Talk:Bonaire

Is this island part of the Netherlands? Are the people there Dutch citizens? --Dara 02:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not Oficially, but the relationships between these countrys and the Netherlands are still very close. The islands are semy dependant of the Netherlands.--MeDP 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bonaire is a part of the Netherlands Antilles, which is an autonomous country in the Kingdom of The Netherlands. The citizens are Dutch citizens. In 2007, the Netherlands Antilles will cease to exist, and Bonaire will become a Kingdom Island. --Saintkevin 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bonaire will become part of The Netherlands, and the people are becoming Dutch citizens. The Netherlands Antilles will not exist next year. Today Bonaire and The Netherlands has decided that Bonaire will become a municipality of The Netherlands.The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Grandmaster e 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

They have always been Dutch citizens. The passport of native Antilleans always showed "Dutch" as the nationality. Saintkevin 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ironical note: despite being totally Dutch, those with a parent born on the island but living in the Netherlands proper are officially considered to be non-western allochtoon. DirkvdM 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

why does the table not link to Flag of Bonaire? Deror 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was a typo. It should be fixed now. — Epastore 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed Arco Bonaire. Went there looking for a blog about Bonaire and found extremist political ramblings.

Several times the article refers to "Indians". Maybe it should be obvious whether this means Indigenous peoples of the Americas or to people with origins in the Indian Subcontinent, but to me it seems ambiguous. I don't know which ethnic group is meant, and I think someone who does should change it to a less ambiguous term, or at least add a link to Indigenous peoples of the Americas or India or something. Static Sleepstorm 10:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's just you. The article starts with discussing how the population was a branch of the Arawaks, and then assumes that you will tie later references back to that.Kww 12:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so to clarify. Juan de Ampues repopulated the island with Amerindians, rather than Asians? And these are the same Indians being referred to in the phrase "A small number of African slaves were put to work alongside Indians and convicts"? If this is the case, then maybe it would be useful to add where these Amerindians had come from? Mainland South America? Static Sleepstorm 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to think of a way to clarify, and try to find sources so that I can be precise. When the Europeans came through here, they basically tyrannized and enslaved everyone. The Caribs lived north of here, and the Arawaks primarily to the south. Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao were essentially the northern edge of Arawak territory in the Caribbean. I think they may have had some territory in Central America, as well, but I am uncertain. Indians brought in from Hispaniola would have been a mix of Caribs and displaced Arawaks. Today, I'm quite comfortable in saying that people I identify as "Bonairean" or "Curacaoan" are primarily a mix of Carib and black descent, with some white and Arawak admixture; while Arubans are primarily Arawak with some Carib, white, and black ancestry. What the mix was in 1532 isn't something I have available at my fingertips, and may have never been recorded.Kww 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK well good luck, I don't know if it's any help but on the page Arawak it says:
"On the mainland of South America there are some 2,450 (1980 census) Arawaks living in Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guyana with 2,051 in Suriname. The Caribs on mainland South America number 10,225 (2000 WCD) in Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guyana. The majority of the populations of Puerto Rico and Aruba are descended in part from the Arawaks — Taino in the case of the former."
Static Sleepstorm (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

“Indigenous" and "First Nations People" are promoted on the grounds that they are utilized as formal people, places or things (specific people) and connote the social heterogeneity and political sway of these gatherings. The terms "Indian", "Native American", "American Indian" and "Alaska Natives" are utilized distinctly with regards to coordinate statements.

The article of the 288 km² (111 sq. miles)." And it goes on to say that Klein Bonaire is "6 km² (2.3 sq. miles)." But it is not clear if the area of Klein Bonaire is included or excluded from the area of Bonaire. Does anyone know the correct way to clarify this? — Epastore (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"...system, patterned after..." should probably read: "...system is patterned after..." (sans bold)
--Atikokan (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

History and more technical information of these facilities should be added.

Austrian Diving pioneer Hans Hass stayed 1939 eight weeks on Bonaire and Klein Bonaire (Mid July – Mid September). In August 1939 he lived four weeks in a small tent at Klein Bonaire near the divesite “Yellowman's Reef”. 1953 he returned with his research ship XARIFA and stayed three weeks at the Boca Slagbaai before he left to Galapagos. In April 1954 on his way back to Europe the XARIFA stopped again at Bonaire. Near Punt Vierkant his underwater cameraman Jimmy Hodges died due to an oxygen-poisoning. Hodges is buried at the cemetery of Kralendijk. 1977 he returned again for eight weeks and produced his TV-film “Fisch unter Fischen” (i.e. “Fish amongst Fishes”) about Bonaire’s growing diving tourism and the potential dangers for the natural environment. 1997 Hass supported and signed the referendum “Protect Klein Bonaire” not to sell Klein Bonaire to a private hotel company.^[1] (Jung, Michael: Hans Hass and his Journeys to Bonaire. With a chapter about the Bonaire Marine Park and the Development of the Diving Industry on Bonaire. Merzig, 1999) Gio von Gryneck (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

We use the English version, Saint (St), not the Dutch version, Sint. This is en.wikipedia.org - go to the Dutch Wikipedia for naming in Dutch. Atsme☯^Consult 02:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The English name is Sint Eustatius. There's no such place as "Saint Eustatius": we've gone through this before at Talk:Sint Eustatius, and that's the reason the article is at Sint Eustatius.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that isn't true. I posted the link to Google translate on your TP. Sint is Dutch for Saint (St). The official name for the BES Islands in English can be seen here: [2] Sorry if you had an issue with it before. Atsme☯^Consult 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you read your own talk page, or simply parrot the same incorrect argument in multiple places: the name of the island, no matter what language one speaks, is "Sint Eustatius": see http://www.government.nl/news/2013/07/13/prime-minister-rutte-visits-caribbean-part-of-the-kingdom.html http://www.government.nl/news/2013/02/01/new-deputy-member-of-the-joint-court-of-justice.html http://www.government.nl/government/documents-and-publications/press-releases/2010/10/08/judiciary-appointments-aruba-sint-maarten-and-the-bes-islands.html There's the occasional oddball page that abbreviates "Sint" as "St", but that doesn't somehow rename the island.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please respect WP:Civility. See the following St. Eustatius TOURISM site - I am absolutely correct. [3] Atsme☯^Consult 02:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The government site generally uses Sint Eustatius. Your argument was that the "official" name was somehow not "Sint", based on one page on the government site, despite the existence of other pages on precisely that same site by precisely the same government that use "Sint Eustatius" and "Sint Maarten" in English. Are you now retracting that claim?—Kww(talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ooooh, and look at your tourism site: "Sint Eustatius, also known affectionately to the locals as Statia or Stay-sha, lies in the northern Leeward Islands portion of the West Indies,..." (emphasis mine).—Kww(talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you want to include the fact that the locals affectionally refer to it however (whatever language you want to use), be my guest and provide an inline citation. However, the FORMAL name for the island in ENGLISH is Saint (St) Eustatius. You can use Google translate to convert that name into any language you like. The citation I provided confirms exactly what I've said about its formal name in ENGLISH. You are editing the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and we use English here. We don't call St Louis, MO. Sint Louis, bon? Atsme☯^Consult 03:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's not what the quote says, Atsme. Read it again. It says the "affectionate" names are "Statia" or "Stay-sha", but the actual name is "Sint Eustatius". "St Eustatius", when used, is an abbreviation for "Sint Eustatius". There's no such place as "Saint Eustatius". The citation you provided was to one of multiple English language pages from the same site by the same government, and most of those pages, in English, refer to the island as "Sint Eustatius". The English language tourism page you provided refers to the island as "Sint Eustatius", in English. You haven't provided a single reference that actually supports your argument.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You don't consider the Netherlands government a RS? [4] You don't consider the St. Eustatius official tourism site a RS? [5] Before I proceed to the next appropriate action, I ask that you please self revert. Atsme☯^Consult 03:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You aren't reading your own sources or my arguments, Atsme. Any effort to take "next steps" will just result in embarassment. Of course, the Kingdom government is a reliable source. However, you are pointing at one source on www.government.nl that uses "St Eustatius" and ignoring three other links on the same website, also in English, that use "Sint Eustatius": [6] [7] [8]. Your link to the tourism site uses both "St Eustatius" and "Sint Eustatius". That certainly establishes that "Sint Eustatius" is a correct form of the name in English. Further, you seem to be making the assumption that when a site that uses "Sint" also uses "St", we should be reading the "St" as "Saint". That's just odd. I've never encountered any official document using "Saint Eustatius", you haven't provided any, so it would seem reasonable that "St" is being used as an abbreviation for "Sint".—Kww(talk) 04:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have read your arguments. You have not read mine or even tried to understand what I'm saying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To see an example of what an long established encyclopedia entry looks like, see the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Sint Eustatius: [9]. I am willing to compromise - we use St Eustatius (Dutch, Sint Eustatius) in the lede since the article is about Bonaire, and not Sint Eustatius. Atsme☯^Consult 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: I've been an administrator here for years. Look at the article you have pointed to again: an English language article, it titles the page "Sint Eustatius" and refers to the island as "Sint Eustatius" in every position in the article. It provides "Saint Eustatius" as the English translation of the name, not as the name itself, similarly to how we point out that "Sint Eustatius" is Dutch for "Saint Eustace". You still haven't provided a source that shows that there's another name for the island than "Sint Eustatius" or that "St Eustatius" is an abbreviation for anything but "Sint Eustatius".—Kww(talk) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

NOAA uses Saint Eustatius or St. Eustatius - (St is the abbrv for Saint) - [10], UT Austin [11] Berkeley Earth [12], USGS know it as Saint Eustatius [13], Local times says Saint Eustatius [14], Relief Web [15], AccuWeather - [16] Line Corp phone service [17], Reuters calls it Saint Eustatius [18], there is the Democratic Party of Saint Eustatius, est.1948, plus it was called Saint when the Brits had it. [19], Dutch call it Sint, English say Saint, both ways are typically included [20], Selling land in Saint Eustatius [21], Wind forecast calls it Saint Eustatius [22], dive adventure co. [23], and the list goes on and on. I do hope you're not going to continue with this WP:OWN behavior. It's not at all what I expected from an editor of your caliber. Atsme☯^Consult 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you really want to continue, the next step would be an RFC. It does seem strange how eager you were to use official sources until I demonstrated you were misreading them. Once you stopped that argument, you tried to compare us to Britannica, until I pointed out you were misreading that. Now, you have a random hodgepodge of sources using an unofficial name, but haven't stopped to consider that your base argument, that "Sint Eustatius" is somehow wrong or not used in English, is without foundation. At the most, you've demonstrated that "Saint Eustatius" isn't 100% wrong, a result which I am surprised by.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a complicated discussion, as there is no formal English name for Saint/Sint/St Eustatius/Eustace (Dutch is the legislative language of the Kingdom). However, the fact that one can translate the word Sint to Saint, does not mean that in a proper name including Sint this is also the case. As is shown above, plenty of sources use Sint Eustatius. What I regard an authoritive source is the designation in ISO 3166, which was submitted by the Dutch government. It shows for the Caribbean Netherlands: Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba (nl), Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (en), Bonaire, Saint-Eustace et Saba (fr). (Note that for Sint Maarten, this was corrected from Saint Maarten, so apparently i) it is not easy and ii) they really thought it through, iii) in French it IS translated... Although indeed the term Saint Eustatius may be used occasionally, I think the formal and most common name thus is "Sint Eustatius". L.tak (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input L.tak, but I stand firm in my beliefs despite Kww's intimidation. The nomenclature has already been established in Wikipedia. We are an ENGLISH encyclopedia. If what Kww is saying was correct; i.e., "There's no such place as "Saint Eustatius" - then the same would also hold true for the Netherlands which is the Nederland (Dutch), or the Netherlands Antilles which is Nederlandse Antillen (Dutch), or the Kingdom of the Netherlands which is Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (Dutch). Click on the links to see what I'm talking about, and how I wanted to handle the situation here. The decision that was made to revert my edits and not include the English name is inappropriate and conflicts with conformity. Atsme☯^Consult 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think your desire for consistency in translations is laudable, but wikipedia is not the place to push such a consistency, if that consistency doesn't get enough traction in the outside world, and if it is not is it the dominant English term the responsible government uses. Should Saint Eustatius or Saint Eustace become the commonly used term or the formal government term in English, then I agree with you that we should reconsider. But that seems not the case at the moment... Sint Eustatius is also not the only place where no literal translation is taken; think about 's Hertogenbosch, which is translated Bois le Duc in French (sometimes even Bois le Duc in English), but never "Duke's Forest" in Enlish. This all despite The Hague being used in its translated form for Den Haag/'s Gravenhage/La Hay/La Haya... L.tak (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you find me intimidating: I'll admit to having gotten highly irritated with you, but you are really confusing two things here. "Netherlands", "Netherlands Antilles", "The Hague", "Munich", "Tokyo": these are all English names for places that have a different name in their native language. The normal names for Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten in English are "Sint Eustatius" and "Sint Maarten". What you are arguing for is closer to wanting us to talk about "Yellow, Texas" instead of "Amarillo, Texas" or "High Dirt, Indiana" instead of "Terre Haute, Indiana". As I said, I was surprised to see that you could find as many uses of "Saint Eustatius" as you did.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I consult you to give further study to the examples I provided above regarding the naming conventions of the Netherlands, et al, and the way they appear in both English and Dutch in our English Wikipedia. The same unequivocally applies to St. Eustatius. We don't write the Netherlands as van Nederland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands as Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, and we shouldn't write Saint (St.) Eustatius as Sint Eustatius. St. Eustatius is most widely used (and recognized), and it is pronounced Saint in English. A parenthetical Dutch spelling or vice versa should suffice, which is actually the nomenclature most consistent in WP. The fact that NOAA weather, USGS which is responsible for mapping, the tourism industry, and almost all aviation entities (airports) use Saint, should be more than adequate RS to change your position, but sadly, it has not. You keep citing Dutch sources with Dutch spelling which is certainly appropriate for a Dutch Wiki but this is English Wiki. The translation from Dutch to English for Sint is Saint, and that is a fact you can argue into infinity but it will not change the fact. I can only hope the obligation of MOS, and getting it right will weigh as heavy on you as it does me. Atsme☯^Consult 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

No one is arguing that "Sint" doesn't translate to "Saint" in English, just as no reasonable person would argue that "Terre Haute" doesn't translate to "High Ground" or "High Dirt", or that "Amarillo" doesn't translate to "Yellow". That makes it a translation, not a name. I'm glad for L.Tak's source: ISO 3166 is an international standard, and it uses "Sint Eustatius" in its English version of the name. Combine that with http://www.government.nl usage of "Sint Eustatius" (never "Saint Eustatius") and the government tourism site http://www.statiatourism.com using "Sint Eustatius" (never "Saint Eustatius"), even when the government is writing in English, and I think it's clear the preferred English form is "Sint Eustatius". The obligation of "getting it right" does weigh heavily upon me, as does our MOS, both of which lead to using "Sint Eustatius". I honestly believe the hits you have on "Saint Eustatius" come under the category of "common mistake", not "correct usage".—Kww(talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

((edit conflict), didn't read KWW's statement yet) and against the USGS use, there is the US government when granting passports [www.state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf here] (using St a lot in e.g. St. Helena), but not with Sint Eustatius)]; and there are many other English-language sources that are very authoritive (see ISO 3166 above). We can at least agree on the fact that i) Sint is translated Saint in English; and ii) the need to "get this right". We don't agree that if Sint is used in a Dutch name, it is always to be translated (and in this case: it shouldn't). I have no problems seeing what the input of others is in an RFC; as here we are repeating arguments... L.tak (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I concede to the ISO 3166 naming convention, and apologize for my persistence. Perhaps the common reference to saint is more appropriate in an etymology section in Sint Eustatius since it is mentioned in the lead, but then I question if it's even worth the trouble. Either way, I thank both of you for your patience and for taking the time to explain. Your efforts are appreciated and will not go to waste on this editor. Atsme☯^Consult 15:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bonaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303173142/http://www.mangrovecenter.com:80/lac_bay_mangroves.html to http://www.mangrovecenter.com/lac_bay_mangroves.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/...tourism...bonaire/13007212-bijlage11.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cbs.cw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:households-by-the-most-spoken-language-in-the-household&catid=48:household-characteristics&Itemid=82

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bonaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224143841/http://nos.nl/artikel/95861-antillen-opgeheven-op-10102010.html to http://nos.nl/artikel/95861-antillen-opgeheven-op-10102010.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mangrovecenter.com/lac_bay_mangroves.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbs.cw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103%3Ahouseholds-by-the-most-spoken-language-in-the-household&catid=48%3Ahousehold-characteristics&Itemid=82
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140215022655/http://www.ittf.com/media/press_release/PR_15May13/ to http://www.ittf.com/media/press_release/PR_15May13/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bonaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214142721/http://www.ekvandoorne.com/images/stories/newsimages/DoingBusinessBonaireEN.pdf to http://www.ekvandoorne.com/images/stories/newsimages/DoingBusinessBonaireEN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thayts, your revert forces (USD) to the next line, whereas US Dollar ($) (USD) is much neater in appearance. I reverted your good faith edits because they were not an improvement. I added a source to support why your edit summary of "(No indication that that is the official name)" was not accurate, and that your misspelling of Papiamentu pointed to a redirect, and should be spelled Papiamento. Is there a convincing reason you believe your no wrap revert should remain? A discussion is always a much better choice than edit warring. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Atsme, I'm just following the standard set at United States using the full name. Thanks for adding the source, the indication is now there. I don't believe Papiamentu is a misspelling, it is the name of the dialect of Papiamento spoken on Bonaire. It is even spelled that way on the website you added as source... Thayts ••• 05:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thayts, it’s Popumento, Papiamento so please stop changing it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Atsme: Popumento? Oh my, you can't even spell that right. Again, they speak the Papiamentu dialect on Bonaire; it's even the legal spelling of the language with regard to Bonaire. I went ahead and fixed it again since apparently you did not feel like discussing it here and went ahead with changing back the currency as well. You also changed the article text from British spelling to American spelling for no apparent reason, could you explain that? Thayts ••• 17:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here you have an English-Papiamentu dictionary. Thayts ••• 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, c’mon - you knew what I meant - the wikilink under it had the correct spelling. I am traveling, it has been storming all the way, and we just pulled in to get fuel so excuse the typo - I was distracted. Besides, we’ve already discussed this issue in the recent past and I thought it was resolved. Changing it in the infobox despite it being spelled Papiamento throughout the article makes no sense. What we need to do - see NYTimes article - it confirms Papiamentu. The Papiamento articles in WP need to be updated - are you up for it? Also need to change it in this article. As for the currency issue, MOS shows US $ and doesn’t spell it out - I compromised by spelling out dollar and leaving in the USD link - sufficient enough for an infobox. There are far fewer Papiamentu than Papiamento spellings so we go with the one that is most widely used and has the most credible RS. I would not object to saying it is spelled Papiamentu or Papiamento in the body text. As for British English vs American, the island’s currency is the US $, and the largest percentage of tourists to the island are from America and the Netherlands. American English is the obvious choice. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I must have missed that discussion. But there is nothing to be updated, there has been no change. As you can read at Papiamento, the Papiamentu variant is spoken on Bonaire and Curaçao, while the Papiamento variant is spoken on Aruba. So there is a difference. The island's currency is in no way an indicator for spelling preference. Since there are many more Dutch tourists than American and the Netherlands is right next to Britain, and since Bonaire is actually a Dutch island, I would say British English is the obvious choice. But that's just me. Thayts ••• 20:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thayts, I think you misunderstood what I meant about updating - my reference was to updating the info to reflect Papiamentu as the official spelling. Read my comment again and the wikilink I provided. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure NYTimes is the authority on that. ISO on the other hand seems more like it, which says that the official English spelling is Papiamento. ISO also doesn't make a distinction between Papiamento and Papiamentu, so I'm not even sure if you can actually call them separate languages. Maybe you're right to say that we should use Papiamento as the official English spelling here on Wikipedia, but that means it needs to be changed at several other places too like Curaçao and Caribbean Netherlands. Perhaps there should be a discussion at some place like WP:LANG about how to treat dialects like this one. Thayts ••• 19:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Certainly an option to consider. However, in addition to the NYTimes article, which is a reliable secondary source, and when you pointed out the government’s spelling of it in official documents, your argument to spell it with a “u” ending was convincing. As a sidebar note, and being a permanent resident of Bonaire, I’ve heard Bonaireans and Arubans pronounce it the same - Papiamentu - the 5th syllable sounding more like “thoo” or “thu” depending on how fast they talk. It doesn’t sound like “toe” or “thoe”. Regardless, quite a few RS indicate Papiamentu - see “Slavery and the Development of Papiamentu” by Gary C. Fouse, published in the Journal of Caribbean Literatures, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Summer 2007), pp. 61-72. Encyclopedia Britannica uses “Papiamentu”, and there are multiple academic sources that verify Papiamentu. Native Bonaireans with a minimum high school education refer to the Aruban Papiamento, and the Bonairean Papiamentu. I just recorded the following:

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

To me the two pronunciations in that sound fragment do sound different, so more like toe and too. I just gave the government source as an example and that was selective to prove my point, but Dutch legislation is actually not too consistent (e.g. some instances of "Papiamento" in relation to Bonaire can be found here, here and here), even though the official Dutch name for the language is Papiaments (without any distinction). The government website of Aruba, as opposed to that of Bonaire, uses Papiamento as expected. Since ISO recognises only one spelling and therefore has no other code next to pap, I thought maybe we should be using "Papiamento" everywhere to create some standardised consistency. However, it was not my intention to disregard one spelling or the other completely. Still, if you'd like to change the standard to "Papiamentu" then you should reach a consensus. That would also imply changing the returned value of e.g. {{Pap icon}}, but since that template relies on the ISO 639 name (the actual standard) I don't think many would agree with that. Thayts ••• 19:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So you are now in agreement with my original position that it should be Papiamento? Actually, I’m of the mind that, in an effort to clear-up the confusion, both spellings should be included with a brief explanation, and it appears you are, too. I’m not convinced that a standard actually exists. Ubiquitously among the native born/locals on the ABC islands, there is agreement that it’s Papiamento for Aruba, and Papiamentu for Bonaire & Curacao. I’ll go ahead and edit the article for clarity. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

Well, as I already said in the comment before my previous comment, maybe we should use the standard "Papiamento" indeed. This ISO standard does exist (and is used as such by Wikipedia), in principle covering both dialects, but without voicing the distinction that clearly exists. Personally I'm also fine with leaving Papiamento on Aruba and putting Papiamentu on Bonaire, although I do would like to know what others think of that. On the other hand, I think putting Papiamentu on Aruba would be wrong. Thayts ••• 21:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Moved from User talk:Atsme § Direction from Venezuela to Bonaire

 – This is the correct venue. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no interest in an edit war, so let's discuss. Comment on your last edit at Bonaire says the map clearly shows northwest, and so does the lat/long. I'm not sure how you are seeing that. First, what lat/long are you using for Venezuela that would "clearly show" Bonaire to be NW? Venezuela is a pretty big place. You could pick some points in Venezuela that would make Bonaire NW, and some points in Venezuela that would make Bonaire NE. Same thing for looking at the map--depends on where in Venezuela you decide to start from. That being said, it seems that the "average reader" would look at a map and say "Bonaire is north of Venezuela." Also, reading a text description that says it is to the northwest seems to imply that Bonaire lies farther west than the westernmost point in Venezuela, or at least that Bonaire is very close in longitude to the westernmost point in Venezuela. When there is a lot of Venezuela that is east of Bonaire and a lot of Venezuela that is west of Bonaire, it seems more common sense to just say Bonaire is to the north (without adding either -east or -west). If there were a cited source that says northwest, I would be hard-pressed to argue with it. But the text of your source just says "off the coast" with no indication of direction, leaving the reader to look at the map. All things considered, "north" just seems to me to more accurately convey the location. LarryJeff (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends on from where you depart, LarryJeff. If you're in Caracas giving someone directions, you'd wouldn't tell them to go due north. If you look at the far west side of Venezuela and the far east side, Bonaire is situated to the northwest. Aerials show northwest. When you read the coordinates, 68°28′W, 12°15′N, it reads West and North. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• "depends on from where you depart" - I agree, that's why I said it
• "If you're in Caracas" - article doesn't say northwest of Caracas, it says northwest of Venezuela
• "look at the far west side of Venezuela and the far east side, Bonaire is situated to the northwest" - an inaccurate statement. From the the far west side of Venzueula, Bonaire is certainly NOT northwest--it's northeast.
• "Aerials show northwest" - goes back to what is the starting point. I could just as easily say it shows due north. I would restate my previous comment that most people looking at a map and seeing that much of Venezuela is to the southwest of Bonaire, and much of Venezuela is to the southeast of Bonaire, would simply describe Bonaire as being "north of Venezuela". Saying it's northwest implies that all of Venezuela has a more eastern longitude than Bonaire, which is not accurate.
• "68°28′W, 12°15′N, it reads West and North" - same, it's west and north from what starting point within Venezuela? From much of Venezuela it would be north and east

LarryJeff (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

^{Simply for the sake of clarity...after reviewing my comment "...the far west side of Venezuela and the far east side..." - I failed to include my complete thought - that Bonaire is situated to the northwest of Caracas, which I've always considered a waypoint as it is the capital city of Venezuela. Atsme _Talk 📧 16:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)}Reply

My advice to you is to call an RfC if you want to change longstanding, stable material. I am going to move this discussion to the TP of the article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good discussion. Thank you for drawing attention to the location issue. I struck my comment directly above now that the accuracy issue has been resolved with the addition of Caracas as the way point. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that's less accurate since Bonaire is about 150 miles from Caracas (see https://www.distance.to/Bonaire/Caracas). I edited to match the language in the reference that you added yesterday, to just say "off the coast" without referencing a particular city. I think that probably goes more along with the spirit of the original writing, highlighting the proximity. LarryJeff (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Works for me, and you can even add north. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

• Bonaire Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply