Talk:Palace of Justice siege

change of picture

when colombians think of the seige, the image of the old palace of justice comes in mind. Do you think it would be better to change the main image on top to be the old palace of justice or the palace of justice during the attack instead of the new one? (since it already features at the end of the article) thank you Minako-Chan* (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking for picture on the cover of Colombia: Inside the Labyrinth

There is an breath-taking picture on the cover of the book Colombia: Inside the Labyrinth, by Jenny Pearce showing tanks going into the Palace of justice. It was taken by a photographer, Julien Frydman who was working for a defunct photo organization, Sygma which was swallowed by Corbis.

A really poor, small, nearly indecipherable picture of the book is here.

Any ideas where I can find the picture? Travb 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Corbis, this is what they said:

Thank you for contacting Corbis Account Services. Do you have the image ID number? Unfortunately, we are not able to find it by title of magazine. There may be a chance that the photographer is not a part of the Corbis family any longer as well. Personal Wall Decor ranges in price from $390.00 to $455.00 per image. This license allows you to have access to the high res digital file only.

I found Jenny Pearce's school homepage:

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/peace/tmp/staff/pearce_j/

Her email is: j.v.pearce at bradford.ac.uk I am contacting her now. Travb 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I got the picture from the back cover and the front cover, and sliced it together, it is now on my flickr.com account, which is now in the external links section.Travb 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't believe everything you hear on television?

I just watched World History of Organized Crime - Disc 2 (DVD). History Channel. 2002. Volume two contains "China," "India," and "Colombia."

The tape, an incredibly simplistic handling of a very complex situation in Colombia says:

"Just before noon on November 6th, 1985 at the Colombia Palace of Justice in downtown Bogata, guerillas hired by the [Medillin] Cartel seized more than 250 hostages."

Is this true? Did the [Medillin] Cartel hire M-19? This sounds dubious. Were there extradition files on M-19 also in this building, or just the Cartel? Travb 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Found my answer:

A few analysts have speculated that some druglords, such as Pablo Escobar, may have masterminded the operation in order to get rid of several criminal investigations recorded in the documents lost during the event. Later legal investigations have concluded that this was apparently not the case, and most later observers have tended to undermine the claims of any close operational links between those parties and the M-19.

from the m-19 wikipage.Travb 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe that the current article is POV regarding that area. Especially quoting Escobar's Son as a legitimate source that the drug masterlord was INSPIRED by M-19 ideals, is completely ridiculous. Ypovoleas (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The missing

Pearce, Jenny (1990). 1st (ed.). Colombia:Inside the Labyrinth. London: Latin America Bureu. pp. p. 166. 0906156440. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

Fourteen people 'disappeared" including eight members of the cafeteria staff, three casual visitors to the Palace and three guerrillas.

What does this mean? disappeared? Travb 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It means that their bodies have not been found.

Though it appears that the numbers given by Pearce in 1990 may well be a bit outdated, as the current figure is 11 (or, strictly speaking, 10, after one of several unidentified bodies was identified through DNA testing: [1]).

Several alternative explanations have been proposed: a) They were burned into unrecognizable remains as a result of their being overly exposed to the fires and are among several unidentified bodies. b) They were undercover guerrilla operatives working in the building and which assumed other identities once they left with the rest of the survivors c) They were somehow taken alive by the military and possibly tortured or otherwise killed at some unspecified moment, either outside or inside the building.

The most popular assumption is currently "c", though the matter still remains unresolved . Juancarlos2004 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

corrected spelling and grammarTrelane 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Took out confusing reference from Carrigan book:

Approximatly five o'clock on November 7th, Colonel Sanchez from the museum command center across the street from the palace told General Samudio, "We've captured a female guerrilla. She's been identified, she's fully identified." General Samudio responds: "Well, you know what to do. If the sleeve disappears, make certain you disappear the jacket too." This means if she is 'disappeared' [to be tortured], make certain you dispose of the body.^[2]

The author does not have footnotes, only notes about the chapters at the end of the book, so I am not sure were she got this from.Travb 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Although you have to remember the truth is very hard to find and there are are least more disappeared people than the ones they mention. This is the case in various countries in South America, the truth right now is very limited to be trusted, maybe in some years a more verifiable truth can be found. --MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The "missing" poster here (from the missing persons table) is confusing. The two persons at lower left cannot be matched to the list in the article. The lower left corner person is not certainly identifiable to sex (probably female). What can be made out from its name is a short word and a longer one, probably 3 letters in the first and 4 in the last. "Ana Rosa" (as in Ana Rosa Castilblanco) would be a reasonable match, "Irma Franco" (Pineda) seems less likely because of the 3 small dots after the initial capital letter of the second word. This leaves "Lucy Amparo Oviedo de Aria(?)s" on the poster unidentified.

IONO whether this poster is reliable as to names, but it contains more complete versions of some of the missing ones' names which could be put into the list. Dysmorodrepanis 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This shows a photo of Castilblanco which very roughly agrees the lower left corner person on the photograph. It also lists "Lucy Amparo Oviedo" but does not list Pineda. Having just stumbled upon this event (which I can barely if at all remember hearing of in the news back then), my first guess is that there are actually 12 (now 11 - after Castilblanco's remains were ID'd) disappeared. Dysmorodrepanis 03:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this in Carrigan's book?

Travb, I'm not 100% sure but...these two paragraphs are supposed to be from Carrigan's book, aren't they?

Supreme Court chief justice Alfonso Reyes is burned alive in the assault. Someone pours gasoline on his body and incinerates it. Twenty eight other bodies are dumped into a mass grave and soaked with acid so identification will be difficult. Five days later a volcano erupts outside of Bogota, killing 40,000 people. Hundreds of those bodies are dumped into the mass grave atop the bodies from the Palace of Justice, sealing the forensic secrets forever.[5]

Despite numerous investigations and lawsuits, no one has ever been punished for the carnage at the Palace of Justice, and no responsibility fixed. "Nothing happens here," says a character in Garcia Marquez's novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, an ironic reference to the army's slaughter of the striking banana workers in 1928 and Colombia's warped propensity for denying that such events happen. "Colombia has moved on," Ana Carrigan asserts. "Colombia has forgotten the Palace of Justice siege."

If so, then it maybe it should be presented as such a bit more clearly, especially the first paragraph (perhaps using " "s, I guess). Reading the article as an encyclopedia entry doesn't make it immediately clear (the [5] aside, there's a lack of " "s there), since the general style of the text does seem like the one employed by the author (Note to self: add some stuff on a couple of recent developments worth pointing out, sometime later in the day/week/month). Juancarlos2004 03:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was shocked too about the burning of the body. Carrigan intervewed someone who explained what she saw--I don't have the book now (returned to library), so I can't give you the name of the person--she was not annoynmous though--Carrigan names this person's name.

The second paragraph is also adapted from Carrigan. I like it as a good ending. But you can edit it as you wish, delete it even.

I have kind of moved on with the palace of justice. This summer I can check the book out again and go through any questions you may have--right now I am streseed with school though.

Some of the things that Carrigan say are so shocking, that is why I investigated the reviews of the book. All of the reviews of the book were wonderful and strong. One journalist even said he was not surprised by the allegations of Carrigan, living in Colombia for so long.

Thought you may be interested in this, it is facts, graphs I found about world oil production today:

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/72068.html

thanks for all of your work. Travb 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, in any case, I'm going to make a couple of edits. Nothing too major, for now.

In any case...in November 2005, CROMOS magazine published an article about Carrigan and her book (there was a considerable amount of mainstream media coverage on the subject of the siege and its consequences, the impunity, etc.), in which she apparently defends the bulk of the book's arguments and her overall conclusions, but admitts that, in retrospect, the book may have some mistakes (ie: apparently she now belives that she too easily ruled out any mafia involvement on the side of the M-19):

Su libro tiene un profundo valor histórico, aunque ella es la primera en reconocer que tiene sus fallas. "Me arrepiento francamente de no haber buscado más a fondo la participación de la mafia. Creí lo que habían dictaminado los juzgados. Hoy no puedo creer que el M-19 tomara el Palacio sin ayuda financiera. No creo que la mafia le hubiera pagado al M-19 para que matara a los jueces. Pienso que la motivación fue, probablemente, destrozar los expedientes".

http://www.cromos.com.co/historico/2005-11-25/contenido_MI-3152.htm

Thanks for the info on oil production, btw. Juancarlos2004 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits. When you say nothing major, for now, what do you mean?

Carrigan talked to the morticians who took the bodies of the dead. The military came in and took away several of the bodies (28), using the excuse that they were the bodies of the terrorists, and that they feared that the terrorists would attack the mortorary and try to take the bodies. thanks for the Cromos article, i would never have found it, focusing only on english sources. If carrigan is full of shit, I will not stand by her.Travb 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant that the edits won't provide any shockingly new revelations, for now. Why "for now"? Because I'm mostly working on adding some info on the Truth Comission that was named last year (I'll finish the edits in a few minutes, with some luck). According to the SEMANA newsweekly, the Comission (which is working very silently and prudently) may have found some surprising new information. But until the Comission finishes its work and goes public (ie: here's where the "for now" fits in), supposedly by November this year, there is no way to tell whether it may actually make a difference. Hope that clears some things up Juancarlos2004 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

babelfish.altavista.com translation of the cromos.com article

http://www.cromos.com.co/historico/2005-11-25/contenido_MI-3152.htm

2005-11-25

The OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WILL CALL TO DECLARE, 20 YEARS LATER, To EX- PRESIDENT BELISARIO BETANCUR BY The FACTS Of The JUSTICE PALACE. THE JOURNALIST ANA CARRIGAN ALREADY HAD TRIED TO JOIN THE PIECES.

its first trip to Colombia Ana Carrigan saw from a window, in street 37, how Bogota crumbled. He was 1948. April of 1948. Then, in the heat of horror of the Bogotazo, knew - with the incredulous eyes of an Earth girl of its mother and was enchanted right away by its familiar past. They spent the years and grew the sleepy illusion to return and to work in the country. And it obtained it in the middle of the 60. "Then I realized reality of Colombia and Latin America. Not it reality of my family, an elite ". Then, also, he fortified theParga-Corte's side of his blood, (Tolima) removed its Colombian roots in Dolores, and Rafael eeted again itself with his uncle.

The twin brother of his mother was a great influence in his life and a great inspiration in his work. An anxious, politically liberal until the marrow, academic and democratic man. In fact in his present literary project he follows the route of Rafael Courteous Parga. To traverse his he gives to an incisive glance to the violence of the 40 and the 50 him, where - according to the author one begins to understand history of Colombia.

Of a mere labor chance, Carrigan was in favor in Colombia in November of 1985. (it had arrived with the idea to roll a documentary one on gamines of Bogota when the headquarters of Colombian justice exploded in flames) That coincidence, years later, it finished turned a book with his documented version of one of the most non-uniform and chilling episodes of the country: the Palace of Justice.

In that occasion it remained 10 days and, with the fright of the very fresh happened thing, it ran to New York to propose history to him to a publisher who knew in the New York Times, for the dominical magazine of the newspaper. Already mentalizada to write a journalistic piece, it returned in May of 1986 to work in his investigation.

And that made with a great rigor to commemorate the first anniversary of the taking. But, when he was all ready one to print, they announced to him that the note would not be published because did not have the version of Belisario Betancur. She tried to explain that the President did not speak of the subject with anybody but was useless. She never published herself.

Then that unpublished writing began to him to weigh and it dedicated itself to look for one editorial to turn it book. After five years and a contract in its salary, returned to continue investigating in the happened thing and in 1993, with very good critics, it presented/displayed the Palace of Justice: a Colombian tragedy. But, for his surprise, never it was translated the Spanish. Its motivation to write on controversial subjects of the region (it also has a book on the conflict in El Salvador) is clear. "it makes sick to see to Me how the official versions of history are as much successful. Of all the problems that Colombia suffers today, for me, most serious - the one than allows and stimulates all evils is impunity, that in the last 20 years has arrived at a grotesca dimension ". S or book has a deep historical value, although it is first in recognizing that she has his faults. "I frankly regret not to have looked for thorough more the participation of the Mafia. I believed what they had considered the courts. Today I cannot think that the M-19 took the Palace without financial aid. I do not believe that the Mafia had paid to the M-19 so that it killed the judges. I think that the motivation was, probably, to destroy the files ".

In Colombia nobody is responsible. Nobody admits its errors, nobody in the power never requests pardon.

In the Spanish practitioner who learned of girl and who still conserves, it speaks from England without it fails the memory to him of the desperate shout of Alfonso Kings Echandía. Of the necessity of the Commission of the Truth, the tortured ones in the School of Cavalry, of the Aryan disappear, Jesus Cabrales, Andrés Almarales...

Fundamentally the thesis of my book is simple. Part of which the democracy in Colombia is a false democracy, cradle in lies and masks, behind which the political class and the rich classes manages to manipulate their interests and to cover the truths of a dramatic reality. A reality of poverty, abandonment and indifference by the life. But during the 27 hours of the battle on the inside and by outside the Palace of Justice, those masks fell. The essential character of this society and its leaders came to the light and for the first time was spread by radio and television to the whole country.

For that reason it is that it was necessary - since made minister Noemí Sanín- telephone cut communications with the Palace to silence the voice of the President of the Court, and to order that that night, while the hostages agonized and burned the Palace, the television transmitted the scenes of the soccers match and the Aid of Beauty from Cartagena.

In my book there is the testimony of a judge, widow of whom was attending of the President of the Court, with who I long spoke six years after the tragedy. She says following it:

' In my opinion the most catastrophic consequence of which happened in the Palace of Justice is that it revealed the true character of the political class of this country. Lamentably Colombia suffers of amnesia and we have arrived at such point of insensibilidad and cruelty that the life no longer has value. The right does not have valor'.

And I ask myself: She will be why to anybody it seemed rare to him that Mrs. Sanín went Chancellor from Colombia to the six years of these facts? By that amnesia she will be that almost three million Colombians voted by her for the Presidency of the country? And she will be why nowadays, to the great majority of the Colombians, she matters to them I comine the luck of the kidnapped ones of the CRAF?

Ana Carrigan Parga is enthusiastic and forceful when speech of Colombia, the country that takes in its veins and that although wants the editorials have given the back him to their closeer investigation.

Ana Carrigan Speaks

If that night of the 7 of November the President of the Republic had found the force moral to tell to the country the truth, everything would be different. I think that it had done possible to begin to construct, on ashes of deads of the Palace, the bases of a true state of right. In a state thus, the whole society had had the space and the possibilities of demanding responsibilities.

Because in Colombia nobody is responsible. Nobody admits its errors, nobody in the power requests pardon. And never there are consequences. To the 20 years of the Palace, only some of the old M-19 (Gustavo Petro, Navarrese Antonio or Otty Patino) have asked pardon the victims by the errors of their old leaders.

Signed: Travb 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All be damn, she thinks the druggies paid the M-19 to destroy the files. This needs to be changed in the article. What about the official report which said that the mafia was not invloved, that she mentions in her book? What made her change her mind?Travb 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question, especially because she doesn't give any specific reason for the change (though she seems to have few or no doubts about her other conclusions and statements). I don't know, but maybe she has had time to talk to other people she didn't talk to before, read other things, etc. and all that may have made her modify her previous beliefs. Juancarlos2004 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Babelfish Translation

What I do know now, after confirming it with a quick Google search, is that at least the sons of two of the magistrates that died in the Palace of Justice (Mauricio Gaona and Carlos Medellín Becerra) do seem to believe that there was an M-19 / mafia link, and apparently have access to some alleged evidence on the subject. See here:

Documentos que probarían los supuestos vínculos del Movimiento 19 de Abril, M-19, con el fallecido narcotraficante Pablo Escobar en los hechos que terminaron en la toma del Palacio de Justicia fueron entregados por el ex ministro Carlos Medellín Becerra al presidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez. El ex ministro es hijo del magistrado Carlos Medellín Forero, quien murió en el asalto realizado por el grupo guerrillero el 5 de noviembre de 1985.

“En uno se habla de que Pablo Escobar pagó cinco millones de dólares por la toma del Palacio de Justicia. Tengo otro documento que demuestra que Escobar, con un líder del M-19, negoció la cabeza del magistrado Alfonso Reyes Echandía (quien ejercía como presidente del alto tribunal en ese momento) en un millón de dólares y otro millón de dólares por la quema de los expedientes de la extradición”, dijo el Ex ministro.

Según Medellín, los documentos deben ser evaluados por las autoridades judiciales .“Son indicios que se han venido recogiendo en los últimos 20 años sobre la relación entre el Cartel de Medellín y el M-19”, agregó. Otros testimonios. El abogado Mauricio Gaona, hijo del ex magistrado Manuel Gaona, quien falleció en la toma del Palacio de Justicia, indicó que su padre, un día antes del hecho, los reunió en su hogar y les informó que estaba siendo objeto de amenazas contra su vida, al parecer, por parte del Cartel de Medellín. 95 personas murieron en la toma el Palacio de Justicia el 5 de noviembre de 1985, en el gobierno de Belisario Betancur.

“Los magistrados de la Corte que se encontraban ese día estudiando la exequibilidad o no del tratado de extradición y las leyes que los rigen estaban amenazados previamente por el Cartel de Medellín y en el caso de mi padre como magistrado ponente su posición era de constitucionalidad o exequibilidad total”, comentó Gaona.

http://elpais-cali.terra.com.co/paisonline/notas/Octubre062004/A206N2.html

Documents that would prove the supposed bonds del Movement 19 of April, M-19, with the deceased narcotics trafficker Pablo Escobar in the facts which they finished in the taking del Palace of Justice were given by ex- minister Carlos Medellín Yearling calf al president Alvaro Uribe Vélez. The ex- minister is son of the magistrate Carlos Jurisdictional Medellín, who died in the assault made by the guerrilla detachment the 5 of November of 1985.

"In one he is spoken of which Pablo Escobar paid five million dollars by the taking of the Palace of Justice. I have other document that demonstrates that Escobar, with a leader of the M-19, negotiated the head of the magistrate Alfonso Kings Echandía (who exerted as president of the high court then) in a million dollars and another million dollars by burn it of the files of the extradition ", said the Ex- minister.

According to Medellín, the documents must be evaluated by the judicial authorities "Son indications that have come gathering in the last 20 years on the relation between the Poster of Medellín and the M-19", added. Other testimonies. Lawyer Mauricio Gaona, son of ex- magistrate Manuel Gaona, who passed away in the taking of the Palace of Justice, indicated that his father, a day before the fact, reunited them in his home and informed to them that was being object of threats against its life, apparently, on the part of the Poster of Medellín. 95 people died in the taking the Palace of Justice the 5 of November of 1985, in the government of Belisario Betancur. "the magistrates of the Court who were that day studying the exequibilidad or not of the treaty of extradition and the laws that governs them were threatened previously by the Poster of Medellín and in the case of my father like ponente magistrate its position era of consitutionality or total exequibilidad", commented Gaona.

This doesn't mean that they are necessarily right. As sons of two of the victims, they may be grasping at any and all straws in order to find the still non-existant closure their sanity demands, but it does make things far less simple, to say the least. Juancarlos2004 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting what the latest truth commision will find. Go ahead and add this to the wikipage, if you like. I wish I could contact Ann and ask her why she changed her mind.Travb 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/proy_2005/proy_palacio/home/index.html
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Sun Jul 16 21:14:22 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Mon Jul 17 16:06:23 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Thu Jul 27 00:53:11 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/proy_2005/proy_palacio/home/ARTICULO-WEB-INTERNA_SECCION_PROY_2005-2603525.html
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Sun Jul 16 21:14:23 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Mon Jul 17 16:06:25 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Thu Jul 27 00:53:13 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://semana.terra.com.co/wf_InfoArticuloArchivado.aspx?IdArt=93555
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Sun Jul 16 21:14:17 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Mon Jul 17 16:06:25 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palace of Justice siege on Thu Jul 27 00:53:13 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency

One section of this article claims there are 25 justices, another 24. A quick search on the web suggests 23, but that is a current number and may not be applicable to this time period. This needs to be fixed. Hue White 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Following an AfD discussion it was agreed to merge Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy into this article. I'm not sure how to go about this; the other article was a POV fork of this one, created by a single-purpose sock-puppeteer who has since been indefinitely blocked. Most material in that article was copypasted from this one; what remains is highly partisan accusations of conspiracy. Does anyone fancy attempting to carry this out? RolandR (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits in the above box

I have recently edited the page to fix some problems with the wording in the information box. $Especially where it says the sides and casualties. I noticed that the Army Troops were not listed in casualties, and also, the sides were listed and the terrorists, and "government" troops, though the Army is not a force of the government, something like the FBI or CIA would be so. I will reedit the boxes, but if anybody finds the edits problematic in any way, feel free to talk it over before simply deleting, as both persons have their opinions.--Tlk041394 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this before reverting your last change, but that did still need to be reverted. I might be fine with your infobox edits regarding the government troops, but the other new material (the large paragraph) added and the persistent use of the word "terrorist" are problems and you need to discuss them here before simply putting them back in. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i understand your concern, but techniqually, the United Nations has declared colombian groups such as the FARC, M19, and ELN terrorists, if this may not be put it because of a noun problem, i understand, but you do not have the right from completely deleting all the material i took time researching and writing, the last couple paragraphs of the page. Whenever a fact is stated, it has a citation to back it up, so i do not understand what the problem is with me editing the page. I ask that this immediately be reviewed, as i am tring to contirbute, and am being prohibited for it.--Tlk041394 (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not at all being prohibited from contributing, and I appreciate that you are trying to add to the article. The bit about the causalities you recently re-added seems fine to me, so no worries there. Using the term "terrorist" really is just not necessary nor advisable per our policies, even if the UN designated M19 that way (we don't describe that way in our article, which is I think a good idea).

The main issue relates to the longer text you have added. You added material on the "The Alfonso Plazas Vega Case" (you're right that "case" is better than "conspiracy"), but one of your sources is a dead link, the second seems to come from a website dedicated to supporting Plazas, which is not a reliable source for providing general information since it is obviously not neutral (I know barely any Spanish so let me know if I'm misunderstanding what that source is).

The sourcing in that paragraph becomes all the more problematic when you make statements like "The case, going on since early 2007, has been talked about frequently on the Colombian news, and has been plaugued by corruption, false witnesses, and many unsolved mysteries, especially by the judicial branch. Those are serious accusations, and a source sympathetic to Plazas is not sufficient—an objective media report is needed.

Your new subsection titled "Human Rights Violations and the Military Hospital attack" is quite dramatic, but it is sourced to one blog. That is simply not good enough—again we need mainstream reporting on this, preferably in English since this is the English Wikipedia, but something from a major Spanish-language news outlet would also be okay. And again the writing here has problems relating to bias, or claims that are simply not sourced at all. For example, "The colonel charger has also been victim to human rights violatios, particualaly by the judicial branch and it's members Judge Jara and prosecutor Buitrago" makes serious accusations against living persons which violates our BLP policy, and the sentence "The attack has not been studied by authorities, but it is expected to be done soon" is pure conjecture without a source.

You obviously know about this situation and I do not, and much of what you say might be true. But since you are a new contributor you might not realize that you are not conforming to our guidelines about reliable sources, and that you are running into trouble in terms of our NPOV and BLP policies. Perhaps this can be better sourced and rewritten so that it can be added, but I think we need to discuss that here first. I'll wait for your reply but I do plan to remove this again in the very near future—it's nothing personal and not a comment on the work you've done, it's just that we have certain standards for including material in our articles and I don't think you're meeting them as yet.

I'll close by adding that one possibility is to simply remove all of the material on "The Alfonso Plazas Vega Case", including what was here before you arrived. I'm not even sure it should be discussed in this article anyway since we do so in an extremely vague fashion, and removing it might alleviate some of your concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, and as i said above, i understand using the word terrorist is not appropiate without a sourcew. So i will leave that out, the website you said that was "supporting" Plazas to the extent that I understand, is not something designated to support, but instead inform about the case and similar cases, also, i am not accusing anybody of anything, i am simply stating what is said on my sources, and if you would like to verify that, then you may do so, if you cannot speak spanish, with all due respect, that is not my problem, and all the other sources in this article are in spanish. I cannot put information from a source that is one sided, as you suggested, and when studied, you notice that most news outlets in colombia are one sided and corrupted and have been proved to be by organizations such as the U.N. and the CIA. Also, i have seen many other sources in a myriad of articles connected to blogs, and they have not been deleted. I will also fix the dead link. In the second part of the section, i have citations connected to spanish sources, considering this is a spansih topic, and sentences like "The colonel charger has also been victim to human rights violatios, particualaly by the judicial branch and it's members Judge Jara and prosecutor Buitrago" are what is stated in the article, and is coming from a reliable source. If presenting spanish sources is a problem, then this whole page should not exist. As you said, i feel like a have spent more time studying this topic and you have not, so i ask that you please not critizice material which are not knowledgable of before reading the citations, improving your research, and arguing your intentions to explain with sources what is wrong. I feel like we are just going in circles and do not wish for this to become a problem or quarrel. So if the material MUST be deleted because it is different from the case, i will have to conform to that, but please understand that if it is done, i will create an article that is topic to the case, as i feel the case is a major part of this theme and must be included, as well as i feeel that i have the right to contribute to this page, just as much as everyone else has. Please understand thsi website is built upon the contributions of people such as me. Please make a desicion so i may know if to sligthly edit my writing, or to delete it and start an appropiate article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlk041394 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually much of this article is sourced to Ana Carrigan's book, which is in English, but no matter (and actually the "notes" and "references" sections need to be combined, and the citations in the latter made standard, but I'm not going to worry about that now).

The Plazas web site may be there to "inform about the case," but from what I can gather it is clearly doing so from a pro-Plazas perspective, which was my point. We could maybe use it, but would need to balance it with material from neutral sources. Using a source that only gives Plazas' side of the story is just as problematic as using one explaining things from the view of "Judge Jara and prosecutor Buitrago." The ideal thing is simply to find other, more reliable sources to base this section on.

Your claim that "most news outlets in colombia are one sided and corrupted and have been proved to be by organizations such as the U.N. and the CIA" seems like to be a matter of personal opinion, and without more detail I can't even respond to it. Corrupt how? Controlled by businesses, leftist rebels, labor unions, the government, or all of those? There are many newspapers in Colombia. Are they all one-sided and corrupt? Back in 1994 Le Monde considered El Espectador (I gather it had trouble and was a weekly for awhile, but is now a daily again) one of the top newspapers in the world—is it now corrupt? Is El Tiempo, the largest circulating paper, corrupt and if so how? And is this your judgment or someone else's? FYI, while the UN might be a reliable source for calling a newspaper corrupt, the CIA most definitely is not—it is a U.S. governmental agency with its own interests. You are right that blogs are used as sources at times, but generally for minimal purposes and/or only if they are extremely well regarded—they cannot be used to make controversial claims not found in other sources, which is what you seem to be doing.

You have not convinced me that you cannot find better sources in Spanish, or even in English. Can you make an effort to locate some other material in other secondary sources? If it's in Spanish that's fine. Or make you can look for reports from groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. since this is a human rights issue. If you can do that, I think we can add those and rewrite some parts of what you have so it is presented more neutrally in the article. Remember just because a certain source made one particular claim, it does not mean we can just dump it into our article. If you are not familiar with WP:NPOV you should read it very carefully.

Also, I have to ask if you were previously involved with this when there was a full article called Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy (see for example this older version)? If so you might understand the back story to how this material got here better than I do, and it would be helpfully if you could explain that. If you are new to the article then don't worry about it.

I'm happy to work with you on this, so I hope we can figure out a solution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of additional things after looking into this further. First, there are plenty of articles on this situation in mainstream Spanish-language newspapers—those would appear to be our best sources at this point.

Also from what little I can piece together in English-language sources, you are pushing a strong POV with your additions and are not remotely presenting a balanced picture. Plazas is being tried in civilian court, per a 1997 ruling by Colombia's Constitutional Court, and seems to be doing everything possible to delay that trial (from what I can gather from some Spanish language articles, he seems to be claiming health problems but others say nothing is wrong with him). He is accused of human rights violations, but the entire section of this article as written by you paints him as a victim and nothing more. That's not acceptable, and you are obviously not neutral in your editing. My inclination is to simply remove the whole section until we can work up something neutral, or revert to an earlier version that is neutral. For your reference, the following are some sources I've consulted in English to understand the context—I'm not suggesting them as sources (and I'm not saying these are not biased), rather just pointing to them as things I've read. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As i said before, i am not trying to place any material presenting a one sided picture, if i am, that is solely on your perseption, for all of my sources are citing information as reposrts by different sources. Since we have gone on with this discussion for ddays, and you have suggested to remove the whole section, i will do that immediatly, i would like to point out that some sources you have linked me to are also blogs and personal reports, similar to what i have used as sources. Funny how when the coin flips, different rules are in use. To conclude this disscusion, i would like to thank you for your assistance and concerns in the matter. I will immediately remove all information in the section of "alfonso Plazas Case" and any other material having to do with it. Thank you.--Tlk041394 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's fine with me as I said, though I think the better solution is to rework what you have into something neutral using additional sources, or start from scratch and work up a neutral section. As to the sources I referenced, I specifically said I was not suggesting them as sources for the article, but just mentioning them as places from which I was drawing background info. So, no, there's no case of a coin flip or of different rules—I'm merely pointing out that there are very different takes on the Plazas matter than the one you presented. You don't actually seem to be arguing against that.

Finally, this edit (by a new account which I am 95% certain is controlled by you) is inappropriate, as it simply removes the basic fact that Plazas oversaw the operation. That is not remotely in question (Plazas obviously doesn't question it) and it thus belongs in the article so I am reverting it. It would be very easy for me to have a check run on these accounts to see if you created them both, and if so both would be permanently blocked. But so long as you stick to one account I won't do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Palace in flames.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Palace in flames.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Background

I think we should provide a 'background' section before the section titled 'The siege'. It is important to say what motivated the M-19 to plan the siege, and provide a neutral point of view of the different interpretations of their background. For instance, the siege happened on 6 november 1985 for a reason: On that day the Supreme Court would approve the Extradition Treaty. This information is relevant for the article, unless it was just a coincidence, in which case we should back that up with reliable references.--Forich (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

According to a video declaration of former M-19 member Gustavo Petro, the mastermind behind the planning of the military siege of the colombian Palace of Justice was Luis Otero. Nonetheless, Petro also says that Álvaro Fayad was the one who pulled the trigger, taking the political responsability.--Forich (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Consejo Superior de la Judicatura (2005, pp. 53-93), Libro Blanco - 20 años del Holocausto del Palacio de Justicia, contains a detailed account of the background of the siege.--Forich (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia has a complete section about the background of the siege.--Forich (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Critique of one of the sources used in the article

I want to bring to your attention that Ana Carrigan's book, which is currently cited as much as 10 times in the entry, has been named a 'conspiracy theory' by this reliable source: Hudson, R. (1995). "Colombia's palace of justice tragedy revisited: A critique of the conspiracy theory". Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 93-142. The abstract of Hudson's scholar study of the book states that he questions "her unsubstantiated claim that the Colombian government and military, in collaboration with the US Embassy in Bogotá and the US Department of State, covered up the massacre by scripting an ‘official story’, which labeled the hostage‐taking operation by the 19th of April Movement (M‐19) an act of narco‐terrorism sponsored by the Medellín Cartel'. If this is true, and we will have to read carefully the arguments of Hudson, then a lot of what is said in the entry is potentially Point of View (POV). --Forich (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Building layout

I believe it is relevant to mention the layout of the Palace of Justice. It originally had four floors. It is worth mention in which floor did the Magistrados stay, where was the cafeteria, and why it is relevant to mention the cellar and the fourth floor. Since this description is big enough, I'll consider adding a new section for it. Any thoughts on that?--Forich (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll begin to sketch the 4th floor layout here: The fourth floor had the Sala Plena at its southeast corner.--Forich (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Main picture

There is no currently no picture of the Palace of Justice in those two days. We should add one. If no one volunteers to do it, I will give it a try. --Forich (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this picture?--Forich (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Video of news coverage

This video is a compilation of the coverage made by colombian news stations of the siege.--Forich (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a longer one, part 1 of 5.--Forich (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft of Background section

Motives

Drug dealers were uneased by the Extradition Treaty of 1980 that could send them to jail in the United States once it got through the Supreme Court of Justice's evaluation. They menaced with death the magistrados of the Corte unless they change their opinion and voted against the extradition law.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palace of Justice siege. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927015317/http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Noviembre072005/A307N1.html to http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Noviembre072005/A307N1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palace of Justice siege. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927015332/http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Octubre062004/A206N2.html to http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Octubre062004/A206N2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Palace of Justice siege. 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/20141216230419/http://www.palaciodejusticia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:la-toma-del-palacio-minuto-a-minuto&catid=21 to http://www.palaciodejusticia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:la-toma-del-palacio-minuto-a-minuto&catid=21
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elespectador.com/historico/2005-10-09/contenido_MI-3107.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310002103/http://www.infosurhoy.com/cocoon/saii/xhtml/es/newsbriefs/saii/newsbriefs/2010/06/24/newsbrief-06 to http://www.infosurhoy.com/cocoon/saii/xhtml/es/newsbriefs/saii/newsbriefs/2010/06/24/newsbrief-06

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) 11:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Palace of Justice siege. 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/20040415214656/http://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/csj_portal/jsp/frames/index.jsp?idsitio=6&idseccion=18 to http://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/csj_portal/jsp/frames/index.jsp?idsitio=6&idseccion=18
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/proy_2005/proy_palacio/home/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621045856/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35481 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35481

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) 07:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

request to change name

i know this may seem like something minor (mainly because it is), but i think, describing this event as a siege is a mistake considering the situation there was no standoff, no atrtion, as soon as the goverment heard of this they began an attack, and thats what makes this event so important in the history of the country, the response of the military was excesive and if there was even the sligthest attemp at negotiation maybe it wouldnt have turned into such a disaster, but it did exactly because of that, and i would wish to request it to chang to something like the taking of the palace of justice, since thats what its called in spanish ArthurJFlamel (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)