Commons:Deletion requests/File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.png

Falsified map: All power to you mate, but the CIA published THIS map, not your fake one. Enyavar (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

THis is the official borders of the Republic of Suriname. SurinameCentral (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

And since when is the CIA World Fsctbook published by the Republic of Suriname? Since 1990? See also your talk page. --Enyavar (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

(Edit: This is the discussion thread between Ymnes and Enyavar on all related DRs which were also held here, here and here. There is little sense in keeping the arguments in quadruple.)

It's not a falsified map, but one of the disputed maps. The CIA isn't taking the claims of both countries into account. Google does meanwhile. Ymnes (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So you say that the CIA has produced this map? Please check closer, there are signs of digital editing, and the original map from the CIA is linked in the description. --Enyavar (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I know what I'am talking about. Suriname had two major disputed areas at the south-east and south-west of it's territory. You're claim is not the full truth. Ymnes (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The uploader claims "made by the CIA". Which is false. This specific map has NOT been produced by the CIA. That issue is called "falsification" or "document forgery". (I am aware of the border disputes, and I specifically only object to the forgeries of official maps. I am not calling to delete these ones or these ones or the many other maps that SurinameCentral has produced.) --Enyavar (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Is "Which is false" true? Why should we believe you? Incorrect / insufficiently precise maps have gotten the second part of the puzzle which was not yet available yet, so necessary knowledge is now approachable. You even state that you are aware of the border disputes, but a couple of days ago I needed to inform you of them. Please don't luckily claim and state things. Thanks. Ymnes (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

When and where have you "needed to inform" me? When I STARTED this DR, I already had done in-detail categorization of all previous uploads by SurinameCentral - every single one, since they did sloppy categorization - and then I started these four very specific DRs and left everything else alone. Do you think I don't triple-check before doing so??? I am not "luckily" claiming that the CIA has produced this original, SurinameCentral themselves has linked the original as the source of their manipulated file. Similarly, I have not "luckily" guessed which borders are shown in official UN maps - I have looked up official UN maps of the 20th century and such maps all don't display Greater Suriname. Oh, I am disappointed in the UN for being inconsiderate when their officials created those maps, but that doesn't change the fact that in the 1950s, the UN didn't produce fancy Greater Suriname maps. --Enyavar (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't get emotional. I'm of good faith and I am convinced the uploader is as well. That is very important on all projects. Please uphold Commons:Assume good faith.

We are talking about the work of a new user and what I see is that s/he is not giving a wrong source intentionally, but has been copy-pasting from a wrong file in order to correct it. Please look at the following similarity:

File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.jpg

File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.png File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.png

If someone new wants to correct biased maps here and is new on Commons, it is very understandable to make a copy of the incorrect map and correct it. In fact, when we see this in an article on Wikipedia, we simply correct the error and know that it was not produced because of lack of good faith. We must conclude that here the same is at stake. Here the omission was made to correct "The World Factbook, 1990, p. 295" into "Own correction of File:World Factbook (1990) Suriname.png". So yes, the mention of the source should be corrected, but the véry good work to make Commons less biased should be upheld. These works should therefore not be deleted. On the contrary, I'm very pleased and welcome all these corrections. Ymnes (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Correct biased maps? Presenting the situation as it exists, not as Suriname claims it should be, is not biased, but falsely presenting maps that are edited by a user to reflect Surinamese claims not presented in the original forms of the maps as if they were the original maps is a lie that cannot be tolerated. And calling such edits "corrections" is not tolerable, either. A true description would be "edited to reflect Surinamese territorial claims" or better yet, "edited to reflect Surinamese territorial claims to territory not under its control as of [year]." And the map would still be misleading without the claimed areas being shown with cross-hatching or a different shade. And lest you think I care one way or the other about this territorial dispute, I was not aware of it until I saw this set of deletion requests and have no dog in this fight at all; the only thing I care about is the transmittal of accurate information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can agree with ading "edited to reflect Surinamese territorial claims" to these maps, but it cannot be done without adding "edited to reflect Guyanese territorial claims" and "edited to reflect French territorial claims". This is a problem that yet exists on Commons for a long time and needs to be corrected completely. Ymnes (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ymnes, you want to disrupt commons to prove your point? Most people aren't aware of every single border dispute in the world, which includes a lot of people who have uploaded Maps of South America in the past. The conventional border graphics do not need to be marked as incorrect or disputed, as they are displaying de-facto conditions. The "corrected" maps by SurinameCentral are an overcorrection to show the wishful thinking of Suriname revanchism/irredentism, because they are aware of the dispute, and want to publizise their maximal perceived de-jure conditions. As far as I can see, this border dispute has not even be tackled (and much less solved) by any previous treaty or arbitration. SurinameCentral claimed that Guyana "militarily annexed" the Tigri triangle from previous Suriname control, for which I have not seen evidence. An aware and truly neutral editor would have produced maps like this or this, instead of this. My ultimate point is that here on Commons we don't solve RL border disputes.

Back to the question at hand here: the maps in question are falsified documents (the originals produced by UN/CIA/World Bank were "corrected" by an activist user) and they have no place within our educational scope.

And Ymnes, I am not biased againts your political cause! I believe to make a consistent stand against all kinds of map forgeries, to just link a few. Especially that last of these four examples may be of interest to you: the NYT published an incorrect map of afterwar borders in Europe, and a user went and "corrected" the map 100 years later. To me that's a no-no. --Enyavar (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your problem? Why so aggressive? Can you please refrase and be kind? Help... blup. Ymnes (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel being attacked here personally. For that reason, I stop with my share in this talk. I HAVE NOT DISRUPTED ANYTHING!! And what is wrong with you, accusing Surinamese of revanchism/irredentism?? There is nothing true of that, at all. Because I cannot talk without being played out, this talk ends now for me.

But I won't leave without playing it once more fairly and with real arguments: also Commons should be neutral and so there should be an inventory of maps that show both sides of the border dispute. And no, there isn't a de jure settlement of the border disputes. The Surinamese government has on going talks with the governments of Guyana and France on diplomatic levels. And no, there isn't a de facto settlement of the border disputes. For instance, the indigenous people in the Tigri area are voting for national elections in Suriname as well as in Guyana. In fact on the disputed area between French-Guyana and Suriname there are talks to make it a nature reserve, since it is not permanently inhabited. My last dime. I quit with this talk. Ymnes (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No personal attack or aggression was intended, please calm down. You wrote "this (a change to a few files) cannot be done without that (a change to hundred thousands of files)". That kind of thit-for-that thinking is what I perceived as potential disruptive, and voiced my concern in form of a question. --Enyavar (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)