Wikipedia

Talk:Colombia/Archive 3

< Talk:Colombia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MSGJ in topic Temporarily protected
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight in Infrastructure section

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Per the guideline "Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not" an article should be a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight". I find the current status of the "Infrastructure" section being only a partial summary of accepted knowledge regarding infrastructure in Colombia. In my opinion unduly weight is being given to public government announcements of infrastructure investments. They deserve a mention in the Infrastructure section but they should not receive undue weight. The guideline "Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View" has some criteria on what is due weight:

1) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

2)"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

3)"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

Comment on criteria 1 and 3: the current infrastructure section does not fairly represent a viewpoint on the quality of the productive infrastructure in Colombia. There are many reliable sources that claim that Colombia's productive infrastructure is notable for having "the second-fewest vehicle per person in South America",[1] "isolation",[2] "weak infrastructure",[3] infrastructure that "still does not meet general needs",[4] "overall backwardness of the road infrastructure",[5] and lagging "significantly behind its peers in the creation of productive infrastructure".[6]

Comment on criterium 2: There is too much depth of detail given to describe the bureaucracy in charge of infrastructure in Colombia. Also, the proportion of quantity of text dedicated to actually describe the characteristics of the infrastructure itself is very low compared to the proportion dedicated to the governmental organizational chart. Prominence of placement is also indicative of undue weight: the list of government agencies responsible for infrastructure is placed in the beginning of the section, and in the start of the first paragraph, with the only data on actual infrastructure relegated to the end of the paragraph.

Lastly, per the guideline "What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball", and the advice that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" I think that the following statements violate the guideline:

"The target of Colombia’s government is to build 7,000 km of roads for the 2016–2020 period and reduce travel times by 30 per cent and transport costs by 20 per cent. A toll road concession programme will comprise 40 projects, and is part of a larger strategic goal to invest nearly $50bn in transport infrastructure, including: railway systems; making the Magdalena river navigable again; improving port facilities; as well as an expansion of Bogotá’s airport"

In my opinion, stating these predictions is fair, as long as a reader gets the complete picture of the infrastructure in Colombia: the productive transport infrastructure is deficient, and there are some government announcements of improvements, which should be taken with a grain of salt, given the history of the country of not meeting its infrastructure goals.--Forich (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk). The information available in the infrastructure section is correct and appropriate. There are no predictions because those are serious plans for the construction of infrastructure where many companies are investing. Moreover, the information is from a reliable source ( Financial Times.) Instead of putting allegations from unreliable sources against the infrastructure of Colombia, it is necessary to speak of serious projects of infrastructure construction. --ControlCorV (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting ControlCorV. Please do not misrepresent my point: those plans for the construction of infrastructure are not flawed because of reliability (that is what you suggest by pointig out the Financial Times) but because of the 'undue weight' and because, in my opinion, they do not provide the whole picture of the current status of infrastructure to a naive reader.
I am going to have to ask yo to please stop with your claim that I want to "put 'allegations' from unreliable sources against the infrastructure of Colombia", my argument can be read by anyone and it do not supports in any way, shape of form, the inclusion of unreliable sources.
Finally, let me ask you if you are aware of the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" guideline? If not, please read it and understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. In your argument and the arguments you made when reverting other people's edits it seems you are unwawre of this policy, and you keep bringin up a spirit of "defending the infrastructure" of Colombia, as if it were being 'attacked' by good faith editors. Lets wait for the input of some more editors on the points I made of undue weight. If I receive support I will procede to edit the article, otherwise I will be happy to read counterarguments. --Forich (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Forich (talk) Nothing of what you say makes sense. There are correct ways to talk about the infrastructure that exists in the country and you just want to highlight the infrastructure that does not exist. Say that there are infrastructure projects is very different to say that certain types of infrastructure does not exist in the country. When we talk about serious projects of infrastructure, we can infer that the country needs more infrastructure.
Hi ControlCorV. I do not understand what you mean by 'correct' ways of talking about the infrastructure. First, please note that my argument explicitely follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, not 'correctness'. For any piece of content to be valuable to Wikipedia it needs to cover: a) what most reliable sources say when they characterize a topic; b) in case of dispute or minority views, a weighted approach to both parts should be included. Please become familiar with this simple rule so that we can get on the same page.
Second, you keep misquoting my position: I do not want to "highlight" the infrastructure that does not exist. I cited four very reliable sources that specifically say that a notable characteristic of Colombia's infrastrcture is its weakness, backwardness, and lack of appropiate development. I am not saying that this is the true, just that it is a view that deserves to be included in an encyclopedia. Everytime I do an edit in that sense you revert it, and each time you use different justifications for the reverts, often contradictory ones. Note that I am going out of my way explaining everything in this Talk section so that we can avoid an edit war.
Finally, and by the way, I am warning that your comment "Nothing of what you say makes sense" is considered direct rudeness and is not constructive. Please refrain from using that tone of commenting. --Forich (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Forich (talk) You want to include your point of view in the section about the infrastructure of Colombia. Instead of including only your opinions the best thing you can do is to allow infrastructure experts to edit the information with sources more credible and without personal opinions about the infrastructure of Colombia. You should write about facts or serious projects of infrastructure construction, and you should not write only about your personal opinions.--ControlCorV (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Read the main article about the infrastructure of the country and you will see how to talk about the infrastructure of the country. It is also important to highlight that the main article about Colombia is not an article to speak exclusively of infrastructure in the country. We can not put too much information in this article, and for that reason there are the subarticles.--ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article you are citing is full of references to railroads in Colombia. If that is a role model of "how to talk about the infrastructure of the country" explain why you reverted my attempt of including data on railroads on the Infrastructure section of the Colombia entry in the first place. If it was a mistake, we can turn the page and discuss the content, no hard feelings. I even propose that we write a draft here in the talk section first.
Forich (talk) I delete your edit because your sources are not specialized in infrastructure or your sources are not a serious study or your sources include unreliable data or your sources have very poor content. However, my source is a serious study with reliable data and with good content and my reference not only speaking about the railways, but also of other modes of transport. --ControlCorV (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
On your second point, I agree that we can not put too much information in the "Colombia" article, that is one of the reasons to reduce the current excessive information on official announcements that read like propaganda, and the in-depth description of the organization chart of the infrastructure sector in Colombia.--Forich (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Forich (talk) There is no propaganda. The infrastructure section only talks about the means of infrastructure available in the country and also the section about infrastructure speaks of serious projects of construction of new infrastructure where many companies are investing. Reliable sources in the section exist. On the other hand you want to replace a good content with your personal opinions about the infrastructure of Colombia. --ControlCorV (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Extended content

Media

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I went through the Talk page's archive and found this proposal:

"I would like to add an Media section. The article of communication on colombia is very incomplete and only shows statistics. We can compilate media outlets from colombia like El Tiempo, Citytv Bogotá, Caracol TV, RCN TV, Caracol Radio... You are invited to help me... Don Quijote's Sancho 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)"

Lets retake this idea, it can fit as a subsection within the 'Culture' section. Right now it is embedded in the Popular culture section, which seems ackward to me. Opinions?--Forich (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Transportation

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Main article: Transport in Colombia

Railways

Main article: Rail transport in Colombia
 
Railroads of Colombia

Colombia has 3,034 kilometers (1,885 mi) of rail lines, 150 kilometers (93 mi) of which are 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) gauge and 3,154 kilometers (1,960 mi) of which are 914 mm (3 ft) gauge. However, only 2,611 kilometers (1,622 mi) of lines are still in use. The national railroad system, once the country's main mode of transport for freight, has been neglected in favor of road development and now accounts for only about a quarter of freight transport. Passenger-rail use was suspended in 1992 and resumed at the end of the 1990s. However, fewer than 165,000 passenger journeys were made in 1999, as compared with more than 5 million in 1972, and the figure was only 160,130 in 2005. Short sections of railroad, mainly the Bogotá-Atlantic rim, are used to haul goods, mostly coal, to the Caribbean and Pacific ports. In 2005 a total of 27.5 million metric tons of cargo were transported by rail. The nation's rail network links seven of the country's 10 major cities. During 2004–6, approximately 2,000 kilometers of the country's rail lines underwent refurbishment. This upgrade involved two main projects: the 1,484-kilometer line linking Bogotá to the Caribbean Coast and the 499-kilometer Pacific coastal network that links the industrial city of Cali and the surrounding coffee-growing region to the port of Buenaventura.[7]

Roads

See also: Highways in Colombia
 
Main roads in Colombia

The three main north-south highways are the Caribbean, Eastern, and Central Trunk Highways (troncales). Estimates of the length of Colombia's road system in 2004 ranged from 115,000 kilometers to 145,000 kilometers. However, according to 2005 data reported by the Colombian government, the road network totaled 163,000 kilometers, 68 percent of which were paved and in good condition. The increase may reflect some newly built roads. President Uribe has vowed to pave more than 2,500 kilometers of roads during his administration, and about 5,000 kilometers of new secondary roads were being built in the 2003–6 period. Despite serious terrain obstacles, almost three-quarters of all cross-border dry cargo is now transported by road, 105,251 metric tons in 2005.[7]

Highways are managed by the Colombian Ministry of Transport through the National Roads Institute. The security of the highways in Colombia is managed by the Highway Police unit of the Colombian National Police. Colombia is crossed by the Panamerican Highway.

Ports, waterways, and merchant marine

 
Rivers of Colombia

Seaports handle around 80 percent of international cargo. In 2005 a total of 105,251 metric tons of cargo were transported by water. Colombia's most important ocean terminals are Barranquilla, Cartagena, and Santa Marta on the Caribbean Coast and Buenaventura and Tumaco on the Pacific Coast. Exports mostly pass through the Caribbean ports of Cartagena and Santa Marta, while 65 percent of imports arrive at the port of Buenaventura. Other important ports and harbors are Bahía de Portete, Leticia, Puerto Bolívar, San Andrés, Santa Marta, and Turbo. Since privatization was implemented in 1993, the efficiency of port handling has increased greatly.[7]

The main inland waterways total about 18,200 kilometers, 11,000 kilometers of which are navigable by riverboats. A well-developed and important form of transport for both cargo and passengers, inland waterways transport approximately 3.8 million metric tons of freight and more than 5.5 million passengers annually. Main inland waterways are the Magdalena–Cauca River system, which is navigable for 1,500 kilometers; the Atrato, which is navigable for 687 kilometers; the Orinoco system of more than five navigable rivers, which total more than 4,000 kilometers of potential navigation (mainly through Venezuela); and the Amazonas system, which has four main rivers totaling 3,000 navigable kilometers (mainly through Brazil). The government is planning an ambitious program to more fully utilize the main rivers for transport. In addition, the navy's riverine brigade has been patrolling waterways more aggressively in order to establish safer river transport in the more remote areas in the south and east of the country. [7]

The merchant marine totals 17 ships (1,000 gross registered tons or more), including four bulk, 13 cargo, one container, one liquefied gas, and three petroleum tanker ships. Colombia also has seven ships registered in other countries (Antigua and Barbuda, two; Panama, five).[7]

Aviation

See also: List of airports in Colombia
 
El Dorado International Airport of Bogotá

All public airports in Colombia are managed and controlled by the Special Administrative Unit of Civil Aeronautics.

Colombia has well-developed air routes and an estimated total of 984 airports, 100 of which have paved runways, plus two heliports. Of the 74 main airports, 20 can accommodate jet aircraft. Two airports are more than 3,047 meters in length, nine are 2,438–3,047 meters, 39 are 1,524–2,437 meters, 38 are 914–1,523 meters, 12 are shorter than 914 meters, and 880 have unpaved runways. The government has been selling its stake in local airports in order to allow their privatization. The country has 40 regional airports, and the cities of Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cartagena, Cúcuta, Leticia, Pereira, San Andrés, and Santa Marta have international airports. Bogotá's El Dorado International Airport handles 550 million metric tons of cargo and 22 million passengers a year, making it the largest airport in Latin America in terms of cargo and the third largest in passenger numbers.[7]

Urban transport

 
Medellín Metro

Urban transport systems have been developed in Bogotá, Medellín, Cali and Barranquilla. Traffic congestion in Bogotá has been greatly exacerbated by the lack of rail transport. However, this problem has been alleviated somewhat by the development of one of the world's largest and highest capacity Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems, known as the TransMilenio (opened 2000), and the restriction of vehicles through a daily, rotating ban on private cars depending on plate numbers. Bogotá's system consists of bus and minibus services managed by both private- and public-sector enterprises. Since 1995 Medellín has had a modern urban railway referred to as the Metro de Medellín, which also connects with the cities of Itagüí, Envigado, and Bello. A BRT line called Transmetro began operating in 2011, with a second line added in 2013. Other cities have also installed BRT systems such as Cali with a six line system (opened 2008), Barranquilla with two lines (opened 2010), Bucaramanga with one line (opened 2010) and Pereira with three lines (opened 2006). [8][7] --ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk). The infrastructure that is being built is important to the economy of Colombia and infrastructure construction projects contribute to the gross domestic product of Colombia. --ControlCorV (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi ControlCorV. I do not understand your point with this statement, since it do not address the undue weight argument I made, but I will let you know of an apparent contradiction in your views: recently you reverted one of my edits with the explanation that "The information in the main article about Colombia should focus on the means of transport available in the country and not the non-existent means of transport". However you are here advocating for the inclusion of info on infrastructure that is announced to be built and hence, does not exist yet. Did you change your mind? --Forich (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Forich (talk) Nothing of what you say makes sense. There are correct ways to talk about the infrastructure that exists in the country and you just want to highlight the infrastructure that does not exist. Say that there are infrastructure projects is very different to say that certain types of infrastructure does not exist in the country. When we talk about serious projects of infrastructure, we can infer that the country needs more infrastructure.
Read the main article about the infrastructure of the country and you will see how to talk about the infrastructure of the country. It is also important to highlight that the main article about Colombia is not an article to speak exclusively of infrastructure in the country. We can not put too much information in this article, and for that reason there are the subarticles. --ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've collapsed that long section from the Transport in Colombia article because it was confusing. Just click on [show] on the green bar labeled "Extended content" to view it.

I came here from the third opinion page. IMO, the whole "Infrastructure" portion of this article needs to be rewritten because organization and sentence structure are poor. I suggest following the basic outline that I hid under that green bar:

  • First, introduce the topic, using the lead at Infrastructure as a guide.
  • Then inform about transportation: railways, roads, ports, waterways, and merchant marine, aviation, and urban transport.
  • Inform on water systems.
  • Inform on electrical grids and telecommunications.

The question at third opinion was about the second paragraph of the existing section. Yes, it should be removed. These are ideas, not plans. The source is almost 3 years old. Once a project actually gets underway, it's fine to include. YoPienso (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I came here from the third opinion page. I agree that the sources of Forich are not the best. It is important to write about infrastructure plans. Although I also think that the section should be written in a better way, but in a concise way. --JShark (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In response of to JShark it is only fair that I retract the one source from a personal webpage, which I used to source the lack of passenger transport in Colombia were not the best because it is not reliable. In my more recent edits I have replaced them with the Kohon et al (2016) IADB report brought by ControlCorV in his edits. Note that even though the Kohon et al (2016) source is very reliable it is a secondary source, and they still cite Ministerio de Transporte and Agencia Nacional de Infraestructura as their primary source, citing 2015 as the date of the data (page 73). That means the data is not as up-to-date as it can be (it is now almost two years old). -Forich (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Tourism

Latest comment: 7 years ago44 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JShark, you are flat-out wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the consensus on this?

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

There is tourist information about Colombia at this time with information and credible sources. The information is well summarized and is credible => Colombia#Economy Tourism in Colombia is an important sector in the country's economy. Foreign tourist visits were predicted to have risen from 0.6 million in 2007 to 2.98 million in 2015.[9][10]
http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 - Source of an authority in the field of tourism
In addition there is tourist information in the rest of the sections of the article where is documented many tourist attractions in Colombia. The article is fine and it is best to keep it that way for not compromising the quality of the article. --JShark (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have seen subsections on 'Tourism' placed within the 'Economy' sections of articles on countries, see for example Germany. Tourism usually earns a place in the layout when the country has a large share of its economy based on it. If you want to see a discussion of structure for country articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Structure_and_guidelines. -Forich (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All the links on this page seem to go to a spam site https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive - please change the links to correct ones or roll back changes to site. 2605:6000:F0C9:F000:74B8:F583:FA8F:83F7 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done by Oshwah. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The (drug) war has not gone away. Omitting it is dishonest.

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Pablo Escobar is dead, but drug related combat and paramilitaries still exist even after FARC peace deal. I find it interesting that there is no word "drug" anywhere on the page, no history of the drug wars, not even a link to anything mentioning it. Could someone tell why this information is not included? It is factual information of a country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Colombia#History

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/colombia-travel-warning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.74.31 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The word "coca" appears only once, as part of indigenous culture, and "cocaine" not at all. This needs to be remedied pronto. YoPienso (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I am against what you are saying because the article talks about a correct form on the subject considering the war in Colombia is not related only with drugs, but with other ideological factors such as communism. The war on drugs in Colombia is related to the war against terrorism in Colombia. The war on drugs is not unique to Colombia and occurs in many countries of the world. It is irrelevant to talk about the war on drugs because there is already talk of that war on the issue of insurgency and terrorism. --ControlCorV (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The article talks about this topic and clearly has not omitted anything. The war in Colombia is a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed very carefully. It is incorrect to speak of the war in Colombia as a simple war against drugs because the war in Colombia is linked to many ideological factors. Unfortunately people don't understand that the war in Colombia is very complex and cannot be reduced to a Hollywood cliche. --ControlCorV (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
In February 2015, the Historical Commission on the Conflict and its Victims (Comisión Histórica del Conflicto Armado y sus Víctimas – CHCV) published its report entitled “Contribution to an Understanding of the Armed Conflict in Colombia”. The document, that deals with the “multiple reasons for the conflict, the principle factors and circumstances that made it possible and the most notable impacts on the population”, help to understand Colombia’s armed conflict in terms of international law.[11] --ControlCorV (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
US General William P. Yarborough was the head of a counterinsurgency team sent to Colombia in 1962 by the US Special Warfare Center. Yarborough was one of the earliest proponents of "paramilitary [...] and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents"[12].

Two of the most important international actors that have contributed to the Colombian conflict are multinational companies and the United States.[13] The United States has been heavily involved in the conflict since its beginnings, when in the early 1960s the U.S. government encouraged the Colombian military to attack leftist militias in rural Colombia. This was part of the U.S. fight against communism.[14]

In October 1959, the United States sent a "Special Survey Team", composed of counterinsurgency experts, to investigate Colombia's internal security situation.[15] In February 1962, a Fort Bragg top-level U.S. Special Warfare team headed by Special Warfare Center commander General William P. Yarborough, visited Colombia for a second survey.[16] In a secret supplement to his report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Yarborough encouraged the creation and deployment of a paramilitary force to commit sabotage and terrorist acts against communists:

A concerted country team effort should be made now to select civilian and military personnel for clandestine training in resistance operations in case they are needed later. This should be done with a view toward development of a civil and military structure for exploitation in the event the Colombian internal security system deteriorates further. This structure should be used to pressure toward reforms known to be needed, perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents. It should be backed by the United States."[17][18][19]

The first paramilitary groups were organized following recommendations made by U.S. military counterinsurgency advisers who were sent to Colombia during the Cold War to combat leftist political activists and armed guerrilla groups. [20]

Multinational corporations have also been directly tied to paramilitary death squads. Chiquita Brands International was fined $25 million as part of a settlement with the United States Justice Department for having ties to paramilitary groups.[20] In 2016, Judge Kenneth Marra of the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of allowing Colombians to sue former Chiquita Brand International executives for the company’s funding of the outlawed right-wing paramilitary organization that murdered their family members. He stated in his decision that “‘profits took priority over basic human welfare’ in the banana company executives’ decision to finance the illegal death squads, despite knowing that this would advance the paramilitaries’ murderous campaign."[21]

The origin of the armed conflict in Colombia goes back to 1920 with agrarian disputes over the Sumapaz and Tequendama regions.[22] Peasants at the time fought over ownership of coffee lands which caused the liberals and conservative parties to take sides in the conflict, worsening it.

In 1948 the assassination of populist Jorge Eliécer Gaitán radically stirred up the armed conflict. It led to the Bogotazo, an urban riot killing more than 4,000 people, and subsequently to ten years of sustained rural warfare between members of Colombian Liberal Party and the Colombian Conservative Party, a period known as La Violencia ("The Violence"), which took the lives of more than 200,000 people throughout the countryside.[23]

As La Violencia wound down, most self-defense and guerrilla units made up of Liberal Party supporters demobilized, but at the same time some former Liberals and active Communist groups continued operating in several rural enclaves. One of the Liberal bands was a group known as the "Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia" (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), or FARC, formed by Pedro Antonio Marin in 1964. The goal of the FARC, among other things, was redistribution of land that would benefit poor peasant farmers like Marin.[24]

Also in 1958, an exclusively bipartisan political alternation system, known as the National Front, resulted from an agreement between the Liberal and Conservative parties. The agreement had come as a result of the two parties attempting to find a final political solution to the decade of mutual violence and unrest, remaining in effect until 1974.[23] --ControlCorV (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As you can read the war in Colombia is not only a war against drugs but a war full of other factors such as terrorism, insurgency, economic interests and many other ideological factors.--ControlCorV (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For this reason the article correctly addresses the issue of the war in Colombia and does not reduce the information to a simple war against drugs or a simple cliché of a Hollywood movie or a cliche of a series about mobsters on Netflix. --ControlCorV (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Taking the slow road". The Economist.
  2. ^ "Taking the slow road". The Economist.
  3. ^ "Colombia - Infrastructure, power, and communications". Nation's Encyclopedia.
  4. ^ "Colombia - Infrastructure, power, and communications". Nation's Encyclopedia.
  5. ^ "Infraestructura de Transporte en Colombia" (PDF). Fedesarrollo.
  6. ^ "Colombia: Recent Economic Developments in Infrastructure (REDI)" (PDF). World Bank.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g Colombia country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (February 2007). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  8. ^ "Global BRT Data". Retrieved 22 August 2014.
  9. ^ "UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2016 Edition". unwto.org.
  10. ^ "UNWTO highlights growth of tourism in Colombia in the last ten years" (in Spanish). lainformacion.com. 25 June 2014.
  11. ^ Kai Ambos and John Zuluaga. "Understanding Colombia's war". D+C, development and cooperation. Retrieved 21 December 2015.
  12. ^ Rempe, Dennis M. (Winter 1995). "Guerrillas, Bandits, and Independent Republics: US Counter-insurgency Efforts in Colombia 1959–1965". Small Wars and Insurgencies. 6 (3): 304–327. doi:10.1080/09592319508423115. Archived from the original on March 30, 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  13. ^ Historical Commission on the Conflict and Its Victims (CHCV) (February 2015). "Contribution to an Understanding of the Armed Conflict in Colombia" (PDF) (in Spanish).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  14. ^ Mario A. Murillo; Jesús Rey Avirama (2004). Colombia and the United States: war, unrest, and destabilization. Seven Stories Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-58322-606-3.
  15. ^ Rempe, 1995 Archived March 30, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  16. ^ Livingstone, 2004: p. 155
  17. ^ Visit to Colombia, South America, by a Team from Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Warfare School, 26 Feb. 1962, Kennedy Library, Box 319, National Security Files, Special Group; Fort Bragg Team; Visit to Colombia; 3/62, "Secret Supplement, Colombian Survey Report."
  18. ^ Noam Chomsky (2000). Rogue states: the rule of force in world affairs. South End Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-89608-611-1.
  19. ^ HRW, 1996: "II. History of the Military-Paramilitary Partnership"
  20. ^ a b "Understanding Colombia's armed conflict: International actors". colombiareports.com. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  21. ^ Families Of Death Squad Victims Allowed To Sue Chiquita Executives. CommonDreams. 4 June 2016.
  22. ^ "History of the Guerillas in Colombia" (PDF). Ecsbdefesa.com.br. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
  23. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference beyond-bogota-timeline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Kraul, Chris. "The battles began in 1964: Here's a look at Colombia's war with the FARC rebels". latimes.com. LA Times. Retrieved 2016-10-18.

Map image

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I undid a change to use a new map image by User:JoaoPedro10029. Original change, my undo.

The orthographic map is what is used consistently on country articles everywhere, e.g. Mexico, Australia. This is the map we should be using unless there is a good reason to change. The blue map by JoaoPedro10029 is less useful than the original one because: (1) it only shows Colombia in relation to South America and not the Caribbean or the rest of the Americas, (2) it is lower resolution and not SVG scalable.

JoaoPedro10029 also updated this blue type map for every other country in South America (see contribs), but I can't see any discussion. JoaoPedro10029's edit summary was "If you don't like it, well..." which doesn't adequately explain why this is a good positive change.

seb26 (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the changes, the summary actually meant that if people don't like it, they could reverse it. And the map is better because it shows the countries with a better view. JoaoPedro10029 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)JoaoPedro10029

The orthographic map is better. The blue map is less useful.
Colombia is a sovereign state largely situated in the northwest of South America, with territories in Central America. It shares its maritime limits with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
The Caribbean is very important for Colombia. Colombia is not only South America. --ControlCorV (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done dead link has been fixed with an archive URL. Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 6 years ago37 comments4 people in discussion

I have a edit war with User:JShark I hope that administrators come and help resolve this discussion i add the Tourism section and deleted a images and added others so the article remained like this [[1]] and the User:JShark always reverts the article staying that way [2]. Please a i get a consensus where several administrators decide what is best--ILoveCaracas (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. If you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --JShark (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
JShark can you please explain your objections to the tourism section? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
First I wanted to say that I do not agree with adding too many images to the article. Scrolling nightmare for those viewing on mobile devices and images that mean nothing to the text. --JShark (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding too many images or using poor quality ones will detract from the message you are trying to deliver. Images are good but adding too many images can distract users. --JShark (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It is important to only add a few images to a page, as adding too many images may cause the reader to be confused. The best images that best describe the article should be used if possible. --JShark (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The images are important in the article, they show an example of some regions of the country, The tourism is based on the base of those regions or cities, and I do not see that they are too many as you say. There are many regions that I have not put images or intend to do. Many articles from countries in the wikipedia show the images in this way or placing considerable number of images of sites in its articles. (see for example Portugal, Thailand, China, Brazil.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You will feeling like your images are disorganized. --JShark (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You clearly got messed up when copying and pasting sometimes, so it looks like the images are disorganized. --JShark (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think to add the date of creation of the painting in the image of the British ships in the coasts of Cartagena, this text: "Painting of 1741" the proof of that, that this same user has constantly reverted, among other details, everything i made in the article he reverted me in the article of Colombia. I do not know if it's a way to sabotage.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Consensus. When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view. Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals; i.e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --JShark (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean with all that, we are not trying to reach a consensus? please, talk about why do you revert all always. --ILoveCaracas (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You have used the word sabotage. Many users like me want the articles to have up-to-date and reliable information, as well as quality images.--JShark (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Images are good but adding too many images can distract users and slower the website loading speed thus affecting the performance of the article. --JShark (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the concern about too many photos. Perhapas Ilovecaracas can propose them here one at a time. What about the Tourism section? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I now plan to add several sections of the article found in Spanish wikipedia as relief, hydrography, agriculture, languages and others, so I can also add those images, without placing multimage templates, if accepted in this discussion.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I also will give more information about what is being exposed, such as placing the date that he reverted me of the aforementioned painting--ILoveCaracas (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The section has many problems as for example to much or outdated information. You also have to check whether the sources are outdated. You should always evaluate their relevance and reliability. You will probably find more sources than you can use, and you should always evaluate their relevance and reliability. Many of the sources are outdated. The content has been written or edited by people who are definitely not credible experts, or there is no way to tell whether they're credible. That information was copied and pasted from another document or article. Poor quality information has direct, devastating consequences. Up-to-date information and reliable sources about tourism can already be found in the article about the Colombian economy.

- The contribution of Travel & Tourism to GDP was USD5,880.3bn (2.0% of total GDP) in 2016. Tourism generated 556,135 jobs (2.5% of total employment) in 2016.[1] Foreign tourist visits were predicted to have risen from 0.6 million in 2007 to 3.3 million in 2016.[2][3] - --JShark (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with adding information from the article about Colombia in Spanish because the sources are bad, many sections are poorly written and the information is poor and unreliable.--JShark (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article from the Spanish wikipedia is the most complete on the wikipedias about colombia, they also have good reliave sources. why do you say that the tourism section has outdated sources, a figures are of 2013 that have as source a study published in 2014. the sources are from the ministries of colombia or the presidency and other very important sources, do you want more?, I insist in my opinion your goal is not to help, but to do everything possible to make the article as you want, without the possibility of an improvement, not to say that the intention is a mere trolley.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My sources are better than the other user's. My sources are updated and reliable.

1. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017 - World Economic Forum. 2. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2017 Edition --JShark (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to add information, I seems good, but not delete the previous or everything I add and less a complete section that explains everything, not just some figures.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I repeat again. The section has many problems as for example to much or outdated information. You also have to check whether the sources are outdated. You should always evaluate their relevance and reliability. You will probably find more sources than you can use, and you should always evaluate their relevance and reliability. Many of the sources are outdated. The content has been written or edited by people who are definitely not credible experts, or there is no way to tell whether they're credible. That information was copied and pasted from another document or article. Poor quality information has direct, devastating consequences. Up-to-date information and reliable sources about tourism can already be found in the article about the Colombian economy.--JShark (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe you. The Wikipedia article in Spanish is terrible, badly written and with outdated sources. In fact, the article in English has more updated information, more reliable sources and a greater number of sources than the article in Spanish. --JShark (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are hardly underestimating other wikipedia, do you think that there are no many administrators and people who are responsible for reviewing important articles like these in Spanish wikipedia, you do not know that many of the English wikipedia-administrators and fully editors also work in Spanish wikipedia or a lot are native Spanish-speakers, you are saying the worst to another wikipedia which works in the same way it is, and that an administrator should not allow it.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

All I said was that the article in Spanish about Colombia has many shortcomings while the article in English about Colombia is better because the article has more updated information, the article has more updated sources and the article in English about Colombia has more sources.--JShark (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article in English does not have many sections that would increase the quality of the article, which I will add from the Spanish wikipedia, then if do you want to include better sources and if they are actually better you change the figures, but not the rest of the information that talks about necessary things, such as the best natural and historical sites to do tourism, the best festivals, etc, that also is the same for all the other sections that I hope to include.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


Adding too much information is not good either because it affects the size of the article. Too much information may contain irrelevant content and excessive details. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --JShark (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
When seeing a section or subsection within an article, editors often try to expand them, especially if such sections or subsections are short. However, there are times when people add one or more of the following to such articles:
  • Excessive detail
  • Irrelevant content that is better placed in a different article
  • Trivial content

Before inserting the new material, one should consider the significance of his/her additions. Is it something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed. Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject. --JShark (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Have do yo read something? why do they are excessive details, sorry but the truth I am losing too much of my time debating an absurd thing, you not debates the only thing you do is to take it contrary, nor do you yourself think you are right in what you say.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[4] When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please use Wikipedia:Verifiability. --JShark (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat everything I've said again, I'm going to wait for someone to give a verdict--ILoveCaracas (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My information is concise, updated and reliable. My information also has reliable and updated sources. --JShark (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

1. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017 - World Economic Forum. 2. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2017 Edition

Instead, your information has outdated sources for the year 2017 and the year 2018. Your sources are damaged. And in several parts you added information without any source.--JShark (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Richard3120

ILoveCaracas, I share some of JShark's concerns. Regarding the pictures, it's true that too many pictures overwhelms the text. Looking at some other articles for countries at GA or FA status, most of them have around 30 pictures in total – the Colombia article already has over 40. The United States article is twice as long as the Colombia article, but it still only has about 40 pictures as well. The other issue is that the pictures you were adding were mostly "tourist"-style pictures – I think that *if* the article needed more pictures (and I am not saying it definitely does), then it is not more pictures of pretty landscapes and buildings, but a more diverse selection. Looking through the article, I think perhaps it would be better served by maybe pictures of coffee or emeralds in the Economy section (as they are Colombia's best known legal exports), a footballer in the Sports section (Carlos Valderrama or Radamel Falcao are the most obvious possibilities), or Shakira or a folkloric dance in traditional costume in the Music section. I also notice that most country articles include a picture of the head of state in the Politics section, so I would consider adding a photo of Juan Manuel Santos (or whoever becomes president after the elections in May).

Regarding your proposed expansion of hydrography, agriculture, etc., I don't think this is necessary in this particular article, and would be better in the articles that have already been split off. For example, in the Spanish version of this Colombia article, the agriculture section contains too much irrelevant detail... it mentions things like the farmers belonging to the Sociedad de Agricultores de Colombia, or the geographical limits of the coffee region, or the countries where Colombian coffee is a registered trademark... none of this information is important for the general overview of the country that this article provides, and is better included in Agriculture in Colombia. I think you could include one line that says something like "Colombia's main agricultural exports are coffee, bananas and flowers" (with a source, of course). Similarly, for the hydrography, a general overview doesn't need a long list of rivers and statistics about them, like the Spanish version has – I think all that needs to be said is that the two principal rivers, the Magdalena and Cauca, originate in the south of the country and flow northwards, splitting the Andes into three cordilleras, and that there are four main drainage areas (which is already mentioned in the article). Any more detail can be included in Geography of Colombia#Hydrography. On a technical note, Wikipedia suggests that articles larger than 200 kB should be split off into smaller articles – the English article for Colombia is already 216 kB, and the Spanish version is even larger, at over 250 kB. So really, we should be expanding the Agriculture in Colombia and Geography of Colombia#Hydrography articles anyway, instead of making this one larger.

JShark, I know it is already included in the Climate of Colombia article, but a Köppen climate map of the country might be useful in the Climate section of this article, considering the climatic extremes found in Colombia, and the fact it is one of the wettest countries in the world? Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I also change my way of thinking how to improve the articles with what you say me. I will not add anything to this article. You can lift the protection to the article. Only thing i will do in this page--ILoveCaracas (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

the only thing I will do in this page is to put the dates to the paintings, which is to give a correct addition--ILoveCaracas (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017" (PDF). World Economic Forum. p. 130.
  2. ^ "UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2017 Edition". unwto.org.
  3. ^ "La OMT destaca crecimiento del turismo en Colombia en los últimos diez años" (in Spanish). lainformacion.com. 25 June 2014.
  4. ^ This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.

Temporarily protected

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please update Gini indicator for Colombia. A new report has been released by DANE and now it stands at 50.8: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/condiciones_vida/pobreza/bol_pobreza_17.pdf

  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colombia/Archive_3&oldid=881494831"