Talk:2009 Peruvian political crisis
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Peru may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|A news item involving 2009 Peruvian political crisis was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 7 June 2009.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 5, 2013.|
Call for total rewrite
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.
- The opening is a summary. Consider reading WP:LEDE before doing this again. --candle•wicke 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"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)
- 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)
Mineral curse theory
"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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
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? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)