Skip to content

Analysis of the article

Primer matrimonio civil homosexual en Bolivia

Deutsche Welle · published on August 9, 2026

The most important

¿Qué pasó?

Good news for the community

It reports progress in rights.

Lo dice Turing al leer la nota.

¿Cómo lo contó el medio?

Very good

La nota usa un lenguaje respetuoso. Tiene perspectiva de género y de derechos: nombra la identidad de género, nombra a la población lgbtttiqanb+, enfoque de derechos humanos.

What Can I Do?

Qué hizo bien y qué hizo mal Leer la nota completa en dw.com PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

We keep proof that it existed as we read it · Reference number CC-2FT4-KFAG

On this page
  1. The most important
  2. Qué hizo bien y qué hizo mal
  3. Qué cambiar y qué hace bien
  4. ¿Es cierto lo que dice?
  5. See a mistake?
  6. Find out more

La nota, en resumen

Qué hizo bien y qué hizo mal

Lo resume Turing con su análisis de la nota. No copiamos la nota: abajo van solo las frases que lo explican y el enlace para leerla completa en Deutsche Welle.

Lo que hizo bien

  • Names gender identity
  • Names the LGBTTTIQANB+ population
  • Human rights approach
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists
  • Remembers their family and networks
  • Recognizes diverse families

Lo que hizo mal

Nada que corregir en su forma de nombrar.

Las frases que marcó Turing

Citas breves de la nota de Deutsche Welle, para explicar el análisis. Toca una marca para ver por qué.

Deutsche Welle dw.com

Primer matrimonio civil homosexual en Bolivia

By Noticias DW ·

abc What it does well «…» Direct quote

The collective transfeminista La Pesada Subversiva señaló por su parte que "fue … y el maltrato" of "autoridades y servidores públicos". The collective recordó que Banzer y Rocha solicitaron formalmente el matrimonio civil el 12 de octubre de 2022, con el antecedente de la opinión consultiva 24/17 emitida en 2017 por la Corte Interamericana of Derechos Humanos (CorteIDH), sobre "gender identity e igualdad y no discriminación a parejas del mismo sexo".

¿Quieres leer la nota completa? Está en la página de Deutsche Welle. Así también apoyas al medio que la publicó.

Leer en dw.com

Qué cambiar y qué hace bien

What it does well

Cómo se calculó el 100 está en Find out more.

Very good

  • With a gender perspective
  • Respectful

La nota usa un lenguaje respetuoso. Tiene perspectiva de género y de derechos: nombra la identidad de género, nombra a la población lgbtttiqanb+, enfoque de derechos humanos.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2026 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8.1 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism No flags
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 7 strengths
Inclusive language Not applicable
How we arrived at 100 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Gender and rights perspective+10
  3. Rating (between 0 and 100, with rounding and caps by category)100

Who does it listen to?

  • Authorities1 time
  • Family, friends and neighborsNo
  • Collectives and organizations3 times
  • ExpertsNo

What it does well

  • Names gender identity
  • Names the LGBTTTIQANB+ population
  • Human rights approach
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists
  • Remembers their family and networks
  • Recognizes diverse families
  • Cites Inter-American case law

¿Es cierto lo que dice?

¿Es cierto lo que dice la nota?

Turing compara las cifras, leyes y casos que menciona con lo que tenemos documentado. No decimos «falso»: si algo no cuadra, te enseñamos la evidencia.

Turing está comparando lo que afirma la nota con el Memorial, la sección Congresos y gobiernos y verificaciones publicadas…

See a mistake?

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Un dato está mal

Una persona, una fecha, una cifra o una postura que no corresponde. Escríbenos y lo revisamos.

Avisar de un dato

Soy del medio

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Find out more

Cómo se calculó el 100Lo que resta y lo que suma, la versión de Turing y si ayudó una IA

Se ve en «Qué cambiar y qué hace bien».

The proofCopia guardada con folio CC-2FT4-KFAG, su certificado y su valor legal

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-2FT4-KFAG

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 13, 2026, 17:05:19 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-2FT4-KFAG Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 13, 2026, 17:05:19 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive It is being saved; the link appears once we confirm it exists.
  5. 5. Monitoring It was still online on November 13, 2026. We check it from time to time.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Being saved on archive.org

Turing has already sent it. The link to the copy appears here as soon as we confirm in the archive.org index that it really exists (it may take a few hours).

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy 5f8867428bc078b65071ba1172b9f2a11be589b447c58e890bae235d369425c6

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

Note detailsMedium, dates, and saved versions

Data

Byline
Noticias DW
Published
August 9, 2026
Last analyzed
November 13, 2026
Turing
2.8.1 (the current one)
State
Online

Saved versions

  • 100Version 1 · November 13, 2026 · 324 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.