Talk:National security of Colombia

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National security of Colombia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Stuff from LoC is quite good, but reads like intelligence report. Wikify. Expand. Hwonder talk contribs 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Further discussion regarding consensus at User talk:Eventhorizon51#Talk:Security issues in Colombia#Requested move 14 June 2016 (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Security issues in Colombia → National security of Colombia
• Security issues in Bulgaria → National security of Bulgaria
• Security issues in Germany → National security of Germany

– These articles don't cover all kinds of security issues (which would include topics such as security companies, food security, or insurance) in the three countries, and they shouldn't. Neither do they substantially cover international security which seems hard to divide on a per-country base. What they do cover is these countries national security, so it seems sensible to rename them accordingly, and in line with National security of the United States and National security of China, to form a basis for further expansion. -- PanchoS (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  What's in your palette? Paine  12:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: the nominator is using a false analogy. The 'security issues' articles are about actual security problems taking place within their countries, the US article is about the organisation of US national security which is not the same thing. Ebonelm (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• The U.S. article may be focussed on the organisation, while lacking the actual issues, while these three articles may be slanted towards the issues but lacking the organisation. This doesn't keep us from chosing a reasonable scope for all of these articles. As I suggested, security issues include car security, security of skiing areas, and food security. This isn't a reasonable scope for this article. --PanchoS (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is they have separate scopes. If you wanted to created a new page on national security in Colombia and a new article on security issues in the US be my guest but those should be new articles, the current pages should stay where they are. Ebonelm (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: Can you point to what in this article isn't about national security? ~ Rob^Talk 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is about the scope of the article. If you wouldn't expect information on corporate security in this article, then Security issues in Colombia is clearly too broad. As written, this is an article on national security, not security broadly. ~ Rob^Talk 16:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.