Talk:Colombia

(moving top post to the bottom)

10450BC (rather than 1450 BC, which I modified) seems wrong to me, can anyone confirm this or is it a typo?

Making threats of killing families that refuse to join them; Las Farc, a rebel group, attempts to assert their will and force the goverment to submit to their demands,but:

The real situation is that the Alvaro Uribe's government, has been reestablishing the tourism within the country, with specialized police to monitor,so that Colombia is better protected. For the first time the Colombian government,shows us how they are willing to battle these threats continuously by extraditing the most violent leaders to the US, Granda and Simon Trinidad.

The Auc, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia ,mainly civilians were paid to defend lands from Las Farc, now som of them have started to leave their guns and the organization, Already.

Paying the red neck to eliminate and switch their jobs from taking care of the ilegal cultivation. And so on. harvesting fruits, potatoes and vegetables is rewarded and the drug international prices will rise so people wont find drugs interesting anymore.

It is surprising and concerning that in feb/05 Christine Lundgaard head of a Danish ONG, gave Las Farc rebel group, the amount 8.500 american dollars. This group is now showing off the money they received. This types of movement are also being supported by the current Venezuela’s president who denied, while staying in cartagena, any terrorist movement.

Colombia is more than the best coffee ever, the most clear spanish, spectacular landscape, including: two oceans, amicable people, weather variety and obviously Shakira and juanes...

Colombia is known by his drugs and violence but it ia a realy beatiful country with a lot of natural resources. It has a part of the Amazonia, it is were the Andes Cordillera ends. It has so much vagetation and raw material that the united fruit company entered Colombia to do Banana negotiations. It was not a very plesant negotiation becuase some colombian workers of the united fruit company were killed from the same company, with the help of the Colombian Government.

(To the above) Talk about simplifying complex situations with mere cursory glances, tossing the timeline (1928/29) and the rest of the context out the window.... But then again that always tends to happen when Colombia's past and present is discussed....people just don't seem to get that it's not a "black & white" situation at all but full of shades of grey. This kind of perspective just contributes to political polarization, and thus of the conflict...

And in the meanwhile, the country and its people still rot away thanks to the actions of ALL those involved in the fight, while a few desperate souls struggle to find a final, peaceful solution, but are "satanized" or considered "weak" by ALL the parties involved in the conflict...that's the true tragedy of Colombia, the intolerance that exists both on the left and on the right.

(Whoever wrotethe piece above, wrote like if he was writing for a novel. Judging from his point of view, I can tell he has never actually gone to Colombia and therefore has no feel for Colombian politics. As a Colombian, I feel insulted by his blatant comments. Colombia has recently gone into a new era, recuperating itself from a century of war through the progressive policies that president Uribe has introduced. As a person that lives in the USA and constantly visits Colombia, I can tell you that Colombians are willing to fight for their own country to finally establish peace and order. It is only fringe radical groups such as Las FARC that would oppose the popular consensus for resolution to this conflict and continue to fight to maintain their Narco-trafficking opperation. They only manage to recruit poor destitute children that are brainwashed with hateful rhetoric. So, before deciding to comment on a situation that you are clearly not familiar with you should do more research on the state of Colombia and not make melodramatic comments that are extremely disconnected from any recent sense of reality. For all the people that read this, please be careful what you comment because someone may find it EXTREMLY OFFENSIVE. It bothers me to contemplate how people manage to make all-encompassing conclusions from insufficient premises .)

The phrase "US-sponsored" in the second paragraph, here referring to the secession of Panama, should be a link to a page about US-sponsored meddling that has been going on from 1776 onward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For other places named Colombia, see Colombia (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colombia (and Columbia)

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

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

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

Map

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

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

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

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

Etymology

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

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

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

Supranational Templates

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

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

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

Improvement Drive

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

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

Pacific Ocean confusion

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

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

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

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

In another related issue, the article states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at Colombia in a different way

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

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

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

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

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