Talk:Colombia–Venezuela relations

Key topics

• History
• Border disputes
• treaties
• Trade and investements
• Migration
• Cultural exchange
• Military cooperation
• Environmental issues
• other topics (illegal drug trade, guerrillas, paramilitaries, contraband; including weapons and fuel)

--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Andean Crisis

I would have guessed that the explosive piece of information retrieved by the Colombians during the Ecuatorian raid would have been SOMEWHAT important enough to be included in this article. Since, you know, it includes information linking Hugo Chavez with the financing and funding of one of the oldest terrorist organizations in the world? And the source of the info was corroborated by Interpol?. But apparently I'm wrong. Instead we are left with a bare bones description of one of the most important events in recent Latin American history, great! --XMaster4000 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with headlines

Fred, please notice that, for the sake of brevity, headlines often sacrifice precision. In the Guardian article they say that "Hugo Chavez said he was ending his support for Colombia's Marxist guerillas" however this is not supported by the main text of the article. In the body of the article, Chávez never says "ending" or anything similar. JRSP (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"The comments were a complete change of tack for Mr Chavez, who earlier this year asked the European Union to take the Farc off its list of terrorist organisations and recognise it as a legitimate guerrilla army." [1] Fred Talk 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"EU to keep Farc on 'terror list': The European Union has insisted it will not remove Colombia's Farc rebels from its "terror list", despite recent calls by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez" FARC are not terrorists: Venezuela’s Chavez" Fred Talk 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not mean "support". It is consistent with Venezuela's official neutral position on the Colombian conflict. Labeling the FARC as terrorist implies support to the Colombian government position. JRSP (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the European Union who has put FARC on a "terrorist list" The official position of the Venezuelan government is a fact, but for you or I to express it in this article as representing the actions of Venezuela, other than taking an official position, would would not be proper in the absence of a reliable source. Fred Talk 23:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Venezuelan government official position can be easily sourced; of course, per WP:NPOV that does not mean that we, as wikipedia editors, endorse that . But, for the same reason, we cannot either say the Chávez government supports or have supported FARC. We must stick to the facts we can substantiate like "Venezuela asked the EU to remove FARC from its terror list" but "support" means that Venezuela is taking sides with the FARC against the Colombian government, and sources do not support this. Venezuela's neutrality claim must be attributed to the Venezuelan government but the same applies to those who say Venezuela supports FARC. JRSP (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Refers to

I won't re-do my first-sentence edit, but I still think

Colombia–Venezuela relations (Spanish: Relaciones colombo-venezolanas) refers to the diplomatic relations between Colombia and Venezuela.

looks horrible. (A little less so, thanks to Jimbo et al., but the "refers to" and general bold descriptive title redundancy stuff stands. It's just not elegant.) --an odd name 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

merge

This page was split off into the 2010 diplmatic rcrisis without even a discussion. It doesnt warranta split as both pages are small enough (the lead would be removed int he requisite page and just the 2 sections added here) and can easil be incorproated here. We dont need a paeg for EVERY incident, just becasue the border clash had one years ago doesnt mean every flare up needs one.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and quite the contrary: this page needs the relevant section shortened, summarising it more briefly, WP:SUMMARY-style. We can perfectly well have a page on every incident major enough to merit it, but we can't cover those incidents on this page in the sort of detail which recent major incidents always accumulate and keep it manageable and readable. Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact I see now that you restored a substantial volume of text on the incident, which is quite unnecessary (it's all covered in the daughter article), and I've undone it. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it needed as seperate, youve said it must but have not answered why it ought to be separate. There are only 2 subsection (controllibng for the lead) on the other page and could easily be detailed here. What "details" require another page?Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph summarising it here is currently 158 words. The daughter article's body text alone (not lead, not refs, etc) is 800 words. WP:SUMMARY: we do readers no service by drowning them in detail. Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesnt make this page long or unreadable. per wp:summary is when and if it is unreadable of WP:Article size

"When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Which is what i think your refering to, but i digress precisely because i dont think weve reached that threshold. Its only 2 section on the other page and can be put into the same 2 sections here. Its not like a saga with reactions building up, etc, etc. Also "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems." Which isnt at that stage yet?

Anyway, well probs go around in circles can we get another 3rd person? (still though at least we're not in a slanging match, thanks ;))Lihaas (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not a very high-profile page so we could try WP:3O. I think it's a question of balance, and of focussing on the entire topic the article is about. WP:Recentism is a very common problem, and this article suffers from it too: recent events are covered in some detail, everything older is barely touched on and much of significance completely omitted. For example, the 19th century hardly exists in this article. At least we can not worsen the problem by only covering recent issues in such detail as would make an article of acceptable length and balance if everything that should be in it were in it. There are also issues of maintainability; daughter articles that are nice standalone units not likely to require lots of updating are better that way. Plus they permit useful extra categories to be applied to the separate article. I'm generally quite mergist (to avoid messy duplication), but when the topic lifts out neatly as it does here, and covering the issue within the parent article would detract from the bigger picture the parent is supposed to be presenting, then separate is better. Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, lets go with that.

Recentism is a general problem across wikipedia, particularly politics and history. Split off pages that way make sense (like the other standoff), however this was quite minor without much info. It would be warranted i think, not simply for maintenance issues/recentism, but for actual content that would make this unreadable and too long if it could be. Also for maintenance split-pages get less attention so less discussion (see the Gaza flotilla raid and all its splits)Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting can have positive or negative effects on maintenance (or both). It makes things simpler, but creates more pages to keep an eye on. In this case, being a historical event that's pretty well done with (both IRL and onwiki - no active disputes) and already well-referenced etc, it's not likely to need much maintenance. Made 3O request BTW. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The 2010 diplomatic crisis is on the border between a major and a minor event, so I sympathize with both sides of the argument. However, my opinion is that the proposed merge would disrupt the article's flow and cause undue weight to be applied to the 2010 crisis. Los Maniceros massacre, 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis, Operation Emmanuel and others are split from this article in a similar way (and Los Maniceros massacre is significantly shorter than 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis), so it only makes sense to continue that pattern. There doesn't seem to be any unnecessary information in 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis, so merging the full text of it would make this article appreciably longer than it is right now. Thanks for keeping it civil.—SnottyWong communicate 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_happens_next.3F I dont think the issue is about the undue weightage at all but the necessity of having another article when this would suffice to include 2 sections (or sub-sections). WP:Article size doesnt merit a split, and just because something else exists doesnt mean it has to automatically be followed.Lihaas (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on Lihaas, you're going to insist on an RFC on this minor issue (next step here I think)? Can't you just let it go? If not, please move things along by organising the RFC. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there are enough major events between Colombia and Venezuela that they won't all fit in the main article. The structure of the article is being set up so that future events can be added summary style to this article. If you want to merge 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis into this article, then I think you also need to merge Los Maniceros massacre as well. At that point, you will start having WP:Article size issues. SnottyWong ^yak 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colombia–Venezuela relations. 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/20071122151923/http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal to http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal

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).

• 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) 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colombia–Venezuela relations. 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/20160122103640/http://www.eldia.es/2001-03-20/venezuela/venezuela2.htm to http://www.eldia.es/2001-03-20/venezuela/venezuela2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016204319/http://www.urru.org:80/papers/200103_CasoBallestas_Globovision.htm to http://www.urru.org/papers/200103_CasoBallestas_Globovision.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?articuloId=592622
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122103640/http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/03/02/chcol_ava_presidente-chavez-or_02A1400879 to http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/03/02/chcol_ava_presidente-chavez-or_02A1400879
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011222126/http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/Ven-Colombia%20stance.pdf to http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/Ven-Colombia%20stance.pdf

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).

• 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) 00:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)