Talk:Coca growth up in Bolivia, Peru, claims U.S. State Department

Active discussions

Is this story not hugely slanted by having no response from the (democratically elected by a landslide) Bolivian government? Or anything except a US perspective?

Some issues with it:

  • There's no context to the culture of coca growing by peasants. It's a traditional crop with many legitimate uses.
  • A cocalero ('scuse spelling), as far as I know is a farmers' co-operative. From this report you might as easily think it was a drug cartel.
  • Morales' popularity is as well attributed to his Indigineous background as his "support for coca"
  • ...Or his support from the many social movements against privatisation and neo-liberalism.
  • Where's the numbers on coca growth? How fast does the stuff grow, given that Morales was elected so recently? Why then try to make a link to his government? He gets elected and 2-3 months later there's more coca being grown. WTF?

As is this article is just repeating a press release from a government (the US) that has ample reason to be against the government of the other 2 countries. It should not be taken at face value. 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[]

This notice is a friendly reminder that talk pages are to be used for discussion of the development of the article, and are not areas to express your own personal opinion on matters. Thank you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Thank you, MrM. As I didn't see the story until after it was "published" there was no opportunity to "discuss the development of the article". However I took time to post the above comments because, if I had seen it in time, those are ways that I think the article should have developed, into a more rounded and informative form that wasn't simply "US Govt Says _" Using News sites to force my opinion on people doesn't interest me. 12:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Am I the only one that feels that MrMiscellanious' boxed comment above is completely innapropriate? The discussion prompted by this anonymous user is regarding NPOV, which is the most essential guideline for any story we post. The points mentioned are completely valid, and unfortunately make this story unpublishable in my opinion. There is only one side from this article, only one source (the US government) and is essentially regurgitating a press release. I'm also vaugely concerned about MrM's plainly obvious pro-US slant.
Unless this article can be balanced out with facts, this article should not be on the front page. ironiridis 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[]


I agree with; the story is completely one-sided. Perhaps it can include reference to the increase in opium production in Afghanistan since the US led invasion; to NPOV some of the article's presentation of the US as the protector of the world from harmful drugs? [1]Neutralizer 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[]
I have included a related story but do not want to include the opium references in the body of the article unless others agree that is a good thing to do. Neutralizer 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[]
The best is to get a response from Bolivia or Peru into the article; I think. Neutralizer 21:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[]


Please help dispel my ignorance. I do not find this article by typing coca growth in the Wikinews search box and clicking Search. Is this because the article is disputed? 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Not sourcedEdit

Finding no basis for the following in the sources cited, I will remove it. It is preserved here, in case its return can be justified:

"They claim the victory of Evo Morales in the presidential race in Bolivia is one of the reasons for the rise in coca growing associations known as cocaleros. Morales campaigned on his support for the coca industry." 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Return to "Coca growth up in Bolivia, Peru, claims U.S. State Department" page.