Talk:Evo Morales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Evo Morales was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 20, 2007
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Deleted "Criticism from the Left" section

I have removed this section:

“ Many progressive overseas academics, politicians, journalists and commentators have glowingly characterized the Evo Morales regime as "radical", "revolutionary" and part of an "anti-imperialist bloc". Academics as diverse as Noam Chomsky, Ignacio Ramonet, Emir Sader, Heinz Dietrich, Marta Hanecker and Immanuel Wallerstein have described Evo Morales as part of a new leftist wave sweeping Latin America. What is striking about these academic celebrants of President Morales, is the total absence of any empirical analysis of his recent political trajectory and the socio-economic and public policies implemented during his first 15 months in office.[1] ”

This is a criticism of the left, not Morales. Or more accurately a criticism of 'academic celebrants of President Morales'. That is fine, but it has no place in an article about Morales. Especially when it is mis-titled as 'from the left'. If there is relevant critical 'empirical analysis of his recent political trajectory and the socio-economic and public policies implemented' please provide it. Edzillion 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP WITH THE UNREFERENCED MESTIZO CLAIMS

An unsigned editor or group of editors continues to claim that Morales is of Mestizo descent and offers no references at all. I have found nothing whatsoever from any reliable source that backs this claim. The only associations I have found between his name and the word Mestizo is descriptions whether the group of people referred to as such support him or do not. Most sites state that they do not. If unsigned editors want to make such claims about his descent than they must find a reliable source that states such and provide it, otherwise they should go get themselves a blog and stop vandalizing this article. If this continues I will request semi-protection for this page. Multiple sources have been provided from the likes of the BBC and PBS Frontline stating unequivocally that he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia - no source at all has been provided claiming otherwise.

--Wowaconia 16:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know of any sources that prove that Morales is or isn't of mestizo descent, so I'm not editing the article, but I'm compelled to add that the last name Morales is of Spanish origin, so it is unlikely that he is of "pure" indigenous descent, hence (according to the definition of "mestizo"), making him a mestizo, like most of the bolivian population.

-- Another User, May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.73.28 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generalizations about Bolivian people's religious beliefs need a reference

The article has a ref that backs up the statement that "His parents, while Catholic, worshipped the Aymaran earth goddess Pachamama, often with offerings of coca leaves and alcohol." An unsigned editor or group of editors continues to try and alter this to say "Like most Bolivians, his parents while Catholic, worshipped the Aymaran earth goddess..." The Reference given only speaks about his parent's beliefs if you want to make claims about the majority of the Bolivian people than a reference proving your claims must be provided. Otherwise your claim will be promptly removed because it fails under wikipedia's No Original Research guideline.

--Wowaconia 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional information that could be added

Dear everyone,

Maybe a little could be mentioned about President Morales' other national policies, such as his agrarian reform policies to help the poor rural indigenous peasant communities. This is to give a broader picture of the President's efforts to improve welfare of his people. Dingodangodongo 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

birth, parentage, and formative early years conspicuously missing

Birth, parentage, and formative early years now included.--Wowaconia 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top

Trey Stone: you changed this:

Capitalizing on resentment of US meddling in general

to this:

Capitalizing on cocalero resentment of U.S. anti-coca policies

This was not a helpful edit. Although Morales emerged from the cocalero movement, the bulk of his and MAS's support is in the highlands of the altiplano, among the miners and so on, for whom the coca eradication policies are not a decisive issue. Anti-U.S. resentment runs deeper than that and encompasses, among other things, the disasterous neoliberal economic policies of the 1990s. -- Viajero | Talk 13:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

i don't think it's true that all Morales's opponents are unquestioningly "neoliberal" as this article suggests. true, in the post-Cold War period there has been a general opening up in terms of trade and investment with the U.S., but this happened with administrations across the ideological spectrum. and a lot of Latin American politicians, center-right included, are keen on exploiting anti-American populist sentiment.

i mean, as far as i can tell Chile is very open with us economically, but just because the current Socialist president has not gone on a wholesale crusade against neoliberalism doesn't mean he hasn't been pursuing leftist policies that promote general welfare and more income equality. J. Parker Stone 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Travels

Hello, I took out the following paragraph for four reasons:

1. The paragraph wasn't well-written. 2. It seemed to be purporting gossip rather than fact. 3. Its information was cited from an obviously biased website. 4. The questionable website was even advertised in the text, which I believe is against WP guidelines.

Here is the paragraph:

"Morales, it is important to note here, has also been caught traveling twice to Libya for meetings with Muammar Gaddafi. Agents from Colombia's FARC rebels and former Shining Path guerrillas from Peru have also been tied to Morales and his MAS movement (see www.narcoguerrilla.com for more information)."

I just rewrote it, SqueakBox 19:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to still have to question the use of that source and ask that it be taken out until you can get something more than what looks like right-winged propaganda to back up this obviously-biased statement. I mean, I'm sure I can find a website that says President Bush is in league with the Jews to take over the world, but that doesn't mean its true! The website you source for the controversial information it provides has no business being in the opening statement of the article and negates any possibility of taking the article's NPOV seriously.

(Please sign with ~~~~. I disagree about the site, which I did not place here. It looks okay to me, not comparable with conspiracy theory stuff. Just because something is right wing doesn't make it wrong, SqueakBox 19:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 19:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if you look at the site, and WHOIS its domain registration, you can find no information about who is putting the speculation up there. Furthermore, they specifically hired a gobetween (Domain by Proxy, Inc.) so they wouldn't have to put up who they were. If they feel no need to source their webpages for the accusations that they make, then one would hope they would at least put their names behind it, but they don't. Therefore, maybe there can be other, more credible sources used instead of an obviously malicious and perhaps even misleading website such as www.narcoguerrilla.com. For the time being, I will continue to advocate for its removal. Any comments? Thanks for the tilde advice. Hastalavictoria 19:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


From the links on the left hand side they may be related to utexas.edu. It links back to this article. Can't see where it confirms data included in the section. Other comments would be appreciated, SqueakBox 22:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page is obviously garbage. The idea that the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the Shining Path are influencing Bolivian politics today is absurd. --Descendall 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Aspirations

This page will probably need some rewriting very soon. Morales is widely expected to win a plurality in the elections today, but not gain a majority. In this situation, I believe that the Congress, in which Morales' foes dominate, chooses the president. However, his opponant has apparantly said that he does not want to be chosen if he is beaten by Morales in the election. I would assume that if Morales wins a plurality but a right-winger is chosen by Congress, there would be massive protests and strikes in La Paz, and leftist bastions liks El Alto would erupt in rebellion again. I don't know nearly enough about the situation or the Constitution of Boliva to write this stuff up, though. Viajero is usually very knowledgeable about these things, perhaps he could help out?

Also, it might be good to put the current event thing on this page, seeing as the elections are today. --Descendall 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that there is no mention of today's election on Elections in Bolivia. --Descendall 19:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I am keeping an eye on this article and will help out where possible. --Viajero | Talk 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Web reference #10, discussing support from Aznar, is misleading since it comes from non-objetive journalists. Must be edited or look for an spanish newspaper reference -- Isradelacon

[edit] First Indian President

Is he the first Indian President in Bolivia? If so, that's something that should be mentioned. --Revolución (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He is not, but he will be if he assumes office. I have taken note of this. --Bletch 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It now says he would be the first president "of indigenous origins". That makes it sound (to me) like nobody with any indigenous ancestry has ever been a head of state in Latin America. DanKeshet 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC in South America, the term indigeno/indigena (sp?) is often used to describe people of full indigenous origins, as opposed to mestizos (mixed Indian/European) ancestry. I will say that I'm not 100% satisfied with the phrasing either; one cannot expect that everybody going to that page will be aware of that distinction. Any ideas? --Bletch 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I would just get rid of origins: "he is the only indigenous President in...". Origins is what makes it sound like ancestry rather than current ethnic identification. DanKeshet 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the fact that he is by genetic origin Aymara is what is important. He is one of the few leaders in the world not descended from the European or Oriental royalty. This is a precedent for the Aymara and other indigenous groups in the America.
Not really a precedent for 'other indigenous groups' because Alejandro Toledo from Peru is also an actual inka's descendant Isradelacon


Alejandro toledo is most definatly mestizo calling himself the "cholo from harvard". I agree that Evos indigenous status is about more than bloodlines but about cultural identification and practice, he speaks fluent Quechua and Aymara.24.69.65.202 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evo Morales is actually a mestizo, just like Toledo.


Saying that Morales is the first indigenous President is misleading, probably inaccurate (depending on the interpretation of "indigenous" and "mestizo") and hardly verifiable. First of all his last name is of Spanish origin and since he doesn't come from a reservation or some sort of endogamous community, it is unlikely that he is of "pure" indigenous descent. Second, as was stated before, there have been several "mestizo" presidents in Latin America before him, one of such examples being president Toledo from Peru (who is probably no less "indigenous" than Morales). Finally, and this addresses the "cultural heritage" point of view. Morales has a mestizo cultural heritage, i.e., he not only speaks some quechua and practices indigenous rituals but also speaks spanish, plays soccer, was probably was baptized, etc. I'd like to add that he always speaks in spanish during speeches and, except for a few words or lines perhaps, he doesn't use native languages (quechua or aymara) in rallies or gatherings, which makes me think he's not fluent in them, in opposition to what was stated before.

--Jamestronic, may 2008

[edit] President-Elect

Can we call him the "president-elect" yet? --12.217.121.245 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, same as Manuel Zelaya, SqueakBox 14:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He is the President Elect. He won over 54% of the tallied votes, however votes from the rural areas which account for about 7% of the national total have yet to be officially recorded. Mr Morales is extremely popular with the rural voters and its almost sure he will get the 7%. His opponent already called him to congratulate him and publically conceded defeat. December 24, 2005 - 02:16 AM


[edit] Source for quote

"Morales credited the U.S. ambassador for the success of MAS: 'Every statement [Rocha] made against us helped us to grow and awaken the conscience of the people.'" [1] - as far as I can tell, this is the source story for this quote. If anybody knows otherwise, please fix this. Thanks. - 30 december 2005

[edit] Photo

Could we use a picture that makes him look respectable and dignified? There are plenty of photos like that. They are not the exception. After all the George W. Bush article doesn't use the "dubya-the-chimpanzee-look-alike" picture either.

--69.158.24.254 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the fact that the photos show him dressed casually, and often in a multi-coloured sweater, you might like to take a look at this BBC report. (Come to think of it, something on this subject could be put into the article - or is that too trivial?) Vilcxjo 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I think that there are better photos of the guy, but the chompa sports him, and is symbolic of his devotion to humankind, the common man, and his ancestral lineage. European-controlled Illuminati pawns like to dress in suits with ties to symbolise Masonic affiliation and the 'noose' around their neck. Bush looks like an idiot even in his most 'dignified' photos. I like the fact that Evo Morales looks human in his photographs. I am not impressed by suits and other Illuminati symbolism.

OK, first of all that's an unsigned comment, I have no idea who you are. Secondly, "suits and other Illuminati symbolism". OK. Prove to me that wearing suits are a symbol of the "Illuminati" and I will accept it. Otherwise, try to use constructive comments. The first sentence was fine (except I assume you meant "suits" and not "sports"): you didn't need to spoil it with the rubbish about the Illuminati.

WikiReaderer 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Vilcxjo comment/Jumper

His jumper has become a massive symbol of him and is selling all across Bolivia, I think a section on it should be created. --Horses In The Sky 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree and have mentioned the jumper in the opening and then in the ttransfer of powers section. I don't believe this needs a separate section but its mention in the opening is fully justified. Both the jersey and the lack of tie today are very important facets of Morales and have attracted a huge amount of attention, SqueakBox 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I think that having an Iconic Jumper section might provide greater background and information? I hope that the section is alright. Also, I heavily borrowed and moved SqueakBox's text from the transfer of powers section. Best. --akds 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, SqueakBox 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Leaders in America

I was wondering... Apart from Evo Morales and Benito Juárez, how many other indigenous people have become leaders of their nations in the American continent? Could we develop an article with a list of such leaders? Perhaps not only presidents, but also state governors... or it could be general, listing leaders from indigenous people anywhere in the world for countries that were formerly colonies of another (usually European) country... I have searched my best, but found no other indigenous presidents than Morales and Juárez... am I sadly wright or have I not searched well enough? TrollDeBatalla

I also support this article. I have been extremely curious to know how many people of indigenous have risen to power in the Americas! Btw Hugo Chavez is not considered indigenous he is mixed african, european, and indigenous descent. But there could also be a list of which leaders claim some indigenous ancestry. --69.216.143.218 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweater image

Alas, with the wholesale removal of images of uncertain status, we are left with no picture of Morales in his characteristic striped chompa. (I particularly liked the one of him with King Juan Carlos, in view of the snooty remarks of the Spanish media.) Can anyone find one which we can use? It strikes me as a wonderful illustration of the nature of the man, far more than mere words can convey. Vilcxjo 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morales indigenous status

Re wrote :'the country's self-proclaimed "first Amerindian president". He has claimed to be the first indigenous person to lead the nation of Bolivia as its head of state in over 500 years since the Spanish Conquest.' A.) No citation for this self-proclamation. B.) Unless someone can point out a significant differance between self-proclamation and claiming, it's redundant. C.) It suggests that Morales is masquerading as indigenous, which is an odd claim to be making without substantiation.

Also removed the following sentence, as his ethnicity and wardrobe are of peripheral to the primary cause for interest in Evo, which is his policies. The sentence trivialized its subject. Also, the bit about "aroused huge interest" is non-encyclopedic and, frankly, lacks gravitas.

Durito 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweater, again : is this subsection really necessary?

I moved to the talk page (here) this subsection, titled "iconic sweater":

"Having aroused much interest in his choice of dress after being pictured in his striped sweater with world leaders during his world tour, there was speculation that he would wear it to the official inauguration, where he actually dressed in a white shirt without tie (itself unheard of in Latin America in modern times for a head of state at their own inauguration) and a black jacket that was not a part of a conventional suit. The sweater (actually an alpaca-wool chompa, of the English word jumper) has since become a symbol of him and is selling all across Bolivia. The popularity and recognition of the sweater has led many to speculate and philosophize over its significance, inspiring some to call it a protest “metaphorically knit of [Bolivia’s] basic unsatisfied needs”, with others comparing it to “the uniform of les sans culottes of the French Revolution.” However, it has also been subject to ridicule and reportedly left various “members of Spanish press and society appalled” after Morales appeared in the sweater with King Juan Carlos. [2] [3]."

I do not believe it is appropriate in an encyclopedia, and is even a bit depreciative. Is there a subsection titled "cowboy hat" under George W. Bush's entry? I therefore removed it, submitting it to debate on this page (please wait for the debate to take place before reverting this move). It is simple noise (or word pollution, if you prefer). Beside, such anecdotes tend to be quickly outdated and lose any kind of (little) interest it might have presented at some time. The comparison to the "sans culottes" is as silly, IMO, as it "been subject to ridicule". If I take the time to argue this point, it is because I also believe it is a way of diverting attention from the really important issues, such as natural gas ones (see the past Bolivian Gas War which led to his election in the first place). Tazmaniacs 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To have an entire section on it may well be OTT. But I think complete removal of it is equally mistaken. There is an existing section headed "Style", in which a (somewhat foreshortened) reference to the chompa would be entirely appropriate. Underlying this is the question of whether the only thing of significance about a national leader is his policies, rather than his personal nature – or (more accurately) whether it is possible/meaningful to separate them out, as if they were two entirely unconnected aspects of the one individual. It would, IMO, be a dangerous oversimplification to regard EM's attitude to his own ethnicity as being of marginal (at best) relevance to his political significance. His choice of attire, in defiance of convention, is part of his conscious decision to make a point of his ethnic identity, and hence a part of his political identity. Vilĉjo 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps the original text over-emphasized the subject. I still, however, feel it deserves some mention in the entry (for reasons stated above and previously). I've put a truncated version of text in the Style subsection. Finally, the text is not (and was not) meant to denigrate Evo. --akds 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some observations

One: Evo Morales is NOT an indian, although now it's useful for him to pass for one, he's a halfbreed, a mestizo. In spanish, the word 'mestizo' doesn't have the demeaning undertone that 'halfbreed' has in English, it's plainly descriptive, and accepted as such. Two: Although bolivian andean natives do have a relationship with the coca leaf, and it does have 'medical uses' (I can't come up with a better expression now, sorry), all the needs for legal consumption could be satisfied with much fewer cultivation fields. The Coca growers of Chapare know that their produce goes to drug production, they just don't care, and are in cahoots with them. But they know that the international community wouldn't back them up if they confess that. It's all a show, and a show for the international community and their NGO's. Although a study proving this could easily dismissed as biased, mentioning that the coca grown in the country exceeds by far the demand for it, SHOULD BE POINTED OUT. It must be done. (I'm Ipetiset). 01:05, 2 May 2006.

The Wikipedia isn't a place to present your own beliefs, so it's a bit of a waste of time trying to saying someone 'should' do something here, nor is the Wikipedia a place to make weird comments about Cuba (as you did on the Cuba talk page). You can put your criticisms about coca production potentially overexceeding domestic demand in the article, but you can't say 'someone should do this' or 'farmers know the real truth' and such like, because that makes this article biased. Also, a better phrase than halfbreed in English, a word that sounds exceptionally racist, is 'mixed ethnicity'. Hauser 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this because it is not NPOV and was in the wrong section. "Evo Morales and MAS do not have a clear program; it is clear what he is against (he is a rousing speaker) but less obvious what his alternative proposal is. (See Ideology below.) In any case,"--YellowLeftHand 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw "mestizo" does not translate to "halfbreed" It is translated to "mixed". Do you have proof that he is Mestizo?
Bolivia is a perfect example of the atrocious degree of USA-interference with other countries. So what if Coca-production exceeds the 'demand', according to your uncited beliefs. The people of Tawantinsuyu have grown Coca as THE plant of their culture for hundreds of years, and it goes back thousands of years before that era, as well. Also, hello, the CIA have been caught red-handed as the LARGEST distributor of cocaine in the world, as well as a distributor of opium. Just look at the Mena, Arkansas incidents, or the several DEA officers like Cele Castillo who have come out with statements about how the USA government sells drugs and controls the drug trade in the Americas and elsewhere. If you're going to demonise Evo, you might as well also make mention of the thousand-fold worse crimes of the United State of America. I'm really getting tired of uninformed North Americans and Europeans (who get nearly all of their information from the heavily distorted and William Randolph Hearst-esque television news) going around flaunting their stupid opinions as though they mean anything. Get a clue--do some research for once. Matthew A.J.י.B. 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The coca leaf is part of their culture and has been for hundreds of years. However, the coca leaf they used was the one grown in the Yungas region, the one with the shorter leaf and softer stem. The one grown in the Chapare can not be used for any ritual or chewed by indigenous people since its leaves are too large and its stem is too hard to chew. In the Chapare region, the region where Evo Morales started his political career, the coca was introduced in the late 40's and early 50's to satisfy the demand of drug traffickers and taking advantage of the fact that many miners had been left without a job in the highlands. Therefore practically all of the coca produced in the Chapare region, basically all of the coca which exceeds the internal market demand, is used for cocaine.

Sorry but Evo Morales is an aymara pure descendent if you want a PURE Inca South American Indian descendent .The ayamaras with the quechuas were the two main Nations of the Inca Empire.And mestizo or mixed ethnicity is Alejandro Toledo, in Peru they call him cholo.

If he was an aymara pure descendent his lastname would not be MORALES, a spanish surname.

[edit] Coca NPOV

The treatment given in the coca sub-section doesn't seem too even-handed. The BBC, a source that is probably not biased strongly in favor of the American point of view, states some things that are more relevant than the fact that Princess Anne drank coca tea, yet detract from the pro-coca argument. This fact, for instance, seems far more pertinent: "The new Bolivian administration has called for a 1961 UN convention which declares coca an illegal narcotic to be scrapped, allowing it to export coca-based products which could include tea bags, soap, shampoo, biscuits, wine, and even diet pills." Source: [[4]]

I increased the amount of info on this please review and comment again if there is still a problem.--Wowaconia 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic Kim Jong Il

He reminds me of a latin-American version of Kim Jong Il. Maybe that's just me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parp555 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I confirm: that's just you. Hugo Dufort 02:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no original research. Or being an asshole, for that matter. 129.107.46.138 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be the stupidest thing I have heard this year. You remind me of a mentally challenged child. Maybe that's just me. Or maybe I could make a stupid statement like "Evo Morales reminds me of Jesus. Maybe that's just me. How about "I remind myself of God. Maybe that's just me." Because you said it, doesn't mean that anyone cares. In fact, someone please delete everything I just said, because there is no reason for it to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomy

The "autonomic movement" lead by 6 Governors (Prefectos) of the opposition does not represent the general view of the population. Recently, a referendum was held in which autonomic systems would be applied in those department where this choice was the most voted. However, leaders of the opposition have strongly resist this results and tried to turn them against the government. The people, in general, hopes for a better distribution of wealth and services (education, health, justice) more independent from the central government. This idea, was turn into a more radical interpretation of autonomy, by those Governors from the eastern part of the country, crying out even the word "Independence!". This have shed light on the real intentions of this leaders and a higher approval to Evo Morales' policies by the common people. Further, only 4 departments have voted "yes" to autonomy, whereas the rest voted "no". In despite of those results, two Governors, going against the law of the referendum, intended to ignore this result forcing the people of those department to ask for their demission with march and big street meetings. This events unveiled the lack of authority of the Cochabamba's Governor, who immediately started a trip to US and several countries of Europe abandoning his charge in despite of the delicate situation of the city. Reyes Villa (Cochambamba's governor) decided that the best policy is to talk against "Evo Morales' authoritarianism" rather than admitting his responsibilities on riots that ended the life of several citizens. I am sure that this is something that should be clearly depicted in order to avoid the manipulation of people's opinion with some other non-clear intentions. Hangyakusha 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Rebelde

[edit] Efforts of USA to eradicate Coca?

"Morales is the leader of Bolivia's cocalero movement – a loose federation of coca leaf-growing campesinos who are resisting the efforts of the United States government to eradicate coca in the province of Chapare in southeastern Bolivia". I never heard such a thing before. On the contrary, I heard that Mr Morales is a great President, loved by everyone in his country. This strange new sounds like a typicial fake from USA propaganda towards all politicians refusing to be their yes-men. But the most wondering thing is how you can easily write- as it was normal - that USA is trying to eradicate something from an other sovereign state! I heard that Americans lost every civil education and every respect for law and order different from theirs, but I never suspected that this way of thinking went so far. So, remember that Bolivia is a sovereign state and USA has no right to interfere in its internal matters, ok? This is basic in International law. I know that Bush overthrew every law, every right and every International diplomacy, but he will surely reply to a USA or International tribunal as soon as people will come back to normal civil relations. Please, respect the neutrality of Wikipedia, not reporting American propaganda and not showing political peoples under a right-wing point of view. Val

1st the article shows that Morales gained his political support by organizing coca growers for the legal production of coca for such things as tea. This movement grew in opposition to the Bolivian government under President Hugo Banzer that looked as if it wanted to eradicate all coca. Bolivian President Banzer was not forced to do this by the US but it was a condition that he act against the illegal growth of coca (the kind Morales is likewise against) for cocaine production if he wanted to receive grants from the US Federal government. Morales and his supporters said Banzer and those who followed him in the office where going too far and destroying legal coca growing alongside the illegal. Even as president, Morales continues to be the head of this union of coca growers advocating expanded legal consumption of coca. There is no evidence the US did anything to impede a soverign state's decison, Banzer could have said that the grant was not worth endangering the legal production of coca for teas and such - he chose to pursue the grant money. All this information is already in the article, please read it in its entirity before claiming Wikipedia is making propaganda. If you have other questions that would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read the whole article, feel free to express them here.--Wowaconia 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolivian Information Forum

I think this website merits an external link - it is not a blog, it is a site that has background information about Bolivia and hosts reports, bulletins and news items from reputable sources like Oxfam and the UK NGO Christian Aid. Also, it is written by experts on Bolivia - from the homepage: "Most of the BIF's founding members have expertise in and direct experience of Bolivia or Latin America in general. All members participate in a personal capacity.

The BIF currently produces a regular bulletin which is written by experts in Bolivia and in the UK and also includes frequent guest contributions from practitioners and reporters on development and human rights issues."

Also the page about Evo Morales is a referenced article, not a blog. Pexise 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


The fact that someone declares themself an expert on their website does not mean that they are. Your case would be bolstered if you could find out who their members are, what their qualifications are and which ones wrote any of the information you wish to provide a link to.

The page you say is an article http://www.boliviainfoforum.org.uk/inside-page.asp?section=3&page=31 and wish to include in the External links segment has no author listed, it offers no quotations of referrences on the page and in a note tacked on the bottom says "Sources : this account borrows from the book by Pablo Stefanoni and Hervé Do Alto: 'Evo Morales de la coca al Palacio' (La Paz: Malatesta, 2006)]" not only is it impossible to tell which parts were from the book and which parts the unnamed author or authors of the article invented, but with only this as a reference it is preferrable to find the book and use that as a legitimate referrence rather than this dubious article.--Wowaconia 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wowaconia - please assume good WP:FAITH, I am not trying to sabotage this article or promote some sort of blog. I find this website useful because of its background information and also the news and bulletins on the website. I think it is a credible source because it uses material from well established international organisations such as Oxfam: [5] and well established authors and regional experts such as Hugh O'Shaughnessy (See article 5 in this bulletin) [6]. It might be worth having a good look at the website and the information that's on it, I'm sure you'll see that it's not some "invented" website and that the sections are all well researched, using good sources (for example UNDP on the social statistics section). Let me know what you think. Pexise 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article that you originaly placed in the external links segment has no claim of authorship at all by anyone. The fact that they copied an Oxfam America website article and posted it on their own site does not mean that they are associated with that group, there is not even a disclaimer showing that they received official permission from Oxfam to use the article. If you wish to place a link to the Oxfam article then it would be preferrable to link to the real Oxfam site directly instead of this reprint. The forum site says "Most of BIF's founding members have expertise in and direct experience of Bolivia or Latin America in general." Even with this claim there are no names of these suppossed experts and no list of current members, even if we assumed that they weren't just declaring their founders experts, we don't know if those people are still around. They say there site was begun in 2006 and then had to be relaunched in May 2007 so are their re-launcers as supposedly expert as their founders?

They call themselves "a group of people interested in the country and keen to make information about recent political and social developments in Bolivia more easily available to a UK-based audience." They are not a news service, they merely reprint other people's stories, so they are closer to a blog then they are to the Associated Press. Hugh O'Shaughnessy is a respected figure but we are not informed if he is a member of the group, if they are just reprinting a story of his, etc. There is no claim of affiliation whatsoever. We know nothing about the forum except they claim at one time to have been founded by unkown experts and "they are keen" to spread information about Bolivia.--Wowaconia 12:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wowaconia - once again, I ask you to assume good faith. I think it is reasonable to assume that the claim on the site that the founder members are 'experts' should be accepted, and that it is quite far fetched to think that founder members would disappear after a year of the organisation's activity. Also, please look on the contact us page where you will see the name of Dr Cath Collins as the main point of contact for the organisation. Google her - I think you will agree that she qualifies as an 'expert'. (Pexise)


I think you are mistaken in your expansive definition of the good faith guidelines of wikipedia. Good faith is to be given to other editors that even if you disagree with them you should not assume that they are out to wreck the project. You should avoid insulting them, being rude, or edit warring. Are you saying that I have been rude to you? The wikipedia guidelines do not call on editors to not be skeptical of external self-published websites in fact they demand a high level of skepticism. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#SELF
(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability
(emphasis added) “Sources of dubious reliability: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).”
If you can cite where I have been rude to you please do so. If not Please stop accusing me of bad faith, accusing others of bad faith without cause is defined by wikipedia as bad faith in itself see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith
If you where unfamiliar with the fact that wikipedia's guidelines about good faith do not call on editors to drop their skeptism on external third party self-published sources than please stop using the term.
Again Dr Cath Collins may be the contact person for the group, but the doctor does not in anyway lay claim to any authorship to anything on the site. If they actually listed who wrote their articles then you would have a more convincing arguement. How can they claim that their articles were authored by experts when they make no claim of authorship at all?--Wowaconia 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When I asked you to assume good faith, I was actually referring to the general principle of WP:FAITH which is that: "In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." You seem to be assuming that I am in some way trying to damage this article, when in fact I am trying to improve the article by adding a link to a website which is a useful source of information. Regarding authorship, the website does not claim to be a blog, or a self published website, it claims to be the website of an organisation which provides information about Bolivia. I am happy to believe this claim. According to your criteria, the information should have a poor reputation for fact checking. Can you point to a single factual error on the website, or in any of the material on the website? (Pexise)

Where have I suggested you are out to harm the project? I have merely been pointing out that the external link you wish to add does not fall within Wikipeida standards. I too looked at the forum's website in its entirety and the only name they list anywhere is Dr Cath Collins I don't subscribe to their Bulletin as it seems you do, and even that had only one additional name. So I applaud you in your ability to have found the only two names that the forum even offers. They list no editorial staff, no oversight committee, no membership list, no list of authors, no founding members, nothing but the contact person and they also accredit a single article in their latest copy of a bulletin you have to sign up to receive. I don't call myself an expert on Bolivia (or anywhere else for that matter) and that is why wikipedia would not link any external pages that I might create because Wikipedia's standards call for experts - so it is not a question whether I as a non-expert can find an error in a self-published external website on Bolivia, but if the authors of that website are actually recognized as experts. As it is, they are not even recognizable because they don't state their names.--Wowaconia 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you email the organization if you are unsure about their claim that their material is written by experts? If their response is inadequate, I will concede that the site does not qualify for a link. Pexise 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I? Becuase I'm not the one arguing they're a reliable expert source.--Wowaconia 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - you're the one arguing that their claim to be experts is false. I would assume this to be true unless other evidence is provided. If you email them and they are unable to substantiate this claim, I will accept that they are lying in their claim. I just assume that if they say they are experts, then they are - otherwise why would they make the claim? Pexise 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In accord with Wikipedia’s standards the burden of evidence falls not upon me contesting the addition of a link to the forum but upon you who wish to add said link. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I repeat that I do not think you are in any way trying to hurt the project by proposing said link but I continue to point out that the forum is not a reliable source as per the policies of Wikipedia and therefor is not worthy of any links or mentions on any page that is not specifically about the forum itself (and I doubt that the site is notable enough to merit its own wiki-article). I point out again that the site lists no editorial staff at all, which makes it unsuitable according to WP:V#Questionable_sources which says “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.”--Wowaconia 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd be quite happy to write to them, but I'm not sure whether you'd be satisfied with me posting their response, hence my suggestion that you send them an email. Pexise 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The latest edition of the Bolivia Information Forum Bulletin features an article by Steve Davison, Joint Chair of the Unite Union. Unite is the biggest trade union in the UK.
Experts so far established as writing for the Bolivia Information Forum: Hugh O'Shaughnessy, renowned Latin American journalist and author; Dr Cath Collins, Research Fellow on Latin America at Chatham House; Steve Davison, Joint Chair of Unite the Union. I'm sorry, but is this not enough to establish the site as reliable? Pexise 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Davison a member of the forum or are they just reprinting a piece of his? So far the only member to be named is Collins if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't seem to me that they met the qualifications, but I welcome the opinion of other wiki-editors on this. User:Pexise, I salute your continued perseverance on this. If other editors do not weigh in, I think you deserve to raise the issue in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Wowaconia 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article by Davison: "Steve Davison shares his impressions of the visit with BIF Bulletin" - he is contributing specifically to the bulletin, so obviously is involved or friendly with the Forum. Pexise 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Bolivia Information Forum features on the Eldis website [7] the knowledge database of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at Sussex University, one of the word's leading development studies research centres, based in the UK. Pexise 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This website seems at best a borderline case. Since the contested source for this article is a particular page on the website, which helpfully lists its own source, which itself sounds like the kind of academic publication Wikipedia editors are more comfortable with, why not check it out and cite it? Llajwa 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually looked at that book, btw -- one of the authors is an Argentine sociologist, I think -- it seems like a good book. Llajwa 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the use of the website as a source for a section in the article, I have suggested that it is a useful external link for English language information about Evo Morales and Bolivia in general. The website is recognised and cited by the Institute of Development Studies, I think that qualifies it as reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Pexise 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A week has now passed since I pointed out that the Forum is referenced by IDS and there has been no comment objecting to the site's inclusion. I therfore propose that I add the site as an external link. If there is still no objection in the next 24 hours I will add the site. Pexise 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of doing that you should follow the Wikipedia:Requests for comment criteria. Your certainty that the site mets the qualifications for inclusion appears to be equal to my feeling that it fails to do so. Following the Wikipedia:Requests for comment should call other editors to weigh in and then we can go with the consensus that results from that.--Wowaconia 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomy criticisms

Suggest removal of unsourced and badly written last paragraph in the criticism section about autonomies. Pexise 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, that whole segment was inserted by unsigned editor 200.119.212.32 on 14:41, 30 April 2007 and should have been deleted the same day. As its was original research, unreferrenced claims, and read like a POV editorial I deleted it in accord with Wikipedia guidelines.--Wowaconia 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The unreferenced figure of "up to one million" for the January 2007 demonstration against Morales in Santa Cruz, a city of roughly 1.5 million seems dubious, even accounting for out of city arrivals.

Telesphorus (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Telesphorus

Actually it is possible. According to wikipedia the city, according to a 2006 estimate, has 1,528,683 habitants. The entire department, again according to the wikipedia article, had 2,433,602 people living in the department in the year 2005. Due to a great wave of internal migration, my personal and unscientific guess is that the population has increased by at least 250,000, although obviously I can not corroborate this. However, this so called "march" was given the name of "Cabildo del Millon" because supposedly a million people attended. Although in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, there is an article which mentions that an estimate was made of 902,000 people present in this march in favor of autonomy and against the government led by Evo Morales. Jaime morijo (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Daily Show

First President to be interviewed by John Stewart? Catchpole 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think JS has also interviewed President Musharaf of Pakistan. However, a link to the DS could be included in the article, possibly also a section in the article (as it is noteworthy from an english language point of view). Pexise 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Controversy

Could the Criticism and Controversy sections be merged? They don't seem to be discussing separate categories of things, and the Criticisms section as it stands covers only one subject.

WikiReaderer 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) --igordebraga ≠ 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous claim

The more I look at this section the more ridiculous it appears - Evo Morales is the first pure Aymara president, saying that former presidents were Amerindians is just plain silly, can someone either improve the 'Claims to Amerinidian Primacy' section or it will have to go as it is highly dubious. Pexise 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree that the title for the sub-section was bulky and oddly worded, so I changed it. Months ago people kept inserting claims that he was not the first Ameri-Indian president, despite all the reliable news sources I cited that said so. Finally someone posted a sentence in the intro that showed what all the controversy was about "This claim has created controversy,[5] however, due to the number of mestizo presidents who came before him.[6]" Apparently it is a question of how much heritage it takes to be called an Ameri-Indian, it is said that previous presidents had at least half of their genetics from Ameri-Indian ancestors but Evo has 100% of his genetics from Ameri-Indians. So some people feel that declaring Evo the first Ameri-Indian President is the same as declaring previous Presidents "half-bloods" who can't really lay claim to their own ancestry. The whole sub-section could use more sources, but it seems worthy of mention as far as I can tell.--Wowaconia 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the paragraph still needs some work, at the moment the sentence reads: "Evo Morales has declared himself the first Amerindian president, a controversial claim due to the amerindian heritages of such prior Bolivian presidents as Mariano Melgarejo (1864), Carlos Quintanilla (1939), René Barrientos (1964), Juan José Torres (1976), Luis García Meza (1980), and Celso Torrelio Villa (1981)." As you say, these are all mestizo presidents, mestizo meaning mixed race.
This sentence would make no sense if it began "Evo Morales declared himself the first pure amerindian president". It would only make sense if it read "Evo Morales has declared himself the first president with an Amerindian heritage" which is certainly not the case. Also, why have those selected presidents been singled out as the ones that are supposed to be Amerindians? Nearly all of presidents prior to Morales (and there were humdreds) were mestizo and therefore had an Amerindian heritage. I mean look at the picture of this guy: Mariano Melgarejo - not only does he look nothing like an Amerindian, he also gave away vast swathes of indian territory to Brazil!
I'm sorry, but this section appears to completely misunderstand the demographics of Latin America, and it is also unsourced. The comments from Mario Vargas Llosa are noteworthy, but the start of this section needs to be changed. Pexise 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About this discussion and the question of whether there were previous presidents with an indigenous heritage, I would like to point out that Victor Hugo Cardenas, Vice President from 1993-1997 and of indigenous descent, has not been mentioned. I suggest adding the following lines to the end of the first parragraph: "In addition, Víctor Hugo Cárdenas, indigenous of Aymaran descent, was the Vice President of Bolivia from 1993 to 1997. He was the first indigenous politician to ever reach such high electoral office in Bolivia or South America." I think it is relevant to mention Victor Hugo in this respect. If no one has an objection I will add these sentences.ajfernandez

In response to the comment above saying that Mariano Melgarejo does not "look" like an Amerindian, I believe we should refrain from making such statements as they can easily be interpreted as racist. I do not think it is appropriate to judge whether someone comes from a certain ethnicity or not only by his appearance, specially in Latin America where centuries of "mestizaje" make the line between indigena and mestizo very blurry. I consider myself mestizo and would not like someone to tell me that I have no indigenous descent just because the color of my skin is not "brown" enough. Claims of ethnicity might be hard to prove, but if Evo Morales says he is indigenous, then we believe him, and if Mariano Melgarejo says he is of indigenous descent then why should we not believe him? It is another thing that you do not like him because of the Brazil issue, but that has nothing to do with his heritage. ajfernandez —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, this issue is getting really confused, I think we need to be clear about things:
1. Evo Morales has never claimed to be the first Bolivian president with an indigenous heritage - that would be plain ridiculous.
2. I have never said that any of the above mentioned ex-presidents are not mestizo, and by that rationale that they do not have an indigenous heritage.
3. I appreciate that the race issue in Latin America is complex, but a distinction can be made between mestizo and pure amerindian. Evo claims to be pure amerindian. Mariano Melgarejo is clearly not pure amerindian, he is mestizo.
Also, the mention of Victor Hugo Cardenas is noteworthy, but not sure that it belongs in this section. -- Pexise (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The title "Controversy" followed by..... "has declared himself the first Amerindian president, a CONTROVERSIAL claim etc. is itself imflamatory and void of any substance."

Yes! The above writer is correct in that EMA has never claimed to be the 1st Prez with pure Aymara blood or anything remotely suggestive of that. But what does not sit well with some in South America is the fact that in Bolivia, a country with a self-described majority indigenous population according to the last census, he IS the first to not only admit he is native but to proudly display and honor his native heritage, whereas the others who preceeded him and may have had native origins either hid it or assuaged the issue. This is precisely the difference with Victor Hugo Cardenas, who always claimed to be an intellectual and although accepting his Aymara heritage, it was Bolivian media and his running mate Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada who always presented him as "an Aymara".

Now, one of the threaders points out that the last name "Morales" or "Cardenas" for that matter, are of Spanish origin as though that was proof of a Castillan, Catalan or Basque great grandfather. Well, it is not so! Colonial-Native relations are complex always. As in many other parts of the continent, when we (natives in Bolivia) were enslaved (legally until 1952), very often all the pongos-slaves working for the owner were given HIS name automatically. I've met many north-american natives and blacks whose names are quite Anglociced and I wouldn't present that in itself as proof that they are mixed-blood. However, if the person presents him/herself as "Mixed" or "Black" or "Mohawk", I go with that and respect his right to self-identify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llatunka (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I'll be doing the GA review. Because this is such a long article with a history of discussion, I'd like to take some time to review that discussion and the article history. I'll be leaving detailed comments later (Monday), once I've had the chance to review everything in detail. --JayHenry (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

I'm terribly sorry to do this, but the {{fact}} tag does make this a "quick fail" situation. Those tags need to be fixed before an article can be nominated for GA. That said, this is a very difficult topic on which a lot of good work has done and you should be quite proud. World leaders are so often contentious that the articles are hopeless. This is coming along nicely; it is better than most of our world leader articles. Rather than just failing, I'd like to offer some pointers that may be worth considering going forward.

  • Images are quite good. Thank goodness for that Brazilian news agency that has released their photos under a Creative commons license! Image:Evo_Morales_and_Felix_Patzi.jpg and Image:Walter Chávez.jpg are the only fair use images. Do we think that these images are really needed? Now, I understand the neither image is easily replaceable. But does the image of Morales with his cabinet really tell us anything? Food for thought.
  • I don't want to do a sentence-by-sentence thing about the prose. I think it's okay for GA purposes. All articles could benefit from a copy edit.
  • Structure. The structure of this article needs some thought and revision. Why, for example, is the inauguration section out of chronological order? What is the difference between controversy and criticism? Better yet, could these sections instead be integrated to where the events arose in the chronology? A recent Featured Article on a fairly controversial political figure was Ronald Reagan. Could elements of that structure be applied here?
  • References. What's the story behind evomorales.net? Who produces that site? Is it a reliable source? (Just asking, because I don't know.) Also, there are some sources that aren't consistently formatted. Let's try to get accessdates on all web sources, language specified for all non-English sources, and make sure everything has its source stated.
  • The lead section could probably summarize more of the article. Because this is a long one, a four paragraph lead is probably appropriate. See WP:LEAD for some pointers.
  • Stability. You guys have done a good job of maintaining stability on a pretty difficult article. I commend you for that! That's the effort of diligent sourcing. To get this to GA standard, your big challenge will be sourcing the details about his ethnicity.

Hopefully these remarks provide some constructive guidance on how to move the article forward. I am very impressed with the work you've done on this difficult subject, and I hope you continue your quest to improve it. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to let me know. --JayHenry (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolivia's 1st Dictator?

Under President Morales' picture are the words 'Bolivia's 1st Dictator.' This is offensive and ridiculous, considering Bolivia has a long history of military juntas and dictators, and Morales is neither. Is this the work of a hacker? Can that be deleted?

Done. Pexise 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
De acuerdo. What should also be deleted is the following section added by someone with a very peculiar idea of what Wikipedia is. It reads as follows:

"In defense of Ponchos Rojos The writer of this article **MAYBE** lying. He does not know where was taken place the so called “dog tortures”. The name of the place it is not “wala chaca”. The correct name is “kala çhaca”, that means just “Bridge of stone”, from aymara language “kala”, ’stone’ and “chaca”, ‘bridge’. Second it was not a torture; it was just ritual to send a bad luck to the enemies. Third, he says that Ponchos rojos “proudly” show their arms “to members of the press”. Another lie. Ponchos Rojos never say that they don’t have arms. On the contrary they show them at the parades.

We support- I - different views of historical points, but please do so in a graceful and tangible way."

Ok, this is just plain ridiculous and does not make any sense. It should be deleted. Also, may I ask why someone deleted the section I added on Evo Morale's sentence by the constitutional tribunal for not paying child support? What could be a more legitimate source than the sentence itself. Is it because the sentence is in Spanish? Or is it because I need to back it up with a newspaper article? Because I can do that, so if someone could tell me if this is the case I will find an article describing what happened (which is already described in the sentence literaly). Please, I would appreciate some feedback. I believe this should be mentioned in the controversy section. The sub-section reads as follows:

" Constitutional Tribune Sentence for court ordered child support On June 23rd, 2004, Evo Morales was sentenced by the Bolivian justice for not paying child support to his son. As a congressman, at the time, he appealed to his parliamentary immunity to avoid payment. The mother, Marisol Peredo, appealed to the ultimate instance of the Bolivian legal system, the Constitutional Tribune, who declared that Evo Morales had acted against the "life and well being of his son, violating human rights in accordance with the San José de Costa Rica International Treaty". The amount accumulated was something more than USD 500 total. A court order was directed to deduct the monthly sum of 1,400 Bs for child support from his parliamentary income. Source: Constitutional Tribune Sentence http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gov.bo/resolucion9719.html" ajfernandez

certainly interesting fact about the person, but does this really constitute meaningful "controversy" in relation to the more political consequential (and certainly more debated) topics addressed in the section? Maybe there is some other place to put a short reference in the article? --David Barba (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)