Talk:Human rights in Colombia

Suggestion

Hi again, F3rn4nd0 and anyone else editing this page at this time. I know that the page is barely under construction at the moment, and it would be more useful to make direct contributions than just suggestions (which I will eventually do, if time and circumstances allow), but a couple of points do come up:

• Making the main sub-section "human rights violations" and, together with certain phrases, assuming a moral and political stance from the get-go (outside of quotes/arguments/ideas attributed to specific persons or organizations, obviously), while understandable for evident reasons as the situation is indeed grave in many ways, seems like the wrong idea from an encyclopedic and neutral point of view. It also limits addressing positive or at least less negative aspects of the human rights situation, such as what the laws actually contemplate (whether just in theory or not) and recent advances in gay and abortion rights (but not limited to them), off the top of my head. In other words, violations *are* an essential part of the article, that is unquestionable, but not the only one.

• Ideally, I think it is the different parties who should be making a case for this or that, not the person(s) who write(s) the article(s), any of us included. In addition to the above, that comes dangerously close to being original research, which isn't allowed by Wikipedia though many articles still have greater or lesser signs of that. So there should be more than one point of view, not just the government's or AI's, but also that of the UN, U.S., other independent and non-independent entities, academics of different political inclinations, different journalists and political figures, etc. This shouldn't read like an essay or thesis, in essence.

Good luck, hopefully I'll be able to do more substantial contributions later on...feel free to discuss this further as well.Juancarlos2004 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to participate at any time.. --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating and revising

Thank you for this page. I have a few ideas to update the content, bring in more recent sources, fill in information that is currently missing, modify grammatical shortcomings and to change the format so that it is more consistent with the title. Think it is necessary to concentrate on two themes: Colombia and Human Rights Laws, and Colombian Human Rights Situation (could be seen as the theory and the practice). Hopefully this will improve the structure too. Any comments please let me know. --thehumpback 00:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehumpback (talk • contribs)

I believe that many of your recent contributions have been worthwhile and it is good to see more coverage concerning the relevant issues, which is an improvement when compared to the previously lacking state of this article, but unfortunately...it also appears that the current text has visible problems in terms of tone, balance and neutrality, which means this article is still in need of significant additions or modifications.

For instance:

a)The tone seems primarily focused on assuming an explicitly critical stance rather than presenting a descriptive or comprehensive approach, in light of what is an unquestionably complex human rights situation involving multiple sources of violence.

b)The points of view corresponding to Justice for Colombia, an exclusively UK-based organization dedicated to political lobbying, seem to be treated with more detail and given superior notability over those of the Colombian human rights organizations themselves or even internationally respected bodies such as the United Nations, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch that have been working in Colombia for decades. These organizations are often very critical of the situation in Colombia too, but their perspectives are not identical to those of JfC, mainly because they can also recognize when the state has done or tried to do something right and they often cricitize all of the parties in conflict as well. JfC is not interested in doing anything like that. Therefore, the resulting balance gives JfC undue weight.

c)On a similar note, the Colombian government's point of view, for better or for worse, is barely represented if not otherwise ignored. Once again, the article cannot be considered encyclopedic or neutral in its absence.

d)Human rights issues involving non-state or non-paramilitary actors are also largely absent or downplayed. In certain sections, such as those for "Political Rights" and others, important violations carried out by additional parties -including but not limited to the guerrillas- are virtually non-existent.

e)The 2007-2010 graph with the title "The Number of Colombian Trade Unionists Murdered is Not Declining" is not very helpful (the time period covered is too short) and not very neutral either (see the title itself). The same criticism applies to some of the other images as well.

In the end, I believe there has been some progress in the right direction, but leaving the article "as is" would be very unfortunate and even arguably misleading, in light of the above concerns and other matters that require further discussion and more contributions. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

POV template

I've removed this template per #3 in 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.

I don't have a personal stand on the discussion above, and I'd encourage editors (if they're still around) to continue to seek resolution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717010518/http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/ColombiaFinal.pdf to http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/ColombiaFinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910061356/http://forusa.org/blogs/susana-pimiento/power-granting-forgiveness/9489 to http://forusa.org/blogs/susana-pimiento/power-granting-forgiveness/9489

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) 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)