Talk:Bolivia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Language

75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says 30% Quechua speaking and 25% Aymara speaking. Then it says 55% Amerindian, 30% mestizo (mixed Amerindian/European ancestry), and 15% white (one is language, the other is racial makeup). Kman543210 (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Although now that I check the CIA World Factbook, it states 30% Quechua, 30% mestizo, 25% Aymara, and 15% white, so the 55% Amerindian is correct. Kman543210 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mispronounciation"

The aymara version "Wuliwya" is NOT a mispronounciation of Bolivia, but a perfectly correct adaptation of the country's name to aymaran phonology. Please stop reverting to this absolute nonsense. br:Implijer:Pokorny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.111.133 (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Outdated info

I found this line in the 'Economy' section, 'The government expects to hold a binding referendum in 2004 on plans to export natural gas.', which means that some information is outdated. Moreover, a lot of things have changed lately on this account. Can somebody who knows better that me update this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.31.90 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

A Good Article Review on this article has ended, and in a unanimous 5 to 0 decision, this article has been delisted, primarily for very sparse reference coverage. The references template up top is probably the first indication here. Review archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8. Homestarmy 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include Bolivia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialist?

Theres a bit of vandalism on this page. The page states that the Bolivian state is "Socialist"?, an odd one, as this would mean that in real terms Capitalism has ended in Bolivia and they are awaiting the transition to Communism... since capitalism is doing fine in Bolivia and is still a "democratic republic" this should change. Just because Evo is a socialist, dousnt mean the country is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red Heathen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

All Communists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Communists.

-G

Literacy rate

I have a question regarding the literacy rate paragraph in the "Demographics" section:

Reading the article I noticed the following sentence: "The literacy rate is low in many rural areas, but according to CIA the literacy rate is 87% which is higher than Brazil’s literacy rate or other Middle Eastern countries." Obviously, neither Brazil nor Bolivia are Middle Eastern countries, so I'm assuming this is just a typo. I was going to edit this, but I didn't know if you meant that the literacy rate is "higher than Brazil's or many Middle Eastern countries," or whether you meant "higher than Brazil's or other South American countries." --Raulpascal 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at List of countries by literacy rate. I will remove the comparison alltogether since currently not even Brazil is below Bolivia, and the other countries in South America have far higher rates. The comparison with Middle East is also out of place. --Mariano(t/c) 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My question, though, was about the comparison, rather than the actual literacy rate. Appreciate the clarification, though.--Raulpascal 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin cultures

Hello everyone! You may want to go to Latin cultures an participate in the article and discussion. There are a lot of disputed statements... The Ogre 12:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Capital CIty

Really? I thought both of them were capital cities... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshuamouth (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

{{editprotected}} I spent some months in Bolivia in 2006 and as an art enthusiast I asked around about who were the more well-known Bolivian artists. The name Roberto Mamani Mamani (yes, he has the same paternal and maternal last name) came up more often than any other. I saw some of his work and it is quite good; furthermore, he has had a big influence on other Bolivian artists. His paintings are prominently featured in "Constitutional Hall" in Sucre and in "Casa de la Moneda" in Potosi. His name should definitely be added to the list of modern Bolivian artists. (adwh)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. CMummert · talk 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Capital Confusion

Browsing Bolivia's constitution (in Spanish, as there appears to be no English version on the Internet), I noticed that there is no officially designated ("constitutional") capital. Sucre is mentioned to be the seat of the judiciary, but it is not mentioned as a designated capital, per se. In addition, the constitution does mention La Paz once as the location of the "Government." In either case, there appears to be no officially designated capital, so I wonder why Sucre is labeled as such ... --Mike Beidler 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The judiciary and the constitutional court are in Sucre, while La Paz is the seat of government, housing the legislative and executive. Historically the other branches of government have also been in Sucre, but a war at the end of the C19 transferred these two powers to La Paz. Sucre is still considered the constitutional capital. Pexise 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which edition of Guinnes World Records?

According to Guinness World Records, Bolivia's total of 192 coups d'etat during its history is greater than any other country.

The Swedish editions of 2004, 2005 and 2006 of Guinness World Records do not mention this fact. Which edition does? //StefanB sv 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo

I had just read that most Bolivians now Self-Identify as Mestizo. I see this as very significant. I think that if someone can find more sources, than the information should be changed.

If a mestizo is a hispanicized Amerindian, then so be it. It must be acknowledged, that no racial implications must follow from the use of this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A mestizo is not a hispanicized Amerindian but rather a mix of both Amerindian and European (usually Spanish) ancestry. There maybe more European or more Amerindian, but we have to go by the sources which probably come from a Bolivian census. Kman543210 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism=Capitalism?

Under the Culture section is a large paragraph concerning Protestantism in Bolivia. The sources used (Kray, Brusco, Gill, Burdick, Corten) are making generalizations about the general effect of Evangelical Pentecostalism across Latin America and do not present specific enough data for this article. I live in Santa Cruz where I know the Association of Christian Evangelicals is divided almost 50/50 between followers of Movement to Socialism (MAS) and traditional conservatives. In the case of Bolivia, it is too much of a generalization to say Protestantism is directly associated with capitalism. Political tendencies are still determined by social class, whether Evangelical Christian or not. --Hope4allnations 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I was just passing through (looking for basic info on Bolivia) and thought I should point out, for your possible correction, that nearly all of the books in the bibliography have to do with Protestantism. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.184 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Official languages

I reverted (diff the insertion of the words "Quechua and Aymara are not official languages" into a couple of places by User:Jose142128 because the article itself isn't the pace to discuss factual accuracy. The CIA factbook seems to regard them as official, but maybe there's a subtle distinction I didn't spot during my brief search - I'll leave it to people more knowledgeable about Bolivia than me to decide whether anything needs clarifying here, or whether Jose is just mistaken. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aymara and Quechua are official languages - there are also many other indigenous languages in Bolivia and it is currently being debated in the constituent assembly whether to make them official languages aswell. Pexise 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Mary

I've just read that the Virgin Mary is officially recognised as an "Admiral of the Bolivian Navy", and was formally crowned in 1925 as "Queen of the Bolivian Republic". I know it sounds absurd, but I'm not making this up. It's from a newspaper article ("Virgin on the miraculous", about Copacabana, Bolivia, by Campbell Smith, in The Age, 3 July 2004). Is there any truth to this? -- JackofOz 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

economy section

is way too long especially considering it has its own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I cut it down a fair bit, but it probly wouldn't hurt to trim it more. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

official languages

Is it true that since the modification of the constitution in 2004, there is no official language in Bolivia ? --Pixeltoo (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish, Aymara and Quechua are official languages - see: [1] Pexise (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, many sources says there 3 officials languages but Kremtak (talk · contribs) argues that an article of constitution who established the officials languages has been removed in 2004. So, according to him the Spanish became de facto the sole Official language because it is the only language used in the institutions. Someone could confirm if it is true ? --Pixeltoo (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion needs to wait until after the success or failure of the proposed constitution in future national referendum because it recognizes 36 official languages plus Spanish.--David Barba (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who has got access on this article correct the pronunciation of República de Bolivia?

The current IPA symbols used for transcriptions of Spanish: Spanish pronunciation: [re̞ˈpuβ̞lika ð̞e̞ β̞o̞liβ̞ja]. The vowels "e" and "o" are mid-vowels in Spanish, typed /e̞/ and /o̞/ respectively. 84.120.160.88 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Historic Bolivian Maps

Can somebody include in the page the Bolivian maps from the beginning of the republic, it could be very good to understand the Latin American history in general.

Here there are links to a very good maps from the Bolivian's history:

ALTO AND BAJO PERU, 1810 [2]

PERU AND BOLIVIA, 1855 [3]

REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA, 1859 [4]

REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA, 1894 [5]

REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA, 1904 [6]

Thanks.

--Georgeguitar (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Salt mounds in Salar de Uyuni

There is no sense of scale for this picture. By looking here:

http://www.galuzzi.it/Details.aspx?AlbumID=15&Page=31 http://www.galuzzi.it/Details.aspx?AlbumID=15&Page=32

it appears that they are about a meter tall.

DiagonalArg (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 election - I thought it was extremely close.

The movie "Our Brand Is Crisis" is about this election, in which "Goni" won, just barely. Results were:

 
22.5% 624,126 Gonzalo "Goni" Sa´nchez de Lozada (MNR) 
20.9% 581,884 Evo Morales (MAS) 
20.9% 581,163 Manfred Reyes Villa (NFR) (hurt by corruption charge, from 40%)
16.3% 453,375 Jaime Paz Zamora (MIR) 
from http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/kmm368/2002_Bolivian_election.pdf page 177 

The US ambassador charged Evo Morales with associating with drug dealers, which boosted his popularity. ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Bolivia no longer has state religion

According to the new constitution:

Artículo 4 El Estado respeta y garantiza la libertad de religión y de creencias espirituales, de acuerdo con sus cosmovisiones. El Estado es independiente de la religión.

Article 4

The state respects and guarantees the liberty of religion and of spiritual beliefs, according to its world view. The state is independent from the religion.

So... I will update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel32708 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Entirely correct. Thanks. Pexise (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It also has 37 official languages now. If you feel like updating that part to. ;) --David Barba (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia has adopted an antiwar clause

According to the new constitution:

<quote>"A Community that is Peaceful, Dignified, Sovereign, and Open to the International Community

Bolivia explicitly renounces the use of war as an instrument of international politics.

The new Constitution also specifically recognizes that Bolivia lives in a world based in interdependence; that in the past, however, governments entered into international agreements that facilitated the transfer of national resources into foreign hands, the loss of sovereignty, and enrolled the country in multilateral institutions under conditions unfavourable to the country.

The new National Constitution establishes the celebration of treaties that respond to the aims and goals of the state and list guiding principles which include:

- Non-interventionism - Respect for Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples - Environmental Conservation

As such, the Constitution formalizes efforts to achieve necessary balance in public international law, in economic terms (trade and investment), as well as protection of fundamental rights and the environment.

The document also raises to constitutional status a range of procedures to guarantee transparency and citizen participation in decisions about international treaties.

It establishes that the treatment of rights, be it national or international, must refer to and respect as equal those rights and norms set forth in the National Constitution."</quote> http://www.art-us.org/node/316

Let's add this important info to the Bolivia page Egaliteuniversel (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Shouldn't the Wiphala be displayed alongside the old flag on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.166.81 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed the article as C, with top priority in both wikiprojects Bolivia and wikiprojects South America. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Bolivia is not La Paz

it's the love de our lady de guadalupe

La Paz is the seat of government, therefore very often mistaken as the capital; Sucre the legal capital and seat of judiciary.

• To be more precise, Sucre is the Capital, while La Paz is the Government City. While Sucre has one of the three powers, Judicial, La Paz has the other two, Legislative and Executive.
• I always learned growing up in Bolivia that there were three branches of government. Sucre having Judicial, La Paz Executive, and Santa Cruz Legislative. I never heard that it had changed.

Um, I think there is two capitals in Bolivia, so...both are the capitals.-Warriorscourge (♠♣♥♦) 00:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Legislative is in La Paz along with the Executive, I dont think you grew in Bolivia as Santa Cruz never had any government branch--LaNuitDesDemangeaisons 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Sucre is the capital and La Paz is just an administrative capital. NEVER Santa Cruz hosted any of the 3 powers we have in Bolivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.60.149 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia has had 2 capitals for quite some time. Sucre is the traditional capital and La Paz is the "Seat of Government" or "Administrative Capital" as established by law. This should be made clear, as there are current tensions over this and there was some bloodshed when the government was moved to La Paz. It is quite a historical issue and very unique to the country (others include The Netherlands, Israel, and South Africa). As stated before, Santa Cruz has never hosted any of the 3 powers. Its financial importance, now, should not be confused with its historic status (it has developed into a city just for the last 30 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.55.254 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation of the official name

[esˈtado plurinaˈsjonal ðe βoˈliβja]),

D becomes ð between vowels. and it remains as /d/ after a dental consonant.

and plurinacional is NOT accentuated as "plurinaCIOnal", but as "plurinacioNAL".

so it should be [esˈtaðo plurinasjoˈnal de βoˈliβja]),

I think it should be [esˈtaðo pluɾinasjoˈnal de βoˈliβja] because R in this position represents the alveolar tap [ɾ], not the alveolar trill [r]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.209.53 (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Two questions: Does anyone have a link to an English version of the new Constitution?

What does the "Plurinational" in the official name refer to?

Thanks! Josh (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Plurinacional" means "many nations". I don't really know if "Plurinational" could be considered as an English word... but I don't know how to translate "Plurinacional" otherwise. --B1mbo (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Additions

As this document has been locked, I cannot add anything but it would be relevant that someone take it upon themselves to fill in the information for the leftist governments prior to the 1952 revolution (Barrientos) and the interim government and coup before Garcia Meza (Guevara and Natusch Busch). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.55.254 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthographic Map

I think an orthographic projection should be used, it is a pretty big country, and It would help people get a better idea of the location of Bolivia. Any support?

--Connormah (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Llama

That's a lovely photograph, the one with the caption that reads "The llama is one of the icons of the Bolivian altiplano." But I think the animal in the photo is actually an Alpaca. It looks too furry to be a llama. (The llama is their beast of burden, and the alpaca is their source of wool.)—MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Bolivia

The Flag of Bolivia is supposed to have the seal on it, not seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGu100 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian Political Awakening

This site: [Bolivia] talks about the Indian Political Awakening in Bolivia.Agre22 (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Llama = Bolivian Altiplano?

The llama is one of the icons of the Bolivian altiplano.

Since when is the llama an "icon" of the "Bolivian" altiplano? When I think of llama, I automatically associate it with the Andes, or with South America. I don't think, "llama...Bolivian altiplano!" Essentially, the llama is an icon of the Andes, not of any particular nation. I'll be editing the statement to: A llama in the Laguna Colorada, a shallow salt lake in the southwestern Bolivian sector of the Altiplano.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia relation to the world

It is a topic of particular interest for me. I am including a file on the concept as a contribution. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth bolivia.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Bolivia

Doughnut Days 2009

As part of the doughnut drive 2009 project it's criticial that masitas are covered. Can anyone help? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the "Further Reading" section, but it needs further help

While reading this article to learn more about Bolivia, I noticed the "Further Reading" section was dominated by books and articles that apparently have little or nothing to do with Bolivia, but instead concern the growth of Protestantism in Latin America. Many of them aren't even about Bolivia, but about Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil.

The following items have been removed:

• Stoll, David 1990 Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weber, Max 1930 [1984] The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. Talcott Preston. London:Counterpoint.
• Kray, Christine A.2002 The Pentecostal Re-Formation of Self: Opting for Orthodoxy in Yucatan. Ethos. 29(4):395-429.
• Martin, David.1990 Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Corten, André 1999 Pentecostalism in Brazil: Emotion of the Poor and Theological Romanticism. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Brusco, Elizabeth 1995 Reformation of Machismo: Evangelical Conversion and Gender in Colombia. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Batalla, Guiellermo Bonfil 1996 México Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Burdick, John 1993 Looking for God in Brazil: The Progressive Catholic Church in Urban Brazil's Religious Arena. Berkeley: University of California Press.

These items would fit more appropriately into the "Further Reading" sections of other articles. We could use more works that concern Bolivia in the "Further Reading" section of this article. Any suggestions? 24.113.203.35 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Plurinational State of Bolivia or Republic of Bolivia

Is the proper name the Plurinational State of Bolivia, as listed by the UN and the WHO, or the Republic of Bolivia, as listed by the US Library of Congress? Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Bolivia.pdf

http://www.who.int/countries/bol/en/

http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Bolivia%20(Plurinational%20State%20of)

The name Plurinational State of Bolivia was changed officially with the new constitution approved in January 2009, since then other countries and international organizations started to use it. The US Library of Congress document is dated on January 2006 so it's not updated. However since this is a change suggested by the Morales administration the opposition dislike this name change and continue using Republic. I think that the official name should be used and try to see if there are reliable sources to explain the polemic about the name with the opposition and put it in the Bolivia under Morales administration section --Erebedhel - Talk 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Library of Congress source is fairly irrelevant, as it dates to before the "Plurinational State of Bolivia" name was introduced, so of course it uses the old name- it is accurate as of its time, not a statement about the Plurinational name. Without a really good explanation, I think the article should use the legal name, however, a neutral section on the renaming and the controversy surrounding the renaming should be included in the article somewhere. The word "Plurinational" is mentioned three times in the article- once in the first line- once in the infobox- and once in a URL of a reference. The lead mentions the renaming of the country from the Republic of Bolivar to Bolivia, so, similarly this rename should be discussed somewhere in the article. Courcelles (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Military aspect

The importance given to the Bolivian military forces within this article are blown out of proportion compared to it's neighbors, first world countries and superpower(s). most articles depicting a country show an minor excerpt of their respective military entries. In this work, there are 9 main sections devoted to that very subject, for what I've seen this is a subsection the "government and politics" section. This might have been done as a show of strength in an encyclopedic site.--neolandes (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- it should be moved into the article for Bolivia's military. I'll get around to this tomorrow, if I don't forget. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The article states: According to 2008-2009 studies by Gallup and NGO the population of Bolivia is 59% Catholic, 15% Incan, 12% atheist and agnostic, 11% Protestant (Evangelical) and 3% Baha'i, Buddhist and other affiliations.

Could someone provide more specific information about those studies? What's their name and where was it published? I found it impossible to check this information. Gugganij (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

193 coups d'etat?

This amazing figure appears with no references, and I have not been able to find any solid sources that confirm it. The only sources I did find seem to be getting their information from this very article.

A priori, the number is quite unbelievable. Just to set the scale, to get to 85 cumulative coups d'etat, it took the continent of Africa 48 years, with 33 countries "contributing" (that statistic does have a reference; see the article on coup d'etat). The Britannica article on Bolivia mentions only a handful of "overthrows," and Wikipedia's own list of coups d'état and coup attempts article mentions Bolivia only three times.

Unless someone can find a reputable source, the claim that Bolivia had 193 coups d'etat should be deleted from the article, and replaced with the number that can be confirmed (even if that number is only four or five, that is still pretty impressive). Reuqr (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no references for the claim that there were 193 coups d'etat; thus, I'm removing the claim as unreferenced (and wildly implausible, see above). Reuqr (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiphala of Qulla Suyu

Just wondering why the logo of Wiphala of Qulla Suyu has to be right area where the details from Bolivia are displayed? It does not maske sense to me to have it in that area and definitely confuses people (the same that confused me). Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Whipala is a Bolivia's national flag. Now, I'm not sure if "of Qulla Suyu" should go next to it. Alhen ♐... 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whipala is not a Bolivia's national flag and should not be displayed in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.156.170 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't go as a flag so I don't see why would you say that. It goes as an official symbol just like you have the seal in the article on Japan. Read the Constitution of Bolivia to see that the Wiphala of Qulla Suyu is indeed an official symbol.--Avala (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Names of Bolivia in Quechua, Aymara and Guaraní

There are no reliable sources for names of Bolivia in Quechua, Aymara and Guaraní, and names listed in article are doubtful. E.g. according to official website of Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (http://www.gacetaoficialdebolivia.gob.bo), the Aymara name is Qullasuyu, not Wuliwya, and the Guaraní name is Vorivia, not Volívia. Aotearoa (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Qullasuyu is not a name for Bolivia, rather the name of a pre-colonial Andean indigenous nation which includes parts of Peru as well as Bolivia, and would not include lowland areas such as Santa Cruz. I'm not sure about Guarani, but their territories are also within the borders of Paraguay as well. Pexise (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But name Qullasuyu is used in official website... Aotearoa (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See: Qullasuyu. Pexise (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Qullasuyu does not cite any references or sources. Official goverment website is reliable source. Wikipedia does not cite any reliable sources for native names of Bolivia, and this is a real problem. Aotearoa (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the website of CONAMAQ, the "CONSEJO NACIONAL DE AYLLUS Y MARKAS DEL QULLASUYU", the Aymara and Quechua indigenous organisation of Bolivia. If you go to the "¿Que es CONAMAQ?" tab, you will see that they refer to Qullasuyu as separate from the Amazon and Chaco regions of Bolivia. Aymara is a language of the original people of the South America. Bolivia is a post-colonial construction which didn't exist when Aymara was developed as a language. As such, I imagine they don't have a word for Bolivia, and they just use the Spanish: "Bolivia". Pexise (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the way - where does it say on the Gaceta Oficial website that Qullasuyu means Bolivia in Aymara? Pexise (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  In many pleaces in Aymara version of this website (section "Historia" – Gaceta Oficial de Bolivia = Qullasuyu markan yatiyiripa, Constitución Política de la República Boliviana = Qullasuyu Markan Kamachipaw). Aotearoa (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Aymara Wikipedia has Wuliwya Suyu as the translation, as does the Spanish Wikipedia. This page shows the area known as Qullasuyu. This map also shows the area (spelt Collasuyo): [7]. Pexise (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And same other websites used name Wuliwya too. But all of them are non-official. I don't know what is the correct official name of Bolivia in Aymara and other languages, but there no reliable sources for the names listed now in the Wikipedia. Maybe the correct name is Wuliwya, maybe not. The fact that historical Qullasuyu covers an area larger than present-day Bolivia is not a decisive argument - see the cases of Macedonia, Sudan, Ghana, Mali... And the fact that the name Qullasuyu is used in this government website is puzzling. Under the Constitution, the federal government must use at least two languages - Spanish and at least one local. So, official name of Bolivia should be established in these languages - the problem is how to find these names. Aotearoa (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here there is a reliable source for the names in Quechua and Aymara. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Realy? Brazilian source versus Bolivian goverment source... And no Guarani name in this source. Aotearoa (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the document Pays et villes du monde (13 Avril 2010) published by French govermental Commission nationale de toponymie – anaccording to this list Aymara name od Bolivia is Wuliwya (like in Wikipedia and Brazilian source), but Quechua name is Bulibya (full form: Bulibya Achka nasyunkunap Mama Llaqta), so different then name Bulivya Mamallaqta listed in Wikipedia and Brazilian source... Aotearoa (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same problem is in Peru. According to Wikipedia and many other sources Quechua name for Peru is "Piruw" and as long form "Piruw Republika". But official website od Peru Parliament in Quechua [8] and Constitution in Quechua [9] used name "Perú Suyu" (Congreso de la República del Perú = Perú Suyu Rimanan Wasi, Constitución Politica del Peru = Perú Suyu Hatun Kamay Pirwa). So, one is non-official dictionary name used in given language, other is goverment adopted name. In my opinion we should use offical used names, not colloquial ones. Aotearoa (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead reads like a political promotion of the current administration. I tagged it as needing LOTS of improvement...--Novus Orator 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia is not landlocked anymore

[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.200.159.162 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, that's a lease, not sovereign land. Pexise (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove the cabinet Bolivia

The reason is that Evo Morales's Cabinet changes every year and governments are in power, I think it is encyclopedic having to change this info in each management. --Nair (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What about La Paz?

Under the capitals section there is no mention of La Paz. However, it was on there earlier this month when I checked! People need to know what both capitals are, right? Ladygagafan33 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

History Problem

The history here is ONLY the history of the Andean region. Seems to indicate some sort of bias. Can someone round out the article w/ a history of lowlands? Tapered (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is relatively little information about the history of the lowlands, as this region was not very populated or involved in national politics for the most part of Bolivia's post-independence history, which is why historians and the media have focused on the Andean part of the country. The development of the region came chiefly because of aggresive initiatives carried out by the Banzer dictatorship of the '70s, and hasn't stopped growing since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.102.190 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is able to provide reliable sources for the history of the lowlands instead of stories and the like passed down from generation to generation, we can add the information. Other than that, Wikipedia's strict policies on sourcing prevent us from adding things like word-of-mouth oral histories, as they cannot be independently verified as true or false. But again, if anyone has reliable historical sources, I am sure any editor, myself included, would be happy to help and expand on the history of all of Bolivia, and not only the Andean region. Thanks for contributing! Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

¿Bolivia is a Democratic Republic?

This should be revised since its actual official name clearly says "Plurinational State"

That's the official name but Bolivia is still a democratic republic in every sense of it.--Rodolfo B. (Talk) 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Bolivia

• 
• 

There seems to be a dispute over the flag of Bolivia in the article. I am changing the bolivian flag on the infobox for the flag on the left, since that is the National Flag (Bandera nacional) as opposed to State Flag (Bandera del Estado) which is the one with the coat of arms in it. The National flag is by far the most probable one to be encountered by people, be it on television, sporting events etc. The state flag is to be used by the government only. Besides there is no need to show the coat of arms twice, side by side. As an example, on the Peru article the civil flag is put instead of the state flag.--Rodolfo B. (Talk) 02:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it. All countries have "the" flag, and then variations of the flag for specific things (war, navy, army, government, etc). The infobox should use the common flag, not the others; and if a variation flag is being used by mistake, the mistake should be fixed. Thanks for noticing this. Cambalachero (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Allright, so to prevent someone from changing it to the state flag again I added the note to end the discussion and create "jurisprudence".--Rodolfo B. (Talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the comment. "Any changes will be reverted" is a bit aggresive, it is better to explain why they would be reverted. I also moved it after the file, not before, so the parameters can be seen easily by anyone checking them. Cambalachero (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, that the Bolivian flag does not appear in any context whatsoever on the page currently. Only the Waphala is currently displayed. A very fine emblem in itself and quite historic. It would seem however that we might be better served by a display of the internationally recognised symbol of Bolivia rather than an internally significant, though highly regarded, symbol, whose nature is that of a flag, but exists as a parallel rather than that specifically. Perhaps we should change back. 104066481 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.176.211 (talk)

I agree. Where did the flag go? Why has it been removed? The Wiphala is a Bolivian symbol but not the official flag of the state. --Metroxed (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

who dislikes bolivia?

When one does a Google search for Bolivia, the following coordinates come:6°42′43″S 64°39′58″W / 16.712°S 64.666°W / -16.712; -64.666 Only the second portion is on the page and the google preview is apparently biases to a point of misconduct. The rest isn't anywhere on the page, so how does on change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.130.238 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

to bolivia

i want travel to bolivia i love this paige im talking english very good and portiges good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.142.3 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Capital of Bolivia

The CAPITAL of Bolivia is Sucre and always was Sucre ,La Paz is just the government city and it does not have the title of administrative CAPITAL to prove it you can see:http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Paz or you can just ask me, I am from Bolivia I live in Bolivia , I know the history of Bolivia and believe me I know what I am writing!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloshistory (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Someone continues editing Bolivian Capital and putting La Paz like Administrative Capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloshistory (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. Could you live with both in the info box? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it seems you can't. Well I tried. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK both can be in the info box but La Paz has tobe like SEAT OF GOVERMENT or GOVERMENT CITY that is the right term used in bolivia,oh and excuse me can you tell me where are you from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloshistory (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am from not Bolivia. And I must admit that I'm not sure what the WP:MOS is for country info boxes - it might have to be just one city as capital. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Economy section

Is this paragraph really necessary in the economy section:

In April 2000, Hugo Banzer, the former President of Bolivia, signed a contract with Aguas del Tunari, a private consortium, to operate and improve the water supply in Bolivia's third-largest city, Cochabamba. Shortly thereafter, the company tripled the water rates in that city, an action which resulted in protests and rioting among those who could no longer afford clean water. Amidst Bolivia's nationwide economic collapse and growing national unrest over the state of the economy, the Bolivian government was forced to withdraw the water contract.

Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oriente

The article is clearly slanted towards the Andean region, in detriment of the lowlands. The word "Oriente" is not even mentioned, and the economic and political importance of Santa Cruz is studiedly ignored. No mention is made of the colla/camba rivalry. No mention is made of the Jesuit missions in Oriente. Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.16.16.13 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor lakes

Ooops. I think I must have thought Jara Lake was bigger than it actually is, when I added this reference just now. Rather than pressing the undo button myself, I will let someone more expert than I choose to do it... or to do something more elaborate that allows the more minor lakes to be listed somewhere, too. TheAMmollusc (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC); (subsequently changing the title of this section). TheAMmollusc (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Highest Capital City

In the section titled Sánchez de Lozada and Banzer: Liberalizing the economy

The photo caption:

La Paz skyline. The city is the highest capital in the world.

is in error. La Paz is not the capital of Bolivia. As is made clear in the Wikipedia antry on La Paz it is merely "the seat of government of Bolivia, as well as the departmental capital of the La Paz Department," while the capital of Bolivia is Sucre as stated in the Wikipedia pages on both cities and in the information box at the beginning of this entry as well.

The highest capital city in the world is Quito, Equador as mentioned in the Wikipedia entries on both La Paz and Quito. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

History

The first part of the "History" section didn't have a title, so I've alled it "Pre-Colonial". I'm not sure this is the most appropriate name (as it is treating the most significant aspect of several thousand years as being the fact the Europeans hadn't shown up yet), but it's better than nothing. If anyone can think of a better name, feel free to change it. (History of Bolivia and History of Bolivia to 1809 use "Pre-Hispanic" and "Pre-Columbian" respectively, which both have the same problem). Iapetus (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of content

More than 30,000 words in content have been removed on a complete arbitrary method; sections that were quite accurate and complete, such as Geography and Ethnicity (which included tables with sourced content) have been removed with the pretext of being unsourced. While it is possible some of the content might have been unsourced, the article has suffered a complete removal of tons of content as the result of a decission made arbitrarily by a single user, without any discussion or even a notice on the talk page. I think flagging the article as unsourced (as it has been done) and starting a discussion here would have been more contributive, community friendly and overall more appropiate than just removing everything disregarding everyone else who works on this article. I cannot fail to mention that it seems the user who has performed this action in particular seems to have done similar actions in different articles, always arbitrarily and without any consensus. --Metroxed (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I couldn't have removed "more than 30,000 words" of content, simply because there were never that many in this article. The current word count is 8193 words, down from 9153, so the net loss is about 1,000 words. You failed to mention that consensus is built through discussion, that is supposed to happen *after* the edits, not before (see WP:BRD). I have discussed changes to other articles when they proved controversial, and the dispute was always solved amicably. To that end, your tone is certainly unhelpful, if you try to be constructive and say just what you feel should be added back it would be a better way to reach a version that is acceptable to all, without needing to restore the obviously flawed previous revision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Capital of Bolivia

there is no such thing as govermenment capital, that's why I erased that part, because can lead to misinterpretation --Magomandrake (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yours was a good faith edit, but the dual "capital" issue is a serious aspect of national life. Much of the government is headquartered in La Paz, as described in the article. There's already a footnote in the infobox to further explanation down the page, so I think misinterpretation is unlikely.--Carwil (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blackliste, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/bolivia.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 14:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 05:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bolivia 1994 under the presidency of Jaime Paz Zamora

By 1994, after Quechua unrest and numerous activists jailed, president Banzer had handed over the reigns of government to Jaime Paz Zamora, his coalition partner, to popular acclaim. All the jailed activists were immediately freed and many formed a significant part of Zamora's government. The police under Banzer were notoriously oppressive. Under Zamora this policy was reversed and the police became unfailingly supportive and polite (from my own experience). At the time Zamora was negotiating in person with Chile for maritime access to the Pacific with the aid of US and UK arbitration. 1) I was at the airport and witnessed Colin Moynihan and the US advisor awaiting Zamora's arrival for the flight to Chile. 2) Sources include the UK ambassadors wife, President Zamora's mother, "Patty" Proctor (nee Boliviano) who lead the Quechua women during the unrest, and her brother, Eduardo "El Negro) Boliviano, a former jailed student activist who had become Bolivia's leading civil right's lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.53.131 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bolivia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bolivia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "factbook":

• From Demographics of Bolivia: "South American :: Bolivia". World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
• From Chile: "Chile". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 11 November 2007.
• From Cuba: "Cuba". The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 2009-04-06.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513223444/http://www.irishtimes.com/theticket/articles/2006/0120/1137626790492.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/theticket/articles/2006/0120/1137626790492.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.historia-bolivia.com/6-de-Agosto-Independencia-de-Bolivia/6
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575057_13/Spain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

The article in general could be much better, but the pictures which illustrate it are pathetic to say the least.

The only president of the country who deserves a picture in Wikipedia article is ... Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a fugitive currently in the US.

The picture for Aymara people is an old black and white picture ... as if Aymaras were a thing of the past.

Current president Evo Morales, the longest serving president of the country, and an Aymaran himself, does not deserve a picture in the article according to the Wikipedia illuminati editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.5.55 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I think maybe your tinfoil hat is too tight... 64.72.65.120 (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

´STUPID ¨"ENGLISH" NAME

Bolivia name - "PLURINATIONAL" monstrosity The translation of country`s official name as "PLURINATIONAL" is Spanglish or phony English or atrocious English but is not proper English.. Firstly, unlike in Spanish, there is no common English "pluri-" prefix. Thus "pluri-" is a foreign word. Secondly, there should be a hyphen. Thirdly, "nación" here clearly means "ethnos." not "state". The ¨naciones¨clearly implied Aymaras, Guaranís, etc. Ergo "Multi-Ethnic" Even if that is the countrys official name in English at the UN, that just means that Bolivia has lousy translators. "Multi-Ethnic" should be included at least to explain what the term "plurinacional" really MEANS. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. The "stupid English" name has citations against it referencing reliable sources. We don't go by individual editors opinions. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1994 Constitution declared Bolivia a multicultural society, whereas the 2009 constitution that created the "Plurinational State" explicitly refers to "the native indigenous nations and

peoples." The drafters knew what they were doing and this was an intentional word choice that corresponds to the word nation in English.--Carwil (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205032039/https://www.eldeber.com.bo:80/2011/2011-11-30/vernotaahora.php?id=111129221401 to http://www.eldeber.com.bo/2011/2011-11-30/vernotaahora.php?id=111129221401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825121538/https://salempress.com/store/samples/great_lives_from_history_19th/great_lives_from_history_19th_bolivar.htm to http://salempress.com/store/samples/great_lives_from_history_19th/great_lives_from_history_19th_bolivar.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DCjAsiyH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.common-place.org%2Fvol-03%2Fno-04%2Fpotosi%2F to http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-04/potosi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208112503/https://www.temple.edu/gus/kohl/documents/kohlplancitizenshipIJURR603.pdf to http://www.temple.edu/gus/kohl/documents/kohlplancitizenshipIJURR603.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212111313/https://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_bol_en.pdf to http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_bol_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of indigenous people

The infobox information (it is clamed that 20% of Bolivians are Amerindians) contradicts the article on demographics of Bolivia which puts the percentage of indigenous people at over 50%. Maybe a higher number of Quechua and Aymara people have started to self-identify as mestizo, but this needs to be noted (if it is indeed the reason for the discrepancy between the various estimates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.121.8 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.common-place.org/vol-03/no-04/potosi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110110338/http://www.wssinfo.org/about-the-jmp/introduction/ to http://www.wssinfo.org/about-the-jmp/introduction/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209134921/http://www.ine.gob.bo:8081/censo2012/PDF/resultadosCPV2012.pdf to http://www.ine.gob.bo:8081/censo2012/PDF/resultadosCPV2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113183010/http://www.ine.gob.bo/indicadoresddhh/vivi4.asp to http://www.ine.gob.bo/indicadoresddhh/vivi4.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Refresh Bolivia

Is anyone interested in adding more materials to Refresh Bolivia which I've recently created? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131062804/http://www.duke.edu/~ems19/rebellions/rebellions.html to http://www.duke.edu/~ems19/rebellions/rebellions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324233328/http://www.geography.wisc.edu/archiveNews/2006/pdf/NYT-History%20Geography%20Bolivia.pdf to http://www.geography.wisc.edu/archiveNews/2006/pdf/NYT-History%20Geography%20Bolivia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228092846/http://www.mmaya.gob.bo/documentos/pnsb_final.pdf to http://www.mmaya.gob.bo/documentos/pnsb_final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205041006/http://institutointerglobal.org/ateismo/1545-ateos-en-numeros to http://institutointerglobal.org/ateismo/1545-ateos-en-numeros

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bolivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212174326/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/11/bolivia-law-of-mother-nature to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/11/bolivia-law-of-mother-nature
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117013359/http://www.catamarcaguia.com.ar/Cultura/Pachamama.php to http://www.catamarcaguia.com.ar/Cultura/Pachamama.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

economics

"Bolivia was rated "Repressed" by The Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom.[61]"

I take issue with this statement because it assumes that 1) Because Bolivia isn't a first world country it's citizens are less well off, 2) nationalized industries are inherently negative and less "free" and 3) The Heritage Foundation can be counted on to provide a clear and unbiased analysis.

I suggest some other index of well-being to be included as a counter-point to the Heritage Foundation's assessment, especially in light of their progressive environmental and human rights policies. Thanks.

Krisandtim (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Kris Tyler 17 April, 2018

Flag

According to this discussion and consensus, the flag shown should be the civil flag, rather than the government-only state flag. That's also in accordance with virtually all other country articles that have these types of flags. I agree with the consensus, which makes sense because the article is about the country, not about the government.

Since then, it has been changed back and forth several times without discussion, for example: [11], [12], [13], [14], etc.

Unless someone can give a good argument to overturn the previous consensus, and go against the usual practice in similar articles, I will change it back to the civil flag. --IamNotU (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that after I posted this, Flags200 changed the flag to the civil flag, and it was changed back again by Martinevans123. It would be great if there could be some discussion about this. I had also suggested to Flags200 to start a thread about the general question before going ahead with further edits, which they did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Types of flags used on country articles. --IamNotU (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

So, who's the president? GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Right now, no one. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is wikipedia at its worst. Just so say stories. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's really disputed right now. Legally, it would be the head of the senate, Adriana Salvatierra, who was forced to resign at gunpoint, but whose resignation has not been approved by the senate, so according to the constitution she should be president. Maybe she should be added as the disputed president.129.63.183.55 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Flag

Why does the country need a state flag? Why can't it be flag of Bolivia instead flag of Bolivia (state)? This is similar to the German and Peruvian state flags. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A thread is already open for this topic (see above). Please comment there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Telesur

There are 4 citations by Telesur. Telesur is not an acceptable source Deprecated sources These statements need to be verified by other sources or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Section: Evo Morales precidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets

After my initial changes, a discussion about them should have been started, insted of using the notes for discussion and reverting before discussion, especially as other involved users are experienced. Unfortunately, this did not happen, but it seems like puppetry in favor of the reverting editor and/ or logged out editing. The modification issued by me, reflects the effort to integrate an open-minded viewpoint, so the reader can shape his/ her opinion, all of which has been removed without discussion. Following are the points which have been attacked and used as argument to remove plenty of other content and information. If there are any more points you would like to discuss within my version of the relevant section, please add them to the list and/ or discussion.

Potentially biased allegations According to several sources on the web (of which I referenced one, below is another), there is no evidence for the points remarked by the OAS, the main body arguing for fraud. If you can name more relevant bodies who argue fraud specific, please do so. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows

Outdated/irrelevant sources The outdated reference in question might be an article, which is not news, but a thourough analysis based on a book written by the author and therefore the argument brought up is not substanciated; please argue content specific; please specify what is irrelevant. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/25922.html

Biased to one side of this controversy The article in the current, reverted version is obviously biased towards the opposition and referenced by similarly biased neoliberal media articles, omitting important facts and whitewashing the actual happenings by improper wordings. As stated in the rules, the article should point out differing points of view, so the reader has the freedom to shape his opinion instead of being obviously directed into one direction.

I admit to knowing little of Bolivian politics, but I do know a little of Wikipedean politics policies. The primary issue here is WP:BRD - an edit was made and subsequently reverted, with a clear and reasonable edit summary attached. Policy is that the inserting editor should begin the discussion if they wish to reinsert material, not the removing editor. Also the editor wishing to insert material should state their case before attempting to reinsert their preferred version. Can you also clarify what exactly you mean by the statement of "puppetry in favor of the reverting editor and/ or logged out editing" - if this is an insinuation of sock puppetry or a claim of a single individual using multiple accounts in order to push an agenda I should warn you that you're already on very thin ice there. However - on the plus side; thank you for starting discussion.

As to bias, bear in mind that the same can be applied to your own edits. For example, you wish the insertion of "Potentially biased allegations" which would imply that they may not be true. That is not Wikipedia's job. We just report on the actions - that allegations have been made and back them up with reliable sources (in this case the New York Times). Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, it was reverted twice (once logged out), I just added/ changed once and also reverted once only before starting this discussion. As he reverted first, he should have started the discussion. The main problem is the removal of contents caused by his reversal; my edit built on already existing contents, the reversal happened without integration of my new contents, which brought the one-sided view back. The above mentioned "outdated" article points out how nowadays the general point of view is very much neoliberal and how it is related to fascism. As self-determination is a major point in the politics of Bolivia (and other countries of South and Central America), this should be added in the context of the current developments. The intimidations, threads and urged resignations are a major factor which should not be neglected as well. Without them Adriana Salvatierra (MAS) would have been to be nominated interim president. The following developments of media crackdown and removal of legal state of MAS, are of major importance as well. Additionally, there are a few other sourced parts which are important for readers to shape their opinion. These developments are to be added and are not one-sided reporting. If you think so, please discuss the contents. Amaruapu (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. Please check those sources I referenced, the NYT is also quite much neoliberal in its reporting. And the change made clear how disputed the allegations are. If there is nothing else of relevance for you, I will revert the contents again, as I dont notice any content specific discussion going on. Otherwise please notify him/ others of this discussion, so he/ they can participate. Amaruapu (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just because an edit was made by an IP address doesn't mean it was a registered user editing while logged out. As well as looking up WP:BRD, which I assume you haven't yet read based on your above comments, you would also benefit from reading up on WP:AGF.

You made the initial insertion here adding non-neutral commentary, which was reverted by the IP address here. You then reinserted the commentary here when it was you who should have started discussion. Stop saying that the reverting editor is the one who should begin discussion. The onus lies on the editor who wishes to make changes, especially when they are controversial.

There is no way that "He was granted asylum in Mexico and was welcomed there shortly after, even though the Mexican plane was denied entry into the Bolivian airspace. He offered dialogue and is willing to return to Bolivia as soon as possible" could possibly be considered more neutral in tone than "He fled to Mexico and was granted asylum there" Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's actually exactly what I have been knocking on all the time.

The initial text was controversial and left out major important details, so my first edit, which extended the contents, was legitimate. In both articles he clearly is reverting back to his desired point of view and vague wording. If you think I initially added non-neutral commentary or made controversial changes, please explain in detail. The discussion is started now, I made my points and will respond to further remarks. Amaruapu (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a huge difference in the wording and my version adds some more relevant sourced details (check last version, maybe you could also check the sources); also please explain what is less neutral about it. Amaruapu (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that there is a huge difference in wording. Perhaps you should add WP:PEACOCK to the list of policy articles you need to read up on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? It ain't affected by this, there's hardly any adjectives contained and it doesn't portrait the events pronounced and extraordinarily positive, it just adds the negative actions executed by the plotters, again not in a pronounced and extraordinarily negative way. Yet, the original text legitimizes these actions by leaving out important details and context, so these negative actions are perceived in a positive way. Amaruapu (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly serious. If you're unable to comprehend the neutrality of the original phrasing versus your own positive-spin version, then there is no point carrying on this conversation, although to be honest that was already apparent a while ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, stupid question. You obviously have a very fixed opinion or JDFC, acting to supress reality for being able to shape opinion in the way you desire. Neutrality doesn't mean vague language due to a lack of understanding. Further you don't seem to be eligible to judge about the whole context as you already admitted lack of knowledge concerning the topic yourself and did not even discuss anything content specific, but just uphold rules which affect the article's version prior to my edits rather than my version. I do not see any reason to continue this discussion any further as you did not bring up any relevant contextual arguments to oppose mine or tried to explain your perception. As there are no other users participating in this discussion, I will hold firm with the results of contextual discussions on other WP pages and reinstitute a modified version as apropriate with these results. Amaruapu (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I've alerted the other two editors who reverted you as well. Note that this means that there are already three editors opposed to your proposed changes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, thank you. I am not saying my version represents the ultimate truth and I don't intend to shape the article after my opinion, but it'd be nice to discuss the points I made. Amaruapu (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Protesters against the Áñez government are free to claim what they wish about Áñez. Our job is to present a balanced view of the situation and not tell readers which side is acting correctly. This also means that we should include instances of verifiable violence from the right-wing opposition in a section that talks about Evo Morales' resignation which he and the military claimed was done to calm tensions. Yautja1917 (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume this vague note is in reference to my edits. I will add sections for each point.

A balanced view does not include every incorrect accusation ever made against any government. Without telling readers what to believe, there is a need to stay on topic, and to keep information at a reasonable length. The protests, and controversies about the most recent election have more than one wikipedia page where those details are appropriate. On a general page about the country of Bolivia it is not useful to include detailed incidents which have no lasting effect on the country. Laella (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Also "reverted several inappropriate deletions. such sweeping revisions should be brought up in talk" - My changes were neither inappropriate nor sweeping. And it is not a requirement to discuss changes before making them. Only when reverted, before redoing them. Laella (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You deleted several lines which have been both deleted and re-instated by a number of editors previously. This should have been brought up in talk a while ago.

Vinto mayor incident.

First, thank you Yautja1917 for changing the citation from telesur.

This incident, while relevant in a discussion of the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, is simply out of place in an article about Bolivia as a whole. The incident is very specific in location, lasted less than a day and had no lasting effect on the country's history, laws, the 2019 election, or anything else. As an example of community justice, which is legal in Bolivia, this is not even a dramatic sample. I don't find that this adds anything to a general understanding of the country.

Further, if the consensus is that this line needs to stay, at the very least it needs to be moved. Currently it is awkwardly placed. It is, out of context, sandwiched between 2 sentences describing Morales resignation.

Amidst allegations that Morales rigged the 2019 Bolivian general election and after widespread protests organized to dispute the election, former government officials reported that Morales' arrest was being sought.[59][60] Members of the right-wing opposition set fire to the Vinto Town Hall and dragged Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party member and mayor Patricia Arce down the street, where they humiliated her physically and verbally. [61] Morales resigned on 10 November 2019, shortly after the military recommended his resignation in order to pacify the country.[62]

Laella (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the line could go elsewhere or be changed to one that is more general about the violence from opposition protestors. However, serious revisions need to be made to the phrasing of this section in order for it to remain neutral if this incident, along with the other portions you reject, are to be removed. Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have something more general about the violence from both sides, but care should be taken when quoting political sources. As I said above, the source says that MAS were blaming it on "opposition forces" which is different from the community justice Laella was talking about and the reason why it occurred in the first place - the people personally blamed this mayor for the death of someone. That we are taking words from the mouth of Morales' on his opponents also seems unequal. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it just doesn't seem significant enough to belong in a piece on Bolivian history. Senkata and Sacaba, while controversial, are bigger events similar to the gas wars and don't even get mentioned. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

So, this section is History of Bolivia. Not History of Bolivian Politics. This whole section needs some work, but it really seems to break down from the subtitle of "1997–2002 General Banzer Presidency", Goni is in there and it is just messy. The next subtitle of "2005–present Morales Presidency and re-nationalization of petroleum assets" is not a good title at all. And the section is not a good overview of Bolivian history for the past 15 years. I think we need to step back and remember that the presidency and politics is not synonymous with history. This whole section should be re-written, removing politics except where there is something truly historically significant. That there were protests and violence surrounding an election in Bolivia, is actually very common. "This election was controversial" with a link to the relevant wiki page is enough.

The point of having a page for those details, is so that the whole topic doesn't have to be re-explained (and argued) on every page that mentions it in passing. -Laella (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

OAS / CEPR / MIT

MIT specifically disavowed the study and stated that it should be referenced as a CEPR study. This doesn't mean 'getting around that restriction' by saying "working at MIT". MIT didn't want to be associated with it. If an employee does freelance work on their own time, it's generally accepted that they don't get to attach their regular employer's name to it, especially for the purpose of lending credence. Much in the same way I can't claim that my employer is associated with what I am writing here.

On 4 December, the Organization of American States published their final report of the audit of the elections, confirming intentional manipulation and irregularities in the electoral process.[72] However, CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot noted that the OAS Electoral Observer Mission has committed serious and puzzling errors throughout its reporting on the Bolivian election.[73] The CEPR-findings were confirmed by researchers working at MIT and commissioned by CERP to conduct an independent proof of the CERP and of the OAS analysis.

Besides the MIT issue, I don't feel like this paragraph is relevant at all to Bolivia as a whole. I am in favor of removing this paragraph altogether. There are more relevant pages where this is included. Laella (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with deleting the entire paragraph, though it seems important to mention OAS involvement (and by extension studies which found the OAS claims to be without statistical evidence). If the paragraph is to remain then I believe it's appropriate for NPOV to provide information that the OAS study results are in dispute, readers can check the OAS study and the CEPR study to determine for themselves if the OAS was correct or not. Also, do you have a source for MIT disavowing the study? I searched and can't find anything. And regarding mentioning they were MIT researchers: nearly every article on the study says "two researchers in MIT's Election Data and Science Lab." Yautja1917 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

After reading again, the preceding paragraph starts with "Amid allegations of electoral fraud." Because of this, deleting the OAS report and CEPR study would be inappropriate given the OAS was a main source of the allegations against Evo Morales. Yautja1917 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The OAS was not the source of any allegations. The report was a compilation of allegations made elsewhere. I think the correct treatment would be to simply state there was a controversy and link it to the wiki page that describes the controversy (both sides) in detail. No more details are needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the OAS were the auditors appointed by Morales to investigate allegations of fraud. Similar with the EU investigators and with Ethical Hacking employed by the TSE to audit the process of the election a month before it began. All came to the same conclusions. Auditors don't make allegations, they investigate them. If CEPR have a significant impact in history by changing people's minds, they should be included, but at the moment the story is that OAS found irregularities and fraud in the election and that led to a change in government. Historically speaking, the CEPR report has had no effect. We don't have any minutiae on other presidents' activities. Recentism? There are other pages on wiki that give a detailed account of what reports have been made and their conclusions. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yautja1917:, There are not any articles or retractions in english media (that I can find). Here is a link to an article in spanish, it shows the letter itself, which IS in english. There are plenty of articles about MIT's letter disavowing the study in spanish. https://www.lostiempos.com/actualidad/pais/20200305/lee-carta-del-mit-donde-niega-haber-realizado-estudio-que-pone-duda-fraude -Laella (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, it certainly would be inappropriate to call the study a "MIT study" but I also see MIT claim the researchers as members of their team. The description "working at MIT" or "MIT researchers" is appropriate. Yautja1917 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

MIT specifically states that they want it clarified that this study was independent of MIT, that it should be referred to as a CEPR study and that MIT does not endorse it. MIT says that "while they are employees" the CEPR study they did was as independent contractors for CEPR. That is very specifically saying MIT does not want their name on this.

But again, this whole section is inappropriate on this page. This is an argument for a page that is more specific to this topic. Laella (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)