Talk:Valle del Cauca Department

Removed image

I removed File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg from this page. This is a non-free image, and no fair-use justification has been supplied for using it on this page. See WP:NFCC for more information on the use of non-free content. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incomplete and outdated article

Seems this article written by a typical foreigner who Believes That Colombia is a country Dominated by the FARC and only thinks of a drug and drug trafficking. I have actulializarlo That this is not in line With Reality and distorts the reality of life in the Cauca Valley. hopefully the next foreigners amending or Leean Has this page Provide a bit more about the culture of Valle del Cauca, economics, education, Because This seems to be written by an ignorant person. the information will be removed from the article in Spanish Valle del Cauca.(Koldorogollo (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Valle del Cauca department Mike Cline (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valle del Cauca → Valle del Cauca Department – The old name of the article was Valle del Cauca Department which is consistent with what I can see for similar articles in other countries. Then it was first changed to Valle del Cauca department. Later it was changed to Valle del Cauca. Now it is even ambiguous in English language context, because there it can also stand for "Cauca Valley" - the physical valley, where the Cauca River flows. Please revert to the old name and make it consistent with other articles on Latin American departments. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: There was a longer discussion in 2009 Talk:Caquetá Department#Requested move and consensus was to leave it with the full name. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see the problem, sources in Google books show that "Valle del Cauca" can - in discussing 16th-19th Centuries - mean just "Cauca Valley" which is only part of the Department, but this article is part of Category:Departments of Colombia and covers towns outside the physical valley as well. It make sense to restore the "Department" as per the rest of Category, which appears to have several other Departments which are distinguished by "..Department" from physical geographical features. Cauca Valley can be left disambiguating between the river and the Department as it does now. Not sure whether after move Valle del Cauca should redirect to the Cauca Valley disam or the Dept, probably the Dept. with a hatnote to "for the physical valley, see Cauca River". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There seems no reason to add a disambiguator to an article that we have nothing to disambiguate from. It's doubtful that we should even have a disambiguation page at Cauca Valley, as there are only two items listed and this could easily be dealt with by hatnotes. It is true that 30 of the 32 departments in Colombia have "Department" or "department" in their title, but this is required as a disambiguator in 28 of those cases—there really is no need in the case of Huila department and Norte de Santander department. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- noting to disambiguate from - I am baffled, did you read the above comment from In ictu oculi? Did you look at Huila (disambiguation)? Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Yes I did. Huila and Huíla are not the same, and can be dealt with by hatnotes. There is no reason for the disambiguation page to be the primary topic, and it should be moved to Huila (disambiguation). The Colombian department should be at Huila, and the Angolan province at Huíla. The other items on that disambiguation page are derivations: an Atlético (football club) and a Nevado (volcano). Skinsmoke (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: You are right that it is consistent with other articles on departments in Colombia, but I don't think that's a reason to ~~keep~~ move it. (Indeed, I think that needs to be fixed.) If the word "department" is functioning as a disambiguator, it should appear in parentheses. However, in this situation, if someone were looking for information on the Cauca River valley, it wouldn't make sense to look for "Valle del Cauca" in English but rather "Cauca River valley", so I see no need to disambiguate. -- Irn (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, consistency is not a reason to keep it. Consistency is a reason to move it back where it was. Adding the ambiguity of the term "Valle del Cauca", there are two reasons. And the link WP:NATURAL that you provided says it, that if there is a natural way, then use that instead of parenthetical notation. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding the word "department" is not natural. "Valle del Cauca department" doesn't make sense as a natural thing to say, just like no says "Colombia country" or "Florida state". -- Irn (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you explain this to the inhabitants of Washington State or New York City or San Bernardino County and the authors of these texts. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This shouldn't even be optional..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but capitalize as Valle del Cauca department, per consistency with members of Category:Departments of Colombia. Antioquia Department and Boyacá Department are the outliers there, which I'll put in technical requests for. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Armed conflict

User:‎Theryx7 has now twice deleted sourced, neutrally-written content regarding the state of the armed conflict in Valle. Theryx7 stated in an edit summary that this information "is better placed in the Colombian conflict page. This information is not neutral." Theryx7 also wrote, "This information is not adequately addressed, and the Department looks like a war zone. Unnecessary information to the year 2013". What is not neutral or "adequately addressed" about these edits? The information presented is from the past five years, with much of it being in the past two or three years, which I think is enough to make it relevant to 2013. That this information makes the department look like a war zone is not reason enough to either delete it or move it to a different article. -- Irn (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what you say, terrorist groups have deployed some type of activity in all Colombia, but the armed conflict occurs mainly in remote rural areas of difficult access. This information is not neutral because the majority of the departments of Colombia are very safe every day and the majority of Colombians has never seen in his life to the guerrillas. This type of poorly addressed information generated little understanding about the conflict generating dumb stereotypes about security in Colombia. The departments of Colombia are not a war zone.

This information is not written with neutrality because the person who wrote this information has intent to misinform about the situation of security in the Department. You can live in the Valle del Cauca happily and I assure you that you will not see the FARC. Also after the Presidency of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia security has greatly improved and millions of tourists from around the world visit Colombia. In the Valle del Cauca thousands of tourists come to perform medical treatments due to the quality of its health care professionals. why a supposedly unsafe Department arrive so many tourists a year from all over the world.?

It is appropriate to place this type of information about the security situation of Colombia in an appropriate article dedicated to the armed conflict in Colombia. If you want to extend the information about the armed conflict in Colombia you can do it in the article about the Colombian armed conflict or the article about the terrorist groups of the FARC or the ELN. --Theryx7 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the departments of Colombia are not a war zone. Do you deny that there is an armed conflict? Where is it happening if not in the departments? Do you deny that it affects Valle?

I don't disagree that most of the armed conflict occurs away from urban centers, but that doesn't mean that it's not relevant to the Valle article. Just because it happens in areas that are more remote doesn't mean it's not relevant to the article. The more remote parts of Buenaventura and Tuluá are just as much part of Valle as Cali is. Just because tourists don't go there for plastic surgery doesn't make it not part of the department. (Also, the armed conflict isn't just about the "terrorist" groups FARC and ELN but also the "BACRIM" like Rastrojos and Urabeños.)

Your main point of contention seems to be that you don't like that this make Valle look like a war zone. You're right that the armed conflict doesn't necessarily affect everyone. However, that doesn't mean we can just erase it; it is still present and an important part of life in many parts of the department. If you want to erase this reality in order to stress the safety of Cali and the Panamericana, then perhaps you have an agenda that needs to be checked. This article is about all of Valle, not just the parts away from the armed conflict. If you think it presents a warped image by placing undue weight on this one aspect, then let's talk about that.

I also don't disagree that this sort of information belongs in the articles about the armed conflict and specific actors in said conflict. However, that does not mean that it doesn't belong here, too. -- Irn (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to place information about the conflict in Valle del Cauca then also you must place the areas that are affected by the conflict, and also place other types of information about the Department. for example, it is important to place information about the world games, festivals, food and religion, among other things, and in this way we would be speaking of neutrality. If you add only information about the conflict then I won't allow incorrect information about the security situation in the article since there is no neutrality. --Theryx7 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you don't get to dictate what gets put in the article. This is supposed to be a discussion.

At this point, I don't have time to research and add more to the article. If you do, great. Otherwise, let's deal with what we have.

You call this "incorrect information". What is incorrect about the information itself?

You seem to object to the image presented in this section, that of a "war zone" as you say. I repeat my previous questions: Do you deny that there is an armed conflict in Colombia? Where is it happening if not in the departments? Do you deny that it affects Valle? If you don't deny that the armed conflict affects Valle, what is it about this section that needs to be changed? And why? (I see a number of things myself. For example, I don't think it's appropriate to refer to Cali as a FARC stronghold, and I don't see that statement supported in the source.) -- Irn (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny the armed conflict but also the information must be clarified and it is important to place the Department areas affected by the armed conflict and at the same time, it is also important to add information about other things in the article, if that is not the case I don't see any kind of neutrality in the way in which is written that information. I do not think that the Department is only armed conflict so it is important to add information about the religion, food, festivals and hospitals otherwise I do not see neutrality in the article. Or you can add that information in a way better worded in the article about the armed conflict.--Theryx7 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not think that the Department is only armed conflict". That's a straw man. Do you really think having a section on the armed conflict makes it look like the department is "only armed conflict"? Because that's absurd. Including information about the armed conflict in this article does not show Valle as being "only armed conflict".

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. I'm going to leave it for a little while and post notices on the talk pages for Cauca department, Chocó department, La Guajira department, Tolima department, Huila Department, and Antioquia department talk pages (because it applies equally to those pages -- did I miss any other department pages where the section on the armed conflict has been removed?), and hopefully other people can weigh in. If no one does, I'll go ahead and list it for a third opinion. -- Irn (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not you translate the information from the Spanish wikipedia to English?, thats good information but it is obvious that you like to edit things always negatively, but you are not able to write information about festivals, food or culture of a region. I demand that if you want neutrality in the article also be available cultural information about a region, not just about the war. In addition this information lacks neutrality, the war in Colombia must specify the remote areas where it is developed. --Theryx7 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For people interested in knowing where the armed conflict in Colombia takes place in the year 2012 should read this article, people should understand that Colombia is not only war, departments are not war zones, there are places safe and unsafe, also is important to add information about the culture of the region. The neutral point of view in the article does not occur if you only write things about the war and I will fight to get people to learn to properly write articles about the departments of Colombia and that the culture of a Department is as important as the war.

http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/ARTICULO-WEB-NEW_NOTA_INTERIOR-11933222.html - The guerrillas of the FARC has only 10 shelters --Theryx7 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela and Ecuador is also home to terrorist groups such as the FARC. --Theryx7 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the conversation is interesting and I sincerely agree entirely with theryx7. I read the information that other people added about the armed conflict in the departments and much of the information does not reflect the day-to-day security in the departments of Colombia. And the information about the armed conflict in the departments is based on journalistic sources that only seek news of last minute and that information is not based on a real process of research that explains the true impact of the armed conflict in the population of the departments. Also I agree that the departments are not war zones and it is important to specify the areas that actually are more affected by the conflict. I think that articles about the departments are not appropriate places where add too much information about the armed conflict, and also articles are not appropriate places where write information only about the armed conflict because there are other articles appropriate about the armed conflict in Colombia as the following articles: armed conflict, FARC, National Liberation Army (Colombia) or Popular Liberation Army. And added information about the armed conflict in the articles about the departments are not well addressed and this information can generate incorrect stereotypes about the security in the departments of Colombia.

I would create an article entitled the impact of the conflict in Colombia and in that article the Wikipedians should add information about the armed conflict in the affected areas. I also agree that it is important to add information about the culture of the departments of otherwise these articles within Wikipedia would be badly written. I hope have helped solve the problem. --190.250.180.206 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree entirely with the user Theryx7 and I also agree with the ip user. I read the information of the armed conflict added within the articles about the departments of Colombia. It is awful to see that there are people who do not understand the difference between a war zone or red zone (unsafe areas), and the departments of Colombia.

I think that the information about the armed conflict in Colombia must be available only in articles that talk about the armed conflict as the following article:

Colombian conflict (1964–present)

I think that the idea of the ip user is very good. The right thing would be to create an article about the remote areas affected by the armed conflict and the impact of the conflict on the population and only in that article should be placed information about the armed conflict in Colombia and the war zones. Information about the conflict within the articles about the departments should not be added because a lot of the placed information is based on striking news but that does not reflect the true impact of the armed conflict, I also agree with theryx7 that the departments are not war zones. Information about the armed conflict that was added in the articles about the departments of Colombia only generates absurd stereotypes that for a person who does not know the subject generates fears or silly speculation. With my comment the dispute about the content is finished. The user of the ip and Theryx7 are right. It is important to remember that the information about the armed conflict must be addressed but in their appropriate articles.

I also think it is important to add information about the culture of the departments of Colombia. --The Battle Knight (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

This is a content dispute ranging across a number of different articles - articles for various departments of Colombia and the entry on Colombia itself. The dispute concerns the relevancy of content regarding the state of the armed conflict in Colombia today and the appropriateness of including any information regarding the armed conflict in these articles. 03:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Include--A section on armed conflict is definitely a part of each of these articles. It should not dominate the article, but it should be included.Markewilliams (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem

In copyediting this article (with some reference to the Spanish article), I found the sentence about the Department's anthem in the section on Geography; that is, topography and climate, where it isn't appropriate. There really isn't any perfect fit for it, but ISTM that it belongs at the end of the introductory section more than anywhere else, so that's where I've moved it to. --Thnidu (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter-gatherer societies

The section on Hunter-gatherer societies says in part (my emphasis; shown as before copyediting)

The discovery of projectiles indicated that there were communities of hunter-gatherers to the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene.The extinguishing of the Pleistocenic megafauna in the beginning of the Holocene pushes humans to adapt to their new environment, making them turn into hunter-gatherers.

In the first sentence, "to the ..." implies that the presence of hunter-gatherers ended around the beginning of the Holocene, but the second sentence says that the inhabitants became hunter-gatherers around that time. I suspect that this contradiction is due to mistranslation of a Spanish preposition meaning "at [a time]" by English to, but there is no corresponding text in the Spanish article. I don't read Spanish nearly well enough to go looking for the source material! Can somebody check this, please?

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Valle del Cauca Department/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good summary of important metrics, inclusive of its relative importance in the country.

Last edited at 12:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 09:47, 30 April 2016 (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:

Valle del Cauca Topographic 2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]