Talk:Álvaro Uribe

Colombia-Venezuela-Ecuador

I edited this section, mostly for factual reasons. For example, Chavez did not fail to offer evidence to Sarkozy and INSTEAD support the farc's request for a demilitarized zone, rather he was waiting on them and had always supported this idea. Also there needed to be a mention of the release of not only the Operation Emmanuel release, but also the four released later. Also Chavez did not call the Colombian military, cordoba did, and passed him the phone. All of this of course is documented everywhere. But perhaps more importantly I think the section discussing the bombing in Ecuador and the political consequences needed, and still needs, to be expanded. It has left Uribe isolated in the region but boosted support at home, and is probably the most important thing to happen in his presidency this year. Vbevins (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's alright with everyone I am going to expand this section to explain more specifically what caused the tri-lateral crisis. It's not explained and therefore the genocide claim is out of context. Vbevins (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"All of this of course is documented everywhere." Not from what I've read. Please cite them when you do make the changes. Thank you. LostLucidity (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

President Uribe's signature

In a similar way to the articles on American Presidents I would like to request and propose the addition of signatures for the Colombian Presidents. Should anyone have access to those signatures please contact me. ThanksCamilo Sanchez (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uribe's background and early life

Facts relevant to Uribe's background, like the fact that his mother full maiden name was Laura Vélez Ochoa, a cousin to the founders of the Medelín Drugs cartel Jorge Luis Ochoa Vasquez and Fabio Ochoa Vázquez are continually -and indiscriminately- removed by member F3rnando. Recent revelations in a book written by the US department of Justice protected witness Ms. Virginia Vallejo, regarding Uribe's father activities within the Medellin Drugs Cartel as well as early political activities by Uribe are also bing removed.

Considering the ongoing story of Uribe, as well as facts that were previously considered unexistent or lost, and their relevance to international history, these should reflect in the Wiki page. A request to the editors is hereby made to protect well documented facts regarding Uribe's family background and the role played by biased members who are clearly interested in making disappear from this page proven material that has been either reported by the broad media, or published by reputable sources otherwise.

FIND RELIABLE SOURCES otherwise it will be removed per WP:BLP !!! you are clearly interested on putting information based on your POV, that info needs first of all reliable sources and a balance with uribe's stand on that.--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 03:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry, F3rn4nd0, but you of all people are deleting well established FACTS You cannot deny Uribe's grooming within the Ochoa Vasquez family because that is a fact that even Uribe has repeatedly admitted to the Colombian broadsheet El Tiempo and other Colombian local media, or that his mother maiden name is Velez Ochoa and that she is related to the same family. Again, I also respectfully demand that the bias that this member in particular is giving to the article be reviewed by eds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.40.135 (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, it is a proven fact who Uribe's rleatives are, huh? And what, pray tell, hay should be made of this? And, God help us, Uribe concurs, and numerous times, that these are his relatives. And this concurrence is published? What are we to do, fault Uribe for syaing that those are his relatives? Are you insane? How about listing his relatives but remove all weasel words which try to make this an issue? That is the only thing which can be done without making this already-biased mess even worse. I bet that wouldn't be enough for you though, would it? Unless charges against Uribe are credible, don't publish them. Newspapers are very good at this sort of nonsense. They will say that a fact exists, then write something like "some say that fact A exists, and while not proven to cause fact B, usually does. What, Sr. Uribe, do you have to say in response to this charge?" We now have a manufactured controversy. This may work to sell newspapers, but does not belong in this article. To get upset because someone does the right thing and deletes such items indicates that you would be happier reading a tabloid. What is F3rn4do0's bias, sir? He does not, from what I can tell, dispute the facts which you so happily flaunt, but how they are used. You, sir, seem to crave false dilemmas and are the one salivating for bias. Also, please tell me how one respectully demands? I didn't know that this was even possible. NKCTrio 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that both actual facts and mere claims should be included, but presented with identifiable sources and descriptions that respect neutrality. Saying that something is already a fact does not automatically make it so, since other people clearly seem to disagree or at least do not know. That's where sources come into play, and the way in which the information is presented should also keep neutrality in mind.

That's also why I think that controversial information should usually go into the section at the end of the article, instead of bloating out the earlier, more descriptive areas with details that are not clear, issues that remain to be confirmed, or which lead directly into political polarization. Just my two cents. Juancarlos2004 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that president Uribe has family ties with the Ochoa's familly, but it's also a fact that he extradited Fabio Ochoa to The United States, who is a member of the same familly. I would also add,that Ochoa was sentensed to a long prision term. The other particularity that hasn't been mentioned is that the root of the Uribe familly in Antioquia is very strong in the population, forming direct/indirect ties to different members of other Uribes in the same province. Same situation accours with Families like Jaramillo, Restrepo, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.230.73 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In a definitive way any reference to Virginia Vallejo's book must be out of any consideration. Her book is a personal story easily refuted by anyone with a not so deep knowledge of Colombian history. The context of Vallejo's book is that of a lady that had lost her old TV popularity and published a personal book loaded with scandalous statements just to get a big piece of the market. That part mentioning Uribe's glasses is key to determine the very low credibility that her book deserves.

I don't agree with publishing any kind of controversial material even with its respective sources because Uribe's life has been made a very controversial story since his first presidential campaign. Only information comming from trustable and responsible sources should be published in order to keep a cooler temperature and centered bias in the article. Otherwise it will be an eternal war ground for supporters and detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.154.33 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily removed the info

Temporarily removed the info added by 81.86.78.225 because a)it completely deleted previously added information b)showed plenty of NPOV violations (it was taken almost verbatim, without the proper attributions to boot, from a politically activist/opinion website with a clear interest in criticizing and not in showing neutrality or balance).

Significant portions of it could well be added back in, but a)with proper formatting (for example, a section which specifies that it is info from critical sources, quoting them specifically, etc.), b)without deleting previous information, and c)clearly being edited to try to follow the NPOV guidelines (copying and pasting all the info from a partisan website definitely isn't).

On that same note, some of the (before the above case) recently added info in the first part of the article also needed some degree of NPOV editing (though from the opposite perspective), which I've just tried to do. The article also needs some better formatting as a whole. Juancarlos2004 00:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

KapilTagore: Just saw the version history and I completely agree, your version is entirely more neutral (the other was too partisan and politically inclined, and in several times totally biased). By the way, it would be very nice if people helped me placing the infoboxes for the presidents of Colombia, or created (and cleaned up) pages both for the parties (like the Conservative party which doesn't have a page yet), different posts (vice president and stuff) and some of the bios which are just stubs (some of which I created, for example, for some of the presidents from the 1970s).

First Lady

I am not sure how official was the title of First Lady but Lina Moreno specifically resigned to that title. She is not the First Lady but just the wife of the President. --Carlos Th--200.93.159.114 22:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) The first lady title is indeed official in Colombia, or at least usually. I didn't know of this incident thoHearth 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is completely biased and left-wing. For example, the allegations that President Uribe favors security over poverty and stuff is unsubstantiated. Therefore, I dispute the neutrality of this article. Kapil 06:04 March 20, 2005 (GMT)

It'd be nice to discuss some more specific points, suggestions, etc. and maybe even quote some phrases or paragraphs, in order to try to properly discuss this and improve the article. I don't believe that the article is "completely biased and leftwing", though I do see why you may think that.

In my opinion, more than anything else, there's a persisting lack of basic biographical information and it does definitely need some general restructuring in any case (I haven't contributed all this myself because of time/research/procrastinating constraints, mainly)...For example, it's clear enough that a good part of the the criticism could be in a separate section and not in the heading, that the 1991 allegations could be placed in a separate article, etc. I've been somewhat thinking of doing/suggesting that before and would definitely agree with anyone else that tried to help in doing so.

But also, like it or not, I'd like to point out that those allegations do exist and are made by critics inside and outside Colombia (not just on the left-wing). You can check that easily enough by using Google and the links provided in the article itself. One may or may not disagree with them, and the way in which they are presented, but they can't be hidden. Some are more substantiated than others, of course. Evidently, it's hard to find a proper balance regarding such controversial issues, especially considering the different and contradictory points of view involved. Juancarlos2004 18:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody responded....I figured that I finally had enough time to make a considerable attempt at contributing to improve the article, so I removed the NPOV tag provisionally due to all the multiple changes implemented...it took me several hours (ouch) and the article is obviously far from perfect yet, but I tend to personally believe that it's somewhat more balanced and more complete than before, including both positive and negative information. Thoughts? Juancarlos2004 07:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to remind editors that this article also needs Álvaro Uribe's opinion specially when answering to allegations and accusations. What were his answers to the CONVIVIR, Pablo Escobar and the parapolitics scandal allegations?--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Zimmerman statement

In regards to Robert Zimmerman's statement, he is a US politician not an intelligence officer. He is making a statement that reflects the politics of his government. It is well known that the US is allied with the current Colombian government. Therefore, his statement was based on politics not intelligence and violates the NPOV policy. Zimmerman is not a neutral source. Coeus (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. The source does not have to be neutral in order to be quoted. Uribe is not neutrality personified, his critics are not neutral, the U.S. is not neutral, the NSA is not neutral and so forth. What has to be neutral is the presentation of the information in Wikipedia.

He was representing the State Department and that's an official U.S. government duty that is relevant to the issue, since it's an U.S. document in the first place. Whether he had any reason to state that (politics, diplomacy, intelligence, opinion) is up to your personal interpretation and speculation, not something that depends on what is "well known". And even that is irrelevant to the subject. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. Coeus (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Poverty over....?

I'm not sure where this information came from but I clearly recall in one of the Presidents speeches that it was not the welfare system that the people wanted but instead better education so that they will be able to prosper and not be in poverty. His cousin also happens to be my step-mother and I'm in agreement this was written by some far left-winged who clearly is mistaken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.87.31 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

manipulating statistics

there's an article that says uribe manipulates crime statistics to make colombia seem safer than it actually is. maybe this could be included under the criticism section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.54.170 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

No, this can't be published because rumours are not a source. Do you have a source that includes a denounce of manipulation or something?

The real fact is that Colombia modified some params to measure different human development items used by the United Nations Development Programme but they caused an apparent rise of unemployment rate between 2006 and 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.154.33 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

43 or 56?

The introduction calls him the forty-third president, but the infobox calls him the fifty-sixth president. Could someone who knows better than I please fix this? Nyttend 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked into this. The infobox years were removed and now the introduction says he's the 56th. This is inconsistent with other Colombian president articles which shows the previous president Andrés Pastrana Arango to be the the 38th president. Therefore according to this numbering, Uribe should be the 39th. Also the List of Presidents of Colombia agrees with this number. However, that article appears to have some inconsistencies which may also throw the other presidents order number off. I'll try to look into this further. Anyone else want to chime in? LostLucidity (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Uribe asked the USA for a Persian Gulf like operation in Colombia

Deleting information from the article doesn't change reality. The information below was published in most Colombian newspapers.

In January 2003, prior to the Invasion of Iraq, president Uribe asked George W. Bush to carry out a deployment of military forces in Colombia "equivalent to the one prepared in the Persian Gulf" to fight the FARC guerrillas.

Ref: Hernandez, A., Uribe pide a E.U un despliegue militar en Colombia “similar” al de Irak, ANIA, January 23, 2003.

What have we got here? Another case of government agents vandalising articles in the best CIA style?--tequendamia 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a POV.. and accusing other editors of being CIA style vandals is not constructive... the link you are providing is from an online news portal [1] I am not gonna lie to you I do read some of the stuff they write, but sometimes they cross the line between reality and CIA schizophrenic stories. Maintain a neutral point of view. Try to find a more reliable source and we'll work it out. --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, quoting Uribe's own words is POV? That is a very interesting twist. Not much like CIA, but like WMD in Iraq.--tequendamia 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At that time Uribe's government was proud to show this way his loyalty to the Bush administration. Today, given that the results of the Iraq invasion that sentence has become an embarrasement for Uribe, similar to Bush's embarrasment of Mission Accomplished!, so that's why now it should be deleted. Back in 2003, would've been the opposite.--tequendamia 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You can speculate all you want, unless I see a reliable source, that statement is not going into the article per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I don't remember him saying anything like that, he proposed a UN peacekeeping force for Colombia,[2] not an "invasion" as you said. As soon as you find the right source this "conversation" will end. --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries! I leave your article alone. Bye.--tequendamia 22:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear something up. The information was not deleted, only edited. One specific presentation and interpretation of the words was removed (there was no formal request as it was more like a rhetorical statement), exchanging it for a less partisan one.

"In January of 2003, President Uribe ended a radio interview by asking "why isn't there any thought of [making] an equivalent deployment [as in the invasion of Iraq] to put an end to this problem [the Colombian conflict], which has such potentially grave consequences?".[14]"

The words themselves are still in the article, corresponding to what he said on the radio. Other than that, it's open to debate. Juancarlos2004 04:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JuanCarlos and F3rn4nd0. Tequendamia cannot make propaganda from an article intended for everybody. The UN intervention is in a very different context compared to a regular invasion in Irak. Also Colombia's geographical and social distribution of the enemy to fight (the FARC and ELN) is very different to what you may find in Irak or Afghanistan.

As Wikipedia is one of the most popular sources for regular people to get basic information about presidents of the countries it cannot be used by some people for their personal ideological revenges against those presidents opposed to their tastes. Please keep this in mind. It is not a website to make people think if Uribe is good or evil. It is for people who wants to know who is actually Uribe.

BLP Concerns

I have removed a god deal of the material as a violation of WP:BLP. The information can be readded when properly cited.

I would also remind editors to refrain from guilt by association. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2007-2008 Colombia-Venezuela-Ecuador crisis

This section looks a little unfocused. I don't think that this is the right title. There are several conflicts between Colombia and Venezuela that I wouldn't consider crises. The March 1 strike is more in line with the title but it's just a short paragraph. I'll wikilink it to the more comprehensive article but again, this section need a little restructuring. Thanks. LostLucidity (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a Mediocre Article

This article is simply a convoluted mix of facts regarding Uribe's Presidency. This is one of the most controversial governments in the world, known both for its successes and popularity and for its alleged ties with criminal gangs and drug traffickers. His presidency is full of an incredible range of issues that simply need to be put in perspective, and that cannot be achieved by one single article. Why not use Hugo Chavez as a good example? It offers a small summary on the issues and links where the issues are treated in depth.

I believe , if any fellow Colombians would remember, that the Hugo Chavez-Alvaro Uribe relationship has been heavily controversial and hasn't limited itself to a few diplomatic crisis as this article vaguely states. In fact, there have been several impasses, ranging from the Rodrigo Granda Scandal to the proposed negotiation attempts to release the FARC hostages to the 2008 Andean Crisis (Which was indeed one of the most important events in recent Latin American history) and Raul Reyes's computers to the economic threats and the insults both presidents have launched at one another. The difficult relationship with Ecuador (Dating from years back of the Andean Crisis) should also be explained briefly. There have been a wide range of important and unprecedented difficulties between Colombia and its neighbours that are completely ommited in this article.

The depth of the relationship between Alvaro Uribe -the rightwinger who happens to be a personal friend of George W. Bush- and expansionist socialist Hugo Chavez should be treated in a different article, no doubt. Otherwise it would simply occupy much space in this article. Hugo Chavez has been accused of funding and harboring the FARC terrorist organization in his own territory. FARC members have been spotted carring Venezuelan intelligence passports, Colombian intelligence officers have been executed while infiltrated in Caracas - all of this is important and significant, but simply shoudn't occupy much space in this article.

THERE ARE MANY ARTICLES DEALING WITH THE SUBJECTS BUT SIMPLY AREN'T TIED TOGETHER. For example, how is it possible that the article lacks a link to the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis?

The Law of Justice, Peace and Reparation isn't even a complete article, even though it sets up the bases for the demobilization of one of the most active terrorist groups in recent history, one that infiltrated itself deeply in the Colombian state.

This article isn't even up to date, is disorganized and confusing:

For example, when talking about a law brought by Uribe in the first year of his presidency which might would have given special powers to the military and the police:

"Analysts speculated that Uribe's administration would try to re-introduce a similar bill, though it has not yet."

Its pretty clear that 5 years later, when the violence has diminished greatly in the country and most of the military is under heavy scrutiny for the "false positives", he isn't likely to ever propose such law.

WHY ARE HIS ENTIRE POLICIES EXPLAINED UNDER THE 2002-2006 PRESIDENTIAL TERM? His policies have been consistant since the beginning of his rule, so I don't see any reason whatsoever why should we focus only on his first term. There is almost no substance at all under the title "2006 presidential elections". It's quite simple, we should put his general policies aside from the presidential terms and use those instead to explain relevant and important events that happened during each of his terms in office. If his major policies, like Democratic Security, are deeply explained on their own article, they shouldn't be explained again in here.

This article also fails to mention that there is a great polarization in regards to the Colombian president, and while most members of the opposition have tried on almost every single opportunity to tie him with any sort of criminal activity, thay have failed to deliver enough evidence to iniciate a legal process like those pursued against senators linked with the parapolitics scandal. This article also fails to mention the dire relation Uribe has with the members of the Supreme Court, or how the parapolitics scandal is the result of the paramilitary infiltration of the state, dating back from the 1990 at the height of the country's civil war. In short, this article lacks true Colombian insight.

What about the "False Positives" scandal and the measures taken by Uribe? or what about his dealings with the indian population, organized labor and the members of the NGO's, namely Mr Vivanco of Human Rights Watch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMaster4000 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And also, there is little doubt that the wide range of controversies regarding Mr Uribe deserve their own separate article. XMaster4000 (talk)