-20171129-0148.html
Here is the one used in the USA: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/01/18/Trump-to-be-sworn-in-using-Lincoln-Bible/5191484786447/
The military helicopters to spread holy water probably should be included. It was a waste of money, and it was probably instigated by Áñez, although I can't find anything linking her to it directly. Other countries have also done this. It just seems superstitious more than malicious, though.
Laella (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Echoing some of what was already said, I think the commentary would have to be that she is doing something unusual for Bolivia or that it spills over into policy making. The helicopters are odd, of course, but may not be directly linked to her. I am an atheist, but Bolivia is a highly Christian (mostly Catholic) where taxis commonly have proclamations to God plastered on the side or in huge letters and popular music contains dedications to the local Virgin saint. In that climate, the helicopters are not surprising, and as far as I know it happened on one day in limited locations. It hasn't been repeated. I am originally from Northern Ireland, so religion among politicians is something I think should be under personal beliefs and she has her right to religious freedom. There is a danger that Western commentators judge people of faith as being radical, intolerant or, worse still, inferior. The stunt with the Bible is because Morales was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as anti-religion, a difficult position to take in Bolivia. Morales own ethnic group, the Aymara, are heavily Christian, as are the Quechua, the other major indigenous group. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bolivia is a secular state. Being sworn in the bible is not the same thing as carrying a giant bible and screaming 'The bible has returned!'. Her regime has been described as religious in many reputable sources, with many of them specifically mentioning it in the title even. More than that: There is also a video of Añez holding a sermon in the government palace, with all of her ministers in attendance. Añez is in a trance as the preacher says: 'Bolivia has an owner, and his name is Jesus Christ.' Añez and her ministers all say 'amen' in unison.[1] With proclamations like this, you simply cannot deny that this government is trying to desecularise Bolivia. Yet instead of being honest about it, the editors here seem to have cited one single political analyst as evidence that Añez is a secular politician, ignoring many articles in papers of note, this video which has been circulating since December, etc. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So what do you make of the history of UK and US governments holding prayer? Of course, the UK is an officially Christian country, as much as it holds up religious freedom of its population. But seriously, this is an odd position you're taking - as the others above expressed, these actions are maybe a bit more than expected, but aren't completely strange, and most importantly aren't being connected to any efforts to convert all Bolivians to Christianity in RS, so what you're asserting is FRINGE at best and shouldn't be included. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

'Bolivia has an owner, and his name is Jesus Christ'.

Are you honestly trying to spin this as 'just holding prayer'? This is ridiculous.

'What you're asserting is fringe at best and shouldn't be included'.

Unfortunately, I believe that reports in multiple papers of note outweigh opinion. And they definitely outweigh the single source that's been used for the assertion that Añez is a secular politician. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember what I said above about not making an argument of your own? You can report that sources say Áñez did whatever the sources say, but you can't go around asserting that she's desecularizing when none of the sources say that, okay? Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I will replace the single 'political analyst' cited with multiple very reputable papers that say the opposite. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Bolivia belongs to God" is not a quote from Añez, but some preacher whose speech she has no control over. The whole cabinet is not present, as you claim. Bolivia is also not a secular country. Constitutionally, they respect all religions, but practically they are heavily Catholic, and devoutly so, especially among indigenous groups. As president and senator, there is no reason to believe that she has made any decision contrary to constitutional religious freedom. There is no issue with saying that Añez is devoutly religious, but it should be restricted to the section on personal life unless you can prove differently. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a quote from a preacher who she invited to speak, not "some preacher". Many reliable sources make clear that Añez's religion has been a defining aspect of her regime. It is a little mystifying to me that you seem to want to downplay this. [1][2][3]cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Slyly trying to blame protestors for being mass murdered is sickening.Edit

I see what you're doing. You guys know who you are. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to be subtle. Go ahead and call people out by name.

---Laella (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources for citationsEdit

Just as a reference - The following sources are considered to be generally unacceptable (deprecated) by wikipedia, any citations using these need to have the citations changed to acceptable sources:

  • RT
  • Sputnik
  • Telesur
  • Greyzone

There are several citations of these in the article currently.

Some other sources are, although not deprecated, highly prone to bias. Better sources should be found if possible. --Laella (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned rejected draft billEdit

Also on June 15 2020, the Minister of Justice, Álvaro Coimbra, referenced the period of violence in November 2019 in response to a law proposed by the opposition MAS party to "defend the need for the police and military to abide by the Constitution and answer for their actions even when basic rights are limited." The government considered this proposal unconstitutional, and Coimbra said that "I assure you that if MAS tries to destabilize this constitutional government, the Armed Forces and Police will take to the streets and impose order without the need to call for a State of exception, as was already done in November."[1]

The arguments for and against this draft law are complicated. It is still being discussed and this article is only from Monday with further meetings and discussion on Wednesday. [2]Technically, it is unconstitutional because in changes who can command the army from the government to the Assembly, which goes against what the 2009 Constitution formed by Morales says. It suited Morales to have those powers in his hand, but now his party are voting to nullify it. It makes sense, but those that oppose MAS consider that it would make the country constitutionally powerless if MAS lose the vote and decide to not relinquish power because any actions against violent factions would need to be sanctioned by parliament, which would be unlikely in any circumstance. Both sides are suspicious of each other, but it is a fundamental change to the constitution which would be difficult in the best of times. I have not read over this subject in full, but caution should be taken as it is a nuanced argument that is very current and might require more work. It should probably be under a different heading too as it is only tangentially related to the Nov decree.

It is also probably not a good idea to report on every event in government. There are at least a couple of bills and decrees every week and this is still technically a page about Áñez, although a new page on the activities since November is needed. Crmoorhead (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very relevant in a section about the massacres. Along with the COVID pandemic, the massacres have been the most important events of her interim presidency, so keeping this section up to date is crucial. Añez's November commitment to peace and reconciliation is prominently quoted. The subsequent actions and statements of her government that support or contradict that commitment need to be included. If you think the parts about the constitutionality of the law are out of place, we can certainly remove them or simplify it to 'during a senate session' or something to that effect, but the clear threat at a repeat of the massacres should be included in a section dedicated to the massacres ' which at this point should probably be renamed as the controversy goes beyond just the Supreme Decree. There is no real way to accurately paraphrase that quote without using a word like 'threatened' which may violate NPOV.

Also, MAS has an elected legislative majority. Actions they take in the legislature are legitimate. If the government wishes to challenge them, the constitutional court serves that purpose, not the army and police force. Threats of a violent response to action taken within the legislative system is worthy of inclusion in the article as well - such a threat would definitely be featured in the article on Donald Trump's presidency, for example.

I will be adding the quote back into the article minus the legal debate in light of this. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But all the government are saying is that the rules should not be changed from exactly what Evo had for 11 years since the 2009 constitution, perhaps even before that. They are not asking for a reinstatement of the decree. It's in no way a request for freedom to massacre. Not even the decree gave police or army the right to do that, the problem is proving proportional and utmost necessity for the action in a climate such as Bolivia. As you say, the legislative are entitled to pass their own motions, but the president is also entitled to pass decrees and the interaction between the two is chaotic. Many times both sides have claimed unconstitutionality on opposing positions, and both sides have had arguments that are not incorrect. The constitution is contradictory in many places. Then it must go to the constitutional court. There is relevance to the ability of organs of the state to respond to a national crisis such as city sieges and organised militias and this is a wrangling for who should have that decision. On one side, yes, the president should have less power in general, on the other hand it seems like they are possibly making the change solely for their own benefit rather than the people. Constitutional changes should probably not happen just to facilitate mob action. You need to work at NPOV and write a list of both side's arguments. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

None of those justifications make a threat to subvert the legal process and repeat the violence of November 2019 not worth including in the section about the gravest consequences on those violence. If the government wants to combat whatever MAS is doing in the senate, again, the way to do that is through legal mechanisms, not to characterise MAS' 100% legal legislative actions as something that merits a a repeat of a violent military deployment in whcih more than 30 people were killed. I included the fact that the government thought that it was unconstitutional, which is their side. Regardless, the quote is what's most relevant, and in this case I'm giving Alvaro Coimbra, a government minister, full stage to speak for himself, without presenting the other sides' views on his statement. If anything it's biased towards him. Speaking of NPOV, you need to not delete factual, sourced information that is clearly relevant to the section. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rename of 'Decree 4078' sectionEdit

The controversy surrounding these events goes beyond just the Decree. We should rename this section. Given the IACHR's finding that the events are 'massacres' and the fact that the section already called these events massacres before I ever read the article, 'Massacres of Senkata and Sacaba' would be an adequate title. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The decree was precursor to the massacres and was a direct act of the president. Remember that this is meant to be a biography page and we are already straying considerably from purpose of that. I would support the creation of a new page with that title, however, linked to from this page, but keeping the title Decree 4078 for this subsection with "also see Senkata and Sacaba massacres". Añez personal involvement in any massacre is dubious and the wording of the decree is entirely reasonable in most countries. The problem is that it's unenforceable as a law and there is a long-standing history of lack of action to bring corrupt police to justice. That's a preexisting problem. Añez was naive or turning a blind eye to that, but I suspect that she immediately repealed the decree when it went quickly south. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Because the massacres were the result of the decree, I renamed the section to include both the decree and the massacres. This seems like an adequate compromise; the massacres are the main focus of the section and should be included in the heading. Editors' personal assessments of individuals' intentions, or interpretations of later actions, are not relevant to the naming of sections (or anything else on this page). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
As an alternative, we could also use Decree 4078 and subsequent massacres, if the current heading is too long. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this seems an adequate compromise. Personal experience, knowledge and additional information are generally useful in life and to expand your mind. Again, ignorance as a defence if pretty weak. The letter rather than the spirit of the law. If we worked together to verify facts rather than opinions it would be more productive. When anyone else does research, they give some credit to people who are experts, have experience or who are eyewitnesses. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
What is useful in life is not the same as what can serve as justification to include or exclude content on Wikipedia articles. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But dogma is a weak defence. When you read an article on Bolivia, you take everything at face value and cannot pick up on errors or things that are the opinion of the writer. Someone with experience will automatically know if there are problems. One Guardian article called El Alto a district of the city of La Paz, when it's not. It's an entirely different city that happens to neighbour La Paz. Simple factual errors like that cast doubt on their authority to talk about the subject. Many editors here are entirely dependent on reading Western media that has to sell controversy to justify a story on a small nation many thousands of miles away. Instead of dismissing people, perhaps you should learn from them because life is more than justifying what can and cannot be included on wikipedia. In truth, wikipedia is extremely flexible and the lack of flexibility only arises when editors are aggressive enough to push their political point. Quoting articles in English when they appear once or twice a month is extremely wasteful use of resources when there are many dozens of news items within the country itself. If you cannot understand the dynamics of how this affects the content, then you are no researcher. This stuff is basic source utility at high school level. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This is getting off topic — the place to discuss the WP:OR policy is Wikipedia talk:OR. The essay WP:EXPERT is also relevant:

The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find "accepted knowledge" in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books. Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.

cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"The wording of the decree is entirely reasonable in most countries."
No, it factually is not. The reason that human rights groups spoke out is not just because they didn't like it, but because it provided impunity for human rights abuses, which is against all kinds of international laws and treaties to which Bolivia is a party. There are already laws which govern the acceptable use of force by security forces, exempting them from all criminal penalty is obviously not 'entirely reasonable'.
Here are just a few sources from the article sourced in the page itself. Instead of quoting these, the article cites the Decree verbatim and says it is for 'the pacification of the country'.
From the IACHR:
"The grave decree in Bolivia ignores international human rights standards and due to its style, encourages violent repression. The scope of this type of decree contravenes the obligation of the state to investigate, process, judge and sanction human rights violations."
From Human Rights Watch:
"The announced Supreme Decree 4098 of Bolivia does not meet international standards and in practice it sends the armed forces a dangerous message that they have a free pass to commit abuses. It must be repealed immediately."
Regarding the assertion that the massacres had nothing to do with Añez: this was a Supreme Decree, which is a law directly from the executive, IE: Añez herself issued it. That means that she, quite literally, granted impunity to security forces, and that the security forces immediately committed 2 massacres. To claim she may not have had anything to do with them is false, as noted by the CIDH and Human Rights Watch they were the logical consequence of it.
Jeanine Añez was not a well known figure before becoming president. Her government and its actions are thus far the most important information pertaining to her, and her page is nowhere near long enough to warrant a separate 'Government of Jeanine Añez' page or somesuch, especially since she's an interim president. The most important events that she has been involved in should absolutely be included on her page.
Crmoorhead's notion that the ignoring of international laws regarding criminal prosecution for human rights abuses being 'entirely reasonable' should really ring alarm bells to admins and moderators. He already removed one of my edits from this section, I do not believe that someone who thinks that a decree that according to so many authoritative sources violated international human rights law is 'reasonable' should be allowed to make adjustments to the section on it. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The decree says ""The personnel of the Armed Forces who participate in operations to restore internal order and public stability will be exempt from criminal liability when, in compliance with their constitutional functions, they acted in legitimate defense or state of necessity, in observance of the principles of legality, absolute necessity and proportionality." The wording says it must be in compliance with their functions, it must be legitimate defence or necessary and it must observe legality, absolute necessity (no other option) and be proportional. If any one of these fails, it's illegal and they are criminally liable. That's not impunity. Please tell me any other army in the world that doesn't have something almost identical. What specific element of the wording do you disagree with? My point was that it encouraged the military to think of that as an option and that it is practically unenforceable in Bolivia, as had been proved by similar acts of killing in the Morales era and before. HRW did not disagree with the wording, nor did OAS, but that it sent a message that it was OK to use force when this was already a problem in the country.. Feel free to call an admin to moderate this discussion. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not at all what the decree implies; again, the IACHR, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are better judges of what violates international human rights laws or not than you or I.
"The Commission stresses that the Inter-American Court has said that amnesty and statute of limitations dispositions and exemptions from responsibility that seek to preclude criminal prosecution—and any other hurdles under domestic law that seek to preclude investigation and punishment for anyone responsible for serious human rights violations—are inadmissible, as violations of inalienable rights recognized by international human rights law. The IACHR condemns all administrative acts that promote impunity and violate the right of victims and their families to truth and justice."[1]
Obviously there would no need to pass a special decree for any reason other than to exempt security forces from criminal responsibility for what would usually be illegal acts. Laws regarding the acceptable use of force already exist, a decree that continued to limit them to those laws would do nothing. The IACHR agrees. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But you are not attacking me for my assertions on the implications or the consequences of the act, only on my assertions on the wording. I said the decree was unenforceable and encouraged the option of violence. This is the same thing the HR organisations are saying. Crmoorhead (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
They said that it violated international human rights law. You said that such a decree would be seen as normal anywhere else. The fact that it violated international human rights law says otherwise, as does the fact that it was denounced by multiple human rights organisations, including the anti-Morales OAS, before even being published in the daily bulletin. That is an extraordinary response to an extraordinary law. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"The wording of the decree is entirely reasonable in most countries." No, I said the wording and you quoted me saying so. It's there in black and white. That's a different thing from act of issuing the decree. And I know what the Humans Rights Organisation said as I am the one that added the content to this page, with quotes, describing the events as massacres. Crmoorhead (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors clearly trying to deflect blame for lack of investigation on massacres to opposition MAS partyEdit

Twice now user:Crmoorhead has edited a clause into the section on the investigation on the massacre to imply that MAS is responsible for the lack of investigation.

"In March 2020, a multi-party commission, composed mainly of MAS members, by the Plurinational Assembly to investigate the deaths at the two locations and were to report by the 15 May. As of June 2020, their findings are still pending. [1]""

This multi-party commission is an independent investigation agreed upon by the MAS-dominated Plurinational Assembly. It was organised without the involvement of the government nor any members of the government party. It has no legal power beyond being able to report its findings to the Plurinational Assembly.

The lack of investigation mentioned by the Human Rights Ombudsman refers to investigation in the judicial system, not that of this powerless, independent commission that the government is not involved.

Again: investigation for crimes is at the charge of the judicial system, meaning the police and courts. Not a powerless commission of senators conducting their own investigation independent of the government.

This phrase clearly serves to shift blame for the lack of investigation away from the judicial system. This is why I have removed it once more. It is very transparent what it's trying to accomplish. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that it is implied. The commission is composed of 2/3 MAS members and is still pending resolution. Both are relevant and recorded in the source. The source does not say "it was organised without the involvement of the government nor any members of the government party. It has no legal power beyond being able to report its findings to the Plurinational Assembly". Certainly the Plurinational Assembly and the Senate do have legal power and the results of their investigation would be pertinent to that. Also any complaints would certainly be useful to the Human Rights Ombudsman and charges don't need to be pressed by the government. The committee certainly have power and means to press charges. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The Plurinational Assembly does not have legal authority over criminal investigations, nor does it have the power to charge, judge and punish crimes. The committee is also not the Human Rights Ombudsman.
The fact that the commission was an initiative taken independent of the government and that it is not participating is relevant. The fact that it's 'MAS dominated' is much less so. You are removing the former and inserting the latter. The fact that the judicial investigation has yet to identity even a single perpetrator is more relevant than the inclusion of the commission's existence, yet unfortunately news sources are less inclined to report on a lack of something, so there's none outright stating that. For all intents and purposes, the legal immunity of Decree 4078 is still being followed by the justice system. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither does the government, it's entirely in the hands of the judiciary, which was not appointed by the interim government. There is no "ruling party" in Bolivia ATM and Áñez has several members of UD in her cabinet as well as her vice-presidential candidate, so her allies are represented in the committee. Stating their non-involvement (especially having voiced your opinions here) seems more implicatory than stating the MAS has a 2/3 membership in the committee. There was no implication that they are delayinf anything, and less so now that you found the date for completion. If anything, it matches the proportions in the assembly. What's the objection? Crmoorhead (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Mentioning MAS without mentioning the facts that the investigation was called, agreed upon, and involves, no participation from members of the government, while omitting the lack of progress in the standard judicial investigation, gives the reader a clear message: that MAS is responsible for the lack of progress. In reality, this investigation is additional and independent, not principle. Also, as you well know, the government of Bolivia, both current and historical, expresses an abnormal degree of power over the judiciary - this can be seen for example in the police citing support for MAS and criticisms of the government enthusiastically to the public at press conferences.[2] Evo Morales' judicial control has not stopped with Añez. Regardless, moting the lack of progress into the judicial investigation obviously would not be pinning blame on the government unless this was included, which it would not be. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
To both of you: This discussion section is worryingly thin on sources. What does the source cited say? It says (via Google Translate): The Mixed Commission was made up of senators Sonia Chiri and Lineth Guzmán of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), Rosario Rodríguez of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), in addition to the deputies Mireya Montaño, Patricia Gutiérrez, Víctor Borda and Juan Cala (MAS ), Amilcar Barral and Eida Middag of the Democratic Unit. Note that it does not highlight that the majority of the members of the committee are from MAS. Therefore, per WP:WEIGHT, we should not highlight this either. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not happy about the implication that I am trying to sway readers. "a mixed committee of MAS, PDC and UD" seems a compromise. Is this agreeable? Crmoorhead (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that seems like a closer reflection of the content of the source. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Interim or full term?Edit

Hi Is Jeanine Áñez constitutionaly and officially an interim or a full-term president? --Panam2014 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Áñez is the constitutional interim president. In Bolivia, interim presidents are not classified as carrying out a full term and, unlike vice presidents, are not completing the term of the previous president. While they have all the powers of president, their main task is to excersize a mandate until new elections can be held and a new president is elected. There is some debate whether Áñez is the constitutional (came to power through legal constitutional means: usually public elections or elected by the assembly) or de facto (came to power through unconstitutional means: usually a coup). In the case of Áñez, the official take is that she was briefly de facto interim president when she declared herself so without a vote by the Constitutent Assembly. However, the Supreme Court ruled her presidency to be Constitutional briefly after the 2019 crisis making her interim presidency constitutional.[1] Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh, NoonIcarus, and Kingsif: but Áñez's original term was to end on 22 January 2020? According to the Constitution. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Her mandate was extended because the elections were delayed ostensibly due to concerns around COVID. That doesn't change the constitutionallity of her presidency. The only way she would have gone from constitutional to de facto would be if she cancelled elections outright. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh:Article 169 In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days. Anez was Head of the Senate. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes this is true and does not change the constitutionally of Áñez's mandate. Regardless of when they were actually held, she did call elections within the first 90 days of her presidency on 3 January 2020. (Initially they were set for 3 May, 7 monhths after her taking office on 12 November). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: calling elections within 90 days is for president of Chamber of Deputies, not President of the Senate. Anez called for elections only because her term (she had to complete Morales's term) ended on January 2020. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I see where the confusion comes from. Usually, should a president resign, die, etc, his vice president and then down the line of succession becomes president to complete the previous president's term. For example, lets say Morales died suddenly in 2012 and his vice president Álvaro García Linera then became president. Linera would fulfill the remainder of Morales's term and then upon the end of said term would hand the presidency to the winner of the 2014 general election.
Interim presidents are different and they come to be in the case of an issue with elections. In 2019, the election results were annulled and Morales resigned meaning there was nobody set to take the office at the end of Morales's term in January 2020. In the case of this, ordinarily the Assembly will vote to elect an interim president who rather than complete the previous president's term, excersizes their own mandate for however long it takes for new elections to be held and a new president elected. That is what Áñez is. She is not completing Morales's term because nobody had been elected to take office at the end of it. Rather, she was excersizing her own mandate until new elections could be held and a president chosen.
The confusion arises with the fact that Áñez declared herself interim president on the basis of the line of succession rather than be voted in by the Assembly. This was something she wasn't really allowed to do but it was allowed by the Supreme Court which ruled in her favor allowing her to stay the interim president for however long it took to hold the 2020 general elections.
I hope that explains the difference between a president completing the term of the previous one and an interim president excersizing a mandate until a new president is chosen. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "El Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional reconoce posesión de Jeanine Añez". El Chaco Informa (in Spanish). Retrieved 2020-11-01.
Return to "Jeanine Áñez" page.