Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chavez?

Has Hugo Chavez mouthed off about this dispute? Given his behavior on other disputes, real and imagined, it would be unusual if he hasn't! A2Kafir 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been recent news about the borderline area. That was the time the Guyanese were reminded why they have a sleeping problem. As for his imagined claims, is that to do with the ABC islands? CIA has not noticed the ABC islands.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The English of this article is poor, and seems to be written by someone whose primary language is Spanish. I suspect it was written by a Venezuelan partisan because of the Venezuelan bias. Wikipedia is the wrong forum to categorize a ruling as "flawed" unless the global consensus accepts that to be the case. Otherwise, the ruling is at best contested, certainly the sovereign government of Guyana would not agree with the perspective put forth in this article. KriZe ♠♦♣♥ 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is not correct in the article? Vanjagenije (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I observe the same thing as KriZe though I saw this article once a while back and it was much more egregious. I don't see any more wording issues, but there are problems I'm not certain how to fix. Up until the ruling, the article seems mostly fair, but after the ruling, it's essentially a catalog of all the incidents supporting the Venezuelan position. Which is problematic because detail does not entail accuracy, and it tends to be controversial and unorthodox claims that make news. I was tempted to make an analogy here to creationists and conspiracists, however the fact of the matter is that this is international law, and the facts such as they are are what precedent makes them to be.

The coverage of every jurist of any note in support of the Venezuelan position is in itself faint praise, since not only is it appeal to authority, but none of these authorities are particularly notable to boot.. I suspect that the article would become overly long if you found all the equally important people supporting Guyana's position, but that these will be mostly passing mentions, reaffirming what is accepted by the international community.

What I would suggest, but what I am too lazy to do myself, would be to seek out a handful of serious legal discussions of the matter, if any may exist. Then have one sentence for Venezuela, listing the more noteworthy jurists who've suported its position and a like one for Guyana. Then we can spend the rest of it talking about politics. We can note as a practical matter that Guyana's the position accepted by all countries except Venezuela, and describe all major incidents where the Venezuelans have brought it up. --Quintucket (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One can't say Guyana's position is accepted by all countries except Venezuela. First of all, this is not a matter of concern but for Venezuela, Guyana and maybe the United Kingdom. On the Geneva Agreement signed in 1966 all parties accepted there is a controversy about the border, so there's no room for other countries' position. And anyway, if you ask for others position, I suppose it's enough saying that the United Nations Secretary General has always been well informed about this matter. So I don't know why you say Guyana's position "is accepted by the international community". The fact that many maps show this territory as part of Guyana doesn't mean that it "is accepted by the international community". If you see, for instance, the controversy between U.K and Argentina about the Falkland Islands, the fact is that the United Nations seem to support the argentine position, despite the fact that many maps show these island as belonging to UK. Nevertheless, in the Guyana-Venezuela case, other countries position is not relevant, because both countries have already accepted that there is an issue about this territory, that's why this issue is being treated bilaterally and with the help of the United Nations representative. And of course, if we are going to write an article about "Guayana Esequiba", which is an entity is not supposed to exist but for Venezuela (if you read the article you will notice that Guyana doesn't treat this territory as a sole entity), then it's comprehensible that we explain the Venezuelan position.

If you can find any good and "internationally accepted" jurists article about guyanese position, it is welcome. Hiddendaemian (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The false claims to the whole issue was started and stirred up by the U.S because one of the main political parties was socialist leaning, and the U.S did not want and more "communist" countries near to Cuba. For over 60 year the original treaty lines that were signed were never an issue until Cuban missile crisis. After that the U.S purposely went out of its way to block and socialist leaning in the region starting with Guyana.Starbwoy (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Map at the beginning of the article

Something seems to be wrong with the map. All of the islands of the Lesser Antilles have boxes instead of words for the islands and their capitals. BTW, why does the map show the Caribbean Sea as a US possession? - Thanks, Hoshie 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

@IgnorantArmies and Essence750: There needs to be discussion here instead of blanket reverts please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands

How is this relevant? It's nothing to do with Suriname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article was written by one person

Most of the article was written by one person...(Hiddendaemian). This person seems to be rampage writing machine. He seems to be have an agenda as he writes all the border issues articles dealing with Venezuela and guyana. He barks about neutrality, while he seems to be be making up his own rules, and making broad assumptions which he is writing as fact, without providing direct information from the articles.

It should be noted that the border and land area dispute is ingrained and taught as fact in schools in Venezuela since the 70's, as belonging to Venezuela, when when the treaty was never an issue for over close to 70 years but was brought up as an issue by the U.S to stop socialist leaning politics and to prevent the country gaining independence with a left leaning socialist government.Starbwoy (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your English is as poor as that of the articles' author. Are you the same person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have proposed changes, or feel any particular parts of this article are non-neutral, bring up the specific issues on this talkpage, so that they can be discussed. CMD (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

I will being clean up of this and other related articles. If you have questions, please provide them here.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Better not, given your poor command of English (to put it mildly). 92.12.23.104 (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed text

The text below was removed as it has no source:

When Spain created the Captaincy General of Venezuela in 1777, the Essequibo river was restated as the natural border between Spanish territory and the Dutch colony of Essequibo. Spanish authorities, in a report dated 10 July 1788, put forward an official claim against the Dutch expansion over her territory, and proposed a borderline: It has been stated that the south bank of the Orinoco from the point of Barima, 20 leagues more or less inland, up to the creek of Curucima, is low lying and swampy land and, consequently, reckoning all this tract as useless, very few patches of fertile land being found therein, and hardly any savannahs and pastures, it is disregarded; so taking as chief base the said creek of Curucima, or the point of the chain and ridge in the great arm of the Imataka, an imaginary line will be drawn running to the south-south-east following the slopes of the ridge of the same name which is crossed by the rivers Aguire, Arature and Amacuro, and others, in the distance of 20 leagues, direct to the Cuyuni; from there it will run on to the Masaruni and Essequibo, parallel to the sources of the Berbis and Surinama; this is the directing line of the course which the new Settlements and foundations proposed must follow.

If a source is found, please add this back along with a properly cited source.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Map

An IP is currently replacing the article's map and in related ones with onne that removes the Tigri Area from Guyana, another disputed territory claimed by Suriname. I don't want to edit war with an IP just for a map, but other editors are free to take a look at it. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I changed it back and wrote in the edit summary that it violated NPOV, and for the IP to come to this talk page and discuss if they have a problem. If they don't communicate on the issue it's going to have to go to ANI which is going to be annoying, you can do that part if you want if it comes to that point. JM (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023: Kindly thank you. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Guyana Disputed Areas.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)