Jump to content

Talk:Colombia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeColombia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2004, July 20, 2005, July 20, 2006, July 20, 2007, July 20, 2008, July 20, 2009, July 20, 2010, July 20, 2011, July 20, 2012, July 20, 2014, July 20, 2015, July 20, 2016, July 20, 2017, and July 20, 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023[edit]

Request the two mentions of Air Force be changed to Aerospace Force to reflect the new name of the Colombian Aerospace Force. Page has already been moved. 75.163.131.46 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizo-White[edit]

The "Mestizo-White" label wouldnt be acuratte as the govenrment does not specify the number as being mestizo white, and it doesnt include minority groups such as mulatto or east asian. It would be best to keep it as "no ethnic affiliation" as its presented in other pages relating to this topic. This is also because the colombian government doesn't collect data on specifically mestizos or whites instead counting afro and indigenous colombians. Moxy. Zaquezipe (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this was done all over https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/colombia/ Moxy- 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe change it to "Mestizo and White" ? Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we should follow the source https://cers.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/2016/04/Multicultural-harmony-in-Colombia-Beth-Brady.pdf Moxy- 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://geoportal.dane.gov.co/servicios/atlas-estadistico/src/Tomo_I_Demografico/3.4.-poblaci%C3%B3n-por-grupos-%C3%A9tnicos.html is how tha government labels the ethnic groups Zaquezipe (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that as this does not define who , 85.9% are (outside of "no ethnicity") this is not much help. This does not support your edit of white, rather it would support "no identified ethnicity", but even then, this is one source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can I make the change of changing "Human ethnicity and biological diversity" to "Race and ethnicity in Colombia", as that is the name of the article and the previous one is an unnecessary rewording. Zaquezipe (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do to have a section titled that. If you want to change the name of a page you need to make a case at that article, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024[edit]

Request to add Mass media in Colombia under Colombia #Culture. 203.149.142.34 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: what are we supposed to do with the article's title? M.Bitton (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Already linked under Colombia#Popular culture.
— Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024[edit]

Recommend adding "." to caption after "on the continent" for consistency. RCM741989 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement on economy[edit]

I'd edit this myself but the page is locked.

The economy section asserts that "Colombia is now one of only three economies with a perfect score on the strength of legal rights index". The World Bank source PDF it cites is no longer there, but looks to be out of date anyway (2017).

According to my own research at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.LGL.CRED.XQ?most_recent_value_desc=true&locations=CO , Colombia has never had a perfect score. It peaked at 11 out of 12.

There are (and have been) countries that do have a perfect score, for example New Zealand. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.LGL.CRED.XQ?most_recent_value_desc=true&locations=NZ Onetruedave (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Ethnic groups[edit]

User: @ElMexicanotres has been reverting for several editions without any reason, deleting information from important portals such as CIA and Public Library of Science trying to preserve obsolete genetic information from the 90s and 2000s compared to years like 2014, 2016 and 2018. Please do a review and a response soon. @citationbot @Maxeto0910. Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am deleting all of the genetic information because it is not needed you provided proof that there is conflicting evidence between them so it’s best not to add it here and to a different Wikipedia page and I am saying you add it to Race and ethnicity in Colombia where it does show ethnographic studies ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that there cannot be genetic sources when there was an old source from 2010 there for a long time, but you do not eliminate it, you eliminate the sources of important portals such as PLOS of 2016 and 2018. Then you say that the sampled population is small, so I put one of more than 1,600 Colombians and even then you say that it should not go there. Can you explain me? Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I checked the name of the section and it has to do with number of ethnic groups nothing to do with the genetic studies of a country and because there are so many conflicting sources to the genetic information it’s best not to add it and maybe to place it somewhere else where both of the information can be seen, the one from 2010 and the one from 2018. ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are changing the situation in your favor, when the first thing you removed was in favor of a genetic study from 2010 with data from 2000, 2003 and 2007. That is why I told you: it is vandalism because there was a genetic source that It was maintained for a long time (even with a circular diagram). I know that all the sources of genetic studies are on the main page, but then do not play to your convenience, if from the beginning you disagreed with genetic information you should delete and explain the situation. Jhoan Batipse (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is because there are two conflicting sources with almost equal amount of people, if you really want to add it so bad then stop insisting on having it on the main page but instead on the Race and ethnicity in Colombia page which I have shown you multiple times yet you continue to ignore it and keep reverting the deletion. ElMexicanotres (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I examined each of the sources. The 2018 one states “Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Latin American Population Isolates” and uses columbians from solely one state being antioquia which for obvious reasons isn’t suitable for showing as representative of an entire nation because it’s showing genetic isolates, not the common citizen of columbia. The 2015 one uses very isolated native groups for calculating native dna and not ones most present in columbia which explains why it’s not so accurate for the country, because columbians have little in common with the isolated groups which is why it’s not suitable for using. The 2014 one has purple dots over mostly antioquia (seems to be the most European state from Colombia which fits the 2010 observation of antioquia being 70% white) which also makes it not representative of the country because it focuses on one state. The 2010 one is better because it includes the specific states and their ancestries rather than focusing on a specific state, it has more people than all of the other ones, and it uses the most common native groups for their areas, and it examines all columbian ethnic groups and citizens of urban areas of the country. ElMexicanotres (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand exactly what the conflict here is, but I think both of you may be in danger of being blocked per WP:3RR, and to avoid that, you need to keep discussion about the content here in Talk. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a dispute over the quality of studies about genetic ancestry in Colombia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of sources:
  • Older source, preferred by ElMexicanotres (talk · contribs):
    • Rojas, Winston; Parra, María Victoria; Campo, Omer; Caro, María Antonieta; Lopera, Juan Guillermo; Arias, William; Duque, Constanza; Naranjo, Andrés; García, Jharley; Vergara, Candelaria; Lopera, Jaime; Hernandez, Erick; Valencia, Ana; Caicedo, Yuri; Cuartas, Mauricio; Gutiérrez, Javier; López, Sergio; Ruiz-Linares, Andrés; Bedoya, Gabriel (September 2010). "Genetic make up and structure of Colombian populations by means of uniparental and biparental DNA markers". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 143 (1): 13–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21270. PMID 20734436. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  • Sources preferred by Jhoan Baptise (talk · contribs):
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the page is extended-confirmed protected, I have no choice but to start an RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Genetic ancestry of Colombians[edit]

There are two questions.

  1. Should information about genetic studies in Colombia be included in this article, or only in Race and ethnicity in Colombia?
  2. Which studies should be used for this information (in both articles)?

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 source should be used 100%, I will list reasons why
  • The 2014, 2015, and 2018 sources all have less sample size than the 2010 one
  • 2014 and 2018 sources focus mostly on antioquia and not all of columbia, the 2018 one shows the genetics of population isolates from antioquia which it literally shows in the title and is not representative of the country, the 2014 one mostly conducts on people from antioquia and surrounding regions and not the entire country as shown by the purple dot concentration mostly being around antioquia which supported by the 2010 source is the most European state there
  • The 2015 one uses isolated native groups that aren’t even similar to the native groups that colombians are closest to and being that colombians have little in common with these groups the ancestry for the native contribution shows as lower than usual
  • The 2010 study shows the contribution of most of the populated states and urban columbians from those states and it has the most sample size with around 2000 it takes the genetic ancestry of the most common native groups in columbia which are more similar to the general population it has a specific breakdown of each state which has antioquia has the most white genetics and the amazon has the least
  • The 2014 2015 and 2015 sources don’t specifically focus on columbia but Latin America as a whole and focus in on a specific region or city with smaller samples, they focus more on having a general overview of Latin America but aren’t specific sources for the genetics of colombians
  • This one the 2010 one has been used previously and focuses on specifically columbia and the individual states while also doing research on the most common ancestry groups for colombians it is specifically trying to get the average genetics for colombians which the other three don’t and rather are trying to get a general overview of latin america
ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And because of these things only the 2010 one should be used for the specific genetics of Colombia because it is specific to the country ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that includes both Colombia and Race and ethnicity in Colombia ElMexicanotres (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rojas et al. should be included - All could be used for small details but Rojas et al. is best for generalizations about the entire country. XeCyranium (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010, only, on both.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No an overview article about a country isn't the place for genetic studies.... As seen by every other country article.Moxy🍁 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be helpful to include if there is general agreement among the studies on certain positions. Senorangel (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not here, but maybe race and ethnicity. I don't think genetic studies make much sense in this Colombia article. The Race and ethnicity article make more sense for genetics, but I would caution that genetically race and ethnicity do not exist. Racism would be validated on genetic grounds if such was actually the case. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colombia&oldid=1229170828"