Talk:Barbados/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Country name

What's with adding conventional_long_name under the title? Looks like a scripting error, but how do you get rid of it or correct it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamorphousthe (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tourist destination

The words Barbados is now a major tourist destination appear in the Geography section. This seems to suggest that, not so long ago it wasn't a major tourist destination. I don't know at what point you could start to call it a major destination, but that change is not something new. Not so? Guettarda 17:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I accidentally cropped this from the article header while adding the caption about the length and the breadth of the island to the Geography section.
About the part about Barbados tourism. I guess the current will suffice. According to most records, Barbados has been "formally" involved in tourism since around the late 1960's just after independence. However, for much of that time the island wasn't really a "major" destination per se.
Only in the last 3-4 years has Barbados topped 1 million visitors per annum, regionally speaking that amount is now considered among the high totals for visitors.
The new class of super cruise-ships released in recent times are whats contributing towards boosting the amount of tourist numbers to the island in any given year. CaribDigita 02:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose I would have defined "major" a little more liberally than you...I think it would be interesting to insert that information (that since 200X B'dos has topped 1 million visitors p.a). I wonder if there is a list in Wikipedia of the top tourist destination, by visitor attendance. Guettarda 03:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen anything on here that has much tourism information about the Caribbean. Can you believe if you goto wikipedia's tourism section you will see virually nothing about the Caribbean Region?

Likewise if you goto the UN's World Tourism Organization or World_Tourism_Rankings again, there's nothing about the Caribbean. I love Wikipedia, but the info about our region rather has much to be desired. I can't just complain, so I just have to help change some of that. :-) Soo much to change, so little time in the day.

  • I have a few articles saved by tourism officials from the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (CTO), with various figures but I have to cross check it against at least another source before I post it as a fact. you know what I mean?

CaribDigita 11:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia regularly votes Caribbean stuff off for deletion, so I've kinda stopped contributing here. I've been thinking about opening up my own wiki and letting Wikipedia update itself. Cuba's wiki I think had the same thing happen. A bunch of Spanish users broke away and started doing their own thing because Wikipedia has been doing a lot of stupidness lately. The figures I found are on the official Barbados Tourism Authority website see here. On that page change the date to last year in order to see monthly tourist figures. CaribDigita 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


by jane ferrer

What's with the removal of the CARICOM political union template?

What's with the removal of the template for the CARICOM political/economic union? Removing the CARICOM union is like removing the EU one template from like one of the Europe countries.

If anything we should dump the West Indies one, "West Indies" who even still calls the region that anymore, other then people from outside?

CARICOM is much more importaint to the region then the West Indies banner. CARICOM *governs* the free movement of people, the proposed currency union, the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Caribbean (CARICOM) Single Market and economy, the (proposed) Single Caribbean Stock Exchange between Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, the single Caribbean passport, the regional civil society charter, and the list goes on...

The CARICOM template are *the* islands, and when it makes a rulings at the Caribbean Court of Justice it can even govern island above the government on that island... The Commonwealth one I guess can go, that's not all that importaint either. The CARICOM one needs to stay I don't know any other template that would be more #1 then the CARICOM one.

West Indies doesn't control the islands. CARICOM does.

When the United States wants the islands to vote a certain way they petition/lobby one island which in turn informs the heads of "CARICOM" and they all deliberate on the issue as a CARICOM. The islands mostly only vote as a bloc, as a CARICOM in favor of or against usually just as the EU. CaribDigita 04:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Little England?

Barbados, or as known by the British "Little England"... - is it? I've never in my life heard anyone refer to Barbados as this; if the term crops up it invariably means the more seculded, insular, parts of (middle) English culture. Shimgray 20:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Little England" has been Barbados' nickname for a long long time (probably a few hundred years). Not sure how widely it is used, but it certainly is neither recent nor minor. Guettarda 20:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The nickname "Little England" and also "Bimshire"(Used less frequently) has been around for a long time as Guettarda rightfully stated. It's been used for various reasons throughout the centuries.
One of the more recent instances according to Barbados legend is when the Chief Minister of the colony of Barbados, Grantley Adams sent a telegraph message to Winston Churchill during World War II. And stated "Don't worry, Little England is with you." and as the story goes it's an attempt to explain how Barbados became the first British Colony to declare war on Germany in 1939.
None the less. Many travel sites include the tid-bit about Barbados being nicknamed as "Little England".

P.S. feel free to try a search on Google under "Barbados Little England" and see how many reference sites pop up. CaribDigita 23:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm British and I've never heard this either. It's a historical usage and/or a guidebook curiosity, not something that is familiar in modern Britain. But it isn't in the article at the moment anyway. Osomec 04:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Just because you maybe un-knowledgable of this fact does not make it false. If you follow what most general Brits. today knew about the Caribbean many would still--- be under the belief that Barbados and the rest of the islands of the Caribbean are geographically a part of the island of Jamaica, even though as the crow flies (Barbados and Jamaica) are about 1000 miles apart. Also, the economic status of Barbados' (current or otherwise), has NOTHING to do with a nickname. How do you substante your claim that they do?
I guess you're also un-knowledgable of the fact that just as it's been understood that Haiti *was* one of France's richest colonies anywhere on the planet. Barbados, in getting an early lead in the west indies of switching from Tobacco to Sugar Cane was also for a time- was one of Britain's most wealthy colonies in the world as well. Are you aware of that either? Probably not.
Were you at all aware that London's Trafalgar Square (right under your nose probably) is actually a 'knock off' of Barbados' Trafalgar Square? That's right the statue of Lord Nelson -- in Barbados over looking it's Trafalgar Square is actually 27 years older- then Lord "Nelson's column" in London's Trafalgar Square, you were probably not aware of that again. But to digres, Barbados wasn't known as "Little England" in the colonial days because of it's wealth, or because of pomp, or how much "stuff" it had, it was known as "Little England" because of it's strict adhearence to continue following middle-England British colonial customs even after independence those are the facts. Look that up if you wish. CaribDigita 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


CaribDigita, you are absolutly correct. Excellent Post.

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 03:41, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

In the book Witch of Black Bird Pond, it is like about barbados and west indies!

Don't you think there is a small mistake here ?

In the History area I can read : " In Barbados and the rest of the British West Indian colonies, full slavery was preceded by an apprenticeship period that lasted six years. " The word "freedom" should replace the word "slavery" isn't-it ?

New sentence should be: " In Barbados and the rest of the British West Indian colonies, full freedom was preceded by an apprenticeship period that lasted six years. "

I did'nt correct directly the text because as a french native I don't think I am the perfect person to do so.

Actually it is correct. What should probably be added is that Slavery of African decendents was preceded by an apprenticeship period involving mainly citizens of the United Kingdom. When most of those persons became free, African slavery was implemented instead. CaribDigita 22:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

?

is barbados in the west indies?


Yes it is in the West Indies. It is the most easterly of all the islands in the West Indies or Caribbean chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.81.143 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2004 (UTC)

?

What is Barbadoes water

In Peregrine Pickle, "That everything might be answerable to the magnificence of this delicate feast, he had provided vast quantifies of strong beer, flip, rumbo, and burnt brandy, with plenty of Barbadoes water for the ladies"

Barbadoes Water was one of the first names given to "Rum" after it was discovered. Under the rum article, see the section Origins of the name (near the bottom of that section). CaribDigita 05:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is said that rum was invented in Barbados, 20 November 2005

?

I'm not sure whether to add new content to the top or bottom. Here's my $0.02: I changed the word "settlement" to "invasion" to which CaribDigita replied "Not correct: Barbados never changed hands/nor has it ever been successfully invaded since settlement."

I was actually referring to the British / European invasion itself. Was not the island inhabited by an indigenous group before the British arrived? This was the invasion I was speaking of, but I could be wrong.

I'll leave it like it is though since there's no point in fighting.

Hi there, nope I'm not being mean. That's not my intention at all. There's evidence that Barbados was inhabited previously, as well as 'accounts' by the decendent of "Carib" tribes on other islands about their habitation of Barbados previously. The island supposedly only had a large population of wild pigs, (suspected as being left by the Portuguese, so they could return to Barbados one day). All accounts of the Barbados establishment state though that Barbados had no people living there at the time. In which case there would be no one to really "invade". One rumour I heard but can find no source to back it up is suposedly the Dutch and French did try to invade the island long after the Brits were established but a revolt on the island supposedly made the invaders retreat. Suposedly this revolt was said to be a result of the citizens not knowing if the Franch or Netherlands would allow Barbados to maintain their same level of Sovereignty under Britain and thus to preserve it the French and then Netherlands had to be ran from the island. CaribDigita 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

When describing the demographics of Barbados, don't you think it is unfair and extremely rude to quote bajan hindus and muslims. This is incorrect as hindu and muslim are names given to people belonging too specific religious groups, and not any racial group within a society.

Have never heard of Bajans of European descent referred to as "Anglo/Euro-Bajans" nor have I heard anyone say "Chiney-Bajans". That bit of the write up seems very contrived. 66.131.96.33 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

It should be noted that though it may be an offense to wear camouflage, it IS illegal. Though I don't know the site to prove this, I know it from experience having lived there for five years.Metamorphousthe 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Eddy Grant should be added to the list of Bajan celebrities as he lives in St. Philip just above Mapps College. Metamorphousthe 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


This article's second citation, "Barbados.org," states that the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution of the United States, was cribbed from a then 150 year old Barbadian document. I knew that claim sounded a little too far fetched. Someone may want to correct this error. This also provides the missing citation for that piece of trivia.

On Countrywatch.com (Let me know if you need a Login/Pass you can use) it states:

" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbados&action=edit&section=9 History

In terms of its history, Barbados was originally inhabited by indigenous Arawak Indians, and later by indigenous Carib Indians. The British sailors who landed on Barbados in the 1620s, at the site of present-day Holetown on the Caribbean coast, however, found the island uninhabited. As elsewhere in the eastern Caribbean, invading Caribs may have annihilated Arawak Indians. It is generally believed that the Carib peoples subsequently abandoned the island.

From the arrival of the first British settlers in 1627-28 until independence in 1966, Barbados was under uninterrupted British control. Nevertheless, Barbados always enjoyed a large measure of local autonomy. Its House of Assembly, which began meeting in 1639, is the third-oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere, preceded only by Bermuda's legislature and the Virginia House of Burgesses. It even developed a local constitution, a document so sophisticated in its democratic thought that it was used as a blueprint by the American Founding Fathers to formulate the United States Constitution.

As was the case for many Caribbean islands, sugar production, as well as a plantation economy and society, mark Barbados' colonial history. With the development of the sugar industry into the main commercial enterprise, Barbados was divided into large plantation estates that replaced the smaller holdings of the early British settlers.

The sugar industry also had a direct effect upon the population of the island. Some of the displaced farmers relocated to British colonies in North America. In addition, slaves were brought from Africa to work on sugar plantations. Two centuries later, the slave trade ceased and in 1834 slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire.

Plantation owners and merchants of British descent dominated local politics. It was not until the 1930s that the descendants of emancipated slaves began a movement for political rights. One of the leaders of this movement, Sir Grantley Adams, founded the Barbados Labor Party in 1938. Progress toward more democratic government for Barbados was made in 1951, when universal adult suffrage was introduced. Steps toward increased self-government followed this development, and in 1961, Barbados achieved internal autonomy.

From 1958 to 1962, Barbados was one of 10 members of the West Indies Federation, and Sir Grantley Adams served as its first and only prime minister. When the federation was terminated, Barbados reverted to its former status as a self-governing colony.

Following several failed attempts to form another federation composed of Barbados and several other British colonies in the Caribbean, the country negotiated its own independence at a constitutional conference with the United Kingdom in June 1966. After years of peaceful and democratic progress, Barbados became an independent state within the British Commonwealth on Nov. 30, 1966. Since then, it has been a stable and democratic country. -- Countrywatch.com | " CaribDigita 16:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My findings: Countrywatch about 90% of the time gets all their information from the United States Department of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26507.htm , however- oddly enough the Barbados profile on the US Dept. of State doesn't contain that sentence. I'm going to remove that Trivia line for now pending a credible source. CaribDigita 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

comma comma comma

I am not the type to be the grammar police, but this paragraph has so many commas it's pretty much unintelligible.

Important parts of the isles, history included, a increasing amount of Black Slaves brought to the isle, a situation started in the 1620s, 5000 locals died of fever in 1647, with 10s of slaves executed by Royalist planters in the 1640s, as they feared the principles, of the English Civil War's Levellers, would spread to the slave population, if the Parliament took the isle. But in the end, the Levellers, wishes for a democratic Republic. love Briana 

Since I am not knowledgeable about this subject, could someone else reword this into something readable? Teekno 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Education

I would like to see some information about the education system in Barbados, as I know nothing about it. I came to this page looking to read about Universities in particular. Sven Erixon 15:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to start an Education in Barbados section. However here's some info.

Few articles concerning education in Barbados: 1) http://www.cp-pc.ca/english/barbados/learning.html 2) Article: Good report card - by TONY BEST Date: Friday, February 18th, 2005 Source: www.NationNews.com - Barbados Nation News Link: http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Tropical_Canada/message/1513 3) http://bararchive.bits.baseview.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/bar/archive/2006/April/16/Editorial/18382.xml&start=220&numPer=20&keyword=Barbados+Schools&sectionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1994&enddate=12%2F31%2F2006&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&archive_pubname=Daily+Nation%0A%09%09%09

CaribDigita 15:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


History section

These two sentences

Important parts of the isles, history included, an increasing amount of Black Slaves brought to the isle, a situation started in the 1620s, 5000 locals died of fever in 1647, with 10s of slaves executed by Royalist planters in the 1640s, as they feared the principles, of the English Civil War's Levellers, would spread to the slave population, if the Parliament took the isle. But in the end, the Levellers, wishes for a democratic Republic.

make absolutely no sense... Please clarify. /Grillo 18:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading through the entire history section, I find that it's all in all very hard to understand, and times to times almost impossible to read. Someone who can understand the text, please rewrite. /Grillo 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Did you know: Did you know that the famous singer, Rihanna, Was born in Barbados

Pointless and inconsistent use of "CE" date suffix

I suggest CE should be removed (from the english language article) since it probably confuses everyone, except the person that introduced it. At the very least the user should have provided a link to an article on the use of CE/BCE instead of BC/AD and amend all the other dates for consistency.

It seems pointless to me to start introducing "CE" as postfix to dates i.e. "350 CE", unless it is to highlight some sensible deviation from the norm (or I get a percentage of the google search revenue). I believe that the norm (in the English speaking world) is for dates to default to AD and as such there is only a need for a post-fix if they refer to BC (or BCE!). Otherwise we should also start prefixing all our numbers with the plus sign (assuming there isn't some more politically correct symbol).

If the dates do warrant a post-fix then most people reading the english will immediately understand BC/AD, but not the CE/BCE the user seems to prefer.

What was the users intention for introducing CE? Perhaps one of the following: 1)To confuse the maximum amount of people with the least amount of letters? 2)To conserve the letters A and D by replacing them with B and C? 2)To highlight some offset in dates? Is 350CE the same as 349AD or 351AD?

Ratuk 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Royal Anthem" yes or no?

I feel this Royal Anthem thing should be voted on. I think having it included in the infobox is mis-leading it makes far--more of a simple organisation like the "Commonwealth" or the British monarchy than they really are. Just yesterday I brought up the topic on the Canadian talk page with the aim of trying to locate a vote taken or even some discussion on Wikipedia on why it is worthy to adding the British Queen's "Royal Anthem" to a sovereign country's template. Reason being, the Queen's song I think belongs on the Queen's article (which it is). Many Commonwealth countries have a representative of the Queen which does everything on her behalf and have no actual input from from Monarch. I believe the so called "Royal Anthem" has no bearing in some commonwealth countries. Placing this "Royal Anthem" next to "National Anthem" gives the impression that the Queen's song actually holds some significance in that country, which it really doesn't in some cases. In Barbados the so called "Royal Anthem" is neither covered in the constitution nor-- in official information from the Prime Minister's office of Barbados which maintains oversight over all of Barbados' official national symbols and emblems. Some of this material even states that when the Monarch is present or-- their representative is, the Barbados- national anthem will be played, nothing is mentioned of the so called "Royal Anthem". CaribDigita 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Include the Queen's song to the country template: Yes(do), or No(don't)?

Yes


No

  • As per nomination. I suggest reserving the Queen's song inside the Queen's article. See above. CaribDigita 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not without a supporting citation. Guettarda 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • It's pretty simple really - everything in an article needs to be verifiable. Is there a reliable source that says that God Save the Queen has official standing in Barbados? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda 02:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that is even more simple yet. That's the straight forward of this mater. CaribDigita 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Royal anthem from CaribDigita's talk page

CaribDigita, I take your points that the royal anthem is not the national anthem of Barbados, but at no point was anyone claiming that it was. You say that the "Royal anthem" is not a national symbol of Barbados, which by extension would mean that the Queen is also not a national symbol of Barbados, despite her being the Head of State and therefore the chief public representative (or symbol) of the Barbadian state.
CaribDigita > Not true. Don't forget Queen Elizabeth II is a shared queen which can confuse a lot of people sometimes. Remember she's only 1/16th the Queen of Barbados. Any country that has her as their "Head of State" can give her certain powers or diminish them under their constitution. While one so called "realm" may pass have (or pass) a provision granting her certain powers a totally different realms' constitution may not include provisions for or recognize. Similarly I suspect that if another realm grants her a "Royal anthem" that shouldn't necc. translate to her having a "royal anthems" in all of the other countries.
Are we to then assume to that the Royal Barbados Police Force belongs to the Queen and all references to it should be in the article on the Queen? And which rule in Wikipedia says that certain information must only be displayed in one particular article?
CaribDigita > About the RBPF: what does that have to do with adding an anthem which isn't recognized under Barbados law, to a Barbados article? I merely said the Royal Anthem should perhaps stay in the queen's article because it belongs with her. Her British song covers her role, and her provisions under the British government system. I could just as easily say to you name where in Barbados society that it says that anything she is granted in another realm automatically means she is granted the same in Barbados.
You say that Barbados has no "royal anthem", but that would only be correct if Barbados were not in fact a realm/kingdom (which it is). As I also pointed out, all the symbols of a country are not found in its constitution. I'm pretty sure that the details and designs (or even the mandated existence) of Barbados' national currency, the Barbadian dollar are not found in the Constitution.
CaribDigita > Welp. Here's the constitution and the official code om Etiquette for official national symbols and emblems again the "royal anthem" is also not taught in schools. Page 4 Money is covered because Barbados played around with having its own money at the time of independence. Also the Queen is not shown on Barbados' money incase you were wondering.
The national anthem, national motto, national flower, national coat of arms, etc...absolutely none of these are to be found in the Barbadian Constitution. That document simply outlines how the State functions (government) and how the State relates to its citizens (rights, elections, etc.). At any rate I was simply following the form seen in the pages for Canada, Australia, Denmark etc. and on none of these pages have I seen any discussion to the effect that the royal anthem only belongs on the page about the monarch.
CaribDigita > I have not read the constitutions or various acts of parliament governing the OECS states in the Caribbean and their national emblems so I let it go. Also whenever I try to work on too many articles at once all of my hard work gets voted off for deletion as half-finished work in small countries that I guess other's feel don't matter. So I now pretty much only focus on Barbados and occationally other Caribbean islands when I can. As far as never being discussed. That doesn't mean anything, 'Country Infoboxes' were voted off just last month and they've been around for a long time.
The only other comparable example was in the page for St. Vincent, where the reason given by one user called T-rex was that St. Vincent was not in the Commonwealth (which shows that he/she is not well informed about St. Vincent at all).
CaribDigita > Again, the sneaky addition of something to a bunch of articles does not denote a concensus. If you do anything on Wikipedia it can be challenged if it is wrong or out of place.
Also, royal anthems are the songs of the national head of state, not the individual fulfilling that role, so in that respect the royal anthem is just as rightly placed in the article about the nation than in the article about the individual who is currently head of state, since royal anthems are not specific to any one individual (except insofar as the one for the Commonwealth realms is gender specific), but is specific to the institution of the monarchy. In that case the song would best be served on a page entitled "Monarchy of Barbados" or "Heads of State of Barbados" since when Queen Elizabeth II dies as she surely must the song will continue to be used for all her successors whenever they are present at any function in any state of which they are King or Queen. In contrast, the Queen's personal standard will not be used by her successors since it is only meant for her, just as how the personal coat of arms of Canadian Governor Generals are only used by those individuals and are not transferred or used by their successors.72.27.87.249 00:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
CaribDigita > Again a royal anthem would be if a country decides to officially confer upon their Monarch an anthem. Just because for example Canada passes in parliament or another commonwealth realm pass an act to recognise the Queen's song doesn't mean that it become defacto in all other states. Those countries would have to recognise the order themselves. The Barbados constitution recognises the British Queen as their monarch, and her heirs so that is a whole different matter. There's nothing in Barbados however that says just because Queen elizabeth has an officially recognised song in the United Kingdom that it become's the island's official song. I think it is out of place. CaribDigita 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty simple really - everything in an article needs to be verifiable. Is there a reliable source that says that God Save the Queen has official standing in Barbados? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Queen Elizabeth II is 1/16th the Queen of Barbados? Where did you get that idea from?

CaribDigita: > Q.E II is the Head of State/Queen of:

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

All of the other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations have their own head of states which more than likely would be covered under their own constitutions. Barbados shares the Queen with the rest of those nations ("biologically") yes. This means the Queen and her representatives have different roles and different functions as governed by the constitutions in each and every one of those nations.

Okay, firstly, the Queen of Barbados and the Queen of Canada are separate legal persons. Anything Queen Elizabeth II does as Queen of Canada has absolutely no impact on Barbados (e.g. giving Royal Assent to the 1982 Canada Act). Likewise the Crown in Barbados and the Crown in Australia are separate legal entities (the Crown being the legal authority of the government and also the office of the Queen and a symbol of her reign).She is not 1/16th the Queen of Barbados (otherwise please name the other 15 sovereigns of Barbados' "sedecarchy" (for 16 rulers just as monarchy is for 1) since that is the only way there can be a person who shares the reign of Barbados). Queen Elizabeth II may be the same (biological) person but the separate constitutions of all the Realms creates separate legal frameworks around her (and her successors). Please read the Crown, the section on the evolution of the British monarchy into the separate monarchies for each Realm in theBritish monarchy article (note what the constitutional lawyer says), Development of shared monarchy, Style of the British Sovereign (from 1922 onwards), Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 and also the various discussions (probably in the archives) in these articles. Overall, whilst "shared" in a manner of speaking, she is not divided.

CaribDigita: > Correct - I was merely trying to stress the point that just because one nation may grant the Queen a "Royal anthem" it does not equate to all other nations forcefully having to adopt that same song as their own national emblem or symbol.

Also any country on earth with a "Head of State" can give said head of state certain powers or diminish them under their constitution (just look at Nepal recently). You state that While one so called "realm" may pass have or pass a provision granting her certain powers a totally different realms' constitution may not include provisions for or recognize. This reflects her separate constitutional roles. The Royal anthem is not granted and does not have to be spelled out in a law. God Saves the Queen (or King) is essentially the royal anthem for the Crown and not just the separate legal entities of the Queen of the United Kingdom or the Queen of Tuvalu. It is true that New Zealand has God Save the Queen as an additional national anthem and that this does not automatically make the song the national anthems of all the other Realms, but that does not change it status as the royal anthem (the two being different with royal anthems being, of course, unique to monarchies).

My point about the RBPF is that its very name shows that a royal anthem can actually be placed in an article about Barbados and was also to show that Barbados is actually a Realm. As for "being recognized by law" I already pointed out that not every little detail is covered in a written constitution (some things are simply put down to tradition).

Hmmm... "Welp.". I really hope you weren't trying to spell "Whelp" (which is what you would be if you were trying - I've never called you a name so I don't expect you to start, if the tone is heated I apologize for that, but no name calling).

CaribDigita > That should have been "Well". My buddies and I have "welp" in our instant messenger lingo which I was unaware of my typing it here.

I'll ask you again to please point out exactly in the Constitution you can find anything on any one of the following: The Barbadian national anthem, national flower, national flag, national pledge, Barbadian dollar, Queen's personal standard, Governor General's flag, national motto, etc. None of these are in the Barbados constitution (although the Irish constitution does outline its national flag), thus again proving my point that not everything is written in the Constitution of Barbados. I don't have to wonder if the Queen is shown on Barbados' money. She doesn't have to be shown. She is not shown on Jamaica's money and is only shown on a few bills and coins in Australia and Canada's money. Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands use US dollars and thus they never see her face on money.

CaribDigita > I mentioned that because IP# 72.xxx.xxx.xxx and some others seem to be overly fond of the queen rushing to plaster her all over every article without finding out exactly the Queen's role in any given country. I mean realistically she's the head of state, she has a representative in the nation's she's in- and does pretty much nothing in many of those countries. That, makes her only as importaint as the role she plays under the constitution of those nations. She is merely a tradition at this point.

Oddly enough, she is shown on the money used by Dominica, even though that country is a republic (of course, that is because Dominica is in a currency union with other countries that have used her face on the money since before Dominica's independence).

CaribDigita > "French Dominica" (which is a republic but shouldn't be confused with "Spanish Dominica") is in a monetary union with other Caribbean territories and commonwealth reals which have ties to the Queen. It may not have been their first choice to have the British Queen on their money since they have their own Head of State.

I don't understand something though. You say that you have "never read the Constitutions or various acts of parliaments governing the OECS states in the Caribbean".... but you distinctly pointed me to the Barbados constitution in the first revert edit summary? Well, I'm not sure how the OECS fit into all of this since Barbados is not in the OECS (but Commonwealth Caribbean constitution are for the most part fairly similar anyway).

CaribDigita > Assuming so? They aren't all cookie cutter prints actually. The Barbados constitution is quite distinct based on Barbados' own unique history. Both- such as formerly being the seat of government for many of the OECS countries all the way back to a number special agreements with Britain like the "Treaty of Oistins" for example. To further prove the point there have also been several rulings in the Caribbean by the British Privy council that overturned rulings in all of the OECS countries, and Jamaica and based on the same ruling has no bearing in Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago or Guyana. Rulings that come to mind? Capital punishment, the right to leave the Privy Council and join the Caribbean Court of Justice without a referendum etc.

I can fully appreciate your dispair when you put in a lot of hard work and then it gets deleted or voted off. I mean, just look on the list of national constitution in wikipedia and in wikisource. I've noticed that not a single Commonwealth Caribbean constitution is there, yet they have just about every American constitution imaginable, plus all the documents related to the Australian, Canadian, British, New Zealand, German, Soviet, etc. constitutions. Just goes to show your right that people care less about those countries. I even remember recently having to put the Barbadian, Maltese, Malaysian and Indian nationality laws in the British and Commowealth Citizenship template and adding the Governor-General of the West Indies Federation to the Governor-General template and having to merge the two articles on CXC (which both amazingly contained different information). I take your point that what one Realm does for tradition or protocol/official procedure is not necessarily the same in others and at any rate, since it is not going to be as simple as finding an official document from Barbados about God Save the Queen (since tradition is not necessarily written down), then I won't press the issue. Having brought up the general neglect to smaller countries in Wikipedia, might you perhaps be interested in doing the Barbadian constitution in Wikisource and maybe creating a corresponding article here in Wikipedia?

CaribDigita > I have to get a new contact with the Barbados government. Some of the Barbados stuff online on the Government sites are out of date for example the Constitution's of Barbados on the web currently still-- list "British Privy Council" and the Queens role in the Judiciary which I suspect was curtailed by Barbados leaving the Privy Council and already joining the Caribbean Court of Justice along with Guyana thus far.

It shouldn't be too hard since the constitution can be found on a number of websites (and since Wikisource has to reproduce it exactly as how it appears) it would be a simple matter of just copying, pasteing and editing the text to conform to the Wikisource format. And if you're really interested (and if Guettarda is too) I could help you with the Constitution for the Federation of the West Indies (I have access to a copy in the library - but it's awfully long though). 72.27.87.249 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to have a look at this discussion and weigh in on a Royal Anthem in Barbados. The short answer is: I don't know. I can, however, say that God Save the Queen is not the personal song of Elizabeth II, it is indeed a Royal Anthem, meaning it continues on for sovereign after sovereign, adapting to suit the gender of the monarch. Nor is the tune strictly a "British" song - it may have originated there, but, as the article on God Save the Queen states, it has been adopted by many other countries (even non-Commonwealth ones) as their own Royal Anthem.
In the case of the UK it has also become the de facto national anthem, just as the Royal Union flag (once a personal flag of the sovereign) has now become the UK's national flag - all through convention, never by any statute law. In Canada and Australia God Save the Queen is the Royal Anthem, in Canada merely by convention, and in Australia by a Royal Proclamation. In New Zealand it is actually officially one of two national anthems. So, clearly, the song is used independently in each Realm for the Queen in her capactiy as Monarch specifically of that Realm.
So, if Barbados does have God Save the Queen as a royal anthem (it certainly isn't the national one), it is only by Barbados' own will. However, it seems from the Barbados government website that the song isn't an official state one at all - the official Code of Etiquette states that for the Queen, any members of the Royal Family, or the Governor General, the national anthem is to be played, not God Save the Queen. --gbambino 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WILDLIFE

I am shocked at the nonsense written on the wildlife of Barbados. The list is full of inaccuracies. Here is an attempt at clarification (A little update for you!) 

   * Ocelots (completely false not found in Barbados. I don’t believe it ever was!)
   * Green Parrot (False - There was reportedly a species of Amazon endemic to Barbados (now extinct!)).  The parrot is not extinct I heard and spotted  what I would call the green parrot  just off of the garden at government house.
   * Turtles (True– various species of Marine Turtles )
   * Tree Snakes (False! There is a native GRASS snake)
   * Iguanas (False! Iguanas are extinct in Barbados) . This used to be true now there are iguanas on the island, they are not seen because they are very little in number, but have been spotted in gullies and in the country in trees.
   * Lizards (True – Green Anoles and Geckos )
   * Barbados Green Monkey (True – Vervet monkey Introduced from Africa) 
   * Hummingbird (Recently Introduced) (hummingbirds are present, THEY ARE A NATIVE SPECIES. NOT INTRODUCED!)
   * Pelicans (Brown Pelicans were actually extirpated from the country)
   * Bottlenosed Dolphins (Possible in coastal waters)
   * Mongoose (True)
   * Canaries (FALSE – Canaries generally refer to domesticated cage birds. I presume the author is referring to the Grassland Yellow finch (Sicalis luteola)
  • Basking Shark (possible in coastal waters)

True. Most of Blue102's edits here are suspicious. Guettarda 13:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to local tennis centre

I hope noone minds but I added a link to my local tennis centre on Barbados.

Yes, we do mind. wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, NOT a place for advertising. please remove it, or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.49.63 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Local legends, Folklore and tales

I think its time we start making pages about some of the things we have heard when we were children, tales like "The Steel Donkey", duppies (ghosts) and various other topics which are nowhere to see seen on the net no matter what search engine you type it in online, does anybody else agree with me? - RVDDP2501 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As an American who lived in Barbados for 5 years, I have heard of many of those stories. However finding citation to mark from online would be difficult and would be best left to contestation only from fellow Bajans. I believe the same would go for a varied list of the Bajan idioms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metamorphousthe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Barbados, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Caribbean. Interested parties should add their names there so we can determine if there is enough interest to start such a project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Now I'm no expert on Barbados.. But surely this is a little POV:

From 1958 to 1962, Barbados was one of the ten members of the West Indies Federation, an organisation doomed by nationalistic attitude and by the fact that its members, as colonies of Britain, held limited legislative power. Adams' leadership of the Federation (he served as its first and only "Prime Minister"), his failed attempts to form similar unions, and his continued defence of the monarchy demonstrated that he was no longer in touch with the needs of his country. Errol Walton Barrow, a fervent reformer, was to become the new people's advocate. Barrow had left the BLP and formed the Democratic Labour Party as a liberal alternative to Adams' conservative government. To this day, Barrow remains a beloved hero in the eyes of Barbadians, as it was he who instituted many of the reforms and programs currently in place, including free education for all Barbadians, regardless of class or colour, and the School Meals system. By 1961, Barrow had replaced Adams as Premier and the DLP controlled the government.

TastyCakes 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct, to a certain extent, but the text is accurate none-the-less. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It is spot on... After the federation collapsed and Grantly Adams returned from the Federal Government of the West Indies. Barrow took his place and Barrow did reform Barbados mostly to what it is today. The government of today is still pressed NOT to really overturn anything Barrow put in place including free schooling for Barbadian at all educational levels. CaribDigita 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Parishes

I suggest that local Bajans start expanding the Parishes pages so that we have more information. As a foreigner I can only go from what I remember having only lived there (in southeast St. Philip) for five years.

I had done quite a few of them... St. Lucy, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. James etc. But I've held off because people across wikipedia were voting off Caribbean articles for deletion. I'll prossibly start back a few months down the road if I see the situation stabilize. But in the meantime I need to focus on my studying and not waste time on this if it is going to come to naught anyways. CaribDigita 14:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

EMIGRATION TO THE USA

You may be interested to know that - thanks to the fact that both the Castle Garden Immigration Station records and the Ellis Island Immigration Station Records are now generally available on-line - it is now possible to do something more in depth on this subject. I know this because I found my maternal family records on the Ellis island site, and they are listed, along with the ship they came over on, the port they left from, the date of arrival, and their marital status. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious why this is in the Barbados page Metamorphousthe 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Steel donkey

--dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 13:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC) What is the folklore about the steel donkey?...

Coat of Arms -- Barbados -- Government says it is a dolphin. Why?

Source by the Government of Barbados saying the Flying Fish looking animal is a dolphin. http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdoscoatarms.htm

CaribDigita 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


It's not a Dolphin like the mammal you'd see at an aquarium, but rather a Dolphin-Fish (which is very tasty)

--Coolbrook76 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose a small clean up of this article.

I'm proposing to clean up this article slightly. The length is getting longer and longer with a larger and larger mishmash of information that doesn't actually flow any longer. Plus there's some banners asking for things like a clean up of the Trivia section and so on. I think a nice job has been done on the Bermuda article and I propose a beautification on this one as well. I also have a bunch of photos around Barbados that I'm proposing to release onto Wiki-commons as well. The history section of Barbados article could also stand a bit of trim and neatly packing away the really lengthy explanations into the Barbados History article as well. Also there's been some haphazard changing of information on here and like right now for example there's scattered broken Javascript/Wikiscripting or whatever on the page that needs cleaning up or fixing (for whatever it belongs to).CaribDigita 22:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Would like to add a link to Totally Barbados

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to add a link to www.TotallyBarbados.com as this site is a 1 Stop for all kinds of valuable information about the island of Barbados. Including all of the latest events happening in and around Barbados, with History, Culture, Geography, Business, Travel and lots more.

If anyone disagrees with this, please be sure to let me know in this discussion.

Regards, Brett Callaghan

David

What are "black slaves?" Is "black a color or an ethnicity?" I believe you mean "Africans captured from West Africa" were ENSLAVED in the Barbados. Though many were war captives, Africans were not originally slaves until they arrived in the Americas and were enslaved. Jennifer--74.229.102.208 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Private travel guide linking

Several times in the last year links to private travel guides have been removed, citing Wiki policy of not being a travel guide or a links list. The only government sponsered travel site is the BTA's official site, http://www.visitbarbados.org.

There are 4 noteworthy privately owned Barbados-operated travel guides; The two oldest and largest, http://www.barbados.org (which was previously the BTA's official site, but is now privately operated) and http://www.funbarbados.com and the newer http://www.totallybarbados.com and http://www.accessbarbados.com which are linked here. All of them have detailed information and various resources on Barbados with significant amounts of original content on each.

I'd like to suggest either all four be linked, or none. Anything else is exercising an opinion on the sites despite the massive amount of content they contain collectively. Further, I'd like to suggest they be delineated from the Government sites they currently appear directly below to denote that they are private, non-official resources.

Thanks!

Malefic 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Exactly. This is the problem. The Barbados article once had other links as well but the problem is that every John or Jane Doe with a website wants their site listed which goes against WP:EL. Plus you are not supposed to add your own site which is why they are speedy-purged...

Personally I'm fine with having just the Government ones. I put the Statistics Board there because they're a resource offseting the CIA information since some of the CIA facts about Barbados are wrong. The Parliament site has a history table about Barbados and is another ref.. The Government' Tourism site is inline with other similar Wikipedia articles as an official source on-- what *stuff* is in the country-- The Central bank was a ref. to the part about Barbados' level of development etc. The BIDC is another arm of the Government that talks about the business climate of Barbados. And there was another Government corporation I had placed the http://barbadostourisminvestment.com/ which had information on the Gov'ts re-development projects around Barbados. CaribDigita 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    • That sounds reasonable. The main reason I had suggested linking all 4 was that the volume of original content dealing with Barbados on these 4 sites is significant and useful, but I was more concerned with the opinion expressed the way it is now with showing some and not all or none. The government sites in the past were very sparse but more and more information has been added and they have become definitive resources. Allowing only official government sites would set a clear standard for the future of this link section.

Malefic 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on "royal" residence of the Governor-General

Editors of this article may wish to comment on the edits being made at Official residence, advancing the unusual view that the official residence of the Governor-General of Barbados, and those of his equivalents in other jurisdictions, are "royal" residences (i.e. official residences of the monarch), and that this aspect (assuming for the moment that it exists) deserves mention in a list of official residences, alongside "vice-regal", the somewhat opaque term being substituted for "Governor-General" and the like.
(For your further information, the "royal" issue began in the "Canada" entry. Afterward, the same editor spread it to the entries on "Barbados" and a number of other countries. He did so in conjunction with his "general cleanup" of the article. The "cleanup" is also making the article worse in some other ways, in my opinion. You might wish to look at that, too, but those are separate, or at most indirectly related issues. I would not bother mentioning these tangentials, here, but in the cases where I have left them out, the royalising editor has placed a follow-up note saying that I've "...omitt[ed] the point that the ["royal"] edits ... are part of a broader cleanup...", obliging me to place another follow-up, alike to this parenthetical, to dispell the implication that I've been less than fully truthful about the situation. Sorry for this digression; I'd much rather have stayed focussed on the main issue.)
-- Lonewolf BC 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Lonewolf BC is here conveniently editing my words placed elsewhere. In full, I have stated: the edits at Official residence are part of a broader cleanup of the article to create a uniform standard; "royal" and "vice-regal" in place of the specific Barbadian Monarch and Governor-General of Barbados brings the Barbados section into line with others which use (by other editors' contributions) "royal," "vice-regal," "presidential," "prime ministerial" and the like.
Comments are certainly welcome at Talk:Official residence to improve the article as a whole. --G2bambino 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Royal residence" anymore in Barbados residence of the Governor was in Queen's Park - (i love the is island its my home) in Bridgetown. Since independence the residence of the Governor-General is Government House. The royal family owns some farm land I'm told in Christ Church but I was told nothing is built on it. When the royals visit Barbados they stay at Hotels down the west coast they have no local residence. CaribDigita 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbados coa.png

Image:Barbados coa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is now the only country without coat of arms image in the article and the only reason for that is that images are deleted automatically if they are not tagged properly without anyone taking a look into it. --Avala (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is approx 2 years out of date

what it says above. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) what is this "rather a lot of jewish people" define this? does the author mean that ANY jewish people are too many? sounds pretty biased - along with the inference about the financial status of these people - who were fleeing for their lives.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.118.180 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism

This article has a considerable amount of racially-inspired language and tone, some bordering on explicit racism. For instance, under the history section, it says : "At the time it was inhabited only by the feral pigs descended from those left behind by the Portuguese". I am sorry, but for blacks to be racist is horrible, considering what they've been through. Remove this, and other racially-motivated statements, immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.200.2 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what was maent. The noun is just simply unclear. The Portuguese didn't stay in Barbados. They left the island completely uninhabited. All that was left behind were actual wild pigs. When the British later arrived to Barbados they saw these pigs running wild and used them as a food source. Barbados Tourism Authority (see section under pork), [1], [2] There's nothing really racist about this fact. Just that the sentence may have been unclear. CaribDigita (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Maritime of 3000 Sq. Km.

  • I reverted the figure of 3000 sq.km. as the area because there's no basis for it.... The CIA World Fact book, nor British Commonwealth Website(and I believe they would know about Barbados.) Nor the Canadian Government nor does that Barbados Government website even state that any seas area belongs to Barbados. Currently the only boundary that is fixed is the one between Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados. The United Nations (UNCLOS) body ruled on that already in the Hague and that has been settled... On Energy.gov.bb there is a map of the offshore oil/gas fields that Barbados is claiming. If you count all of them out into the rest of the Atlantic Ocean Barbados is claiming 70,000 Sq. Km. but that (as far as I know) hasn't been made into official government policy yet.... Barbados also hasn't yet even negotiated their *fixed* maritime boundaries yet with St. Vincent, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Suriname nor Guyana so that is still up in the air as well.....

My sources:

Do you have something to back up your claim of 3000 sq. km?

CaribDigita (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph claims the are to be "2 kilometers or 166 square miles." "2 kilometers" is pretty obviously nonsensical, no idea if 166 sq miles is correct. Going to remove "2 kilometers," will leave "166 square miles." Innocent42 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Dispute about Human Development Index

This article should simply state Barbados' Human Development Index is 39th in the world - then leave it up to the reader to determine if this is "one of the highest." Wikipedia has a policy addressing this, which I am pasting below:

Avoid peacock and weasel terms Avoid peacock terms that show off the subject of the article without containing any real information. Similarly, avoid weasel words that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view.

Examples of peacock terms an important... one of the most prestigious... one of the best... the most influential... a significant... the greatest...

I hope this helps. Npd2983 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I need to chime in here because a lot of untruths are being stated and I gotta stop them before they get out of hand...
    • Barbados is 39th in the world (if you go by GDP - *not* the UN's HDI) 39th-GDP would put Barbados in the top 22% (Out of 177 countries).
    • According to the UN (not my words) Barbados is the #1 developing country in the world ([3]).
    • The Literacy rate is 99.7% not the incorrect "97%" as previously stated (List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate), 99.7% actually puts Barbados in the 5th spot globally.
    • If you go by the UN Human Development Index (the HDI), Barbados is 31st spot globally out of 177 and thus in the top 18% globally...

CaribDigita (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Barbados just a Realm?

Some UK article editors feel that it is important that countries like Barbados are descirbed as "Commonwealth realms" while the UK should be described as a "Constiutional monarchy". The below is the UK discussion replicated. As regards Barbados, do you have a view?

The article currently has this sentence:

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Constitutional Description")

Should it read as follows: The UK is a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Realm Description").

Which description should be used - the Constitutional Description or the Realm Description? Whatever is decided needs to be applied consistently to all 16 "Commonwealth realms" - after all, they have the same constitutional relationship vis-a-vis the Monarch as the UK has. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --

Constitutional monarchy comes first in the history of the state, and its more important in terms of understanding the constitution. Non WIkipedia sources uses phrases like "The UK is considered to be a commonwealth realm". --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I cannot understand your answer - which description do you support using (the Realm Description or the Constitutional Description) - I've added a simple list-type response to make it simpler for Users. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Constitutional Monarchy is the most helpful description however the article should mention that the United Kingdom is a commonwealth realm. At the moment the Commonwealth realm is only linked to Queen Elizabeth II, it doesnt say the UK is one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Constitutional Description:

  1. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. The two are not mutually exclusive. The constitutional monarchy phrase has primacy, much as the UK's membership of the EU comes further down. Kbthompson (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. One of the silliest issues we have had here. Agree with Kbthompson. --Snowded (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Constitutional monarchy is my choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. It depends on the context; however, if it is the lead we are specifically discussing, then I'd say keep it as "constitutional monarchy". "Commonwealth realm" is an unofficial descriptor. I've undone those changes Redking made (prematurely, I think) to the various country articles; those that weren't undone by others already, that is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Constitutional monarchy. Any "Commonwealth realm" must be a monarchy, but Constitutional monarchy is the more precise and descriptive term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. I am agreeing with the majority -- Phoenix (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Agree with the silliness mentioned by Snowded. Leave as constitutional monarchy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Realm Description:

  1. [insert your user name]


Miesianiacal - Why have you undone my changes...No one has so far even supported the Realm Description? I disagree with you and think my changes clearly should be left as they were. Do you think the articles should be inconsistent...some using the "Constitutional Desciription", others the "Realm Description"....That does not appear to make much sense to me. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking, so far NO ONE supports your "realm" proposals (not even you). I don't even accept it as an either or, and I note you did not attempt the change on Canada or Australia. I hadn't realised you had made the changes elsewhere or I would have reverted before Miesianiacal tracked them down. --Snowded (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Snowded - I think there is confusion. My view is the same as yours. I support the "Constitutional Description". Oddly Miesianiacal supports the "Constitutional Description" but not for the other "relams" where I had changed them so that the "Constitutional Description" would be used. Apparently, Miesianiacal thinks it is appropriate on these articles (countries like Papua New Guinea etc) to say "Papua New Guinea remains a Commonwealth realm". I disaagree and think what has emerged from this discussion is that they should be described in the same was as the UK, i.e. "Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state." They should not be described in some sort of "lesser" way than the UK. Do you agree with me about this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is always confusion on articles on constitutional status. SO let me be clear, I do not think consistency is appropriate. Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries. Oh and by the way I don;t think either description has more intrinsic value than the other. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Re.: Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries - what does that have to do with anything? Does it have any relevance to their current constitutional status? Do these countries have a different relationship to the Crown vis-a-vis the UK? Please give reasons for why, in the opening paras, you think it is appropriate for them to be described as "Commonwealth realms" but not appropriate for the UK? Why should consistency not be applied. It is a core Wiki principle. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't understand why you should think the manner of a countries creation has nothing to do with its constitutional status. In the case of the UK its status as a constitutional monarchy came way before any notion of being a commonwealth realm. In the other cases the countries concerned were created as commonwealth realms (in the main). Its not an issue of consistency. --Snowded (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with snowded on this although i do think we need to mention the fact the UK is a commonwealth realm somewhere in the introduction. At the moment that is not said, but we dont need to remove "constitutional monarchy" to be able to include that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My intent was to restore all the articles to their status quo until discussion here was finished. It may only be my opinion, but I think Redking making such wide reaching edits before hardly anyone had even responded here was bad enough, but re-reverting (sometimes more than once) is generally poor form. I agree with Redking in that there is no difference between the UK and the other realms in terms of their presently being Commonwealth realms or constitutional monarchies; however, my position, for the record, remains the same as above: context decides what is best. I would say that "constitutional monarchy" (a more concrete and official term) is best for the context of the lead, and "commonwealth realm" (a non-official descriptor) should be mentioned somewhere else in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That all sounds very grand indeed. Such a desire to uphold consensus but advance no arguments against the change nor any arguments to as to why the principle of consistency should not apply. It seems the majority here are happy to apply the "Commonwealth realm" tag to the "ex-colonies" but not so keen as regards the UK...I am simply going to apply the smell test and it smells like politics to me. I'm bowing out. I expect you, my fellow editors, will leave the "ex-colonies" with their "Realm tags". I will leave it in your collective hands. Hope you surprise me. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Coming up: The United Kingdom is an Olympic realm... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why consistency? UK existed before Commonwealth. Was its constitutional status changed? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Furthermore this is not an either/or situation since all the Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, a situation which is extremely unlikely to change. Therefore stating that a country is a Commonwealth Realm currently, and for the foreseeable future, implies that it is a constituional monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As to "Why consistency?" Why not? Its a Wiki principle. Explain how the UK is not a "Commonwealth realm" and the others are? That would seem to be the only reason not to be consistent. UK existed before Commonwealth. Correct. Relevance? Are you saying it is not a Commonwealth realm? Are you saying the others are not Constitutional monarichies? Pick one description and be consistent. "Was its constitutional status changed?" No. The sentence that the others "remain Commonwealth realms" is incorrect too - It implies they have always been "Commonwealth realms". They have not. They have only been "Commonwelath realms" since they became separate realms.
As to it not being an either/or situation - If you are happy to call the UK a "Commonwealth realm", do so and be consistent with the others "ex-Realms". As it stands, Users prefer "Constitutional monarchy" for the UK and the "Commonwealth realm" tag for the "ex cololnies". Explain the inconsistency please? After all there is no constitutional difference in their position. Please explain why you differentiate between the two. The description concerns their current status - it has nothing to do with whether (as in the UK's case) it has been a Constitutional monarch for centuries or (as in the case of Barbados) merely for decades. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree all Commonwealth realms should say (country name) is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. They are all equal in the eyes of the monarchy and in constitutional standings so they should be treated as the same. Its a very logical argument to make. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Phoenix. I am glad I am not alone. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I was blocked for trying to make these changes. It seems I am alone because no one else is bothered to do anything about it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So what is your view as regards Barbados?

New link for the "External links"

I would like to insert this new link for the FAO Country Profiles: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&iso3=BRB&subj=1&paia=

Thank youo--MontseBL (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation (original)

Whenever I hear the name pronounced "bar-bay-dos", it sounds very "americanized" to my European ears (even though I am aware of this being a former British colony). So how do the long-time, elder residents refer to the island? I can't seem to believe they all use a name that obviously refers to colonialism. -andy 85.179.119.87 (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, as far as I know, the pronounciation is Buh-bay-duss or Bub-bay-duss. An older nickname for Barbados from it's days as colony was Bimshire. It's also refered to as The Rock (not to be mixup with Alcatraz) or Paradise. If you want to be sure, take a look into the Wednesday columns of the Barbados Nation Newspaper. Some of these columns are written in the Barbados dialect, called bajan. Or you can listen to The Market Vendor at 7.40am local time on Voice of Barbados on the internet. The name Barbados originated from the portugese and/or spanish meaning the bearded ones. By the way: Barbados celebrates it's 43rd day of Independence today. Times as a colony long since gone. Joerg--BajanZindy (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Buh-bay-duss or Bub-bay-duss' is in "Bajan"... For old time elders- I'd say listen to the band "The Merrymen". - Youtube P.S. Barbados celebrates its 43rd ***year*** (not day) of independence today. Happy Independence. ;-) CaribDigita (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello CaribDigita, you is correct! I mixup. It's de 43rd Year of Independence and today is Independence Day. Wish I were dere. Joerg--BajanZindy (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. And don't we all. I could use ginger beer right about now. CaribDigita (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Barbados relation to the world

I wanted to contribute with a file in case some editor is interested in the relationship between Barbados to the world at large. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth barbados.svg
Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Barbados

Live in Barbados blog

Do you think that this blog is relevant to the Barbados page: http://blog.barbadospropertylist.com/ ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.25.61 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are usually frowned upon on Wikipedia. Unless there is a lot of press coverage of it and thusly becomes [[WP:notable. I don't see how that link would enrich this article? Further, WP generally doesn't like a lot of links, in fact what's there looks kinda much and I've been thinking about pruning it back. If you want to add Barbados blogs somewhere consider adding them to http://www.thebobs.com/ and perhaps http://www.dmoz.org/ (the latter of which I know prides themselves on accumulating a large number of links on various topics.) Thanks for bringing your idea to the talk page. I'm not an arbitrator of Wikipedia but I just think that link is going to run into problems in the long run. CaribDigita (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Alone the domain barbadospropertylist.com shows is in my opinion, that this website is a commercial link to sell real estate. If I'm correct, this doesn't belong into Wikipedia, but in the Barbados newspapers' add section. --BajanZindy (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find the Barbados newspapers' add section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.25.61 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I doubt the seriouness of your question and tend to believe it's foolishness, you may check The Barbados Advocate's print version and the Barbados Nation's classified section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BajanZindy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else want to help research the Spanish and Portuguese settlement claim.

There's a bunch of different sources that claim many different things about Barbados....

The A~Z of Barbados Heritage by (Sean) Carrington, (Henry) Fraser, (John) Gilmore, and (Addington) Forde on Pg. 101 reads:

"Holetown Monument, St. James On the forecourt of the Holetown Police Station, part of the old James Fort, is the Holetown Monument -- A simple obelisk. The tercentenary of the 're-discovery' of Barbados by Englishmen in the Olive Blossom was erroneously celebrated in 1905. In fact, the Olive Blossom (or Olive) came here in 1625, but the error begin by a writer called Purchas in 1625, and perhaps a 'writer's devil', was repeated by subsequent historians. Hence, lavish celebrations took place in November 1905, with the issue of an Olive Blossom stamp, a state procession to the Garrison Savannah, the erection of the Holetown and Indian River Monument, and a regatta in Holetown Bay."

Other references:

Further, the page on [ http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/barbados.htm ] states one "Leigh"? received the royal patent for Barbados?

However, a quick search on WP for Earl of Marlborough shows his name as being "Ley"?

There's a few other things I'm trying to find out but it is a slow process. For example the Portuguese are credited as finding Barbados, however the name is recorded as Los Barbados. ("Los" is Spanish). According to some Portuguese it should be "Os". Furthermore, there's many discrepancies. The Commonwealth of Nations says that many of Barbados' native people's came from Florida? [ http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/145147/history/ ] But most other sources only say Venezuela... I think it is going to take a long time to find all this stuff out.

The A~Z of Barbados Heritage goes on.

Pg. 64 -- "Discovery of Barbados" Unlike many of the other West Indian islands, Barbados enjoys the distinction of not having been 'discovered' by Christopher Columbus. The term 'discover' is perhaps a little more applicable to Barbados than to other islands which Columbus found already occupied by Amerindians, as it was certainly uninhabited when the English first arrived. Nevertheless, it was known to other Europeans in the sixteenth century and is shown on a number of maps and charts. In the early part of the century the Spanish seem to have taken away some Indians as slaves, though whether this was responsible for the disappearance of the original inhabitants is unknown. According to a much repeated story, with A Description of Barbados written by Major John Scott in the 1660s, the island was completely deserted in 1563, when a Portuguese captain called Pedro A Campas (or Pedro a Campos left some hogs to breed for the benefit of future visitors. However, the modern Barbadian historian Peter Campbell has showing convincingly (footnote 80 of the book -- Campbell, PF (1993) Some Early Barbadian History, By Caribbean Graphics & Letworth Ltd., Barbados) that Scott is a highly unreliable witness and that Pedro a Campos story is highly implausible. Neither the Spanish nor Portuguese made any attempt at a settlement, though in the 1640s Richard Ligon hear that the Portuguese had left pigs on the island. Possibly the first Englishman to visit the island was a Captain Simon Gordon, who claimed to have landed in Barbados in 1620, and to have found it uninhabited. The 'discovery' which mattered however, was that of Captain John Powell, the elder, who came to Barbados in 1625 with his ship the Olive Blossom, on his way back to England from a voyage to Pernambuco in Brazil 'And landing some men', according to a later description, 'they set up a Cross in or about St. James's Town, now called the Hole, and inscrib'd on a Tree adjoyning James K. of E. and this Island. Having thus done they came along-shore to the Indian River, and left here also some marks of their possessions for the Crown of England.' Powell found no signs of any existing inhabitants, and it was his report of the island to his employer, Sir William Courteen, on his return to England, which led to the English settlement of Barbados. Older books give the date of Powell's first visit as 1605, and this was followed by the Holetown Monument, but this date has been shown to be an error.

CaribDigita (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Further about Spanish / Portuguese claims

In A~Z of Barbados Heritage, on Pg. 185-186 -- "Settlement of Barbados"

After Captain John Powell had claimed Barbados for England and returned home, his employer Sir William Courteen, a wealthy Anglo-Dutch merchant, fitted out an expedition under Power's command to establish a settlement in the island. This expedition returned to England without reaching Barbados, but a second one, financed by Courteen and some business partners, was soon sent out. Commanded by Captain Henry Powell, this expedition reached Barbados in the ship William and John on 17 February 1627; it consisted of eighty English settlers and ten African slaves who had been captured on the voyage out (the number of both settles and slaves vary in different accounts.) The settlers began to clear and plant the island, and Powell brought some Amerindians from Guyana to help them with the cultivation of tropical crops. Other settlers sent out by the Courteen syndicate followed. At this point another factor entered the situation. James Jay, first early of Carlisle (after whom Carlisle Bay is named), obtain from King Charles I of England a grant of the 'Caribbee Islands', including Barbados. Carlisle saw this as a solution to his financial problems. He was heavily in debt to a group of London merchants, to whom he now gave in payment a lease of ten thousand acres (4,040 ha) of land in Barbados. These merchants sent out a group of settlers under a Governor (Charles Wolverson) who was armed with a commission from Carlisle. Sir William Courteen attempted to secure his position through the favour of an influential courtier, the Earl of Pembroke, who succeeded in obtaining from King Charles I a grant of various islands, including Barbados, to be held in trust for Courteen. Carlisle, however, managed to have his claim confirmed by the King; disputes between the two groups of settlers in Barbados went as far as armed conflict, but ended in victory for the Carlisle party, so that Courteen and his associated lost the very considerable sums they had invested in their attempt to settle Barbados, without seeing any return. The early colonists planted a variety of crops, such as Tobacco, cotton and ginger, but it was only when they switched to Sugar that Barbados began to experience real prosperity. The history of the period is extremely complicated, made more so by the fact that Barbados was reluctantly dragged into the English politics of the Civil War and the Commonwealth (1642-11660). The authority of Earl of Carlisle, as Lord Proprietor of Barbados was in theory absolute, but the establishment of first the Council and then the House of Assembly was to modify this substantially. The Earl died in 1636, and his rights passed to trustees acting on behalf of his son, the second Earl of Carlisle, but they found it impossible to maintain their authority during the Civil War. Sustained by trade with the Dutch and growing profits from sugar, the Barbadian planters for a few years enjoyed a virtual independence which only came to an end with Ayscue's Invasion in 1651-1652, which brought the island under the direct control of the English government. After the restoration of the monarchy in England (1660), there was some doubt as to whether the proprietary system would be restored in Barbados as a result. An arrangement was eventually made in 1663, whereby the King took over responsibility for the government of Barbados and confirmed the planters in the ownership of their lands (before this, although they were generally referred to as freeholders, they were in theory no more than tenants of Earl of Carlisle). In exchange, the House of Assembly agreed to give the King, in perpetuity a duty of 4 and 1/2 per cent of the value of all goods exported from the island. This tax was a source of complaint to Barbadians for the next 175 years, until it was finally repealed in 1838. The 4 and 1/2 per cent duty was supposed to cover the expenses of governing Barbados, but as successive English governments used it for other things, new taxes had to be raised for the original purpose. As the House of Assembly's consent was necessary for this, the House, and with it the planter class, acquired a bargaining power in their dealings with successive royal Governors which enabled them to recover much of their earlier autonomy.

P.s. where does Barbados.org get their info from? They don't reference much of their content. CaribDigita (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi CaribDigita, Barbados.org is hooked to a company named Axses SCI. Check out their disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BajanZindy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It baffles me. I've looked over their info for a number of years, but it is often very much different than some of the notable Barbadian historians and other texts available about Barbados. CaribDigita (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi CaribDigita, Barbados.org used to belong to the the Barbados Tourism Authority. They changed hands some time ago and it's Axses as I wrote above. The current website of the BTA is VisitBarbados.org. Better info I usually fetch from the Barbados Gouvernment Information Service (BGIS) or from farious books or even the newspapers. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have the drive to help create list of Barbadian centenarians (people over age 100)?

Does anyone have the drive to help create a list of persons in Barbados living over the age of 100? Reason being: About every two weeks the Daily Nation or the Advocate newspapers feature a new Barbadian that has reached the age of 100. Further, it was reported (in the Canadian press specifically which I know of) that Barbados and Japan have the highest number of centenarians on a per-capita basis in the world.

The Nation Link and Barbados Advocate had a feature on Mr. James Sisnett (age 110) Link (quote)Recognised as the oldest man in Barbados and perhaps the Caribbean, Sisnett was showered with love from approximately 200 guests dressed resplendently in white at the Divi Southwinds Hotel. The event was held under the patronage of the Minister of Family, Youth and Sport Dr Esther Byer-Suckoo who acknowledged not only his wisdom and wit, but also his invaluable contribution to the church, the community and to Barbadian society as a whole.(end quote) He's been confirmed by the United States-based Gerontology Research Group (GRG) as the third oldest man in the world.[4]

Meanwhile, the Daily Nation had a feature on Mr. Melville Williams: Link as he got the customary meeting with the Governor-General as a centenarian. (quote)He started the saddler's trade when he was just 15, back in 1910, "and I ain't stop yet".(end quote)

WP: already has lists based on countries as seen as Template:Longevity

CaribDigita (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I kinda bazodee here. Mr Sisnett is stated here as being de oldest in Barbados the perhaps the Caribbean with 110. If I do the math and Mr Melville Williams started his trade at the age of 15 in 1910, that would mek he being 115, right? I think a list of all dem centinarians would be appropriate. Joerg, de BajanZindy (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • LOL No, I had that same double-take. I wrote to the Nation about it. It appears to be that Mr. Sisnett misspoke. I think it would be a viable list but I wanted to ask what others thought. Today's nation has a feature on two sisters over 100 now too. Sisters 100 and batting strong CaribDigita (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, CaribDigita, I remember the oldest person in de Caribbean bein' Ma Pampo from Dominica. She was 128 when she done in 2003. Maybe her article is helpful. BTW: Can't de Nation, de Advocate or Barbados Today put a list of all de centenarians together? Joerg, de BajanZindy (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They should. I mean you would think after all these years Joerg that either the Nation or Advocate would put together a list. Or even if not one of them the Governor General as he regularly visits people in Barbados that attain the age of 100. I recall reading about Ma Pampo. If I recall correctly, I believe there was something to-do with the Catholic Church's documentation in Dominica as to the reason why global longevity organisations wouldn't recognise the documents outlining her birth in the 1800s. I can't remember what was wrong with the documentation now? I do remember though that she was another centenarian talking about only eating ground provisions and staying away from processed foods and thing.  :-) CaribDigita (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey CaribDigita, I just googled a bid and found a lot of centenarians reported by the Advocate [5]. If I should find anything in my own archives, I gonna email that to yuh. Joerg, de BajanZindy (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirates ??

No note of it's Pirate history? Stede Bonnet was from Barbados. Telecine Guy 04:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted comment.

I've reverted the comment about it being a surprise that the BLP lost the 2008 general election as because it wasn't really all that surprising. The North American-Caribbean Teachers Association (NACTA)/ Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES) did polls and found the BLP and DLP to be neck and neck going into the elections. See Nation News paper article: (Neck-and-neck battle for power ) from 21st October 2007. (quote) FOUR INCUMBENT parties have been successive electoral casualities within 11 months. Will the ruling parties for two coming CARICOM elections also suffer a similar fate? [ . . . ] In Barbados, the results of a poll done by CADRES (Caribbean Development Research Services) and commissioned by the Nation Publishing Company, revealed last Sunday a surprising "close call" for the incumbent Barbados Labour Party (BLP) of Prime Minister Owen Arthur and the main Opposition Democratic Labour Party (DLP) led by David Thompson.

CADRES reported a five per cent swing from the Bees that has raised the hopes of the Dems, who have been languishing in opposition for three consecutive terms since losing power in 1994.

In his own analysis, CADRES director and political consultant Peter Wickham suggested that a new Government may now be "in the DLP's reach".

The BLP lost sight of issues and things continued to amass. Illegal immigration (under the banner of CARICOM), huge bailouts for certain entities deemed as close to the government (Barbados Turf Club), ABC Highway expansion and the balooning costs, the cost of the new prison at Dodds, the continuing saga over the effectiveness of the QEH - Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the tradgety where a large house fell into a 70 foot deep cave and the government didn't act soon enough to rescue them, the growing cost of living on the island. There were a lot of things that brought the BLP down in the last days. CaribDigita (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You accidentally restored it in your next edit: [6]. I'll leave it to you to re-rv, since I'm not well-versed in the topic. SamEV (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

history section

needs to be trimmed down. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Barbados relations

Any help finding sources for the article Australia–Barbados relations would be appreciated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Portugal and Ireland in the Western Hemisphere?

Their capital cities are considered as being in Europe, no?

Secondly, The latest UN report says Barbados has many of the indicators now of being a "developed country." See today's Nation. Barbados shines CaribDigita (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A response to Barbados being labeled as a developed country. NEW YORK, NEW YORK: Developed but at what price? CaribDigita (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wild hogs

What a weird anecdote to put in the middle of the lead. --Mika1h (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbados/Archive_1&oldid=1092062137"