Template talk:Colombia conflict

Pastrana's Conception?
I've done a lit review for Plan Colombia and no where in the documentation is there any indication that the Plan was conceived by Pastrana's administration. In fact, it was only until after the package passed Congress was a Spanish translation made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.181.253 (talk • contribs)

Visionary Party?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see how that Party, which was a fleeting (and failed, because now that the Congressional elections are over it doesn't exist) vehicle for Antanas Mockus could be considered an important party in the context of the Colombian conflict. Mockus might try to re-launch it at some point in the future, but right now it only exists in his head. Juancarlos2004 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Colombia Soy Yo
I will do a link to Colombia Soy Yo (the movement of 4-F) in the government links, can someone please make an article for the movement or for the march or for something related to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.13.61 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

EPL
Should the EPL be moved into "Former groups?" It pretty much no longer exists as a guerrilla army. --Descendall 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Power to ya. [co/publico/comunicados/2006/cp0617.pdf#search=%22epl%20secuestro%202006%22].-- F3rn 4nd0  01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Governments
We should incluide governments of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia and Nicaragua as allies to guerrillas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.13.61 (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is insane. while the Colombian government has recently accused the goverments of Ecuador and Venezuela of supporting FARC, it is something both governments strongly deny, putting that into the template is a terrible fault against neutrality. As for the other governments of Latin America, they have all had some contact with the FARC with the purpose of the humanitarian interchange just as France has, but thinking that makes them FARC allies is absurd. --Homo logos (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to the discussion page looking for why the governments of Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela were "linked to" the guerilla groups in this template. Anyway, I removed them; there's no justification for that. I also added Venezuela as being "linked to" the CAF, mainly because of Operation Emmanuel. --Night_w 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think it is definitely a stretch to say that those governments had ties to FARC, and I can agree with you removing them.  However, on that same token, it's also a stretch to say Venezuela is related to the Colombian Government.  Might as well include Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Panama on that list.  Any thoughts?  Colombiano21 (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a stretch at all. Operation Emmanuel was a substantial victory for Uribe's government, and it was planned and co-op'd by the Venezuelans. I know he's been reluctant in the past to get in too deep with the Colombian conflict, but this time Chavez even supplied his own troops and aircraft--which is what the US is listed for, isn't it? I don't think we've seen the end of Venezuela's support in this struggle.


 * But I'm not going to do a back-and-forth editing thing, so I'll leave it alone. It's no big deal. But speaking of stretches... as much as they do for this world, I can't remember when the Canadians lended anything much to this battle. Gracias amigo --Night_w 07:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.254.140 (talk)

COLOMBIAN FOREIGN RELATIONS
I think this template is missing the EU-Colombia relations. they have mediated through out the process and has also intervened directly, as the case of France with Ingrid Betancourt and Germany with the spy Werner Mousse. I dont know if the irish can also be part of this. Spain has given military aid to colombia, and the EU in general. -- F3rn 4nd0  01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Write the article, then add the link RWV 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New template
Hi User:F3rn4nd0, I agree this template is really big. You deleted several section with the explanation: merging into new infobox I don't see this new infobox/template yet. Travb (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Colombian armed conflict and please tell me what do you see?-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 07:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is really great, thanks for your work. Below is everything that has been removed: Travb (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor fixes
Great job with the template travb.. I just think it needs some fixes.. the paramilitaries need their own column.. and then below these put the former groups.. similar to this:

-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 12:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * wow, thanks, I am glad the minor edit war has ended :) Nice additions. It is much better now than my former template Travb (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Added this article
I added this article to: Portal:Colombia/New article announcements hopefully this portal will get as popular as other country portals. Travb (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I think you guys have done some great work here, but guess I should try to explain some edits I've made. Needless to say, I'm willing to discuss them further if necessary. -The CONVIVIR groups were not a government agency but a program.

-Changed Colombia-U.S. relations to Colombia-U.S. military relations, due to naming and content.

-The term "supported by" used in all three columns is a bit debatable. Is the relationship between, say, the drug cartels and each of the three "parties" characterized exclusively as "support"? I think we shouldn't be making that call here, so a more generic term is preferrable in my view.

-The Spearhead link should point to Yair Klein.

This is all just what I think. Juancarlos2004 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you joined us.. welcome.. and thanks for the advice.. by the way there is this article that needs some help: Timeline of Colombian armed conflict you are invited to add.-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome. I'll see what I can do to help with that timeline later on. Juancarlos2004 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Add political parties?
I also think that the role of the political parties is key.. and should be connected to this template.. I just don't know how to make it look clearer.. specially the role of the Communist party. -- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. The question is how can we include all the information without making the template look horribly bloated. Maybe the timeline and lawsuits could be pushed down to the bottom, replacing them with a section containing the main political parties. Juancarlos2004 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Collapse and autocollapse
In case anyone missed it on the main page:

Use   or    to instantiate the template in, respectively, its collapsed (hidden) or uncollapsed (expanded) state. Use   to collapse the template only if there is another template of the same type on the page.

Travb (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ACCU v. CGSB
ACCU was a group that evolved into the AUC. ACCU was not the only group in the AUC. There was the BCB or Bananero Bloc, Élmer Cardenas Bloc which were also powerful. All these were blocs of the AUC. None of these are reportedly active anymore. All of these demobilized as AUC.

CGSB was the guerrilla version of the AUC, a guerrilla federation. it disappeared. In turn former members, which are still active are the FARC, EPL and the ELN. The Southern Bloc of the FARC-EP was initially the first FARC contingent. Should we add it to the template? don't think so.

Eventually there will be a template for the AUC in which you can see the many blocs of the AUC, such as the ACCU.

-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There were dozens of bloques of the AUC. Obviously, not all of them should be included in this template. However, the ACCU stands out unlike the others. It was the first paramilitary organization under the Castano brothers, the founder of the AUC, and really the most powerful part of it. ACCU members wore armbands (at least in the pictures that I have seen) that said ACCU, not AUC, so I assume that they always identified as ACCU. I'm not convinced that the ACCU is at all comprable to the Southern Bloc of the FARC. Is the FARC as decentralized as the AUC? Was the Southern Bloc originally totally idependent of other FARC fronts, and then decided to unite with them in a confederation? Do Southern Bloc members fighters wear uniforms that say "Southern Bloc" on them instead of FARC-EP?


 * Even if the ACCU was a group that was always totally under the complete control of the AUC, and I don't think it was, I'm still not exactly sure why we must avoid including subsidiary organizations in this template at all cost. If it's really that big of a deal, should we delete Colombian National Army Colombian Air Force, and Colombian National Armada from the template? After all, Military of Colombia is already listed.


 * Finally, just for the sake of clarity, you seem to say that the BCB was the same as the Bananero Bloc. It wasn't. The BCB was the Bloque Central Bolívar --Visitweak (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Movimiento Armado Quintín Lame
Movimiento Armado Quintín Lame should be added to the former guerrillas. I think they were actually part of the CGSB for a while. --Visitweak (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)