From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Caribbean / Netherlands Antilles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Netherlands Antilles work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Dutch municipalities (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Islands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Cities and Towns[edit]

I corrected the spelling of "Antriol", and moved it back to the Kralendijk suburb section. I've never heard of Jan Doran or Labra, so I double checked with a few natives, and they haven't heard of them either. Please explain where these are, or I will cut them out.

Do you really believe a separate Wikipedia entry for each and every small cluster of houses on Bonaire is necessary?

I know that I show as "anonymous" here, but I'm Kevin Wayne Williams, owner of The Great Escape in Belnem. 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "Jan Doran" from list of cities. It is an abandoned settlement which is located in the national park. It remains in the list of abandoned settlements located in the national park.Kww 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Relinked Boven Bolivia, link was wrong. Also modified the smaller villages, incorrect links (zkomes)

Diving most important[edit]

I moved the diving section upwards in the page. For the residents of the island, the most important thing we want visitors to the page to notice is that we have the best shore diving in the world. All else is secondary. 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Moved it back up again. Please leave it. "History comes first" may be normal, but Bonaire depends on diving ... it's our only real source of income. If the history section lasts for nine screens, a casual reader may not even get there.

If the judgement is that "History must come first", then please move the clothing factory discussion to its own article, and reference it from here. It's an interesting addition, and taught me some things about my island that I didn't know. However, it is very long, and takes up an amount of space disproportionate to its importance. Kww 12:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the clothing industry section should get its own article, given the its length (especially considering the relative length of the Bonaire article as a whole). There could then be a shorter bit about it here. I might find some time to write that if no one else does. Main thing is, though, that this is an encyclopedia, not a promotion vehicle for Bonaire or a tourist guide (there is another wiki, wikitravel, for that, which also has a Bonaire article). There is a standard format for country articles (just look at a few), and that is that after the intro (in which, of course, diving should be mentioned as a main thing to do on this tourist island) first comes the history section. I wont do that yet because indeed the clothing industry section should be shortened at the same time. DirkvdM 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is not a Bonaire promotion vehicle but the whole clothing industry section struck me -well- rather odd. Perhaps, mostly because of its length, it should be in separate article. Also it gave a mountain of data -including mortality rates of local women- but did not cite a single source.

Lastly I reworded the very Neutral POV unfriendly "But the new company was only interested in profit and not in the wellbeing of the Bonairean population"

I just moved the very long Schunck's Kledingindustrie Bonaire section to it's own article and created a link in the See Also section. Janderk 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a tourist I agree diving is most important. It at the very minimum should have its own section title. Divers (and dive sites) are seen almost everywhere; and dive shops; tours; etc. The marine park (including Kline Bonaire) is a most important aspect of Bonaire and deserves its own section. Under sports, diving must be as important as baseball and other local sports. Please consider the number of people diving and snorkeling there every day exceeds the numbers playing baseball. At the moment, diving isnt even mentioned under the sports section!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


In the discussion of the old clothing factory (an interesting addition, BTW), the workers were referred to as "girls". As I understand it, most of the workers were in their twenties, so "women" is a more appropriate term in this day and age. 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In writings of the time they were referred to as 'girls', but you're right, nowadays 'women' is more appropriate. DirkvdM 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal Status[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Link to Flag of Bonaire`[edit]

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

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

External Links[edit]

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

Ambiguous term "Indians"[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

Does area include Klein Bonaire?[edit]

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)

Grammar (under "Education")[edit]

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

Transmitting Stations of Radio Netherlands and Trans World Radio[edit]

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

Hans Hass and Bonaire[edit]

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)

Saint vs Sint[edit]

We use the English version, Saint (St), not the Dutch version, Sint. This is - go to the Dutch Wikipedia for naming in Dutch. AtsmeConsult 02:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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)
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: [1] Sorry if you had an issue with it before. AtsmeConsult 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
Please respect WP:Civility. See the following St. Eustatius TOURISM site - I am absolutely correct. [2] AtsmeConsult 02:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? AtsmeConsult 03:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
You don't consider the Netherlands government a RS? [3] You don't consider the St. Eustatius official tourism site a RS? [4] Before I proceed to the next appropriate action, I ask that you please self revert. AtsmeConsult 03:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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 that uses "St Eustatius" and ignoring three other links on the same website, also in English, that use "Sint Eustatius": [5] [6] [7]. 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)
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: [8]. 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. AtsmeConsult 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
NOAA uses Saint Eustatius or St. Eustatius - (St is the abbrv for Saint) - [9], UT Austin [10] Berkeley Earth [11], USGS know it as Saint Eustatius [12], Local times says Saint Eustatius [13], Relief Web [14], AccuWeather - [15] Line Corp phone service [16], Reuters calls it Saint Eustatius [17], there is the Democratic Party of Saint Eustatius, est.1948, plus it was called Saint when the Brits had it. [18], Dutch call it Sint, English say Saint, both ways are typically included [19], Selling land in Saint Eustatius [20], Wind forecast calls it Saint Eustatius [21], dive adventure co. [22], 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. AtsmeConsult 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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)

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)

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. AtsmeConsult 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. AtsmeConsult 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
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 usage of "Sint Eustatius" (never "Saint Eustatius") and the government tourism site 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)
((edit conflict), didn't read KWW's statement yet) and against the USGS use, there is the US government when granting passports [ 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)
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. AtsmeConsult 15:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Download open letter: [23].