This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaikelTest.
@Jopie75: Why do you think Suriname is a presidential republic and why do you not want the infobox to show that it's a unitary state? Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Jopie75, but I too am a little sceptical of calling Suriname a parliamentary republic. I've read parts of their Constitution (PDF) pertaining to the President and there's no mention of a mechanism of their removal by the Parliament, hence they're not really accountable to it, which is a defining characteristic of parliamentary systems. Sure, the Constitution says they're answerable to the National Assembly, and are elected by it, but I do not see a mechanism for their removal by the National Assembly before the end of their term (e.g. no mention of "no confidence" votes or even "impeachment"). Likewise the CIA Factbook calls Suriname a presidential republic, not a parliamentary one. If you think that the CIA Factbook may call all countries with an executive president presidential systems, including the parliamentary systems of Botswana and South Africa, fear not, as they do not class those countries as presidential systems, only as parliamentary systems. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the World Fact Book says that? Well, at least there's a source. Thanks for the due diligence. I wouldn't have expected the denotation of a republic as parliamentary or presidential to hinge on the ability of the legislature to remove a president as well as install one (and, without having researched it, I would have assumed the legislature had that power by default!) It certainly doesn't hinge on removal alone as, in the United States, the Congress can remove a president, but the United States certainly isn't classified as parliamentary.
I'll leave it for someone else to address the fact that Suriname is on the list of parliamentary republics at Parliamentary republic. Largoplazo (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the constitution myself, I agree it says nothing about removing, but Article 90 says "The President is Head of State of the Republic of Suriname, Head of Government, Chairman of the Council of State and of the Security Council. He is answerable to the National Assembly." I would have thought that "answerable to the National Assembly" was the defining characteristic. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one person's commentary at Quora, for what it's worth! [1]Largoplazo (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US President cannot be dismissed by Congress in ordinary circumstances, so normally they're not held accountable. They're only held accountable in cases of serious criminality ("high crimes and misdemeanors" as the Constitution says), otherwise they're independent of Congress. So, the US system is very much presidential, as ordinarily there is strict separation between the three branches, except 'check and balance' powers, like the ability of the Congress to impeach the President and the power of the President to veto laws passed by Congress, unless they override them. While South Africa allows for the President's removal by a vote of no confidence, for which evidence of criminality is not a pre-requisite, so in that case the President truly is held accountable to the Parliament. Likewise, Botswana's Constitution makes it so that while the President isn't dismissed by a vote of no confidence, a no confidence vote forces a dissolution of the Parliament, unless the President resigns, and it is likely that in the ensuing election one of two things will happen:
Either the President's party will win by a large margin, so large a vote of no confidence is likely to fail if attempted again. As by convention, the President is the leader of the party with the most seats in the Parliament.
Or, the President's party will lose, and a new President will be sworn in.
As I said in my initial reply, the "He is answerable to the National Assembly" part of their Constitution is meaningless, if the National Assembly does not have the ability to dismiss them when they are acting contrary to their wishes. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 12:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every single source I can find describes Suriname as a parliamentary republic. Flags200 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way that the CIA world fact book classifies government types is kind of inconsistent. For example it describes Mauritania as a presidential republic which it is not but then goes around and describes France as a semi-presidential republic. Flags200 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Care to share some of those sources? Where is your proof that the President can be dismissed by the National Assembly? As the Constitution doesn't say that. In fact, there's not even an impeachment mechanism (I know different from a vote of no confidence, but still) mentioned in the Constitution. Thanks for at engaging in a conversation. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 09:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across a source (1) that calls it a president-parliamentary system, a type of semi-presidential system. Although that seems dubious, as one defining characteristic of a semi-presidential system is a directly elected president. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00084 even says that Suriname is a country where, while elected by the legislature, the President is not held accountable by them. I quote:
However, Category 4 reflects the situation where such a president is not accountable to the legislature after they select her or him and is found in Micronesia, South Africa since 1983 (across two regimes), Suriname after 1991 and Switzerland.
The question whether a President should resign after a motion of no confidence is passed in the National Assembly has previously come up during the tenure of Jules Wijdenbosch. Wijdenbosch refused to resign after a motion of no confidence was tabled, saying that the constitution does not provide a procedure for the dismissal of the president. The opposition and even his former ally (and current president) Desi Bouterse disagreed. See this newspaper article. So it's ambiguous. Pinatyaimi (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity seems to strengthen the case for the president not being accountable to the legislature. Sort of like the situation with the US President, and how while in office they are practically immune from prosecution. Even though there is no absolute consensus on whether they are immune or not, for all practical purposes they are, because of the ambiguity of the law. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a presidential republic the legislature doesn't even have a choice to issue a vote of no confidence to the president. However in a parliamentary republic at least that option is available although the constitution of Suriname doesn't explicitly state that and the president doesn't necessarily have to listen to it. However it is still and option on like in presidential systems Flags200 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the defining characteristic of a parliamentary system isn't that a vote of no confidence can be done, but that it has the effect of dismissing the head of government, as without that are they really accountable to the legislature? Without that accountability, it fails to meet the definition. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This definition completely disregards parliamentary systems that are based off of convention rather than constitution. In those cases even if a vote of no confidence where to be issued there is no constitutional obligation for the prime Minister or other related executive official to step down Flags200 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But in those systems they are required, by convention, to step down, even if the Constitution does not specify that they must. Often the head of state (e.g. monarch, governor-general, president) has the power to dismiss the head of government in those cases, but as Suriname has the head of state and head of government positions fused into one, that means the Constitution or some other legal document will likely have to specify that a vote of no confidence triggers their dismissal in order for them to be truly accountable to the legislature and hence truly a parliamentary system. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for adding the disputed tag instead of editing president to parliamentary, as at least we can both live with that for the time being while this issue is being resolved. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found an official source backing up my claim.
It states that the president is answerable to the national assembly
Constitution says the President is answerable to the National Assembly too, but without a means to remove them when the National Assembly is dissatisfied by the President's answers it is meaningless. It's like saying that someone is answerable for their actions, and then not having a means to punish them for their actions, should it be warranted. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 04:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suriname is still a parliamentary republic. If it were a presidential Republic then it wouldn't have that kind of statement in its constitution. Suriname is a flawed parliamentary republic but still a parliamentary republic or at the very least was meant to be one. Someone should really get around to fixing that ambiguity Flags200 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you both consider that the respective definitions of "presidential republic" and "parliamentary republic" are somewhat fuzzy, that those classifications may not cover 100% of all nations that are termed "republics", that the nature of the relationship in Suriname between the president and Parliament is somewhat fuzzy, and that maybe it just isn't urgent to squeeze Suriname into either subcategory and that it would be best left as a "republic"? Largoplazo (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, of course not all republics are covered adequately by those labels, that's why there's additional labels like directorial republic (Switzerland) and semi-presidential republic (France, Poland, Portugal, Russia and the Ukraine). In this case, yes, I would agree that neither of those labels, nor any of these additional labels that I've mentioned, would be adequate to describe Suriname. I think the evidence is stronger for it following a presidential system than parliamentary system; the main way it departs from a traditional presidential system is the means by which the president is elected. Most presidential systems have direct popular election of the president, but this is not an absolute requirement, as is illustrated by the fact the US uses an electoral college to elect their president. I don't see what relevance motions of confidence have given that:
1. They're not mentioned in the Constitution at all.
2. They do not seem to have any effect, as the president doesn't need to step aside after a successful motion of no confidence.
I suppose calling it a "republic" would at least be accurate and indisputable (provided the definition of republic isn't taken to imply the state is democratic, then it would be debatable). Although, I must admit, it isn't very descriptive. Given I don't have a better adjective to describe their system in a precise and indisputable way, the "republic" label might just have to do. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 11:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be acceptable to just call it a republic Flags200 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We indicate the official language is 'Dutch' but link to 'Surinamese Dutch'. Should we change the link label to 'Surinamese Dutch' by simple virtue of the fact that that article exists? A counter-argument might be that the national statute specifies "Dutch" per se. I don't know if this is the case, but if it is, ought we not link to the standard Dutch article?Hayttom (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the article had read "It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the north, French Guiana to the east, Guyana to the west, and Brazil to the south." User:Automeris replaced "French Guiana" with the rationale "Changed 'French Guiana' to 'France' in the list of bordering areas in the introduction, which I think in general should be nations. ...." An IP user reverted that change, stating "Fixed name of country to Suriname’s east. It is French Guyana, not France."
I'd appreciated Automeris' reasoning; the reverting editor did express their rationale in terms of "country", and France is the country in this case, so I restored Automeris' version. But then I had an opposing thought: Look at any map of South America. How is the entity to the immediate east of Suriname labeled? Assuming the map is in English, it will almost certainly be labeled "French Guiana" or "Fr. Guiana" or "French Guiana (France)" or "Fr. Guiana (France)".
So there seems to be a broad sense that even though that territory is France by sovereignty—indeed, an integrated part of it—the natural way to designate it in its geographical context is by its name as a department of France, "French Guiana". For our purposes, might that convention override one where, when speaking of what borders a country, we label neighboring territories by the name of their sovereignty rather than by their name as an individual entity? Largoplazo (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:CanadianOntarian just changed it back to "French Guiana", despite the edit summaries and this open discussion, without comment. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be "French Guiana", which is the most common and recognizable name for the region. After all, Atlantic Ocean isn't a country either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to be looking at the Suriname page and noticed the strangeness of the reference. Before making the change I looked at the Canada page to see if Alaska was specifically mentioned as a bordering region. It is not. I looked at other countries that border France at only one French region. Luxembourg's page says it borders France, not Grand Est. Ditto for Germany. Andorra's page says it borders France, not Occitanie. (I forgot to look at Monaco, but it is also described as bordering France, not the region of France it borders.) I then looked at France's page, to see how it's borders with Suriname and Netherlands were described:
"France borders Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Monaco, Italy, Andorra and Spain in Europe, as well as the Netherlands, Suriname and Brazil in the Americas"
The United States is listed as having Maritime Borders with Bahamas, Cuba, and Russia. Russia is listed as bordering sixteen sovereign nations, without naming them. This appears to be only land borders--possibly this also should be corrected, since the United States page mentions the Russian border. No mention of a border with the US or with the US state of Alaska occurs.
It just now occurred to me to look at how Lithuania and Poland's border with Russia is handled. Both cases use "Russia (Kaliningrad Oblast)". I suppose "France (French Guiana)" would be preferable to what we have now and fairly consistent with what is done elsewhere. I also notice that although in the introduction where I looked at the time Brazil was listed as bordering all countries of South America except Chile and Ecuador, in the Geography section it says:
"Brazil occupies a large area along the eastern coast of South America and includes much of the continent's interior,[174] sharing land borders with Uruguay to the south; Argentina and Paraguay to the southwest; Bolivia and Peru to the west; Colombia to the northwest; and Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and France (French overseas region of French Guiana) to the north. It shares a border with every South American country except Ecuador and Chile."
I don't really care how the page reads. I do care about consistency. I certainly didn't think this was controversial. My only goal was correcting what I thought was a minor inconsistency in style. From other Wikipedia pages France borders Brazil, France borders Suriname, and Brazil borders France. Therefore Suriname borders France. Nations border nations. (And for user 力, countries are also bordered by bodies of water universally in Wikipedia.) When we talk about what Montana borders, we use states and Canadian provinces, which are regions of equal rank. Similarly a list of counties bordering Union County, Arkansas (on the southern edge of the state) includes other Arkansas counties and bordering Louisiana parishes.
Although maybe I should care about how the page reads, too, because the way it reads now evidently gives the impression to some people that (as 76.181.33.3 appears to believe) French Guiana is it's own country. This seems like a disservice to Wikipedia users.
Can we get a consensus for "France (French Guiana)"? That's probably what I would have done if I had looked at the Poland and Lithuania pages at the time, but I didn't think about Russia having a separated region then. Are there any other nations besides the United States, France, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Russia which have non-contiguous parts, at least two of which have borders with other nations, so we can see how those are handled? (Also excluding strange historical border situations where neighboring countries have enclaves within each other.)
It isn't entirely clear that you are addressing the second paragraph of my opening comment that represents the core of the point I was making. If you look at a map of France, it's labeled "France", not "Grand-Est". So when listing the countries that border Luxembourg, you'll see that the blob to its west is labelled "France".
Canada borders the coterminous United States. So Alaska is already included in that and doesn't need to be mentioned separately; it wouldn't make sense to write that Canada borders "the United States and Alaska". For that reason, it's a bad analogy.
You mention consistency; my suggestion supported consistency—consistency with maps.
I would support changing Brazil to refer to French Guiana instead of France.
Cabinda is an exclave of Angola on the African mainland, bordering Republic of Congo, which describes its location thus: "The country is bordered to the west by Gabon, to its northwest by Cameroon and its northeast by the Central African Republic, to the southeast by the DR Congo, to its south by the Angolan exclave of Cabinda and to its southwest by the Atlantic Ocean."
A parallel to that example would be to say Suriname borders "the French department of French Guiana".
Spain somehow omitted Gibraltar entirely from its bordering entities list in its lead, so I just added it. In the Geography section, it reads "On the west, Spain is bordered by Portugal; on the south, it is bordered by Gibraltar (a British overseas territory) and Morocco, through its exclaves in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla, and the peninsula of Vélez de la Gomera)." That's similar to the treatment of Cabinda in the Congo article.
I wouldn't object to "France (French Guiana)" though "the French department of French Guiana" seems more natural. Largoplazo (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on Cabinda. I wasn't even aware of the non-insular Spanish exclaves. I don't think Gibraltar is really the same case as French Guiana, since the former has a special designation within the UK that makes sense to use (i.e. it is not a nation, nor is it a basal part of the nation to which it belongs), and the latter is just a regular part of France. If we use "the French department of French Guiana" we should also use "the Russian Kaliningrad Oblast" or some such language for Poland and Lithuania. If we do this, I would prefer the language used in the Congo page, "the [Nationality] exclave of [Name]". I still prefer the form "[Nation] ([Exclave Name])" because it names the nation, and presents the parenthetical information parenthetically, so is concise and still avoids confusion.
I have just discovered there is a page called Borders of Suriname. It says "The borders of Suriname consist of land borders with three countries: Guyana, Brazil, and France (via French Guiana)." The pages for Maylasia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Brunei seem to adhere to the idea of naming only the bordering nation, or if a particular subdivision of that nation is named, placing it parenthetically (e.g. in the maritime boundaries for Indonesia we have "India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands)")
Your point about consistency with maps made me realize that none of these sections about boundaries for any nation sites a source. If there were a map that was recognized as an official source for Wikipedia, that might be a good thing. The problem with maps is that they are often controversial. It seems there is a longstanding dispute between France and Suriname, which inherited the dispute from the Netherlands, about exactly which river or stream is the ultimate source of a larger river and therefore forms the boundary. If we actually wanted to site the best original sources for boundaries, we would be looking at old treaties, and in many cases we would also be looking at years of litigation about those treaties. There is very little controversy in most cases about what nations border others, and that information seems to be considered important enough to be placed in the early paragraphs of every article about a nation on Wikipedia. If a person wants to look at maps for that information, they can do that. If a person comes to Wikipedia for that information, they want it in consistent and compact form, for the same reasons they go to their favorite fast food establishment.
My guess is that if there is a map with a dotted line representing an international border with both sides labeled periodically, it will be labeled with both nations or both regions more often than with one nation and one region. Areas on maps are labeled with both regional and national names, generally, depending on the detail, and usually distinguished by font or type size, with equal levels using matching type. I would say that maps that just label the region under discussion "French Guiana" with no mention that is part of France lead to the the kind of well-meaning ignorance exhibited by our friend from 76.181.33.3. I would further argue that such maps are not reliable sources of information because of the confusion they foster, and should not be cited or used as a basis for Wikipedia articles.
Right now it seems to me that the most commonly used method of reference on Wikipedia for nations bordering exclaves is "[Nation] ([Exclave Name])". If you want to go through and change all those to conform to another standard, as long as the reference gives preeminence to the nation, I would be fine with that. I would still prefer using "France (French Guiana)" and the general form "[Nation] ([Exclave Name)". It would be nice to hear what some other editors think before going forward.
Altered Maps and Political Geography in Surinamese related Articles[edit]
Recently, many Surinamese related articles have displayed erroneous contributions (almost exclusively from user SurinameCentral) that usually involve the addition of highly politicized maps. Established maps are being removed. The maps by [User:SurinameCentral|SurinameCentral]] lack neutrality and are inaccurate. They target the established borders of other countries, namely Guyana and French Guiana. These maps are showing parts of Guyana as fully incorporated into Suriname, which is not only inaccurate but irresponsible given the politics and sensitivity of the issue concerning disputed lands. A Twitter and Facebook page of the same username shows a clear nationalistic and anti-Guyanese agenda, along with an obsession in distorting the geography of Guyana and French Guiana. Many articles are being affected and it is compromising the neutrality of Wikipedia. This instigates editing wars and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. There is no problem displaying disputed territories. Work here must be done objectively and with transparency. 70.55.49.107 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SurinameCentral Please edit your maps, in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality policy. I am requesting for these maps to be removed by Wikipedia until they are made objective and neutral by showing the two main disputed territories. I agree that these territories in Guyana and French Guiana are in question. In all fairness, we must make the public aware that they are in question, however, on both sides. Your maps are misleading and do a great disservice to the education of Surinamese people and the general public. 70.55.49.107 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article and items in question have been updated to promote neutrality. We cannot address Twitter or Facebook content, only Wikipedia. The maps by SurinameCentral showed parts of French Guiana (France) and Guyana as fully incorporated in Suriname! That is like creating a map of Russia and incorporating Ukraine as Russia. We don't need this level of irresponsibility here as it has been a great source of problems in the past at Wikipedia. SurinameCentral should update their maps ASAP. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions/Disputed_areas for more info. 142.20.16.6 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. When ALL maps on this platform display Disputed Territory EXCLUSIVELY as Guyanase, or French Guianese, and area COMPLETELY Left out of maps of Suriname it bothers no one? But the MINUTE the roles are reversed, and the Areas are displayed under Surname Panic Mode here is activated? I am all for Justice and Honesty, the disputed areas of Suriname Cannot and must not be left out of maps. if you decide to show it as disputed, you may mark it as disputed. you may however not leave them out completely. The same must be true for Guyana and French Guiana, Those areas must be marked as disputed there too. imagine since we have internet we are seeing wrong incomplete maps of Suriname everywhere. i hope i make my point across here. even google maps updated their map to show the disputed areas accordingly. BOTH claim lines are displayed instead of showing the areas as part of Guyana/French Guiana and leaving them OFF the map of Suriname Completely.
"These maps are showing parts of Guyana as fully incorporated into Suriname, which is not only inaccurate but irresponsible given the politics and sensitivity of the issue concerning disputed lands" Brother, are you reading what you are writing? THis is EXACTLY what has been happening against Suriname all over the internet, and INCLUDING here on Wikipedia. None of the maps of Guyana/Suriname/French Guiana here were "Neutral" at all.
if you talk about Transparency, make sure that this is fair for Suriname as well. for Many years Surinamese cannot even find a proper map on the internet, because all of them are showing land that is still disputed completely for Guyana or French Guiana. If a map that shows these areas as Suriname is "wrong" then based on that argument every map displayed here where the disputed areas are shown as Guyana and French Guiana is also wrong.
and as last, do not compare this with Russia, this has nothing to do with Russia. these disputes have been here since many years, and for decades Suriname has been wronged by completely leaving out these areas from our maps, but proudly displaying them as Regions of Guyana.
you call this a anti-guyana war, that is not what this is at all. Guyana asked FB/Twitter to remove maps showing disputed areas as Venezuela/Suriname because they called it illegal. this is what sparked this fact that Surinamese are sharing their maps online. We have been a victim of wrong maps our entire existence, so do not place the victim role here elsewhere. SurinameCentral (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
read the description that there is a color code in place , lighter green shows disputed areas. Why are you Constantly Reverting the edit where these areas are included? is that not "Transparency"?? Why are disputed areas marked accordingly on the page of India or Venezuela? Why are double standards being used by editors on this platform when it comes to Suriname? SurinameCentral (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protest Against Half/Incomplete Maps of Suriname being used on Wikipedia Articles[edit]
Dear Editors of Wikipedia, I am seeking help to correct a big injustice on this platform. This refers to the articles about Suriname. Suriname has 2 disputed areas since colonial times. One is with Guyana and one with French Guiana. These borders are till this day, May 2023, not settled, meaning they are disputed. Even Google maps and other map sources online show them as disputed, where BOTH country’s claims are displayed.
Here on Wikipedia there seems to be a certain Bias of editors to leave these areas out completely from the maps of Suriname, while they are proudly displayed as Undisputed on the maps of Guyana. Some maps on this platform show the areas as Disputed at least on the maps of Suriname, but when it comes to Guyana/French Guiana, they are not marked as disputed. This is not Fair. A Disputed area means it is disputed between 2 countries, why is it that it is removed from the maps of Suriname and placed normally on the maps of the other country? Due to the lack of maps on the internet as Suriname sees the borders almost every map online is incomplete. Now that the Surinamese version of the maps are being placed online, they are being marked as “Not Neutral” ? where were these remarks for the past years where the maps of Guyana for example were not Marked accordingly?
I want to ask Neutral Editor son this platform to change the Maps of Guyana-Suriname-French Guiana all equally showing disputed areas accordingly. It is not Correct, not Neutral, and not transparent to show these areas normally on Guyanese maps/Articles, on French Guianese maps/Articles but when it comes to Suriname, these areas are removed completely. And when people try to add them, they get reverted constantly.
Thank you for reading, I hope to get some help in this matter because for Surinamese Citizens it is very disturbing to come to a source of information like Wikipedia and see incorrect/incomplete/Not Neutral maps of Suriname on this platform. SurinameCentral (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, since wikipedia exists, the maps on the articles related to Suriname have all been shown without any disputed areas. it is disturbing for any Surinamese citizen to witness this. This website is not easy to find your way around, maybe that is why this issue has not been raised before. the disputed areas of Suriname are with French Guiana and with Guyana and have been disputed for very long, since the colonial times. i would like to emphasize this because the impression must not be that this is something new. the problem we have with the way our map is displayed on wikipedia is that the disputed areas are not even shown on any of the maps properly. if you look at the maps of Guyana, such as the locator maps, the division of administrative areas etc, they all include disputed areas marked as Guyana. And in the case of Surname, they are not even shown, they are completely left out. i ask that this be displayed in a neutral manner because at the moment the way it is displayed is not neutral. the same is true for Suriname-French Guiana. the south part of the border was never settled on and is till this day disputedI make this request because i see 2 standards being used, there are many other countries with disputed areas, and on their locator maps those areas are marked in a lighter green color. in the case of Suriname this change gets reverted by editors. so i do not understand how there can be such a difference here. in my opinion, untill the boundary disputed are officially resolved, they should be marked as disputed on both parties maps. the disputed areas of Suriname are disputed Both ways, Suriname-Guyana and Suriname-French Guiana, so it is not fair to leave them off our maps and display them normally on the other party's maps. i hope someone higher up can provide a neutral solution here regarding this matter.~~~ SurinameCentral (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear readers, i cannot really see any progress in this matter. we are now 2 months past the start date of this RFC, meanwhile edits made to Wikipedia showing NEUTRAL maps of Guyana area being reverted by users. is there every going to be a True Neutral solution here? because so far it has not been neutral at all. SurinameCentral (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk pages are not a soapbox. This is the third discussion you've launched to lodge exactly the same complaint in the last four days. There's nothing wrong with your having expressed your concern or with pursuing a discussion that's already begun as others respond but it isn't appropriate for you to air the same grievance, at length and in dramatic fashion, repeatedly. Please stop. Largoplazo (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with using an RfC to draw wider attention to something that's only received local input. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 23:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the RFC banner. Fair enough. Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part is not neutral? Please point out specifically because i cannot re-write if i dont know what is not considered neutral SurinameCentral (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has objected to depicting Suriname's claims in the standard way. "in the case of Suriname this change gets reverted by editors" is entirely misleading, as can be seen in the history of File:SUR orthographic.svg, where no such change was ever made. The change hasn't even been proposed here, let alone objected to, and yet it's half of the RfC. CMD (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of the page for suriname. The NOT neutral ortho map that is there at the moment was replaced with a neutral one but the entire change was also reverted. So If a Surinamese map gets displayed it gets removed, because editors replied that I shouldn't give disputed areas to Suriname on maps, the exact thing is happening for Guyana and that is allowed and considered neutral. I then replace the ortho map of the main suriname page with one with disputed areas marked i. Light green, that also gets reverted. I do not understand the part where you mention no one is objecting it. I just don't want double standards to be used that's all. SurinameCentral (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the history now, what appears to have happened is that you added a series of maps showing this POV [2][3][4][5], maps created by you, and with the intention hidden behind other edit summaries and even minor tags. I think that narrative explains well why the map you refer to above in isolation was also reverted. CMD (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so what now? Clearly it's not considered Neutral when the Full Surinamese Maps are shown. what has to be done to change the other maps to at least show and acknowledge the disputed areas ? Because we also do not consider it neutral if these disputed areas are shown normally as part of Guyana/French Guiana and not on our maps at. a solution like how Esri Maps and Google maps have decided to show these disputed borders is the only one that seems neutral and fair to me.
Comment. (Summoned by bot). Could someone point to any analysis of sources that demonstrate how the borders and disputed areas should be shown? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SurinameCentral, I have written the section heading to be neutrally worded as is required for an RfC, as you have not. Feel free to rewrite it to something else that is neutral if you wish, but do not revert it. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 19:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no i will leave it like this. as long as the message is clear. SurinameCentral (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I actually think this RFC doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RFCNEUTRAL or WP:RFCBRIEF. Might I suggest changing the opening to: Should the maps of Suriname include the disputed areas?--~~~~ You can then include your current comment as the rationale behind your !vote--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok i have changed the title of the RFC as you suggested. What needs to happen next in this request to include the disputed areas of Suriname ? SurinameCentral (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry I wasn't referring to the section title. Since you accepted my suggestion, I'm going to go ahead and change the RFC a bit just to bring it into compliance with WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (bot-summoned). It seems to me that including the disputed regions (appropriately distinguished) on maps is a good thing and improves the information we provide to readers. But removing specialized maps that do not include the disputed regions, without replacing them (example), disserves the reader. -- Visviva (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (WP:RFC/A browser) - Looks like maps should include the disputed territory, expressly marking the disputed area as, well, disputed. That said, existing informational maps should not simply be removed, they should be replaced only once a new map with the included disputed areas is found/created. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current article shows the internationally recognized border of Suriname but also includes a map of the disputed territories. The article makes notable mention of the disputed areas with it's own subsection which leads to Borders of Suriname for more in depth information. I believe Wikipedia is actually very easy to navigate, contrary to your opinion. Due to the size of Suriname and other small countries like French Guiana and Guyana, the trend has been to not put disputed areas in the locator map because it is difficult to view. This is at least what I've observed in other countries on Wikipedia. What I do find questionable is all of the maps being edited by SurinameCentral, especially your uploads on Wikimedia Commons which are very nationalistic. For example, you're uploads of Suriname and Guyana maps are grossly biased. In fact, when I search Wikimedia Commons for maps of Suriname, I get mostly your uploads which do NOT show disputed territories. You incorporate parts of neighbouring countries into Suriname as fact. That is not what we are about at Wikipedia.Usedbook (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“The current map of Suriname shows the internationally recognized borders”, for a platform that aims to be neutral I strongly disagree with that statement. Please check:
1. Google Maps, see how they show disputed borders neutrally
2. Esri Maps, see how they show disputed borders neutrally
4. Mapbox. see how they show disputed borders neutrally
3. Check the BBC country Profile of Suriname – Guyana – French Guiana, this is how you display disputed areas neutrally.
You cannot leave out the disputed areas completely out of the map under the label “internationally Recognized” . if you really wish to show it in a neutral way, they have to be included.
Even if the disputed areas are small, they are visible on the locator map. If you click on it to view it in full size it is not a problem. That should not be the reason to leave out Suriname’s disputed areas from maps because of visibility in my opinion. 1 map showing the areas as disputed, vs all the other ones that completely leave it out is not fair and nothing close to neutral, this is my point of view.
The maps that I upload are maps from Suriname. If Guyanese/French Guianese maps are allowed to be portrayed without actual disputed areas marked as such, what is the problem if the Surinamese maps are shown? If all the maps on Wikipedia were truly neutral, the disputed areas would have been marked as such also on the maps of Guyana and French Guiana.
“You incorporate parts of neighboring countries into Suriname as fact. That is not what we are about at Wikipedia.”
So if you view the map of Guyana and a disputed area is marked there as a fact belonging to Guyana, what is that about then?
and the same can be said for any map of French Guiana that shows the other disputed area with Suriname as part of French Guiana.
I feel that there are different standards being used by users here to find any reason at all not to show the disputed areas of Suriname. SurinameCentral (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that "You cannot leave out the disputed areas completely out of the map", then why have you created and uploaded a huge number of maps that not show the disputed areas? CMD (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the official map in Suriname. That is why. That should not be a problem in my opinion since all the maps on Wikipedia used to be in favor of Guyana and French Guiana and marking disputed areas as theirs. It has reached a point where international sites have no choice but to use these "incomplete maps". SurinameCentral (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is nothing wrong with the maps that Suriname Central has made, as long as Guyana biased maps are valid for Wikipedia articles as well. The Tigri area has been Dutch (Suriname was a colony) until Britain started to claim it in 1871. It took until 1969 when Guyana invaded the area militarily. On the other border the French claim wasn't made until gold was found there at the beginning of the 20th century. As long as Wikipedia has not enough maps that show the contested areas, the least thing we can do is to get rid of half of the Guyana biased maps and exchange them for Suriname biased maps. Wikipedia should be neutral indeed, not Guyana biased. Ymnes (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ymes, what do you recommend be done to make the maps of Guyana Neutral too? because any attempt to replace the Biased Guyanese maps here immediately gets reverted and threats of banning being made, very smooth for a "Neutral" platform. you seem to be one of the few here who actually sees things in a neutral manner. i hope you could assist with that part as well. SurinameCentral (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment for map designers The best way of all is to design more maps of Suriname that show clearly the contested areas. Please feel invited to upload neutral maps that complete the following list of current maps: commons:User:Ymnes/Maps of Suriname. Ymnes (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the maps of Suriname are shown in a neutral way, the same needs to happen for Guyana and French Guiana. because those are still biased and not neutral at all. SurinameCentral (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymnes: Good work. I think the map situation is much better now with your contribution. DutchDaan (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By the way, you know that I know that you are not Dutch and that you showed on Dutch Wikipedia that you don't speak Dutch and that you have family in Guyana.
Switching the subject of this RfC, does everyone agree to switch to neutral maps of Suriname? And if not, why and please show reliable sources. Thanks in advance. Ymnes (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Claims of territorial dispute are recognized by secondary sources, so there is no nontrivial content dispute here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In recent decades Wikipedia has largely being using maps that where free to use. Since a lot of these free maps only show the Guyanese and French claims of the borders, this has resulted in the situation that Wikipedia predominantly shows this side of the border dispute. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, however, is an English Wikipedia policy, as is in most other languages.
In order to make a balance, map maker User:SurinameCentral has created maps that only show the Surinamese claims of the borders. The result was the discussion here above.
Noticing the discussion, I started to make an inventory on Commons:User:Ymnes/Maps of Suriname. Meanwhile SurinameCentral has changed his map production on Commons by introducing neutral maps. Neutral in this sense is when one can view at the south borders that there is a border dispute with both neighbouring countries.
However, a few users revert the introduction of neutral maps on Wikipedia. Therefore I have started this RfC in order to settle this. Do you support that neutral maps – when available – are used in articles on Wikipedia? Ymnes (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Wikipedia should be neutral in this. I opine that one cannot deny that these disputes exist. Guyana even militarily invaded the Tigri Area in 1969 to obtain control over the area. And there have been intensive talks in recent years between France and Suriname to solve their border dispute. To give some reliable sources: BBC and Britannica (both from Britain, the former colonizer of Guyana; they use neutral maps). Ymnes (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening RfC statement is flawed; the concept of neutral maps is not in dispute. However, as mentioned before, your example of a "neutral map" remains not only non-neutral, but misleading to readers. It is an overlaying of a few small dotted lines on what you have called the "Only Surinames claims" map. These small dots (not even visible at some resolutions) do not make the map neutral, and the map as a whole gives quite a misleading impression to readers, showing the exercise of sovereignty over territory that in bothcases is administered by another party. That historical control is the reason for the most common depictions of the borders, for example as practiced by the US State Department. On the question in the RfC title, there is no perfect way to WP:WEIGHT maps. However, it is neutral to reflect control properly in our maps when appropriate, and to show claims in different ways at different times, depending on the purpose and use of any particular map. (For the reference of others, this RfC appears to be part of a recent cross-wiki campaign by Ymnes to replace existing maps with their preferred ones.) CMD (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a Argumentum ad hominem. There has not been a cross wiki campaign by me, but there has been one by a Guyanese person naming himself DutchDaan, who doesn't stop even if you ask him. In fact I have replaced not neutral maps of Suriname by neutral maps, and stopped with that as soon as I noticed that even that is controversial for just one or two persons: in fact you and DutchDaan.
You mention the policy of the US State Department, I mention the policy of reliable sources like BBC en Britannica. And than there is your statement as if the control over these area's is done by France and Guyana. At the French disputed part there is no village in this part of a jungle, and the around 200 people living in the Tigri Area are voting at the Guyanese as well as at the Surinamese general elections.[6] And control is does not matter, like we can see at Crimea (see Ukraine).
The matter of fact is that these areas are disputed, there is no doubt about that, and that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is official policy of Wikipedia, what is not upheld. In the current situation the reader is mislead. Ymnes (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cross-wiki campaign is plainly evident in the link I provided. Control matters hugely, in real life and on en.wiki: it is for example the basis for most of our bilateral maps. Neither the BBC nor Britannica support the map you promote above, both clearly and obviously delineate the regions in question. The "current situation" here on en.wiki already does the same as the BBC and Britannica, so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming there. CMD (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is from scratch to the end not true. Ymnes (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, others can view the links provided. They can also view your link to a news story about polling stations being opened in Alalapadu and Kuruni, which suffice to say does not support the claim being made. There has to be a shared basis of understanding in a discussion, and I'm still trying to understand why you say you aren't making edits like these [7][8][9] when anyone can view the diffs. CMD (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. The area is disputed and should be marked as such. That is Wikipedia policy. Period. Ymnes (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alalapadu and Kuruni are misleading. The article confirms that the people there vote at the general elections of Suriname. Ymnes (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any map of Suriname shown in any article that does Not include the disputed areas as not neutral.
Any map of Guyana that does not show the disputed areas marked as such with dashed lines or another color is not neutral.
Any map of French guiana shown on Wikipedia that does not mark a disputed area as such with dashed lines or another color is not neutral.
There have been so many sources given before that show true neutral maps. These disputed areas are a fact, and unless it is truly displayed in a neutral manner across the website, this will not be close to a neutral depiction and is therefore misleading to any user reading an article that includes the NOT Nuetral maps. SurinameCentral (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you talking about replacing this map from the article?Suriname with disputed territoriesI like what's already there better than any of the above maps. It shows the disputed territories in a color that's different from Suriname or the disputing countries. I think what's best would be one that also has some shading or labeling so that it's not only by color; but I like what's already in the article best.If I'm not looking in the right place, please clarify. I was summoned by Yapperbot. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:SomeoneDreaming, the map that you are showing is perfectly well. Inserting such maps in exchange for maps that show the bias of Guyana/France or of Suriname is what I suggest is the best thing to do. Some shading of labeling would be an extra and nice if that can be done, and that would be a good advise for map makers, like User:SurinameCentral. Ymnes (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map that is shon on the right side here has some issues. you cannot clearly see it on this version as it a low resolution version, but the river that is called "new river" on maps of Suriname does not exist. that name does not exist in Suriname, the river is called Upper-Corentyne. On many maps the Coeroeni river is called the corentyne, that is also wrong. the disputed area with French Guiana is between the Litani and the Marowini River.
Maps also show the border at the Mouth of the corentyne river incorrect sometimes, the border lies at the West bank (Guyanese Side). SurinameCentral (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you make a map with the correct borders but that clearly shows the disputed areas separate from any country? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to apply those changes. Not only for maps of Suriname but also Guyana and French Guiana. Wikipedia is missing truly neutral maps, I have read some useful things from other editors I will apply. SurinameCentral (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The job is very well. This is what we need. The purple colour is not so much my taste. I would have chosen on a colour near to the neighbouring colours. Ymnes (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The green map is also better because the uploader made the appropriate citations, credited the CIA source, and was fully transparent when making changes to the original image. DutchDaan (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do not agree with the green map, since it is not completely neutral. The river names that form the disputed area with Guyana are not what they are called in Suriname. Since this is a map Representing Suriname they should reflect the Surinamese Names. to maintain neutrality they should be left out completely. SurinameCentral (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree, we should use the Surinamese river names for the Suriname map. DutchDaan (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on another note, i see you are replacing the maps of Suriname including the disputed areas. Use Neutral descriptions please. "Map of Suriname including disputed areas" seems sufficient. Thank you. SurinameCentral (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I wrote very quick. Going forward, I will use "Map of Suriname including disputed areas" - agreed. DutchDaan (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here from WP:NPOVN. None of the maps in the question bqork very well, for reason that have already been outlined. I'm slightly confused, as all the maps in the article already so the contested details. So what is it that this RFC is trying not change? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about all articles and not only of Suriname actually. I changed one map here, and look what happened. What I want to change is that I can exchange non-neutral maps to neutral ones without being reverted. Ymnes (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all the maps should show the claims, but the map showing that here isn't very good. The green map shows the situation much better. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about all articles, then I think you might want to make a policies and guidelines RFC (see WP:RFCCAT). RFC on this article makes it seem like your concern is this article. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such an RfC must not be held on the talk page of an individual article, but at the talk page for the policy or guideline concerned; alternatively at WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is being asked here....is this related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead map. That asked i ageee maps in question need to do a better job at outlining the disputed territories.Moxy- 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed what is being asked here. Thank you for the link!! Ymnes (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there is more agreement than disagreement. Everyone agrees that legitimate claims or disputed areas can and should be indicated on maps in general. Unfortunately, the individual Ymnes (and his secondary account SurinameCentral) has been forcing non-neutral (and even pro-nationalist or extremist) maps across Wikipedia in a campaign that has disrupted many articles. For some background, Suriname is currently undergoing political turmoil and economic distress. Like Venezuela, they are using border disputes and land territorial claims as a means of 1) diverting attention away from the economy and 2) to alleviate dissent and easing inter-government tension by championing a common cause for unity. In Suriname, people who are independent and not neutral are sometimes called "Guyanese" and this is meant as an insult, insinuating they are a traitor to the country. We see this in other countries and it is not conducive to peace and diplomacy. Extremist maps of Suriname have been flooding Wikipedia. Ymnes/SurinameCentral has been removing or replacing all maps of Suriname in a cross-wiki campaign and neighbouring countries are also being affected. Ymnes has even reverted admins and the SurinameCentral received a warning. Please note: There has been no real change regarding the disputed borders in Suriname on the eastern and western front. For over a decade, the maps of Suriname across Wikipedia have remained stagnant. Regarding the three yellow maps posted above by Ymnes, the LEFT map is problematic because 1) the dotted border shows as a solid line in the thumb image, 2) the disputed areas are not distinguishable from Suriname (they should be an intermediate colour), and 3) the claimed areas are not identified by text. In the case of extremist maps, I have reverted back to the original image, which sometimes happens to be the base CIA map because it is the previously agreed upon image for the article. When possible, I've used the green map above but it shouldn't be my job to correct all of this). Ymnes seems to be under the impression that we all agree with the old CIA map and, to compensate, he promotes extremist maps. This is his misunderstanding. We all inherited these maps and the problem. Creating extremist maps instead does not help the situation. My question to Ymnes is this: Why do you keep promoting maps of Suriname that do not use a border for disputed areas and have no intermediate colour for disputed areas? Even here, none of the three maps you have presented have the disputed areas in a different colour as recommended. This map here is my favourite map to use of Suriname. As you can see, the disputed area is a colour equallty between the countries. The border of the disputed areas should be dotted, however, and visible when in the thumb image. It should also be pointed out that Guyana controls Tigri Area (whether just or not) and has never produced a map without it, whereas my Suriname and the Netherlands have some disagreement on this issue. MOST articles related to Suriname on Wikipedia have maps that do not included Tigri Area and this has been the case for over 15 years without complaint or edits. DutchDaan (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely mean. (and against Wikipedia:Assume good faith; an English Wikipedia behavioural guideline)
I am not a sock puppet of SurinameCentral!
I didn't effectuate a cross wiki campaign, but exchanged non-neutral for neutral maps (but you surely held a cross wiki campaign and reverted all, and more)
Give reliable sources that the Surinamese government has made an agenda of it (which was actually the Guyanese president or prime minister). The Surinamese economic situation has nothing to do with this (there are no reliable sources for that either – and I am Dutch, not Surinamese, not even related). As a matter of fact Suriname has been passive on this issue. Suriname is nothing like Venezuela, it's a calm democracy. Even ex-dictator (1980-1987) Desi Bouterse left in 2020 his presidency calmly without Venezuelan like circumstances, even when he was than yet in high appeal for 20 years of prisson.
And there is nothing extreme at using neutral maps. In fact this territory was occupied militarily by Guyana in 1969. So it cannot be denied at all that there is a border dispute.
And above all I am not an activist (here above I have given open cards on what I did and how). At a contrary, look at the messenger. DutchDaan is not Dutch (what he feigns with his name) and his thread shows clearly that he isn't Surinamese either (which he claims on his user page). And when looking at his account, maps are the only reason he started his account, not only in English, but cross wiki. This is who I am: 110.000+ edits on nl.Wikipedia, 40.000+ on Wikidata, 38.000 on Commons, 3.400 on en.Wikipedia, 2.800 on nl.wikinews. I am not a single issue pusher. Don't harm me with complete lies!
I regard his thread as a personal attack on me and SurinameCentral! It isn't more than that. It is just meant to harm our reputation and to prevent a sound discussion to solve this map problem. And it is a problem because the border dispute is real and there are reliable sources that confirm that undeniably. Ymnes (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you argue that a thread you started is a personal attack on you? Opening a request for comments means that many people will show up to comment... that's the point from what I understand, and what people will assume you're looking for when you post a RfC.
Please do not make ad hominem attacks against editors just because they are making ad hominem attacks against you.
Let's focus on the article rather than name-calling, please. Neutral maps are important, but as many editors have pointed out, the three proposed (yellow) maps are not neutral. User:SurinameCentral mentioned some potential problems with the exisitng (green, see my previous comment) map, but a) those are uncited and b) it is still better than the proposed change. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont blame me defending my integrity as a sound Wikipedian. That was a real personal attack. He uses lies on me and SurinameCentral to win the discussion. And his attacks cannot be proven, my statements on him can be: he doesn't speak Dutch / isn't Dutch, he isn't Surinamese, his account was started to defend usage of Guyana biased maps. His account history shows.
And sure, the green map is very OK. And although SurinameCentral has yet improved a lot, which I support a lot too, there have been some real good suggestions to improve even more. But look at it neutrally: there is this Guyana biased situation here on Wikipedia. That is a problem, and intimidation should not win this discussion. Ymnes (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@All - Mightbe I can be here tomorrow, but need to work during the week. Please keep on giving tips and suggestions and promoting a fruitful discussion. Thanks! Ymnes (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymnes: For the last time, stop commenting on my person. My ability (or lack thereof) to speak Dutch or questioning my nationality has nothing to do contributing to Wikipedia. It is utterly irrelevant here. It is provoking and unwanted. Stop editing my talk page (an admin had to stop you!). Leave me alone! DutchDaan (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I explained you there how you can have renamed your 'Dutch' account name. Just honestly do so when kindly asked. You are not Dutch and speak no Dutch. And please remove on your account that you're proud to be a Surinamese. You're not Surinamese. Ymnes (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone needs to stop commenting on other editors. If you believe someone is behaving improperly you should take it to WP:ANI and make sure you have WP:DIFFS to back up your statements. Otherwise comments should be kept to the content issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally this reply but you are making accusations here and therefore i must respond as follows:
Your accusation towards @Ymnes and Me is totally unjustified and wrong. i am requesting to any editor with more experience reading this message to guide me to report this profile of @DutchDaan who is making false claims in his username, and profile page, he is Neither Dutch, or related to Suriname as claimed in his account. i Suggest an IP-Lookup will confirm that this user is Guyana Based. from the moment his profile was created his intentions were clear, and given how fast he managed to get a nice misleading user page with banners and everything, i suspect that this account itself is a secondary account of another user with more experience. i request guidance from anyone who can help to report this for a an investigation.
All his arguments about the economic position etc is in my opinion just a smoke screen and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Also STOP with calling maps of Suriname "Extremists" because if you are going to label that as Extremist, i can say the same about all the maps of Guyana that do NOT show a factual disputed area as disputed. If a map of Suriname that shows this area as Surinamese is considered Extremists, then the same applies to Guyana.
Suriname and Netherlands do not have any disagreements on this matter. Another Smokescreen attempt.
as for why nobody complained for the past 15 years, This website is not the easiest to find your way around. if there was a easier way to report things i am pretty sure it would be flooded with complaints about the Biased maps.
in any case, i am at least happy to ready 1 or 2 sentences in your statement that agree with neutral borders, i will make sure the maps of Suriname reflect the disputed areas clearly, and then i will do the same for the maps of Guyana and French Guiana, because only then neutrality can be achieved on this platform. SurinameCentral (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a report read my last comment, note that your own behaviour will also be under scrutiny when you do. All three of you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and stop making personal comments. This page should be only for discussions about article content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to an incompetent sockpuppeteer who cannot make a point properly, we are currently worse than Britannica when it comes to the area of this country. The area is disputed, because there is a border dispute.
A 21st century Gale encyclopaedia says 163,270, the 2004 Collins World Atlas says 163,820, the 2003 CIA World Factbook says 163,270, the 1990 Britannica Book of the Year says 163,820. The 2008 Britannica Book of the Year sticks to its guns with the 163,820 figure and has a footnote explaining that the dispute is the reason for the figure and what the difference is.
Whereas we're devoting so much energy to a sockpuppetteer that we've not even managed to explain the figures to the reader as well as Britannica was doing in 2008.
What change are you suggesting? The area currently listed is 163,820, the same as the 1990 and 2008 Britannica books. CMD (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a similar footnote for a start. Britannica's footnote gives the caveat "Area excludes 6,809 sq mi (17,635 sq km) of territory disputed with Guyana". There's a 2009 Worldmark Encyclopedia whose "Surinamese" entry has a similar note.
But citing encyclopaedias and "world factbooks" could probably be improved upon if we had some proper geographic sources for the areas including and excluding the disputed bits. Otherwise we still haven't resolved things like the United Nations saying 163,194; yet another completely different figure that aligns with none of the aforegiven but agrees with an old United States Department of State factsheet. Or a report by Suriname to the U.N. saying 163,840. Or the Suriname Water Resources Information System (run out of Anton de Kom University) saying "about 156,000 km2" which doesn't agree with anyone.
Could you link the Britannica page in question? Their Suriname factsheet does not have a footnote. I suspect most sources will exxclude such as the ones you cite. Looking at other articles, our area note usage seems inconsistent, there is a note on Argentina but no note on Chile or Venezuela. CMD (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaikelTest.
Map with border claims
Only Surinames claims
Only Guyanese and French claims.png)
Agree Wikipedia should be neutral in this. I opine that one cannot deny that these disputes exist. Guyana even militarily invaded the Tigri Area in 1969 to obtain control over the area. And there have been intensive talks in recent years between France and Suriname to solve their border dispute. To give some reliable sources: BBC and Britannica (both from Britain, the former colonizer of Guyana; they use neutral maps). Ymnes (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
