This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plan Colombia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
colombia is pretty
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)
the article is poorly formatted, should I vfd? 666 20:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are all those multi-million amounts cited USD, COP, or a mix? –Hajor 01:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Flo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Signed.
Travb 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Yeah, CNN. Right?!-- 209.213.220.227 ( talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Also see wp:lists and wp:mos (text formatting). 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
"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."
[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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
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:
\bgratisweb\.com\b
on the global blacklistIf 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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://acdis.illinois.edu/publications/207/publication-USInterventionsinLatinAmericaPlanColombia.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plan Colombia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
colombia is pretty
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)
the article is poorly formatted, should I vfd? 666 20:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are all those multi-million amounts cited USD, COP, or a mix? –Hajor 01:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Flo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Signed.
Travb 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Yeah, CNN. Right?!-- 209.213.220.227 ( talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Also see wp:lists and wp:mos (text formatting). 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
"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."
[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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
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:
\bgratisweb\.com\b
on the global blacklistIf 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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://acdis.illinois.edu/publications/207/publication-USInterventionsinLatinAmericaPlanColombia.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)