Jump to content

Talk:Plan Colombia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 7 March 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atpd2015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

colombia is pretty

Units

There was a confusing case of missing units that I fixed. The original text said: "Peak coca cultivation was apparently 267,145 in 2002 (is this right?? and what units?). " Looking at the source listed under the fact, 267 145 should have been in hectares. Just in case the author of the parenthetical comment would like their answer. ;) Columba livia 01:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

the article is poorly formatted, should I vfd? 666 20:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A bit hasty, I think. I'll list it on Wikipedia:Cleanup, date notwithstanding. --Rossumcapek 23:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Currencies?

Are all those multi-million amounts cited USD, COP, or a mix? –Hajor 01:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andean Counterdrug Initiative

In regards to my edits on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative paragraph, a citation for the Colombia $380 million figure can be found at this Department of State webpage (it's a PDF file). Specifically, the $380 million figure comes from the table on pages 34 and 35 of the document (or pages "38 and 39 of 186" as Acrobat Reader counts it). More specifically, the $380 million is the sum of the totals of the "FY 2002" and "FY 2002 Supp" columns. Because of the way the U.S. budget process works, the budget proposed and enacted in 2001 didn't go into effect until fiscal year 2002. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative went into operation in fiscal year 2002, the first fiscal year enacted under Bush.

The 2004 figures come from this Department of State webpage (also a PDF file). The relevant table is on page 101 (or "27 of 47" in Acrobat Reader). - Walkiped 20:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

controversial

I'm deleting the sentence, "All these considerations contribute to making the Plan Colombia initiative a source of much controversy both inside and outside Colombia," because it's superfluous and borders on editorializing. The fact that Plan Colombia is controversial is well-represented throughout the article along with the accompanying reasons for the controversy (e.g., the Amnesty International report); so we don't need this stand-alone sentence at the end of the article re-stating what has already been made clear in the article. - Walkiped 02:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have a point there, but then again I'm re-adding the word "controversial" to the first paragraph, as it serves as a quick summary of that fact, just like it is used in other wikipedia articles.Juancarlos2004 02:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Walkiped 01:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

death squad activity

does anyone know about the articles that explains the link between deathsquad and colombian military or even American millitary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yi Zhang (talk • contribs)

A start

I hope I didnt step on any toes, I started working on this article. There is a lot of Weasel words which really weakens the article. In addition the grammar needs to be worked on, and the organization is weak. I cant do anything more with the article tonight. But I started.Travb 11:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Soft" side of plan colombia

"The level of public anger at the Pastrana government is rising ominously. When Pastrana recently traveled to one drug-producing region to sell the "soft side" of Plan Colombia (economic development), he received a harsh reception. At stop after stop he was greeted by angry demonstrators. And their message ought to trouble U.S. leaders as well as Pastrana. Many of the demonstrators waved signs showing a Colombian flag being subsumed by the Stars and Stripes, with the caption "Plan Colombia's Achievements." Other protestors greeted the president with chants of "Pastrana subservient to the gringos."

July 27, 2001 Plan Colombia: Washington's Latest Drug War Failure by Ted Galen Carpenter CATO institute

Signed: Travb 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say whether all the details are correct, without knowing the dates or the locations involved, but the incident does sound plausible, at first sight. Juancarlos2004 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastrana's recent book and plan colombia

JuanCarlos2004 wrote: "btw, if someone doesn't do it, I'll have to add a couple of things re: this matter from Pastrana's recent book"

Please do, since I dont know what book you are talking about, and it is probably in Spanish anyway.Travb 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I'll add some quotes from it later today, when I'm back home. Juancarlos2004 19:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, it's done. It took me more time than I had anticipated, but I've already managed to add the quotes and some other relevant bits of information.Juancarlos2004 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Pastrana address the following issue? If the US aid was only 17% of the entire amount, then the "remaining" 83% should've been enough to develop the country as he initially intended. What went wrong? Where is the money or where has the money gone? It seems to me that Pastrana's defense of his Plan is inconsistent and therefore is not worth more than one line in this article.--tequendamia 12:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the record, Pastrana actually does mention several social programs and activities that were founded with the rest of the available Plan Colombia money (a couple of which have still continued into Uribe's term and are also featured in current Colombian government documents/websites). I could add some of that information to the article later on (since the subject hasn't been really addressed in the first place).
It's anyone's guess whether those amounts were or were not "enough", in light of what is known about the rest of the situation and the controversy that surrounded the Plan's financing, whether it's possible that some of the available money was further reduced by corruption or due to other factors, and whether the complex problems that the Plan originally wanted to address were actually that susceptible to being resolved so easily (and cheaply, because the real Marshall Plan amounts were "$13 billion of economic and technical assistance - equivalent to around $130 billion in 2006, when adjusted for inflation", and even those wartorn countries were, to a certain extent, in better shape than modern Colombia) in the first place. As you can see, the issue isn't too straightfoward.
In any event, it's still important for the article to present the opinions of those involved, both positively and negatively, in Plan Colombia, including those that came up with the Plan and were responsible for it, in addition to the opinions of its many critics (opinions which, logically, are also present in the article). Juancarlos2004 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juancarlos2004 correct me if I am wrong, but the other 83% was supposed to come from other (1) foreign donors and (2) Colombia itself.
(1)The other foreign donors did not like how they were not consulted, so like the Iraq war, the amount of money America was able to get commitments on was paltry.
(2) Also in 1999, because of the Asian market crash, Colombia went through the largest recession in its history, it lost its status as the only country in South America that was an "investment grade" country, which meant it was unable to fund the program. That is at least what Livingstone says in "Inside Colombia".Travb 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fairly accurate, for the most part.
Still, it must be said that Colombia did consult other countries in order to incorporate some of their concerns, just not as much / not as early on as the US was consulted, so the Iraq war parallel isn't perfect. There, the US pretty much lost its patience and invaded even when most of the world disagreed with that decision and wanted to wait.
In the case of Plan Colombia, the position of the rest of the world was more ambiguous and less monolithic (outside of specific sectors and politicians). Even if there was some degree of tension between the parties, the negotiations with the FARC were still continuing and international cooperation / feedback / interaction through that outlet was instrumental in getting the FARC on the European Union's list of terrorist organization once the talks crashed and burned (as also mentioned in Pastrana's book), and a not insignificant (even if the total was smaller than expected) amount of aid (or, in other cases, loans or access to credit lines) did end up being provided.
That's something not currently reflected in the article itself, which mostly centers on the US and on the initial reluctance of other donors to be associated with Plan Colombia, even if they did provide more money than the initial US $128.6 million...money which they consider to be "outside of Plan Colombia", but which does fund some social development programs that came to exist through Plan Colombia as far as the Colombian government is concerned (Familias en Acción, Vías para la Paz, Jóvenes en Acción). See here, for example: [1]. Curious, isn't it?
Even Pastrana himself, all in all, didn't become such an object of public scorn and ridicule as GWB has (though his popularity in Colombia itself did pretty much resemble that, for a while, especially among some of those that later supported Uribe's policies). Juancarlos2004 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the Iraq war analogy was a poor one, and I hestitated to use it. Thanks for confirming my suspisions. Travb 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livingstone

Juancarlos2004, what do you think of Livingstone's views on US aid? Are they incorrect?

I asked because you made sure in your edits that the information I provided was specifically defined as "Livingstone's" views.

Her biases were shown in her gushing about the School of Americas Watch in her footnotes: calling the webpage "an excellent resource"Travb 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that they are completely "incorrect", but rather incomplete, above all. The SOAW bit might show that kind of bias, but even so, it's hard to deny the SOA's negative role, especially during the Cold War, and the consequences that it has had, directly or indirectly. That doesn't mean that the current ex-SOA is still the "School of Assassins" nowadays, as if it were frozen in time and nothing at all had changed in spite of it all, but that a historical responsibility does exist and should be addressed.
So, despite the fact that they tend to make a few generalizations too many, I do share the concern Livingstone and others have about U.S. aid being excessively militaristic even in its counternarcotics component, and about the relatively little importance given to the human rights conditions and to social development as a whole. The thing is, I'd propose that the U.S. role has to change, instead of merely condemning its mistakes and insisting on pulling the plug on it all (which could be a negative thing, if done rashly...though it would be well within the rights of the U.S. to do so, of course). Juancarlos2004 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct facts?

Here is the text:

"The results of Plan Colombia have been mixed. From the perspective of the U.S. and Colombian governments, the results of Plan Colombia have been positive. U.S. government statistics would show that a significant reduction in leftover coca (total cultivation minus eradicated coca) has been observed from peak 2001 levels of 1,698 square kilometres to an estimated 1,140 square kilometres in 2004. It is said that a record high aerial herbicide fumigation campaign of 1,366 square kilometres in 2004 has reduced the total area of surviving coca, even as newer areas are planted."


The graph that is cited from a web blog:


1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Total coca cultivation 165,746 183,571 254,051 267,145 246,667 250,555 <-- 1+ 2

Herbicide fumigation (hectares)

43,246 47,371 84,251 122,695 132,817 136,555 <-- 1 (Total added together=566,935)

Coca left over (hectares)

122,500 136,200 169,800 144,400 113,850 114,000 <-- 2


Total fumigation 1999-2004: 566,935 hectares (more than half the size of the state of Rhode Island).

Reduction in Colombian coca 1999-2004: 8,500 hectares. [2004 (122,500) -1999 (114,000) = 8,500 hectares]




Here is the two graphs from the US government PDF file:

Table 1. Eradication of Drug Crops, 1999-2004 (in hectares and acres)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Coca crops eradicated (hectares) 43,246 47,371 84,251 122,695 132,817 136,555 <-- 1
Coca crops eradicated (Acres) 106,861 117,054 208,184 303,179 328,191 337,427




Table 2. Land Under Coca and Poppy Cultivation in Colombia, 1999-2004
U.S. State Department and ONDCP Sources (in hectares and acres)


1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Coca Cultivation (hectares) 122,500 136,200 169,800 144,450 113,850 114,000 <-- 2
Coca Cultivation (Acres) 302,698 336,550 419,576 356,936 281,323 281,694




Table 3. Land Under Coca and Poppy Cultivation in Colombia, 1999-2004 — UNODC Surveys (in hectares and acres) (Not used in estimate)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Coca crops eradicated (hectares) 160,000 163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000
Coca crops eradicated (Acres) 395,360 402,773 358,295 252,042 212,506 197,680

"The results of Plan Colombia have been mixed. From the perspective of the U.S. and Colombian governments, the results of Plan Colombia have been positive. U.S. government statistics would show that a significant reduction in leftover coca (total cultivation minus eradicated coca) has been observed from peak 2001 levels of 1,698 square kilometres to an estimated 1,140 square kilometres in 2004. It is said that a record high aerial herbicide fumigation campaign of 1,366 square kilometres in 2004 has reduced the total area of surviving coca, even as newer areas are planted."

1 hectare = 0.01 square kilometer

169,800 hectares peak leftover coca in 2001 x .01 = 1,698 kilometers 114,000 hectares leftover coca in 2004 x .01 = 1,140 kilometers 136,555 hectared erraticated in 2004 = 1,366 kilometers

The numbers add up. Travb 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We need to have the 2005 numbers in, as they are wuite interesting, as the increase of coca cultivation to 144.400 hectares..., check http://ciponline.org/colombia/060415coca.pdf for numbers...

Flo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main page

I usually never delete something like this that is footnoted, but it seems out of place in the article now that Kerry has lost the election. If someone really loves this paragraph, they can put it back in, no problem.

On October 15, a statement by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign office and an interview with his Latin American affairs advisor Peter Romero, both published in the Colombian daily El Tiempo, pledged to continue supporting Plan Colombia and the efforts made by Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, but highlighted the need for the Colombian government to improve the grave human rights situation inside the country, by severing any remaining links with right-wing irregulars and to provide adequate protection to all its citizens, including rights and union workers.[2][3]


Signed. Travb 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more into the study than what is there?

I added this a few weeks ago:

In 2000, Human Rights Watch, together with several Colombian human rights investigators, published a study in which it concluded that half of Colombia's eighteen brigade-level army units had extensive links to paramilitaries at the time, citing numerous cases which directly or indirectly implicated army personnel.

Footnote for the added text:

Stokes, Doug "Why the End of the Cold War Doesn't Matter: the US War of Terror in Colombia". Bristol University Politics Department. Retrieved February 27, 2006.;
*Citing "Colombia Human Rights Developments". Human Rights Watch. 2000. Retrieved March 27, 2006.

Problem is, the actual Human Rights Watch study although it mentions individual brigades, doesn't seem to mention "half of Colombia's eighteen brigade-level army" I am wondering where Stokes actually got the number 9 (half of 18). I didn't bother counting every single brigade that HRW mentions, does it equal 9? I don't know.Travb 09:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


78.12 percent?

From:

In the final aid package for 2004, 80.43 percent of the funds went to the Colombian military and police. (See graph, below)

To:

In the final U.S. aid package, 78.12 percent of the funds for 2000 went to the Colombian military and police for counternarcotics and military operations. (See graph, below)

Hello Juan, I wonder why you change the percentage from 2004 to 2000, is this because the entire section is talking about 2000?

signed:Travb 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. It did seem a bit out of chronological order to quote a 2004 figure, I think. Especially now that you've added a chart that shows figures for the entire decade in chronological order. Juancarlos2004 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, I thought you had a very rational, sound, good reason for the edit, and as always with your edits, I was right. I wish I got along as well with other editors as I do with you! Travb 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan Colombia was a six year plan, right?

and it was due to stop in 2005...? so what is happening now? did they make it longer? damn, i'm lost there!


what's next then?

-Flo 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"paramilitary forces"?

"with the majority of atrocities attributed (from most directly responsible to least directly responsible) to paramilitary forces, insurgent guerrilla groups and elements within the police and armed forces"

Since 'paramilitary forces' are listed most responsible, it would be interesting to know what paramilitary forces this references to. Are these named and organized groups? Are then many different groups or one unified force? Do they have a political goal or are they just armed criminals? Are these paramilitaries pro- or anti-government?

Also, listing them in this way only gives a relative ranking but no indication of the degree of responsibility. Is it 90% paramilitary responsibility, 10% the others? Or is it's 40/30/30%? Even allowing for (presumably) a fair degree of uncertainty, the numbers would seem to make quite a difference to the general picture. Can some expand on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.92.97 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime against humanity

I believe that this CNN article on the "systematic and widespread extrajudicial executions of innocent civilians" (counterinsurgency campaign) applies to this article as a result of Plan Colombia: [4] -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, CNN. Right?!--209.213.220.227 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Headings

A lot of the headings are not to MOS standard. Here is the reference wp:mos#section headings.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see wp:lists and wp:mos (text formatting).174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today in Colombia

I feel that the article has a negative biased. I would prefer to see a more neutral stance by adding some positive references. For example, it is possible that Plan Colombia contributed to the current 60% reduction (UNODC) in cocaine production and lower levels of violence we are seeing today. Source: http://www.unodc.org/southerncone/en/frontpage/2010/06/22-unodc-mostra-tendencias-divergentes-do-cultivo-de-coca-nos-paises-andinos.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.253.67.230 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I agree concerning the article's negative bias. I came to the article looking for some explanation of Colombia's turn-around in the past decade, which has been dramatic. I am an American who lived in Medellín for a year, including through the election of President Santos, and what I gathered from that experience is that Colombians as a whole regard the increase in security to be responsible for Colombia's turn-around. Both Santos and the Green Party challenger Mockus campaigned strongly on continuing security. IMO, Santos won because he was viewed as the candidate who would better continue these policies. Plan Colombia is the framework that has supported all this increased security, but there is no discussion of this in the article.

To be honest, I think the article has an external, US-liberal slant to it. My perspective is shaped by having lived in the Department of Antioquia, far from Putamayo, but, in my own defense, I have to note that Pablo Escobar is nothing more than a tourist attraction in Medellín today. I don't think I have the material to add a substantive "pro" section, but I think the article should be marked as biased until someone can add such a section. Michael (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised by the negative bias in the article. The Criticism section is in the first 1/3 of the article, and is nearly as large as the rest of the article. First, shouldn't criticisms be explained after the subject of the article is explained? Second, if the criticism section is going to be so large, perhaps we should rename the article to "criticisms of Plan Colombia." --72.47.85.22 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good article

just thought i'd say this is a very good and thorough article. perhaps could use more info on the fumigations and controversies regarding glyphosphate? i only saw a brief mention, with few references to the many studies done on glyphosphate's harmful effects (observed both in clinical settings and in regions sprayed under plan colombia). 96.246.39.61 (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good article that needs to be updated. Much of the information about eradication is out of date. According to US figures, Colombia produced less coca than Peru in 2012... UNODC figures say that Colombia produced slightly more than Peru, but the point is that following trends from 2000-2012, Colombia is now producing (or will soon produce) less than Peru. --Lacarids (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fumigation

Hi. Many scientists disagree with the fumigation section, including those that are researching the effects of fumigation of coca in Colombia in an official capacity for the OAS. These scientific articles seem more in line with [WP:IRS] than the currently cited references (for example the special interest group Corp Watch, a blog entry at Center for International Policy, the not-peer-reviewed self-described-as-radica Transnational Institute, wired.com, or the deceivingly-named political commentary blog "Colombia Journal."

"Considering the effects of the entire cycle of coca and poppy production and eradication, clear-cutting and burning and displacement of the natural flora and fauna were identified as the greatest environmental risks and are considerably more important than those from the use of glyphosate for the control of coca and poppy."

From the abstract of [Solomon, K. R., Anadón, A., Carrasquilla, G., Cerdeira, A., Marshall, J., and Sanin, L.-H. "Coca and poppy eradication in Colombia: Environmental and human health assessment of aerially applied glyphosate." Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2007;190:43-125.]

"Based on all of the evidence and information presented above, the Panel concluded that the risks to humans and human health from the use of glyphosate and Cosmo-Flux® in the eradication of coca and poppy in Colombia were minimal."

From p. 90 of [Solomon, K. R., Anadón, A., Cerdeira, A., Marshall, J., and Sanin, L.-H. "Environmental and human health assessment of the aerial spray program for coca and poppy control in Colombia." Technical report. Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) section of the Organization of American States (OAS). Washington, DC, 2005].

[Solomon, K. R., Anadón, A., Brain, R. A., Cerdeira, A. L., Crossan, A. N., Marshall, A. J., Sanin, L. H., and Smith, L. "Comparative hazard assessment of the substances used for production and control of coca and poppy in Colombia." In Rational environmental management of agrochemicals: Risk assessment, monitoring, and remedial action. ACS Symposium Series no. 966 (vol. 966), eds. Kennedy, I. R., Solomon, K. R., Gee, S., Crossan, A. N., Wang, S., and Sanchez-Bayo, F., pp. 87–99. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2007]. --Lacarids (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.gratisweb.com/colombiacrisis/europarliamentrejectsplancolombia.htm
    Triggered by \bgratisweb\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plan Colombia. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Plan Colombia. 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) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Plan Colombia. 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) 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Plan Colombia. 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) 04:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plan Colombia. 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) 05:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plan_Colombia&oldid=1212404442"