Talk:Colombia Voyage Tips and guide

I undid a few changes made to this article recently, because I think they degraded its style a bit. In particular, I think the previous lede text is appropriate in the lede, not the understand section (and vice versa), as the lede is the proper place for "rhetorical flourish" and is meant to be a hook. I also reverted the changes to the climate section per Wikivoyage:Tone.

A couple of my edits were then undone with the edit summary "corrected information": [1] and [2]. Neither edit had anything to do with correcting information—they were style edits, and I think both of these edits actually degrade the writing style: there is some awkwardness in flow and in language (possibly written by a non-native English speaker, guessing from grammatical errors).

Please discuss before any further reverts, per Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias. --Peter ^Talk 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure whether the current version includes any of the degrading passages, but it reads a lot like a promotional tourism brochure, and that makes me uncomfortable. What's your opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I also don't like the questions ("Culture?", etc.). I think we should strive for clear presentation, not advertisements. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That user doesn't seem to be interested in honest discussion, judging by recent comments.

Despite the hostile tone they've taken in recent edit messages, I really only see two fairly minor changes: (1) adding one grammatically incorrect sentence fragment to the History section, which doesn't make sense for the location it's placed, and (2) adding the piece of fluff (also grammatically incorrect) to the end of the lede that both of the above posters have expressed problems with. I'd agree, since it seems implausible to claim that a major country is "one of Latin America's best kept secrets". (Indeed, some earlier edits appear much more significant, and have so far remained unchanged.) I still invite that editor to join the discussion here, and perhaps agree on a more widely agreeable text! -- D. Guillaume (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are significant changes, and on WP they would be challenged more strongly but I think we can assume both good faith and that he does have accurate and up-to-date local knowledge - so perhaps we can let it pass - he did shorten the history section. It's a real pity that current policy dictates that we can't just link to the WP History section. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 03:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

For many years serious internal armed conflict deterred tourists from visiting Colombia, but thanks to improvements in security the tourists have been progressively increasing in Colombia. For this reason Colombia is an Latin America's best kept secret.

"A country twice the size of France, and with a diversity of landscapes and cultures that would be hard to find even in countries five times its size", This information is completely true because Colombia is one of the world's 17 megadiverse countries, and is considered the most megadiverse per square kilometer.[[3]][[4]][[5]] Colombia is one of the megadiverse countries in biodiversity,[[6]] ranking third in living species and first in bird species.[[7]] [[8]] As for plants, the country has between 40,000 and 45,000 plant species, equivalent to 10 or 20% of total global species, considered very high for a country of intermediate size.[[9]] In total, Colombia is the second most biodiverse country in the world, after Brazil.

Colombia also has about 2,000 species of marine fish and 1,435 species of freshwater fish. Colombia is the country with more endemic species of butterflies: 3,272 species and more than 250,000 varieties of beetles. First in amphibian species, with 30% of the species of turtles and 25% of the species of crocodiles. There are 34 species of primates, 270 species of snakes and according to estimates there are about 300,000 species of invertebrates in the country. In Colombia there are 32 terrestrial biomes and 314 types of ecosystems.[[10]] [[11]] --Theryx7 (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The facts that you've cited (Colombia has the third most species of any country and the most bird species) would make interesting material for this article as they are informative and would help a traveler who is trying to decide whether to visit Colombia. However, "A country twice the size of France, and with a diversity of landscapes and cultures that would be hard to find even in countries five times its size" is less useful and is likely to be removed since it sounds like marketing (per Wikivoyage:Tone). We want interesting writing, but it also has to be informative and give a reader useful information for travel planning. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, as D. Guillaume noted, phrases like "best kept secret" should be avoided as they sound like marketing, and a general rule of thumb is that any place that is described as a "best kept secret" isn't one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The history section is correct as it was before. You are skewing information. --Theryx7 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No-one is motivated to put up incorrect information. Please be specific about what is inaccurate in the history section that you seek to correct. Thanks for documenting the biodiversity of Colombia, which was never really an issue, though: The issue, to me, is the tone of the article. Anything that is true and useful information for visitors should be included. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what that copy-and-paste from the Wikipedia article has to do with any of the concerns raised. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@D. Guillaume Obviously I wanted to share the information.

I just want to help improve this article, but you are not helping me at all, you should not be bad with me. XD --Theryx7 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Despite being a formal people, Colombians tend to speak their minds and opinions quite freely. However, asking Colombians questions about certain topics (i.e. questions that may be seen as judgmental of religion, class, or economic status) may be considered a private or only-for-close-friends matter.

Like many other Americans, Colombians dislike arguing. So if you get involved in an argument with a Colombian person, it is likely that most Colombians will try to diffuse the situation and avoid prolonging the discussion, so while discussing certain issues, keep yourself cool and express yourself with calm and reason. Colombians admire people with such natures.

It is important for people to know how you should express yourself by talking to the people of Colombia and in addition it is also important that tourists recognize that guerrilla movements are not supported by the people of Colombia. --Theryx7 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

In a previous revert a pointer was provided to the relevant policy page - Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious. "People don't like to get in arguments" and "don't discuss sensitive topics" is advice that is true for any country and thus should not be included in this article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

But this is not obvious. In Colombia there are tourists who make these mistakes and end up suffering the consequences of failure to follow these tips. The Colombian culture is very different. I assure you that these are not advice from Captain obvious. Trust me. --Theryx7 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The history of the country in the years to come following independence was marked by several civil wars. The legacy of these conflicts, together with troublesome social issues, early state repression against rural communities and peasants and world polarisation caused by the Cold War culminated in a communist insurgent campaign by the FARC and the ELN to overthrow the Colombian Government. Although the movement lacks the military strength or popular support necessary to overthrow the government. The years during the conflict were marked by heavy fighting between the communist guerrillas, the Colombian state and military, right-wing paramilitaries and several drug cartels gave the country a terrible reputation.

But the history section is important, there are countries where guerrilla groups are supported, the Colombian case is different because in Colombia the population hates the guerrillas, they are considered as terrorist groups. --Theryx7 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Theryx, your interactions here are a bit aggressive and chaotic, and I am having trouble understanding your aims. My edits to the history section which you wrote (and thank you for working on that) were largely copyediting to correct grammar and some style issues, and to use paragraphs to make it more readable. I hardly changed any of the substance of what you wrote. Why would you undo that with the explanation "correcting information?" --Peter ^Talk 06:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

My only intention is the improve the article about Colombia, for example in reality it is extremely difficult to see guerrillas in Colombia, they live in faraway places. I believe that this travel guide should be much improved since security issues are often exaggerated. And I was very angry because administrators began writing nonsense on my discussion page. Some Admins must improve their ability to talk and thus avoid hatred towards them.

Administrators must demonstrate that you are people with experience on wikivoyage. --Theryx7 (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Theryx7: Your aggressive tone is not helping your case. I stayed so far out of this discussion but your tone is far away from being acceptable. Say precise what was not ok with Peter's changes and don't blame others. Maybe i suggest you take a breath of fresh air and return to the computer in 30 minutes or so? jan (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The conversation is already over and I hope that the administrators do not write nonsense on my discussion page as "I assume you are also " or "I want to warn you that edit warring, which wastes the time of other volunteer editors, is not tolerated on this site ". Administrators should only bother users who have problems with them. --Theryx7 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

From the above thread, it seems that people have a bunch of problems with the lede I wrote ;) I don't have any stake in promoting the country as a tourist destination—if anything I guess I'd have a stake in hiding it from others to keep the tourist industry from getting overdeveloped. Personally, I think the tone is the right one to strike for a destination that has a ton of great reasons to visit, but is not widely viewed as a tourist destination at all (because of its terrible, but increasingly outdated reputation). A reader kind of needs to be convinced that there's a point to reading further. I used the question words as a way to unify the section, while hitting on the various things we cover. Basically serving as a little mini intro to the understand, do, see, drink, etc. sections below.

I get excited about travel, and want to sing about what great stuff is out there. Is that really the wrong tone? --Peter ^Talk 05:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Funny enough, I just checked LP to see how they run the intro to the country, and they even use the Q&A style themselves! --Peter ^Talk 06:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Overall the lede is solid, but it definitely strays a bit too far into promotion for me - taking out or re-writing flowery phrases like "It really doesn't get better", "Colombians know a thing about how to eat right", "There's nowhere more laid back an peaceful" or even "Colombia belongs in the upper echelons of the world's most incredible travel destinations" would (IHMO) vastly improve things without taking away from the tone, and would make it an example that could be emulated in other articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, concrete suggestions, love it! I've made some changes in response to your critique. --Peter ^Talk 06:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Much improved - thanks, Peter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

But unlike other countries Colombia and Colombians have suffered an exaggerated discrimination by just being born in that country.

Colombia is a country that is made up mostly of wonderful and friendly people.

And Colombia is really a great place to live, now I understand why different groups of foreigners live happily in that country. --Theryx7 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Colombia is not the only part of the world that has an outdated reputation as dangerous. The Bronx does, too. Yet it's dealt with only in Bronx#Stay safe. Part of the job we volunteers assign ourselves on this site is to contradict outdated notions about places, but it is not our job to bend over backwards to promote one country over others to countervail an unwarranted bad reputation - that goes too far toward touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:Don't tout is about pushing businesses (and is directly aimed at interested parties), not at travelers singing the praises of cool destinations. I don't think anything in the lede is exaggerated or misleading. And if anywhere is the place to aim to generate excitement about a destination, it's the lede. More detail and nuance follow, but as with the pagebanner, the goal should be a hook. I could have written a lede focusing on the security situation in Caquetá, or dangerous traffic on mountain roads, but that is the stuff that belongs in "stay safe."

The lede to the Bronx is The Bronx is one of the five boroughs of New York. That is IMO acceptable only as a placeholder for an outline article, not as a representative of serious travel writing. We are routinely dismissed as a dry Wikipedia clone with boring writing in the press, citing examples like that, or the first paragraph to Thailand, and comparing them to travel guides authored by professional travel writers. Check out LP's Thailand intro (click "read more") for an stark contrast.

If you look at other star-quality guides (Washington, D.C. is a pretty good example, I think), the lede is always the place to talk up the destination, and make a case for why people should visit. If they shouldn't visit, then this sort of lede may be more appropriate: Gordon Sharpless notes that "Poipet more or less rhymes with toilet" and this caustic observation is, sadly, true. Poipet is a miserable huddle of touts, beggars, thieves and dodgy casinos for daytripping Thais, and spending any more time than absolutely necessary is not recommended. --Peter ^Talk 19:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Peter, I think the simple step of changing the question marks ("Culture?") to colons ("Culture:") would make the intro seem more explanatory and less tourism agency brochure-style. What's your feeling about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with doing that, but I still think it's worth looking at whether my style of writing is typical of tourism brochures or of travel guides. This is what LP uses:

Modern cities with skyscrapers and nightclubs? Check. Gorgeous Caribbean beaches? Check. Jungle walks and Amazon safaris? Check. Colonial cities, archaeological ruins, high-mountain trekking, whalewatching, coffee plantations, scuba diving, surfing, the list goes on.

No wonder the ‘magic realism’ style of Colombian author Gabriel García Márquez emerged from here – there is a dreamlike quality to Colombia. Here at the equator, with the sun forever overhead, the fecund earth beneath your feet, heart-stopping vistas in every direction and the warmth of the locals putting you at ease – you may find it difficult to leave.

I'm not saying we should ape LP, but this example even has the same question format! (By the way, I had not looked at that before writing the lede.) --Peter ^Talk 19:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess we may want to have a good, more general discussion about style, perhaps in the Travellers' Pub, because I can't think of another place to have it. I find the lede in Washington, D.C. excellent because it is both straightforward and specific. I wasn't sure how to read Lonely Planet's introduction to Thailand ("read more," "read," and "more" produced no results), but they do have their own style. I haven't used their guides for years, but they were always known as opinionated, sometimes to a fault, and directed toward backpackers and down-budget accommodations; I have no idea whether they've changed from that orientation in the intervening years. In any case, I'm unconvinced that seeming sober on this site is a bad thing, but it's definitely worth discussing. I think we should have a thread on examples of lively writing that we consider good vs. purple prose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout. --Peter ^Talk 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Wikivoyage talk:Tone may be a better fit, since Wikivoyage talk:Tone#General ramble and a few questions already broached this issue, back in 2006, whereas discussion in Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout has all dealt with touting of businesses, from what I see. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ack, that's what I meant to type ;) --Peter ^Talk 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Here's the thread: Wikivoyage talk:Tone#Lively writing vs. purple prose. I look forward to everyone's participation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

[unindent] Peter, I like your solution: "For culture," etc. It's a similar rhetorical device to the original questions, but it feels more narrative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't like the line breaks used. It's too much of a news report style and I think it doesn't read nicely. Globe-trotter (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to cut down on the pretty unwieldy stay safe and respect sections. W. Frank restored one of my deletions:

Cocaine manufactured in Colombia was historically mostly consumed in the US and the United States of America is still the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs. However, with US consumption on the decline, more and more of it is going to the EU instead.

I don't see how this is relevant at all to staying safe in Colombia, or to travel more generally. Would others support this bit's re-removal? --Peter ^Talk 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I'll remove it. Sorry to cause you extra work! --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 01:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

Santa Marta — one of the most touristic cities in Colombia

Is that good or bad? I tend to read it as being the same as "most touristy" and wanting to avoid the place, but I suspect the intended meaning is different. I'd suggest eliminating "touristic" from this article and using clearer words. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's the right word, because it's the deliberately neutral variant of the pejorative word touristy. The Spanish turístico has the same neutral meaning, which is maybe why I don't find the word strange. With regards to Colombia I think it is a way of stating that there are reasons for tourists to go there, and there is tourist infrastructure. As opposed to places that are either not touristy or just not prepared/accustomed to host tourists. This is unlike in the U.S., for example, where any place that is of any potential tourist value has tourist infrastructure. Anyway, Santa Marta is the place with the most built up tourist infrastructure, and is geared more to tourism than any other city, but is a legitimate destination for stuff to see and do, good places to eat, sleep, hang out, etc.—not a trap (Colombia doesn't really have those yet). Do you have a better idea? --Peter ^Talk 03:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

My experience in France and Italy is that the words touristique/turistico mean "Appealing to tourists," or at least that was the sense I got. I'm aware that the word "touristic" has been used in the English language since the mid 19th century, but only because dictionary.com says so(see here). It is not a word in my vocabulary, and I think it will be incorrectly or unclearly understood by some fair-sized percentage of native English speakers. If you'd like to keep things brief, "touristed" is possible (though it means "visited by throngs of tourists," per dictionary.com), but I think "appealing to tourists" might get across more of the meaning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, in this instance, I'd simply eliminate the phrase, with the following result:

• Santa Marta — a popular base for adventure tourism in the beautiful areas surrounding, and unique in the sense that it offers you beautiful beaches one day, and the next one a walk to the foothill of a snowy mountain, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, the highest in the country.

What's missing that the phrase "one of the most touristic cities in Colombia" clearly explains? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That works ;) --Peter ^Talk 04:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

While the Portuguese were directly involved in trading enslaved peoples, the Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. During the first Atlantic system most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly during the era. Dutch, English, and French traders also participated in the slave trade P. C. Emmer, The Dutch in the Atlantic Economy, 1580–1880. Trade, Slavery and Emancipation (1998), p. 17.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Asiento was the permission given by the Spanish government to other countries to sell people as slaves to the Spanish colonies, between the years 1543 and 1834.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In British history, it usually refers to the contract between Spain and Great Britain created in 1713 that dealt with the supply of African slaves for the Spanish territories in the Americas. The British government passed its rights to the South Sea Company.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The slave trade was complex, but frankly many European countries were involved and Spain was no exception. Using legal terminologies to suggest otherwise is very unfortunate. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a huge difference between direct participation in the slave trade and the asiento system. Believe me. I am a man who has recently earned a PhD in British and Spanish history. Also I have a PhD in Latin American history.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the 1650s Spain sought to enter the slave trade directly, sending ships to Angola to purchase slaves and toying with the idea of a military alliance with Kongo, the powerful African kingdom north of Angola. But these ideas were abandoned and the Spanish returned to Portuguese and then Dutch interests to supply slaves. Later in history, Britain and Holland dominated the slave trade. The slaves were sent mostly to the New World colonies.--181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Treaty of Utrecht granted Britain an Asiento lasting 30 years to supply the Spanish colonies with 4,800 slaves per year. Britain was permitted to open offices in Buenos Aires, Caracas, Cartagena, Havana, Panama, Portobello and Vera Cruz to arrange the slave trade. --181.137.12.115 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, please sign all your contributions on talk pages by typing the "tilde" (~ this symbol) four times in a rwo (like this: ~~~~) secondly, surely we can find some compromise wording all sides can live with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

By July the South Sea Company had arranged contracts with the Royal African Company to supply the necessary African slaves to Jamaica. £10 was paid for a slave aged over 16, £8 for one under 16 but over 10. Two-thirds were to be male, and 90% adult. The company trans-shipped 1,230 slaves from Jamaica to America in the first year, plus any that might have been added (against standing instructions) by the ship's captains on their own behalf. On arrival of the first cargoes, the local authorities refused to accept the Asiento, which had still not been officially confirmed there by the Spanish authorities. The slaves were eventually sold at a loss in the West Indies.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In 1714 the government announced that a quarter of profits would be reserved for the Queen and a further 7.5% for a financial advisor, Manasseh Gilligan. Some Company board members refused to accept the contract on these terms, and the government was obliged to reverse its decision.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Despite these setbacks, the company continued, having raised £200,000 to finance the operations. In 1714 2,680 slaves were carried, and for 1716–17, 13,000 more, but the trade continued to be unprofitable. An import duty of 33 pieces of eight was charged on each slave (although for this purpose some slaves might be counted only as a fraction of a slave, depending on quality). One of the extra trade ships was sent to Cartagena in 1714 carrying woollen goods, despite warnings that there was no market for them there, and they remained unsold for two years.--181.137.12.115 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Spanish empire didn't engage in the slave trade directly. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies.--181.137.12.115 00:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The British slave trade was carefully regulated from its early days. Even the first efforts of privateers – notably Sir John Hawkins– were subject to royal approval. In the 18th century, royal backing (it was, after all, the Royal African Company) gave way to full-blown parliamentary support. Indeed Parliament spent as much time discussing (and legislating for) the expansion and regulation of the slave trade as it was to spend on abolition a century later, passing dozens of Acts to fine-tune the trade.--181.137.12.115 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Similarly, slavery in the colonies was regulated by colonial laws approved in London. --181.137.12.115 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The English, for example, established a joint-stock enterprise, the Royal African Company, but this monopoly failed to provide planters with what they wanted and simply gave way under the growing colonial demand for more forced African labour. When a freer British slave trade was finally established – after protracted political and commercial argument – it ushered in an era of massive expansion. Enslaved Africans crossed the Atlantic in huge and increasing numbers. By the peak years of the 18th century, the British were shipping 40,000 people a year. Meanwhile the Spanish empire didn't engage in the slave trade directly. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. --181.137.12.115 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The initially dominant Portuguese were replaced by the Dutch in the late 16th century. They, in their turn were usurped by the British and French from the 17th century. These two struggled for supremacy in the 18th century, not merely in the Atlantic but all over the world, from India to North America and the Caribbean. Although Britain – and especially Liverpool – dominated the slave trade by mid-century, the ports of Nantes and Bordeaux and, above all, the expansive colony of St Domingue – what would become Haiti – threatened to push the British aside. That threat ended with the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, the Haitian slave revolution of 1791 and the subsequent collapse of French power in the enslaved Caribbean. Meanwhile the Spanish empire didn't engage in the slave trade directly. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. --181.137.12.115 01:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) All of this information is quite incidental to the traveller visiting Colombia today, so I'm confused as to why the IP user is so fervently insisting on the tone of this oddly specific background information. Frankly, this smells like a political agenda being pushed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Especially given the spamming of other users' talk pages. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower (talk) - I'm not doing anything bad. I am just placing the correct historical information. It is sad that there are people like you who mistreats the good editors that contribute to improve the historical information.--181.137.12.115 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're not doing yourself any favors with that kind of petulance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower (talk) You're being rude with good people. I'm not smug, I'm just a historian who wants to improve the information. --181.137.12.115 01:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

- AndreCarrotflower (talk I do not spam. I put that information in the pages of those editors because they are those who asked me for information about my edits. --181.137.12.115 01:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower (talk) - A historian is a person who researches, studies, and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it. Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time. If the individual is concerned with events preceding written history, the individual is a historian of prehistory. Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline. Some historians, though, are recognized by publications or training and experience. "Historian" became a professional occupation in the late nineteenth century as research universities were emerging in Germany and elsewhere.--181.137.12.115 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:181.137.12.115 , I really don't want to get into an argument around the nature of the slave trade. Spain was involved in the slave trade. Period.

The specifics around how they conducted the trade is beyond the scope of Wikivoyage, and frankly rather insulting to those who suffered terribly under it. Nobody here is suggesting that Spain was worse or better than the other countries involved in the slave trade.

Please take a look at the Wikipedia article. w:Slavery_in_the_Spanish_New_World_colonies . You might regard it simplistic to say the Spain was involved in the slave trade, but it doesn't actually change the fact that Spain was involved heavily in the transatlantic slave trade. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2. The word "directly" says it all about the slave trade in the Spanish colonies. It is sad that travel guides do not accept the help of professional historians for not making mistakes as terrible as those written in this article.

Andrewssi2.The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. If you want I can only write this sentence and avoid you want to fight me. --181.137.12.115 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2 I'll just write this phrase that says nothing that non-historians can understand easily. The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. --181.137.12.115 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter if you are a plumber, car salesman or 'professional historian'. It really makes no difference. I also know that professional historians often disagree between themselves.

The problem you seem to have is with the sentence : "The Spanish Empire brought European settlers and African slaves," - what is factually incorrect with that statement? Then we can start rewriting if required. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The people who brought Africans to the Spanish colonies were merchants (mostly from other countries). . The Spanish Empire brought European settlers and African slaves. The previous sentence is wrong and distorts history. --181.137.12.115 01:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. The previous sentence is correct. --181.137.12.115 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2

Andrewssi2 The Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved Africans to their colonies. It is necessary to include this sentence to improve the historical information. --181.137.12.115 02:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your premise. Just because the Spanish state did control every single step of the slave trade does not in anyway mean that they are not responsible for it.

I can still represent your sentence as "The Spanish empire brought slaves to their colonies largely using the 'asiento' system, licensing merchants from many slave trading nations to transport slaves.", Claro? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2 I agree just a little with what you say but I will always be in disagreement with you on many things you are saying.--181.137.12.115 02:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just confused as to why the IP editor insists on these fine distinctions being made in a travel guide of all places. This is all incidental information as far as the traveller is concerned. If this site were called Wikihistory, maybe this would be important, but it's not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower History is always important to write it seriously even in travel guides. Travel guides usually teach tourists an incomplete history.--181.137.12.115 02:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I request that you retire the phrase which reads as follows "The Spanish Empire brought European settlers and African slaves". The Spanish Empire did not establish the Europeans in their colonies. Europeans pay lots of money to travel to the Spanish colonies, but the Spanish Empire was not directly involved in establishing Europeans or Africans in its colonies. The Spanish Empire usually only was interested in selling the lands to those who wanted to pay them. --181.137.12.115 02:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK... so who did put those Africans there? I assume the slaves didn't pay for the privilege. Wikipedia states "The Spanish used enslaved Africans as workers to develop their agriculture and settlements" Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2 The Spaniards were not the only Europeans in the colonies of Spain. Not all Spaniards who lived on the American continent enslaved Africans. Many Spaniards in the new world were peasants without too much money and not aspired to have slaves. --181.137.12.115 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many Jews and people of other Nations also traveled to the Spanish colonies. --181.137.12.115 02:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

There were other europeans in the Spanish colonies, and some of them may have used slaves, but you appear to be denying that Spain and her citizens used slaves or were responsible for slavery in their own colonies. Misdirecting blame to non-Spanish immigrants is revisionism. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll go further and describe it as an intentional misdirection of historical information to serve an agenda of national chauvinism. There's no place for that on what is supposed to be a politically neutral travel guide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2 I am using the correct historical information, but the phrase is also saying that all Spaniards were slaveholders, and that is not true. There were also Spanish and Europeans who weren't slaveholders. That would be a true guide of travel with a neutral point of view. --181.137.12.115 05:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrewssi2 Also there were people who defended human rights and freedom of oppressed peoples. The Spanish priest Peter Claver is a clear example of European citizens who never enslaved people in the new world. --181.137.12.115 05:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Peter Claver was born in the Catalonian village of Verdú, most probably on 25 June 1580. His father, the mayor of Verdú, was Pedro Claver y Mingüella, and his mother was Ana Corberó y Claver. For four years he studied humanities at the University of Barcelona, then known as a studium generale. In Barcelona he became acquainted with the Society of Jesus. After being admitted into the Jesuits by Claudio Aquaviva, Claver went to Tarragona to complete his novitiate between 1602 and 1604. Next, he moved to the Jesuit college of Gerona, where he finished his studies in the humanities. During his novitiate, he kept a notebook in which he recorded his meditations, some of which would presage his future life. Already likening himself to a slave, he wrote: I must dedicate myself to the service of God until death, on the understanding that I am like a slave, wholly occupied in the service of his master and in the endeavor to please and content him in all and in every way with his whole soul, body, and mind.--181.137.12.115 05:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

From Spain, Claver was sent to Cartagena de Indias in New Granada, now modern-day Colombia. Arriving in 1611, he journeyed to Santa Fe de Bogotá to complete his theological studies. As the climate in Bogotá was not conducive to his health, Claver carried out his tertianship at Tunja. He was then sent back to Cartagena, where he was ordained a priest on March 19, 1616.--181.137.12.115 05:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In a career lasting about thirty-eight years, Claver never missed the arrival of a slave ship. Extremely eager to meet and welcome these poor captives, his “eyes shone” and his “face flushed” when he heard of a slave ship carrying “human treasures” from Africa. He often took a small boat out himself to meet the slaver’s ship. He often brought perfumed water to pour over the heads of the unfortunates, along with refreshing cool water for them to drink. Before his spiritual ministrations, he always brought the slaves little gifts, such as lemons, oranges, bananas and cakes. His immense charity won them over, often restoring hope in their hearts.--181.137.12.115 05:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Always ministering to their physical needs before he addressed their spiritual needs, he was wont to say, “We must speak to them with our hands, before we try to speak to them with our lips.” Before they were taken to the slave sheds, Claver first took care of the sick, especially baptizing the dying children. Following this, he heard the confessions of the Christian slaves through interpreters, and he administered last rites to the dying. Just as St. Francis Xavier has truly acquired the title of “Apostle of the East Indies,” St. Peter Claver has rightly earned the title of “Apostle of the West Indies.” --181.137.12.115 05:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Again, I am sure there were Spaniards who strongly protested slavery. It doesn't change the fact one iota that Spain was in the business of slavery, however uncomfortable it seems to make you feel.

There was also significant campaigning by British people at the time against slavery in British colonies, and that also doesn't change the fact that Britain was in the business of slave trading.

The statement in Wikivoyage, as it stands, does not say that every single Spanish citizen in what is now Colombia was busy buying and exploiting slaves. Slavery was used extensively by Spain (and other European countries in the Americas) and the statement is correct.

There isn't anything to argue. Other editors please do let me know if I am being unfair here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're not being unfair, and the fact that the IP user would bring up Jews, when the Spanish Inquisition existed in Spain's American colonies such as Mexico until the 19th century, shows something interesting. IP user, debate in Wikipedia. The standard here is WV:Be fair. Regardless of what system the Spanish used for procuring African slaves, the fact that they were customers and then used the people they procured as slave laborers means that they were involved with the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There's no need for us to get into unimportant minutia here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This debate, particularly the amount of background information this IP-user is posting on this talk page, is way out of scope for Wikivoyage. Some ulterior motive seems likely, so perhaps we should archive this discussion after it ends. Nothing in his/her extensive account actually contradicts the current wording of the article, and the protection seems warranted. Let's not get into further discussion about the details of history.181.137.12.115, there is clearly no interest or support for your encyclopaedic information here. My suggestion to you is to refrain from posting further background information, and simply suggest a wording for the article, if you have a better one in mind. If other agree the wording is better (and without getting back into defences), we will change it. If not, we'll leave it as it is. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reputation?. 'Forget the reputation' is a phrase ignorant about the wars that affected to many countries. We should add phrases too ignorant in other articles?

Example:

The United States of America — forget the reputation. The reputation of United States is known by be a country where all the Americans are obese and where occur many shootings in the schools.

China (中国; Zhōngguó) — forget the reputation. The reputation of China is known to be a country where all the Chinese eat dogs and where all Chinese live like slaves in factories.

Germany (German: Deutschland) — forget the reputation. The reputation of Germany is known to be a country where all Germans are racists and where all Germans are nazis.

Thailand (ประเทศไทย), officially the Kingdom of Thailand (ราชอาณาจักรไทย) — forget the reputation. The reputation of Thailand is known as a country full of men that is dressed up as women and also those people are prostitutes.

Mexico (Spanish: México), officially the United Mexican States (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos) — forget the reputation. The reputation of Mexico is known because it is a country where all are drug traffickers.

Russia (Russian: Россия) — forget the reputation. The reputation of Russia is known because it is a country where all the Russians drink vodka and all Russians are alcoholics.

South Africa — forget the reputation. The reputation of South Africa is well known because it is a country where all blacks are poor and all whites are racists.

'Forget the reputation' is a phrase rude, disrespectful, ignorant and inconsiderate with the people of a country that suffered the horrors of a war. No country is free of problems or bad stereotypes and for this reason the phrase 'forget the reputation' is a phrase cruel and ignorant.

Negative things about Colombia usually are widespread of a form exaggerated by people that see only the means of communication of United States. --ControlCorV (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the phrase is unnecessary, but as an American, I would say that there's a lot of truth in the reputation of the U.S., as laid out by you above. I'd also direct you to New York City#Stay safe, which starts as follows:

"Despite its dated reputation for being crime-ridden, New York is statistically the safest large city in the United States"[...]

As a New Yorker, I agree with both phrases.

Also, you simply _must_ stop edit warring. Laying out your opinion as you do here is great; edit warring is intolerable because of the time it wastes and the insistence on your way or the highway, rather than decisions by consensus. I am going to once again revert your edit, and either you will please await a consensus before making the same edit or it will unfortunately be necessary to block your posting privileges - not because I disagree with you (I don't), but because edit warring simply can't be tolerated on Wiki sites that depend on good-faith collaboration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The fundamental question is whether or not Colombia has a bad reputation, not how accurate that reputation may be. After having appeared in the headlines for years because of violence, kidnappings, guerrilla warfare, and repressive governments, it seems less than credible to suggest that Colombia has come out of that period with a sterling reputation as a top-shelf tourist destination. ControlCorV's comments above seem to suggest that's an unfair depiction of the Colombia of today, and he may well be correct, but that's irrelevant. Warranted or not, the fact that people believe these things about Colombia needs to be addressed. And I think a blanket "forget the reputation" serves as a pretty charitable assessment of the situation all things considered, especially given that there's still a warningbox at the top of Colombia#Stay safe. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower — forget the reputation. This is a unnecessary phrase. If the phrase is accepted in this article, then we also should include the phrase in all the others articles of the other countries because no country is free of problems or bad stereotypes. --ControlCorV (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Simply rephrasing what you've already said is not an effective counterargument. Would you care to address anything in my above comment, or are you just going to continue to wield your opinion like a battering ram?-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower (talk) — forget the reputation. In addition there are many countries where the people not know nothing about Colombia. So the phrase only expresses the opinion of the ignorant U.S. Media characterized by know nothing about geography or history. The phrase develops the ignorance in the people that do not have knowledge about Colombia. --ControlCorV (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think it's only in the U.S. that people associate Colombia with guerrilla warfare and death squads? I don't understand your fixation with the U.S. Editors here come from, live in, and travel to many countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apologies if I jumped the gun, but when I logged on tonight I saw an excessive amount of edit warring, noted that ControlCorV had previously been blocked for edit warring on Wikipedia, and thus applied a two hour block on Wikivoyage. I wasn't aware of this thread at the time, so if anyone feels the block is inappropriate please remove it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I do not think you jumped the gun. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ryan It is your best argument to attack. That not has nothing to see with the theme that we are trying to. I have right to my honor. You are reviling.--ControlCorV (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that the phrase 'forget the reputation' is quite unnecessary in any article about a country. --ControlCorV (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your problem here is that this is a Wiki, which means that in order to get your way, you have to convince people to agree with your argument. Do you think you've convinced anyone? I was prepared to consider your point of view. Now I'm not. I won't waste more time communicating with you but will simply watch your actions and block you for longer periods of time if necessary, and continued unpleasantness by you could lead to a permanent ban, too, so as not to waste further time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand why in this website any minor edition is controversial. Why the people on this site seem to have the need to enter into polemics with any new user? --ControlCorV (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek You only threatens to the people with bans and you don't try to treat to the people of a tolerant way.--ControlCorV (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek God is merciful and loving with humans and I do not understand the reason that you want to use threats against me. -ControlCorV (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would strongly suggest for everyone to ignore further remarks by this user, since s/he insists on being obnoxious and has nothing new or useful to add. We should simply watch his/her actions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek Ignore and suggest disrespectful actions with new users. You also like to show you as a perfect person that does not make any mistake and that is the attitude that you have with me.--ControlCorV (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek Why not try to solve things like adult people on this website?--ControlCorV (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I not started the personal attacks. I only started to discuss the subject of the sentence. --ControlCorV (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's try this again: The issue is that the phrase 'forget the reputation' is quite unnecessary in the article.--ControlCorV (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ControlCorV. You seem to believe that this phrase is somehow a negative remark, for Colombia. Let me start by saying that I think you are misunderstanding the meaning and the effect. The text actually says Colombia has a lot to offer, despite the (by now incorrect) reputation it gained. It's a positive note. If you believe that the somewhat negative reputation is an American misconception only, you are wrong. The Farc peace talks are in the news worldwide, regularly, and the armed conflicts of the past have been world news too. Popular media have painted pictures of the drug cartels and guerilla movements - we all know how popular the Narcos series has been, lately. So if we want to convince international travellers to visit Colombia to see its beauty, we need to address its reputation and explain why it is not correct or complete - at least not NOW. You have argued that the phrase is unnecessary but the simple fact is that others on this website believe it IS necessary, to put Colombia in a more positive light. Not because they believe the reputation, but because they know this reputation exists, and they want the readers to look further than that. I hope you can understand this, but even if you don't agree; you will have to accept that the others here do not share your opinion. That means, that you will have to respect the consensus and the text stays as it is. There's nothing disrespectful or personal about it. It would be great if you can help improve the article by adding information, showcasing the positive things about Colombia. I felt the need to write this because I think this whole discussion is based on a misunderstanding, but I do think Ikan is right; there's no point in further discussing, and I will not. Let's move on. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the user would like to propose different wording, I'd suggest doing that instead of endlessly repeating that the phrase could be said about any country. To me, the phrase is a bit awkward moving from the "reputation" to a sentence that begins with a description of its relative size (not related to any reputation). Perhaps a statement that directly tells us WHAT "reputation" we should forget would be clearer, because the country is still not a shining beacon of the first-world. I think there is a better way to phrase or frame it, but adding "Forget its reputation" to every other country article is not helpful in any way in improving this article. It's clear that users like this framework of contrasting the persisting image of Colombia with the "modern truth", so it'd be much more productive to work with that framework to find a wording that better gets that point across. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "forget the reputation" must go. I think it is probably basically correct, but it oversimplifies complex stuff and to me it comes across as arrogant & rude, especially when placed right at the beginning as it currently is.

I do not know the region, but I'd suggest a paragraph later in the introduction with a bit about the history, risks and current conditions. Pashley (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of the current conundrum, there is a good case to change the lede as it has not been changed at all since the migration and is one of several parts of the 42% "copied" content that google penalizes us for on this article. Checking with Copyscape can also help us identify potentially outdated information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone objects to a regular change, so feel free. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't advocate so much as a change, but rather wholesale gutting and writing afresh of the lede. However, I don't feel like I have enough information on Colombia. I know a small bit about parts of the New Granadan wars of independence, but that's about it. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the duplicate penalty is especially heavy when it comes to the lede, so the high number of ledes that have not been changed since the migration is really a bigger problem than some here seem to realize. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote the first paragraph.

The rest of the lede probably needs work. It sounds a bit touty to me & I am not certain either that the last paragraph says enough about the security situation or that it should be last. See #.E2.80.94_forget_the_reputation. above. Pashley (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

A few phone numbers in the format "(601) 7654321" were recently added. Is that a common way to tell the numbers? I couldn't see how to change that into a diallable form using the advice in Colombia#Dialling. Is it just +57 601 7654321? Or is the 60 some prefix used just from landlines, so that the real number is +57 1 7654321? The format used locally should be explained in the Dialling section. –LPfi (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a 2016 edit in Talk:Bogotá got ignored

The medical community is not convinced that scopolamine has the ability to lower a human's inhibitions enough for them to be mind controlled, zombified, or any of the other ridiculous claims that are attributed to it. Here's an example. It seems a bit sensationalist to continue to referring to the drug this way in articles about Colombia. Vantine84 (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about this drug, but the language Vantine84 alludes to is still in this article (not in Bogotá, where they removed it in 2016). Should it be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The example story tells about exaggerations that I don't find in our article. We could tone it down a little more, and some of the details (such as about CIA's experiments) could be left out, but if incidents are common, then a warning is appropriate. Whether it is this drug or some other that has been used is mostly irrelevant for the traveller. You don't have to become a zombie for such crimes to be a hazard. –LPfi (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

What you wrote in your last sentence is certainly true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply