Talk:Colombia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colombia is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Colombia, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Colombia Portal This article is within the scope of the Colombian WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Colombia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Click here and join us!.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject South America, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

section=new Add new posts to the bottom]

Contents 1 Headline text 2 Comments 3 Media in Colombia 4 Colombia (and Columbia) 5 Map 6 Etymology 7 Supranational Templates 8 Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board 9 Improvement Drive 10 Pacific Ocean confusion 11 Demographics 12 Looking at Colombia in a different way 13 Economic Growth? 14 Why?? 15 Wikiproject Wikiproject LOC Country Studies 16 Most Important Cities 17 There's an error in area of Colombia. 18 Stub 19 External links 20 Negotiation 21 Minor glitch 22 Images 23 Wow 24 "Main artcle:..." 25 New Section proposal: "Political Economy" 26 Photos of Colombia 27 Crime? 28 Religion 29 Ethnic Groups in Colombia 30 Ethnic Groups in Colombia 31 World Bank links 32 What about Panama? 33 Just a heads up. Template for deletion. 34 Can someone please block the article?

[edit] Headline text

div style="float:left; border:1px solid #000; margin:1px;">

This user likes Vallenato music from Colombia

Me gusta este userbox pero no me convencen ni las letras en rojo, ni el mensaje, el cual es demasiado básico. La falta de puntuación y el hecho de que no es un template también son un problema. Esta es otra versión:

Para colocarla hay que escribir solo {{User Vallenato}}

Rosa 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Why was my "One might be looking for Columbia ..." deleted? I think there's a real chance for confusion. - Furrykef 01:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somebody removed it again. I'm going to keep putting it in until somebody at least makes an effort to explain why it doesn't belong. - Furrykef 05:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely no chance for confusion. Do you see a similar note on Columbia? Unless you added it after seeing this, you don't. This proves there is no chance for confusion. --Fibonacci 15:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't because Columbia already links to Colombia. And saying "There's no notice there" is a weak argument. Somebody has to put it there first. And these names differ by one letter, not to mention that the two variants sound extremely similar to many English speakers. If that's not "chance for confusion", what is? Now, if this article were titled "Republic of Colombia" and not just "Colombia", and perhaps it should be, I might agree with you. (P.S., I'm not angry or anything, I was just annoyed that the talk page wasn't being answered. Sorry.) - Furrykef 18:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does link, in fact, but there is not a big message at the start of the article saying "One might be looking for Colombia, a South American country" or something like that. Yes, someone has to put it there in the first place, but why hasn't anyone yet? Because there is no chance for confusion.

If you want a stronger argument, fine. I've seen some people (mainly from the USA) who write "Columbia" when they want to talk about Colombia. But how many who do it the other way round? Zero. Not a single person. So, if your note should go somewhere, this somewhere is in Columbia and not in Colombia.

Did I sound too a bit over-excited? (Or should I say "look" instead of "sound"? Since nobody is hearing me, but rather reading me) If this is so, sorry.

--Fibonacci 23:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reason a big notice at the top of the article doesn't belong in Columbia is that there isn't just one other place called Columbia/Colombia, there's lots of other places (admittedly most of them being in the United States itself). We can't have a huge disambiguation notice at the top. Also, just because you haven't seen somebody misspell "Columbia" as "Colombia", rather than the other way around, doesn't mean much. It could happen -- granted it's much more likely with non-native speakers, but as I'm sure you are aware, many such people use Wikipedia. - Furrykef 15:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's lot of other places, and we can't have a huge disambiguation notice at the top. Good reason. Also valid here. --Fibonacci 19:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You could have a link to a disambiguation page. For example

• For other places named Colombia, see Colombia (disambiguation)

But in this case, the proposed notice is more about a mis-spelling. I'm not sure what the precedents are, but I would have thought it wasn't necessary here. I'm sure many people make spelling mistakes when looking for articles, but it is easy enough to see you have arrived at a wrong page and then search again. Disambiguation links are mostly required when two articles can legitimately claim the same page title, if you want the less dominant page its not clear what you should look for in the xxx of Columbia (xxx). -- Solipsist 07:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Piss.

Moreover, many other pages have disambiguation where such disambiguation is unnecessary. For instance, Nail (anatomy) has a disambiguation at the top pointing to nail (a disambiguation page), even though nobody is going to type Nail (anatomy) but meaning instead Nail (engineering) (the only other item currently on said disambiguation page). I fail to see how this is different, except that there are far more places to be disambiguated and there is, arguably, more of a chance of confusion (that is, "Columbia" and "Colombia" are far more similar than "Nail (anatomy)" and "Nail (engineering)"), both arguments being in my favor. - Furrykef 02:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is unlikely enough that someone would look for "Columbia", meaning the U.S.: it's an uncommon usage outside of the one song "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean". It is unlikely beyond probability that someone would additionally misspell that as "Colombia". No, I don't think the notice about that particular meaning belongs on this article, although a general link to the existence of the Columbia page would be useful. -- Jmabel 07:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Furrykef, but I don't think a reference to Columbia is warranted on this page. If anything were to be added, it should be a reference to the disambig page, and not a specific usage. (One that I had never heard of, indeed.) The line should stay out. Noisy 08:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This definitely needs a disambig note at the top. There is Columbia, Colombia, British Columbia, Columbia Records. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:08, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ah the dismabig page is at Columbia. I can see no reasonable objection to that at all. I'll put it back in. You can have a vote on it if you want otherwise. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree completely with Dunc Harris, (Until I was about 20, I didn't even know the country's name was spelled differently!) leave as such. —siroχo 13:01, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the main page at both spellings should have a clear disamb sentence at the top, referring to the other spelling (I'll go put a clearer one on Columbia). Yes, I agree that "columbia" should refer to the disamb page, NOT the US (I'd never heard that ref until I stumbled on this discussion, and I live in the bloody US). The two main 'columbias' I knew (having grown up in Washington) were the Columbia River, and British Columbia. Niteowlneils 15:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where the confusion arose, I think, is that the other uses of "Columbia" comes from the usage for "North America" (I probably should have said that instead of "United States"). But I guess I hadn't made that clear in my original disambiguation notice and it'd be too confusing or verbose if it were added back in now with that "correction", so I'd say it's fine as it is now. - Furrykef 18:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do agree with User:Jmabel. I won't remove the note right now because I don't want to start an edit war, but I still think this does not belong here. See how the only one yet who had a mistake (i.e. User:Siroxo), spelt Columbia for Colombia and not the other way round? --Fibonacci 16:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already pointed out more than once that we use disambiguation notices even in cases where one couldn't possibly type one thing and mean the other. Also, that user said that there should be a link to the article. I also pointed out that people who don't have English as their native tongue could spell one and mean the other. - Furrykef 18:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone added random pictures of the statue of Carlos "El Pibe" Valderrama located in Santa Marta in both the Culture section and after the crime section. I took the liberty of deleting them; they are out of place and do not belong in any current section of the page. I would also like to point out that the Cartagena picture is in the Demographics section, which is also out of place. The picture of the aquarium in Santa Marta in the tourism section leaves much to be desired to say the least. Please, add content only of it is relevant; even if your intentions are good, they look as if the page has been sabotaged.

The Ethnic group section is so out of place. "Some people say as much as 27%" that means that not only the pacific coast is all black/mulatto but most inner cities. the source posted says nothing of that. Controversial post and it should be deleted. --Kinbushi 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media in Colombia

I would like to add an Media section. The article of communication on colombia is very incomplete and only shows statistics. We can compilate media outlets from colombia like El Tiempo, Citytv Bogotá, Caracol TV, RCN TV, Caracol Radio... You are invited to help me... Don Quijote's Sancho 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colombia (and Columbia)

At one point I put a notice at the top of Colombia, reading something like, "One might be looking for Columbia, another name for the United States.". Soon, it got deleted. I put it back and posted something on the talk page. It got deleted again with no response, so I put it back demanding (too harshly, I admit) that the talk page be answered first. I argued about it a bit with Fibonacci, but there's still no feedback from anybody else. See Talk:Colombia for what we covered so far. Does the notice belong or not? - Furrykef 04:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I have added a comment to the talk page, saying that I do not think a xref to Columbia is needed. Noisy 08:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think a disambiguation is needed, the names are very similar. In my ignorance, I didn't really know there was a difference until I was 20 or so. I'm sure there are others. The one Dunc Harris added seems decent, it has no specific reference to any use of Columbia, just a link to the page. —siroχo 13:04, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Map

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 02:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The lower one would be reduced, of course, but could be enlarged by clicking. Kelisi 02:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will go for the lower Kelisi version, --SqueakBox 02:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I reduced the pic size of the 2nd map to make the talk page more inteligable and less bandwidth-intensive. El_C 11:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I'm guessing that Colombia (really appreciate the link to Columbia at the top, BTW!) was named for Christopher Columbus. Why was the 'u' changed to an 'o'? To match actual pronunciation in some language? To be distinct from other Columbias? To cause edit wars on Wikipedia?  :-)

After some quick researching on wikipedia and elsewhere..."Cristoforo Colombo" was his actual birthname in Italian (from the Italian word for "dove", colombo), and when he became a Spanish citizen/subject he legally changed his name to "Cristóbal Colón", according to several accounts (the equivalents in Catalan and in Portuguese also include the "o"). So it seems that those would be the two most historically accurate names, strictly speaking. But I suppose that, since the name that was used during most of his lifetime probably was the original "Colombo", that's why Colombia adopted the name with that particular spelling. Apparently the spelling of "Columbia", the English word, is not derived from "Colombo" the man directly (note I'm talking about the *spelling*, not the *word* or *person*. Big difference.), but from the Latin term (Columbus) that inspired the Italian word for "dove"...but that was not the actual way it was written in the main languages that the man (and his family, I suppose) spoke: Italian and eventually Spanish (and Catalan/Portuguese, maybe, I don't know that). So it's a matter of preferences, I suppose. ;) Juancarlos2004 04:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It'd be nice if someone replaced that picture of some random teenager with a nicer picture of a known artist such as Shakira

[edit] Supranational Templates

I added the SACN template someone took off and also added the Andean community template. Both of these are relevant to the page and I don't understand the argument that they are not supranational unions. Are they as developed as the EU? No. Are they still a supranational union regardless? Yes. -CunningLinguist 05:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(test)--200.148.66.176 20:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Ocean confusion

There's an inconsistency in the following statement from this article: "In 1502 Christopher Columbus navigated near the coasts of Choco.... In 1513 Vasco Nuñez de Balboa discovered the Pacific Ocean..."

El Choco is on the Pacific coast of Colombia; how could Christopher Colombus be navigating "near the coasts of Choco" in 1502 when Balboa didn't discover the Pacific until 1513? Also, how did Colombus end up in the Pacific? Did he carry his boats across land, or did he go around the continent? Or, is this statement not really supposed to imply that Colombus was sailing the Pacific in 1502? Or , did he simply not recognise it as a separate ocean? Can anyone clarify?

Chocó does have coast on the Caribbean, on the Urabá and Darién gulfs. In that Darién coast of Chochó in the Caribbean is probable that Colon has navigated by.

— Carlos Th (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can edit the words to "In 1502 Christopher Columbus navigated near the Carribean coast of Choco".

— [User:cali373] Jan 10th, 2006

An internal link to Choco and Caribbean provides a path for those who need more information. There isn't any confusión, this is not an article about Choco, therefore, an internal link is good enough.--tequendamia 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In another related issue, the article states that:

" In 1525, the first European city in the American Continent was founded, Santa María la Antigua del Darién in what is today the Chocó Department."

I'm not a historian or any kind of expert, but I believe that Santa Marta on the the Carribean (pardon spelling) coast was the first European settlement in what is now Colombia. Since the the El Chocó department is on the Pacific coast, I am very sceptical that the first European settlement was there.... can anyone confirm or deny this ?Avwells

Chocó does have coast on the Caribbean, on the Urabá and Darién gulfs. In that Darién coast of Chochó in the Caribbean is the most probable location of Santa María la Antigua del Darién, first Spanish town founded on the Americas' mainland. Santa María la Antigua del Darién failed to provide a continous settlement, Santa Marta is the most ancient continous settlement founded by the Spanish in what today is Colombia.

Now, if I remember correctly, Santa María la Antigua del Darien, and San Juan de Urabá where founded in the 1509&ndash,1512 period, much earlier than stated 1525. 1525 is when Santa Marta was founded.

— Carlos Th (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification !! It seems to me, however, that references to "El Chocó" should be replaced with "Urabá or Darién gulfs" since this is more precise and unambiguously on the Caribbean side.... anyone familiar with Colombian geography automatically thinks of El Chocó as being predominately on the Pacific coast... This confusion is reinforced by the juxaposition of the statement about the discovery of the Pacific ocean. Any comments?Avwells 14:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I have no idea what the correct numbers are, but the demographics for religion add up to 113%. 90% cath. 9% pro/LDS/jewish/muslim. 13% irreligious. 1% indiginous. is this 13% irreligious, then a breakdown by percentage of adherants of various kinds?Jodine Sparks 18:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the ethnic composition (%s of mestizos, mulatos, whites and blacks, etc) suggested in the article. The Colombian census which is the most comprehensive, detailed and reliable source that not collect nor provide this type of information.--tequendamia 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. There are many studies on Afro-colombian and indigenous populations in Colombia. First among these is the population in indigenous reservations (resguardos indígenas), which is almost entirely indigenous. The last estimate by DANE of this population is for 2000. Apart from this, I would recommend the study of Urrea y Viáfara, 2001, on Afro population in Colombia, which comes to an Afro population of slightly under 20%. Other estimates, such as the Afro-colombian Life Plan, place the percentage of Afro-colombians at around 25%. I cannot however vouch for % of mestizos or whites. Please note that the 1993 Colombian census is not comprehensive, detailed or reliable.

Reply to Anonymous: If there is a more reliable source of information than DANE you should put it up. The information provided in the article comes from the CIA World Factbook. If you think that this is the same entity that claimed there were WMDs in Iraq then I would certainly take their information with caution. As far as I understand DANE is the only institution that carries out the census in Colombia. CIA doesn't. Therefore DANE is the only authorised source.--tequendamia 03:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to complete what I said before. Colombians do not care much about the ethnic distribution of their population. If well Colombians are aware of their ethnic diversity, there is no racial profiling in Colombia. Meaning in Colombia you are not asked what race you are when you pay your taxes, apply for social security or look for a job, as could be the case in the US and in the Commonwealth countries (British Community).--tequendamia 03:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What it is said above it's complete true but to say that there is so much mixture between the races that you cannot identify a person by their race like stated in the Demographcis section is completely false. Something like the stated is very controversial and should not be posted as a fact.

Dear anonymous. Definition of race also depends on the culture, for instance, in the US a blond person who has 10% of African blood is regarded as African. This is not the case in Colombia where a person with 50% white blood is considered as white in certain circles and as mestizo(indian) or mulatto(black) in others. A costeño might appear to be black to many people from Bogota, but the same person would be regarded as white in Chocó. Another example, a person of Arabian descent, or mediterranean descent is regarded as white in Colombia, whereas the same person will never be regarded as white in Europe or the US. See the difference? If what you want to do is to replace the "miscenegation" paragraph for your CIA's fact book stats, let me tell you, that info might make sense in the US white circles, but when you write in Wikipedia you don't write for those "US white circles", you do it for the entire "brown world" which is the mayority--tequendamia 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this based on personal experience, a person who is half Asian half White is considered white by the School systems in the US but to some people they might be considered white to others Asians. The things you mentioned are opinions of people, you are generalizing opinion and using it as a fact. I say this because you said it yourself there is no racial profiling in Colombia so what you are using as an argument is based in opinion and it is rather controversial to use it as a fact.

I still waited for response but no one did and my post was blocked, why is that?

The statemen tpo sted on the Demographics section is very controversial an an opinion so I believe it shouldn't be posted at all, it's not a fact and there's no way in knowing if it's true or not.

The demographics section is so vague. There have been studies on racial groups in Colombia. There has been immigration, maybe small, but still there has been some. Besides of obvious Spanish immigration, I've read about Italian, German, Lebanese, Syrian and Turkish immigration. I read somewhere that 1-2% of Colombians were of Lebanese/Syrian descent. Immigrants have stayed mainly on the Caribbean Coast, Bogota region or Valle region. I've read many studies on the Mulatto/Black populations of the Pacific and Caribbean Coasts.

I'm concerned about the use of the word "miscegenation" in this section. The WP entry says: '"miscegenation" is often a loaded word, and may be considered offensive.', and this corresponds with my sense of the word. I suggest "racial mixing" instead.

I removed PART of the ethnic section. the source given has nothing to do with the things said there.

I reinserted the two sentences in question, but added a ^{[citation needed]} tag so that somebody can provide a reference for them. (The stats seem pretty much in line both with what my wife has told me, and with what I've seen in various sources online.) The ethnologue reference at the end of the paragraph was only intended to cover the second part of the paragraph, which I added, beginning with the words, "There are 101 languages..." (BTW, the link has a cool map of the geographic areas where each of the 80 living languages of Colombia is actually spoken.) --Ramsey2006 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking at Colombia in a different way

The name of Colombia's capital city was changed from Santafe de Bogota to the single word "Bogota" in the year 2000, via a Constitutional amendment (Acto Legislativo No. 1 de 2000).

I believe that no matter what has happened in the past or what is going on now, Colombia has remnained a great country for me. As A Colombian US resident, I can tell you all that going back to Colombia every so often brings back many feelings to me of nostalgia. Even though its been through a lot of trouble in the last century, my country, as I see it, has also many good things and to me is like my home. If you have ever been to Colombia you know what I am talking about, and I guess sometimes all bad things have to be forgotten for a while in order to enjoy all the good things that this country can offer. VIVA COLOMBIA! :)

Love the way you said it VIVA COLOMBIA but this is an encyclopedia anyone could edit so wikipedians must write ALL facts from Colombia wheter positive or negative (By the way i'm Colombian) - Elpaisa1 16:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply:So anyone could say about their country. I'm colombian and feel the same way as yours but I don't think those feelings are particular to colombians. I think colombians should do something for their country before someone else does, well perhaps is too late since there are already no-colombians doing things for their own benefit. So I wouldn't be sure about your 'VIVA COLOMBIA'

I think the feelings of nostalgia are common to people who leave there country to go and live in another substantially different country. I never imagined I would feel so nostalgic for England until I came to live here in Honduras, SqueakBox 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The name of the country's capital is Santa Fe de Bogota. How can someone change that? I am new here. (Raniya)

I think they shortened it again to Bogotá, don't really know... The official website of the "Alcaldía de Bogotá" uses Bogotá. Can somebody confirm this? --Vodka Martini, Shaken Not Stirred 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, well you are right, according to Spanish wikipedia there seems that they changed the name of the capital to Bogota D.C....funny my passport still shows Santa Fe de Bogota. (Raniya 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Hey most people just say Bogota instead of Santa de Bogota but Bogota's car plates says Santa Fe De Bogotá Elpaisa1 16:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Growth?

Are you sure about economic growth? I have read various articles in El Tiempo and what Uribe says is partially true...there might be more employment but it's low quality employment. 65% of Colombians live in misery, there is less representants of the high class and the middle class, according to an article of UNPeriodico in July 2005 made by an antropoligist of the Universidad Nacional. [[1]] Then an article published about 4 weeks ago, by El Tiempo confirmed that there isn't really an economical growth of the lower classes but a growth for the high classes and apart from that, only 30% of Bogotans are rich and this cifre is decreasing even more[2]...I don't want to fight, I just to want to ask this question...where are the cifres of economic growth that you talk about in the article?

--MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(I am not an economist, so someone else might provide a better answer, I'm just making some comments). That's underemployment, actually...which, while better than unemployment, is definitely not something useful in the long run, agreed. Btw, nitpicking a bit...poverty is not necessarily equal to misery, in a strict academic sense, so you might want to rephrase that statement slightly. Economic growth is economic growth, whether we would want to debate its social or political consequences or not. Even if economic growth favors the rich more than it favors the poor, as is very likely, that is far from being something that exclusively happens in Colombia and not anywhere else in the world, so it's a much larger controversy. Other articles in that same newspaper do reference the fact that there has been economic growth, and in fact it's not hard to find them, so there are plenty of things that can be discussed about this. Juancarlos2004 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

the reality, since Uribe came into power is that, everything has changed, I don't know where your statistics are from or how accurate they are. Colombia's conflict five years ago or more was killing every aspect of the economy except for drug exports. It was imposible or very very risky to travel within cities, the countryside was plagued with kidnappings. I think now is different, just remember that its only been six years since Colombia started to change. Social programs are increasing just ask about one of the most successful social programs in America; Familias en accion (Families in action). (English) [3]. Of course there is always the guerrilla "ambassadors" giving wrong information, like they've done in europe with the fighter+lover t-shirts. Don Quijote's Sancho

This is just rubish, it has never been impossible for the ordinary citizen to travel along or across Colombia. Of course a wealthy senator has to be protected by an army "peloton" everytime he wants to visit his farms thatt's what they call "caravans". But the guerrillas are learning. Last week there was a guerrilla attack on one of Uribe's caravans. Not much was said about that on the news.--tequenda mia 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I bring this link, Repartir, repartir y repartir, to contribute with the discussion. Colombia is one of the most unequal countries in the continent as you can see in the List of countries by income equality. One of the reasons why the domestic market in Colombia never takes off is because Colombians do not have money to buy things. A worker's salary in Colombia is US$185 a month. It is essencial to have a proper distribution of income in order have a healthy and estable economy. Wealth is generated or created only when money circulates thus fueling the economy, not when money is accumulated in few hands.--tequendamia 09:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Colombia is changing for the better, not so long ago it was less than your US$185 a month. A country in order to become wealthy needs to create businesses to export goods and create jobs for the people, the more businesses a country creates the more chances of eliminating poverty if they are nationalist enough! just take the chinese example, some people just keep fihting the imposible, capitalism is what is moving the world (unfortunately for some). Colombia is in the middle of a war that has been going on for almost fifty years. I just think some of the people giving oipinions here are either esceptic about Colombia or they are just full of assertions from past years. But there is an undeniable recovery!!Don Quijote's Sancho

We should really forget about this discussion. --MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a error in the GDP Total (45 million?)

[edit] Why??

I keep a eye on Colombian articles every now and then, I request to know why the main page of my country has been blocked, and who requested it??? CharlesWiki 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you still can edit the article as long as you don't do it anonymously and as long as you are reasonable.--tequendamia 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Wikiproject LOC Country Studies

I have started a Wikiproject that involves taking the public domain LOC Country Studies and incorporating them into Wikipedia. Go to the Colombia subpage to participate or observe progress on the Colombia section.--Bkwillwm 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Some sections of the article are horrible (departments of colombia, The most important cities).

[edit] Most Important Cities

Why is the city of Barranquilla placed before Cali in the section "Most Important Cities Of Colombia"? Santiago de Cali is the third largest city in Colombia (in terms of population) after Bogotá and Medellin and it is the third most important economic center in Colombia. Santiago de Cali should be placed before Barranquilla.

[edit] There's an error in area of Colombia.

The area of Colombia is bigger than it's showed on the table. Actually Colombia's area is 1.141.748 sq. kms.

Thanks

Phranciscusmagnus Villavicensis

[edit] Stub

I have removed the stub template. Even though this article can be improved, as all the other articles in Wikipedia, it's neither short nor in dire need of expansion. Rosameliamartinez 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The article definetly needs more information to be added or improved. The economy for example looks like yesterdays newspapers' report on colombia's current economy. there should be a history and an exposition of Colombian products. including mining, agriculture, cattle raising, including drug money laundering in the economy and its impact. I think this stub about colombia and its being run by a few persons, omnipotent like a terrorist group.

You can add the template ^{[citation needed]}in those line where you thing more info is required or that the info is not accurate.--tequendamia 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

F3rn4nd0, since you seem to be so interested in this article, you should consider doing some in-depth research yourself in order to improve it. You'll find that other wikipedians will be glad to help you make Wikipedia a valuable information resource. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by putting four consecutive "~" at the end. Rosameliamartinez 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! (f3rn4nd0) Don Quijote's Sancho

[edit] External links

f3rn4nd0, could you please move all your external links to the appropriate secction? Otherwise you are ruining the style of the article and making it heavy and difficult for the reader.--tequendamia 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negotiation

I have deleted the following: "President Alvaro Uribe's negotiations with the FARC have been mostly pacific, paying the guerilla, small groups at a time, so that they come back to society as "reinserted". Many people have criticized this measure by argumenting that it will only cause urban violence, as it is in the "reinserted's" nature to vandalize." Because first of all Uribe is not negotiating with the FARC (they have even in some occassions refused to negotiate while he is still in power), his administration has made an effort to step up armed combat, and the reinsterted so far are only paramilitary (not guerilla). And who says it is in their "nature" to vandalize?!!?

[edit] Minor glitch

The coordinates shown below Bogóta in the factbox on the right are 0°0'0" 0°0'0". If my geography serves me correctly, that's in the Atlantic near the Gulf of Guinea. Not likely. Gee Eight 16:47 UTC 2 April 2006

[edit] Images

I've inserted many images into the page as I believe Wikipedia is an image as well as an information source as well as the fact that it makes the article more interesting. I'm not entirely sure that the very first image, Image:Calendário Asteca.jpg, fits into the page as it is not from Colombia. Somebody more knowledgable than me, please verify. Also I inserted all the images even though I only signed in half way through, Sorry... Jaw101ie 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Calendario Azteca" is a Mexican prehispanic item. Aztec culture settled at 'lands' that today are within Mexico City. Well far of actual Colombia so this picture does not belongs in this page. [JM 03:44 , 14 April 2006 CDT]

Is it really necessary to have two 1000-pesos bill photoes in the same article? What about Uribe's photograph? Most Colombians living overseas do not feel proud of having this guy as their president. That photograph should be removed from the article.--tequendamia 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if anyones feels proud or not about Uribe, the fact is he's the current president and it's relevant to the article if a pic of him is included.Rosa 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the same as to say that the pictures of Hitler and Stalin must be included in the articles about Austria and Russia, just because they were from those countries.--tequendamia 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's not the same; it's different in the fact that Hitler and Stalin are not the current leaders of Austria, Germany, or Russia, but Uribe is the current leader of Colombia. Thus, it makes sense to have his image up on the current article. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First, Stalin wasn't from Russia but from Georgia. Second, omitting Hitler and Stalin from Germany or the USSR's articles history section is unconcievable as they played such relevant parts in the political history of those countries. What I'm trying to say ultimately is you MUST put your political views aside in this article of Colombia. No one is praising Uribe by putting a pic of him here. Rosa 08:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I inserted two images of the 1000 pesos because I think it is customary to include both sides. I'm not sure however. If somebody wants to remove it feel free to do so. As for Uribe, he's staying just as Castro is in the Cuba article. Jaw101ie 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I've just realised he's not!

Castro is somebody, whereas Uribe may end up facing crimes against humanity charges before The Hague or the ICC.--tequendamia 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with his picture being up there or not; it being just your opinion after all. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, remember that articles at Wikipedia are supposed to be as objective as possible. Uribe IS someone right now in Colombia, he's the president for crying out loud. Even if you compare him to a dictator (which he is not...in fact the majority of people in Colombia voted for him at democratic elections) his picture deserves to be in this article just for being the current leader of this country.Rosa 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's curious that you mention Castro as opposite to someone who could face charges of crimes against humanity. There's a lot of controversy surrounding Castro's rule in Cuba, specially his treatment of political opponents. This is not the issue here though and I don't feel like discussing it.Rosa 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

columbia is a beatuifil place except spanish people stink. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.185.80.74 (talk • contribs).

No racist slurs please. However, I am not removing your comment, as a testament to your lack of civility. Learn how to spell. --CSTAR 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And aside from that, Colombia is populated by COLOMBIANS, not Spaniards. Thanks, troll. SmartGuy 19:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Rosa 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Main artcle:..."

The main tag leaves everything italised. Skinnyweed 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section proposal: "Political Economy"

how about a new section, with the subtitle 'Multinationals and displacement' i think the causal link between the two is a clear position worthy of exposition. thoughts? John 137.222.240.9 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Colombia

This is to introduce my website:

http://www.audesaperecolombia.com

Currently I have 4,000 quality digital photos of many areas of interest in Colombia and I would like to link it to Wikipedia's Colombia section, but I am not sure it it is acceptable.

Thank you,

JK Bevill

jkbevill@audesaperecolombia.com

[edit] Crime?

Just as with the Bogota page, I am surprised there is no information in this article about the nation's crime rate. Most countries (such as USA, Canada, and Japan) have main articles dedicated to the subject, and they don't have anywhere near the crime that Colombia does. There is even a category for Crime in Colombia, but no main article or even a mention of it in this one. Anyone up to the task? Drcwright 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! some users just want to maintain a POV article and suppress all into the Colombian Armed Conflict article with no (or minimum) notion of corruption. well, if they keep that up the article will never reach a good article status! I tried to convince some of them that Colombia lives in a particular Civil War, but there is an endemic state of denial. --F3rn4nd0 17:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Post by Josh]:Being a Colombian my self and living in Colombia for the past two years I absolutely agree. This is a article which should be made; This is not only mainstream, but a major issue in Colombia from Politics to Curruption in Money theift from High ranked government officials. In Cali, Colombia it self Money thieft can be seen from Massive Transportation Systems, which are being constructed at the momment, even to the money given to the lower Class Colombians in "Agua Blanca" (White Water). Anyways it is a Major issue which should be addressed. Cali, Colombia 21:16 06 November 2006

I've started a Crime section. Anyone care to expand? Drcwright 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do. I spent some time extracting some information to complement the voice of reason brought into this discussion by Drcwright. I am taking the information from DANE 2005 Census, the Colombian National Police criminality information and List of countries by murder rate --Ciroa 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For f3rn4nd0! You idiot don't need to convince other Colombians of your stupidness. Colombia is living since 2002 a revival after Alvaro Uribe became president. It's unnecessary to tell other ones some civil war histories of the 80's. And don't tell about any corruption or such kind of meow mix, because this ain't a pre-communist country like Venezuela or such meow mix.Now for Josh! Don't compare safe cities like Medellín,Pereira,Cartagena or Bogotá with this poor ghetto of Cali.Yussef90 21;27, 30 December 2006 (ECT)

Mr. Dirty mouth yussef90: This is not the place to discuss your POVs and insulting people is not going to take your ideas very far. Document yourself and add that to the article... by the way it is necessary to tell stories or the history of the 80s, 70s and all there is out there available with sources so that people like you don't deny or change history for the sake of it. Covering the sun with your hands is not going to make it disappear. I personally don't like the guerrillas or paramilitaries for Colombia but they do exist! and are very active as well as the crime and corruption in Colombia. I didn't make up the Caguan, the Proceso 8000 or the parapolitica scandal. It is part of the history of Colombia. Don't even bother to respond to this, you are not getting any more answers from me unless it's something constructive for the article. This is an encyclopedia not your propaganda website or forum. have a nice life--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[Posted by Josh] .yussef90... Did you just call Medellín safe?... and Cali a ghetto?... No offence, but it seems you lack research. Medellín up to recently was the most dangerous city in Colombia and Cali until recently was the Model City of Colombia. Tho Cali is no longer anything close to it Medellín is still extremely dangerous.

Shut the *(you know)* up !! On the one hand I agree with F3rn4ndO (except to the stupid insults). It´s ok to write something about the dark 70´s,80´s and 90´s as long as there aren´t written nonsensical and exaggerated stories. Ok. But on the other site I´m not able to agree to Josh. Medellín will always keep the role with carribean cities as the modern and safe heart of Colombia while Cali will always remain as the black sheep with its ugly and criminal ghetto face. But, Ok,.... .Yussef90 18:24, 01 March 2007 (ECT)

Medellin=ghetto cali= not so ghetto and i'm still replacing cuss words with meowmix, everyone should do the same Gaylover

[edit] Religion

Someone might want to check the numbers for the religion demographics... at the moment 114% of the population is accounted for! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.55.210.64 (talk)

The article currently says, "Another 9% is divided mainly amongst the Protestant, Mormon, Jewish and Muslim religions." According to adherents.com, Mormons, Jews, and Muslims combined make up less than one percent of the population. I'm taking them out of the article. — coelacan talk — 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Groups in Colombia

The section on demographics in Colombia is vague at first and then begins to give random stats. It states that the Native American population in Colombia is 8 percent, when it's more like 1 percent. Anyone who has been to Colombia would know that pure Natives make up a small percentage like from 1-3 percent. Overall the section is very unorganized and should be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.208.45 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Ethnic Groups in Colombia

The section on demographics in Colombia is vague at first and then begins to give random stats. It states that the Native American population in Colombia is 8 percent, when it's more like 1 percent. Anyone who has been to Colombia would know that pure Natives make up a small percentage like from 1-3 percent. Overall the section is very unorganized and should be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.208.45 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] World Bank links

These links:

• Doing Business in Colombia The World Bank Group guide (in Spanish)
• Privatization Database: Colombia
• Infrastructure Projects: Colombia

Were added by an IP address registered to the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank project). In keeping with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines I've moved it here for consideration by regular editors of this article who are unaffiliated with the organization. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Panama?

"Colombia is also the only country in South America that borders both the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean."

"Situated on an isthmus, Panama is a transcontinental nation which connects North America and South America. It borders Costa Rica to the northwest, Colombia to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south."

BACK TO SCHOOL WITH YOU, WIKIPEDIA --Burstroc 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

what about it? are you trying to say Panama is part of South America? man! good you have a talent for music. --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 05:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bla bla bla; forget Panama, this "country" will always remain in our hearts as part of Colombia, as the "Departamento del Isthmo". We know that it´s very sad that the USA was so obsessed with stealing this part from Colombia in 1903, but we´re now forced to accept this. WHYYY !!! Yussef90 17:57, 01 March 2007 (ECT)

• Hi Yussef90. One of my friends a long time ago from Colombia said that some "traditional" Colombians still give Panama the nickname "American Colombia" because Colombia used to control Panama as well until "US interference".... I couldn't tell if she was putting me on or not, but I've always wondered do people in Colombia today ever call Panama as "American Colombia"???? Anything you've heard. U seem just as empassioned about Panama in a nationalistic way as my former co-worker. P.S. does anyone you the best recipe for Coca-cola rice? 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never heard my mother use that term, though she did make sure that I knew that the U.S. stole Panama from Colombia. However, Burstroc is wrong: Panama is not part of South America, even though it was a part of a South American country once. Someone writing an article about Colombia in 1900 should have written "Colombia is a country in the northwest of South America; it also incorporates the isthmus of Panama in Central America.". Αργυριου (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads up. Template for deletion.

This is just a heads up. This template " Template:Capital_cities_of_the_caribbean_region_Colombia is up for deletion. If it is importaint to Colombia make your voice heard else it may be voted off. CaribDigita 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone please block the article?

Vandalism on the Colombia article is ridiculous!!! just look at the history. please at least put a semi protection!--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can bring this type of request to Requests for page protection. Figma 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

hey que es tanta foto de cucuta y norte de santander? la gente queno tiene ni idea de colombia va a pensar que cucuta es una ciudad importante en colombia (y NO ES). por que no quitan esas fotos? que asco el "ricardocolombia" y el "qwerty2" con su regionalismo estupido. y el metro de medellin? el puerto de barranquilla? las ruinas de san agustin? ni una fotico de bogota? pero 30 fotos de cucuta. dos de un rio pendejo que vale chimba. muy bien!!!!!!