Talk:Soybean in Paraguay

This article is biased. It does not describe the reality of a country or the situation. Uses data from BBC, distorts it to present and justify a point of view of the writer of this article. You can tell a big lie, just presenting selectively the truth. Cerbero141 (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I never knew about any of this. Why doesn't the media have better coverage?

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: How is this an article?
It's absolutely biased. I don't call it "original research" because it's not even research. It's a piece of propaganda by somebody with absolutely nothing better to do. dariopy (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clearly intended as propaganda. However, the solution for that is editing, not deletion.  See Deletion policy.  I've provided one source.  This is clearly a documented economic and environmental issue.  There should be many others.  Find them, and with them in hand fix the the article. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is not intended as propaganda, it was just written by someone who was a little too lazy to find citations for his or her statements. I am currently conducting research on the "soybean wars" and reliable sources have documented the circumstances described, including scholars published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the issue is much more prominent in alternative news media, and has barely been explored in academic circles. Do not mistake laziness for lies. Citations are needed, but the statements are at least largely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.233.63 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)