Talk:Barbados

Republic of Barbados?

Reading through the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2 ) Bill, 2021, it contains no reference to a change in name of the Country to officially "The Republic of Barbados", unless someone has a source for an official name change the name should stay simply "Barbados" in my opinion WanukeX (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been unable to find any sources saying that the name has changed to anything, and as such should probably remain as simply "Barbados." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I also Agree; I've been looking and found no sources so should remain simply as Barbados until it can be sourced.Lankyant (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this source states:

The Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology named November 30 as "the day of independence" for the island, which will continue to be known as Barbados rather than the Republic of Barbados.
A ministra da Ciência, Inovação e Tecnologia apontou o dia 30 de novembro como "o dia da independência" da Ilha, que continuará a ser conhecida como Barbados ao invés de República de Barbados.

Skyshifter ^talk 15:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not many republics have the word republic, in there country's official name. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd disagree. For non-Federations it is pretty common to include "Republic of" in the Official Name. Can you think of any non Federations that don't have "Republic of_" in their official name? (LIST HERE) Only one I could think of is "Commonwealth of Dominica", and that's because if they were the 'Republic of Dominica' then that could confused them as the Dominican Republic further north. CaribDigita (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In this source (Goverment of Barbados' website) it states:

It was probably the last accreditation ceremony for the High Commissioner with Her Majesty’s inscription on the Letters of Credence. The next phase will be endorsed by the President of the Republic of Barbados.

Salvabl (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit weak to source an official name change of the actual country. It's possible that the long-form title of the president includes "Republic" but the actual name of the nation does not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Another source (dated AUG 21, 2021) - PM Outlines Republic Journey For Barbados:

“There is no change to the flag.  There is no change to the name of Independence Day; there is no change to the name of Barbados.  Barbados is Barbados.  We’re not the Commonwealth of Barbados; we’re not the Republic of Barbados; Barbados is Barbados.  We are also not changing our pledge,” the Prime Minister stated.

That's from gisbarbados.gov.bb (Barbados Government Information Service) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading the Constitutional Amendment, the Title is Officially just "The President of Barbados" WanukeX (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Constitutional Amendment is conclusive as to what the country calls itself. It refers to the "President of Barbados", the "Parliament of Barbados" and "the Constitution and supreme law of Barbados", as well as providing that in the Amendment "'State' means Barbados". Errantius (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Barbados Today also pick up on that too.

• Barbados’ new image- (December 1, 2021) (quote)"Imperial honours will be no more. There will be a range of Barbadian honours, with the highest being Freedom of Barbados, which is equivalent to a knighthood.

There will be **no change** to the country’s name, flag, pledge or the name of Independence Day. In addition, the President would be ceremonial, just like the Governor-General and carry out the same functions."(end quote) CaribDigita (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposed Page: Barbados (1966–2021).

Now that Barbados has become a republic, would it not make sense to create the page Barbados (1966–2021) similar to the Mauritius (1968–1992) page. --Kappasi (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. J 1982 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, and that article quite frankly seems to have no utility. While the change is of great ceremonial importance, it has little effect on Barbados, Barbadians, and their political system. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing much that would be added to it (as it is just a passing footnote) and it doesn't require duplicate articles that are about 95% the same (just because). CaribDigita (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

They were already an independent country and also calling it the "world's newest republic" is very offensive and demeaning! 2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Actual parish borders

It baffles me that (just as the rest of the internet) an encyclopedia like Wikipedia has such bad maps about the Barbadian parish borders. If you look at OpenStreetMap you actually see the right boundary lines (commonly following roads and streets) while all Wiki images only display an extremely simplified version of the parishes with pretty straight border lines. Barbadian parish borders are just as crooked as borders in any other country but the borders displayed in the article and the parish articles make it appear like straight borders in a desert. That may be enough for Wikipedia in 2008, but in 2022 the boundaries should be more accurate.--95.91.229.148 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Barbados Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Israeli flag overlayed over article

Why is the Israeli flag overlayed over the Barbados article on the app (but not on the web) and how can one remove it, as it has no reason for being there. Fxhomie (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's template vandalism. Please be patient until the cache expires (I've purged it so it should be fixed hopefully soon, if not already). Nardog (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Injustice and money

Barbados is wrong because:

1. Slavery was long ago.
2. They are better of than in Africa.
3. I thought we had buried the hatchet at independence.
4. How do you quantify the money owed any how?
5. They just want loads of money of us (£2.0-3.9bn) after other sources like the IMF got fed up giving them heaps of aid.
6. They Blacks it was all anti-Black racisum and ignor that we Brits also screwd Cylon and British India up.
7. The UK and France are always blamed yet *Belgian, Germany, Spain and Portugal got away with it. *=Mark Twain wrote a book condemning the Belgian Congo at the time, but this is now ignored.
8. The UK is economy stagnant and can't afford to be a cornucopia.

1. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/barbados-wants-2-trillion-in-reparations-and-hints-uk-is-ready-to-cave-to-demands/ar-AA1l97vi
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/barbados-pm-says-country-owed-49tn-as-she-makes-fresh-call-for-reparations

17:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:54FF:1749:B9AA:7200 (talk)

Barbados is Not the World's Newest Republic!

Technically, calling Barbados the "world's newest republic" is a misnomer because Barbados was already an independent nation before becoming a republic in 2021. However, some may use this phrase to emphasize the recent change in its political structure and highlight its newfound sovereignty without any symbolic ties to the British monarchy. While the terminology might not be entirely accurate, it reflects the significance of Barbados's transition to a republic. 2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Barbados as the "world's newest republic" can be seen as disingenuous or sensationalized because it oversimplifies the country's history and political development by focusing solely on the recent transition to a republic, it ignores the fact that Barbados has been an independent nation since 1966. This kind of sensationalized language may create a false impression that Barbados was not truly independent before 2021, which is inaccurate and very offensive to the people who live there.

Moreover, it overlooks the complexities of Barbados and its relationship with the British monarchy and the careful deliberations and decision-making processes that led to the transition to a republic. Such sensationalized language may serve to grab attention or create a narrative of novelty without providing a nuanced understanding of Barbados and its political evolution.

In summary, while calling Barbados the "world's newest republic" may draw attention to recent changes in its political structure, it can be misleading and fails to capture the full context of Barbados's history as an independent nation. 2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling Barbados the "World's Newest Republic" is Offensive

2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Describing Barbados as the "world's newest republic" in a sensationalized or exaggerated manner can be offensive because it diminishes the country's history, sovereignty, and the agency of its people by implying that Barbados was not truly independent until it became a republic in 2021, this language undermines the struggles and achievements of the Barbadian people since gaining independence in 1966.

Such terminology can be perceived as disrespectful to the Barbadian nation and its citizens, as it suggests that their previous status as an independent Commonwealth realm was somehow incomplete or insufficient also disregarding the decades of self-governance, nation-building, and contributions to the global community that Barbados has made since gaining independence.

Furthermore, it may perpetuate colonialist attitudes by framing the transition to a republic as the ultimate validation of Barbados's sovereignty, as if it needed external approval or recognition to be considered truly independent. This narrative ignores the agency and autonomy of the Barbadian people in shaping their destiny and reinforces a hierarchy that places Western ideals and structures above those of other nations.

In essence, using sensationalized or exaggerated language to describe Barbados and its transition to a republic can be offensive because it diminishes the country's history and sovereignty while perpetuating colonialist attitudes and undermining the agency of its people and it is important to approach discussions about Barbados and its political evolution with sensitivity, respect, and an understanding of its rich and complex history. 2601:49:8400:20F0:3D4D:DFBD:1ED2:3BD3 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)