Talk:Gran Colombia

Borders of Gran Colombia
Hello, I just have a question. Its about the map. Regarding Ecuador, I believe that most of the area that was between the Putumayo and Caqueta Rivers wa "on Dispute" with the Peruvian Republic, son I believe that the map should be modify to state that. Also, In this map particulary, the territory that is on dispute with the Empire of Brasil was legaly ceded by Perú, and is because of that secession that Peru ejoys unrestricted navigation rights trought the Amazon river. Glad to help Messhermit 19:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"la Gran Colombia" is only used to differentiate of the actual Colombia, in 1821 is crate under the name of REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA, never Gran or Grater -- Pipodv 20:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Edit from 201.243.7.67
 * Hello Pipodv, welcome to the English Wikipedia. This article is about the historical "Greater Colombia," not the present-day Republic of Columbia, which has an article under Colombia.  Thank you for editing the English Wikipedia, your contributions regarding Colombia are welcome here, but please be sure you understand what you are editing.  NTK 20:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lo escribo en Español: Mi correción viene a ser quitar el Adjetivo calificativo de de Gran en el nombre oficial, dado que como tal esto nunca fue así, cuando la "gran Colombia" se fundo en 1921, en el congreso de Angostura, y sucesivametne en el Congreso de Cúcuta, fue bajo el nombre de "REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA": la misma estabba conformada por Cundinamarca (antes el Vireinato de Nueva Granada, y luego de la disolución, la República y confederación de Nueva GRanada, hoy acutal Colombia), Quito, hoy actual Ecuador, y Venezuela

decir que GRATE COLOMBIA fue el nombre oficial de la anterior esta errado, pero igual yo lo dejo así, yo no soy de este idioma, y la verdad no soy muy bueno escribiendo en Inglés asi que no puedo hacer mucho por acá, si alguien puede, traducir este texto al inglés se lo agradeceria

para información que considero esta correcta les recomiendo traducirla desde Gran Colombia aunque la misma esta incompleta

--201.243.7.67 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)---> Pipodv

''I will write it in Spanish: my correction was to get rid of the qualifier Gran in the official name, because it never was so. When the "Greater Colombia" was founded in 1821 (translater comments:he/she wrote 1921, I assume that is a mistake) in the Congress of Angostura, and then later in the Congress of Cúcuta, it had the name "REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA": the same was true for former Cundinamarca (...today Colombia), Quito, today Ecuador and Venezuela.''

''To call it Greater Colombia is therefore an error. (Then he or she asks for translation of this comment and part of the spanish article.)''--Fenice 28 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)


 * Could someone fluently bilingual and/or familiar with Colombian history research Pipodv's statements and make any necessary corrections to the article? Thanks ! NTK 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope the sentence I just added makes it clear. Pipodv is trying to say that Gran or Greater were not part of the official name of the Republic at the time. It is just called so to distinguish it from todays Colombia.--Fenice 05:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * From the comments of user:Pipodv and judging by es:Gran Colombia I would suggest to move the page to "Gran Colombia".--Fenice 28 June 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Panama
I think the following is misleading: "Panama remained as a province of this country until 1903, when – with backing from the United States in exchange for allowing the US to build the Panama Canal – it became independent. In reality, it was clandestine USA funding and armament of a small local separatist faction that achieved this, so that the US would have control over the canal zone for their own uses. There was no 'exchange', the US effectively stole Panama from Colombia through covert warfare so that they could own and run the canal zone instead of Colombia.

Panama tried separate of Colombia in 1830, 1831 and 1840 to 1841 but it failed and the isthmus was joined to Colombia as Department until november 1903.--Taichi 09:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In the part of the sparation of Panama, someone write between - - with intervension of USA. i think that is non partial to write that because is saying that if USA don't exist. i thik that if there something to say about the separation of Panama is better to put it in the Panama article anth with partiality.

If the USA had not interfere in 1903 to build the Panama Canal, Panama would have been proudly a proud part of Colombia. yussef90 22:04, 02 June 2006 (CET)

Well - that would really be up the residents of Panama, wouldn't it? And, as I understand it, there was plenty of turmoil going on at the time and no guaranty that Panama would have stayed as part of Colombia. Anyways, we gave the canal zone back years ago, so don't try not to get too bent out of shape about it. Do you really think the world would have been a better place if Colombia, with all of its instability, were in charge of the Panama Canal??Ndriley97 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points made in this discussion, “There was no ‘exchange’, the US effectively stole Panama…” and “…Panama would have been proudly a proud part of Colombia” [sic.] are inaccurate and misleading. I agree that the issue is more pertinent to the discussion of the history of Panama. But let’s not kid ourselves, Panama attempted separation from New Granada (and present day Colombia) literally dozens of times between 1830 and 1903, most notably in 1840-41. This is precisely what brought about the Bidlack-Vallarino treaty of 1846, where the US indeed moved-in to control the geostrategic isthmian interoceanic region (not to be confused with the stealing of Panama). New Granada in turn, or should we say IN EXCHANGE, obtained, by means of the US armed forces, the “control” of Panama.

It is a common mistake of Colombian Historiography to underestimate the roots of Panamanian identity and nationhood, which by the way, easily predates that of (present day) Colombia’s. This mistake often leads some Colombians to ignore geographic, economic and political realities. It certainly leads them to talk, under the guise of anti-imperialist rhetoric, of the US “stealing” of Panama in 1903, as if Panama had at some point in time actually belonged to that South American nation rather than formed part of a federation, a very unhappy one for Panama at that.

In 1903 there could not have been an exchange between the US and Colombia. Colombians were, by that time, incapable of bargaining a treaty with the US. The treaty was, however inelegantly, negotiated between Panama and the US. In 1903, plainly speaking, Panama paid the Colombians back, in kind, the “favor” of 1846. The rest, unfortunately for many Colombians, is sour grapes.

The relationship between Panama and the US is another story, best discussed, again, elsewhere. Castelauro 00:30, 21 August 2010

Venezuela and Colombia flags are missing
I tried to correct this using the sames flags that are in Venezuela and Colombia articles, but it doesn't work. Someone else much experienced could correct it.

Finally it works
After few hours the correction works. Hmm, it doesn't work immediately. I imagine that database system has to create a more complex link from the original one (extremely basic, the term "image" and archive name).

Name
The article's name needs to be changed: It's not "Great Colombia", but "Greater Colombia". While "Gran Colombia" is the literal translation, historians have traditionally chosen to render it "Greater Colombia" in English.

Piotr

Who keeps changing the page's name?

Piotr (Venezuela) 06:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected it to Greater Colombia. Who does not understand why I did this? I'll repeat the argument I have used before: historians have chosen to render the name "Greater Colombia" instead of "Great", as in "a Colombia that is greater in size". Therefore, this page is justified in reflecting that. Google it up if you don't believe me.

Piotr (Venezuela) 07:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever actually heard it called anything but "Gran Colombia." --Descendall 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * well are you spanish? in spanish it is called Gran Colombia but in english it has two names Gran Colombia and Greater Colombia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazingferret36 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Great Colombia is the more faithfull translation of its name,or if not Gran colombia alone should do,because the Adjective ¨Greater¨ implies more a irredentist cause (see Greater Serbia, Greater Romania , Greater Bulgaria...) than a Confederation of states like the Great Colombia wass.I suggest move it to Great Colombia--Andres rojas22 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Greater Colombia" is presented as a translation of "Gran Colombia" rather than as an alternative name. Either the phrase should be changed to "Gran Colombia or Greater Colombia", the translation should be corrected to "Great Colombia", or both. Mlvluu (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This discussion here of the usage of the name Gran Colombia has dwelt on two aspects, the origin of the term Colombia, correctly tracing it to Venezuelans Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar and the translation of Gran to the English language (Great or Greater). But there is a more fundamental mater left untouched here. In the main entry, the section ‘Origin of the name’ states, “Historians adopted the term "Gran Colombia" to distinguish this republic from the present-day Republic of Colombia, which began using the same name in 1863”. Colombian historiography seems to have adopted the practice circa 1860 and certainty since 1885 it must have been a common occurrence among Colombians writers. On the surface it may seem an insignificant pragmatic action, a device to help readers distinguish two political units that share the same name. So why even bring it up? Well it so happens that historians have been objecting to this usage on methodological grounds for years. Can we, while studying a historic event, in this case a nation, one which we are supposedly investigating with as much scientific ethic and rigor, and above all, as much historical precision as possible, change that event’s name? What are the consequences of this action?

In the case of The Republic of Colombia (1819-1830) aka “Gran” Colombia, the practice has been heatedly debated by many Latin American historians. Some believe that the term Gran Colombia raises more confusion than it clarifies. Others warn from the outset that they do not use the term; that there never existed a nation called by that name. Besides, one may use the term while understanding nothing about the historical continuity and circumstances. Still others have publicly wondered; why not call present day Colombia Little Colombia? I feel, in the interest of clarity and practicality that as much effort and space as possible should be dedicated to explain and warn readers as to the anachronistic and antihistoric nature of the term Gran Colombia. This is a particularly important practice in the case of a popular encyclopedia which services a global audience. Castelauro 00:40, 21 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castelauro (talk • contribs)

Sub divisions
the article is at start... missing: and other subdivisions...
 * Department of Cundinamarca
 * Department of Venezuela
 * Department of Quito
 * maybe add former presidents during this time...

--(( F3rn 4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA)  15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation 3 for Kaplan 2014 is invalid for the text: At the time of its creation, this Colombia was the most prestigious country in Spanish America. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State and future president of the United States, claimed it to be one of the most powerful nations on the planet.

MOVE
Great Colombia is the more faithNew Granada]].Great Colombia never wass ¨todays republic of Colombia plus Venezuela,Ecuador and Panama¨,but a confederation of Venezuela,New Granada,Quito,and Panama.I suggest move it to Great Colombia--Andres rojas22 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Greater Colombia → Great Colombia — Great Colombia is the more faithfull translation of its name,or if not Gran colombia alone should do,because the Adjective ¨Greater¨ implies more an irredentist cause (for examples see Greater Serbia, Greater Romania , Greater Bulgaria...) than a Confederation of states like the Great Colombia wass.Besides the fact that Colombia wass an artificial name invented by Francisco de Miranda,that 30 years after its dissolution took the name of Republic of New Granada.Great Colombia never wass "a Colombia that is greater in size" because it wass the only Colombia that had existed in that moment,but a confederation of Venezuela,New Granada,Quito,and Panama.I suggest move it to Great Colombia Andres rojas22 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose I'm afraid this arises from a misunderstanding. Greater just means bigger than some other "Colombia". I do not believe great can be used this way, and great would appear to be a translation of Gran into English by a person more familiar with Spanish. Ultimately, this could be contradicted if the nominator or another editor could show that Great Colombia was more common in English-language writing than Greater Colombia. The fact that Greater Colombia sounds bad because of comparisons to Greater Serbia, etc., can't be helped, because the very meaning of greater in this case is "bigger", and "bigger" is often related to the idea of expansion. In this case, it was the opposite, but since today's Colombia is not called Lesser Colombia, there is no choice but to call the other one "greater". Joeldl 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I do not follow Joeldl's logic. Gran Colombia would also be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment After further investigation, it appears I was mistaken. Great Colombia is sometimes used, to my surprise. A Google Scholar search gives the following results ("+republic" hopefully guarantees the results are mainly in English in the case of "Gran Colombia"):
 * +"Great Colombia" +republic -earthquake — 49.
 * +"Greater Colombia" +republic -earthquake — 35.
 * +"Gran Colombia" +republic -earthquake — 412.
 * Of course, some of the references to a "republic" in the case of "Gran Colombia" could be argued to be related to citations of English-language references in Spanish-language texts, but an inspection of the results doesn't bear this out. Joeldl 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:--Andres rojas22 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

After some investigation, it appears as though Gran Colombia might be the name most commonly used in English. I would probably support a move to Gran Colombia. Joeldl 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


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

Since nobody explicitly opposed the suggestion of "Gran Colombia", and that phrase is very much more prevalent than either translation, I have taken the liberty of choosing that title for the article. This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the reason to move this article at all. Gran Colombia is used much more widely in English then is "Greater Colombia". Example: Encyclopædia Britannica uses Gran Colombia in its entry for the subject of this article. --Jersey Devil 06:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Countries formerly part of Gran Colombia
In the first paragraph, it mentions the current countries that were once a part of Gran Colombia... there is no mention of Nicaragua or Honduras. Yet on the map provided, it shows what are clearly parts of Nicaragua (Caribbean coast north of Rio San Juan/due east of Lake Nicaragua) and a small bit of Honduras (north of the Rio Coco). I didn't edit, because I don't know if the map or the article is right. But one of the two must be mistaken. Which is it? 72.81.108.108 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I dont think that there is any mention of the Dominican Republic or in this case Haití Español

On November 9, 1821 the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo was toppled by a group led by General José Núñez de Cáceres.[1][2] Starting November 15, 1821 several frontier towns raised the Haitian flag as a show of independence,[citation needed] whereas other forces which opposed unification with Haiti formally declared independence from Spain on November 30, 1821.[3] The new nation was known as República del Haití Español (Republic of Spanish Haiti).[2] On December 1, 1821 a constitutive act was ordered to petition the union of Spanish Haiti with Gran Colombia....

El Johnson (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Spanish Haiti might have considered to petition Gran Colombia, but did it ever formally do it? And if so, did Gran Colombia accept? If the answer to either question is no—and I strongly suspect it is—then it never was part of Gran Colombia.TriniMuñoz (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Misquito Coast was part of Colombia and now is the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. It needs to be mentioned in the article.--Bushhopper (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The information has been included in the Spanish version of the article but it is absent from the Englsih version.--Bushhopper (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Found an article in the Spanish wiki called Territorial evolution of Colombia where these details are explained.--Bushhopper (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mosquito Coast was technically part of the Viceroyalty of New Granada from 1803 (see Capitanía General de Guatemala, although the citation doesn't reproduce the decree cited in the article), but it should be noted that neither the Viceroyalty nor the Captaincy General of Guatemala, or their successor states, had much control of this area, a situation which allowed the British to forge an alliance with the locals. This situation continued until the end of the nineteenth century. So this is an interesting technicality, but not a central one. In many ways it's more important to the later disputes over the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina decades after the collapse of Gran Colombia.TriniMuñoz (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Panamá
Just if Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama had kept their unity, the result today would be a nation of 91 million people, larger than Germany´s.--79.146.21.144 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Last Flag?
The infobox claims the given flag was the last, but the wikilink in the caption directs to Flag of Gran Colombia which gives one more flag later.207.237.208.153 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture
I have added a section for popular culture references, and mentioned the The Last Ship (TV series) &mdash; iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

mAP
Is there a source for that map? As it seems to show them in control of the British colony. Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute Popayan1210 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)