Talk:2009 Peruvian political crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call for total rewrite[edit]

Guys - here's an analogy for you:

someone breaks into a woman's house and rapes her. The woman tries to defend herself, she scratches the assailant on his arms.

The way this article is currently written is like this:

a man finding himself in a house trying to do something that is natural to men, is attacked by a woman.

The land belongs to the indigenous peoples. Foreign oil companies have no legal basis in being there. The "civil disobedience" BS in your article was the locals putting up road blocks to stop oil equipment going in (i.e. stopping the rapist from entering the house). The declared policy of the indigenous before the corporate owned government clamped in (and which they stuck to) was to try defend these road blocks only with traditional weapons: bows, spears, arrows etc.

The death toll numbers are a joke. The starting figure for the number of killed indigenous is 250. The bodies were burned and/or thrown into rivers.

The word rape is not an overstatement.

The drilling is not done in an environmentally sound way and spills have since been destroying more and more of the part of the planet where the Amazon starts. In time, this environmental disaster will escalate throughout northern Brazil all the way to the Atlantic. In short, this is the beginning of the end of the Amazon as we know it.

There are safe and clean ways to extract oil. This is how it is successfully done in the US, for example. But why isn't this done?

In terms of the analogy: TPTB are not only interested in seeking sensual gratification from the victim, they also want to torture and kill the victim.

Why?

http://peruanista.blogspot.com/2009/06/peru-massacre-death-cover-up-videos-of.html

Repetitious paragraph[edit]

I deleted the last paragraph in the article because it repeated, almost word for word, the ending of the first paragraph. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening is a summary. Consider reading WP:LEDE before doing this again. --candle•wicke 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious explanation[edit]

"The real reasons for why local indigenous people have turned violent are still unclear", but an obvious explanation would be that unimaginable riches suddenly plopped into the jungle, so the primitive people living there want to take some. Of course that is WP:Original research, but maybe that thought could be explored and/or refuted with quotable sources. Art LaPella (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you : that's obviously the reason ; and we can't add it if no source tell it first. -__- Yug (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just like the US redskins. Greedy bastards! Nasty, too! (Huh?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.184.53 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral curse theory[edit]

"Such mineral exploitation is nowadays attacked by economists. In recent decades, researchers have shown a link between the abundance of natural resource (particularly minerals and oil) of a country and its poor growth performance, as well as poor governmental policies and institutions (corruption, weak governance, rent-seeking, plunder). This seems especially true for 'point source' minerals such as mine and oil fields, which produce high value for few people, as opposed to agricultural diffuse development which involves large quantities of workers forcing a share of benefits."

I found this paragraph interesting, so I read the footnoted research. The paper used as a reference here actually *disagrees* with the conclusion that an abundance of natural resources causes poor growth performance. In found this to be humorous, because obviously the paper -- as a reference -- was only used to back up the assertion that many economists believe this (the paper states this is in the opening). Yet the paper itself disputes this. According to the research therein, whether minerals are a curse or a boon has much to do with the government and culture.

Does anyone else not find this manipulative? It also seems out of place in the article, which is concerned with the crisis and not whether the existence of oil is bad for Peru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.154.114 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not agree to say that abundance of resources = poverty. But he does agree to say that abundance of resources increase the risk of local elites corruptions, etc. Thus, that fit this Peruvian case. So, even if I see and agree with your good summary ;) , the 'curse hypothesis' is ok in this article for me. Yug (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original concern that the language is manipulative.   Combining the perjorative term of "exploitation" with the ending that it is "attacked by economists", is manipulative.  Of course "exploitation" is negative and probably most economists would disapprove, but there is no support that what is occurring is exploitation nor is there any support that what is occurring is attacked by most economist,  which is what is strongly implied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.21.157 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Peru, unfortunately, is almost in perpetual political crisis. Is there a better name for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.207.243 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I would go with Peruvian Amazon exploitation crisis.--Sum (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

This article needs updating with recent information, see for example [1]. Greenman (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Its being proved that the violence left only 9 civilian casualties while the bulk of the victims where members of the peruvian police. Why is Wikipedia stating 50? 99.144.128.184 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Peruvian political crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Peruvian_political_crisis&oldid=1196548883"