Talk:Colombia/Archive 2

Geography and Climate
I have never edited a page before, but found something that needed correction under this section.. "Geologically Colombia is formed by two great territorial zones, one submerged in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean sea covering a total area of 828,660 km² and the second is the emerged land which is formed by the Andes mountain range and the Llanos plains that are shared with Venezuela and cover an area of some 1'143,748 km². Colombian surface features form complicated land patterns." ''the quote of 1'143,748 square km for the second territorial zone that it describes is actually the total square area for the entire country. I checked a few reputable sources to fact-check, but needed verification. I don't know how to correct it myself, and leave it to the professionals, (Who I love and respect for their hard work on here), to do the edit. ''

I edited the part about "Climate Change" because it was all conjecture, not fact...it talked about what could happen, not what is happening now or has happpened...monkeys could fly out my butt too...for this article to facutally accurate, we must stick to facts not theories... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.74.36 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs - Economic - Free Trade with the U.S., etc.
At this point, I think it is critical to understand the economic ties between Columbia and the rest of South and Central America. This sort of information should be featured in the article on the Republic of Columbia, but I see absolutely nothing there about it. Just now, Bush is pushing for a free trade agreement with Columbia and there is no information about economic implications for all of S. America, if any. --P5g4xn (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Current affairs
Hey it didn't lasted much, but after the defeat of N°2 things got all boiled up and there's not even a one-liner on these events!!!! (The scandal involving Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Nicaragua that has been solved in a political circus due to the Rio group)Undead Herle King (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found it finally "2008 Andean diplomatic crisis" has a place in Wikipedia... But this shall link there too!!!!!!!!! Its semi-protected so someone else must make the linkUndead Herle King (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image rearranging
I think the images of Colombia's page are bad arranged, since Cartagena appears not in the tourism section were it belongs, and other images just look pretty bad arranged, I'm the one who has noted it first, so I will rearange the images. Newstormer 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you rearrange to your preferences read WP:MOS. There is a style..! There is also a GA review at the bottom of this talk that suggests improvements to this article. HDI as far as I know will be changed when the official report comes out and the proper link is added.-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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!--(( F3rn 4nd0 ))(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)

Languages
In Colombia German and Japanese is also spoken but in small villages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.213 (talk • contribs).


 * Which small villages? Rosa 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are villages in la Guajira where german is spoken. In valle del cauca there is a big japanese colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.64.176 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only in languages but in people. Many Japanes and Germans settled during the second world war.


 * Many Japanese and Germans emmigrated after/during WWII I suppose, but Colombia doesn't have a reputation for being one of the main targets for this immigration, unlike Argentina with Germans or Perú in the case of Japanese. I suppose there may be scattered colonies of Germans or Japanese, just as there is a gipsy colony near Bogotá, but I think they aren't significant. Well, at least not significant enough to claim that "German and Japanese is also spoken but in small villages"... in all the colombian villages I know people speak Spanish as mother tongue.Rosa 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well i guess your correct about Colombia not having a reputation about Japenese and German immigration. But my family, in my mothers side, is of primarily German descendence, from Nuremberg, Germany, and they came to Colombia during the Cold War. They settled in Antioquia, and then moved to Bogota were they found other Germans living there too. I remember a family that we lived near to by the last name Schneider. But they already speaked Spanish.

German classes are thought at some schools. Same with Japanese in a couple of universities. I myself know a good number of Colombian borned German speaking people.

Can someone do some research on colombia's oil industry, i need for a project please.

While 80% of the population is nominally Roman Catholic, most do not attend church on a regular basis, and Protestant religious groups are growing very rapidly in Colombia as in all Latin American countries.12.72.205.220 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

12.72.205.210 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)== erorr in religious stats == The National Administrative Department of Statistics does not collect religious statistics, and accurate reports are hard to obtain. Based on various studies, more than 95% of the population adheres to Christianity[2], in which a huge segment of the population, between 81% and 90%, practices Roman Catholicism....around 60% of respondents to a poll by El Tiempo report that they do not practice their faith actively.[15] So the number of practicing Roman Catholics in Colombia is 40% of 81% - 90%!!!!! This second sentence belongs right after the first sentence as it changes the entire context of the first sentence i.e. while nominally Roman Catholic, practicing Roman Catholics are no longer a majority in Colombia, (or in any other country in Latin America.)

Also there is no mention of the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, (or of their seminaries in Colombia) the Methodist church or the Mormons, Pentacostals or the Seventh-Day Adventists, which are all growing very rapidly in Colombia. This is all readily available on the internet. 12.72.206.167 04:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

error in religious stats
In 2006 the Republic of Colombia’s Congress presented a medal of the Democratic Order of Simón Bolivar to the Presbyterian Church of Colombia in recognition of the founding of the “American Schools” which today are present in eight cities around the country. Presbyterian schools educated many of the great figures of Colombia, such as Enrique Olaya, who was the president of the Republic in 1930, and Austin Nieto Caballero, minister of education and one of the most influential people in introducing innovative teaching methods. Presbyterians in Colombia were the first to offer mixed education, promoted the first savings account of the country and supported the first workers’ organization in Bogotá. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.207.75 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Go To: Presbyterian Church of Colombia12.72.206.167 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of Seventh-Day Adventist in Colombia.

While are the three photographs posted in nthis section all of Roman Catholic churches?12.72.208.92 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

official website Presbyterian Church in Colombia http://warc.jalb.de/warcajsp/side.jsp?news_id=916&part_id=0&navi=5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.210.100 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Oficial websit for the Presbyterian Church of Colombia http://warc.jalb.de/warcajsp/side.jsp?news_id=916&part_id=0&navi=5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.211.0 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Official wesite Anglican Church of Colombia http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/diocese.cfm?Idind=627 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.210.100 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Official website Mormon Church http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.211.0 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

There are 150,000 Mormons in Colombia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.208.165 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-16

"Columbia" the English version of the name Colombia?
The first sentence of the article makes this astounding statement. I ask - since when? I'm removing it until and unless it can be sourced. JackofOz 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the country is only spelled "Columbia" by illiterates and the uninformed. Even if there's a source for it, the source is wrong. Αργυριου (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I think this is an example of what I call "The Schnitzel Syndrome".  Where people consistently mispronounce a word, they tend to change the spelling to conform to the mispronunciation.  So we have restaurants offering "snitzels", and people thinking that, because they mispronounce Colombia as Columbia, then Columbia has somehow suddenly become the proper English spelling of the name.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find lots of sources for misspelling "Colombia", even lots of reliable sources. LOL! --Ramsey2006 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a source mis-spells "Colombia", they're that much less reliable. On the other hand, names in the English language derived from the name of Columbus are properly spelled "Columbia", as in British Columbia and Columbia, Gem of the Ocean. However, those names generally refer to English-speaking parts of the Americas. Αργυριου (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've checked the name of the country in the United Nations list of countries and that is probably the best reference:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm It is Colombia, not Columbia. The list is in English - you can check as Spain is written in English and not in Spanish (España). Greetings to all.Marcelobulk 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In serious encyclopaedias and dictionaries (Merriam Webster-Encyclopaedia Britannica) it's spelled "Colombia" too. The term "Columbia" refers to other geographical locations like British Columbia, the Columbia river and a few cities within the States.Rosa 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting movie review from the New York Times: Gringo Wedding ;-) Ramsey2006 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish-language links
I've reverted the removal of the spanish-language links, as WP:EL says "It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English...". If Jerahad, or anyone else, wants to remove non-english links, and justify the removal on a case-by-case basis, or replace the government links with english translations of those sites, feel free. But blanket removal of all Spanish-language links in this article is inappropriate. Αργυριου (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your quotation from the policy above is edited to the extent of altering it. I would refer you to the arguments given at Talk:Ecuador, and I would suggest that the links here fail to meet the criteria for inclusion of foreign language links by the same reasoning.  Kevin McE 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Wikipedia is not a collection of links; per WP:EL just the relevant links should be left. --Canaima 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Colombia lets get our voice heard!
Colombia, we need to act fast so people don't erase the Colombian Web Page. Like somebody else said the "crime section" in the Colombian Article is rediculous. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juglares (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Juglares 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah the Colombian crime section is ridiculous, why we note the armed conflict as the main article in the Colombia section? here we talk more about the war than anything else, also we dont have the higher percent of crimes in the world, so why to mention crime here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap. Mitchel (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
The article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time, and will not be listed. The core issues with it presently are a major lack of reference citations (entire sections and subsections of information are uncited, and lots of hard data, facts and figures have no source), and there are several sections containing only lists, and should be written as prose, preferably. Some specific issues include:


 * Clean up intro.
 * The 'history' section seems very slanted towards the modern day armed conflict (last section), which is just about as long as all the other subsections combined. This could actually be a problem with WP:NPOV. If there's a separate article on this armed conflict (which there is), much of this can be summarized into a paragraph or two and removed from this article.
 * The 'geography' section is very long, and a bit verbose. It could probably be condensed a bit better. There is also no information about the climate. needs some references.
 * The 'government' section could use some introduction into the overall government, and how each branch interactions cohesively in Colombia. Currently, it just looks like a list of each of the major branches of government, with some descriptive text about each.
 * 'departments and municipalities': Consider moving this section and putting it as a subsection under 'geography'. It's currently just a list, and I think more text can be provided talking about how these different departments/districts interrelate. Which ones are the largest population-wise? How are they organized in relation to geographic and geologic features (coastal districts vs. mountainous districts)? So much more information could go here it's hard to tell where to begin.
 * 'Economy' is written pretty well, though it's a bit heavy on the photos. Including photos on both the right and the left simultaneously could have implications in viewing for people with smaller monitors or display sizes. The 'ecotourism' section is just a list. It seems to me like it could be added to the general tourism section.
 * 'Culture': Another list. It looks like you've got a lot of interesting things to talk about. Try writing something now instead of just listing. Also, you might want to add something about sports.
 * 'Education': Lots of stats and hard data, no sources. Little mention of some of the higher education institutions. Are there any that are particularly notable in any field of research? Also, consider separating the K-12 (primary/secondary) and higher education into two paragraphs. This would help readability.
 * 'Transportation': Doesn't seem to be really covering anything except for mention of the national highways and one airport. Certainly, there are other airports in Colombia? Are the highways throughout the country -- even in the more mountainous areas, or do some of the more rural population have to resort to other means? What about trains? Boats in the coastal cities? You might also expand this section to include infrastructure; electricity generation, water supply, hospitals and healthcare?
 * 'Demographics': Seems written fairly well, though you might want to try to combine the subsections better into a more cohesive section, so that you talk about how the different groups of people interact. Also, do away with the table containing the three church photos -- photos are better presented by themselves as thumbnails, not with galleries if you can help it. Try to put photos physically near text that goes with them.
 * The 'see also' list could probably be shortened a lot. Generally, the 'See also' section at the end is only for internal wikilinks to articles related to the article that have not been mentioned previously in the text. So links to the Colombian Armed Conflict and Education in Colombia are unnecessary here, since there are main sections where this links are already provided with.
 * The 'bibliography' format is inconsistent with wikipedia. Inline citations should be included all by themselves in a main section entitled 'references'. It is actually incorrect to have a subsection called 'internet', especially when I notice several non-internet references included as inline citations there. Books and other sources that are not included as inline citations should be included in a separate main section immediately following 'references', called 'further reading'. The list of books is pretty long, and many of these look like they're in spanish, so I'm not sure how useful they would be to english readers. It might be useful to go through these and only include those that are necessary. If information is being cited by the article by these, then convert them to inline citations, so that they directly back up information in the article ('general' references, supposedly citing the 'entire article', are unacceptable). Please see WP:CITE for more information on citations and references.
 * The format of several of the inline citations needs to be expanded. Full citation information should be provided for every reference; including author, title, publisher, date of publications, and date the URL was retrieved (if it's available online). This is necessary so that, if a URL ever becomes inaccessible, the citation can still be used to track down the source, verify it, or perform additional research on the topic.
 * The 'external links' section is quite long. Consider pruning it to weed out some less important links, or linkspam. Please see WP:EL for more information on including external links in articles.

I didn't cite specific examples of where references were lacking, since most of the article is under-referenced. But generally, any information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or any specific hard data, like facts and figures, must have a source (per Good Article criteria).

Hope this helps improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash 00:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Colombia Middle Power
Someone told me to discuss this issue here, well, I'd like to say some things:


 * Colombia, according to the "middle power" article is a middle power, and middle powers achieve global or some recognisanse.

|--|
 * Colombia is one of the most ethnically diverse nations in South America, it is more diverse than Venezuela or Ecuador, I'm not lying ^^
 * Colombia's economy is fueled by abundant natural resources (e.g.:Petroleum, Cashcrops. etc.)

I do not have problems, but I think a more positive view should also be added. 201.218.78.151 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah i think we should make a more positive view of our own country, come on the colombia's article is based in: the crime article, the internal war article, and thats about it, the pictures are kina old and ugly, compared to otehrs articles as argentina, ecuador, chile, brazil... and so on ours is the more despective one, all we say is war, war, war, how much about the good things about our own country, not too much, like if the only thing we have to say about colombia is the guerrilla, the paras, and the goverment. i vote to make an more positive article about Colombia --Cap. Mitchel (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

F3RN4ND0 i posted my opinion about this article in the talk page because i want give to know my point of view to the other users, that is not something to feel worried about because i am not breaking any of the wikipedia policies doing so, btw wikipedia says that before making any chages we should discuss it here so i am doing it, i decided not to make any change to the article without discuss it first in the talk page, so please help me to improve this article.

1. I say i think we should talk about the good Colombia too because i feel this article talk more about the negative than the positive.

2. I dont think we should delete the section about the internal war because that is something that is part of Colombia too.

3. the articles are meant to be neutral, so thats why they created the talk page so users as you and me can show our differents points of view and decide what is valid and inportant so should be posted, and what not to.

4. Please do not delete my coments in the talk page because that is why they made it so we can freely discuss bout different topics without start a editting-war in the article.

5. Thank you for your time, and if you have any question feel free to contact me via my talk page.

--Cap. Mitchel (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review
I am glad you are willing to contribute positively..

-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) . check the GA review above.. following WP:MOS improve the article.
 * 2) . Find the positive things and make a list of proposals here with references WP:RS
 * 3) . Read and follow WP:NPOV
 * 4) . If you think is going to be controversial discuss it.
 * 5) . the article also needs references and I'm the process of improving it.. try to add citations according to WP:CIT

Lead section
Before making changes take a moment to read this Lead section. If you think the lead section should be rewritten please place your suggestion below and we will discuss improvements. -- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 02:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ok --Cap. Mitchel (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

by the way fernando this is my IP address, so please dont be confused about other people doing vandalism using their IPs, i never use it, but just in case here is.67.100.33.210 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC), i made the last post using my IP address.--Cap. Mitchel (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Colombia has a large recognition in the Hispanosphere, even at times, stronger than Mexico's or US, two links on the "middle power" article prove that Colombia is a Middle Power. We should add this since articles such the US one specify the influence and its dominance on other countries, we shall specify that matter on Colombia too. (middle power)


 * Colombia is one of the largest manufacturers of South America, it manufactures what is on the main products area of the "Economy of Colombia" infobox, I saw it... (Economy of Colombia)


 * Colombia has a large stockpile of resources, Petrochemicals (mainly petroleum), main cashcrops (indicate fertile lands) gold, silver, coal, and also other kinds of valorable resources. Colombia has a large resource load. (Economy of Colombia) ([infobox])


 * Colombia is definitely ethnically diverse, just as the US. (Demographics of Colombia)

Cocoliras (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, and your references?-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't indicate standing references but I can indicate where you can find a reference to the changes. 201.218.78.151 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity
There are some statements in the introduction to the article that should be deleted. For instance: "Colombia is also one of the most ethnically diverse nations in the Southern Cone, the product of large-scale migrations during the 20th century which has caused a dramatic population growth since then". First, Colombia is not in the Southern Cone. Second, the population growth in Colombia is not due to "migration". In fact, Colombia has never been a prefered immigration destiny and most of its population growth is historically a consequence of high birth rates. Colombia is not a specially "ethnically diverse" country, if compared to its neighbours or other countries in the Americas (Canada, US, Brazil). There are other biaised or irrelevant sentences such as "It is largely recognized for its culture and is also one of the largest manufacturers in South America". Clean-up is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelius (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This talk of ethnic diversity, in the context of central and south america, and Colombia in particular, infuriates me. The base and near whole of the populations of the majority of these countries is forever disregarded and senseless attention is placed on such things as the meager and nigh invisible pockets of Germans and Japanese. Colombia is an Amerindian nation, it must be affirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

second opinion
Can I have a second opinion on this enormous edit that I reverted, its by an anon, I cant see where it is from or whether it should be included, eg was it removed earlier and I cannot see it in the history. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit looks like a machine translation from Colombia - including the Template:AP - here in en.wiki, we use Template:main. (AP = articulo principal). The machine translation is not sufficient, but if it gets cleaned up, it may be worth keeping. Argyriou (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade
Many parts of this article seem to be lacking grammar (they look machine-translated, honestly). If nobody objects I would like to correct many of the English translation mistakes found throughout this article. If the article is grammatically correct we can move from there to improve it. I'll most likely do it sometime next week. ColombianConservative (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See the section immediately above - the section discussed *is* machine-translated. Please feel free to fix them; otherwise we need to delete those sections. Argyriou (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only fix the text sections of the article, I have no idea how to edit Templates/BoxesColombianConservative (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the templates and images in the next couple of days. Argyriou (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that it seems that someone's already nuked all that. Argyriou (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I have the time to fix it, it appears that somebody has deleted the whole city section. Anyone know how to get it back?ColombianConservative (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to Colombia, run it through Babelfish], and start from there. Or go into the article history - this might be a good starting point. You're probably best off fixing the translations outside Wikipedia and pasting them in at the end. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Argyriou (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Social strata, progressive tax structure?
I've heard that Colombia has an interesting social strata that is based at least partly on housing. This is supposedly coupled with a progressive tax structure so that more valuable housing structures are taxed at a higher rate. However, I don't have any reliable sources for this. Can someone who is more familiar with Colombia please research this topic and include a summary in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.44.208 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a social stratification but taxing is a little more complex. The stratification is divided in 6 estratos, estrato 1 and 2 for lower class houses, 3 and 4 for middle class and 5 and 6 for upper class, however, there are middle class citizens that can afford houses in estratos 5 or 6 and upper class citizens living in estrato 4 houses. Stratification is used to determine cost of the public services. For taxing (Impuesto sobre la renta, impuesto predial unificado) the contribution is determined according to the income of each citizen. (190.66.184.187 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Edit the introduction - diversity
The last passage of the introduction uses the word 'diversity' twice - once to refer to ethnic diversity, and then soon after to refer to biodiversity:

Colombia is a standing middle power[10] with the second largest Spanish speaking population of the world after Mexico.[6] It is largely recognized for its culture and is also one of the largest manufacturers in South America. Colombia is also one of the most ethnically diverse nations in South America, the result of large-scale migrations during the 20th century which has caused a dramatic population growth since then. Colombia is considered to be among 17 of the most megadiverse countries in the world.[11]

Suggested edit for last sentence:

Colombia's biodiversity means that it is considered to be among 17 of the most megadiverse countries in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.174.175 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Transportation
I don't think the word "Highways" is suitable for most of the roads in Colombia. It's just obvious that Colombia does not have highways due to the mountainous terrain that is found all over the country, even though we can still find some roads that could receive the name of highways (A part of the road between Bogota-Medellin), is not even complete, so I suggest to change that word and explain the reason why we do not have highways as other countries do, such as Venezuela. Therefore, I request permission to do that change...

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaket2008 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The roads in Valle connecting various cities and towns (including in the mountains west of Cali) sure looked like highways to me. Between Palmira and Cali is certainly a divided highway. Between Cali and Popayán is also highway all the way. Of course, I'm from Iowa. Who knows what folks from outside my state call our highways, once they get off the major interstates? It may be that roads connecting remote areas are not deserving of the name, but there does indeed seem to be a highway system connecting major cities and nearby small towns that would be recognized as such in the USA. Perhaps a map of the the highway system could be included that would show what areas are and are not covered?--Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of people voting
Hey, can you guys replace the picture of people voting for a better one. The one currently displayed is not significantly meaningful of a voting process, looks more like a party in the backyard of someone's house. At least place one that shows the voting boxes, or just take this one away. Thx Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "CIA" :
 * Colombia, The World Factbook, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, updated 12 December 2006.
 * Colombia, The World Factbook, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, updated 12 December 2006.

Second largest Spanish-speaking country
That statement contradicts the information available on Wikipedia itself as Spain would have around 3 million speakers more than Colombia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.200.76 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We shouldnt neglect the fact that not all the people who live in Spain speak Spanish, they have catalan, basque, etc, whereas the majority of the colombian population speaks Spanish and there's not country with the second largest spanish speaking population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.140.47 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Does the introduction really need to be so long? It should just be a concise, 3 - 4 paragraphs that just gives a general overview of Colombia - the information is there in the article, it just doesn't all need to be in the introduction. Just look at the introduction sections for other countries like Argentina and Peru - they're concise. aznsisco (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I've tried to keep some of the old stuff out, but this is my case for why I still think that something a bit longer is more appropriate.


 * Whilst you're right that some countries (most extremely Bolivia, it seems), do have shorter introductions, ours isn't out of line with those of many other other articles of similar overall length and importance, including those covering other countries (eg Russia and Chile). The introduction to the History of Colombia would be an example of something too long!
 * Having been refined (not lengthened!) by a number of different contributors over a considerable period of time, this has ended up as an extremely well-written section.
 * As I said, I've tried to trim it a bit, but I really don't think you can reduce it any further without losing items of equal importance to those you'd keep. For instance, the shorter alternative has kept a reference to the secession of Panama, but lost one to that of Venezuela and Ecuador.
 * The rest of the article is still in the process of development, and so some of the issues summarised to in the introduction aren't yet covered adequately elsewhere.
 * Even when these issues are covered elsewhere, whilst this is obviously a longer introduction than the alternative, it is still much shorter than any other coverage of these issues will be, and as such provides the most concise summary of Colombia on Wikipedia, and indeed the internet. Many people won't read the rest of an article as long as this, which is one of the reasons that longer introductions tend to work better for longer articles.
 * Colombia is quite a poorly understood country, and subject to a lot of misconceptions. Our introduction will be the first thing many people wanting to learn about the country will read (for instance if you Google "Colombia" this article's the first result), and in these circumstances I think we should err on the side of fullness rather than brevity.


 * So that's how I see things, but I'd really welcome other people's thoughts.


 * Stephen, 86.139.64.49 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (I hope I've signed this right, but I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia, and of course don't have my own account!)

Ethnic Groups
My Spanish isn't brilliant, but as far as I can tell, the link at Note 29 (http://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2005/gene_15_03_07.pdf), supposedly supporting the information that "51% of the population is mestizo, of mixed European and Indigenous descent" and "35% percent of European descent", in fact makes no mention of this whatsoever. It only covers minority ethnic groups. Indeed, from going through the DANE site (to the best of my abilities!), questions distinguishing "European" from "mestizo" Colombians weren't even asked in 2005. Can anyone with better Spanish find something that I'm missing? The alternative would be to go back to the old (different) statistics drawn from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html). These are the figures used at Demographics of Colombia, although DANE is cited.

Stephen 81.158.220.75 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Colombia
Hi, I'm Blacky98 and I'm wondering who conquered Colombia from which country (EX: Juan Ponce De Leon conquered Florida from Spain.) And if Colombia is an independant country. Thanks.

♥♥Blacky98 (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Juan Ponce de León conquered Florida FOR Spain, not from it, and Ponce de León was only one of many who brought Florida to Spain's attention and helped colonize it. Anyways, the Spanish conquered what is now present-day Colombia from the Native American tribes that were already there (just as the Spanish conquered the Aztecs and the Incas) - it wasn't attributed to one single person like in Mexico (Cortés) and Peru (Pizarro). Colombia also used to be part of a Spanish territory that included almost the entire northwestern part of South America, but Colombia gained its independence from Spain in 1819. Therefore, Colombia is an independent, autonomous country. If you want more information, just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Colombia - it should have all the information you want there. aznsisco (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to the Homicide Rate in the Introduction
Firstly, as mentioned when this insertion was removed before, there has been some discussion previously about the length of the introduction. Clearly Colombia's high homicide rate is a part of its reality, but, as with any nation, its reality has many parts. It's a different question whether or not this part warrants inclusion in what still has to be a concise introduction, rather than elsewhere. I've just checked and none of the nine countries that now have higher homicide rates than Colombia have this mentioned in the introduction to their articles.

All that said, I am on the side of a longer introduction, and given that Colonbia is known for a high homicide rate (in a way that those countries which have overtaken it in recent years are not), I think a case can be made for a reference to this. However, I think this should also reflect the recent, and significant, improvements. In particular, two of the sources added were nearly a decade out of date, are now very misleading, and I don't think we should use these. I know that when this issue cropped up before there was some discussion about the reliability of the Wikipedia statistics, which chart the improvements, given their provenance from government sources. In fact (at least now!) these appear to be supported by NGO sources too. However, in any case the third of the sources added this time also shows the changes (on page 18), and so I would suggest we do keep that.

Stephen, 217.42.2.60 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix first paragraph
Someone decided to mess up the first paragraph so that the table doesn't display. Will someone more skilled fix it? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.190.189 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * done ♣ ♦ SmartGuy ♥ ♠  (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Map
I'm aware that this map is part of a series that has been added to all South American countries (similiar to a range developed by the same user for European countries), and that have all now been reverted (although the European ones are still there). I personally would support a standard approach (and think the new maps are great!). I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to be sure of what level of change requires the "consensual sanction/discussion" referred to in the explanation of the map's removal, or how this would be achieved, given that these changes affect a range of pages. However, there currently seems to be no standard (for example Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Poland, Turkey are all carrying sometimes very different styles of map), and so insofar as the Colombia page is concerned I think that for the time being we can choose whichever format we think is best for Colombia. I think it says a lot about opinions of the new map that its insertion hasn't been reverted in over a week, but if people think differently then I guess this is the place to decide which one we'll go with. Incidentally, the previous map was only added at the end of last month. Prior to that the page carried this. So opinions on which is best out of the three would be welcome :)

Stephen, 217.42.2.60 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this until a consensus supports it - not yet. This has been hugely debated regarding European articles: there was a prior standard as specified by the Country wikiproject (with topical countries in green), though those with red/orange slowly crept in; now there's a hodge-podge, with these inferior maps of horrid projection being added without further discussion.  I think it says alot about the prior map that it wasn't reverted or changed in months.  Debate should not just be limited to what's best for one country's article, but many.  Until then. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh, OK, I didn't realise that there had ever been discussion about this. And I certainly think that a certain degree of standardisation is a very good idea. Please could you let me know where the discussion about these maps is taking place, because I personally would be very supportive of the new versions, especially for a country with such a pronounced geography as Colombia's? I think the old ones probably survived for so long in the absence of something better! (Although I do take the point about the projection!)


 * Anyway, in the meantime I've put back the ORIGINAL map (ie the one used for many months up until 5 November), pending the outcome of this discussion. And I suppose if no consensus is reached on standardisation then we'll have to decide amongst ourselves which of the three versions available to us (, and, for ease of reference) we should use on the Colombia page :)


 * Stephen, 217.42.2.60 (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrangement of Section Headings
I'm just explaining my reversion of the recent substantial rearrangement of the section headings. Whilst the Edit Summary for this explained that this was to make them "consistent with other countries", as far as I can tell there isn't any standard, other than for those South American countries changed by the same editor at the same time. For example, France, Germany, Spain and the United States are all arranged differently. I would be wary of standarising something like this given the very wide variety of both countries themselves and how their Wikipedia pages have developed over time. If we ARE going to standardise then I think this should be discussed more widely, and there are certainly aspects of the model currently proposed that I would suggest we amend (for instance I think Etymology works better first, not last, and I'd keep Economics and Politics adjacent). (By the way, please tell me if this discussion has taken place and I'm just not aware of it!)

Stephen, 86.129.47.82 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Little to almost no mention of violence/drug activity?
I’m absolutely astonished by the fact that this article has little, if any, mention of the forty-odd years of guerrilla fighting, drug wars, and paramilitary connections of high-ranking politicians.

I will be including data on the murder rate of Colombia, I hope this fact will not be removed by patriotic zealots, nonetheless, more information about these matters must be included to make this article a realistic picture of Colombia.

Will the gatekeepers allow these facts into the article? Likeminas (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please leave the editing of Wikipedia to someone with adequate skills to do so. Your lack of punctuation makes you look simple and boring, that's without mentioning your grammatical errors that are far from average typos. - 04:29, 30 Oct 2008 (UTC)


 * While you're editing it,can you put in more info on the FARC terrorists? 92.21.131.148 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Specific information on such personalities may not be appropriate for this article. Maybe take a look at Template:FARC-EP and FARC-EP chain of command for some interesting articles.  Colombiano21 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only the drug trafficking and guerrilla activities, Colombia also has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, history of violence, child prostitution, and alot of illegal activities that are worth to be in this article, even the United States article has a crime section, this is not a tourist guide, it's an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.49.147 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You can just link to existing articles such as Illegal_drug_trade_in_Colombia or if there is a serious problem other than drugs, create a separate article for Crime in Colombia. See how it was done in Moldova?   D r e a m Focus  09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in the "Crime" Section
What a loser for vandalizing the Colombia article! Get over yourself. On wikipedia for pete's sake? Go to some myspace chatroom or something to get your lowlife fix, but don't do it here!


 * I agree, I removed an unsourced line saying the majority of us lived in poverty. - Pretubio. 9:41 June 28th, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.104.52 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

i have a printed source (2007) claiming that 76% live in poverty and it points to other (printed) sources, but I dont know how these references work on wikipedia. it's a book i borrowed from the university library ´´´´ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.108.199 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Size
In the article, it stated that Colombia is the world's third-largest Spanish speaking country, below Mexico and Spain. Later in the article, it stated that it was the fourth-largest country in South America. That is confusing. If only one South American country (Brazil) does not speak Spanish, then that would mean that there were two bigger Spanish speaking countries in South America, along with Mexico and Spain. Wouldn't that make Colombia the world's fifth-largest Spanish speaking country, or is "third-largest" referring to population?--Whatinthewampa (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I think that "world's third-largest Spanish speaking country" refers to population rank in Spanish speaking countries and "fourth-largest country in South America" refers to the country size. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not odd at all, and your interpretation is correct. Argentina and Peru are both larger than Colombia in area, but Colombia has a larger population (45 million vs. 40 million for Argentina, 29 million for Peru). 75.64.204.13 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

SVG images
Hi, if any of you know of SVG images needed in any of the articles related to Colombia, please respond here with a link to such article. I will be creating SVG files in articles that really need such images. Thanks for suggestions. You can also leave me a message in my userpage. Gracias parceros. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This article states that Colombia is the third largest speaking Spanish country in the world behind Mexico and the United States. What about Spain?

In the government section, someone was playing around. It says ' is located next to Nigeria and they grow moon rocks' - notalwayslogicalNotalwayslogical (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Colombian Culture
I think this section should be expanded, even corrected if possible. I don't think famous pop singers, or sportsmen reflect at all what colombian culture is about. I think there's a very rich variety of cultural values to be considered. I don't know why there's not a bigger emphasis on afro influence and typical dances. Or the ancient culture of indigenous communities around the coast and the amazon. There's also a history of political disputes over the past 100 years that had set the country's current cultural situation. It shouldn't be ignored, as it is in our blood, no matter if we want it or not. Please don't fill this section with Colombian media propaganda. There are some many more cultural traits about Colombia to be put here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.123.106 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The external link for 'Eyes On Colombia' which I added was removed but there was no reason given, aside from Wikipedia's auto-message. If an external site provides more cultural knowledge than any other external site currently listed, it should be included (if the purpose of the page on Colombia is to teach what Colombia is and is not). Removing relevant links makes this page less useful, not more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.88.62 (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should Education be under Culture rather than Demographics? Sarcelles (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture Cluttering
Hey guys, please don't add too many pictures. I have rearranged the images in a way that the text can flow easily. If you are going to add more images please do it on the gallery sections or try to add them to the main articles. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Colombia is not the second largest Spanish-speaking nation at the moment
The population of Spain is 46,745,807, and all the population speaks Spanish as all the people who speak Basque, Catalan/Valencian, Galician, etc. are bilingual with Spanish. At the moment the population of Colombia is 42~44 millions. So Colombia is the third largest Spanish-speaking country. However I don't know the total population who speak Spanish in the US, being bilingual with English. Even the US might be the second largest Spanish-speaking country in the world, though there Spanish is not an official language. 86.177.203.160 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

colombia
in colombia there families stick together and their main problem today is there drug and alcohol use in this country. and so in the other countries arround the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.106.16 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Unclear in Certain Parts
Specifically, "Colombia is a standing middle power with the third largest economy in South America and a major impact of poverty."

What does that mean "Columbia is a major impact of poverty"? I think someone edited an original sentence poorly, or someone translated a document poorly...--24.139.46.213 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Government Unclear in Certain Parts
Specifically, "In accordance with the principle of separation of powers, government is divided into three branches: the control institutions (the offices of the Inspector General of Colombia and the Comptroller General of Colombia) and electoral institutions."

Apparently, the government is divided into three branches...but the article lists only two. I assume the third is the Executive Branch, but I might be wrong.

Specifically, "Colombia was one of the 12 countries that joined the UNASUR when it was created."

...and what does UNASAR stand for?--24.139.46.213 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Images please!!
Please, stop adding too many images to this article!!!. Is overly cluttered with images. Someone is putting an image of the Metro of Bogota..a metro that does not exist yet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only deals with facts not with speculative material. Please do not add images of projects such as the metro of Bogota since it has not been legally ordered to be built. Thanks!.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are way too many images in this article. Pictures like "Columbian road" are really not necessary here.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 08:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and removed the following images:

Christopher Columbus - Everyone knows who he is, there is no need for a picture of him

Cold Climate Bogotá city - It's just a random picture of a snow-covered ground. For people who want to know what snow looks like, there is an extra article: snow

Industry in Colombia - The photo could have been taken in any country, thus not specific to Colombia and dispensable

Occidente tunnel, Antioquia - Completely useless

Colombian road - likewise

Colombian people at the Cali Fair - A completely random picture. The people in the foreground are out of focus. Perhaps it would be nice to have a picture of Columbians, but not this one.

 SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 08:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection
Given the fact that this page is being edited by anonymous users that keep adding pictures despite the fact the page is very heavy on images and that they are not following Wikipedia's guidelines I am semi-protecting this page.Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

History Unclear in Certain Parts
Specifically, "President Andrés Pastrana and the FARC attempted to negotiate a solution to the conflict between 1998 and 2002 in which the government, more or less like Pakistan negotiations with the Taliban, believed the state could not fight forever and agreed to handle huge quantity of land in return for peace."

This comparison is absurd and lacks any sort of academia. The similarities and differences between the two might merit an essay or research paper, but have no place in an article solely about Colombia.--24.139.46.213 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

-Just to ask, "The Congress of Cucuta in 1821 adopted a From 1953 to 1964 the violence between the two political parties decreased first when Gustavo Rojas deposed the President of Colombia in a coup d'état and negotiated with the guerrillas, and then under the military junta of General Gabriel París Gordillo." what happened to the rest of the sentence after the Congress of Cucuta in 1821 adopted a... adopted a what? 24.253.218.248 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

90% enslaved or killed by the Spanish?
This is obviously not true. There needs to be a word change or an insertion stating that disease was, as it always is, the major factor. Otherwise we are suggesting that a few hundred soldiers killed hundreds of thousands (or enslaved). You couldn't do that even if they were all armed with machine guns. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Caution over police murder statistics
Note that there is a major problem with the statistics released by the national police for 2009 as it looks like some skullduggery has taken off a significant number of murders. The health system statistics are more reliable for last year. Power Society (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No information, very bad research, speak ill of Colombia, and say things that are not true, Bogota has no subway, I'm from Bogota —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.240.238 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

left-wing slant as usual
i just read the first few paragraphs and can already see the usual wikipedia leftist slant....some claptrap about union deaths and turns out to be lower than general population and then the horrible "unequal"(inequal?? no speake de ingles?) distribution of wealth crap...this is written like a first-grade report...just silly leftist drivel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.153.121 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

human rights not an issue??
I agree. Why there is not even a link to the article about it: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Colombia". It is very important to include this, Colombia is one of the countries with most violations to human rights, there are even sources that mention behaviours typical from the Middle Ages. An I am Colombian, and call tell you it is factually true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledjorge (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Links
What happened to the links for the flag and coat of arms? Fry1989 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Wealth Distribution Stats
"However, inequality and unequal distribution of wealth are still widespread. In 1990, the ratio of income between the poorest and richest 10 per cent was 40-to-one. Following a decade of economic restructuring and a recession, this ratio had climbed to 80-to-one in the year 2000."

This doesn't make sense: the income ratios are inverted. If the poor have less than the rich, then the income ratio of poor income-to-rich income should be "small number-to-large number," as in "one-to-40" or "one-to-80." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.121.104 (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

HDI
The HDI for Colombia has increased from 2009 to 2010; entering an indicator that it decreased is incorrect and dishonest. If, as Mbhskid520 indicates, the method for calculating HDI has changed, then there needs to be a reference which indicates that the method has changed, and that the numerically higher result actually represents a decrease. Without such a reference, showing that Colombia's HDI has decreased is vandalism, and will be treated as such. Argyriou (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The method for which the HDI has been calculated has indeed changed between the 2009 and 2010 editions. Because the methods are different, the previous edition cannot be used as a comparison. However, the 2010 edition does state that the HDI has increased for 2010 comparing it to 2009. See page 145 in the link I have provided. The 2009 HDI using the new method is 0.685 and the 2010 HDI is 0.689.  Elockid (Alternate)   ( Talk ) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Argyriou, there is no need to be offensive on Wikipedia posts with other editors. Please, you and I both are here to make the wiki better.
 * To answer your question on your research:


 * Page 143 on the source listed on the wikipage:


 * http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete.pdf


 * Colombia 0.689 73.4 7.4 13.3 8,589 –3 0.732


 * -3 as per GHI-HDI indicated a downward trend in equality. Unless I have failed grade school, a negative is a negative. Elcokid is right indeed, you cannot use the same methodology for calculation nor for comparison. But subtracting the GHI with the HDI seems to suggest, from a statistical standpoint, that equality has decreased (hence the -3). Mbhskid520 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have failed reading comprehension - Colombia's rank order HDI has decreased, because several other countries improved faster. However, the actual HDI improved from 0.685 to 0.689.  It would be appropriate to show a decrease symbol after the ranking, but after the actual value, an increase symbol is required.


 * Meanwhile, the -3 on page 143 of the report is utterly spurious. It's the difference in rank order between per capita income and HDI - it has nothing to do with change from 2009 to 2010. Argyriou (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully diagree since your argument lacks base. GDP and GDP PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which goes hand in hand with per-capita along with nominal GDP is not represented by the GHI. GHI stands for Global Hunger Index, it has nothing to do with the economic part of the Human Development Index. You are confusing both. I will keep my previous argument since, in theory, you are comparing the values. We cannot compare values from the two different methodologies. Not to mention, access to food is a component of equality, as is schooling and the income levels based on the GNI (not GINI coefficient). What the data seem to suggest is that Colombia's economy is growing too fast and that there is a rise in inflation.


 * Note that on the list of countries in the Human Development Index, the arrows are set per ranking as they are on other country pages. Mbhskid520 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the article List of countries by Human Development Index, there is an arrow for both changes in rank order and for absolute change in HDI. Three other countries which have seen their overall ranking decrease, while the absolute HDI increased, Uruguay, Turkey and Croatia, all have increase arrows in their infoboxes.  If it is possible to have a second arrow after the ranking, then, by all means, Colombia should have a decrease arrow, but the fact is that the overall HDI for Colombia increased from 2009 to 2010, and that should be reflected properly in the article.  I have not brought in GDP, GDP PPP, GHI, GNI, or Gini Coefficient into this argument, thus it is irrelevant and ludicrous to accuse me of "confusing" any of those with HDI.  HDI is HDI - it's measured by the UN; they report it in easily findable reports, and those reports show that Colombia's HDI has increased from 2009 to 2010. Yet you kept insisting that we should show a decrease.  Argyriou (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of playing arguing tag, I decided to take a look at the data and analyze it with a statistical computer program. I've spent 3 hours analyzing the data. I used the formulas set on pages 217 to 222 and calculated a random data set with SPSS and checking it with the publication itself. After 3 hours, I have concluded that you certainly have a point. My guess is that someone confused the data sets (since there are about 14 different tables that look very similar, blame the UN for that one), although yes there is a slight increase, I'm not sure who put the decrease (since I assumed the chart itself was checked by other wikimembers who are experts in this field). In other words, this is a random error caused by an element other than the experiment. The one to blame here is the editor who punched in the numbers. Who knows, they've fooled me and I'm pretty sure they've fooled other people doing reports on foreign countries or the like. Perhaps you and I should work together in improving the actual representation on that page since there are bound to be many errors. I also noticed that the HDI marks were already adjusted for previous years, so the numbers did make sense and so does your point. Probably what the arrows were originally used to describe increases in ranking? I have no idea. But I can tell you for a fact that its been a mess since November. I strongly suggest you voice your concerns there and I'd be very willing to assist and support your argument. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#2010_Update

Looking forward to collaborating with you. Greetings from Snowy Syracuse. Mbhskid520 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Position of Geography section
As we all know, especially if you look at the few featured articles that exist on countries, Geography section comes immediately after the History section. I suggest we make that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejinarango (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Royrusso, 31 March 2011
Colombia Economy

Royrusso (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please state your request in the form of "Please change X to Y." Providing a link alone doesn't specify what change you would like to see. Thank you. – Ajltalk 05:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On the right hand "summary" column the footnote about official language is wrong, it says that the constitution does not recognize Spanish as the official language when Article 10 of the Constitution says "El Castellano es el idioma oficial de Colombia" (Castillian (i.e. Spanish) is the official language of Colombia). The part about Ethnic languages being official in their territories is correct. 190.84.54.199 (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please this article requires National imparciality
I'm a Colombian citizen, i am from Cali but i have lived in NYC since long ago, let me tell you, this article is missing a lot of things and i found it without bias, i can see a lot of praise, mentions and recognition for Medellin and Antioquia, a lot of pictures from that part of the country, why? remember, this is the Article about the Nation of Colombia not about Antioquia because as we know Cali and Valle del Cauca in terms of population and all is equally relevant to Medellín and Antioquia (respectively), however that is not showing the article, i can see that for example (between a lot more mistakes) in our festivals there is not any mention about the bigest one of the Country -The Cali's Fair-, and also there is nothing about Cali, nothing about our events (CaliExposhow, Mundial de Salsa, Juegos Panamericanos 70's, Juegos Mundiales 2013, sports, Petronio Alvarez...), buildings (Torre de Cali, WTC Valle del Pacífico Cali, Centro de Eventos Valle del Pacífico, our Hotels,...), streets, culture, people, costums, trasportation (MIO, Miocable...), and what little there is about Cali and the Valle is very poor in comparison to Medellin and Antioquía, please correct it wisely, otherwise I'll take the task to bring to the Wikipedians, or I will consider to do it by myself in an appropriate way since the lack of impartiality is gigantic and does not show everything about Colombia and all of it, because you focus on ridiculous regionalism, another example you show 3 buildings in Medellín (San Fernando Plaza Hotel) and you show it as a Financial district, it is not true, there are many other an better hotels than that one in Bogota, Cali, Brarranquilla, Cartagena and also of course Medellin, but this is Wikipedia not an entertainment magazine, i saw also in some pictures about education and Universities, in Cali are a lot of excellent Universities begin from the Universidad del Valle one of the best Universities in Latin America.

Other thing, why the Aguardiente should be Antioqueno?, why in the image is not Tapa Roja, Nectar or Blanco del Valle?, there are a lot of mistakes and lack of impartiality, correct it!!!. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.12.203 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, first I am French, second if you do not agree only provide further information to wikipedia (not necessarily remove information from Antioquia) simply add more about other regions and thirdly it is not regionalism but those who have made familiar with this place but do not know the rest of the country (I guess)


 * Greetings.
 * 186.81.12.203 (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.87.242.103 (talk)

You are from cali but have lived in NYC since long ago? I would call you a yank mi compatriota! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.173.217 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Referenced information removed.
The following information was removed, along with references, from the article in [this edit] with the claim that these parts were offensive.

Meanwhile Colombia's homicide rate, for many years one of the highest in the world, almost halved between 2002 and 2006. 2009 and 2010 saw an increase in the urban homicide rate, particularly in the city of Medellín, attributed to gang warfare and paramilitary successor groups. According to the Maplecroft research institute, in 2010 Colombia had the world's sixth highest risk of terrorism.

Is the information false or offensive, or was the edit made for some other reason?  D b f i r s   13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

include wikinews?
See Ejército Revolucionario Popular Antisubversivo de Colombia (ERPAC) wikinews in Español Fiscalía colombiana ordena captura de integrantes del ERPAC que se entregaron en Villavicencio 99.181.148.11 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Relatively high government debt?
I removed the claim that a government debt 50% the size of GDP is "relatively high".. relative to what, exactly? Relative to many other countries, this seems low.. so this claim should be clarified if it is to be added back it. It also just seems like some weasel words. Thanks, 24.84.9.97 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Name of anthem is wrong
Good morning. The name of Colombia's anthem is "Himno Nacional de la República de Colombia", not "¡Oh, Gloria Inmarcesible!", as you can see here. Thank you.Lualalsa (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Geography
It would be informative to mention the average height of the Andes Ranges. The Western Andes is the lowest range by this measure.--Forich (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is, where do you find a reliable source for this average height? Has anybody ever calculated it? Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Units "specialized in the fight against terrorism"?
Copy and pasted from my talk page

It is an antiterrorism assistance program. The units are part of the democratic security policy (an integrated counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency campaign). One of the missions of the Colombian army and Government forces is the fight against terrorism regardless of where comes the threat of terrorism. The term terrorism is completely acceptable to be used in this article.--ControlCorV (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism" is a loaded political term that anyone can use against their enemies. (In the words of Glenn Greenwald, it's "meaningless propaganda".) To report that Colombia received funding for "anti-terrorism" programs or something along those lines is fine, as that is a neutral representation, just as it would be neutral to report that Colombia received funds for similar programs before 9/11 as part of the "War on Drugs". However, to say that certain units are "specialized in the fight against terrorism" is decidedly not neutral; it's repeating government propaganda in the voice of Wikipedia. I have offered a neutral description of the unit, as provided on the image's description: "specialized in anti-kidnapping operations". -- Irn (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not propaganda. The fight against terrorism is one of the functions of the Colombian army regardless of the origin of the terrorist threat. In addition the Government is the authority legitimate of Colombia because the Government is democratically elected for that reason the Government represents the people. The guerrillas are not elected in a democratic way and are not popular within the Colombian people. --ControlCorV (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation ...."  --ControlCorV (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Government elected democratically is the authority legitimate and has voice to level international or national to represent the interests of their citizens. The army of Colombia within its fundamental functions appears the function of protecting the people of Colombia from terrorist threats. That function is not propaganda but a mandate of the Colombian citizens. --ControlCorV (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The democratic legitimacy of the government is totally irrelevant. The problem here is that the word "terrorism" represents a certain perspective and carries with it a value judgment. By uncritically using that same languge, Wikipedia is implicitly endorsing it, a violation of the neutral point of view policy. -- Irn (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In no way the word "terrorism" in this case represents a value judgement. In Colombia there are units with functions related with the fight against the terrorism and the forms of financing of the terrorism. The authority of the armed forces who serve the protection of the Colombian people is not irrelevant. --ControlCorV (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Fighting terrorism is a function of the armed forces of Colombia. The phrase does not designate anyone as terrorist on the other hand the phrase only indicates that one of the functions of the armed forces of Colombia is the fight against terrorism. --ControlCorV (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. This time I do understand the question. The use of the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" as applied to guerrillas, criminals, or other people is a point of view, and should only be used by Wikipedia when it can be attributed. However, the use of the terms "terrorist" or "anti-terrorist" or "terrorism" or "anti-terrorism" or similar terms, when applied to governmental forces, is a characterization of what the government sees as the mission of its forces. I agree that the use of the phrase "fight against terrorism" to describe military forces is NPOV if reliable sources state that the government states that is their mission. I will be closing the third opinion request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks fairly straight forward to me and I'm using two principles here. First, whatever we say should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Second, we should look at what a source says and make sure that we best approximate the meaning and intent of the source. The link with the image is sourced to a government website so it does not satisfy the 'independent' criterion and it follows that we need to be overly careful in how we use it. Second, the wording in the linked page refers to the unit as an anti-kidnapping unit and then goes on to say that a US department through its Antiterrorism Assistance program, provided anti-kidnapping training to Colombia's GAULA forces. It is clear from this statement that the forces being trained were anti-kidnapping forces whatever the nature of the program providing the training and that we can't label them as "specialized in the fight against terrorism". With apologies for this facile example, if the same department taught a self-defense class to school children, something they would presumably be well qualified to do, it does not follow that they are preparing the children for anti-terrorism activities! Follow the source and stick with anti-kidnapping. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016
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)
 * 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)
 * I've made the change as requested. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://admin.banrepcultural.org/sites/default/files/lablaa/revistas/revanuario/ancolh11/articul/art5/art5a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929203637/http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/cuentas-economicas/cuentas-trimestrales to http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/cuentas-economicas/cuentas-trimestrales

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

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

White and Mestizo demographics info
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'''

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
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
The new Vice President is Oscar Naranjo. Aguila289 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing out the change! -- Irn (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)