Talk:Barbuda

Is Barbuda an Part of Antigua or an Independent nation?

Didnt get from article if Barbuda was a part of Antugua or an Indpendenat nation of its own. Thank you!(datedAMMorn Sn.Sept.13th2009 21stcent.Byr Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D."X")ANDREMOI (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Barbuda is an island in the Eastern Caribbean, and forms part of the state of Antigua and Barbuda. " I dunno, the first sentence makes it clear. --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

first census

«In 1719, Codrington and the island of Barbuda had its first census (of both people and livestock), conducted by Sir William Codrington (1715–1790).» A 4 year old boy conducted the census?! - 2.82.165.211 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Past Tense

Yes, very funny. You guys might want to go over to Encyclopedia Dramatica or TL; DR Wikipedia for that stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean? If there is no answer, let's delete this section. David Spector (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is in response to the opening paragraph, which presently refers to the island in the past tense, with the rationale given in the edit being that "the island has been virtually destroyed". I would contend, and I suspect OP was implying, that the island does in fact still exist and has only been scoured of habitable structures and evacuated of all people. As the island is still physically extant and some attempt to restore habitation may yet be made, reference to the entire island as a thing of the past strikes me as inappropriate and insensitive.96.39.156.23 (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You're Wrong About Our History

We, the Natives, are Taino. We're not Carib, or Arawak.--184.101.190.233 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The pens

The pens rather than for slaves were probably for cattle rwhich was an important activity of the Coddington's. RichardBond (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable citations for either assertion? David Spector (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nombre

¿Por qué se llama Barbuda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.4.221 (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Official Site

The link to the "official site" looks like a commercial spammer owned by an entity in New York. The actual site appears to be http://ab.gov.ag/ 2600:8804:88:4A00:7D02:7454:567B:8E2F (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Thank you for adding the correct pronunciation. The Americans have been mispronouncing it Barbooda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive condensing of hurricane section

User:dawnseeker2000 deleted some of the content I had added about the Hurricanes (along with a snide comment) ... and guess what Wikipedia is now saying about that section: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2017) Peter K Burian (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

When was Barbuda uninhabited before?

Although Ambassador Sanders' quotation that Barbuda is "uninhabited for the first time in 300 years" is receiving wide circulation, is it true? Was there some gap between the genocide of the Carib or Arawak population of the island and before permanent European settlement? If not, isn't this the first time in nearly 5000 years? Ibadibam (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming he was only thinking about Barbuda's history in terms of European settlement (particularly since any absolute, pin-pointed date of when humans began inhabiting the island is likely impossible to ascertain). Regardless, it's not our job to necessarily fact check what someone says, but rather to have the quote stand on its own. Coinmanj (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If we put a quotation in an article without context, the reader will take it as fact. If we don't have a way of giving due weight to sources that challenge an inaccuracy in a quotation, we probably shouldn't include the quotation. Ibadibam (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering there aren't any sources challenging the quote (at least, none that I'm aware of), it's not giving the quote undue weight. It's coming from a very high ranking official and deals with something that is historic. Whether it's 300 years historic or 5,000 years, we may not know. Perhaps setting the quote up with something like "Ambassador Sanders made the assertion that..." An assertion isn't a statement of fact, it's just a claim. Or instead of quoting it, incorporate it into prose - "Ambassador Sanders publicly remarked that this was the first time, since at least European settlement, the island was uninhabited." That way the quote can remain (which I feel is important) and readers won't get the immediate impression that's it's an unquestioned fact. Coinmanj (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I share Ibadibam's concerns about the quote. As it is, it would be very easy for someone to come to the article, skip to the "depopulation" section, and walk away thinking the bit in question is a fact when it doesn't quite make sense. It's totally within our rights here to exercise some editorial judgment and exclude that part of the ambassador's statement for now even though it's verifiable that he said it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coinmanj's suggestion - put it as an assertion and note that it was the first time in at least 300 years/since European settlement that the island was uninhabited. That would cover both the 300 period and any possible longer period of 5,000 years or so.72.27.51.227 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If we have to hedge the statement, what's the point of including it? It may have made the news, but give it a Friedman unit and nobody will care anymore. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No one will care except the nearly 2,000 people who no longer have a home (and those of us who are interested in knowing info like this). Besides, mass interest isn't always a key reason to have something included here.

Anyway, taking another look at the article, the quote itself isn't necessarily the real focus in my mind, its the claim about depopulation that's important. If this is the first time in at least 300 years that the island has been uninhabited, that's a rather big deal. Which is why I feel the information should be included. Having said that, already included in the article's intro is, "Everyone on the island was evacuated to Antigua, leaving Barbuda uninhabited for the first time in modern history." So long as that information remains, whether or not the direct quote is included anywhere else, the need for the quote seems to lose its importance. Coinmanj (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Seriously? The point of contention here is, like, two or three words out of the ambassador's statement.
2. No problems with that wording or that use of the source, the depopulation of the island is obviously critical to mention. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The population of Barbuda was evacuated due to the destruction caused by hurricane Irma, but is it really accurate to describe the island as "uninhabited" after a presumably temporary evacuation? This fits with commentary that says the description is overly dominated by recent events. Barbuda has a long history of being inhabitated. The current description, while topically accurate creates an impression of a long term situation. 74.96.158.227 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sister Isle" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sister Isle and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Sister Isle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding official name of the Island of Barbuda

@Peter Ormond I would like to discuss your misuse of the citation needed tag, as a source was already provided, a better tag ti add is better source needed. CROIX (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Your source doesn't explicity say that "Island of Barbuda" is the "official name" of Barbuda. Peter Ormond 💬 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Barbuda Natives

I'm a Barbudan Native. You're wrong, we're Taino, like the name of our island. Don't you see the bar of barbecue in our island name? Sorry if my English is poor. But, we're Taino. And, we are not extinct. We're not all mixed with African or European either. Calling Taino extinct, or heavily mixed is racist wikipedia vandalism, stomp it out. The language of our island is still Taino. We still speak fluent Taino. And, this is not a British island. And, showing nothing but pictures of Africans and Europeans is very misleading, and is another racist vandalism. --184.101.190.233 (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We still speak fluent Taino. --184.101.190.233 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what wp:reliable sources state. See wp:citing sources and help:referencing for beginners Adakiko (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The people who wrote this wikipedia article aren't reliable sources. --184.101.190.233 (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Between August and October = In September; hurricane season indication seems inaccurate

The current article contains:

”Between the months of August and October, the island is at risk of being hit by hurricanes.”

The wording “Between […] August and October” is a circuitous way of writing “In September”, since that is the only time interval that is between August and October. (No day in August or October, for example, is between August and October.)

And what’s more is that on https://climahealth.info/country/antigua-and-barbuda/#:~:text=Hurricanes%20can%20occur%20from%20June,every%20three%20years%20(7). the WMO and the WHO state:

“Hurricanes can occur from June to November; historically, the most likely time is mid-August to mid-September.”

which contradicts the statement in the article. Even the time mentioned as the most likely time for the occurrence of hurricanes, i.e. that from mid-August to mid-September, contradicts the article statement.

So I wonder what was the reason behind writing the quoted sentence in the article the way it has been written.Redav (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)