Jump to content

Talk:Colombia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The article about Germany has templates about international organizations. Many articles about countries have such templates.

User:Tisquesusa Your recent editing history at Colombia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. If you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --JShark (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


International membership - important in the article.


--

--JShark (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is pure POV to select only those "international organizations" as relevant navboxes and the navboxes actually about the country as "irrelevant". You don't have the right to decide what users may find interesting. As the navboxes are automatically hidden anyway, there is no issue of having "too many". So either they all go in there, or none. Not your selective POV pushing games. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have the right to decide regardless of the opinion of other editors?. The best is a third opinion. --JShark (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The one who "decided" and starting the edit war was you, because after you added a bunch of navboxes, I added others and you reverted that purely based on your own POV. The navboxes are in nobody's face and are very relevant to the country. Tisquesusa (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that you exaggerate with the templates because you intend to redirect to the articles that you created with templates about your editions in the articles of Wikipedia. Emeralds?. Look at the example of these other articles. All articles about countries have templates about international organizations. --JShark (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

GERMANY - International membership

Australia - International membership

United States - International membership

China - International membership

}}

Japan - International membership

--JShark (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:
Only navboxes that actually have Colombia listed should be in the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Colombia president

Ivan Dugue KRISHNA PRATHAP R (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Iván Duque, actually. And what point are you trying to make? Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

San Jacinto pottery

I can find a bunch of Spanish sources about this, but nothing particularly in English. I did find an article about a different archaeological find in San Jacinto, California ([1]) though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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) 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bogota

please change ((Bogota)) to ((Bogotá))

 Done Saucy[talk – contribs] 01:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Demographics map

@Roboting: While the new map at Colombia/Archive 4 § Demographics is more colorful, it's harder to see the yellow areas that cover much of the mountainous regions, especially at the scale in the article – the gray background was better at this. I also see that the place names are in French (e.g. OCÉAN PACIFIQUE, Mer des Antilles, Lac Maracaibo, Carthagène des Indes). Is there an alternative, perhaps by asking for another mashup at the image lab? (I do see it is the same map used on eswiki). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: it is the only map there is. I have to ask another user if he can help us.Roboting (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

White Colombians vs White people and local languages

@Collebud88: With this edit, you removed |recognized_regional_languages=68 local languages and dialects and here, added a related note to |official_languages=. As I understand it, |official_languages= is used for languages that are official for the entire country, not just in individual territories. |recognized_regional_languages=, where the note originally was, is used for the regional languages.

Also, in this edit, you reverted the link White Colombians to the less-specific White people. Is there a reason why you don't think the more specific link is correct? (ed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Collebud88: Again, the regional recognition of English is already in the footnote "a" cited for the "Recognized regional languages" immediately below it, where it belongs; it should not be duplicated. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, not a complete collection of all the details – that goes in the rest of the article text. Anything that takes up several lines in an infobox should probably not be there, or infoboxes would become far too long. It could be argued that the footnotes are too long for the infobox as well. Please discuss. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Transcontinental

Re [2]: Collebud88, sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but I really don't see where the source cited says Colombia is a regional power: all I can see there is a raw GDP data. It's a plausible claim as far as I'm concerned, but it's not in the source. As for the country being "transcontinental", that's not in the source either. But more importantly, I don't see why this should be relevant to mention in the article at all (and in the lede of all places!): the term is rarely used outside of wikipedia, and its application to Colombia seems due to a mere technicality that leaves the label practically meaningless. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Collebud88, if there's anything I'm missing, you need to tell me. You can't just keep reverting. – Uanfala (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to remove the statement altogether: we really need reliable sources that explicitly characterise the country as a regional power, and the very quick google search I performed came up with texts like this and this, which do seem to place it in a somewhat ambiguous position. – Uanfala (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I see you've reinstated both claims, with two added sources: one is a brief articles in the Economist about Colombia winning their "country of the year" award for achieving peace with the FARC; the other source is the same link as the one I gave above about the ambiguity surrounding Colombia's status. None of the two sources support either of the two statements, so I've removed them again. – Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Some maps in the page missing San Andres and Providencia

As the headline says, there are maps in the page missing the department of San Andres y Providencia, therefore this department has no respective data shown. I'd like to mention that the San Andres y Providencia department is in the same administrative level as the other 31 departments in mainland, so it think is important to include San Andres y Providencia in those maps missing it. Those are maps with the issue that I found: 177.254.21.197 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you have a look at both of those maps, San Andres is included on both of them... the problem is that they are so small compared to the rest of the country, they only appear as dots. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Darien in North America?

I don't believe the Colombian portion of the Darién Gap extends into North America. According to Geography_of_North_America, the dividing line is the Colombia-Panama border, meaning that all of the Colombian land is in South America. So I propose removing the reference to Colombia's Darien being in North America. Thoughts? Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does it talk about Colombia's part of the Darien region being in North America? I can't find it anywhere. In fact Darien is only mentioned once in the whole article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
"The continent is delimited on the southeast by most geographers at the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, placing all of Panama within North America." Stonkaments (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't answer my question at all... nowhere in this article does it say that Colombia's part of the Darien is in North America. What you just quoted states that Panama's mainland is in North America and Colombia's mainland is in South America, which is correct. So Colombia's Darien is in South America – I don't know where you get the idea that it's in North America, because this article doesn't say that. Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you, Colombia's mainland is only in South America. The issue is that the Colombia article says "with land [which links to Darien Gap]...in North America" - that's what I'm proposing to remove. I will go ahead with the edit now, since we're in agreement. Stonkaments (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

I would like to request an mention to the political terror scale in which gives the country a score of a 4 historically, meaning that: "Civil and polit­ic­al rights vi­ol­a­tions have ex­pan­ded to large num­bers of the pop­u­la­tion. Murders, dis­ap­pear­ances, and tor­ture are a com­mon part of life.In spite of its gen­er­al­ity, on this level ter­ror af­fects those who in­terest them­selves in polit­ics or ideas." 2600:6C58:4C80:DB:CC01:C636:404B:B4D4 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be made more neutral and needs to reflect reliable sources. Is there a good general source that mentions this? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Colombia since 2018 has surpassed both spain and argentina in population. The line should be changed to 3rd and 2nd respectively TheHiker25 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Hyponasty (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.

User:Collebud88 To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first. --JShark (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 Again. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first. --JShark (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. --JShark (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I will add my thoughts on Collebud's changes, so that there is more chance of reaching a consensus, instead of just the opposing views of two people:
1. I disagree that Colombia has any territory within North America apart from the San Andrés and Providencia island archipelago. See the thread above Talk: Colombia#Darien in North America? – the Darien is split between Colombia and Panama, but the editor above and I both agree that the border between the two countries also constitutes the border between North America and South America, and therefore all of Colombia's part of the Darien lies within South America.
2. Claims of "the oldest democracy in South America" would have to be clarified. What is this based on – earliest date of independence from Spain (which would also apply to the other countries of Gran Colombia), earliest elections, implementation of democratic institutions, longest unbroken period without military rule, etc.? Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Changing the wording from "ethnically and linguistically diverse" (indisputable) to "one of the ethnically and linguistically diverse" is problematic... the latter would need a reliable source to prove there are few countries in the world to rival Colombia on these points. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Richard3120, your contributions are fine, but you have not commented on the information that the other user has recently added and that has no reliable sources. --JShark (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Richard3120 User Uanfala commented the following about the other user. It is interesting to mention this message so that you can understand the problem.

Ugh, not this again. I was involved with Collebud88 last year: they would insert superlative statements about Colombia, and when these were removed as misleading or not quite supported by the sources they've cited, they would simply revert (and revert, and revert..) without ever bothering to participate in the ensuing discussions (like this one [3]). As far as I can see from a quick glimpse, the exact same things appear to be happening again: addition of statements showing how great the country is (including ones, like the one about it being a regional power, that were debunked in the previous discussion), stubborn edit-warring when reverted, and no participation in the talk page discussion. Collebud88, if you continue to refuse to engage in talk page discussions and simply revert others, the only thing you can reasonably expect to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

--JShark (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 The full report is at the noticeboard. Not their first block. This user has never posted to an article talk page. As you can see, the user has been blocked several times for making edit wars on various articles. --JShark (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Collebud88 Again. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first. --JShark (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Collebud88 Please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss. --JShark (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Take your complaint to talk page. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.

@ProEra30047: To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first. --JShark (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Race/ethnicity in Colombia

DANE, the Administrative Department responsible for the official statistics of Colombia, has been called out by various human rights' organizations such as The National Afro-Colombian Peace Council - CONPA., as being statistically genocidal. An official quote from them here "...... we conclude that it is an institutional error that translates into statistical genocide". As the National Afro-Colombian Peace Council - CONPA, we categorically reject these results"https://www.cepal.org/mujer/noticias/noticias/5/27905/FUrrea.pdf. User:ProEra30047.
Do we have any modern sources related to the current data that says they are off the mark? Or do we have a different "reliable" source for different stats.Moxy- 05:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ProEra30047: Talking about genocide is something very serious that can provoke the intervention of international authorities, including the UN Security Council or the International Criminal Court. There is no trial for genocide against the Colombian government or its statistical authority. Therefore what you say is pure speculation or conspiracy theories. The official census of the Colombian government and official statistics avoid generating confusion in the readers. There is insufficient and reliable evidence about a statistical genocide in Colombia. --JShark (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ProEra30047: https://www.cepal.org/mujer/noticias/noticias/5/27905/FUrrea.pdf Furthermore, this source is outdated and there is no mention of the Colombian government carrying out statistical genocide. --JShark (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@JShark:

The colombian government has been responsible for many atrocities, it has never had the best interest of the colombian people. From the banana masacre of 1928 to the "falsos postivos" of today, they have shown time and again they have no interest in building a democracy. The fact that the international community has turned a blind eye to this not surprising, most of the top leaders in the country work for them

second, There is no way you read that pdf i sent you and didnt grasp the part where the organization calls it a "statistical genocide". Here's some more files if you still have any doubts https://www.okayafrica.com/afro-colombians-demand-to-be-counted-in-census/ https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1277501/download

third, no colombian or anyone who has visited the country would ever believe that 88% is white and that therre are only 6% afro colombians

Now that you metntion the UN, The [apparent] decrease in the number of Afro-Colombians in the 2018 census compared to the 2005 census was preciously criticized the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination https://raceandequality.org/english/colombia-undergoes-review-by-the-un-cerd-committee-as-afro-colombian-civil-society-organizations-participate/

@Moxy:

The Colombian newspaper El Espectador states that scholars and researchers estimate that a quarter of the Colombian population is Afro-Colombian (El Espectador 9 Nov. 2019).https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/economia/resultados-del-censo-evidencian-un-genocidio-estadistico-organizaciones-afro/

DANE,the Administrative Department who did this "report",has proven to be inconsistent/unreliable many times, and unfortunately not just with this case. They even admitted they made a "mistake" Dilian Francisca Toro, a human right activist, even had to go out her away to correct DANE whwere welcomed the and they had to change their initial calculations. How ever this was just for el valle de cauca, one out of the many departments in colombia. ahttps://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/el-error-del-dane-que-borro-del-mapa-a-1-3-millones-de-afros-436936

@ProEra30047: The use of the word genocide is controversial and dangerous and until there are convictions for genocide against members of the Colombian government or its statistical authority, controversial information or statements cannot be posted without a sufficient amount of evidence. Genocide is something that cannot be affirmed with total certainty without a lack of proof. Everything else is recommendations or opinion pieces. It is necessary that you cite serious sources such as extensive court documentation that shows that genocide exists. Wikipedia is not a place to resolve legal issues. Wikipedia is also not intended to provide a solution to issues that have to be resolved between the Colombian government, human rights organizations, and the judges who are in charge of deciding on things as serious as an alleged genocide in Colombia. Without evidence and without complete assurance about such evidence, controversial information cannot be included. Many of his claims about the Colombian government are more opinions than actual evidence that the government is guilty of atrocities or of not wanting to build a democracy.
@ProEra30047: The 2018 census reported that the "non-ethnic population", consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry), constituted 87.58% of the national population. The Colombian census does not divide the population into whites and mestizos. The census does not say that the majority of the population is white. --JShark (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I live in Colombia and I can tell you that many Colombians very much believe that the country is 88% white. I'm not saying that they or DANE are correct, but the Afro-Colombian community is pretty much confined to the two coastal regions and "invisible" to most of the major cities, where the majority of the population lives. You could walk around Bogota or Medellin for a month and not see a single black person. There is undoubtedly racism in the country, and not just from the government, but also from much of the general populace as well. However, FactMonkey isn't a reliable source, and there aren't any other reliable sources to source alternative figures from. However, I would say it's definitely worth discussing these disputed figures in the Race and ethnicity in Colombia article, seeing as there are reliable sources such as the El Espectador article which states that academics and researchers believe the figure to be much higher. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in intro seems misleading

"With over 50 million inhabitants Colombia is one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in the world"

The ethnically part might work, but linguistically diverse seems highly unjustified. Almost 100% of Colombians speak Spanish. It is true that there are a relatively large number of languages spoken in the country, but only by very small numbers and only in remote areas. I think when the average reader sees linguistically diverse, they will assuming a situation more like India or Nigeria. Really, even 71 languages is not enough to say "one of the most linguistically diverse countries in the world".

Ethnically is also a bit questionable. There are different races, but most Colombians consider themselves one culture.

So, I propose changing this sentence to something like "With over 50 million inhabitants Colombia is an ethnically diverse country... Spanish is the official language and the native language of the vast majority of citizens, but over 70 languages are spoken within the country." Last edited by: (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

National Anthem .ogg Improvement.

Good afternoon. I have adjusted the tempo of the US Navy Band's rendition of Colombia's National Anthem to the correct tempo (a few clicks faster than original .ogg). I request that the audio file attached replace the current audio file. If this is not permitted, please delete. Also I am unsure how to add subtitles.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvKADxxsqg -- Official video of the President of the Republic of Colombia.

File:United States Navy Band - ¡Oh, gloria inmarcesible! (corrected).ogg

Thank you. Juanito506 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Juanito506

Why is Pablo Escobar not mentioed?

There is exactly one sentence about the drug trade and no mention of Pablo Escobar. Sure feels like somebody wants this information erased. Columbians may now be embarrassed by Escobar and his cohorts, but they were a huge influence on the economy and politics of Columbia in the 1970s and 80s - it doesn't seem in keeping with Wikipedia policy to supress this information just because it is awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfymusic (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's being "suppressed"... the murder of Gaitán and the Bogotazo is arguably even more important in the history of Colombia in the 20th century, and that only has two sentences. It's a case of trying to summarize all the important points with a line or two for each. I agree that Escobar should probably be mentioned briefly somewhere in here, though. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


It's Colombia, not Columbia. ThomasGutiez

For someone talking mad ---- about censorship you're pretty blind to be editing the talk page of a country you can't even spell Maj Swag (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Change 

"Great Britain declared war on Spain in 1739, and the city of Cartagena quckly became a top target for the British. ”

To "Great Britain declared war on Spain in 1739, and the city of Cartagena quickly became a top target for the British." (History>colonial exchange> 5th paragraph) JenHannaC (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Save JenHannaC (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

103.218.133.243 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Democrat Republic of Colombia}}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Colombia"

Template:Largest cities of Colombia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Alooperezz98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

You have put the wrong percentage for Afro Colombians. We are actually 9.34% of Colombia’s population. May you please change it Jnate0928 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Racist section, Colombians are Indigenous Latinos not "White/Mestizo". Mestizo is a racial slur based on the Spanaird caste system, just like Mulatto. Its use on Wikipedia and bigoted mis-identification of millions of Indigenous Latinos goes against the websites guidelines and historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:C302:43D0:D4A0:631B:8D7D:D159 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see the wording actually used in the DANE census report – so far I haven't been able to find the figures for the total ethnicity of the country. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Colombias Food

Delicious food (slti) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.14.59 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Petro is not president yet

As a left-leaning Colombian citizen myself, I understand that we are very excited about Petro becoming president, but I need to remind you that he is not the president until his inaguration, which will happen on August the 7th. Until then, Duque will continue to be president. Petro is president-elect As such, I think that the fact box should not have Petro as presdent just yet. I don't know if he could be added there as president elect until his inaguration, leaving Duque as president.


Nodspine (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Nodspine 

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodspine (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction of demonyms

I'd like to see the demonyms corrected along the article. The word "columbian" should be changed for "Colombian" which is the correct word. L 2600:1702:2C70:F60:6409:C545:17BC:3937 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does it refer to the people of Colombia as "Columbians". What you are looking at is the term "pre-Columbian", which is correct, as it does not refer to a time before Colombia existed, but the time before Christopher Columbus. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Two coasts in opening text

The opening text states that "It is the only country in South America with coastlines and islands along both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."

However Chile could also be said to meet these criteria (and indeed that is what it says on the opening text of the Geography of Chile article.

Would suggest this is removed or edited to include a mention of Chile? Vbnnr (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point - I don't know enough to be able to state that the boundary between the Pacific and the Atlantic is "officially" in Chile's part of Tierra del Fuego, but you're right that this contradiction between the two articles should be resolved one way or the other. Richard3120 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

The comment about Colombia being the only SA nation with a coast in the Atlantic and Pacific ocean should be removed or changed to one of two SA nations, as Chile also has a coast in the both oceans as well. ElectricSoap (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It says It is the only country in South America with coastlines and islands along both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Technically, Cape Horn (in Chile) marks where the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans meet, but it's not the same thing. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please correct the statement listed below.

"Colombia is the largest Spanish-speaking country in South America."


The statement is wrong. Argentina is actually the largest Spanish-speaking country in South America. 2600:8800:4B00:630:CD65:AC15:2967:3A7B (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

North America land?

Colombia doesn't have land in North America, colombisvhas an island in Central America, it's San Andres and some islands around San Andres. 2600:6C64:687F:94ED:59B8:2D53:C091:D13A (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Central America is part of the continent of North America. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

The article states that Colombia is the largest Spanish-speaking nation in South America. I believe both Argentina and Peru are larger that Colombia. The article should state that Colombia is the 3rd largest Spanish-speaking country in South America. 72.178.19.16 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I removed the claim for now (as it was unsourced). M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

Change this sentence in the lede: "Colombia is recognized for its healthcare system, being the best healthcare in the Americas according to the World Health Organization and 22nd in the world."

To: "Colombia is recognized for its healthcare system, being the best healthcare in Latin America according to the World Health Organization and 22nd in the world."

Per the sources. Neither source says it has "the best healthcare in the Americas," the WHO source simply says it has "the best in Latin America." Meanwhile, the second source is literally a company selling health insurance, and thus not a reliable source. 2603:7000:CF0:7570:6C10:DF46:D4D7:D416 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Request the two mentions of Air Force be changed to Aerospace Force to reflect the new name of the Colombian Aerospace Force. Page has already been moved. 75.163.131.46 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Mestizo-White

The "Mestizo-White" label wouldnt be acuratte as the govenrment does not specify the number as being mestizo white, and it doesnt include minority groups such as mulatto or east asian. It would be best to keep it as "no ethnic affiliation" as its presented in other pages relating to this topic. This is also because the colombian government doesn't collect data on specifically mestizos or whites instead counting afro and indigenous colombians. Moxy. Zaquezipe (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks like this was done all over https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/colombia/ Moxy- 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
So maybe change it to "Mestizo and White" ? Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree we should follow the source https://cers.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/2016/04/Multicultural-harmony-in-Colombia-Beth-Brady.pdf Moxy- 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
https://geoportal.dane.gov.co/servicios/atlas-estadistico/src/Tomo_I_Demografico/3.4.-poblaci%C3%B3n-por-grupos-%C3%A9tnicos.html is how tha government labels the ethnic groups Zaquezipe (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that as this does not define who , 85.9% are (outside of "no ethnicity") this is not much help. This does not support your edit of white, rather it would support "no identified ethnicity", but even then, this is one source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, can I make the change of changing "Human ethnicity and biological diversity" to "Race and ethnicity in Colombia", as that is the name of the article and the previous one is an unnecessary rewording. Zaquezipe (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
We do to have a section titled that. If you want to change the name of a page you need to make a case at that article, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

Request to add Mass media in Colombia under Colombia #Culture. 203.149.142.34 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Question: what are we supposed to do with the article's title? M.Bitton (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: Already linked under Colombia#Popular culture.
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Recommend adding "." to caption after "on the continent" for consistency. RCM741989 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect statement on economy

I'd edit this myself but the page is locked.

The economy section asserts that "Colombia is now one of only three economies with a perfect score on the strength of legal rights index". The World Bank source PDF it cites is no longer there, but looks to be out of date anyway (2017).

According to my own research at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.LGL.CRED.XQ?most_recent_value_desc=true&locations=CO , Colombia has never had a perfect score. It peaked at 11 out of 12.

There are (and have been) countries that do have a perfect score, for example New Zealand. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.LGL.CRED.XQ?most_recent_value_desc=true&locations=NZ Onetruedave (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in Ethnic groups

User: @ElMexicanotres has been reverting for several editions without any reason, deleting information from important portals such as CIA and Public Library of Science trying to preserve obsolete genetic information from the 90s and 2000s compared to years like 2014, 2016 and 2018. Please do a review and a response soon. @citationbot @Maxeto0910. Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No I am deleting all of the genetic information because it is not needed you provided proof that there is conflicting evidence between them so it’s best not to add it here and to a different Wikipedia page and I am saying you add it to Race and ethnicity in Colombia where it does show ethnographic studies ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
You say that there cannot be genetic sources when there was an old source from 2010 there for a long time, but you do not eliminate it, you eliminate the sources of important portals such as PLOS of 2016 and 2018. Then you say that the sampled population is small, so I put one of more than 1,600 Colombians and even then you say that it should not go there. Can you explain me? Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes I checked the name of the section and it has to do with number of ethnic groups nothing to do with the genetic studies of a country and because there are so many conflicting sources to the genetic information it’s best not to add it and maybe to place it somewhere else where both of the information can be seen, the one from 2010 and the one from 2018. ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Now you are changing the situation in your favor, when the first thing you removed was in favor of a genetic study from 2010 with data from 2000, 2003 and 2007. That is why I told you: it is vandalism because there was a genetic source that It was maintained for a long time (even with a circular diagram). I know that all the sources of genetic studies are on the main page, but then do not play to your convenience, if from the beginning you disagreed with genetic information you should delete and explain the situation. Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That is because there are two conflicting sources with almost equal amount of people, if you really want to add it so bad then stop insisting on having it on the main page but instead on the Race and ethnicity in Colombia page which I have shown you multiple times yet you continue to ignore it and keep reverting the deletion. ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so I examined each of the sources. The 2018 one states “Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Latin American Population Isolates” and uses columbians from solely one state being antioquia which for obvious reasons isn’t suitable for showing as representative of an entire nation because it’s showing genetic isolates, not the common citizen of columbia. The 2015 one uses very isolated native groups for calculating native dna and not ones most present in columbia which explains why it’s not so accurate for the country, because columbians have little in common with the isolated groups which is why it’s not suitable for using. The 2014 one has purple dots over mostly antioquia (seems to be the most European state from Colombia which fits the 2010 observation of antioquia being 70% white) which also makes it not representative of the country because it focuses on one state. The 2010 one is better because it includes the specific states and their ancestries rather than focusing on a specific state, it has more people than all of the other ones, and it uses the most common native groups for their areas, and it examines all columbian ethnic groups and citizens of urban areas of the country. ElMexicanotres (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand exactly what the conflict here is, but I think both of you may be in danger of being blocked per WP:3RR, and to avoid that, you need to keep discussion about the content here in Talk. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is a dispute over the quality of studies about genetic ancestry in Colombia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of sources:
  • Older source, preferred by ElMexicanotres (talk · contribs):
    • Rojas, Winston; Parra, María Victoria; Campo, Omer; Caro, María Antonieta; Lopera, Juan Guillermo; Arias, William; Duque, Constanza; Naranjo, Andrés; García, Jharley; Vergara, Candelaria; Lopera, Jaime; Hernandez, Erick; Valencia, Ana; Caicedo, Yuri; Cuartas, Mauricio; Gutiérrez, Javier; López, Sergio; Ruiz-Linares, Andrés; Bedoya, Gabriel (September 2010). "Genetic make up and structure of Colombian populations by means of uniparental and biparental DNA markers". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 143 (1): 13–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21270. PMID 20734436. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  • Sources preferred by Jhoan Baptise (talk · contribs):
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Now that the page is extended-confirmed protected, I have no choice but to start an RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Genetic ancestry of Colombians

There are two questions.

  1. Should information about genetic studies in Colombia be included in this article, or only in Race and ethnicity in Colombia?
  2. Which studies should be used for this information (in both articles)?

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The 2010 source should be used 100%, I will list reasons why
  • The 2014, 2015, and 2018 sources all have less sample size than the 2010 one
  • 2014 and 2018 sources focus mostly on antioquia and not all of columbia, the 2018 one shows the genetics of population isolates from antioquia which it literally shows in the title and is not representative of the country, the 2014 one mostly conducts on people from antioquia and surrounding regions and not the entire country as shown by the purple dot concentration mostly being around antioquia which supported by the 2010 source is the most European state there
  • The 2015 one uses isolated native groups that aren’t even similar to the native groups that colombians are closest to and being that colombians have little in common with these groups the ancestry for the native contribution shows as lower than usual
  • The 2010 study shows the contribution of most of the populated states and urban columbians from those states and it has the most sample size with around 2000 it takes the genetic ancestry of the most common native groups in columbia which are more similar to the general population it has a specific breakdown of each state which has antioquia has the most white genetics and the amazon has the least
  • The 2014 2015 and 2015 sources don’t specifically focus on columbia but Latin America as a whole and focus in on a specific region or city with smaller samples, they focus more on having a general overview of Latin America but aren’t specific sources for the genetics of colombians
  • This one the 2010 one has been used previously and focuses on specifically columbia and the individual states while also doing research on the most common ancestry groups for colombians it is specifically trying to get the average genetics for colombians which the other three don’t and rather are trying to get a general overview of latin america
ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
And because of these things only the 2010 one should be used for the specific genetics of Colombia because it is specific to the country ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
And that includes both Colombia and Race and ethnicity in Colombia ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Rojas et al. should be included - All could be used for small details but Rojas et al. is best for generalizations about the entire country. XeCyranium (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

2010, only, on both.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No an overview article about a country isn't the place for genetic studies.... As seen by every other country article.Moxy🍁 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment It could be helpful to include if there is general agreement among the studies on certain positions. Senorangel (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Not here, but maybe race and ethnicity. I don't think genetic studies make much sense in this Colombia article. The Race and ethnicity article make more sense for genetics, but I would caution that genetically race and ethnicity do not exist. Racism would be validated on genetic grounds if such was actually the case. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
While I probably won’t vote on this RfC (at least #2), I feel obligated to chime in that this is completely and utterly fallacious as it misses the point. The social construction of race is not the point, as these genetic studies deal with tracing ancestry to multiple discrete and highly disparate populations, which are indeed identifiable genetically. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
No, agree with those above that genetics is not really due at this level of article. Human societies are not structured by haplotype. The sources in question may be relevant at Race and ethnicity in Colombia, but as RadioactiveBoulevardier mentions both race and ethnicity are more a question of sociology than of genetics. CMD (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colombia/Archive_4&oldid=1258576745"