Talk:Colombia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Colombia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed


Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016[edit]

In the Section: History, 21st century, I think that it is important to note that though the peace referendum lost 50.2% to 49.8%, only 37% of the voting population participated. http://www.univision.com/noticias/proceso-de-paz/los-graficos-que-demuestran-que-las-zonas-con-mas-victimas-respaldaron-el-acuerdo-de-paz-en-colombia Flockbock (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly worth noting, but this doesn't need a protection request in order to include the information. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: the editor is not autoconfirmed, cannot edit, and is requesting an edit. I'll toggle this as answered (as you've answered it). If the edit makes sense, the edit would need to be enacted for Flockbock. — Andy W. (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I've made the change as requested. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

White and Mestizo demographics info[edit]

I have found info from the "Colombia : a country study" that has figures of the white population of Colombia being at 37% and the mestizo population being at 49%. This study was done by the US Federal Research Division and I believe it to be valid. If you look at slide 180 or page 86 it has a section explaning the figures that are based on the Colombian 2005 Census. The figures are highlighted in this study and I would like to know if anyone has any input on this. These numbers are widely accepted on the all the Spanish language wikipedia articles as well as other languages.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/frdcstdy.colombiacountrys00huds/?sp=181

Thank you--SeminoleNation (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


The 2005 census reported that the "non-ethnic population", consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry), constituted 86% of the national population. 10.6% is of African ancestry. Indigenous Amerindians comprise 3.4% of the population. 0.01% of the population are Roma. http://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2005/etnia/sys/visibilidad_estadistica_etnicos.pdf
An extraofficial estimate considers that the 49% of the Colombian population is Mestizo or of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry, and that approximately 37% is White - https://www.loc.gov/resource/frdcstdy.colombiacountrys00huds/?sp=181


Cuadro 1. Censos de Población en Colombia, y criterios de identificación de los grupos étnicos, siglos XX y XXI

Año Total Indígenas  % Negros o afrocolombianos  % Rom (Gitanos)  %
2005 41.468.384 1.392.623 3,40 4.311.757 10,60 4.858 0,01

El Censo General 2005 contó a un total de 41.468.384 personas residentes en el territorio colombiano, de las cuales 5.709.238 personas se reconocieron pertenecientes a un grupo étnico. De acuerdo con la información del Censo General 2005, la población indígena, es el 3,43% de la población del país que dio información sobre su pertenencia étnica; los afrocolombianos corresponden al 10,62% del total y el pueblo Rom o gitano es el 0,01% de la población total, el 85,94% de la población nacional no se reconoció perteneciente a ninguno de los grupos étnicos, el 2,08% no informó sobre su pertenencia étnica. pp. 27-28. =>http://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2005/etnia/sys/visibilidad_estadistica_etnicos.pdf

Ethnic groups: mestizo and white 84.2%, Afro-Colombian (includes multatto, Raizal, and Palenquero) 10.4%, Amerindian 3.4%, Roma <.01, unspecified 2.1% (2005 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html - According to international agencies like the CIA


Thank you-- --ControlCorV (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the 2005 Census 86% of Colombians do not identify with any ethnic group, thus being either White or Mestizo, which are not categorized separately.--ControlCorV (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


On the topic of race[edit]

this was posted at User talk:SeminoleNation, but the user removed it without specifying a reason: I haven't followed all the edits about the racial make-up of Colombia, but in general I'd say it's best to keep it as simple as possible. Apart from obvious black and indigenous/Amerindian populations, the vast majority of Colombians is mixed-race; mestizo, mulatto or a combination of them. There's a portion of later white immigrants from Europe, that hasn't mixed with the other races too. But it's impossible to start splitting the mestizos deeper down; there's no information on how much percentage of genes are from which race for such a large population. I am sure that is reflected in sources too, there must be references that say "the exact racial make-up of the predominantly mestizo population is impossible to verify" or something like that. This shouldn't be a theme in an edit war anyway; Wikipedia is not going to make a difference here and there's FAR too much to improve on Colombian topics to be busy with this hairsplitting. The choice for sources should be made in collaboration with the other three-race mixed Latin American countries; if Venezuelan topics use CIA and not Venezuela.gov (or so) and that's the same for Panama and Brazil, then it should be consistent for the countries. Seek support at WikiProjects spanning the countries. One thing to definitely improve is the old-fashioned (and incorrect) usage of "indians" for indigenous American peoples. That should be edited out everywhere, I've done my share on that, but there's still a lot of it left. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017[edit]

The new Vice President is Oscar Naranjo. Aguila289 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for pointing out the change! -- Irn (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tourism[edit]

A section about tourism is a standard section of almost every country article we have on Wikipedia, from Bhutan to Uruguay. It would be ridiculous to actively exclude any tourism section in this country article. The tourist industry of Colombia is compared to many other Latin American countries still relatively small, but growing, and that has been well described by SeminoleNation. There may be better references to find, but that is then a constructive task for improvement. Just brutally removing the whole Tourism section of Colombia is not constructive at all and completely opposing any other country article on Wikipedia. The examples listed are good, the link to the main article well included, the images are relevant, the length is ok, not too long, not too short, there really is no argument for a complete exclusion of tourism in this article. @Richard3120:, @SeminoleNation:, @ControlCorV:, and others are welcome to comment. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports, tourism or mining. In fact, if you look at the overall breakdown, Colombia's economy is amazingly well distributed. Colombia doesn't depend on any individual sector for its economy to survive.
Colombia's gross domestic product by sector

--JShark (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is claiming that "Colombia depends on tourism"? Nobody. The tourism sector is 12% according to the diagram you posted. That is what you'd call "substantial". Not "the only thing" or "Colombia collapses without tourism" or "completely irrelevant" or any other black-and-white definition. It is a part of the economy and thus should definitely be included in the country article. "Media" and "Sports" are also included as sections in the Colombia article, they don't provide that much GDP either. Is that a reason to remove those sections? No, they belong to the country, just like any country. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Trade, hotels, restaurants and repairs - Not only tourism --JShark (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Articles about the United States, Australia or New Zealand do not have within its content too much information about tourism.

Excessive content harms good articles. An article is not good just for being very extensive. --JShark (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The country's economic production is dominated by its strong domestic demand. Consumption expenditure by households is the largest component of GDP. http://www.dinero.com/economia/articulo/composicion-economia-colombiana-2015/214054 --JShark (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports or tourism. All those sectors exist, of course, but none of them represent a disproportionate part of the economy. There are more important sectors for the Colombian economy such as the financial sector and the social services sector.
Too much unnecessary information. It is good to be concise in this article. If you want to add more information you should add it in other articles about tourism in Colombia.
Articles about Australia and New Zealand are good articles and at the same time, these articles have clear and concise information. --JShark (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
See also => Australia#Economy and New_Zealand#Economy --JShark (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. you seem not to get what "concise" means. Concise means "compact", "not too extensive", "summarised". Not a 10 page piece of text, but a few paragraphs. That is concise. And I agree, it should be concise. And that is exactly what SeminoleNation has done for the tourism section.
  2. you seem to measure a country ONLY by GDP. GDP is 1 way to measure a country but there are many more methods to measure countries.
  3. if I go on a trip to Villa de Leyva, one of the most touristic towns in Colombia, I do that as a tourist. I don't live there, have no family there, I go there for tourism. When I extract money from a cajero, I use "financial services", but I wouldn't do that if it weren't for my touristic trip. I eat an arepa, which is made from corn, produced by agriculture. But that specific arepa is only sold to me because I am a tourist there. I use buses that use oil, mining products (iron ore), imported goods etc. etc. etc. But, I use that as a tourist. You cannot separate those things out.
  4. indeed I think those articles about Australia and New Zealand lack a section about tourism, as tourism is an essential part of (almost) any country. FA Chad lacks that section understandably, but would you want to actively exclude mentioning Machu Picchu in an article about Peru? WHY?
  5. keep the discussion here, not on my talk page. It's not a discussion between you and me, it's a discussion about the article Colombia.
  6. I have made my arguments, you just play or seem deaf to them, so others can contribute, and I am sure they will agree with me that Colombia needs a concise (2.5% was the amount you brutally deleted) section about tourism. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
1.If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. --JShark (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
2.The information written by the user (@SeminoleNation) contributes nothing to the article. That information makes the article a place where you can add information without clarity and very extensive. --JShark (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
3.Articles about Australia and New Zealand do not lack anything. Those articles are featured articles because its editors know to write with clarity and without using too much unnecessary information. --JShark (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
4.The financial sector in Colombia does not grow exclusively by tourism but by the projects of infrastructure, credit, among other variables.--JShark (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Economists use real GDP when they want to monitor the growth of output in an economy. (The gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy. As one can imagine, economic production and growth - what GDP represents - has a large impact on nearly everyone within that economy. A significant change in GDP, whether up or down, usually has a significant effect on the stock market.). If we extend the section about tourism then we will end up extending other major sectors such as the financial sector. Information about the Colombian economy already is well summarized with reliable sources. --JShark (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
6.The user (@SeminoleNation) was the one who brutally added too much unnecessary information about tourism without reaching an agreed.--JShark (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
7. I don't want to exclude anything in the article about Peru and if you check the article about Peru you will notice that its editors know how to summarize it all. Read the article about Peru and you will notice that in the section about its history and its culture section they already are talking about Machu Picchu. --JShark (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read the section about the economy of Colombia you will notice that already deals with the subject of tourism in Colombia. Information about tourism is well summarized taking into account that the Colombian economy is not dependent on tourism. --JShark (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is important to highlight that the information about tourism in the section about the economy of Colombia used credible sources. See the credible source = > http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 --JShark (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. In many sections of the article about Colombia is addressed the issue of the tourist attractions in the country. --JShark (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Examples:

1. Colombia#Pre-Columbian era => San Agustín Archaeological Park, Lost City, El Abra and Tequendama in Cundinamarca, Puerto Hormiga, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.

2. Colombia#Spanish rule => Gulf of Urabá, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Cali, Popayán, Llanos Orientales.

3. Colombia#Independence => Socorro Province(Santander Department), The Boyaca Bridge, Cartagena.

4. Colombia#20th century => the Amazonas department and its capital Leticia, Bogotá --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Colombia#Geography => Andes, the cities of Medellín, Manizales, Pereira and Armenia, the Guajira Peninsula and including Bogotá, Bucaramanga and Cúcuta, the Orinoco River basin, the jungle of the Amazon rainforest, the major port cities of Barranquilla and Cartagena, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range, which includes the country's tallest peaks (Pico Cristóbal Colón and Pico Simón Bolívar), and the La Guajira Desert. The Serranía de Baudó mountains, Buenaventura, The main rivers of Colombia are Magdalena, Cauca, Guaviare, Atrato, Meta, Putumayo and Caquetá, National Park System --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Colombia#Climate => Nevado del Ruiz, Sumapaz Paramo, Tota Lake, Villa de Leyva, Serranía de Chiribiquete, Boyacá Department, Amazon Rainforest, Los Llanos, the Guajira Peninsula, San Andrés y Providencia, Caño Cristales, Cordillera Occidental --JShark (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

7. Colombia#Religion => Salt Cathedral of Zipaquirá --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Colombia#Architecture => Monumental hypogea of the Tierradentro culture, Guatavita La Nueva, Rogelio Salmona’s Torres del Parque, Tequendama, San Agustín, Lost city, National Capitol, Teatro Colón --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "brutally add unnecessary information" in the article. Everything was sourced and clarified.--SeminoleNation (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything that you are saying JShark. It was pretty concise. There's only four paragraphs aabout tourism which is the third largest sector of the GDP of Colombia.--SeminoleNation (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) You added too much information without reaching an agreement with the other editors of this page. Your references are not credible and do not come from a tourist authority. You have copied the information in the article. --JShark (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
SeminoleNation (talk) http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 => UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2016 Edition. This reference is credible, recent and comes from a tourist authority. --JShark (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

JShark, you are flat-out wrong[edit]

You see Tourism ONLY as an economic sector. That is not true. Yes, it is part of economy, but it's also something by itself; tourism. Travel, a reason to visit Colombia. You completely ignore that. If you deem references "not credible", you need to add new references, not just deleting the text a fellow contributor added (did work on that). There is no shame in multiple mentioning of the various touristic sites. Yes, the Teatro Colón is under architecture and it belongs there. But it ALSO belongs under touristic locations. Same for the others. Machu Picchu is BOTH an Inca city (belongs under "Pre-Columbian history" AND a tourist hotspot (needs mentioning under "Tourism"). Just as Ciudad Perdida (I don't like the translations, certainly not as main, they can be placed between parentheses afterwards, but the Spanish name should be leading. Only world famous landmarks are exceptions. We call it the Eiffel Tower, not the Tour d'Eiffel. But for Ciudad Perdida it's "Ciudad Perdida ("The Lost City")". YOU cannot define "unnecessary information". Information is just that; information. YOU (your POV) see it as "unnecessary", but you have no right to push your POV on the reader. The reader decides what he/she finds "(un)necessary", not you. Or me. The "Featured Article" argument is moot. I've seen far too many far too low-quality FAs and that an article is FA does not mean it's complete and no sections are missing. Tourism is an essential part of countries, not ONLY as an economic factor (the only factor you seem to see), but also as something of own, intrinsic, value. No, there shouldn't be a full-page Lonely Planet guide for tourism in a country article and no, nobody says there should be. The section added by SeminoleNation is neat, concise and relevant. Those readers that agree with you that any tourism information is "unnecessary" can simply skip that section. The problem is with pushing your POV; the readers who DO see it as necessary are now denied service. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tisquesusa, you are flat-out wrong - The clarity of an article deteriorates when there is too much poorly referenced and extensive information.[edit]

Tisquesusa (talk) I disagree with you on many things. There are many sections where the subject of tourist attractions is addressed. In addition the article also addresses the issue of tourism and there is even a link that redirects to the article about tourism.

The clarity of an article deteriorates when there is too much poorly referenced and extensive information. Not researched the topic because he (SeminoleNation) just had to copy this information from the main article.--JShark (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you add too much information without any order then the size of the article will be too large.--JShark (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We will have to add to the article the following message if the article is saturated with information:

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JShark (talkcontribs) 05:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.
@Tisquesusa Do you remember this phrase?. You have not learned that an article full of exaggerated things is not a good article. --JShark (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Well what's the consensus on this? To leave it or no? I support this tourism section 100% however it can be crunched down a bit if JShark is willing to compromise.--SeminoleNation (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
SeminoleNation (talk) You added too much information copied from the article about tourism in Colombia without having researched the subject and without recent sources of an authority in the field of tourism. You have to remember that there are editors committed to the quality of the information in this article.
Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports or tourism. All those sectors exist, of course, but none of them represent a disproportionate part of the economy. There are more important sectors for the Colombian economy such as the financial sector and the social services sector. --JShark (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC) If we extend the section about tourism then we will end up extending other major sectors such as the financial sector. Information about the Colombian economy already is well summarized with reliable sources. --JShark (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. In many sections of the article about Colombia is addressed the issue of the tourist attractions in the country.

1. Colombia#Pre-Columbian era => San Agustín Archaeological Park, Lost City, El Abra and Tequendama in Cundinamarca, Puerto Hormiga, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.

2. Colombia#Spanish rule => Gulf of Urabá, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Cali, Popayán, Llanos Orientales.

3. Colombia#Independence => Socorro Province(Santander Department), The Boyaca Bridge, Cartagena.

4. Colombia#20th century => the Amazonas department and its capital Leticia, Bogotá --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Colombia#Geography => Andes, the cities of Medellín, Manizales, Pereira and Armenia, the Guajira Peninsula and including Bogotá, Bucaramanga and Cúcuta, the Orinoco River basin, the jungle of the Amazon rainforest, the major port cities of Barranquilla and Cartagena, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range, which includes the country's tallest peaks (Pico Cristóbal Colón and Pico Simón Bolívar), and the La Guajira Desert. The Serranía de Baudó mountains, Buenaventura, The main rivers of Colombia are Magdalena, Cauca, Guaviare, Atrato, Meta, Putumayo and Caquetá, National Park System --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Colombia#Climate => Nevado del Ruiz, Sumapaz Paramo, Tota Lake, Villa de Leyva, Serranía de Chiribiquete, Boyacá Department, Amazon Rainforest, Los Llanos, the Guajira Peninsula, San Andrés y Providencia, Caño Cristales, Cordillera Occidental --JShark (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

7. Colombia#Religion => Salt Cathedral of Zipaquirá --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Colombia#Architecture => Monumental hypogea of the Tierradentro culture, Guatavita La Nueva, Rogelio Salmona’s Torres del Parque, Tequendama, San Agustín, Lost city, National Capitol, Teatro Colón --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

--JShark (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the consensus on this?[edit]

There needs to be a vote on this. To leave tourism information or no.--SeminoleNation (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There is tourist information about Colombia at this time with information and credible sources. The information is well summarized and is credible => Colombia#Economy Tourism in Colombia is an important sector in the country's economy. Foreign tourist visits were predicted to have risen from 0.6 million in 2007 to 2.98 million in 2015.[1][2]
http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 - Source of an authority in the field of tourism
In addition there is tourist information in the rest of the sections of the article where is documented many tourist attractions in Colombia. The article is fine and it is best to keep it that way for not compromising the quality of the article. --JShark (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)