Jump to content

Talk:Íngrid Betancourt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Old discussion 2005-2007)

[edit]

Image

[edit]

Has the image on the top been deleted (due to copyright uncertainty)? Shall we use the other image to replace it? – Kaihsu 10:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Feel free to revert if appropriate. – Kaihsu 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Uribe's initial policy

[edit]

132.236.75.65 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) The section of this article regarding Uribe's initial policy is highly inaccurate and imprecise. The data provided regarding the ratio of prisoners held captive by both groups is is not only wrong but heavily marked by a political affinity. The high rate of success of the GAULA group, supposedly supported by official statics, is false. It is surprising to find such a flawed article in a website that usually manages politic issues so impartially. I hope, considering the gravity of the subject, a more objective writer will correct it.[reply]

I think your comment have more political affinity that the original section. GAULA antiterror group indeed have a high rate of success, specially in these firsts months of 2007 when a full assault was launched in order to rescue hostage. Unless you have a source that isn`t related to both sides, neither the government neither the fucking guerillas--ometzit<col> 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest image

[edit]

I have put this to the top but the caption has been swallowed, help would be appreciated. This current pic and very moving clearly should be in the opening to let our readers know what she looks like now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the caption. Mushroom (Talk) 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Neutral

[edit]

The following sentence obviously has anti-FARC-EP messages in it: "facing the floor on a dirty green guerrilla uniform gown" Thus i have changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.200.107 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is non-neutral? it could have been a "dirty" green army uniform too, or a dirty T-shirt for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.202 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Contributors to this article have been careless and have used a lot of inline references. Most of these links have expired.

When you don't supply the publication, date, title, author, other contributors can't look for mirrors, or replacements, when the inline link goes dead. Other contributors can't even guess at what the link was about.

I urge contributors to use <ref>{{cite | url= | title= | publisher= | author= | date= | accessdate= }}</ref>, or reasonable equivalent.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's an understatement for such a big media story. I'll try to fix a few. Joshdboz (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I believe that you probably mean "external links as inline references." "Inline references" only means citing each reference at the point in the text where it is used, rather than in a list at the end that doesn't specify which points in the article came from that reference. Getting people to use inline references rather than a general bibliography at the end has been great progress. That said, I'd second the request that people identify the links they include, and that they use the ref tags. I also like to name each ref (i.e., ref name=) so that repeated uses of the same ref are labeled clearly.Lawikitejana (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How clueless is the BBC anyway?

[edit]

When they first reported the incident they went like "3 American soldiers have been rescued in Colombia, oh and a French citizen". --Leladax (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah bbc is really a, but is that reflivent to the Betrancourt article? Smith Jones (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a nationality issue - its simply that the betancourt story had no coverage at all in England - no-one has heard of her over here and shes only famous in France cos of her citizenship User_talk:87.84.240.98

That's not true either, it has had much coverage in British newspapers and on the BBC. I imagine that at the time of the original report the reporter had not yet got much information (which may be to do with newsroom cutbacks and might thus be a valid criticism of the BBC management). I can't imagine Sky News' initial coverage was any better. The BBC websie now has several high profile stories running on this event. There are many more reasons than just her citizenship to her status in France and elsewhere, as you could tell from reading the article and the news stories. I'm very glad and pleased for her family. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current health status?

[edit]

Right now, all news in France talk about the "weakened" Ingrid Betancourt. However, she does not seem weakened on those photos. Just a bit tired, which seems normal under the circumstances. No signs of chronic disease (there were rumours of C hepatitis), starvation, or mistreatment. This is weird. Are there any news covering her health status and treatment while being detained by the FARC? 128.93.51.51 (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with her physically. I think its safe to chalk those reports up as lies. Sentrix (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Sentrix[reply]

Photographs

[edit]

Like everybody, I am overcome with emotion and joy. But this is no reason to adopt a cavalier attitude towards copyright law. So please, people, refrain from putting "fair-use" images (they are unjustifiable), or from uploading photographs or posters, works of art or other photographs on Commons. These are plain violations of copyright. Rama (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to User:Leandromartinez for uploading Image:Ingrid-Betancourt.jpg. That's the spirit. Rama (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I try... But its difficult to keep this type of image, some people don't believe and marks as copyvio, originally its is copyrighted in the first publication by the Colombian news agency, but was sublicensed as CC-BY-SA 2.5 to Agência Brasil, the official news agency of the Brazil. Only english wikipedia rejects the image... Sad. Leandromartinez (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images belong on Commons. Don't worry, Agência Brasil is well-known there. The are probably our second provider of Free portraits of personalities, after the US government. Rama (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Released hostages

[edit]

There were 15 released hostages, not 11 as the article says, including Ingrid and the three Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.103.50 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The image used in this article (which made it onto the main page!) was a copyright violation - it was found here, but the page there indicates the copyright is with the Colombian Government, not Agencia Brasil. Agencia Brasil photos are CC-licensed, but Colombian Government photos are not. Neıl 龱 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source credits the Columbian government, but does not state explicitly that the photo is copyrighted by the Columbian government. Perhaps we can trust the the photo is properly released under Creative Commons license by Agencia Brasil? TRosenbaum (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are crediting the Colombian government, then it's not their photo to release, they are merely using it. Neıl 龱 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unknown to us whether or not Agencia Brasil has received permission to release the image under CC license or is merely using it under a more limited license, or perhaps even without permission. Commonly I suppose that images are used only with permission but that permission does not include release under CC license. So, it may or may not be a copyvio. Incidentally, it was not I who undid change by Neıl :) TRosenbaum (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Agencia Brasil, the official news agency of the Brazil say it is CC-BY-SA 2.5, so... The photo was sublicensed to the Agencia Brasil as Creative Commons 2.5, originally the photographer, Juan Felipe Barriga (at Colombia news agency) have licensed with Copyright. But the license was changed, now its a photo licensed at CC-BY-SA 2.5. Agência Brasil only use images or videos who its licensed as GFDL or CC-BY/CC-BY-SA, its a fact. Leandromartinez (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked on my talk page, please provide a link. Neıl 龱 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! But when you want to ask something to me, please use my discussion page ok? I don't have a Crystal Ball. The image still in commons, if english wikipedia don't want to use, ok. PS: I'm a sysop too, but i don't remove a valid e important image like these based only in a suspect of copyvio... I trust in the experts of commons. If you don't trust and want to do their jobs, well... its not my problem. Leandromartinez (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to 2008 South American diplomatic crisis

[edit]

Is there any evidence available to support the claim that the confiscation of the FARC Raul Reyes laptop, captured in Ecuador earlier this year, contained information that assisted in the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt? See 2008 South American diplomatic crisis. If so, this would be an interesting addition to multiple articles. The following article has some interesting information that falls just short of citing the laptop for assisting in the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and the other hostages. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli involvement

[edit]

CNN Spanish Edition just aired that the Colombian army was advised by a private Israeli security company. The full nature of the help was not specified. However, it was reported that, apparently, the Israeli government itself was not directly involved. The fee that CNN claimed the security company collected was US$ 10 million, suggesting that the aid was substantial. Aldo L (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betancourt denied that the rescue operation was fake

[edit]

On July 4, during the press conference in Paris, Íngrid Betancourt was asked about the allegations of ramson payment and fake military operation. She answered that the handover/takeover was a very tense moment for everybody present, so it was a real rescue and not just acting. She further elaborated that her thankfulness to the French government has to do with the type of rescue operation eventually decided upon: the Colombian government wanted a commando-type rescue, but France pressured for a much more uncertain, non-violent, mole-type operation. Aldo L (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of divorce?

[edit]

The infobox says she divorced in 1990. The text of the article says mid-1990s. One of these is wrong. — crism (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV check!

[edit]

I don't beleive this article is written from a neutral perspective, but i don't have the time right now to repair/wade through it. There is substantial POLITICALLY charged debate around many details of her 'rescue' and her relationship with the Colombians and FARC, and it doesnt look like the article has been adequately checked for POV. 130.194.168.78 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a new political reality"

[edit]

This section is definitely not NPOV. It's language is utterly biased all the way through. It needs to be extensively edited, or removed entirely from wikipedia. e.g. "It has been recognized that the liberation of Betancourt caused a dramatic change of the political scene." Come on. 130.194.168.78 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to check who this person is. Notable polish politician and publicist referred to her as 'wredna baba' (mean, shabby, scurvy witch, hag). And he is a person, that i tend to believe more, than collective of wikipedians. Since this article covers person well, i ask you hereby to spend some time learning how is she critisized, to include this here as well. But i don't really hope you will do it, cause even tough many of you believe in neutrality in wikipedia, it is obvious to most intelligent people, that wikipedia has bias. And it's not any evil conspiracy - it's fairly simple, if most people believed fascism to be good, wikipedia would be at least slightly biased toward it. And we all know what ideas most people on the internet are supporting... Whatever, i quit this rant now :P. 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)62.61.58.183 (talk)
Well, it did caused a dramatic change in the political scene. For many years Ms. Betancourt's family, and specially her mother, opposed the rescue of any hostage, based on the dangers it could pose for her. President Uribe was heavily criticized for his first botched rescue attempt that caused the death of Guillermo Gaviria, Antioquia's governor, killed with all his kidnapped companions by guerrilla fighters when surrounded by military forces (Mr. Gaviria was my direct boss for several years, he lived in my apartment in Washington for a couple of months, before rising to public notoriety: I loved that man, so, please, take that in account when reading the rest of my story). Anyway, Mr. Uribe was under heavy pressure, for seven long years, to start negotiations with FARC as soon as possible, exchanging hostages for guerrilla fighters in prison. Many major political parties, the Church representatives and everybody and his dog saw him as a man without a heart, callous, indifferent to the plight of the kidnapped ones. Now, when Operation Jaque ended, Mr. Uribe popularity jumped from an already high 74% approval to 94%. If that is not a change in the political scene, you tell me what you consider a change (please, explain to me which president, except in totalitarian states with distorted statistics, get this kind of approval numbers: perhaps Mr. Bush after the WTC attacks, and that was definitely a huge change in American policies, to put it mildly). After Operation Jaque a general and two colonels of Colombian Army were rescued in a separate operation, politically viable, because the policy of not negotiating with terrorist received the largest imaginable support. I strongly believe that, in these days, any rescue attempt, even a botched one, would be taken by public opinion in Colombia as something acceptable, posing no risk for the current government strategy. What I find incredible is when people around Wikipedia generalizes, thinking that everybody has the same poor knowledge (taken from some newspaper or their intuition) they have about a particular subject. If it were for some of them, we would need a reference every three words and no opinion at all would exist in this world: only the cold numbers and nothing that goes out of the ordinary. I respectfully think that what you're looking for is political correctness, not political changes. I bet you don't have the slightest idea about Colombia's political climate (no disrespect intended, I swear). Also, sorry if I seem to be "going too hard" on you, but I'm tired of what I see (I might be in error, sure, but...): a lot of articles tagged as disputed by persons that, in very few minutes, could find the reasons for some (at first sight) odd phrases. Not everything in this world is physics, there is also a thing called social sciences, where criteria and opinion find a space. I won't mention that in this rescue, three Americans were freed, but imagine what changes in American policy toward FARC that small fact brought in. Ciroa (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may need to be updated tag

[edit]

I'm not sure what else needs to be added to bring this up to date, so I am just going to remove the tag unless anyone has a problem with that.--Phil5329 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid ran out of money and now is asking for indemnification from the Colombian goverment ($6.5 million) for the time she was partying in the Jungle!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already updated the article about Ingrid's lawsuit. Anything else, oh, master? ;) Ciroa (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like after careful consideration, Mrs Betancourt has decided to withdraw the compensation claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.218 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 189.254.112.241, 19 July 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please do not forget to mention the latest lawsuit she placed against Colombia, which was later disproven before it began and she was disgraced in Colombian politics.

She is not a hero......

189.254.112.241 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC didn't murder?

[edit]

User:M.nelson just undid this edit of mine claiming undue emotion. To the contrary, the pseudo neutral "shot" establishes a false equivalency of FARC and this particular crime of theirs with legitimate military activity and thus whistewashes a heinous mass murder. I suggest nelson explain himself. Wefa (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "shot" in any way establishes a false equivalency of FARC. "Shot" neither implies "fired a bullet with the intention of murder" or "fired a bullet in self-defence". We don't need to tell the reader that this was "murder"; the reader can read that the dead were "kidnapped by the FARC during a peace march" (which is factual and unemotional) and shot, and the reader will decide for themselves that this was murder. Please check out WP:NPOV#Impartial tone, and note that if you can find a reference that states that this was "murder", feel free to add it and change the wording back. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the mere suggestion that there can be a legitimate point of view condoning such mass murder means taking position already. I suggest you apply your kind of reasoning to the Holocaust article (which makes ample use of terms like "murder" "genocide" etc). As we are humans, "cleansing" the description of horrible crimes is the first step to condoning them. We have a duty not to go there. Wefa (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this past example, which confirms that Nazi executions should be referred to as "executions" rather than "murders". "Murder" is a legal term, decided by a court; by using this word (without a reliable source justifying it) you are adding your own opinion (POV) to the situation. The neutral term is "shot", because that is simply a factual description of what happened, without adding interpretation. If you wish to debate further, consider bringing the matter to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, where Wikipedians most familiar with WP:NPOV may provide more insight. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notv really applicable. The people referred to in your example were actually executed by a state, and for a crime(attempted assassination of the head of state and commander in chief during time of war), plus multiple murder, that carries this sentence in virtually every state on the planet. Claiming they were murdered really stretches the definition of murder. FARC on the other hand cold bloodedly murdered a group of kidnapping vitims just to prevent them from beeing freed - a crime that really seeks its par. "Murdered" is fully appropriate. Not taking side is taking sides here. Wefa (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that she was warned by the government

[edit]

I listened to an interview with her on NPR this morning http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-23/ingrid-betancourt-even-silence-has-end and she mentioned several things that either don't seem to be in this article or contradict it. She said the government had given her bodyguards and offered to fly her, but then took back the offer of the flight, and the took the body guards. She also suggested that it was suggested by the military that she drive, she claims she was never warned not to drive, suggested the check point never warned her, and it obviously let her through. Wondering why she went to a dangerous place with no guards in order to help protect people (how? with no guards?) I came here, and the section that refutes her has no citations. --Skintigh (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though she and the government have different stories. The section you added is good because it clearly explains that it is Betancourt's account, while the current bits clearly explain "according to the Government". Since there is this discrepancy, we can't really describe anything as purely fact, unfortunately. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really quite annoyed by this debate. The fact that the government warned her is completely irrelevant. "Dear candidate. Please do not campaign. You have been warned". What is this?

She entered a war zone under her own risk, so she cannot blame the government for not protecting her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A functioning democracy has the damned duty to make it possible for those in the political process to actually exercise their rights. For a candidate this means campaigning. A goverment just *can* *not* prevent a candidate from campaigning - and it is not allowed to withhold protection. She should have continued up her lawsuit, which was was quite legitimate, and the whole matter is certainly nothing to delegitimize her. Those people here claiming otherwise utterly disgust me. This woman has suffered immensely at the hands of lawless thugs and all you come up with is hostility. Wefa (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-sense. She entered a war zone under her own risk. Security personnel cannot be put at risk just because a lunatic wants to campaign in the middle of a battle.
Wefa, the key words are functioning and democracy. At the time, Colombia was neither. At the time, the Colombian government didn't have any sort of state presence in the area. None. I don't mean that its monopoly on the use of force was in dispute. The monopoly belonged to the FARC. No one is saying that she deserved it, but that doesn't excuse poor decisions or reckless behavior. --Lacarids (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per 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.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of US Involvement?

[edit]

If this were a "bad news story" instead of "good news," the article would be chock-full-of allegations that the US Government was a puppeteer. Where's the consistency? --Lacarids (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rómulo Betancourt

[edit]

Is she related to Rómulo Betancourt? --Oddeivind (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are both South Americans, albeit born at different times in different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.202 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the captured FARC members?

[edit]

To make this issue complete, unbiased, up to date, relevant and fair, we need information on what happened to the captured and subdued FARC soldiers at the rescue operation. This information should be extremely easy to get, as they were in the custody of the Colombian Army, ie. the State of Colombia. However, no source on the incident of Betancourt that I have seen, reveals anything about their fate. They do not even asks questions about it. This is very disturbing.

Have the FARC captives been murdered? Are they still held prisoners in Colombia? Under what conditions? Have they been or are they being tortured? Did the rescue incident initiate more hostage-taking?

In this post, I am only concerned with the FARC captives related to the rescue operation of Ingrid Betancourt. I have not raised the issue of the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of victims of the violence and torture of the Colombian Army and the State of Colombia. This issue is also interesting and often completely overlooked, but I have tried to limit my post in a hope that proper information can be provided on this small issue at least?

RhinoMind (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Íngrid Betancourt. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Íngrid Betancourt. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Íngrid Betancourt. 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:

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: 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) 15:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Íngrid Betancourt. 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:

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) 02:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Íngrid Betancourt. 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:

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) 07:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Íngrid_Betancourt&oldid=1257250908"