Talk:YPF

Requested move

Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales → YPF — The page was moved from YPF to Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales in 2005 per reason: Full name. However, as of today, the company uses itself the short form YPF. Beagel (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Kotniski (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous statement

The article cites YPF as being "the first entirely state-run oil company in the world (the second being the French Compagnie française des pétroles (CFP, French Company of Petroleum), created in 1924 by the conservative Raymond Poincaré).[5] YPF's creation was followed by the creation of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB), as well as the Uruguayan ANCAP (Administración Nacional de Combustibles, Alcohol y Portland, 1931) and the Brazilian Petrobras, created in 1953 by Getúlio Vargas..."

But that statement is wrong, as it forgets to say that before PETROBRAS was created, it was PEMEX in 1938, following the nationalization of petroleum in Mexico by President Lazaro Cardenas in march 18, 1938. Amclaussen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unspecific! Nationalization can mean various things and have various consequences from mild to disastrous.

> On April 16, 2012, Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced the nationalization.

This sentence in the article is unclear and needs to be more specific! Do they nationalize with a honest, full and immediate financial compensation to the spanish and jewish private owners or do they nationalize "Robin Hood" gunpoint style or just token payment?

The latter method was tried by Pres. Nasser on the Suez Canal in 1956 and resulted in the immediate tri-partite IL/FR/GB military invasion of Egypt. Only the threat of Krushchev's use of the soviet thermonuclear arsenal and US passivity saved Nasser that time.

Control of hydrocarbons is about as central nowadays, as the Suez link used to be 60 years ago. Since Spain is in the NATO, theoretically the famous 5th article of mutual defence could be raised if the argies nationalize the spanish oil Co. without compensation. That means GB could assist them to war vs Argentine, e.g. to cement its hold on the Falkland-Malvinas islands, which is again a very tense region nowadays due to the recent undersea hydrocarbon find. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also a language detail here, the meaning of "nationalization" in English and "nacionalización" in Spanish are not completely the same. In Spanish, the verb to note that a private enterprise will be owned by the state is "estatalización" (shortened in Argentina as "estatización"). As it can be checked in the RAE, "Estatalizar" means to turn a private enterprise into a state-owned one. "Nacionalizar" may mean that as well, but also to change the ownership of a foreign thing to ownership by nationals. "Estatalizar" may be done with any private thing, which may be owned by foreigners or by national people, the thing is that it was private and goes to the state. "Nacionalizar" may give ownership to the state, or it may not: it may be as well to take something from foreign private owners and give it to national private owners. Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This thing about Kruschevs threats is not entirely true. It was Eisenhower who although a Republican acted like an anti-imperialst, and made quite direct threats on Britain. Britain caved in on the Suez, Nasser consolidated his power, and Ike later pronounced that he regretted his actions. I hold the latter statement for being true, if 1959 has to do with it. If I wanted USA to have control of the Canal Zone, blame can not be divided without mentioning Ike, and maybe Jimmy Carter. If we go to 1961, India attacked Goa, and the Soviet said: Veto. 1982: the Soviet did not veto. Argentine diplomats managed to (wait for it) confiscate the time belonging to Soviet diplomats. As for NATO actions, none happened in with regard to the Falklands. This has to mean that Repsol has none to do with it. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers?

Several book citations appear to be missing page numbers, making them almost useless as references. (Wirth, Solberg, Lewis, etc.) If an editor with these books is still watching the page, is it possible for these to be added in? Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

I find it quite frustrating that well-sourced content is removed under the cover of "Don't editorialize. Just the facts, m'am." and then again with "rm POV" - all whilst moving the article even further from neutrality. Please, don't remove neutral sourced content just because it doesn't fit your own political perspective. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For instance, in reality, "Repsol says that the real cause of Argentina’s declining energy trade balance is its maze of price controls and subsidies, which makes investment unprofitable and encourages excess consumption. Most independent energy analysts agree with this analysis." but now this article - without an actual source for the juxtaposition - says "Argentine international energy trade recorded an imbalance of US$3 billion in 2011, the first negative figure since 1987" and makes it look like YPF's fault. There's no source for that, of course, because it directly contradicts what good sources say; but if I try to fix that problem it gets editwarred away. What a shame. bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like every deletion has a new excuse. This time it's "hearsay" [1] but that's no more valid than the previous excuses. Wikipedia should reflect what sources say rather than taking a politician's rants at face value. It's strange that the "interested parties" excuse only gets applied to evidence on one side. bobrayner (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And now two new excuses: [2]

• Because Sherlock4000 doesn't have an FT subscription, content sourced to the FT must be removed;
• If a newspaper didn't give the names of everybody they got their information from, that makes it anonymous, which makes it, oh, whatever.

Needless to say, neither of these are valid excuses for removing well-sourced content. Nor do they grant Sherlock4000 an exemption from WP:3RR or WP:NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality problems with Economist editorials

Mr. Rayner:

I've noticed that you're very fond of the op ed pages in The Economist. While they are entertaining reading, they are not reliable sources for anything. Much less malicious assertions that YPF was renationalized due to "institutional weakness" (to the contrary, the firm was privatized in 1993 for the very reason). Similarly, the "independent" analysts (the Reuters cable does not name them) may not independent at all - they analyze the energy market and are thus market analysts. They may not even be that: lobbyists are often quoted in these stories and cited as "analysts" or "sources familiar with the dispute."

The business of the YPF executives being "hunted down" or roughhoused in any way is an allegation by very interested party indeed, and as such is unfounded; there is much in Wikipedia by way of innuendo that is kept out for that very reason. It may have been true, but it could have just as likely been a PR stunt on the part of the executives. There is no footage of the supposed incident or lawsuit pursuant to it as yet.

Make no mistake, I admire your interest in YPF. You may be happy to know that oil and gas production is already up significantly. The perennial shortage of gasoline that besets Argentine motorists during the long Easter weekend, for instance, was resolved this time around by a temporary fuel production increase of 25%. How? By using idle capacity at the firm's own refineries in a way Repsol simply refused to do; this refinery capacity, by the way, was inherited in its entirety from the state-owned YPF.

Contrary to assertions by press organs controlled by Wall Street or Rupert Murdoch, Mrs. Kirchner is a pragmatist first (as was her late husband, who was an ambitious lawyer first and foremost). Her administration wanted to avoid the kind of problem the U.K. now has with BP, which underexplored, overextracted, and exported all the North Sea oil they could when it was cheap - leaving the country dependent on imports now that oil and gas prices are astronomical. Perhaps the good people of the U.K. (and I mean that: I spent a couple of months in London during a college break a few years ago, and I grew quite fond of them) should consider petitioning for a 51% renationalisation of BP.

I'll send you Joe Barton to apologize to BP afterward.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretending that the Economist is hostile really doesn't justify removing content sourced to the Economist, the FT, Reuters &c. Pretending that it's controlled by Murdoch is either deliberate fiction or conspiracy theory; I don't know which, but I don't really care as both are pretty crappy reasons for removing sourced content. All I care about is having an accurate and neutral article.

And what on earth does Joe Barton have to do with this? Your reasoning is unclear. Could you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Economist, Reuters and FT are reliable and independent sources. They are not Spanish or Argentinian, and are known for accurate informations. If there is any objection, we can solve it with wording "According to The Economist ..."--Yopie (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the latter two are; the first is largely a series of op ed pieces written around news events (I subscribe, by the way; I like their wit). In any case, posting an editorial by quoting an editorial even in renowned publications is still POV. I should also mention that allegations by interested parties amount to innuendo until and unless evidence surfaces; remember BLP guidelines (YPF is not a "living person" of course, but the allegations concern living people who may be involved in lawsuits in the near future). Should charges be pressed, or lawsuits be filed, I have no doubt you'll rush to post news of it.

Quoting an official dealing directly with a given issue, of course, is another matter as long as these statements are posted in the spirit they were made and both sides are addressed. We should stick to these latter, and Bob Rayner and I have.

Let's keep it that way, shall we?

Peace,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have temporarily locked the page to prevent further edit warring, per a request at WP:ANEW. If there is a resolution to this dispute before then, please contact me or post a request at WP:RFPP. Note that references need not be easily accessible; this is not a valid reason to disqualify a reference. If it helps, I have access and can verify the content as presented, although it may be better to mention that the actual source is "a document sent by Spain to its embassies about the seizure" which FT had viewed. Kuru (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Financial Times is quoting a government memo

The following was in an article published on 22 April in the Financial Times of which I saw the full text:

Excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Animosity between Madrid and the populist government of Cristina Fernández has grown since it emerged that certain Spanish executives at YPF were “hunted down” and “harshly interrogated” by Argentine security forces following the expropriation, according to a document sent by Spain to its embassies about the seizure, seen by the Financial Times. According to the memo, Spanish YPF executives and their families had been forced to seek refuge together in a house after being driven from the YPF headquarters by Argentine government ministers, accompanied by armed security guards who used “physical violence and threats”.

The title of the FT article was "Repsol threatens action against YPF investors." If the FT really believed that the events occurred, they might have spoken more confidently. The only thing we can tell for sure is that this is a document sent by Spain to its embassies. Whether the allegations in the document are true remains to be discovered. You would think that other business newspapers might have tried to follow up on this matter if they thought it was important. I don't notice any followup in the FT itself about the claimed harassment of the YPF executives since the original report of 22 April.

The current version of our YPF article states:

"According to The Financial Times Spanish executives of YPF were "hunted down" by Argentine officials; armed guards used "physical violence and threats".

It is probably too strong to put it this way. "Hunted down" is language that the FT quoted from the memo, and is not due to any reporting of the FT itself. Our article says now: 'According to the Financial Times'. It ought to say: 'According to a Spanish government memo obtained by the Financial Times..' That is on the assumption that Wikipedia editors agree that this report deserves inclusion in our article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Add Argentine Chamber of Deputies vote

Add the Argentine Chamber of Deputies 207-32 vote in the Renationalisation subtitle, and modify wikilink of "Senate of Argentina" to Argentine Senate. Reuters

Edit war

There is an edit war about the inclusion or removal of information from The Economist and Seeking Alpha. Please discuss here the reasons to keep or remove it. I will revert things back to the state it was before the edit war, and I hope it won't be needed to request page protection Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Note: I have invited all the users who took part in this to this discussion.

The section dealing with the renationalization already features numerous remarks both for and against the move, as well as official statements. Bob Rayner and the user above should stop imposing new, blatantly biased op eds as a factual edit, while deleting real news (the Chevron agreement) - and crying "edit war" while doing so. Shame on you. 98.166.173.7 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits, not the editors Cambalachero (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is simply no way the sentence "The expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions." can be included in the article. The reference given for that statement is this article, which is an opinion piece, not a factual article. The only way in which this can be included in Wikipedia is in a format such as: "A correspondent for The Economist expressed his opinion that the expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions." And I do not see that happening, as the opinion of a random Economist correspondent does not meet notability guidelines. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct 1993 Privatization Discussion Errors

My corrections of the factual information concerning the 1993 privatization of YPF by the Menem government are largely based on my role as director of the restructuring process in 1992-93 under YPF President Jose Estenssoro. However,I have tried to insert two published references (Chicago Tribune in 1993 and Harvard Business School Case study on YPF in 1995) but these do not appear in the revised list of references so I have made an editing mistake. My apologies but could someone advise me how to do this correctly. Dustbowl (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Dustbowl. Thank you for contributing your first-hand knowledge and unique perspective on that key chapter in this company's history. I'll be happy to add those references for you. Regards, 98.166.157.157 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments

The YPF article is the subject of a discussion at Talk:Economy of Argentina#‎Request for comments on neutrality. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on YPF. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130101181452/http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/argentine-president-names-ypf-leader/47805bf51854491792060145f1a096b2 to http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/argentine-president-names-ypf-leader/47805bf51854491792060145f1a096b2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620133744/http://www.ypf.com/InversoresAccionistas/InfoEconomicoFinanciera/YPF%20Estados%20Contables/Estados%20Contables%20al%2031%20de%20Diciembre%20de%202011.pdf to http://www.ypf.com/InversoresAccionistas/InfoEconomicoFinanciera/YPF%20Estados%20Contables/Estados%20Contables%20al%2031%20de%20Diciembre%20de%202011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)