Talk:Bolivia

Flag

Why does the flag keep changing? I think we should stick with the flag that doesn’t have the coat of arms 2603:8080:D03:89D4:340F:F850:71E5:C9C2 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? The CIA Factbook says the flag has the emblem. See this. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because most of the time the article shows the flag without the emblem. I think we should add the flag with the emblem and without the emblem 2603:8080:D03:89D4:340F:F850:71E5:C9C2 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that's impractical. We just need to establish WP:CONSENSUS based on reliable sources which to use. I've had a look around for sources. Britannica displays the one with the emblem and describes it as the flag in the text. In the caption it also says the emblem is added when displayed by the government. The CIA Factbook as I referred to above also has the version with the emblem. We need to stop this slow edit war. If consensus can't be established i this thread, I'll launch an WP:RFC. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am late for the discussion but would like to still give my input. It is important to distinguish between the civil flag and the state flag of Bolivia. According to Decreto Supremo N.º 27630, issued on 19 July 2004, the civil flag of Bolivia does not include the coat of arms. The version with the emblem is reserved for use by state institutions. This legal distinction is clear and should guide how the flag is represented in general articles about the country. To give an example of a similar situation, the Wikipedia article on Peru uses the civil flag without the coat of arms, even though Peru also has a state variant that includes it. That article applies the same principle we should follow here. Given this, I believe the most appropriate choice for the article is to use the plain tricolor flag without the emblem. Best regards. Ruditaly (Talk) 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa sorry, I forgot to tag you in my previous message. Ruditaly (Talk) 13:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a couple of things there. First, the decree you referenced is a WP:PRIMARY source so so we can only use it in a very limited way. It may tell us what the legal distinction between the 2 flags is in Bolivian law but it doesn't necessarily tell us which is the most appropriate flag for the WP infobox. I agree that a flag representing the country rather than the government probably does do that but that leads me to my second point. Which is that we should produce a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that makes that conclusion for us rather than we working it out. Otherwise it's WP:OR. For example when illustrating the "flag of Bolivia" do secondary sources generally show the "civil flag" rather than the government one? The fact that Britannica and CIA Factbook uses the government flag is of significance. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa Thank you for your message. I understand your point regarding the need for a WP:SECONDARY source to establish the most appropriate flag for the infobox. However, I believe there is already a compelling precedent within Wikipedia itself that can help guide this case. In the article about Peru, a situation very similar to Bolivia’s is handled by using the civil flag (without the coat of arms) in the infobox, even though Peru also has a state variant that includes it. This is in line with the legal distinction in both countries: the civil flag is the general national flag used by citizens, while the state variant is usually reserved for official government purposes.

Given this, it seems inconsistent for Bolivia’s article to display the government variant in the infobox while Peru’s uses the civil one. This inconsistency is further reinforced by the fact that the Bolivian law (Decreto Supremo N.º 27630) makes the same clear distinction.

Also, Britannica and the CIA Factbook may be valuable references, but I don’t think they should necessarily be treated as the deciding factor here, especially when Wikipedia’s own editorial practice for a similar case supports a different approach. Also, please tag me so I can get the notification of your response. Ruditaly (Talk) 11:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Britannica and the CIA Factbook aren't decisive - particularly as they're WP:TERTIARY. But it is indicative of the way sources look at it. However, no one has produced a survey of secondary sources to establish what should be used. This is what's needed, not WP:OR based on primary interpretation. Also, the Peru article sets no "precedent". That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Who's to say that the editors on that article have got it right? DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa I understand WP:OTHERCONTENT means other articles are not binding precedent, but when two countries such as Peru and Bolivia have an almost identical legal distinction between civil and state flags, using the civil flag in one infobox and the government variant in the other creates an internal consistency issue, which is serious. Consistency is good and important to keep across articles on comparable topics, so that we can maintain encyclopedic reliability and avoid confusing readers.

That's not the only inconsistency right now, caused by having the government flag in the infobox. There is the internal inconsistency within English Wikipedia itself, in which the civil flag of Bolivia is already used in the Bolivia template (country data), yet the main article infobox shows the government flag. I think we should strive to have the infobox and the country flag template reflect the same flag, right? Ruditaly (Talk) 18:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said, there's nothing to say that the Peru article has this right. Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. This really isn't going anywhere until someone generates more secondary sources to support one flag or the other. I've put Britannica and CIA Factbook on the table - to avoid this just being a WP:OR debate more secondary sources need to be put forward. DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be the State Flag as it used by the United Nations: Member States | United Nations LoneShadow42 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I was informed of the discussion through a message on my talk page. We should avoid misusing policy to complicate the topic. Ruditaly is correct to cite the Bolivian decree of 2004. Peru is a good point of comparison not for the sake of precedent but rather because it simply follows its own guidelines. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 09:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons I staed above. And MarshalN20 I strongly object to your implication that I'm either Wikilayering or "misusing policy" which I consider a WP:PA and is more reflective of your poor grasp of basic policy. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone fix the infobox, please? I made a big mistake 201.131.30.157 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jiffles1, can you fix the infobox, please? 201.131.30.157 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

@Monkbot, can you fix the infobox, please? I made a big mistake 201.131.30.157 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

info box needs a fix 2603:6010:FB00:BC6B:2085:58FF:FE4E:E67D (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Plurinational?

Anyone have insight on what nations constitute the Plurinational State under the new constitution? Are they the "Original indigenous governments"? The departments? Both? Or is it deliberately left undefined? Walkersam (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)