Talk:Colombia–United States relations

Cleanup

The article needs cleanup, according to the tag added by another contributor, and I agree. Two of the reasons, beyond grammar and spelling, are its relative fragmentation and its lack of sources. It could be better if the article dealt with U.S. interventions in a chronological manner. For example, one section should clearly refer to interventions in the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, etc. In addition, many of the claims, especially the more subjective ones, need to have links or references. The information has to be verified or at least attributed to specific persons or entities. If such references cannot be found, then they should be removed or altered. Juancarlos2004 17:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

::my good lord is this article terrible. I started to edit it but gave up. I think it should be scrapped and completly rewritten.Travb 10:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

this refers to an old version of the article, not the completly new version.Travb 03:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold

I simply added #REDIRECT [[Plan Colombia]] to this article. I hate to do something so radical, but this article is so poorly written, I felt it was the only solution. I have my lawschool paper on Colombia, about 10 pages cover the history of the US in Colombia, which, when done, I can add to this article. since it is a lawschool paper, every single sentence is referenced.Travb 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

*Insert POV Scream Here*

What's up Travb? Hope you're doing fine.

As for the article, which is what actually matters right now...I'm only half-kidding here about the "POV Scream", as you pretty accurately predicted would happen.

All kidding aside...you do know, in fact both of us do, why the article currently reads more like "Documented Criticisms of U.S. Policy Towards Colombia in the last Fifty Years" than anything else, which isn't really equivalent to something currently titled "U.S.-Colombia Relations" in Wikipedia. At the very least, the title needs to change, and so does a fair amount of the narration.

For the record, I have no personal problems with your work, in fact I happen to agree with several of the arguments being made in it. But in Wikipedia, none of us can say that the dominant POV'ing throughout the article isn't rather evident. It is pretty much a direct consequence of the way in which the information (as extremely well-sourced as it is) is being presented, hence some things have to change there as well. All the claims should stay, and as well as their sources, but the way in which they have been written isn't NPOV by any means.

I'll be back with more specific things to say/do about this later, if necessary. Tomorrow, probably, Juancarlos2004 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I didn't expect the POV tag. I am only surprised at how quickly I saw it.

I am also surprised I saw the name Juancarlos2004 behind the POV tag--didn't realize you would be online now.

Oh this paper is incredibly POV. I am not extolling the virtues of US foreign policy here. Lawyers are supposed to make arguments, forceful arguments, and this is a law school paper, so it is inheriently POV. I have seen a few "balanced" law school papers, but they are outnumbered 10 to 1.

When I sent you a copy of my paper, I took your arguments to heart about making my paper more balanced, but simply ran out of time. My priority was getting my argument across first and foremost, and I think I did that.

If anyone should edit this article for POV on all of wikipedia, it is you Juan. I would trust only you to do it right, and give it justice. Most Americans would scream "POV" too, but they could not find Colombia on the map, let alone add any balance to the article.

I'm only half-kidding here about the "POV Scream", as you pretty accurately predicted would happen.

Your not kidding at all. No need to be a diplomat. Tell me straight up what you think.

I put portions of my paper on wikipedia so it would be ruthlessly criticized and rewritten. You are the best person to do this.

Anyway, I am going to e-mail you. If you don't get the email, shot me a message on my userpage.Travb 03:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I surprised you a bit then. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Though, truth be told, I definitely don't think that I'll manage to do all of it by myself (let alone without making mistakes or POV'ing of my own), but I'll start making edits to the article later. I will also try to be more explicit about discussing the article here, tomorrow. Until then... Juancarlos2004 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for edits

Any deletions can you add to this page? I noticed that you blanked this section:

Violence is so prevalent in Colombia that Colombia has created a new type of social scientist, called the violentologist, to analyze the violence. ^[1] The majority of violentologists attribute the violence to three causes:

1. a weak central state,
2. poverty, and an
3. elite political system which excludes the less affluent of society. ^[2]

This wikipedia page focuses on a fourth factor which most American's are strikingly naïve about: ^[3] America did not create the root causes of instability and violence in Colombia, but America's presence in Colombia today often exacerbates the violence and instability. ^[4]

I feel that this is important because if acknowledges that the US is not the cause of all of the problems in Colombia. The one sentence I struck could be removed, but without an explation of the root causes of today's violence in Colombia, a naive person would think that the US is responsible for all of the problems in Colombia, which we know is far from the reality.

Nice edits BTW.

Signed:Travb (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is/was meant as a temporary blank for format/stylistic reasons, not due to any final judgement about its importance/relevance to the article. I may probably restore it later, but in the meanwhile you may also re-add it or rephrase it if you wish. No particular problems there. In any case, I'll try to add any future blanks/deletions to this page. Juancarlos2004 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored the hidden section. Travb (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed to talk

This section was hidden from the main article a few months ago, using <!-- -->. I decided to move it to talk:

Both liberal and conservative mainstream foreign policy analysts and the majority of International Relations academics hold an orthodox interpretation of American post-Cold War policy as fundamentally different from the earlier Cold War period, called the "discontinuity thesis". Bristol University Politics Department professor Doug Stokes argues forcefully that the "discontinuity thesis" is flawed. Stokes contends that post-US Cold War policy, which is anti-democratic when US elite interests are threatened, is no different from earlier Cold War policy. ^[5] This revisionist position argues that the Cold War was principally about Northern Hemisphere competition to control and exploit Southern Hemisphere natural resources, in other words, "the maintenance of a world capitalist order conducive to US economic interests". ^[6] Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, this competition for third world resources continues, thus there is "continuity" in US foreign policy. Stokes uses the US policies in Colombia to test this thesis and concludes US foreign policy has been consistent in Colombia.

1. ^ Doug Stokes, Why the End of the Cold War Doesn't Matter: the US War of Terror in Colombia, Bristol Univ. Politics Dept., available at http://www.aqnt98.dsl.pipex.com/choms.htm. (last visited Apr. 9, 2006).
2. ^ Doug Stokes, America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia 13 (Zed Books 2005).

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

Alright, I've made some edits and done a bit of cleanup today, but a lot of things must still be done to improve and build upon what is already there. Here are some general ideas:

-I believe that several subjects remain a bit too dominant, considering that "U.S.-Colombia relations" also deal with topics such as commerce, diplomacy, politics, entertainment, sports and so forth; topics not really related to military/human rights issues. Or maybe this article should be renamed to "U.S.-Colombia military relations" or something similar, since most of the existing material can be described as such, one way or another.

-On that note, existing military and human rights issues could use some more work too. Generic, non-controversial facts and other points of view (ie: those in favor of current U.S. / Colombia policies) should also be included and more extensively detailed (and/or rather, summarized by linking to the relevant pages elsewhere in Wikipedia), not only for completeness but for NPOV too.

That's pretty much it for now. Juancarlos2004 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

changed name to U.S.-Colombia military relations, as per your suggestion. we are the only two here, so we can pretty much do anything we want with the article.

After you get done hacking, I need to change the tags from the old tags to the new ref tags. It is a huge job since this article is so footnoted.

You can also add {{todo}} tag at the top of this page, and list what needs to be done, albiet you seem to be the only one working on this article (I am not interested in working on it right now) so it would pretty much be a to do list for yourself. Travb (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

- I believe too that the article is more colombia-usa military relations. It should be or expanded or change the name.