Talk:Alvaro Uribe

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

How do we determine he is a dictator? The only information provided in the article discusses a Presidential election and receiving 62% of the vote and the word dictator is never used. Now of course dictators can have "elections" as well, but they are usually the only candidate running and results of 99+% are customary.

Thanks Learn together 11:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Human Rights Abuses

Uribe and his government have been linked to human rights abuses. This has been reported in the mainstream media. Way to whitewash the facts just because they don't fit your ideology --FreedomandLiberty 11:01, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Then you will have to have a source from mainstream media. Rob has already determined the listed source is not adequate. Learn together 11:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
Would this be mainstream enough? Amnesty's fairly prestigious. --wikinterpreter woo!

Thank you Wikinterpreter --FreedomandLiberty 11:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want it to have a chance to stick, you'll have to write it better. Your first source is the one that Rob already determined is inadequate, so as soon as he sees that, you'll be reverted. You make references to sources that you don't use with references; that will also draw a red flag. You must have very specific articles with very specific references. I hope this helps. Learn together 11:27, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah you're probably right it won't stick, the facts have too much of a liberal bias --FreedomandLiberty 11:33, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I can tell you right now it won't for the reasons I've noted above. You'll have to have very specific facts and references. By the way saying "revert vandalism" on an article content revert is pretty much akin to saying "please kick me out and block my account". This isn't wikipedia with its grandstanding posturing and chest thumping. Conservapedia is pretty straight forward and isn't big on theatrics that don't match the situation. Learn together 12:01, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Well said, Learn! But of course he knew who he was screwing with, didn't he? Now all that is left for me to say to him is: Godspeed and good luck in his future endeavors! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:11, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Troll

How dare I criticize a Bush ally, people can't condemn a conservative. Yeah Amnesty International is leftist alright, yeah protecting people's freedom and rights. That's so radical. How dare people stand up against authoritarian regimes. People should be told that there are people to command and people to obey and they are the people to obey, there are no such things as human rights. Assholes --LiveFreeOrDie 12:27, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

This is why you're not allowed to edit here. You're too obsessed with demanding your way, too obsessed with editing your way, too obsessed with writing in "facts" as you see them, and when you don't get your way you condemn us instead of doing whatever is needed to fix yourself. There's always Wikipedia for you to edit in. Karajou 13:00, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL! Right on bro! now. :-( --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:08, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Clean up

  • They point to the fact that of the 400 Union leaders murdered in Colombia, only 10 convictions have resulted

This article needs to be watched. The source document on this states,

  • demonstrators yelled at him, accusing the leader of the death of aroung 400 unionist and only 10 convictions. [1]

Leaving aside the question what "aroung" means (does it mean "around", or "among"), the figure of 400 clearly appears to be an estimate, and not a "fact", as this was stated. Secondly, this "fact" implies Uribe is a murderer, when the real complaint surrounds prosecution of murderers. Further, it is not entirely implausible that 10 convictions could be solely responsible for 400 alleged "murders", and not a one-to-one ratio, as implied here. This is typical of liberal bias in reporting, and a good object lesson for a serious student in detecting bias. RobS 15:30, 13 June 2007 (EDT)