Jump to content

Talk:2008 Andean diplomatic crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Order

[edit]

The flag and name order in the infobox is based on alphabetical order in English as is the standard with other international relations infoboxes. Examples: Brazil-Uruguay relations, Brazilian-Canadian relations, and Canada-United States relations. As such, the order should be Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. I understand why some people may want it to reflect the apparent geographic order of the states, but this is arbitrary and cannot work in general.--Burzum (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was wrong. The standard is here. The correct order is Ecuador (3 syllables), Colombia (4 syllables), and Venezuela (4 syllables and alphabetically after Colombia). I'll adjust the map and infobox.--Burzum (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I'd like to mention that Colombia has 3 syllables!! That is really impressive, I mean, wow, editing wikipedia and ... wow. Anyways, I wanted to note that at the end of the article in the section "Participants of the Colombian armed conflict" under guerrillas, it says Linked to: Government of Ecuador and Government of Venezuela. And that is just not true. Or at least it has not been proved yet, and Wikipedia cannot present it as a fact until there is evidence of it. The only "evidence" is a laptop that allegedly belonged to Reyes and that vaguely links the guerrilla to those two governments. This evidence is not considered valid yet by the two opposing factions, nor by the international comunity. In fact, there is no public proof of the existence of that computer.141.30.219.173 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second removing those links since I'm not aware of any established evidence to the linkage. Aside from that, your sarcastic language, "really impressive, I mean, wow, editing wikipedia and ... wow", is quite unnecessary and detrimental to the discussion. The syllable miscount can be an honest mistake. You need to assume good faith. LostLucidity (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that the 'ia' is a diphthong in Spanish, this is not true for the pronunciation in English. A quick check of an online dictionary will verify this. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked Columbia had four syllaybles... Co-Lum-Bei-Ah, perhaps not in Spanish but as the previous poster pointed out English is the standard for international relation's infoboxes. Considering the Spanish background I have a hunch that a IP scan of "141.30.219.173" would find this to be a computer in Venezuela, perhaps owned by Hugo Chavez himself? Hyperion395 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article mentions something about papers linking the government of Ecuador and FARC. Copies of these papers can be found on the Colombian newsite www.eltiempo.com, they are in Spanish though. I'd think they would make a nice addition to this article.--209.99.108.22 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely necessary that we report this. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the links to the pdfs published by El Tiempo, in the references to the papers. --Ciroa (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Tiempo is run by the Colombian Vice President's family. This fact should be noted if it is used as a source of information. It is also the only regional newspaper in Colombia.

Sentrix (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Sentrix[reply]

Perhaps you would like to expand the El Tiempo article or Francisco Santos Calderón with this information. It mentions that he held shares in the company, not necessarily running it. LostLucidity (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is not only the Vicepresident family: the Defense Minister is a cousin of the Vicepresident. El Tiempo held for many years (almost for a century) the position that none of their owners or editors should be involved in politics. However, the current Vicepresident was kidnapped by no one less than Pablo Escobar in the 90's, when he was a journalist. He was rescued by colombian police. After that he founded an ONG called "País Libre" ("Free Country"). The ONG had great success, mobilizing many people in demonstration against kidnappings, which were used by the Medellín Cartel to avoid the inclusion of extradition mechanisms in the colombian constitution. After the Cartel succesfully forbad extradition in the constitution, approved in 1992, Francisco Santos, in rage, decided to go into politics against the wishes of his family and, if I may add, with considerable risk for his life. He contributed, without any doubt, to the approval of the extradition clause, which was inserted again in the constitution after the Cartel was defeated and Pablo Escobar was killed. His cousin, Juan Manuel Santos, got involved into coffee export through his journalist work and became Commerce Minister in 1992. He then supported Alvaro Uribe run for presidency and finally was designed Defense Minister. Their common uncle, Eduardo Santos, was President of Colombia in 1938. The three of them renounced in public to any involvement in El Tiempo bussiness when they went into their political careers, but this should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems clear that the newspaper has supported their political positions. So, Sentrix is right, it should be mentioned. On the other hand, it's hard to find another newspaper in Colombia with the same prestige for editorial independence as El Tiempo, except, perhaps, El Espectador. However, this other newspaper was almost destroyed by Pablo Escobar and now exists only as a weekly publication, after their owners were killed and its building bombed, so it's not a very good source for a current event that evolves quickly.--Ciroa (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very informative. As I mentioned to the previous poster why not expand those articles I mentioned with this information? Thanks! LostLucidity (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

The ongoing crisis goes way beyond the assassination of Reyes at this point and has more to do with the concept of "sovereignty" and its application to this particular circumstance, not to mention the real or false allegations from the laptop.

I'd propose that the article should be renamed / moved to better represent the existence and complexity of an expanding crisis between at least three countries, in which the death of Reyes and its circumstances are apparently only the trigger. Such an article already exists in the Spanish Wiki, by the way. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. How about the 2008 Diplomatic Crisis between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela or the 2008 Diplomatic Crisis of Colombia with Ecuador and Venezuela?--Burzum (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is grammatically incorrect. It should be among Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. --Elliskev 15:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not grammatically incorrect. In fact, between may be better than among/amongst. The OED says: "In all senses, 'between' has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two. In OE. and ME. it was so extended in sense 1 (=local relation of points), in which among is now considered better. It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually, among expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely: we should not say 'the space lying among the three points,' or 'a treaty among three powers,' or 'the choice lies among the three candidates in the select list,' or 'to insert a needle among the closed petals of a flower.'"
among or amongst is correct and between is incorrect. Simple as that. Unfortunately some people cling to their simplified primary school grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.101.172 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
between is obviously best. As it says above: "It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually". Unfortunately YOU seem to be clinging to your simplified primary school grammar.

Or indeed among Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela - the comma is redundant before 'and'. 212.32.119.4 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Nightstallion 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't redundant, see oxford comma, and I prefer to use it - but that's all it is, a preference, and either way is correct. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, the current title "2008 crisis between Colombia, versus Ecuador and Venezuela" doesn't even look like correct English to me... —Nightstallion 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about 2008 Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela border crisis? Or something similar, with the players first... ? --Elliskev 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not charmed by the current title, either. "(March) 2008 South American diplomatic crisis"? "2008 trilateral South American diplomatic crisis"? "2008 Andean diplomatic crisis"? "March 2008 Colombia-Ecuador border crisis"? "... border incident"? (after all, it's the Colombia-Ecuador border; Chávez is only jumping on the bandwagon. Aille (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "2008 South American diplomatic crisis". —Nightstallion 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"South American diplomatic crisis" is too broad. Something like "2008 Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela diplomatic crisis." would fit better. - Caio
I still don't think we have got the name right, especially as we are only a sixth of the way into 2008, and as it is in the north of South America and not throughout the continent. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there might be another crisis later on doesn't mean we have to plan for it now -- we can always move the article later. Regarding the fact that it's only three of the twelve SA nations -- I think the fact that the alternative would be something like "2008 Colombia-Ecuador-Venezuela diplomatic crisis" or convoluted names like we've had before merits the simplification inherent in this title. —Nightstallion 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so why is still the name of the article "2008 South American diplomatic crisis? It is not right as pointed out. —jlascar
I notice some people such as the BBC are calling it the Bogota row but while I did prefer El C's I can understand why people wouldn't like that, and certainly when/if I come up with a better name here is where I will bring it. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name is the right one. Andean is a general and inclusive word. i think it might be the word anyone would use to look for regarding this topic. However it is a good idea to create some redirects too.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title Andean does make sense. I also support making redirects to this page. The word 2008 fits well at the beginning of the topic and is consistent with other articles like 2008 submarine cable disruption. As far as I know, this is practically not even a debate anymore. Kushal 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Issue

[edit]

One of the issues about the crisis, one which I'm a little confused on, is that Colombia is claiming it informed Ecuador about the bombing, and Ecuador while acknowledging that it was informed about something says it was misinformed about the exactitudes.

If there are inconsistencies in the information right now that we use that is hardly surprising, neutrality is much more important. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correa was informed, during his live radio program of Saturday Uribe called him to inform about the issue and he seem very relaxed and open to support. The problem came after he send his forces to the area, and some sources claim that only after Chavez called him (heaven knows whyand for what...) he erupted in anger.--ometzit<col> (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correa was informed after the action was taken but was lied to as to what actually happened. After military personnel sent to the location reported on their findings, then Correa got mad. He was lied to by Uribe that is why relations are not good.

Sentrix (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Sentrix[reply]

I haven´t found a reference for that, Correa said that Uribe lied to him but from the first moment he recognized the penetration of Ecuadorian soil (but not air space) and apologized since the same Saturday.--ometzit<col> (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

To begin, I think we need one of those cool maps used in bilateral relations, this time one that was marked the position of the 3 countries involved. On the other hand, a better image of Raul Beyes would be great, and I think fair use screenshots of some of the press conferences so far would be great too. Let me know what you think and what can I get.--ometzit<col> (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The maps were good additions, but why is Guyana colored like that and not like the other non-involved countries like Panama and Brazil? --CaioMarcos (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that territory is under control of Guyana but it is claimed by Venezuela as its own. Venezuela calls it Guayana Esequiba--Ciroa (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic crisis?

[edit]

The uses of "crisis" seems overly-dramatic. The war/police action against the FARC by Columbia (and others) more or less consists of these periodic brutal raids. Tragically, its pretty much business as usual.

Though Ecuador is, of course, upset by it's sovereignty being violated it isn't prudent or really at all appropriate to call this a "crisis." The only one acting in crisis mode would be Chavez in Venezuela - which is, tragically, also business as usual. 68.46.150.253 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course you opinion. Don't forget NPOV. thanksCamilo Sanchez (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's qualified as a "diplomatic" crisis: ie, ambassadors recalled, diplomatic relations broken off. And it's getting called a "crisis" everywhere on the newsweb, not least from Insulza of the OAS. Aille (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic crisis is the part of the title that is uncontroversial, and with the movement of troops and calling of ambassadors this is exactly what it is. Happy editing, SqueakBox 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change the Title

[edit]

What is the reason for this issue to be named "2008 South American diplomatic crisis?"

As far as it concerns my understanding, the issue solely revolves around Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela. Other nations such as Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay are simply neighbors to the issue, not a part of it. Hence, it is irrational to name the title with such a broad name. After all, the current Peruvian and Chilean maritime border issue is not called a "2007 South American diplomatic crisis."

I would suggest the following as better titles: Colombia-Ecuador 2008 Diplomatic Crisis; Colombia-Ecuador Diplomatic Crisis (2008); Colombia-Ecuador Border Sovereignty Crisis (2008); Colombia-Ecuador Border Sovereignty Crisis.

Venezuela should not be mentioned in the title since it is a third party to the main conflict. Nonetheless, if the lot of you really want Venezuela in the title, then you could add it by choosing one of my above suggestions and mixing it with Ecuador in the following manner: Ecuador/Venezuela.

Even if you don't like my titles suggested, just come up with some better name for this issue. Thanks, and let's hope for peace. MarshalN20 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to show my support to every word you said. It's not a "South American Diplomatic crisis" and I don't even think that the title should have name of countries or territories. It should be renamed to "Death of Raul Reyes". On the worst scenario, something similar to "Santa Rosa diplomatic conflict". -- Loukinho (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't necessarily agree, but I could live with most of those, titles, as well -- except for the fact that your capitalisation and placement of the year is completely off. It would have to be "2008 Colombia-Ecuador diplomatic crisis", "2008 Colombia-Ecuador border sovereignty crisis" or "Colombia-Ecuador border sovereignty crisis". —Nightstallion 07:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venezuela should be mentioned because of the recent intimate involvement of Venezuela in negotiations with FARC. Much of the escalation of this situation has resulted from the freezing of relations after the rejection of mediation by Venezuela in the Humanitarian exchange agreement. Situations where third parties move troops to the borders are obviously more significant than some bilateral dispute. I would recommend the name "2008 Diplomatic Crisis of Colombia with Ecuador and Venezuela" that seems to be working without conflict in the Spanish and Portuguese versions. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the reason for a triple name is that after the Colombian attack on Ecuadorian territory, Venezuela responded by mobilizing troops and tanks to the frontier. This has been mentioned as the creation of a safe heaven for FARC, unless the Venezuelan and Ecuadorian governments adopt a hard stance against this group, which does not seem to be the case. This is an angle to the news that is hard for colombians to miss. For example, in spanish, you have this opinion column from today: http://www.eltiempo.com/opinion/columnistas/otroscolumnistas/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-3984406.html --Ciroa (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciroa (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with a title which might be sufficient: 2008 North Andean Diplomatic Crisis. Some problems might still be raised since the title may be confusing, but it does narrow down the region to just Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lose the 'north': 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. "Andean crisis" is also beginning to appear on the newswires. Aille (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was too broad, but it does seem to be called just Andean crisis in news wires.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we'll take that one, then. :) Done. —Nightstallion 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about Andean myself earlier today while reading press reports. Good one. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not stress out too much on naming right now. This name seems a little broad to me, but who knows? The predominant name will come out in the news over the next couple of days or weeks. We only have to be encyclopedic, not prescient. There is no need for us to swap names around like crazy when the situation is still rapidly changing. We should just use this name for a couple of days or a week and then take a fresh look to see if it still works. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a little broad. The Andean nations include Perú, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, which are not part of this conflict. Anyway, if you google for "Andean Crisis" you find a lot of hits, but if you look for South American crisis the first Google page has no articles on this issue. I think that's a good reason to let the article's title stay. Thanks, Aille.--Ciroa (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¤ I think the title is fine. Both Brasil and Chile have also made statements of concern over the sovereignty situation. They are also moving to mediate because of what Colombia said "terrorism has no boundaries" . All are concerned that Colombia might bomb inside their countries while looking for criminals also. In the Amazon region people can hide across borders and not be known to be there. It is one of the largest jungles on earth.

Sentrix (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Sentrix[reply]

    • Thanks for finding a better title for the article. Nonetheless, the title is still not correct (as far as it goes for now). Unless a majority of the Andean nations actually "join" the conflict (like Venezuela has done), then there is no sense in calling the conflict an "Andean Crisis." Sure, there may be plenty of websites that might use that name, but that does not mean the name itself is correct. Wikipedia is a separate entity, and as a website that is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we should aim at getting the most accurate name for the conflict. Of course, I agree in leaving the title for a couple of weeks in order to see what happens.Just keep in mind that the name itself does not necessarily have to be named after the region, but rather the name of the countries involved would be just as good (and even better). After all, ignoring the manner which the French commonly call it, the "Franco-Prussian War" sounds good and is more accurate than if the war were to be called the "War of Western Europe."MarshalN20 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be what the media is calling it though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe the current title is appropriate. The crisis is between Colombia and Ecuador (and Venezuela, but well), the Andes goes trough all the continent and neither Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru are involved, they just support one party or another because of political similarities and OEA membership. My opinion? The name should be something only with Colombia and Ecuador since they are the 2 countries involved. If we keep thinking like that, now that Nicaragua has broken diplomatic relations with Colombia he is into the problem; then the map should have nicaragua and his flag added and the title changed? --ometzit<col> (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems to be settled. Remember that the World Wars did not necessarily include the entire world. :P LostLucidity (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name consistency

[edit]

In one paragraph the assassinated is referred to as Raul Reyes and Luis Devia. The article should point out that there is an alias, and then consistently use one or the other for the rest of the article. Murderbike (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I fixed it.--Ciroa (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian Flag

[edit]

Is it me or the Ecuadorian flag is oversized if compared with the other two flags?.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. Also the order can be confusing as well in terms of flag placement and country labeling in the figure. I find it a little clearer if it coincides with the geography order of the nations from west to east or Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela. LostLucidity (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Firefox and can't see it, I didn't realise how similar the flags were until reading this article. Happy editing, SqueakBox 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three countries plus Panama use to form a larger nation. They basically took from that flag's origin. LostLucidity (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flags are indeed in different sizes. Ecuador flag is right in the middle ans is too big. I´m going to change that. Also I think there should be a order on these issue, I suggest Colombia in the middle, Ecuador on the left and Venezuela on the right. It goes with their relative position in the continent, and also the contenders: Ecuador and Venezuela against Colombia.--ometzit<col> (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flags are OK (I don't know if after editing by ometzit). The flag of Ecuador is longer: it has a ratio of height to width of 1:2. The flag of Colombia and the flag of Venezuela are shorter: they both have a height to width ratio of 2:3. This means that Ecuadorian flag is 33% longer than the other two flags, if they have the same height, like in the article.--Ciroa (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ecuadorian flag is supposed to be that size. That is just how that flag is. I made the order of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela to be consistent with the usage of the bilateral infoboxes. It is only a coincidence that these states are west to east. In general, as far as a trilateral infobox is concerned, they could just as easily be north to south or not connected at all. If you look at the articles Colombia-Ecuador relations and Colombia-Venezuela relations (or any other foreign relations article on Wikipedia) then this infobox design I used might make more sense. In alphabetical order, this situation would be "Colombia-Ecuador-Venezuela relations" meaning that the infobox would have Colombia as the first state (green), Ecuador as the second state (orange), and Venezuela as the third state (blue). Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey entering into Iraq, Israel entering into Gaza, Colombia entering into Ecuador at the same time

[edit]

Are there sources connecting those events, potentially as being pushed by the US? Because it very well sounds to be the case. --Leladax (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can give yourself that task. LostLucidity (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, one might wonder why the US would benefit from synchronous invasions. Maybe this is the kind of article you can use for inspiration? Andreas Willow (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine there will not be sources, though it is interesting. However, I don't think the thing with Turkey is something we really have control over, we have to give them some support to keep them from going all out. Same with Israel and Colombia. However, this overlapping of them is pretty fascinating.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Israel

[edit]

I added Mr.Chávez' comments about Colombia becoming the Israel of Latin America from the Spanish version of this article. I tried looking this up in the NYT, CNN and Sky News but couldn't really find it. Can anyone find it on English-speaking media? -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a report about it, from a Israeli news source I think should do it. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=960284&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1 --ometzit<col> (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the fact that Israel reacts to it (see this article) is sufficient proof (link found as a reference in the article). Unfortunately it's not in English either, but I think it provides enough certainty. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Semana Documents

[edit]

I put them in a different section because there is a lot of information in the magazine and it would be ok if it goes in a section (a subsection, per se), and a lot of them is important like the letters (not all of them has been released, the uranium stuff has more cool things, like that french intelligence emissary).
Also, I dont see where is the original research, I´m just translating. If I had done original research and/or interpretation I had said that the guacaipuro war games are a direct maneuver to prepare venezuelan military forces to engage colombia with assistance of ecuador and nicaragua (as the article said, in fact. its too late to imagine what could i have said as original research) and not just that, a war game (i hope so). BTW u deleted the NXTbook reference, that´s not original research look the address and the copyrigth it crearly states that the document is a NXTbook and using the platform--ometzit<col> (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that SEMANA is neutral, for example, or implying that all/some those documents weren't revealed by the government does require some original opinions and/or interpretations, to give you one example. I deleted the explicit mention of NXTBook within the text, but not the referenced links to their website. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua

[edit]

Nicaragua has broken off diplomatic ties with Colombia. Making it the fourth country to directly involve itself in the diplomatic crisis. It seems the term so far used, "Andean diplomatic crisis" will have to be revised (and the map and flags). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.16.152 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the info has been added. I don't believe this means we have to change the name of the article, at least not for know, as the focus is still very much in the Andean region, which is where the incursion occurred. 4 countries, I only count 3 that have broken off relations. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said fourth country to involve itself in the cisis (Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and now Nicaragua). Well it is mainly in South America, and the incursion occurred in South America, but that logic would then dismiss Venezuela because no incursion happened on there border. Nicaragua has reacted in much the same way that Venezuela did, other than order its military on its Colombian border, since theres none, so I think its on an equal footing with Venezuela's prominent inclusion in the diplomatic crisis. Not being belligerent just giving my two cents mind you (sorry if I come off so, not tryingto attack anybody)
What do the editors on this page think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.16.152 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the crisis is sparked by the threat of military force. Venezuela's military build up is a major step up over only cutting diplomatic ties. Nicaragua doesn't pose any real military threat. LostLucidity (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the involvement of Nicaragua complicates even more this issue. Nicaragua and Colombia have no terrestrial border, but they share a long maritime border. As I'll explain, Mr. Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, threatened with military force three months before this crisis. The story is like this:
Nicaragua has complained, specially in the last five or six years, that the maritime border treatises it has with Colombia are null and void because they were signed in 1930, when the country was invaded by USA. Nicaragua first claimed San Andrés y Providencia in 1980, fifty years after the treaties were signed. San Andrés is an island near Nicaragua that has been under colombian control for over 200 years. Nicaragua filed a complaint to the International Court of Justice in 2001 claiming those islands. The issue is still undecided by the ICJ. However, Ortega has claimed that Colombia is "imperialist" and "expansionist" because colombian authorities refuse to sign a new treaty. To sum up, there is a "hot" maritime border between the two countries, Colombia and Nicaragua. There are frequent arrests and seizures of Nicaraguan fishing boats by colombian navy units, west of the meridian 82, which is the border established in the present treaties. Every time this happens, Nicaragua claims those boats are in their waters, even if there is no treaty recognized by Nicaragua that define the limit between the two countries. You can check the article in Wikipedia at Colombia-Nicaragua relations. Given the support extended by Venezuela to Ecuador, the fact that the Venezuelan navy is much stronger than the Colombian one, and the mutual support that Ortega and Chávez has given each other publicily, there is some fear in Colombia of the consequences. After all, the movement of troops from Venezuela to its border has not been mirrored by Colombia, but any movement of Venezuelan or Nicaraguan navy units into what Colombia considers part of its territory should be responded by colombian authorities.
On December 12, 2007, one day before the ICJ first ruling, Ortega ordered the military to be prepared for a conflict with Colombia, three months before Chávez did the same. Uribe answered he will ignore Ortega and that Colombia will abide by the ICJ resolution. On December 13 the ICJ decided that the islands were colombian after all, but the ICJ also said it could move the borders in future decissions to be released this year. The ICJ said they will rule about some small keys to the north of the islands. The following day, December 14, after the initial ruling, Ortega stated that the FARC were his "brothers" and that they should free Ingrid Betancourt because her death "could be imputed to FARC". On December 15, colombian authorities protested this statement of support to what they called a "narcoterrorist organization", explaining that Mrs. Betancourt has been a captive of FARC for almost six years and that her life was, of course, in FARC hands. Colombia also complained about the health of Mrs. Betancourt, which can be seen visibly deteriorated in the videos released by FARC by those dates. The french President, Mr. Sarkozy has complained about the same health issue recently (maybe yesterday). I'm sorry for going out of NPOV and possibly out of the scope of this article, but the letters of Betancourt to her mother, made public last December are really heart breaking. Thus, Ortega movements have been seen in Colombia as oportunistic, specially because Raúl Reyes was the man in charge of the movements and logistics of the "political hostages". "Martín Sombra" (nom de guerre), the man in the guerrilla that was directly responsible for the people held in "political kidnaps" was captured a few days before Mr. Reyes death. Mr. "Sombra" (Mr. "Shadow") accepted on TV that he was in charge of these kidnapped people and that he was under Reyes direct command. He is awaiting extradition to USA because of his direct involvement in the kidnapping of three americans, still held by FARC. You can pick whatever you feel is important from my long comment to include in the article, after checking for sources, if it seems relevant.--Ciroa (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ICJ already ruled that the three main islands are Colombian, just so you know. What isn't defined are the details of the exact maritime border and the ownership of other minor islands or land formations. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, very interesting. Thanks for the time it to took you to write such a lenghtly insightful look at that situation. But on the current subject, it seems to me that the conflict or "crisis" is a diplomatic rift, not a military one, as such the fact that Nicaragua has taken a much harder position than any non-involved states have, and has involved itself directly, the matter of military buildup against a border or mobilizing Armed Forces seems, to me, somewhat irrelavent to the fact that Nicaragua is now as closely involved as possible (and noting that Nicaragua is a member of ALBA which now has a military agreement). They have recalled its ambassadores according to the Spanish news stations Ive seen (I'll look for a source) and Ortega has made some very vehement statements just like all the other parties involved and has said they will stand with Ecuador "all the way". Well personally I dont feel Nicaragua's actions should be dismissed so simply as secondary, since it seems it is as equal level as possible without sharing a border or a blatant provocation like Navy vessels in Colombian waters (which would exceed Ecuadors and Venezuela's responses which are preventative measures of a possible Colombian incursion while such a hypothetical Nicaraguan action involving its Navy would be more a threat of war, not a pre-emptive measure against territorial incursion). Well, thats just how I see it but I think I have a more or less firm case for its inclusion of members directly involved with the crisis, which again, is a diplomatic one, one which Nicaragua said it would support militarily if need be according to Ortega. Again, just my take on this situation.

Anymore editors notes? or anyones thoughts on my view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.16.152 (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been demonstrated that Nicaragua is a major player yet. I think we should evaluate the situation in a few days to see if it escalates. At this moment I would say that the major regional powers involved in this crisis are Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela while Nicaragua has a very minor involvement. If we included Nicaragua then we would also have include other states that have minor involvement and alliances in this situation such as Cuba and the United States. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Burzum, there is nothing wrong with the title or the selection of parties involved. Besides, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". On the other hand, I added I link to Colombia-Nicaragua relations, so people that want to dig into the issue find a way to read about it. I've already included Mr. Reyes amazing list of crimes (only those for which he was senteced in a court of law) in his biography.--Ciroa (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reyes was France's point-man for the release of Betancourt; the French foreign minister lamented his death for that very reason. That's the connection between the Columbian action and Betancourt's condition. If there's a connection between Ortega's reaction(or Chavez's/Correa's) and her condition, it hasn't been explained. Tomblikebomb (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 million dollars????

[edit]

Please read the following: http://www.gregpalast.com/300-million-from-chavez-to-farc-a-fake/

It has a link to the letter that according to the American media, especially, shows "evidence" of the 300 million dollar money transfer. Please do not use CNN as a reliable source for this! The whole thing is a lie, and this wikipedia article mentions the $300M transfer as fact in at least two places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.22.66 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe it or not it is an allegation that has been circulated quite widely and which is an important part of the crisis. Wikipedia's job is not to judge accuracy of the news but rather document the overall news situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
206..'s point is that we stated a disputed allegation as a fact (that the documents, rather than allegations and reports about the documents, even say anything at all about $300 million), and thus didn't document the overall situation well. This is not neutral, so I made appropriate changes. Actually, the text was going beyond the cited CNN report - CNN carefully avoids saying "the documents say X", but only says that "Naranjo says the documents say X", and is thus logically consistent with Palast. See [1] for another link to the Palast story.4.234.12.180 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all nice and tidy and should be included as a dissenting interpretation, that much is okay....but there's one other thing: Palast himself doesn't reference other mentions of the "dossier" and the related individuals (Angel, "cojo"):
#11
Febrero 08- 08.
Camarada Manuel, camaradas Secretariado. Cordial saludo.
1- Realizamos en 6346-6847-6875-6242 el encuentro con Ángel. Recibió
personalmente la carta del camarada Manuel, la cual leyó en voz alta. Lo
notamos muy contento. Le va a escribir al camarada.
2- Ya tiene disponibles los primeros 50 y tiene un cronograma para
completarnos 200 en el transcurso del año.
3- El amigo de 348-6546-6447-6849-6471-6542 le sugirió trabajar el paquete
por la vía del mercado negro para evitar problemas. El 17 de este mes llega
a 6371-6845-6371-6242 un alto delegado de ese amigo para concretar el
listado. Ángel nos pidió estar allí para que cuadremos personalmente con el
delegado. Esto es clave.
4- Nos ofreció la posibilidad de un negocio en el que nosotros recibimos una
cuota de petróleo para comercializarla en el exterior, lo cual nos dejaría una
jugosa utilidad.
Otra oferta: venta de gasolina a Colombia, o en Venezuela. Tomando del
dossier, creación de una empresa rentable para inversiones en Venezuela.
Posibilidad de adjudicación de contratos del Estado. En todo lo relacionado
con este tema participó el gerente de “6579-6545-6245-6449”. Para lo
pertinente, Ángel designó a Ernesto para que coordinemos con él."
You can find this in those places which are currently hosting the documents, including: ::: http://www.eltiempo.com/conflicto/noticias/ARCHIVO/ARCHIVO-3985321-0.pdf
There's a translation for some relevant excerpts here: http://www.cipcol.org/?p=551
I won't go into too much original research / interpretation, which has no place in this article...but other press sources (notably the SEMANA special edition, but also U.S. sources) have mentioned some of the statements above about the "dossier" or "Angel", which don't seem to be restricted to the interpretation presented by Palast, who bases his entire argument on only one or two of the documents.
So the existence of other statements should be referenced as well, to be fair and accurate. I'll probably add some of those statements later, if I find the time and nobody has done so before. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered By Columbia???

[edit]

Please let me make the argument that this is like the cold war who triggers one battle it can never be said with clarity who started the WAR. Columbia is fighting the South American Taliban FARC attacks by holding hostages and by spreading their cocaine across the world that acts as a bomb in cities all over the world. I must have missed something isn't the hostage taker the bad guy isn't the FARC just a criminal organization once based on communism and now greed. I'll Drive anyone through the ghetto of Rochester NY to see the damage of these animals and their drug. I just wish I were the one to pull the trigger and kill Raul .As for some of the pro Chavez stuff above go back to your suburban home with your rich capitalist parents and discuss the Bolivarian Revolution with your rich friends. I've been robbed at gun point by crack users so tell me anyone who deals in it grows sells or helps them is virtuous like Mr. Chvez.Chavez, "The water isn't running those capitalist American pigs did it"--N8Riley (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum, if you have relevant verifiable information then edit the article but remember this is not a place for discussing personal experiences. --JRSP (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

over?

[edit]

the Wikipedia main page said the conflict was resolved, but the article doesn't make this clear, this contradiction needs clearing up quickly as it makes Wikipedia look unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was made clear by the last line of the introduction as well as in the last paragraph of the Diplomatic developments section. LostLucidity (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

The number of guerrillas killed appears inconsistent between sources. How should this be dealt with? Thanks. LostLucidity (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit POV in the Background-section??

[edit]

While I have no major beef with the factual accuracy of the section per se, I must say that the structure of it, starting with the very convenient (and quite recent) terrorist-label on Farc (and not, to propose an opposite and quite stupit POV angle, with the human rights or social inequality records of Colombia). With its current structure, I feel the background section is biased. As a quick solution I would propose to remove the two first sentences of it and wikilink FARC. I'm pretty sure that the same information is there for those that wants to know what EU and the US thinks about them. As "background" to the Andean crisis it is a quite strange starting point, I think. If there are no objections I will proceed with this change in a few days. PS: I just want to stress again that I do not dispute the facts, but I feel it is a bit [WP:UNDUE]. Neither do I care for FARC at all either.pertn (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I once reverted an edit blatantly labeling the FARC as terrorist because it was unsourced and to be coherent with the Wikipedia article about them that states they are a guerrilla organization. But in this case I have to admit that the claims are backed up by reliable sources. I don't oppose the removal of the lines you mention. Your argument about an interested person following wikilinks to find out what the U.S.A and the E.U. think about them seems right to me. So if no opposes it, I'll say go ahead. --Legion fi (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I agree. It is clearly well sourced and factually accurate that the US and the EU labels Farc terrorists. It is also fairly relevant to this article, but I think it is WP:Undue to start off the "Background" section of this article with it, since that may be interpreted as an argument that the crisis started because FARC are terrorists, which may be true, but which is mostly a POV. The typical background section would be to refer to the long lasting history of conflict in Colombia, leading up to the recent developments. However that is not really my area of expertise, so I suggest someone else write it. pertn (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

[edit]

I removed this claim [2] which was uncited and tagged since March, and added a bunch of other fact tags as the other statements are slo uncited Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay in retrospect it probably didn't need 3 templates since some sentences, particularly the first one, are unlikely to be contentious. But after removing the detail above, I didn't want to been as one sided. In any case, I've reduce the fact tags to one Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by user SummerWithMorons

[edit]

Well, I must admit some of his edits were minor, and I even spotted one that was actually trying to correct some refs. But check the history. Most of his edits were based on an arguably reliable source, and his redaction was clearly POV. I PRAY for some other editor to review his edits and correct me if I'm wrong. Please feel free to revert me if that is the case. But please watch the video and read the edits. I may be ideologically in the same page as the edits, but the source is clearly biased, and contains unsourced claims, and also puts some words out of context. The interview is clearly guided, as the interviewee follows the interviewers question as if they were scripted. I'm not saying that the content shouldn't be in the wikipedia. All I'm saying is that this is not the source for it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Instead of linking to the unreliable source, try rephrasing your words and link to the Interpol report. Again, please review this case asap and feel free to revert me if you consider the sources to be reliable. Thank you --Legion fi (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reverting of sourced content is disrupting Wikipedia not helping it. You have to actually read the reliable sources policy, the source is independent and reliable, and the guest is an historian.--Sum (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert a third time, but I'm asking you to also not revert back, until ANOTHER editor check the issue. I've already read the reliable sources policy, and I read it again at your request. I also urge you to read the neutral point of view policy. Also please check WP:QS (which is part of the RS policy) and WP:FRINGE (the last one specially, as I'm not against the inclusion of the content, but I'm against of the way it was included). Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to revert it again. If you really want to engage in the editing of articles, you have to get your hands dirty and address sentence by sentence, reference by reference, and use the appropriate tags (inline or per section) when you feel there are issues. Deleting and reverting are the last resorts and should be avoided. Thank you. --Sum (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with the inclusion of material from those sources, as long as it is made clear that they are presenting the opinion of the people or organizations quoted in those sources (the Real News, etc.), and not pushing their POVs as if they were unquestionable facts worthy of inclusion in the article's introduction without even indicating whose point of view they are representing or what others think about them. Especially when they deal with disputed interpretations and controversial issues where there is more than one position. The editor can't just ignore that and say "sorry, that should stay because it's sourced" without even recognizing that there's a big POV problem there. I tried to modify a couple of them, more or less, in any case, and removed others until they can be added in a manner that respects the guidelines cited above by Legion fi. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are not accustomed with wikipedia policies. Criticism sections should be avoided. Regarding the removed content, you should know that deleting is the last resort, and you should use inline template first, as I did for your naïve section.--Sum (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I am not an expert on several aspects of article structure policies or how they've evolved other time, since criticism sections still exist in several articles and I had not read that before. My mistake, in any case.
I re-added several of those removed statements or details already, after modifying or moving them as well. Also merged the criticism section into the larger one about the laptops if that's preferable. I can concede that easily.
On the other hand, the existence (or not) of a criticism section seems far greater of a problem for you than the POV concerns inherent in your original edits. What does that say about your understanding of that other Wikipedia policy? Juancarlos2004 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biting your tongue there Sum? It is correct that "Criticism" sections are not recommended. But that is not a policy. As you can clearly read in the wikilink that you posted, it is a style guideline, which is different from a policy. Just to let you know, the three core wikipedia policies are: WP:NPOV,WP:NOR and WP:V. The other policies are either directly derived from those, or are indeed simple redirects to parts of those base policies. You have managed to read some policies and guidelines, and wikilawyer around them, but have failed to review the ones we have mentioned, and failed to read them as a whole. You have not assumed good faith from other editors. Also, I don't have to lay tags all over the article (a practice which is also not advised), I can simply be bold (as you were in your first edit) and let other editors complete the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Also, about the "naive" section (could you please check WP:NPA? Thanks), have you ever heard that Ignoring All Rules was one of the first wikipedia policies to be considered?. Clearly is not us who lack custom and understanding of the wikipedia policies.
I just want to finish by greeting JuanCarlos2004 for his great job. Thanks a lot. --Legion fi (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by user Milner Pilsner

[edit]

As you can see in the section above, I removed the same content that Milner Pilsner is removing. But, the inclusion of the material was discussed and JuanCarlos made a great job adding the content to the article, without the POV of SummerWithMorons. I reverted Milner Pilsner edits because of three reasons:

  • They were basically copy/pasting of his source
  • He removed previously discussed and sourced content
  • The content he is adding is already mentioned in the article

Again, I ask a third editor to take a look at this edits. And I ask Milner Pilsner not to revert, but to ADD his content. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's MP addition:

However after a 2 month independent investigation by Interpol, an initial analysis of 37,872 written documents and 7,989 e-mail addresses turned up correspondence among rebel commanders in which they discussed conversations with officials including Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín and General Hugo Carvajal, the Venezuelan military intelligence chief. Some messages are from the FARC's commander, Manuel Marulanda, directly to Hugo Chavez.[1]

At a first glance, I disagree with the introductory "however" (See WP:WTA) as it seems to imply that previous statement should be disregarded. I still have to check the source[3], so I'll rejoin the discussion later. JRSP (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a first reading of the Washingtong Post article, I would say Milner left out important balancing aspects of the article such as Ecuadoran Minister Salvador and Venezuelan President Chávez statements. Also, I think we should check more sources as some controversial statements Mr. Forero[4] makes in his article would better be crosschecked with other reliable sources. JRSP (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are Forero's statements controversial and who considers them controverisal? I have found several other sources that would appear to concur with the WAP article:
The Economist

THEY represent only one side of a story, and most of their claims have yet to be independently corroborated. But Interpol has now concluded that the huge cache of e-mails and other documents recovered from the computers of Raúl Reyes, a senior leader of the FARC guerrillas killed in a Colombian bombing raid on his camp in Ecuador on March 1st, are authentic and undoctored. The documents throw new light on the inner workings of the FARC. And they raise some very pointed questions about the ties between Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, and a group considered to be terrorists by the United States and the European Union (EU).

Venezuelan officials have dismissed the documents as fabrications. That was contradicted by Ronald Noble, Interpol's secretary-general, who announced in Bogotá on May 15th, after two months of study by a team of 64 foreign experts, that the computer files came from the FARC camp and had not been modified in any way. Mr Chávez called this “ridiculous”, questioning the impartiality of Mr Noble, who is American, and labelling him a “gringo policeman”. However, in one indication of their accuracy, the documents provided information that in March guided police in Costa Rica to a house where they found $480,000 in cash, as an e-mail suggested.

After reading WP:RS I would like to point out a few more problems with the article. The Real News does not appear to meet the criteria of a reliable source. Considering that Escobar's quote from Noble: "it would take more than 1,000 years—more than 1,000 years—to read all the data if one person read 100 pages per day" is certianly taken out of context, consider the full text [5]:
. Milner Pilsner (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One has to be careful with mainstream American, Colombian and Venezuelan media when it comes to Hugo Chávez. The Economist has a traditional anti-Chávez editorial line too. Contrast these articles with this BBC report[6], for instance. It uses a more conservative, neutral language. Also, would you explain why you think "The Real News" is not in line with the WP:RS guideline? JRSP (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One has to be careful with mainstream American, Colombian and Venezuelan media when it comes to Hugo Chávez"'. I dont believe that this is a polcy or a guideline used in Wikipedia. In fact the reliable source policy explcity states that

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press.

Secondly, the piece from Pepe Escobar is primarily opinion, and has little value for adding factual content to the article. The Real News certainly does not appear to confrom with the statement: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" . Milner Pilsner (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please note that, at first, I also reverted the addition of The Real News content. But then it reached consensus for inclusion. Regarding this particular source and content, well.. The Interpol verifiably concluded that the files were not tampered with. But again, THAT IS ALREADY mentioned in the article. The Interpol also stated that they cannot confirm that all the files were written by the rebel leaders (please do a primary source on that one, since both The Real News and the Washington Post misrepresent what the actual Interpol report said). So, as far as I'm concerned, we should keep the The Real News content. And be open to what Milner Pilsner is adding. What I'm totally against is the removal of the consensed content. If you, Milner Pilsner, want to remove it (as I wanted myself before) please also discus it with Sum and with JuanCarlos, who were the other ones involved in the addition of that content. If you convince them, then I won't oppose the removal. If you don't, and you still think that the content should be removed, please go trough a Request for comment process. As of the time being, I think the current version should be kept, pending the reach of consensus. Thank you --Legion fi (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legion, I noticed that a frequent habit of yours is to revert edits of other users. But this has the discouraging effetc of creating a bad environment for other people that are willing to contribute. Please avoid that, possibly limiting it to only reverts of vandalism. For instance, in the case of user Milner Pilsner, I would have just restored the removed content and at the same time kept what he added.--Sum (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was me and not Legion who made the last revert. As I stated above, the linking "however" implied some POV, apart from that, the other contents were already in the article. Regarding The Real News, several editors at the RS noticeboard agree it can be considered a reliable source. JRSP (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FARC Computer Files Are Authentic, Interpol Probe Finds". Washington Post. 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2008-06-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

International reaction

[edit]

I think this section gives an undue weight to US reactions. Obama's, Clinton's and McCain's statements can be removed, in my opinion. Perhaps the other statements could be abridged or consolidated. JRSP (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that US media should not have a predominant weight. Could you add, anywhere in the article, some non-English sources from Venezuela, and maybe from other LA countries?--Sum (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a fair point, so I'd agree that some of the statements could be abbreviated in order to prevent undue weight. But I also think that the position of the three candidates could still be reflected, even if in summarized form. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have the following statements now:

  • G. Johndroe (spokesman for President Bush): surprised by Chávez statements.
  • T. Casey from DoS: US supports Colombia's right of defend itself and urges diplomatic solution. (not in source BTW)
  • GW Bush: Complete support to Uribe, criticizes Chávez and urges Congress for FTA approval. Phones Uribe.
  • H. Clinton: Supports Colombia and criticizes Chávez.
  • Obama: Supports Colombia and urges diplomatic solution.
  • McCain: Supports Colombia and FTA approval. (ref is broken)
  • Shannon: Ask for diplomatic solution and offers assistance to Colombia in case of military action.
  • J. Savridis from Southern Command: Little chance of full scale confrontation

We may leave a sentence for Bush and DoS officials, one for candidates and another for S. Command, something like US Executive supported Colombia's position, criticized Chávez and asked for a diplomatic solution while offering assistance to Colombia in case of military action and urged Congress for FTA approval [refs]. Main aspirants to contend in December 2008 presidential election also supported Colombia.[refs] US Southern Command downplayed the possibility of an armed confrontation between Colombia and Venezuela or Colombia and Ecuador.[ref]. JRSP (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "BBC" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273320.stm |title=Farc aura of invincibility shattered| publisher=BBC News |date=[[2008-03-01]] |accessdate=2008-03-02}}
    • {{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7275732.stm|title=US urges diplomacy in Bogota row}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Computers of Raul Reyes" should be an independent article

[edit]

I added some information related to the legal actions that have been pursued not only by the colombian authorities, but by several international organizations based on the information retrieved on Reyes' computers, I also added a little bit of information which is unrelated to the crisis itself but is contained on the documents-and that has been corroborated by FARC desertors. I did this simply because there is no other place in Wikipedia for that information,and I believe it's important enough to be mentioned.

But I feel like this subject simply deserves it's own page, as it not only deals with such an impressive amount on information on a wide range of subjects,but also has brought in much controversy. Such page already exists on the Spanish Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computadores_de_Ra%C3%BAl_Reyes

On a more personal tone, the article appeared to indicate that most of the documents were related to the international crisis, and that the information could have been fabricated by the Colombian Government to either justify its actions or try to tarnish its neightbours reputations. The first allegation is simply not true, as the laptops contained information related to all kinds of crimes and activities , even from the early 90'. Crimes which the Colombian people witnessed and suffered. The second allegation seems to imply that Colombia had a laptop full of data and personal pictures of Raul Reyes (Obtained from who knows where, as they were taken on the same camp that was attacked by the Air Force, and the article clearly states that it was an opportunity target) ready to be published at any time an international crisis ocurred, with the intention to annoy two neighbours and important economic partners, simply "because they don't share my ideology".(A complete absurdity)

The Colombian people already knew about the possible ties between the Venezuelan intelligence agencies and the FARC, as one of the links I provided clearly states, so why is it still so hard for people to consider that the information is true?

For me, hearing people say that the information contained on the laptops is fabricated, is like listening to those who say 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence points to the contrary, not only with various tangible findings like the Costa Rican "caleta" , but also the fact that The Colombian government isn't the only one who has been using the information to prosecute and investigate people for posible terrorist ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMaster4000 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should probably be its own topic. I note, in case anyone's interested, that the data is a subject of current discussion at Talk:Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. Rd232 talk 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anyone's saying the data was fabricated en toto. The issue is manipulation, with Interpol noting that every device recovered was accessed between 1 and 3 March 2008 (date recovered from FARC, date handed to Interpol), with thousands of system files modified (laptops booted) - yet somehow conclude that there was no manipulation. Experts noted that the devices could have had entire disk images copied onto them, giving the manipulators as much preparation time as necessary. [7] Rd232 talk 09:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited

[edit]
Richard asr (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article. One thing: three laptops recovered from the FARC camp were mentioned more than once in earlier parts of the article, but in the section relating to Interpol, Interpol in their quotes twice refer to eight machines. I had to tag it with an 'inconsistent' label because it stands out so clearly as a contradiction. Could earlier newspaper reports have been mistaken? Richard asr (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis&oldid=1217334639"