Talk:Uruguay River pulp mill dispute/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Uruguay River pulp mill dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I don't think this article represents a neutral POV of the cellulose plants conflict. I (Matiash) inserted a few paragraphs containg the Uruguayan point of view, which I believe makes it more balanced. Please feel free to discuss or alter them, but don't remove them outright without stating the reason. :) Matiash 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the original creator of the article and so far the only major contributor (until you came, that is). Being an Argentinian, I'm familiar mostly with the Argentine POV on the matter (and the truths, half-truths, lies, statistics and rumours spread by the Argentine media). I'm glad someone else from the other side of the river comes along to help. The only thing I will suggest right now is that you gather sources rather than writing from memory. Your last addition (about protestors covertly supported by Argentine interest groups) is admittedly a "suspicion" and "popular sentiment", and that makes it doubly important to have a source (someone actually stating that on the record). For example: "President Vázquez has compared the blockade suffered by Uruguay to the Cuban situation" [1].

I also think that the article's name should be changed to "Cellulose plant..." and maybe, in order to avoid another (minor) international conflict :), we could avoid saying "between A and U" or "between U and A" and just leave it at "... on the Uruguay River", though the other possibilities should be left as redirects. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I certainly did not want to imply that the article contained lies or was "deliberately" one-sided! It just seemed (to me) that the uruguayan position on the conflict was not clearly stated, and that the article would be improved by mentioning it. I very much appreciate your willingness to reach a version that we can both agree on (if only our politicians could do the same, heh). :)

About the "popular sentiment" quote, one of the most talked-about cases was writer Mario Benedetti who stated that the plants were installed in Uruguay because Governor Busti asked for an extremely large bribe, which Botnia executives didn't want to pay, see for example [2]. Since these comments seem inflammatory I though it would be a bit over the top to mention them in the article, but many references to them can be found.

I have absolutely no problem with the Argentina/Uruguay title though it would be a good idea to change "paper plant" to "cellulose plant". Matiash 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the article extremely baised, on uruguayan side, so i added explicitly that there was a treaty, and that Uruguay broke it.--Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Uruguay broke the Treaty is part of the issue under discussion (and the one that the ICJ will rule about). Since it is disputed, it would certainly be biased to assert that without qualifications. Matiash 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

ECF as best available technology

I have reinstated the previous version of that paragraph, since it is stated in the official IFC report [3] I don't think this is a POV issue, but please discuss it if you disagree.

Studies by independent university and international research centers have shown that wastewater from ECF bleaching is virtually free of toxic chlorinated compounds such as dioxin. Current scientific opinion is that there is no appreciable environmental difference between ECF and TCF bleaching technologies—and that both are environmentally friendly. The United States and the European Union have both adopted ECF bleaching as Best Available Technique. ECF-bleached pulp is preferred in the market, since it has greater fiber strength and higher yield and produces paper that can be recycled more easily. Over the last 10 years, ECF has become the dominant bleaching technique, while TCF holds only a minor, and declining market share.

General opposition?

The article says The people of Gualeguaychú, Entre Ríos, opposite Fray Bentos, along with many others in the province and elsewhere. This information is wrong, ei. All argentinean general opinion opposes, even the president (that formerly represents the goverment), that have given many speeches about it. Their opinions have been supported by the opposition. [4] [5] [6] [7] Gnudiego 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is first of all an issue in Gualeguaychú and its region. It has become national in scope with respect to political involvement and public awareness, but the conflict as such is local, and if the people in Gualeguaychú and Colón stopped protesting, the whole "national cause against pollution" would be reduced to nothing in days. The meeting in Gualeguaychú the other day was a fairly typical political meeting (demonstrators brought from other places, non-politicized locals pushed to the back, and politicians competing to look patriotic for the cameras). What I'd like to see is a serious national survey on the issue, that shows 1) how much the public knows about the plants, 2) what it thinks about them, and 3) what it thinks about the handling of this problem by the government. The same goes for Uruguay, of course. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is a national interest problem (a national matter) and its became a international matter at the moment that Uruguay violates the "Tratado Biltaral del Rio Uruguay"(1975). Argentina is acting in accord with this treaty, that indicates that in case one of the countries violates it, the other must resort to The Haya tribunal. [[8]] Gnudiego 15:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the supposed violation of the treaty is disputed. I mostly agree with Pablo Flores. Matiash 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest revert

I've just reverted a long string of additions by Boskyrules (talk · contribs). It was all extremely POV against Argentina and against the Argentine government, and for the official Uruguayan position; in part it was simply original research, and it included inaccurate information and bad-quality speculation found in The Economist about the reasons of ENCE's withdrawal. The interventionism of the Argentine government cannot affect a Spanish company in Uruguay, and Gualeguaychú's residents started considering new blocks only after the World Bank leaked a report showing approval for credits to finance Botnia which were under study.

As the main contributor to this article, I've tried to be neutral, even avoiding sources that might not be reputable or that presented extreme views. If you want to add a lot of controversial content, please don't break the flow of the article, and discuss here first. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So if that it is the case, who are you to claim that The Economist gives innacurate information and bad-quality speculation, your article take sources from Argentine media in 90 % of the sources. Do you believe that El Observador is the only paper in Uruguay? You have created an extremely biased and inaccurate article. If you look for neutral sources try to read the international media too, and please avoid or at least try to not full your article with Argentinian newspapers only.

Your opinion about the ICJ decission is pathetic, and the absolute lack of consideration of the civil and lawful attitudes from the Uy government opposed to the rather unpredictable way Argentina manages this (and I am being very polite) is just amazing.

So this is not your article anymore, belongs to the people who cares to read it, so I will make the amendments that I consider coming from a respectable source and if you do not agree discuss it first, if not I will ask this article to be completely removed from Wikipedia. Boskyrules —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boskyrules (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 October 2006.

Please sign using four tildes (~~~~) to get your username (linked) and the date.

It is not my opinion (or yours) that count. We need to report on what other sources say. I noticed that these edits are the first ones you've made in Wikipedia (at least as a registered user), so you may want to read about neutral point of view and original research, among others. Regardless of what you or I think about Argentina, Uruguay, the cellulose companies, the World Bank, etc., an encyclopedia article is not the place to denounce countries, governments, organizations or individuals. Some of the things you added ("President Kirchner ignores national and international law") are debatable; others ("... and encourages the Assembly antagonism.") are rather inaccurate. "Greenpeace refuses to take any further action due to the lack of scientific evidence" may be true, but it's unsourced. "From Uruguay overwhelming proof was presented..." is biased too. You need to stop taking sides. I may be using mostly Argentine sources, but I'm not echoing arguments of one of the sides; I'm trying to report on both sides equally. In fact I'm using as sources the three most important national Argentine newspapers (from right-wing, largely opposition La Nación, to popular Clarín, to left-wing Página/12), plus the BBC, the companies' websites, and the Facultad de Química del Uruguay.

I don't know many Uruguayan newspapers; if you can point me to a few of them (good national newspapers), please do so. I may be reporting on things that happen on the Argentine side and missing those that happen on the Uruguayan side, but I'm not in favour of any.

On The Economist, you quoted an entire paragraph, without context, devoted entirely to criticize the Argentine government for its economic interventionism (i.e. on ideological grounds). The quote noted that Argentina regulates and pressures private companies, which is true, but how Argentina simply cannot force a gigantic Spanish company to leave Uruguay by sitting down its local project manager. The Economist may be reliable in economic matters, from its own point of view (i.e. as a representative of neoliberal economics), but not in this particular respect.

I didn't give "my opinion" on the ICJ ruling. Read the sources; it's all there. I'm being very careful not to give my opinion anywhere. If you're not familiar with the policies and guidelines used in Wikipedia, by all means bring in new content here, so we can discuss how to insert it into the article. See the previous discussion (above) to get an idea, and assume good faith (for example, don't assume I'm an unconditional defender of the Argentine position and the blockades just because I'm Argentine!).

Mariano has fixed your insertion of a dispute notice in the article; see how it's done. You should now clearly state, here in this talk page, what exactly you see as inaccurate or biased in the article, so other users can contribute. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't know very much about Argentinian papers, I'll do my best to know them better. About Uruguayan media, I am not going to advise you what to read. After the World Bank report I think today is a great day to start, don't you think. My quote of The Economist is not without context, I believe you should be more honest with yourself and remove quite a few quotations of your own then. That the article was written to criticize the Argentinian government is an incorrect assumption. Why do you believe that it is not possible to persuade a Spanish company to change its mind? Why it's so difficult to believe it? How you dare to question The Economist reliability? Neoliberal Economics? Can you explain the concept? Aren't your points of view being shown there? Isn't that The Economist bothers you so you just decided to erase it? Bad, very bad

I am bringing new content to the article, we may discuss it but I am not asking your permission, be sure about it.Boskyrules 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Boskyrules

Of course you shouldn't ask for permission or anything of the sort. However, if an article is biased, adding a bias on the opposite direction doesn't help. Yes, I don't like The Economist, but the reason I didn't like the quote you added was because it was not really about the plants or the conflict; it was about The Economist not liking Néstor Kirchner's ways of meddling in the affairs of private enterprises. Again, I don't believe Kirchner can simply dismiss a huge foreign company out of Uruguay when its interests there are immense and it has no business with Argentina at all. Moreover, ENCE is relocating, not pulling out, so that's already in the past. I'm sure there are many sources (outside of the countries in conflict) that cover the situation much better. I just found this on a Finnish newspaper, for example.

Wikipedia policy is that articles should not take a position when covering a dispute. I'm trying to do that. That doesn't mean I can't expose my own personal biases whenever I feel like it, in the proper places and without insulting anyone; in fact I think that's a good thing. Neoliberalism is what the Carlos Menem administration spoused in the 1990s, with the support of the orthodox economics establishment; since Kirchner has made a point of demonizing Menem, the 1990s and neoliberalism, media like The Economist are now demonizing Kirchner's market interventionism and pressure tactics. La Nación (which I quote a lot) does too, but outside editorial comments they do offer good overall coverage of the conflict.

Why won't you tell me what to read? I mean, I can search myself, but I don't understand your attitude.

If you think there's something to be removed or changed, and you have good reason to do it, go ahead. Did you read WP:NPOV already? I removed your edits in the first place because of that, mostly. My opinion is not important, but NPOV is not negotiable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the article in The Economist print edition and it is titled "Argentina and Uruguay Arm-twisting" It is an article dedicated to the dispute. It doesn't seem to be about Kirchner practice of pressuring private companies or individuals, but how that practice applies to this particular situation. I don't think is a POV to state that for some observers it seems that ENCE became under extreme pressure form the Argentina's government. Maybe if this article can show both the Argentina's contention that the plans represent an enviromental risk and Uruguay's that they don't and Argentina is using unlawful tactics to prevent their construction, the POV flag would not be necessary. User:Bakersville

I see. I was referring to the part of the article which was quoted, and the way it was quoted in full and in a prominent place, as if The Economist was both an authority in the matter and a neutral observer. I don't object to it being used as a source, but such a source must be treated with care. As for the POV tag, I've already asked Boskyrules to make the reasons explicit for the dispute; there may be too much coverage from the Argentine side, but I don't see support of the Argentine side over the Uruguayan one. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I´m back just for yuou to know that I don´t believe that quoting Mrs. Piccoloti does any good to the discussion. I appeal to you please to not start quoting her if you want acivilized discussion. Please read this: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886649.ece

I don't see why Mrs. Piccoloti shouldn't be quoted. You are more than welcome to quote any relevant argument by an Uruguayan government official. Any educated reader will now that statements from politicians tend to be bias.Regarding Boskyrules addition to the article, I think that it affects its flow and repeats content that is already stated in other sections. I personally like The Economist and I am a subscriber to its print edition (and unlike Pablo Flores I think it tends to be a neutral observer from the pov of a free markets/open society news source). However I consider un-encyclopedic to copy a whole article into a Wikipedia entrance. I think that you should consider revising your addition, so it can add to the quality of the article. User:Bakersville

Moreover, copying a whole article or quoting a large part of it is a copyright violation. I'm more willing to accept coverage from The Economist, but long, direct quotes are not good style and also bring up the issue of bias; better summarize several sources than using material from a single one. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Picolotti's CV

Romina Picolotti's husband is not "one of the pro-blockade leaders of the Assembly of Gualeguaychu", that I know of; no verifiable source for that bit was given, so I removed that. I replaced it by links to articles explaining who Picolotti and her husband are (in brief, since this is not about them).

Boskyrules, you wanted to remove Picolotti's words, and when you couldn't, you added this inaccurate bit, which looks rather like a disqualification. Please, always check your information before adding it, and provide a link to where you got it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of some terms

There is no such thing as the mayor of Fray Bentos. Mr. Omar Lafluf is the Intendente of Rio Negro. Since Wikipedia has an article in English about Intendentes, I don't see why we cannot be accurate here. Furthermore, there is no such thing as the University of Chemistry in Uruguay. The School of Chemistry (Facultad de Quimica) is part of the Universidad de la Republica. These edits were mistakenly treated as vandalisms and reverted back to their old incorrect version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.235.126.129 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 October 2006.

Sorry, my mistake. The sources used to compose the article misreported those terms. What I did was revert several changes made by 128.205.102.17 (talk · contribs), who did correct those, but added such cute things as a wikilink with the text "Gualeguaychú" pointing to the article mass hallucination, i.e. clear vandalism. The good parts of 128.205.102.17's edits were swept up with the bad ones. I'll fix that now. BTW, you're always free to correct things that are demonstrably wrong — you can't be accused of vandalism for that. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've fixed those. I created a red link for municipal intendant (Uruguay) which is the correct title it should have; intendente says nothing about Uruguay and is quite messy, while intendant (which is the term used in Uruguayan articles' infoboxes) is mostly about French intendants. A survey of the features of Uruguayan departments and the attributions and functions of their municipal intendants should be written somewhere. Myself, I have no idea about the peculiarities of the administrative division of Uruguay... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest additions reverted

I've reverted (for the third time) some POV regarding alleged political intention and misinformation by the Argentine government. While we "know" there's been political and emotional manipulation, we need to back that up; otherwise it's just an opinion. I'll have no problem reverting clearly POV content without sources added by an anonymous user, even if it looks correct and useful -- it needs to be proven true, or attributed as someone's opinion. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll clean up those edits and add up the rest once I find the appropriate sources. --Wesborland 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What's all the fuss about the "fake photo"? It's not a fake; it's a real photo taken with a zoom lens, which may or may not have been used misleadlingly (that has to be sourced). This article deserves better treatment; it's not a good thing when one-time anonymous users mess it up by throwing unsubstantiated accusations around, and get away with it.

PS: FWIW I think the "visual pollution" thing is ridiculous and the Argentine diplomatic team exaggerated it (the diplomats' job has always involved lies and half-lies); but that has to be shown to the reader. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for the original article and photograph at La Nación (which I'm having a hard time to find), but I'll also correct the title once I find it. What does POV exactly stand for? --Wesborland 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion about the photo. POV ("point of view") is shorthand for biased or incomplete information in violation of WP:NPOV (Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove uruguayan sidebar?

Does that sidebar on politics of Uruguay really belong to the article? I think it should be removed --Wesborland 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)