Talk:2019 Bolivian general election

Evo Morales reelection?

I read today in on Twitter that the Supreme Electoral Council supported the referendum that President Morales canNOT run for reelection in October. Is this true? Anyone know of anything? Ballers19 (Talk) 2:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Server access text

I've tried to remove the text about someone accessing the vote-counting server (an outside user who controlled a Linux AMI appliance with "root privileges" — conferring the ability to alter results — accessed the official vote-counting server during the counting) but it has been reinstated more than once. To me it looks like a classic example of tabloid innuendo; it infers that someone accessed the server to change the result, but without actually providing any evidence that it happened. I am minded to start an RfC to get outside input on whether we should include this or not, but I'll give a chance for the reinstator (and others involved) to consider before doing so. Number 57 16:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see points on both sides for this edit. It's in a report but no claim is made that this had any effect on the election. I'll abstain. Asking outside opinions might be a good idea. Burrobert (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

These issues are in both the OAS and EU audits. They are also areas that the OAS set out to inspect as part of the audit on 31st Oct. Being accessed during the count does not seem likely to be something made up and the BBC report I added also mentions that data was directed to these hidden servers during the processing of results. Whether this had enough of a difference in the results is another point, but it is only one element to be taken into account. If someone cheated at sports, they still face disqualification whether or not the extra points they gained were crucial to winning. The game becomes forfeit. The CEPR report hones in on their statistical analysis compared to that done by the OAS, but their ignore issues that are equally concerning whether or not the people running the elections did so in a way that makes them valid. A large number of Bolivians had no faith in the system. If it had been a clear victory with no interruption, there would not have been weeks of protest. The OAS found enough evidence of manipulation to justify the concerns many had had. In Bolivia, eyes are firmly on the next election, not reversing previous decisions. All parties, including MAS, have no interest in reinstalling Evo Morales by pretending everything was normal with the last election. Crmoorhead (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you might be missing my point. I am not suggesting that the fact that someone accessed the server is made up. The issue is that there is no evidence that whoever did that actually changed the results. This is why I described it as tabloid-style innuendo – tabloids know they can't say things that aren't true (for fear of being sued), but they can present things in a way that makes reader think that something happened. If the OAS found actual evidence of manipulation , you are welcome to add that in place of this non-evidence. Number 57 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the server was accessed is not in contention. For those who speak spanish, I will post links, but I can't find this information translated into english.

https://www.lostiempos.com/actualidad/pais/20191207/identifican-sergio-martinez-como-asesor-que-manipulo-datos-comicios

https://correodelsur.com/politica/20191207_sergio-martinez-el-asesor-del-tse-huyo-del-pais.html

Laella (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As for no proof that the people who accessed the server manipulated the results - well, there is proof the database was altered, but it's hard to say what the alterations were precisely. The fact that we can't know what those alterations were, does not mean that the results should be considered valid because of "lack of proof". In the end, altering the database by hand is enough. An election database needs to be kept above suspicion of alteration. Multiple hand edits of the database via sql, without supervision, is enough to taint the credibility of the outcome. Especially when it had been established beforehand that there should be no hand alterations and there should be no unvetted servers. The unauthorized server which they found was used in the elections, did not have the monitoring software which would have shown exactly what had happened. Why connect a server you had agreed not to use, which you knew didn't have the monitoring? Even if the answer is imcompetence, rather than malevolence, it doesn't matter. The irreproachability of the database is lost.

For a contested election, There is a higher bar than "we don't know that the person who surreptitiously accessed the server and made alterations, was making malicious alterations."

I find somewhat odd your argument that someone who shouldn't have got onto an elections server but did, shouldn't be assumed to be doing something malicious."

The report by the auditors is very informative, but also only in spanish. This was the OAS' source for some of the info in their report.

https://www.scribd.com/document/434031751/EHC-REP-Consolidado-Resumen

Laella (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, your exact words were "it infers that someone accessed the server to change the result, but without actually providing any evidence that it happened" which does imply you question whether it was even accessed, so perhaps poorly worded on your part. Regardless, I already answered why this was still relevant vis-a-vis the OAS stated goals and that tipping the results, which is still an open issue, still does not negate the fact that they left it open to manipulation to a third party who could, and did, access the database remotely. I don't get why you don't see that as a significantly undermining the election, especially as it was under such scrutiny from the start and the results were close. In the context of Bolivia specifically, the audit needed to show something to give people enough faith to accept the results and it would be irresponsible to have discovered all these things and either not report them or say that the irregularities were forgivable and Morales/MAS should be given the benefit of the doubt and be elected in the first round. Morales may not have been directly involved at all, but there are a lot of masistas that have an interest in using all means to keep him as president. There is a great deal of information on the corruption of high up people in the government that used public money as their own piggy bank. All this context matters and is why the audit needed to show a clean and well-organised election. I don't know if you read Spanish, but you should start browsing the Bolivian press where there is no lack of information. Sadly, most western sources seem confident in having an opinion about Bolivia without ever having set foot there or understanding the subtleties of the situation. 13:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said I'm happy for this specific bit of text to be replaced by details of manipulation that there is evidence for – can you engage on this suggestion please. Number 57 13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel that Laella engaged on that suggestion quite thoroughly and you are asking for us to find evidence and details for statements made by two reputable sources because you don't like how they sound. Ethical Hacking, the tech security company hired by the TSE (under Morales) to audit the elections, stated that there were multiple irregularities and violations of procedure and that "our function as an auditor security company is to declare everything that was found, and much of what was found supports the conclusion that the electoral process be declared null and void". In the report that Laella linked to, they state:

″We CANNOT attest to the integrity of the electoral results because the entire process is null and void due to the number of alterations to the TREP source code, the number of accesses and manual modifications with the maximum privileges to the databases being created during the electoral process and the inconsistencies of the software that arose in the TREP and Computo.″

And of course there are similar statements in the OAS and EU reports, but normally all that is required is a secondary source (we have two) summarising or paraphrasing the conclusions of these investigations. Including such details in the main text might be relevant, if overly technical, but I think a bit overkill. We are not requiring similar details on how the CEPR/analysts ran their simulations, only quoting their conclusions. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Not only is there no evidence the data was manipulated; there's no evidence this outside user ever accessed the server in question. That's what controlled means here, no? The OAS insinuated this when they introduced both him and the server in the same bullet point in their executive summary, then spoke of logins to the server, but they failed to substantiate that this was him. The username they mention ('ec2-user') is simply the default AWS user and tells you absolutely nothing at all about who it was. (In fact, there's a few screenshots from the Hacking Report which shows that it was the director of NEOTEC who was using this login.) What's more, if you closely read the OAS's claim, it merely says that the TSE board members and this contractor requested that another server be used, not that the contractor was the one to access to it. ("A solicitud de los vocales del TSE y de un individuo presentado como asesor de los vocales se configuró un servidor...") The basis of the OAS's claims seems to be the DNTIC report that was published as an annex to the OAS report, according to which the contractor was part of the decision to use the server, but it was actually accessed by a DNTIC functionary, then handed over to NEOTEC and Ethical Hacking (SIM SRL) to be configured. This is broadly consistent with a public statement that the contractor wrote in response to the OAS report, in which he vehemently denied that he ever had access to any server, but admits that he was present at the meeting and that he suggested methods to better control the system. He insists that any access to the servers would've been done by NEOTEC, Ethical Hacking, or the DNTIC, which is exactly what the DNTIC report says, and that he had no authority to give orders and that any decisions were made by others. Furthermore, he's often described as an 'advisor', a label he strenuously rejects but one which would seem to indicate that any influence he had was indirect.

It's also somewhat odd that these two cited the Ethical Hacking report to back up their misreading of the OAS's claims about Sergio Martínez and the BO20 server, since there's no mention at all of this server in that report, for which Ethical Hacking received a rare bit of criticism from the OAS. What's more, the DNTIC's report states that it was Ethical Hacking who configured the server with NEOTEC. Alvaro Andrade, the CEO of Ethical Hacking, has been interviewed a number of times and yet he's never spoken about this server, even though it's clear his objective is to discredit the election and he always tries to cite as many procedural violations as possible. Why doesn't he mention it? Because it's almost certainly nothing. In fact, I'll bet Ethical Hacking monitored the activity on this server in real time. The proximate cause of the TREP suspension was the detection of an unmonitored server, so it only makes sense that this server's replacement, BO20, was monitored. The OAS's real complaint is that they weren't informed about it beforehand, and of course it emerged in a suspicious context. Also, it must be said that the EU report has nothing to contribute to this discussion because all they do is uncritically summarize the claims in the OAS report, including the now-discredited statistical ones. Those statistics are interesting, too. What Rodriguez et al. showed is that the tally sheets processed after the shutdown were predictable based on the known ones. If that's the case, then the post-shutdown introduction of this server didn't move the needle, which either means it didn't manipulate the data (true) or that it continued to apply a remarkably consistent fraud (false). Unfortunately, most people don't understand these issues well, and will just hand-wave about reports they don't even understand. Futurebum (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

References

New NYT article and recent removals

There are some key missing elements from the article, including that they are not saying that fraud did not occur, only that they disagree with the particular metric used. After going through most of the 45-page paper (still pending peer review, BTW), there are several issues with it, especially with their disagreements on the inclusion of data. NYT are taking the authors words on their own work, which hardly seems unbiased. Additionally, the comment about Nooruddin not responding to the NYT request for a full explanation within days seems unfair and too recent for the dust to settle and see whether or not the OAS want to release their full statistical analysis. I have seem some articles and comments from other experts concerning this study that question whether it makes a jot of difference to the validity of the election and Nooruddin himself, in the WP article, said that no statistical analysis can prove or disprove fraud, but his analysis raised questions and was but one piece of evidence in the report. This new paper is a lot more technical than previous ones, but they basically say that there exists a way to do the statistical analysis where you can get rid of the discontinuity. It's a matter of two academics accusing ecah other's methods of being wrong. Except that the OAS were hired to do an audit and Nooruddin's credentials (and others who support him) check out whereas the authors of this paper are seeking to discredit the OAS's statistical evidence, again not the validity of the election, and have less impressive credentials. It will require some more work on my part to explain this in further detail and I am still digesting the paper.

With regard to the commentary in Vox comparing the CEPR studies and the OAS one, the comment on the CEPR and MIT-CEPR studies being essentially replications seems pertinent, as does the comment on Nooruddin's analysis being "entirely appropriate" in methodology. We are also missing a further study, cited by the NYT article authors, that supports electoral fraud. Crmoorhead (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother digesting the paper. Whatever comes out at the other end can't be used on Wikipedia. Stick with what the sources say. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"According to the New York Times... "

According to The New York Times, the right-wing caretaker government led by Áñez subsequently moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and cement its hold on power.

There is no source or reasoning for this opinion in the original article, it isn't even a topic of the study being discussed.

It is not true that Áñez is "staunchly right-wing" I notice several editors seem intent on labeling her that way, but it isn't factual.

Laella (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

She and the government are clearly right wing (and the word staunch wasn't even mentioned here), just as Morales is clearly left-wing. According to Euronews, she's "a self-proclaimed right-wing senator". The Washington Post published an article saying almost exactly the same thing as the NYT one mentioned above (including the right-wing statement – "As a right-wing, pro-American government represses, threatens and jails its leftist opponents"). I am getting extremely tired of this anti-Morales/pro-Áñez POV pushing from two editors who do little else on Wikipedia but advance this agenda. If this nonsense doesn't stop then I will be requesting intervention at WP:ANI. Number 57 20:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Keep. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The original quote from the article:

Mr. Morales’s downfall paved the way to a staunchly right-wing caretaker government, led by Jeanine Añez, which has not yet fulfilled its mandate to oversee swift new elections. The new government has persecuted the former president’s supporters, stifled dissent and worked to cement its hold on power.

Áñez, her political party, and her government are center-right. They are actually (ironically) fiscally progressive compared to US Democrats, supporting economic regulation, public welfare programs, and other economically progressive policies. Also fwiw, her running mate VP candidate is the founder of Bolivia's Socialist International affiliate party and she has specifically said she is leaning on him for economic policy.

And the reason for delaying the elections isn't mentioned in the article - something obviously calculated to sound bad, but ignoring the pandemic which was the reason for the delay, AND that the delay was agreed to (and insisted on) by most politicians from ALL parties. Making it sound like it was a political maneuver is disingenuous.

--Laella (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of us are living in Bolivia and have a better perspective on the facts and history of the country than the writers of many of these articles. It's genuinely shocking how bad the research is. Áñez went from being a fairly middle-of-the road senator of a centre-right party to an ultra-conservative far-right self-appointed dictator who politically persecutes all her rivals because that is how Western media chose to report it. It makes a good story, but is an oversimplification and propagandised version of reality. I have seen articles written in English from reputable newspapers that use Morales' tweets as their main source of what is happening in Bolivia. This is hardly unbiased. I am not pro-Áñez or anti-Morales, but there needs to be a balanced PoV that is not from people who have an idealised version of the MAS administration. The corruption and human rights abuses are extremely well-documented by third-party human rights organisations. The freedoms and poverty alleviation that Morales brought about are undeniable, but so is the corruption in his party, the police and the judiciary and the propaganda machine run by the party. Do not be naive about this. Áñez and people around her have many issues themselves, but to take every accusation from the opposition, who have every motivation to play dirty, as gospel is not NPOV. I have included information on massacres at Sacaba and Senkata when there was none before. How is this pro-Áñez? In all the articles you have read on Áñez or Bolivia, can you provide a single one that mentions any action she took as an elected representative of Bolivia prior to the 2019 elections? In the 7 months of her presidency, can you point to any articles in English where they mention any of the acts she has taken as president? What mention of her can you find in being involved in the 2019 protests prior to her becoming president? The truth is that almost nobody took an interest in the country except for those that had a positive view on the potential of Morales running a successful socialist nation, and they are disinclined to change their opinion on the matter. The problem is not socialism, it is corruption and having too much power in the presidency. But I digress...

The article is on the 2019 election. Including in the lede the opinion of one newspaper, published several thousand miles away from the country in question, of a politician who had no role in said election and no documented role in the protests against Morales after 20 Oct. Do other election pages have similar opinions in their lede? I think not. The original lede read "staunchly right wing" because that is what the NYT puts. I am well aware that Wikipedia is Wrong, but this does not seem relevant to the article and designed to give a political bias. Do you really want that to be your high ground? Both Laella and I could give sources stating Áñez as being centre-right, and Laella mentions in detail that she is socially progressive. Nobody is giving reasoning behind why they want this reinstated and personal accusations and edit wars are not cooperative at all. Please make a case for relevance and NPOV. Crmoorhead (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Before this turns into a revert war - The sentence has randomly ended up in the middle of a different topic. At least stop putting it back in between 2 sentences about the Covid virus. Continually doing this makes it seem like you are not even reading the text, just taking a stand based on my perceived political beliefs. Laella (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor's country of residence has no bearing on their editing status so there is probably no point is mentioning where you live. A person's view of the country where they live is probably different from that of their next door neighbour and certainly much different from that of people who live in other parts of the country. I have created an "Aftermath" section to place information about what happened after the election, including the behaviour of the caretaker government. Since the new election details are mentioned in the leading section they should also appear somewhere in the article itself. We can discuss here whether the nature of the caretaker government should also be in the leading section. Burrobert (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is ironic that you are getting "extremely tired of this anti-Morales/pro-Áñez POV". Because I am much more tired of all of the highly pro-Morales bias and apologists. I have taken pains to be neutral, and I am not Pro-Áñez (I didn't vote for, and won't be voting for, either of them). I think what really stands out is the difference in information being reported inside vs outside of Bolivia, as well as the absolutely bizarre disconnect between the reality in Bolivia vs the US/European media's reporting. On wikipedia, there seems to be a coordinated goal of perpetuating a myth of Morales as some kind of folk hero, rather than the nuanced, flawed, and rather centrist human he really is. And at the same time, rejecting any information about Áñez that doesn't paint her as an ultra-fascist, rather than the nuanced, flawed, and rather centrist human she really is. Morales was not nearly as left-leaning as he is portrayed, Áñez is nowhere near as far to the right. Politics in Bolivia are not predicated on your left-right political spectrum. Parties, candidates and voters are much more fluid in their positions.

About the sentence in question ("According to the New York Times...") - the parts of the article that question the OAS report, and that call Áñez right-wing, and accuse her of stifling decent, were quickly added to this, and other Wikipedia pages. But the same editors manage to completely ignore the section in the same article of the NYT, on how CEPR's and other's dissections of the OAS report are not addressing the actual allegations of fraud, despite constantly claiming they somehow "prove" the absence of fraud. It is hypocritical to cherry pick information from a news article, and then accuse the editor who tries to balance the article, of being biased.

Remove - The quote itself is an opinion. It is not a particularly insightful opinion, and it isn't from a particularly important person. It certainly isn't one of the most important points to have in the intro to the page.

Laella (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And these are not new election details. - They are another analysis of an analysis. And the original analysis wasn't actually instrumental in any of the events anyway. It is really giving way too much importance to a minor detail. Laella (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: From someone who is more familiar with the rules, I would like to know how WP:BLP applies to this. Laella (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no BLP issues here. The statements are sourced to reliable sources. And Burrobert is correct in his statement above that editors should not be claiming to know better because of where they live. The claims of both of you to be unbiased is laughable given your editing histories and would not stand up to scrutiny.

Given the Washington Post has written a very similar article, we don't need to write "according to the New York Times". The sentence can just be written as a statement and sourced to both articles. Number 57 11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There are actually more rules than just "has 2 reliable sources". Tone matters, and understanding that even reliable news sources can have biased writers. I would like some feedback from people who work on, and are more familiar with BLP issues.

Your commenting on things I didn't say isn't helpful to this question. But since you brought it up, you repeatedly accuse others of being biased, but you show a very strong bias yourself. If you have an issue with something particular I write, add it to the talk page, I have no problem discussing it. But stop making vague accusations of how biased I am.

Laella (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with BLP issues. Making a statement that someone is right-wing, particularly when they self-identify as such, is not a BLP issue if it is sourced. And in this particular case, it refers to the "right-wing caretaker government" rather than an individual, so BLP isn't even relevant. Please don't wikilawyer like this. You're welcome to take it to the WP:BLPN, but you'll get short shrift. Number 57 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

She doesn't identify as right-wing, much less staunchly right-wing. Her party doesn't either. Saying that it's different to talk about "her government" rather than "her" is playing semantics (especially when the original quote says "led by Jeanine Añez"). And I am not taking this anywhere, I am posting it here, so chill out. I am asking for further opinions besides yours though, if you don't mind. Laella (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To be more clear - the part that I am looking for feedback on, isn't the part about being "right-wing". It is the tone of the statement "subsequently moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and cement its hold on power" - which doens't sound NPOV and really "cement its hold on power" seems biased and vague - what does that even mean, other than sounding inflamatory? There's no specific example or citation (in the original article) to back up that claim. It's not factual information, its an emotional opinion by the autor of the article. Laella (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is very clear: "Áñez has presided over the detention of hundreds of opponents, the muzzling of journalists and a “national pacification” campaign that has left at least 31 people dead, according to the national ombudsman and human rights groups." It also states "In Bolivia, even anti-Morales politicians and activists who once backed Áñez now say her administration has used threats and intimidation to consolidate power.", the latter part supporting the "cement its hold on power" claim. We could just change the wording to "consolidate" rather than "cement its hold on". If it concerns you. Number 57 11:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for working on it. "consolidate" rather than "cement" is less idiomatic, but doesn't fix the problem - it is still a vague accusation by supporters of the previous administration. What specific example is there of something she did that could be considered "consolidating power"? I'm not saying that examples doesn't exist - but I think saying something that strong needs to be backed up with something concrete. I have the same issues with "persecute Morales' supporters" and "stifle dissent" - examples? These statements are too vague. Also, much of what might fit these examples happened in the early weeks after Morales' resignation, but are mostly resolved now (arrested Morales protesters were released from jail once the protests stopped in November, for example). The deaths were also within 2 weeks of Morales' resignation, and were mostly from 2 specific incidents. I believe they are covered in more detail on another page. A link to "2019 Bolivian protests" and "2019 Bolivian political crisis" might make sense here. Laella (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rephrase. Not only does the current quote violate WP:LABEL as it is currently phrased, but WP:NPOV as well. I would propose a rephrasing of the Aftermatch section based on the 2019 Bolivian political crisis lede, which is comprehensive enough, which the mention of any abuse of power and violation of human rights if it is so decided.--Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:LABEL – right-wing is not a controversial/contentious term. Can we stop this wikilawyering please. Number 57 20:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop accusing Don't accuse other editors of wikilawyering for citing policy, you can simply state why you disagree with their reasoning. I think that the Aftermatch section would help explaining the importance of the elections (although some of these events are covered in the "Controversy" section and could be split) but its vagueness does not help with neutrality. "Right wing" can easily be replaced with Añez's party, "The Democrat Social Movement government led by Áñez". Naming the abuses committed, namely "detention of hundreds of opponents, censorship of journalists at least 31 people dead" is probably better than "persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and consolidate power", without going into detail why. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing policies that aren't applicable and trying to bend them to fit an argument is wikilawyering. If editors stop doing this, I won't need to keep pointing it out.

Back to the topic at hand, right-wing is a useful flag, as it's a clear contrast with the previous left-wing government (whose orientation can also be noted, but I guess is well-known already). I will add more details of the abuses. Number 57 16:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

About the "wikilawyering" I would like to point out that you (Number 57) were the first one to threaten to take me to an "intervention" at WP:ANI (just a few paragraphs higher on this page, in fact). - So apparently "wikilawyering" is only ok when you do it? And any mention of policy you don't like is not ok?

Jeanine Áñez and her party are center-right. This is an issue because the English media have over-played her and her party as "extreme-right" (staunchly right-wing in your source), mostly in service to trying to make the ousting of Morales into a left-right battle, which it was not. So, while in most cases I would agree with you that indicating left or right would be enough to give a general indication of the party or person's orientation, I feel like an explicit description is called for here. Also, because Bolivia (and many other countries) actually do not follow the English "left-right" paradigm, simplifying their platform to "right-wing" is factually incorrect - they are socially conservative and economically progressive (meaning their economic foundation is more closely aligned with what you would consider "the left"). The combination of socially left, economically right aligns with Libertarians in the US, but there are no examples of socially right, economically left in the US (that I could find). And again, Áñez is in a coalition with the Socialist International affiliate party (which rejected MAS as an affiliate, because they were not socialist enough, btw). So I think that over-simplification to "right-wing" is a disservice to readers, because it does not help to understand the position of Áñez or her government. Laella (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on the "wikilawyering". I feel that a defence is being made from the position of ignorance and lack of experience and in-depth knowledge by quoting Wiki policies along the lines of "Someone wrote it in a reputable source, therefore it must be true and we don't have to have further justification". Reputable sources can get facts wrong, especially if they are not experts in the subject. It's a case for Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. The left and right descriptors are true, but not an argument against finer distinctions from reputable sources. Furthermore, the fact that many (even reputable) sources outside Bolivia with limited knowledge of the country describe her as far-right without any qualified reasons for doing so directly contradicts solid assessments made before the events of Oct 2019. I have yet to see any arguments why she is far-right other than parrotting single-line quotes for elsewhere. From my own experience, what is described as right-wing in Bolivia have many social policies that are decidedly left-wing in the rest of the world.

I did find a recent detailed report on Bolivia that states "The parties in the opposition have not managed to form stable alliances. Some of them are organizationally institutionalized and/or socially rooted, but at the regional or local rather than at the national level. The strongest among them are three groups in the center-right: Samuel Doria Medina’s Unidad Nacional (UN), the regionally based Movimiento Demócrata Social (MDS) of governor Rubén Costas of Santa Cruz (which together, for the presidential elections in 2019, formed the Bolivia Dice No alliance with Oscar Ortíz as its candidate), and the faction-ridden Christian Democrats (PDC)" Crmoorhead (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here, I found something that can hopefully better explain: Christian democracy Laella (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is deliberately misusing Wikipedia policies or guidelines in a debate. Threatening to report editors is not Wikilawyering.

If a party/government is described as extreme-right, right and centre-right, it's usually a safe bet that it's somewhere in the middle as the descriptors at either side are usually made by those opposed or in favour of said party/government. Number 57 14:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"It's usually a safe bet" is your opinion. The label "right" is more general and ambiguous and not the "average" or a compromise. I quoted several sources that are unbiased reports of Bolivia that say centre-right. The rest of the content disputed as biased is an oversimplification of events. Bolivia is complicated. Corruption exists. Narco interference exists. Propaganda exists. These influences are not fully taken into account in many reports and the Western media isn't interested in the mundane events. Interest in the country is limited and it breeds sensationalism in Western media. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm arguing that "right-wing" is a value-laden word and I'm citing WP:LABEL to support this. It is applicable for the discussion, and wikilawyering accusations shouldn't be thrown around only because you disagree with the reasoning. Several reliable sources articles related to the matter refrain from using said adjectives:[1][2][3][4]

Speaking about the cited BLP policy, while I agree that it doesn't apply to the article, a misunderstanding of the policy should not be confused with wikilawyering, specially when the user had asked more information about said policy, and saying that they are deliberately misusing the policies is simply assuming bad faith. A hostile tone will certainly not help or lead the discussion anywhere.

If it helps, I'd like to propose a phrasing for the Aftermatch section:

Following protests, as well as calls for a second-round election from several foreign countries, Morales, who had pledged to respect the OAS audit, agreed on 10 November to hold new elections, at a date to be determined. On the same day, Morales and his vice president, Álvaro García Linera, resigned from office after losing support from the police and military. Furthermore, the President of the Senate and the President of the Chamber of Deputies – both party allies of Morales, also resigned on the same day, thus exhausting the constitutional line of succession. As a result, the second vice president of the Senate, Jeanine Áñez of the opposition Democrat Social Movement, assumed the interim presidency of Bolivia on 12 November 2019.

The government led by Áñez subsequently moved to detain several hundred opponents, censor journalists and start a "national pacification" campaign that has led to 31 deaths. Nadia Cruz, Bolivia's ombudsman, said her office has grown increasingly concerned that protest is being criminalized, and that charges of "sedition" and "terrorism" have been brought for simply disagreeing with or questioning the Áñez administration.

The elections were set to be rerun in May 2020, but were postponed due too the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, Áñez stated that she would approve a law passed by both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to set a date for the election for 6 September 2020. However, she subsequently refused to sign it, insisting she needed to see an epidemiological study that justified having elections in September.

References

Pinging @Burrobert, Laella, and Crmoorhead: in case they would like to make further propoals. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• some of your references are missing
• I prefer the current wording for the first part, namely: “Responding to concerns about vote tampering and violent protests, Morales asked the Organization of American States (OAS) to conduct an audit of the vote count. Morales said he would call for a second-round runoff vote with Mesa if the OAS' audit found evidence of fraud”.
• I note that the WaPo article says “As a right-wing, pro-American government represses, threatens and jails its leftist opponents, the United States has stayed largely silent”.
• in the second paragraph add a mention of this: “U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet expressed her “concern” last week over “the prosecution of dozens of former government officials and persons related to the previous administration” and “In Bolivia, even anti-Morales politicians and activists who once backed Áñez now say her administration has used threats and intimidation to consolidate power. The targets have included former Morales cabinet ministers and socialist politicians brought up on charges as varied as corruption, sedition and “making illegal appointments.”
• the third paragraph seems fine except that I would use “says” rather than “insists” which carries a PoV.

Burrobert (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, WP:LABEL is for contentious labels. "right-wing" is not contentious, just like the CEPR is labelled "left-wing". My tone is hostile as I am frustrated at having to deal with this POV-pushing from SPAs who are only on Wikipedia for one purpose. I have wasted enough of my time on this; if any further POV changes are made to the article, there will be a report at ANI. Number 57 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Right-wing" has been contested in this discussion and WP:LABEL says that Value-laden labels [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. This is particularly important now that the text section does not currently use attribution. If I recall correctly the term "left-wing" has been contested in other articles, and it could be removed as a label to the CEPR if other editors are alright with it.

I can understand that you might be frustrated at users that are not familiar with policies and you can have legitimate concerns about edit behavior, but there's no need to accuse these editors of having "an agenda", for example. Since I haven't been involved in the current discussion from the start, I'm hoping to mediate with a possible alternative text. You can leave your comments, if you wish. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your output, Burrobert. I forgot to mention that the first paragraph is based mostly in the current lede of the article, and that my main concern is repeating information or content from the Controversy section. I take note of your comments; however, I'm not sure if I understood your comments regarding the second paragraph. Are you proposing to include it?

I hoped that this proposal would explain how Añez moved to persecute Morales' supporters, stifle dissent and consolidate power, without going into excessive details that could be covered in the Crisis article. While I noticed Bachelet's statements, I think it's important that Áñez vowed to provide compensation to the families of those killed and injured, signed an agreement with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate the violence and repealed the decree that granted inmunity to Armed Forces. On the other hand, I also noted that the article says that Human rights groups denounced the Áñez administration for vetoing the participation of two experts on a commission linked to the Organization of American States to help investigate abuses in Bolivia during the last months of 2019. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any references saying that Morales was responding to international pressure in asking for the audit. Your reference for this phrase is unavailable.
• Is there a reference stating that there was a legal contract in place between Morales and the OAS regarding the audit? If so, what was in the contract?
• It seems that some of the victims of the repression are colleagues of Morales, possibly including current or former elected representatives. It would be good to include this.
• Regarding my comment on the second paragraph, I was suggesting we incorporate the information from the excerpts I quoted in the article in some way, possibly abridged.
• Regarding the actions you say Áñez has taken to reduce the repression, they can be included if properly sourced of course.
• you can ignore the part about the US remaining silent about the repression. It wasn't meant for consideration and only included because it was part of the quote.

Burrobert (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reference for international pressure #1: https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/10/25/america/1572016162_659330.html
• Reference for international pressure #2: https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2019/10/25/5db35bc621efa0977a8b4594.html
• Reference for contract being signed between Bolivia and OAS: https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/bolivia-y-oea-acuerdan-auditoria-vinculante-a-polemicas-elecciones-428752
• I am not in favor of any of the quotes - it is better to stick to specific facts, instead of vague generalizations.

Laella (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, Thank you for doing this.

• I prefer Jamez42's first sentence.
• The 2nd sentence "Morales, who had pledged to respect the OAS audit" - it would be technically more correct to say that "Morales, who had agreed the OAS audit would be binding" (it wasn't a promise, it was a negotiated legal agreement)
• I prefer Burrobert's "Morales said he would call for a second-round runoff vote with Mesa if the OAS' audit found evidence of fraud”." rather than "agreed on 10 November to hold new elections" - he had originally promised to hold a 2nd round (when the agreement for an audit was originally made) - even though he changed to "holding a new election" when the audit came back.
• "The government led by Áñez subsequently moved to detain several hundred opponents" - "protesters" rather than opponents, and the majority were freed within 2 weeks. I would want to take care not to imply this is ongoing. The vast majority were released without further legal proceedings in November 2019.
• "start a 'national pacification' campaign that has led to 31 deaths." - I don't think that "national pacification" campaign is the best way to phrase it - it's a euphemism, and it wasn't national, it was restricted to a few specific spots. Also, most of the deaths involved protesters who were armed, some with dynamite who were trying to occupy a gasoline and gas plant, located dangerously close to a residential neighborhood. Something needs to be said about it, but it is a more complex issue than "national pacification campaign"
• As for the quote from a WaPo article pointed about by Burrobert says - it's an opinion, not fact, and ignores that Áñez has allies on the "left" and "far-left". I also really don't think the United States "staying silent" or not is relevant at all. This is not about the United States.
• I agree with the rest of the text proposed by Jamez42

Laella (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Laella. As I mentioned above, the text contains information that might already be covered in the "Aftermatch" section, so some extra tweaks to the article overall might be needed. Many thanks for the specifications, I haven't been following the last developments in Bolivia. Could you provide sources regarding the releases and the gas plant operation?

Feel free to update the text in the section in these changes are sourced and an agreement is reached on the talk page. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually your first paragraph shouldn’t be in the aftermath section as it relates to the resignation of Morales and so we have already mentioned in above. I don't know why I didn't notice that initially. Your first paragraph could be incorporated into what we already have in one of the above sections. I also noticed that for some reason the assumption of power by Áñez hasn’t been mentioned in the body yet and the best place for it would be straight after the resignation Morales. So the Aftermath section should then begin with your second paragraph and describe what has happened since Anez took power. A good and recent reference for the history since Anez took power is [5]. It mentions the following specific developments in the last 6 months. I have copied the text straight from the article so we would need to choose which events give the best view of the nature of the Anez regime and put the result in our own words. There are other specific examples from your WaPo article but that is from March this year. We could prefix the specific examples with the wording from your second paragraph:

• ”One of Áñez’s first acts was to authorise the use of lethal force by police and soldiers. The decree was later rescinded, but security forces meanwhile killed up to 28 demonstrators, including in two shootings widely described as massacres. The killings are yet to be investigated”.

• ”In January, Áñez declared her own candidacy for president in the forthcoming elections – a U-turn on her previous promises”.

• ”Her administration has leaned on prosecutors to bring corruption, sedition and terrorism charges against dozens of former Mas officials and supporters. Leftwing journalists have been harassed and detained”.

• "A new law threatening those who “misinform or cause uncertainty” over coronavirus with up to 10 years in jail – with Murillo warning the Mas presidential candidate, Luis Arce, by name – was dropped earlier in May following international outcry".

• ”Last month, generals in combat uniforms barged into the senate, demanding that the Mas-majority body approve promotions awarded by the Áñez administration. Arturo Murillo, her hardline interior minister, has threatened to deploy fighter jets to the Chapare – a coca-growing region and Mas stronghold – to take on alleged narcotraffickers”.

• ”At least 13 corruption cases have emerged in the past six months, including in the state oil, telecoms and aviation firms, and medical officials have allegedly used the pandemic to line their pockets”.

Burrobert (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert - I agree that all of those points are important. My only concern with these is: at what point are we no longer talking about the 2019 elections? Response to protesters, and anything that happened in 1-2 months following the elections is probably still relevant, but a law about coronavirus fake news, and the military vs senate fight for military promotion approvals - are not related to the elections at all.

Many of those points belong on a page about the current administration. I don't even know if there is a page for the current administration specifically? Laella (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is not currently a page on the activities of the interim government, mainly because a lot of Western interest began and ended with the resignation of Morales. Even the events of that day tend to be easily summarised. That would, of course, be a proper place to put such content, but it would require editors to be well informed and preferably to be able to read the Spanish sources so that they could verify the veracity of what we have been trying to say. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The original disagreement was on bias concerning a single sentence from a single source being used to represent the entire activity of a government over 7 months. This should not be a list of "things wrong with the Áñez administration" and, if it were, perhaps more neutral sources should be chosen. For NPOV, going through every point made with sources backing up one side or another seems exhaustive and unnecessary. I am left-leaning and read the Guardian regularly, but I am cognisant of their bias and they have been proven to be factual incorrect and far-left in a number of places concerning the events in Bolivia. I too would take their stories at face value if I did not actually have first-hand experience of the country for a number of years. They have received "mixed" review on mediabias for fact checking due to numerous failed fact checks over the last 5 years. . It's not just me that thinks so and it is unfortunate that they have decided to take this editorial spin.

I am frustrated at the lack of willingness to read from other sources or read about the subject in detail. Demonstrating knowledge seems less important than quoting scant wiki policy to justify censorship under "I Don't Like It", even when the inclusion of material has sound justification, or including material with the minumum requirement of verification. At the very LEAST, NPOV demands some representation of the government response to accusations or the circumstances under which decisions were made. Furthermore, there is no mention that there might be some credibility to corruption charges of many of those awaiting trial, despite it having been sufficiently noted by third party organisations for many years. Far from being politically ostracised or unable to operate due to persecution, Morales party holds a lot of power in legislative and judicial sectors. Decisions don't take place in a vacuum and it is naive to reduce events to one-sided editorials. There is undue weight given to pieces written far away by people who provide over-simplified versions of events. There is no mention, for instance, of the city sieges, road blocks and concomitant food and fuel shortages that made people genuinely fearful and was the reason for military and police intervention. That decision, which no government would have found easy, never mind one newly formed, did not take place in a vacuum. With regards to arrests of those facing more serious charges, these are not new. Opposition members, many of which are lawyers, had requests for information denied for years by the past administration and now have much freer access to the accounts and spending records they needed. This is well-documented long before the events of 2019, but of no interest to western nations. One of the defining characteristics of the interim government is the uncovering of large-scale corruption, although how that is dealt with is a genuine concern. The police, separate from the government, are also a huge issue. Áñez did not, nor could not, replace the police officers in Bolivia. The whole force was no different under Evo and the same issues existed in his administration with the same inability or unwillingness of the government to hold people accountable. The army are, surprisingly, not so much of a problem and are largely sidelined in the everyday running of the country. All of what I am saying here is easily backed up with references, but it time-consuming and I am hesitant to do so without further agreement because other parties are prone to delete.

I don't see what was particularly wrong with simply stating that Áñez took over as caretaker president with a note on the polemic nature of her tenure. Every one of the suggested items are nuanced issues for which there are dozens of articles discussing both sides in Bolivian media, written by people who understand it much more intimately. This page and section should not be a place to push politics. Look at other general election pages for a model. Even controversial elections like 2018 Venezuelan presidential election do not have a list of actions from the fallout of the next government and generally election pages do not even have an aftermath section. If there is a template we can agree upon for what is suitable it would be much appreciated and it would be better to work together on a more detailed page specifically on the interim government.

In general, I would support a description of the aftermath to include the following:

• If the Senkata/Sacaba massacres are mentioned, or deaths in general, the national state of affairs it occurred under should also be. We also have a page dedicated the political crisis that can be linked to. Additionally, the number of deaths currently listed counts in the total those casualties inflicted by the other side. Attributing them to forces controlled by the interim government is inaccurate.
• Human rights abuses in Bolivia are a long-standing issue noted by international observers. This is more prominent in the current climate and not solely attributable to whoever holds the presidency. The pending nature of resolving blame on the government's behalf is notable from an outsiders perspective, but not unusual for a Bolivian government. There are still uninvestigated killings from Morale's presidency and previous incumbents before 2006. To expect resolution in months is naive.
• The interim government have been making their way through a backlog of corruption cases accumulated over the past decade exacerbated by having access to documents previously denied to them. International bodies have questioned the zealousness of these prosecutions, but have themselves brought their own accusations towards many of the defendants in previous years. There are many guilty people, but innocent people have also been doubtlessly accused and the legal system is clogged. In Bolivia, any citizen can make an arrest without warrant, but the bureaucratic system is slow to process anything. Corruption has also touched the current government, with little preferential treatment from Áñez in prosecutions.
• The MAS collective holds a great deal of power, arguably equal to or greater than that of the government, in specific regions like Chapare, both chambers of government and the judiciary. This has led to stalemate and stagnation in the process of government on a number of key issues, including release of expenditure, delaying legislature and prevarication of many of the pending charges above.
• Evo Morales was/is a towering and charismatic figure with much influence at both a national and international level, but several former allies have criticised him for standing in the election of 2019 in the aftermath. His remaining supporters are hardcore political allies. Most of the world has recognised Áñez as the constitution president, but they express "concern" at many of her actions.

I don't think this is particularly favourable to Áñez or Evo and it acknowledges the deep-seated problems that Bolivia faces. But really the key issue is that people aren't reaching further to research any of this. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. See WP:MBFC. Your personal experience with Bolivia has little to do with what we can write on Wikipedia, as what is written here needs to be based on reliable sources (such as the Guardian, per WP:RSP). If you have evidence of the Guardian making factual errors about Bolivia, you should cite it, rather than vaguely alluding to it. Otherwise, I see zero reason to not include material from the Guardian. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of the unreliability of that source, thanks. Experience and knowledge should count for something, especially as I can back it up with facts. There is a degenerative pattern of people commenting or forming opinions on a subject they know little about. Falling back to a position of "I don't need to know anything about the subject to edit Wikipedia" is a pretty weak stance to take. In real life, you give weight and listen to people that know about the subject. Instead of stating that knowledge and experience counts for nothing, perhaps engage with the points I am making. A position of ignorance is not a good one to take. I have made several comments on the inaccuracy of the Guardian with regards to specific facts about Bolivia on a number of talk pages, but the articles in question continue to be used nonetheless. The fallback position was that it just had to be verifiable, not correct. How many factual errors do I need to provide before I would get your support on the matter and would it be worth my time? Surely you understand what a biased source looks like? Unbiased sources should provide arguments and statements from both positions and not leave out key information and context. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you would like Wikipedia to work a different way from the way it currently works, you would need to form a consensus to make changes to our policies. As is, appeals to personal experience and knowledge are considered WP:OR, except in the cases where that knowledge allows you to identify WP:RS which can then be used in the article. As for the Guardian, I haven't seen evidence that it is unreliable with respect to current Bolivia politics. Sources need to be evaluated in context (e.g., if it can be shown that the Guardian is wrong in a specific claim, e.g., by being refuted by other reliable sources, that claim may be removed or contextualized with the refutations by other sources). If you think it is generally unreliable on the subject of Bolivia and should not be cited, I recommend starting a discussion on WP:RSN about it, where the discussion can reach a broader audience and any consensus reached can be referred to in future discussions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted content from study

In June 2020, the New York Times reported on a new study by independent researchers Francisco Rodríguez (Tulane University), Dorothy Kronick and Nicolás Idrobo (University of Pennsylvania) which said that the OAS's statistical analysis was flawed, and that the OAS likely used a dataset that excluded 1,500 "late reporting" voting stations. In the study, they use the term "late reporting" to refer to voting stations that had not be assigned any time stamp in the system and it is assumed that all such stations were still counting after the cutoff. When they examine the presence of a "discontinuity" before and after the 95% mark indicated by Nooruddin, they use the term in a technical sense used in the academic literature to mean "the probability of receiving treatment at the cutoff ", noting that the original OAS study does not apply the word in the same sense. Interpreting discontinuity as in the literature, they apply linear local regression, a technique used to create smooth curves from scatterplots, to smooth out the data in the OAS report. Both methods reduce the appearance of a discontinuous jump [6] before and after the cutoff, with the first showing an increase in the MAS share of the vote after the cutoff, followed by a decline in the last 5%, and the second showing an increase in the MAS share of the vote after the cutoff of more than 10%.

If there is confusion about the above, can you please specify where it is? Crmoorhead (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Also being less insulting and more cooperative would be helpful. The definitions used in the study are relevant because if they are non-intuitive, then it is important with regards to how they are used in NYT and elsewhere to point this out. Their definition of "late-reporting" isn't what you think it is and "discontinuity" also has entirely different definition which they admit is different to the OAS report. There is no interpretation or analysis on my part, they are statements from footnotes in the study. so it's not OR. By the guidelines, you don't need to be able to verify it is true, only that it is easily checked that came from the source and page I state. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make the change myself but I agree with it. The details above are too heavy for readers. By going into that level of detail we obscure the main points which are contained in the NYT article, namely:  

• the study found the OAS analysis of the voting trend to be flawed.
• the independent study did not consider other problems with the vote that were reported by the OAS.  

We didn't go into this level of detail with the other studies. If readers are interested they can access the original study through the link to the NYT article. Burrobert (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We mention discontinuities and the term "late-reporting" elsewhere in the article. If the definitions are different or misleading in the NYT and our text from the definitions in the study itself, it makes a difference. If we are citing "improper techniques", then why is not in everyone's interest to state why? Much of the study is secondary sourcing as analysis of the OAS and other reports. For primary content, I believe I have properly sourced it so that it is verifiable by a non-expert as coming from the source. From the guidelines: "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." If you don't agree with the current wording, it could certainly be adjusted to fit that and whether or not there are details on the other studies does not negate that. It is hard to have any real summary on these analyses without using terminology. I am not proposing an essay, just three or four lines for clarification of terminology "which should be defined, or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists." There is nothing wrong with detail and the paragraph is not over-long Crmoorhead (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

My problems were that the text is far too technical for the general reader, a fair amount isn't even particularly relevant to the gist of what needs to be said (there is no need for the reader to know that "they apply linear local regression, a technique used to create smooth curves from scatterplots, to smooth out the data in the OAS report.") and that it doesn't really have any particular conclusion, so all the reader gets is that there was a study with some technical details, but is left questioning what it actually means. Number 57 18:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

But that was not your grounds for deletion. You said it was "Baffling/impenetrable". We specifically use the term "late-reporting voting stations". In the study, they say that they use "late-reporting" for brevity to mean "booths without preliminary results system time stamps". The entire study centres on whether or not this data was or was not included in the original OAS analysis. If we take it to be late reporting in the usual sense that the data came in late, then it seems like he just left a chunk out for no reason. If it is "late reporting" in another sense, that is not obvious to the reader, then that should be explained. It's also speculation that it even was left out. Similarly, the use of "discontinuity" is noted to be specifically different in the OAS and Rodriguez studies. The whole point is proving that there is not an unexplained discontinuity and we mention the discontinuity in another paragraph. If it's different, it should be made clear and Wikipedia:Inaccuracy should be borne in mind. The method they use to do that is a function that turns a plot with huge unexplained jumps to one that doesn't. Mathematically, that's what it does, by taking a moving weighted average. There are parameters to the process, but they do not state what they are in the study, only the end result. It's not surprising behaviour for anyone that knows what that is. It's like saying that adding together two positive numbers together will give you a number bigger than either. And the plots they show where they apply both techniques on p13 are as described.

ATM, we have a list of analyses that gives no information on technical details, yet we are reporting on opinions at a surface level which depends very much on what language the commenter is willing to use. There is nothing tangible at all and you can bet that the NYT are more interested in the politics than the statistics.

At the end of the day, you don't need to understand it or like it. The question is whether the content is verifiable and not OR or interpretative. I don't believe you read the references to see whether that was the case. I don't believe you read beyond the NYT to assess what is or is not relevant to the discussion. I am not doing wizardry, I am just reading the studies and it's fine to report with unaltered details from that to comment on a secondary source. As with the previous WP article, this is more a storm in a tea cup. Words from the authors on their own work is not unbiased and these articles don't give any details on their methods, just as they quote Nooruddin as not giving details on his method. As far as "all the reader gets is that there was a study with some technical details, but is left questioning what it actually means" goes, it's a complicated issue that several experts in the field disagree on. Boiling it down to a black-and-white or "solved" issue is disingenuous and may not even be possible. 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I described it as baffling/impenetrable because it was too technical and didn't actually really say anything. And of course editors are able to remove/rewrite content if they feel it is not understandable or don't think it's appropriate; this is a core part of the editing process. Number 57 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you ignore all points and questions I am making. We should not use or reference two terms as being the same when they are applied differently. I directly quoted the guidelines on usage. You don't see why it needs included because you haven't read the report. The content is perfectly verifiable, not OR and is NPOV. It's a complicated issue with details that matter. Your understanding is entirely irrelevant. Do you understand everything on this A-grade featured page? If we are writing on technical analyses, it will have technical terms and describing the method and justification might just matter more than whatever the author has to say to sell their own work as being important. Technically, the quotes are primary sourcing as the person is directly involved. Crmoorhead (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable, it does not make it suitable for inclusion. My understanding is entirely relevant if I believe readers will also struggle to understand. Number 57 16:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

References

OAS and Rebuttals - length

As has happened on other pages, the OAS report and its Rebuttals are taking over the entire page. Obviously this is the right place for it, but... The OAS report and rebuttals are now more words than the rest of the page together. This focus on these reports is giving them way too much importance. These reports had no impact on the elections or their outcome, including the OAS's report. The importance of the OAS initial report (which came after 3 weeks of massive country-wide protests which completely shut down the country), has been heavily overstated. Had the OAS report been in favor of Morales it would not have changed the outcome, because the allegations and proof of fraud did not come from the OAS. The Bolivian legal case for fraud does not hinge on these reports (or even include them).

Further, the rebuttals are all focused on one section of the OAS report. None of the rebuttals address any other aspect of the OAS report, or any of the other allegations of fraud. Assuming for a moment, that the OAS's statistical analysis section is completely wrong, it changes nothing. The actual proof of fraud is significant and sufficient. Adding infinite rebuttals to the statistical analysis may make it look like "overwhelming evidence" but it's actually completely insignificant.

There needs to be a lot more information about other aspects of the elections on this page.

If this section needs to be so detailed, it would be better for the OAS report and rebuttals to be on its own page. Laella (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And there are bound to be more analyses and counterargument in future. As I mentioned in another page, could be better to group them into whether they claim fraud or not and leave out all the comments while moving the detail to another page. I also think that it's devolving into academics disagreeing on increasingly trivial points of difference and the discussions rarely, if ever, mention the reason why this or that method is inappropriate or assumptions made. Trusting press releases on studies with words from the authors themselves is highly biased. Of course they say that their work is superior to everyone else's, and gloss over the reasons in the process. There is room for detail and specifics on Wikipedia. Look at any technical subject. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)