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)

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)