Talk:Uruguay River pulp mill dispute/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category 

message: 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.     Gnudiego 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. [] Gnudiego 15:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, the supposed violation of the treaty is disputed. I mostly agree with Pablo Flores. Matiash 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General opposition?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picolotti's CV 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy of some terms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove uruguayan sidebar?