Talk:Cellulose plant conflict between Argentina and Uruguay/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Untitled 2 Category 3 ECF as best available technology 4 General opposition?

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category

Categories such as Category:Pollution by country are, as I understand it, not meant to be used in articles, but only as part of the category hierarchy (sort of abstract classes). Logically, the article should be under Category:Pollution in Argentina and Category:Pollution in Uruguay, which themselves wuld be under Category:Pollution by country, but I doubt those two would be very populated right now. What you're looking for is a category that covers specific events or incidents related to pollution, in the manner of Category:Oil spills. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at some of the other Category:Categories by country shows that the Category:Issue by country does contain articles about the issue. As you point out there will not be many articles in such sub-cats as Category:Pollution in Argentina and Category:Pollution in Uruguay but specific country articles clutter up the Category:Pollution category. Hence the reason for Category:Pollution by country. Alan Liefting 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)