|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Have to say this articles seem incredibly biased to me in favour of the conservatives. It failts to contextualize the conflict and it limits itself to naming the liberal and communist guerrillas as the sources of the conflict when most serious Colombian historians agree it was caused mainly by the violence sponsored by the conservative regime against liberal peasents in the countryside and the subsequent response of the liberals in revenge attacks. This is widely detailed in "Condores no Entierran Todos los Dias" or "Condors are not buried every day" which talks about the "birds" (armed conservative groups) which operated as death squads in rural parts of Colombia. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur. This is a very biased article. The quote "anarchists, socialists and communists burned churches and murdered nearly 7,000 priests, monks, and nuns" is moreover highly contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you tell me where you get the figure 180,000 for la violencia?
- Azcarate uses the figure 300,000. 
- Stokes and Livingstone both use the figure of 200,000. 
- Camilo A. Azcarate, Psychosocial Dynamics of the Armed Conflict in Colombia, Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, (March 1999)http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/2_1columbia.htm
- Grace Livingstone, Inside Colombia: Drugs, Democracy, and War 42 (Rutgers University Press 2004)
*Doug Stokes, America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia 68 (2005 Zed Books).
signed: Travb 05:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
200,000 is one of the standard estimates, but I've also seen 180,000 elsewhere. For example, here's an online source which uses that number:
"On April 9, 1948, Gaitán was assassinated outside his law offices in downtown Bogotá. The assassination marked the start of a decade of bloodshed, called La Violencia (the violence), which took the lives of an estimated 180,000 Colombians before it subsided in 1958. The violence was difficult for participants and subsequent observers to fully comprehend. Although it reflected social and economic tensions, it revolved around the partisan political concerns that had divided the two traditional parties since the 19th century."
If that's not enough, I'll look for additional offline sources later. Juancarlos2004 17:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why does everything link to this jackass' livejournal: http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/54324.html
"Political violence is not new to that South American nation of 38 million people...". They discovered the wet water. Political violence is not new anywhere.--tequendamia 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, the author should have quantified his statment as: Tremdendous political violence is not new to that South American nation of 38 million people
- The magnitude of violence in Colombia is shocking.
- What other country's military storms their supreme court and kills half of their supreme court judges as collateral damage? Palace of Justice siege
- What other country massacres an entire political party Patriotic Union Party?
- What other country has killed so many presidental canidates and politicians?
- I am familar with American political violence much more than most Americans, and I know that America' violence is nothing compared to Colombia. Colombia is unique even in Latin America for its prolonged violence and the sheer magnitude of the bloodshed. I think the closest country in all of Latin America that comes close to the internal duration and bloodshed is probably US-client state Haiti.
- I think that your contention is correct, the author should have quantified his statment more. That said, I think the entire paragraph shows that Colombia is incredibly political violent.Travb 02:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a comment to make here. Sorry if the format here isn't correct or I'm not going through proper channels (I'm not a regular contributor) but I noticed that a mention of congressional violence in 1949 is not cited in the article and I can't find a reference to it anywhere else, which leads to believe it is likely a fabrication. Once again, sorry for the likely impropriety.
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
I never hear "La Violencia"
I'm from Colombia, and it's first time i hear term "La Violencia", i don't know who invented that, maybe you are talking about "Violencia Bipartidista" it happened between those years, but seriously, first time i hear that term, i propouse change the article name to "violencia bipartidista" but "la violencia"?? you are serious, nobody knows it, because that term never existed, if i'm wrong (i doubt it) please show me a font — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for answer, but the link, just proof i'm right, "la violencia" is not a term about a specific period of time or age, i think it's a minunderstand by lenguaje, i try to explain, in spanish "violencia" means the way you do something very similar to english word "violence", so for default all war, battle, conflicts have/are "violencia", but alone the word don't have any meaning, the link you shows proof that, none of it links shows a specific era o period called "la violencia", the links spoke about a conflicts, civil war, whit "violencia" in different times like 1875, 1901-1903, 70's, 80's but not for a specific event o period of time, i invite you to search "violence + USA" and i'm sure you find a lot of material, but it don't mean, exist a period of time called "the violence" in USA, maybe this the article talks about "bipartidismo" or maybe "el bogotazo", sorry for my english (june 28 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- How old are you? If you ask any Colombian 50 or older about "La Violencia" they will understand for sure what historic period you are talking about. My father and grandfather used to tell stories from the times of "La Violencia" and I'm sure they were not the only ones using that term to refer to the violent period that followed the death of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan.