Jump to content

Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

population and resources

[edit]

What is the population of the area? what resources are in the area? usually of interest in these kind of border disputes. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold, diamonds and bauxite. According to the Canadian government, "gold represented 8.8% of Guyana’s economic output in 2021". The Wiki article on mining in Guyana sources a report on Guyana gold being refined in Canada. It is "more than 60 per cent of our total non-oil export earnings,” according to Senior Minister in the Office of the President of Guyana, Dr. Ashni Singh. Free1D665 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen recent estimates saying that the population can be around 120,000 people, but that would probably need to be checked. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot thickens. The claim with Guyana brings Venezuela into dispute with Barbados too

[edit]

The claim also places Venezuela into dispute with the island of Barbados.

Request Neutral maps to be used (Guyana-Suriname border)

[edit]

Dear all, i would hereby like to make a suggestion to the following maps, because the Guyana-Suriname border is shown incorrect on these maps. there is a disputed area there since colonial times, and by not displaying this area as disputed but as belonging to Guyana, it is misleading all the readers. Wikipedia should be a neutral platform, there was an entire discussing on showing the maps of Suriname correctly, i would like to make the same request for the pages about Guayana Esequiba.


Maps to Correct
Incorrect Map Neutral Map

i would love to hear the opinions of other editors in showing neutral borders on wikipedia and replacing these maps with incorrect depiction of an official disputed with neutral maps. SurinameCentral (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map borders as shown provide clear indications about differences in control that are somewhat key to the dispute. The proposed changes, especially the second one, completely remove this framework. Using control borders is common, we do not for example have a mass of lines around Kashmir for every map that in some way includes that region. CMD (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guayana Esequiba issue does not involve Suriname. If we were to consider a third country, it would have to be Brazil as she is underrepresented in the article and is directly affected by this issue. The tributaries of the Amazon river are exempt from Venezuelan claim and professional cartographers such as Agustin Codazzi understand this (see this example). I agree with User CMD. Also, according to my understanding, the border between Guyana and Suriname are not incorrect but exist for a reason. The Netherlands and Britain both failed to agree on the border, and Suriname did not gain independence with its borders until after Guyana established hers. The Netherlands flip-flipped on the border and started modifying their maps to bolster their claims, just like Venezuela. The land west of the Essequibo river was once identified as "Surinam" but no one would entertain that claim today. Has Suriname made an official legal claim before the international community and World Court regarding this claim? If not, it does not need to be on every Guyana map if they themselves are not serious about it. SOUTHCOM (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me. The map showing the boundary dispute with Suriname is more politically accurate, and it doesn't add enough additional complexity to cause any issues. ~ Hairouna (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the actual line of control with Suriname should be solid, not dotted. other than that, its fine to show a dotted line within Guyana for suriname's claim. JM (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so here we go again, people ask Neutrality on this website, a dispute is being made from both sides, why is a True neutral representation so difficult here? did you see how Google maps shows disputed areas? i think that is a very good and neutral depiction. i disagree with the control line part. i hope people know that this dispute did not start yesterday, it has been going on since colonial times. any kind of acknowledgement is better than the biased depiction but come on, lets me truly neutral. SurinameCentral (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to be truly neutral then show who actually controls the territory with a solid line and who claims the territory with a dotted line. What a huge overreaction to such a neutral proposition. You're not taking the realities of the situation into account at all. Avoid bias. Note that Apple Maps shows a solid line for Guyana's control and doesn't even bother show Suriname or Venezuela even having claims at all. JM (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its not an overreaction to a neutral proposition, i just don't consider that suggestion truly neutral. Take a look at how The Guardian displayed the disputed areas in this article, i call this a neutral depiction. Google Maps also shows a Neutral Depiction, the BBC Country profile page of Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana show neutral depictions. Apple is showing wrong and misleading borders that are far from anything i would call neutral at the moment. SurinameCentral (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the rest of Wikipedia, where virtually every single country's infobox map shows claimed controlled land and claimed uncontrolled land differently. India and Pakistan, India and China, Suriname and Guyana, Suriname and French Guyana, Egypt and Sudan, South Korea and North Korea. All show claimed controlled land without differentiation for when other countries claim it, and show claimed uncontrolled land in a different colour. The terms I offered you are better than what normally goes on Wikipedia and better than the status quo map you dispute. Why don't you just compromise? I'm not even pushing the status quo, I'm pushing a middle ground, yet you won't accept it. JM (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when you add dashed lines for one country's claim and a solid line for the other country's claim, are you not sliding towards slightly biased still? in my opinion Neutrality would be like google maps shows it, dashed both ways, and they're done, same goes for the example in the news article i posted before. This is my opinion on the matter, if i had to choose your way or the current depiction, i would rather have it like you explained, but i would not agree 100% that it represented a 100% Neutral depiction. SurinameCentral (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this depiction as a Neutral depiction, dashed lines both ways
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guianas_location_map_with_disputed_boundaries.svg SurinameCentral (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to have a map that shows both claims and controls. Which my proposed compromise does. That way, not only are we unbiased toward either claim, we also show the actual reality of control.
Since you express that you would rather have it in the form of my proposed compromise than have no change at all, you should go ahead and change the map to the compromise I proposed with the solid line for control and the dotted line for the claim. This way, you get half of what you wanted instead of nothing. On Wikipedia sometimes editors have to compromise. JM (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok here are the new maps, let me know if there is feedback and what the next steps are, who is allowed to change them in the article, and is the change only for the article or site wide, articles where this image was used?
Essequibo rivermap Incl Disputed Areas
Guayana Esequiba (zona completa) incl disputed areas
SurinameCentral (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that a settlement's been reached. If no one else has a problem with it, just change it to this version where you see the former version being used if you want. I see one place in this article where it's used. I won't oppose you. JM (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i see that the first image was removed from this article. i will replace the second one in this article. The First image (with Orange Highlight) has several other places where it appears on the English wiki, can those be changed? examples on English Wiki: Venezuela, Borders of Venezuela and 2023 Venezuelan referendum.
What about articles in other languages? SurinameCentral (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change as many as you want (WP:BOLD) JM (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela is locked and cannot be changed. SurinameCentral (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to change it, it's only semiprotected and can therefore be edited by any account which has at least 10 edits (which you have) and is at least 4 days old (which you are). JM (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
got it thanks SurinameCentral (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Venezuela regarded the Tigri Area (New River Triangle) as British Guiana and still regards it today as Guyanese territory. This matters in the context of the Venezuelan-Guyana dispute, whereas the Essequibo has nothing to do with Suriname. Legally, Suriname has not filed a territorial claim for the Tigri Area with the International Court of Justice or with any international organ. It is not necessary on every map of Guyana, especially when the government of Suriname has not seriously pursued this claim. The Tigri Area was not included in Suriname when it gained independence (after Guyana) and the Netherlands government website actually displays the Tigri Area as entirely within Guyanese territory without any disputed territory zoning. SOUTHCOM (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree with all points mentioned here above. @JM2023 in the nature of neutrality, i want to change the Region maps of Guyana that are used here that are not neutral. in the case of Suriname everyone is so enthusiastic to fight for neutral maps whenever they see our own version, but when i change the biased maps of Guyana everybody seems offended. should this neutrality discussion be started on the talks page of guyana too? because my edits are being reverted. even the map above with neutral border like you suggested was reverted by a user @Chipmunkdavis SurinameCentral (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am talking about these pages:
Guyana
2023 Venezuelan referendum
Borders of Venezuela
Venezuela
and all my Suriname River maps that i changed were reverted as well (click the main rivers to see each page List of rivers of Suriname SurinameCentral (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#South American river maps for the continuation of this discussion. Major issues have been revealed. JM (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect this to be so controversial, but if we can't reach an agreement maybe it's best to start a RfC and call it a day. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do that, note that this issue is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#South American river maps. JM (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of Referendum of 3-12-2023

[edit]

PRIMERA: ¿Está usted de acuerdo en rechazar por todos los medios, conforme al Derecho, la línea impuesta fraudulentamente por el Laudo Arbitral de París de 1899, que pretende despojarnos de nuestra Guayana Esequiba?

SEGUNDA: Apoya usted el Acuerdo de Ginebra de 1966 como el único instrumento jurídico válido para alcanzar una solución práctica y satisfactoria para Venezuela y Guyana, en torno a la controversia sobre el territorio de la Guayana Esequiba?

TERCERA: ¿Está usted de acuerdo con la posición histórica de Venezuela de no reconocer la Jurisdicción de la Corte Internacional de Justicia para resolver la controversia territorial sobre la Guayana Esequiba?

CUARTA: ¿Está usted de acuerdo en oponerse, por todos los medios conforme a Derecho, a la pretensión de Guyana de disponer unilateralmente de un mar pendiente por delimitar, de manera ilegal y en violación del derecho internacional?

QUINTA: ¿Está usted de acuerdo con la creación del estado Guayana Esequiba y se desarrolle un plan acelerado para la atención integral a la población actual y futura de ese territorio que incluya entre otros el otorgamiento de la ciudadanía y cédula de identidad venezolana, conforme al Acuerdo de Ginebra y el Derecho Internacional, incorporando en consecuencia dicho estado en el mapa del territorio venezolano? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4380:B400:90FF:CED2:A27A:753A (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is English Wikipedia. JM (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Article

[edit]

This article is titled using a Spanish term, "Guyana Esequiba", rather than the standard English terms, "Essequibo" or "Essequibo Region". I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia editorial guidelines on article titles, but the Spanish title on English Wikipedia seems odd and possibly worthy of a rename. ~ Hairouna (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairouna: I understand it depends on how common it is, be it English or in Spanish. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title has been in place since the article creation, and it's not exactly a topic that usually gets much attention so there probably wasn't too much to go on. I would agree that the recent English-language coverage does seem to generally use the "Essequibo" spelling. CMD (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hairouna and Chipmunkdavis: I agree with your support for a name change to the English name, "Essequibo", per WP:ENGLISHTITLE.--WMrapids (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There also seems to be some nuance about the use in Spanish. This El País article uses "Esequibo" in most cases, using "Guayana Esequiba" only for the name of the mooted Venezuelan province. I'm not familiar with Venezuelan news, but a quick look finds El Universal which uses "Esequibo" throughout. Maduro's twitter account has used both spellings.
At any rate, El País's English article uses "Essequibo" in most cases (a sole "Esequiba" is used in the caption). The main issue surrounding a move to Essequibo is the current disambiguation, is the wider region primary over the river? CMD (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue is that the region is not only limited to the Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo region of Guyana.
"Esequibo" and "Esequiba" changes depending on grammar. When it is used with an "o", it's usually used as "territorio Esequibo", because its grammatical gender is male, or "territory" is implicit in the use. The "a" is used in "Guayana Esequiba", whose grammatical gender is female. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I should have guessed. CMD (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear there is something strange about the title. It seems wrong. What is the name used by Guyana? It's hard for me to believe they use a Spanish name. I suggest a title change to "Essequibo (region)". Zaslav (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana doesn't have a term for a region where it doesn't dispute its control. Venezuela instead created the name as part of a "Zone in reclamation" (Zona en Reclamación). As the article says: "The territory is divided by Guyana into six administrative regions: Barima-Waini, Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Pomeroon-Supenaam, Potaro-Siparuni, Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo and Essequibo Islands-West Demerara". So Guyana does not put any emphasis on the "Essequibo" name whatsoever, instead having six different names for the regions. WMrapids (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairouna, Chipmunkdavis, NoonIcarus, and Zaslav: There seems to be a clear consensus that a title move should happen, though we have to determine the current name. The term "Guayana Esequiba" supports Venezuelan claims and can be seen as the common name in Spanish-language sources, though it is clearly POV. "Essequibo" is the English-language name, though there is not much usage of the term "Guyana Essequibo" or anything similar. One neutral title option exists Two neutral title options exist; naming the two parties in the conflict with Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute (similar to Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute, Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute, Makati–Taguig boundary dispute, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, Croatia–Serbia border dispute, Cambodian–Thai border dispute) or naming the disputed territory followed by a description of the event with Essequibo boundary dispute (similar to Puna de Atacama dispute, Chamizal dispute, Alaska boundary dispute, North Borneo dispute). Any preferences?--WMrapids (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Striking former second option since "Essequibo" is not a territory according to Guyana and is only supported by Venezuelan claims.--WMrapids (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know that I was bold and made the move to the former for now. If any of you prefer the latter or another alternative, we can discuss this further.--WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the previous POV version was restored by NoonIcarus, a Venezuelan user. WMrapids (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You literally did not wait for anyone before making the move. Preferences seem inclined to the first options. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus that the name needed to be changed due to POV concerns since "Guayana Esequiba" is only used by Venezuela in reference to its proposed state of the same name. WMrapids (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But not on the title that you chose for the move. A less combative attitude can also help in seeking an agreement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This one is clearly controversial, so I'll go into the reasoning a bit. From strict !vote counting, it's 12 supports + nominator against 10 opposes. That's a start, but overturning the status quo generally requires a bit more than just a narrow majority. An examination of the article as it stands seems to show that it is overwhelmingly about the history of the political dispute over who controls the region, and not about the region-as-a-whole itself, which seems to favor the nominator's argument. In theory, there is no issue with some sort of split as suggested by Curbon7 / ActivelyDisinterested for a separate article on the region, but the content of the current article is mostly on the dispute, so if a second article is eventually created, then this page's history should be at the dispute article. Some of the other oppose arguments are also not convincing - the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article could potentially be moved as well and there's no direct need for consistency; and the dispute on the offshore water rights would fit an article on the dispute even better than the current title. The most convincing oppose arguments are CONCISE and COMMONNAME, but the common name argument is somewhat weakened by some media sources using "Essequibo". So I think the supporters have made their case that a descriptive title (WP:NDESC) is the correct call here that describes the topic while keeping neutral. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guayana Esequiba → Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute – The proposed name "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" is a neutral name that abides to multiple criteria listed in WP:TITLE; it is a non-judgmental descriptive title, it is precise and concise by briefly explaining the topic and finally it is consistent with similar articles such as Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute, Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, Croatia–Serbia border dispute and Cambodian–Thai border dispute. The term "Guayana Esequiba" is POV, only being promoted by Venezuelan claims for a state of the same name while the term "Essequibo" is not used by Guyana at all since it has six different regions in the area with separate names. WMrapids (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - even Guyanese sources use the term (e.g, [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] - [5]), so this is clearly a neutral, WP:COMMONNAME and the claim that this term is only used by Venezuela is rather bogus. — Knightoftheswords 04:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281: Thanks for finding those sources. While I'll retract my statement that the "Essequibo" term is only used by Venezuela, it is still primarily used as a historical term (one of the sources you provide mentions "Essequibo county", a county name that hasn't been in use for decades). Either way, the current title "Guayana Esequiba" is the name used by Venezuela and is still POV. As Curbon7 pointed out, we could make a split and maybe add on to a separately-titled Essequibo title later, though this article is only about the territorial dispute. WMrapids (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is obvious. I doubt the name "Guayana" is used in English at all (a Google search turned up "Do you mean Guyana?"). The region, with its three political divisions, is known in English as "Guiana" or "the Guianas": formerly French, Dutch, and British. After some decolonization the names in English are "French Guiana", "Surinam(e)", and "Guyana"; not one is known as "Guayana". Besides that, the name "Guayana Esequiba" is obviously in Spanish, while this is an English WP.
I don't say the proposed title is the best overall title (e.g., "Essequibo" might be justified), but it is NPOV and the current title is both POV (Venezuelan) and non-English. It has to be changed. The article can be split or adjusted later. Zaslav (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can have non-English titles if that is the WP:COMMONNAME in English (ex. Isleños or Wirtschaftswunder). Simply being in another language is not damning in-and-of-itself. Curbon7 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides what Curbon7 said, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the term. "Guiana" is the name of the region, and not the political divisions, just like Patagonia or The Rockies. There's also the Venezuelan Guiana, which is the part of the region administered by Venezuela and unrelated to the Esequibo. That is why "Guayana Esequiba" is a neutral description for the territory: the part of Guiana that is east of the Essequibo River. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no misunderstanding; "Guayana Esequiba" is a term created by Venezuela for their proposed state. Guyana refers to it (as Knightoftheswords281 showed) as "Essequibo" related to its historical use in British Guiana.
Despite all of this, we are talking about the dispute, not the area. By simply using the title "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute", we also avoid having to delve into the numerous different terms of "Guiana" vs "Guayana" vs "Guyana" and "Essequibo" vs "Esequibo" vs "Esequiba". WMrapids (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your personal interpretation. The term is simply another way to refer to the region. As shown above, Guyanese sources also use the term. Just because Maduro has driven up nationalism this month doesn't mean the term should be thrown out of the window.
Plenty of articles about territorial disputes use the name of the region in question, such as Western Sahara. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoonIcarus, you are misrepresenting the Guyanese sources as they use the term "Essequibo" and do not add any modifier such as "Guyana", "Guiana" or "Guayana". Additionally, using Western Sahara is a false equivalency as it is a neutral, common name in English sources (Morocco uses Southern Provinces and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic uses "Free Zone") while "Guayana Esequiba" is a Spanish-language name solely promoted by Venezuela.
While other sources may use the term "Guayana Esequiba" in the context of explaining Venezuela's claims, it is not intended for overall descriptions, it is not the common name and use of the term supports the POV of Venezuelan territorial claims.
Here are some examples of generally reliable sources providing the context:
The Wall Street Journal brings even more attention to Venezuelan claims and indoctrination practices, saying "Children in Venezuela, by contrast, are taught to draw national maps that include what it called 'Guayana Esequiba'", showing that this is a term primarily used to support Venezuelan claims. Heck, even Venezuelan propaganda outlet Telesur makes the differentiation, calling the vote "The Essequibo Referendum" while saying "Venezuela will create a new state, the 24th, which is the Guayana Esequiba."
So, any argument specifically in favor of "Guayana Esequiba" is moot as it is biased towards Venezuela's claims in the territorial dispute. As I've said, we can split the article between the territorial dispute and the geographical region (in the English-language known as "Essequibo"). But this article and move proposal is about the dispute, which is why the name "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" should be supported in this discussion. WMrapids (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These news refer to the referendum's last question, which was basically Maduro's decision to create a new political division with the name of the region. The Guayana Esequiba has historically been claimed as part of the Delta Amacuro and Bolívar states. WP:RECENTISM should not influence our decision, especially when it's caused by the whims of a dictator. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can be certain that generally reliable sources will be thorough when discussing a territorial dispute. Whether it happened in the past or recently does not change the fact that "Guayana Esequiba" is a term promoted in support of Venezuela's claims to the disputed territory.
But since you are worried about recentism, let's take a look back a few years:
There you have it, more evidence that "Guayana Esequiba" is a Venezuelan term. WMrapids (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind WP:SOURCECOUNTING. I have already provided reasons why it is not limited to it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You raised a concern and I addressed it. I simply Googled "Guayana Esequiba" within a filtered search prior to 2023 and then used the first results from reputable sources.
You can Wikilawyer all you want while citing user essays, but this behavior of moving the goalposts is something that is not new with you and should be recognized accordingly by other users in this discussion and the closer. WMrapids (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like your bludgeoning and aspersions casting, probably. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to have conflict because of something like this. It is quite easy to understand. Of course, it is true to state that Venezuela has called this territory "Guayana Esequiba", but it must be kept in mind that this territory, with the borders encompassing the territory covered in this article, is the result of a territorial claim by Venezuela. That is what it is about, a Venezuelan-claimed territory; there has never been any other territorial entity (of any country other than Venezuela) encompassing this territory under any other name. Salvabl (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there has never been any other territorial entity (of any country other than Venezuela) encompassing this territory under any other name" This is false. As mentioned before, it was previously the "Region of Essequibo" and "County of Essequibo" of Guyana, but was later split. WMrapids (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These territorial entities did not encompass all the territory covered by this article. Salvabl (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title is Venezuela's name for the area, not a neutral description of the dispute. The article as a whole should use the internationally recognized sovereign entity's name for the area, i.e. "Essequibo." Thetrick (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This move was not opened to move the article into "Essequibo" or a similar title, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm supporting. I'm supporting the move to 'Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute'. I'm also saying that article itself, as in the text of the article, should use 'Essequibo' in order to make it more neutral. Thetrick (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example I forgot to mention of this is the Ankoko Island. It is disputed territory, but unlike the Guayana Esequiba, it is currently administered by Venezuela, which claims it is not part of the dispute. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's not much contention over the Ankoko Island compared to the Guayana Esequiba dispute. Rager7 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is still contention, but Guyana does not want to meddle with what is now a Venezuelan military base. Of course Venezuela would not claim it is part of the dispute if it militarily controls the area. WMrapids (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It is called the Essequibo region by the people that actually live in the territory. The Guyana Esequiba is a concept. A portion of the Essequibo is from Brazil (ceded to British Guiana) and Caracas is under treaty so they cannot touch the Amazon. That is why Maduro offered the piece to Lula in support for military cooperation, as it is not Venezuelan. There is so much history and information not being shared in the article, because of Spanish and Venezuelan bias. I support the suggestion by WMrapids and think this should be relocated to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute. SOUTHCOM (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I tried leaving a {{spa}} tag to point out to SOUTHCOM's few edits, but it keeps getting reverted, so I'll just leave it as a comment: at this moment, SOUTHCOM only has 64 edits and exclusively regarding the topic about the Guayana Esequiba. I likewise imagine and hope that the account is unrelated to the organization with the same name. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Please don't bite the newbies and focus on the content, not the user. WMrapids (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it out. It's customary to leave this type of information in deletion on move discussions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is possible that the title needs to be changed, but not to what has been proposed, taking into account that there is an article called "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis". The best thing to do at this time is not to rush and wait to see what happens in the near future. It is very likely that the Venezuelan government will formally establish the 24th state of Venezuela and we will have to see how we handle that coexisting with this article (there are similar cases with Taiwan or Kosovo). But right now the best thing to do is to avoid possible WP:CRYSTALBALL and cover the situation as it is at the moment. Salvabl (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvabl: The "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis" article was named after this article; it doesn't go the other way around. "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis" was created prior to users bringing to attention the POV term that "Guayana Esequiba" is. It did have a neutral title for a moment, though a Venezuelan user reverted it back with "Guayana Esequiba" in the title. The main objective of this move is to resolve the POV title while making an article name that is accurate to the dispute, not to participate WP:CRYSTAL and assume that "[i]t is very likely that the Venezuelan government will formally establish the 24th state of Venezuela". WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right when you say that the "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis" article was created prior to this discussion, but we have to consider Wikipedia's uniformity and bear in mind that if that article is named "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis" it is because the disputed territory is known as "Guayana Esequiba" (WP:COMMONNAME).
    And I am not participating WP:CRYSTAL when I state that "[i]t is very likely that the Venezuelan government will formally establish the 24th state of Venezuela". It is not my personal opinion or prediction when we can read it in sources like this or this one where it is stated that the National Assembly of Venezuela will debate the approval of an Act of the 24th state (and we must not forget that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, whose leader supports the creation of the new state, is the majority in that Assembly). Salvabl (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In addition to NPOV concerns, I am most apt to support the name change based on the scope of the article at the moment. While some necessary demographics and other facts facts about the actual territory are present, the vast majority is devoted to the territorial dispute. This differs from your standard territory/province article which has a much wider scope. Yeoutie (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also definitely support a split to resolve this issue if the new article has enough information to warrant such a move. Yeoutie (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.The whole article is essentially about the dispute and its background, and holds together as such. WP:NPOV essentially requires a neutral title and the proposal provides a clear and succinct solution. Davidships (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already have the page 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis, which is about the dispute. I understand the argument about the current naming being POV, but it does meets WP:COMMONNAME as proved by others above. If anything I would support a move to Essequibo. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 incident is a small part of the wider dispute covered through this article, which has been ongoing for the entirety of Guyana's existence. CMD (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... Hoi everybody. This article is almost entirely about the dispute so it should be relocated as proposed for neutrality. The history of "Guayana Esequiba" is actually Dutch and British. The Spanish term is actually not used by most people there is almost no Spanish history in that area. DutchDaan (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look, all Wikipedias in other languages use the term "Guayana Esequiba" adapted to those languages, but based on the Spanish-language toponym. I am not suggesting that the content of other Wikipedias should condition anything here, I just put it as an example to illustrate that the reason for this is that it is a Venezuelan territorial claim, and that is why the Spanish-language name is used, because Venezuela is a Spanish-speaking country. Salvabl (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERLANGUAGEEXISTS. Just because "Guayana Esequiba" is erroneously used in sister projects does not mean that it should be used inappropriately here too. WMrapids (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the 1966 Geneva Agreement and Venezuela's claims --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the POV claims, it's false that Venezuela doesn't have a claim. That's what the 1966 Geneva Agreement is all about, it is a claim acknowledged by Guyana and it's a matter ongoing in the International Court of Justice. You can revisit this statement if the Court makes a decision, but until now that would be WP:TOOSOON and there are better title conventions that apply, such as WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your framing is pretty extreme, and it doesn't change the fact that (a) Venezuela doesn't control the territory (and never has), (b) Guyana's borders are internationally recognised, and (c) Venezuela withdrew from the 1966 accord and has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction. Venezuela has no legal claim. While this may change, we can't speculate about something that might happen in the future (and most probably won't, unless Venezuela launches a war of aggression).
In addition to that, per NPOV, we need a neutral title. "Guayana Esequiba" is the Venezuelan name for internationally-recognised Guyanese territory. As for any ICJ ruling - it's not a WP:TOOSOON issue, it's a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. How is it possible to claim that Venezuela has withdrawn from the 1966 Geneva Agreement? We only have to look at Question 2 of the 2023 Venezuelan referendum to see that this is not so.
If this Venezuelan territorial claim were not something permanent and significant, there would not even be a Wikipedia article about it. Frequently, the standard on world maps (Google Maps is a modern example of this) has been to reflect this disputed territory. And if we want to be really accurate.. "Guayana Esequiba" is the Venezuelan name of a Venezuelan territorial claim. "Guayana Esequiba" is not the Venezuelan name for internationally-recognised Guyanese territory, since Guyana does not have any territorial entity named "Guayana Esequiba" (or "Esequibo", "Essequibo" or similar) that encompasses all the territory covered in this article and that constitutes the Venezuelan territorial claim. What should be the title of the article? Esequibo/Essequibo? That name is also often used from the Venezuelan perspective; for that reason, I think that renaming this article would only be a vain attempt to reduce the Venezuelan POV of an article that is about a Venezuelan territorial claim. Salvabl (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible to claim that Venezuela has withdrawn from the 1966 Geneva Agreement? We only have to look at Question 2 of the 2023 Venezuelan referendum to see that this is not so. Venezuela stopped participating in the process. Venezuela isn't even claiming that the process is functional, it's claiming that the fact that Guyana was willing to have a framework for discussions is proof of Venezuela's claims.
If this Venezuelan territorial claim were not something permanent and significant... I never said the claim didn't exist, I said it's not a legally-recognised claim. Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying.
"Guayana Esequiba" is not the Venezuelan name for internationally-recognised Guyanese territory, since Guyana does not have any territorial entity named "Guayana Esequiba" (or "Esequibo", "Essequibo" or similar - No one has a territorial entity called "Guayana Esequiba". Not Guyana, not Venezuela. No one does. Guyana does has a group of provinces west of the Essequibo River. Claiming that such a territorial entity exists is at its very core an NPOV problem. That "territory" doesn't exist. What exists is a border dispute.
What should be the title of the article? Scroll up a bit. It's in the yellowish box at the top of this section. That the proposal we're discussing here. How did you even end up here if you aren't aware of that? Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela hasn't "stopped participating in the process". They just argue that per the Geneva Agreement, they should continue negotiating with Guyana instead of going to the ICJ. They are wrong in this regard because the Agreement allows the UN Secretary General to refer the matter to arbitration (and the ICJ has already declared it has jurisdiction), but that doesn't mean they have withdrawn. Just like with any other treaty or agreement, they would need a formal process for this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JM2023: We're working on it. This article is mainly on the dispute, not the region. The priority with this move is to have a neutral title and there has already been a discussion on creating a sister article titled Essequibo, after the title is moved. Following the move, we can all collaborate on how an "Essequibo" article should look. I've already mentioned above that we can use Patagonia as an example. WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I oppose the renaming, let me tell you that there is no territorial entity of Guyana called "Guayana Esequiba" (or "Esequibo", "Essequibo" or similar) that encompasses the territory covered in this article. This article should keep its current name because it is about a Venezuelan territorial claim, not about a territorial entity of Guyana or about a conflict. Similar cases are: North Pyeongan Province or South Hamgyeong Province of the Republic of Korea. Salvabl (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You right I had the article name in my head and transposed the country names. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salvabl, you nailed it on the head; Guyana doesn't really use the Essequibo term. As for the "Guayana Esequiba" term, we could create an article similar to Superior (proposed U.S. state), something like "Guayana Esequiba (proposed state)". WMrapids (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. I think it's good to be neutral (that's what Wikipedia should be), but we should try not to make a mess while doing so. Your proposal is a good one. The title of this article could be changed to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" (although it would be necessary to modify its content, and unlink it from the current Wikidata item) and then create another article for the Venezuelan-claimed territory (now regarded as the 24th state of the country) which for practical reasons should link to the current Wikidata item (which is about the territory). Salvabl (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is different if someone thinks that this article, due to its content, should be about the conflict (renaming it to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute"), and not about the territory. But then, as I have stated in other messages, it should be associated to a new Wikidata item. Salvabl (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Guayana Esequiba" is POV

[edit]

 Comment: To those who oppose the move, including @NoonIcarus, Curbon7, Knightoftheswords281, Sharouser, and Rager7: can you please why you support maintaining the clearly biased title "Guayana Esequiba"? If you can explain how the term "Guayana Esequiba" is not biased towards Venezuelan claims, that would be appreciated. As said before, this article can be split into two; one on the dispute and another on the region. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, no user has been able to counter the fact that "Guayana Esequiba" is a term created from the Venezuelan POV; this has been proven above in two edits[6][7] where sources explain the term. There have been arguments above (and below) which claim that "Guayana Esequiba" is the "common name" (it isn't, it's a Venezuelan name) or that Wikidata may need to be modified, but this does not override the violation WP:NPOV of using the "Guayana Esequiba" term. WMrapids (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Guayana Esequiba" is the common name, and "Guayana Esequiba" is a Venezuelan name. Both are not contradictory. You seem to think it can't be so, but that's how it is, and it is impossible to reduce the Venezuelan POV of an article that, as of today (just checking its first paragraph and its infobox), is about a Venezuelan-claimed territory. It would be like trying to reduce the South Korean POV of the article "South Hamgyeong Province". Salvabl (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite the other way around: you have failed to demonstrate why this is a POV term and not a personal opinion. Plenty of outlets use the term in an editorial voice, including from Argentina [8][9][10][11][12], Spain [13][14][15], Colombia [16] and Peru [17], just to mention a few.--NoonIcarus (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:ENGLISHTITLE which is why we have this discussion in the first place. So while Spanish-language sources use the Venezuelan term, it is obvious that they are catering to their audience. Generally reliable English sources on the other hand explain that this is a Venezuelan term to support their claim, thus making it POV. WMrapids (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before, this territory, with these specific borders, is a Venezuelan-claimed territory and it is coherent that the term used is Venezuelan. WP:ENGLISHTITLE is not a blank check. What's next? Renaming "El Salvador" to "The Salvador"? or "The Savior"? Salvabl (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not

[edit]
  •  Comment: I'll repeat the answer I provided above to avoid going in circles: "Guayana" refers to The Guianas region, while "Esequibo" refers to the Essequibo River. It's just a simple description of the region, not the name of a state of political division, and people besides Venezuela that refer to the dispute use the term as well.
I believe from readings over the years that the traditional name for this entire area in English is "the Guianas". It is not "Guayana". Zaslav (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Guianas" is the English-language term for a bigger area. Its Spanish-language equivalent is "Las Guayanas".
However, for the area covered in this article, which is smaller than The Guianas area, the specific term is "Guayana Esequiba", regardless of the language. Salvabl (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The Guayana Esequiba is a Guiana. As others have mentioned, the Guianas include the Venezuelan Guiana, the British Guiana, the Dutch Guiana and the French Guiana, even the Portuguese Guiana. Guayana is simply the Spanish spelling for Guiana, and "Guayana Esequiba" is simply the most WP:COMMONNAME for the disputed region in question. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got the idea that "Guayana Esequiba" is POV, besides the fact that it is a Spanish term and as such it will be used by Venezuela. It is just a name for the region. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally said above that I would support a move to Essequibo. Straw man? Curbon7 (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: You suggested splitting the article and having the territorial dispute information in a different article. This is the article about the dispute and having a title "Guayana Esequiba", which is only the common name for Venezuela, is not neutral. WMrapids (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knightoftheswords' sources show it is not the common name only for Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: That is false. Knight was discussing the use of "Essequibo", not "Guayana Esequiba", and none of the five sources presented use the Venezuelan term (though one does say "Guayana Británica" is Spanish). Please stop misrepresenting sources. WMrapids (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were to change its name to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" then it should not be an article about a territory (right now a territorial infobox is being used, not a conflict infobox or similar, and the Wikidata item defines this article as a "disputed territory").
It would be appropriate if an article about the conflict, wider than "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis", were created. However, renaming this article to ""Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" would be forcing the existence of an article about a conflict associated to a Wikidata item about a territory (and that item's content could not be changed because this article in other Wikipedias in other languages is about a territory as well, not about a conflict). It would be a mess, and to that would have to be added the future creation of the Venezuela's 24th state. How to handle all that properly?
The best thing we can do right now is to wait and see whether or not the formal establishment of the 24th state by Venezuela results in de facto control of the territory. And we must not forget that this article is included in the template of Administrative divisions of Venezuela. The main reason for the existence of this article with this name, Guayana Esequiba, is because it is a territorial claim by Venezuela. Guyana does not have any territorial entity called "Guayana Esequiba", "Esequibo" or "Essequibo" that encompasses all the territory covered in this article. This territory is part of 6 regions of Guyana, some of which (like Essequibo Islands-West Demerara) extend east of the Essequibo River, so their borders are totally different. As I said, this article ultimately is about a Venezuelan territorial claim. Salvabl (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvabl: If it helps, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia's claim to Ukraine's oblast as administrative regions can serve as a precedent to sort this out. Of course, it currently seems unlikely the area will be under Venezuelan administration, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something that can be fixed is less important than neutrality on the project, a key pillar of Wikipedia. Also, you argued against WP:CRYSTAL, yet keep suggesting that the territory will be a Venezuelan state. WMrapids (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my suggestion/opinion and it does not mean that I supoort it, it's a fact about what you can read in sources like CNN (see here). Salvabl (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If infoboxes and Wikidata are wrong they should be fixed, rather than our articles being shaped to follow them. CMD (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about fixing the infobox or the Wikidata item. It cannot be done. The only way to rename this article to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" would be to unlink it from the current Wikidata item and link it to a new Wikidata item about a conflict and not about a territory. Salvabl (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can also see it the other way around: if the content of an article's title is not suitable, it's only fitting to improve the content for it focuses on said topic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. We have to take into account that this article is about a Venezuelan territorial claim, a territory claimed but not controlled. It's similar to the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija of Serbia. That autonomous province, named "Kosovo and Metohija", is a territory claimed by Serbia, not a territorial entity of any other country.
In this case, Guyana does not have any territorial entity called "Guayana Esequiba" (so perhaps it is incorrect to add the flag and the name of Guyana in the infobox); it is a territory claimed by Venezuela, just like the Serbian case. Salvabl (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should not see it the other way around; by policy article titles are determined by article topic, rather than a process of picking a title and then trying to figure out what it's for. CMD (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was referring to. Titles are determined by article topic, and in this case, the article is about a territory, not about a conflict. Salvabl (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the conflict is the framework that defines the article. That there is a 'territory' is solely defined by the dispute, it does not exist either administratively or a natural geographic form. I have not encountered a source which discusses the area in question outside of the context of the dispute. The history that is relevant is that of the dispute (otherwise it would simply be a history of Guyana), the demographics and potential administrative divisions are relevant because the questions of citizenship and administration have arisen through the context of the dispute. CMD (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that the President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro has already appointed General Alexis Rodriguez Cabello as Head of the Guayana Esequiba territory, we can state that there is already an administrative entity covering this territory. Salvabl (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot, as that individual/structure does not administer the territory. Perhaps they will set up on Ankoko Island and declare it the state or similar, but we will need sources establishing this clearly, and ideally sources that talk about the purported state in its own right. CMD (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, that is why I think the most cautious thing to do is to wait for Venezuela's next actions. Eitherway, there are examples like the one I mentioned above (the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija) where Serbia does not control the territory, or others like the Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester of Moldova. Salvabl (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Essequibo. The issue is the proposed move is not to move to Essequibo. Someone should propose one. JM (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essequibo is the name of the river. Apart from that Essequibo is a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Something should be added in parentheses after "Essequibo". But.. what? Essequibo (Venezuelan-claimed territory)?? I think it would be a weird attempt to try to reduce POV in an article that is about a Venezuelan territorial claim. It would be like trying to reduce Serbian POV from the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" article by changing its name to something less specific and less accurate. Salvabl (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those opposing the move are not seeing the forest through the trees. They ignore the current POV title, make WP:CRYSTAL comments on the territory becoming a Venezuelan state, question Wikidata; all ignoring the pillar standard that Wikipedia has for a neutral point of view. Again "Guayana Esequiba" was a term created by Venezuela for its proposed territory and is not a common name, especially in the English language.
What we have before us in this article is information solely about the territorial dispute and not about the region at all. Looking at Patagonia as a comparison, there are no sections in this article on Geography, Fauna, Economy, etc. Now, after the POV title is fixed, then possibly we can work on an article about the region. However, we are here to solve a POV title here, not to burden ourselves with "what ifs." WMrapids (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what is supposed to be the English-language common name for this territory? None, because there has never been any English-speaking country that has possessed a territorial entity that encompasses the territory covered in this article. Either way, there is no problem with the existence of a name like "Guayana Esequiba" in an English-language text. If my memory serves me correctly, the word "Guayana" does not even come from Spanish, but from Cariban or Arawak.
The country called "Portugal" has the same name in Portuguese as in English. Is that a problem? Or Cuba, Venezuela, Uruguay... Honestly, I don't think it's necessary to explain something like this.
An now, let me be clear: I respect all points of view, and I also have no problem admitting my mistakes as many times as necessary, but I will not tolerate accusations that are not true.
I will say it again: there is not WP:CRYSTAL when I state that Venezuela will turn this territorial claim into the 24th state of the country. It is full of sources stating what I am saying. It's not my opinion, it is fact that it will be voted in a few days at the National Assembly of Venezuela, and it is not necessary to be a political expert or to make any prediction to know that it will be approved, and that its vote will be a mere formality. If you don't want to see it, and you continue to claim that this information is WP:CRYSTAL then you are the one who is refusing to get the point.
I don't want to be repetitive, but if it's necessary in order to avoid a mess in the articles, I'll do it: the only way to properly rename this article to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" would be to unlink it from the current Wikidata item and link it to a new Wikidata item about the conflict and not about a territory, because right now this article uses a territorial infobox and is linked to a Wikidata item that defines it as a territory, not as a conflict. There is really nothing inconsistent the way things are right now with the current title. It is in accordance with what is defined in the Wikidata item, it has a correct infobox, a correct title, and it is uniform with the Commons categories. Honestly, I really consider this renaming proposal unproductive Salvabl (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it again: there is not WP:CRYSTAL when I state that Venezuela will turn this territorial claim into the 24th state of the country. How is that not a future prediction about the future? Even if you are in command of the Venezuelan military and are poised to invade, that's still a prediction about the future.
the only way to properly rename this article to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" would be to unlink it from the current Wikidata item That's a trivial problem to fix. And Wikidata doesn't control what's in Wikipedia anyway. Things work the opposite way - Wikidata describes Wikipedia. Sometimes entities don't map precisely. And that's a problem for Wikidatans to work out. Guettarda (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that this Venezuelan territorial claim is going to become the 24th state of Venezuela is not anticipating the future. Anticipating would be to state that it is already the 24th state as of today. Is it WP:CRYSTAL if the article Republic of Artsakh reads "Formal dissolution on 1 January 2024"?? Of course not! It is an objective fact, it is reality.
And regarding the Wikidata item, I don't consider it a trivial problem. If the majority want to rename the article to "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute" it should be done, but the possible consequences should be warned and analyzed. If it is renamed, then it should be linked to a new Wikidata item, since it would be an article about a conflict and not about a territory (the infobox would also have to be changed; that's not a big deal).
If it is not going to be unlinked from the current Wikidata item, it would be erroneously associated to an item about a territory. And if the current Wikidata item were modified, then the articles of other Wikipedias in other languages (which have "Guayana Esequiba" as a title and are about a territory) would be erroneously associated to an Wikidata item defined as a conflict. Salvabl (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM closure and reversal

[edit]

The original close by SnowFire looked valid. Any experienced editor who puts in reasonable effort to explain the close and follows policies and guidelines can close an RFC, RM, etc, and SnowFire meets these criteria. I think the move should be re-executed, and Sharouser should take this to move review. Move protection may also be needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted non-admin closure because there are no consensus yet and another option (move to Essequibo Region) should be a possible solution.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This one is clearly controversial, so I'll go into the reasoning a bit. From strict !vote counting, it's 12 supports + nominator against 10 opposes. That's a start, but overturning the status quo generally requires a bit more than just a narrow majority. An examination of the article as it stands seems to show that it is overwhelmingly about the history of the political dispute over who controls the region, and not about the region-as-a-whole itself, which seems to favor the nominator's argument. In theory, there is no issue with some sort of split as suggested by Curbon7 / ActivelyDisinterested for a separate article on the region, but the content of the current article is mostly on the dispute, so if a second article is eventually created, then this page's history should be at the dispute article. Some of the other oppose arguments are also not convincing - the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article could potentially be moved as well and there's no direct need for consistency; and the dispute on the offshore water rights would fit an article on the dispute even better than the current title. The most convincing oppose arguments are CONCISE and COMMONNAME, but the common name argument is somewhat weakened by some media sources using "Essequibo". So I think the supporters have made their case that a descriptive title (WP:NDESC) is the correct call here that describes the topic while keeping neutral. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted this WP:NDESC. supports and opposes were similar therefore there ara no consensus. comments of User:SnowFire possibly justify move to Essequibo Region, but not justify move territory to dispute. Sharouser (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you did it, but that does not make your actions correct. A reasonable close should not be reverted, but should instead go to move review. Myself or another editor will likely restore it shortly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because SnowFire aknowledged such closure is problematic due to similar counts of pros and cons and opposing Guayana Esequiba does not automatically justify move to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, such closure is invalid. another common name of the region can be used to describe the region. supports and opposes were similar therefore there ara no consensus yet. To verify consensus, more deeper process is needed to consider another common name of the region as a title and anyone should have opportunity to support one of three options. Sharouser (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclosing that I proposed the move) @Novem Linguae: Is it appropriate for Sharouser, who was involved in opposing the move to revert the decision? As you said, a move review may be a better option. The move was proposed based on the necessity of achieving neutrality on a recently controversial topic. Going from there, users have been discussing how we can go about moving forward.
There are a few options we can discuss once a neutral title for the dispute article is solidified:
Feel free to make other suggestions here for an article specifically about the region, but the main discussion about the dispute should have "dispute" in the title so that there are no disagreements regarding English or Spanish terms and so readers can easily identify the topic. WMrapids (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually to answer my own question, we can review WP:RMCI:
"All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MRV), but assuming the criteria above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate."
Also looking at WP:RMCI, we can see this about conflicts of interest:
"An involved editor, whether an administrator or otherwise, may not close a move request (with certain exceptions, detailed below).
  • You have ever supported or opposed a request to move the page
... When you are an involved editor, trust the process and leave the close to one of the many, many other editors on Wikipedia who are capable of closing move discussions."
In this case, it appears that Sharouser has a conflict of interest with this decision. WMrapids (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the article back to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, and move protected it to prevent further moves. I do this action as an uninvolved administrator acting to fix an out-of-process move. I'd recommend we keep discussion in this subsection focused on move procedure, rather than content / move options. Anyway, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:MR. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Novem Linguae: Thanks.
  • Sharouser: To clarify one point, I did not "aknowledged such closure is problematic" (I would not have closed at all if I thought my own closure was bad!). Rather, I acknowledged the topic and request was somewhat controversial, and hence explained the close in somewhat greater detail than a vanilla Moved / Not Moved closure. Also, moving it to some alternate option is absolutely off the table - if an alternate move was in the cards, it'd be because editors !voting "support" indicated they preferred an alternate move. A closer can't move it to the preferences of the side with the weaker consensus, as that would be defeating the entire point of a RM discussion. Anyway, the close very specifically did not preclude a potential split-off of a separate article on just the wider region ignoring the dispute (as long as it doesn't overlap with the subarticles in Regions of Guyana). SnowFire (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharouser, Novem Linguae, WMrapids, and SnowFire: Kind regards. As it can be seen in the tag above, I opened a move review about the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela's historical pressuring of Guyana

[edit]

@NoonIcarus: Why are you removing reliably sourced information about Venezuela pressuring Guyana shortly after the letters independence? WMrapids (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The added text is analysis/essay. For instance, the CSIS article puts Maduro's latest provocations into perspective. Venezuela naturally does not considers the Ankoko Island as part of the dispute. The dispute must be presented in a neutral manner. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A better question is what the reliable-source / international consensus view is, not what Venezuela's view is. JM (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JM2023: I totally agree on that point. Is there any position that you believe is currently reflected only by Venezuela's view? --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know enough about this aspect of the topic. JM (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

Since it has been decided that this article is specifically dedicated to the dispute, would it be appropriate to create an article about the Essequibo region specifically? If so, how should the article be named and what should the scope be? WMrapids (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are a variety of sources which talk about the region in its own right, such an article would be a WP:CFORK at best. Even in the best case scenarios, it is over half of Guyana so it would be hard to distinguish it from the general Guyana articles. CMD (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, @WMrapids, Guayana Esequiba has since split off, although per the discussion at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present)#Requested move 17 December 2023 and above, I don't think "Guayana Esequiba" is the WP:COMMONNAME, unless this split-off is to be only from the Venezuelan POV? DankJae 23:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed the amount of links in the English Wikipedia directed to the title, which should show how common it has been (511 at the time of writing). It would be alright to discuss this further if needed, though. In the meantime, I ask that split not to be blanked. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion clearly established Essequibo as the common English name for the area under dispute, and has not shown there to be any independent notability or coherent territorial entity. (Less case here perhaps even than there was for Kosovo (region).) CMD (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors such as @Davidships: and @DankJae: support the split, and it was determined that the content from the dispute is different than the one from the territory. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has not been determined anywhere. It is entirely inappropriate to respond to the closure of an RM you opposed by simply recreating the article at your preferred previous title. CMD (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I'm not "recreating" the article. The article includes sections about "Demographics", "Political division", and "Territorial organization", having only the dispute with a small briefing. These sections were either split from this article or translated from Spanish.

The closing statement by @SnowFire: especifically says: In theory, there is no issue with some sort of split as suggested by @Curbon7: / @ActivelyDisinterested: for a separate article on the region, both of which said Instead, consider splitting the dispute part to a new article. and If editors want to split that dispute they can, but that doesn't involve renaming the article., and even the nominator themselves supported this idea. @Zaslav: also said: The article can be split or adjusted later., just like @Yeoutie: said I would also definitely support a split to resolve this issue if the new article has enough information to warrant such a move.

So far you seem to be one of the only few editors opposing a split, if not the only one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content back to that title after it has been moved away is recreating the content at that title. Selective quoting of above to miss the notes that the closer referred to new content, and that Curbon7 preferred a different name, does not change this. CMD (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a split, particularly when new content has been created. I specifically translated the Territorial organization section for this purpose. You should be more careful with this when blanking the content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to, if the content has been blanked just restore it here. CMD (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found what you mean, I have restored it. CMD (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I have been pinged. Just because I closed an RM doesn't mean I'm the boss of this topic area - it proceeds via consensus, just like everywhere on Wikipedia. The RM closure does not mandate a split-off, to be clear, nor does it forbid it.
  • Taking off my closer hat and speaking as a random editor: if consensus is established that a spin-off is a good idea (which doesn't appear entirely clear), I also don't understand why the region article was created at Guayana Esequiba. It'd be like having an article on the Falkland Islands at Las Malvinas. There should be a lot of deference given to the Guyana's name for a (currently) Guyanese region without a really good reason. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same. In the Falklands/Malvinas case it is purely a sovereignty matter in which the (all-maritime) borders are not in question. In this case, Guayana Esequiba is not coextensive with what Guyana may define as "Essequibo Region", if indeed it does so at all with any precision. A relevant map File:Guyana, administrative divisions - de - colored.svg and statistical table, extracted from Regions of Guyana, was blanked, moved here, then deleted by Chipmunkdavis after just two minutes as "unsourced", rather than being tagged appropriately. - Davidships (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was unsourced and there had been a related cn tag for awhile. Guyana has no Essequibo region, there is no link between the dispute and Guyanan administrative structures. CMD (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table or the map? I cannot see any tag on either in the page history.
The territory is divided by Guyana into six administrative regions: Barima-Waini, Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Pomeroon-Supenaam, Potaro-Siparuni, Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo and Essequibo Islands-West Demerara. Venezuela often depicts it on the map as a striped region. Venezuela seeks to incorporate Guayana Esequiba as a 24th state into the Guayana Region., had been tagged just 14 days before its removal here, see diff.
Together this content assists comprehension of implications of the dispute, particularly from the Guyanan point-of-view, in terms of the area in contention and the population that would be affected. - Davidships (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussion of population I've seen in reliable sources is the total population of the disputed area, which is in the article at the moment. I haven't seen any source consider the Guyanese administrative structure as being relevant. That Venezuela depicts the area as striped is true I suppose, but already better covered through "On some maps, the western Essequibo region is called the "Zone in Reclamation"". "Venezuela seeks to incorporate Guayana Esequiba as a 24th state into the Guayana Region" is perhaps technically true but a bit meaningless and misleading; under Venezuelan law the area is already part of the region, what the referendum aimed to do was to set up a separate formal (albeit theoretical) administrative structure. CMD (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the original question, I do not think so. It is difficult to see how an Essequibo region article could be viable since, as already noted above, it is not an expression with any status locally, hence its virtual absence from Guyana amd Geography of Guyana. It's current use is primarily as an English expression for the territory under dispute, viz. Guayana Esequiba. I am agnostic as to whether such content is better as part of this article or a separate, more detailed, page. - Davidships (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis and Davidships: The other day when I spent hours going through what linked specifically to "Guayana Esequiba", there were a few instances where I felt it was more suitable for the links to maintain their direct connection to "Guayana Esequiba" instead of this article, "Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute." These instances were mainly in Venezuelan articles where "Guayana Esequiba" was listed in some sort of vote and the dispute was not the topic of the link (for instance, a vote in Miss Venezuela 2003 for Diana Carolina Díaz Pérez, who represented the "Guayana Esequiba" state). I did this in anticipation of a potential separate article focusing on Venezuela's POV ("Guayana Esequiba (proposed state)" or something similar). The majority of the articles linked to "Guayana Esequiba", however, were discussing the dispute and I modified their links to direct to this article (NoonIcaurs subsequently reverted all of my hours-long work and their behavior is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus). After reviewing these links for hours and seeing what Wikipedia actually discusses surrounding Essequibo, I agree with Chipmunkdavis that a split article would be a content fork, also agreeing with their assessment that NoonIcarus was "simply recreating the article at [their] preferred previous title", especially since NoonIcarus is attempting to do this with a separate article as well. Overall, I oppose a split to Guayana Esequiba since much of the literature from sources, as well as within Wikipedia itself, focuses on the dispute and not the territory. If Venezuela were to somehow change the status quo and someday have their own "Guayana Esequiba", then we can cross that bridge.--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the move request, you expressed support several times. At one time, you said "I would not oppose a split that would create the Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute and a separately-titled "Essequibo" article", and similarly "As Curbon7 pointed out, we could make a split and maybe add on to a separately-titled Essequibo title later, though this article is only about the territorial dispute". Likewise, the same day, "As I've said, we can split the article between the territorial dispute and the geographical region (in the English-language known as "Essequibo")" The next day you said this once again, writing "As said before, this article can be split into two; one on the dispute and another on the region."
Knowing that the question is whether there should be a separate article or not, and not which title it would have, would you mind explaining the change of heart? --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this above. WMrapids (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article focusing on the Venezuelan POV is a potential option for an article titled "Guayana Esequiba", but that wouldn't be a split from this article or be an article covering the region (which as seems clear would be called Essequibo anyway). If the sources were there, it would be an article about the Venezuelan administrative structures and potential cultural representation. Whether the sources are there, especially after such a short time, is less clear. It is very hard to find sources on similar structures in other countries. Directing the Miss Universe link here doesn't seem like a bad idea, it provides the best context for why that state might be in the contest (and adds a bit of confusion as to the previous theoretical Venezuelan administrative structures). CMD (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: That is the issue that I encountered after the move; there is nothing clear in sources or on Wikipedia other than this is a dispute. Guyana has administration and statistics on the region while Venezuela has a claim on the map, so it would be strange (and possibly original research to include Guyanese data in an article about Venezuelan claims. I even looked at Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a possible example for an independent "Guayana Esequiba" article, but its description as a "partially recognized state" redirects to List of states with limited recognition, which itself has an introductory note that says "For a list of territorial disputes including these, see List of territorial disputes." Are there other examples of a disputed region/province/state instead of a "partially recognized state" that we may use as an example? In a best case scenario, we could have an article named "Essequibo" similar to Kashmir describing it as a "geographical region of the the Guianas" and then maybe rename this article to "Essequibo dispute" similar to Kashmir conflict, though preferring "dispute" as the situation has not escalated to a conflict. Anyways, like you said, there's not a lot clear about this situation but what is clear that there is a dispute, thus leaving us with the current article and title. WMrapids (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a comparable example there is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. It covers how the territory interacts with administrative and legislative structures, although its sourcing is not the best despite it being around for a much longer time. CMD (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking at Taiwan Province's history, it looks like it has just been stuck there due to limited interaction. The same could happen with a "Guayana Esequiba" article. I'm hesitant to open a RfC (I've been too quick to ask for additional input in the past), but it would help to have additional involvement. WMrapids (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article called Essequibo, referring to it as a "region along the northeastern coast of South America that comprises roughly the western two-thirds of Guyana but is also claimed by Venezuela.". This seems pretty unambiguous. There are also media sources referring to it that way as a distinct historical/geographical region.[18][19] I think this merits an article, and I'll start working on a draft if I have time. We could also add another article for the self-proclaimed Venezuelan state similar to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China too, since it is now an entity in Venezuelan law as far as I can tell. HappyWith (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

Considering the section above, as well as the feedback from the move discussion, I think it's best to formally start a split proposal into a new article. It was determined that this article is mostly about the territorial dispute, and a different article can cover the topic about the region. Pinging the participants from the move discussion: @WMrapids, Buidhe, Curbon7, Blindlynx, Chipmunkdavis, Knightoftheswords281, Zaslav, Thetrick, Sharouser, Rager7, SOUTHCOM, Dazzling4, PatricKiwi, Salvabl, Yeoutie, Davidships, Davidstewartharvey, DutchDaan, Guettarda, JM2023, ActivelyDisinterested, Panam2014, Voj 2005, and SnowFire: NoonIcarus (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spaniards expelled the Swedish in 1737 after the latter attempted settling in Barima, they set up defenses in the following decades and Venezuela continued having presence in the region after independence. The presence wasn't fully established, but it doesn't mean that it was non-existent. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean as a political entity. Further partial historic presence doesn't really warrant a stand alone article.
What do you see this article covering?—blindlynx 21:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx: The article doesn't need to be about a political entity, I'm suggesting it to be about the geographical region (but not limited to this option), as it is the case of The Guianas. As it has been mentioned above, it is common to have articles about both the dispute and the region in question, such as Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and a look at the former will show sections such as Biodiversity and Geography. I actually think there can be an important section focused on the indigenous people leaving there and how they have been affected by the dispute. The category in Spanish is full with this information es:Categoría:Guayana Esequiba. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's teh benefit of that? this stuff is already covered (or should be) in Guyana's articles and at the individual Regions of Guyana articles, and would end up being a pov fork. The issue is that 'Falkland Islands' is neutral geographic unit—both sides of the dispute see it as a thing—whereas Guayana Esequiba is not recognize by Guyana who see's it as bunch of different regions.
The effects of indigenous people in the dispute should be covered in the disputes article.—blindlynx 16:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @NoonIcarus: You seem to be putting the cart in front of the horse with this one. We were still discussing above what the content of the article should look like, finding articles to use as examples and if a split would even be the best way forward. Also, Spain is not Venezuela. All of these colonial claims make the situation tricky and that is why there is a dispute in the first place. Finally, if we were to even consider creating a child article, we would have to determine if it should be focused on the region (Essequibo (region), the preferred English-language version) or if it should be focused on the administrative claims of Venezuela (Guayana Esequiba). The former choice would be supported in terms of sources on geographical information and fauna while the latter seems to be limited in scope as the majority of sources would be Venezuelan claims, resulting with a POV fork as blindlynx said. Overall, there needs to some more discussion before a split is considered and "Guayana Esequiba" seems to be the least likely choice for now.--WMrapids (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the region needs an article for itself. The region is defined entirely in the context of a territorial dispute, as far as I can tell. Above, I had supported changing the name of this article to Essequibo, but that was in the case that the article was still about the region under dispute and thus in the context of that dispute. But if there is a significant amount of coverage about this region outside of the context of the dispute, then maybe it should have its own article. JM (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute → Essequibo dispute – This seems like a much more WP:CONCISE and debatably WP:PRECISE name for the dispute. Based on Google hits, proposed title has nearly 84K hits, compared to present title's nearly 15K hits. Though searching "Essequibo dispute" does give us present title, I suspect that is only because of the present title being used here. Would also dispute the need for the current disambiguation page at [[Essequibo dispute] to exist since all of it refers to broadly the same topic. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, probably should also test "Guyana–Venezuela dispute" and "Essequibo territorial dispute" (and without typos), as it is unfair to include a specific term for only one. And there are WP:GOOGLELIMITS. These names appear to be descriptions not necessarily as proper names, so if "Essequibo" is more used generally than the countries names then that could provide evidence for it. But there are also terms "Guayana Esequiba" and "Esequibo" used, and is "Essequibo" the most common of all of them? as mentioned at the RM above and at Talk:2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis. If so then that is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME which is prioritised over any WP:NPOVTITLE per that statement, however if there isn't a clear common name, then the current title should possibly stay as merely descriptive and NPOV. Agree the DAB isn't needed, and a hatnote can be used. DankJae 23:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i'm still concerned this is a POV title given that 'Essequibo' is used by only one side of this dispute... without clear evidence it's neutral we should stick to the descriptive and clearly NPOV title—blindlynx 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject South America has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geography has been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guyana–Venezuela_territorial_dispute&oldid=1254939341"