Talk:Queen of Trinidad and Tobago

What the article is about
I removed the later visits by QEII again because those are thing she did as British monarch, not Queen of Trinidad and Tobago. It's a bit like adding post-Presidential activities by Ellis Clarke to the President of Trinidad and Tobago article. Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree.

Same goes for any of the other equivalent articles, and for visits before independence.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Caption
can you explain this change to the flag caption? Are you asserting that the monarch had a separate Tobagonian flag, or that she only had one for Trinidad and not for Tobago? Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC for royal visit
Should it be mentioned that the 1966 visit by the Queen was made as sovereign of Trinidad and Tobago?  Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A quote from this book, page 284:

Vote

 * Yes: She used a distinct flag to represent her as Queen of Trinidad and Tobago. She also opened a new session of Trinidadian and Tobagonian Parliament in this role, by giving the Speech from the Throne. Also, per the above quoted book, "The two islands' Queen was greeted there...".  Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you really rely on a source that gets the most basic elements of geography correct? Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's not explicitly supported by the source above and the other source given, the official website, doesn't mention her position as queen of the islands at all, indicating instead that it was a Commonwealth tour undertaken by the British monarch. Britannia was a British ship staffed by the British navy and paid for by the British taxpayer. The trip was part of a larger Caribbean tour arranged by the British authorities. Just because the ship flew her personal Trinidadian flag doesn't make the ship or the trip Trinidadian alone. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - if the sources are saying so. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No if this is the source used. It's from a travel writer who seems to confuse Scarborough (in Tobago) with Port of Spain. Given the lack of a deepwater harbour in Scarborough until 1991 I'm opposed to the use of this book as a reliable source for this information. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. See Verifiability: this is an exceptional claim in that it contradicts our assumptions and therefore requires multiple high-quality mainstream citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hummingbird
Trinidad is sometimes referred to as the "Land of the Hummingbird", because 18 different species of hummingbird have been recorded on the island. This isn't correct ("the land of the hummingbird" is - probably incorrectly - attributed as a translation of Kairi), and I can't find any claim in the article by Carlyle Chang that says so. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The new source does not support the claim that the hummingbirds on the shield derive from the 17 species of hummingbird on the islands or from the Amerindian name. I can find no mention of heraldry or the coat of arms anywhere in the book. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The second source added also does not the support the claim that there is a causal link between the Amerindian name and the depiction on the shield. The mention of the shield in that source is in a list of Trinidadian-related hummingbird trivia. It doesn't actually say the birds on the shield were selected because of the number of species or because of the native name. DrKay (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The idea is a myth. To quote Boomert, p.77
 * Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Stamps
While queen's-head stamps (and currency) would be useful illustrations here, I removed the 1953 stamps because they are from a decade before independence (and so apply to a prior entity). Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Archontology.org
What makes archontology.org a reliable source? I don't see anything on the website that points to authorship or editorial review. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion I'd say no. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Please discuss your changes instead of edit warring. That's what the talk page is for. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this is an article about the head of state, not an article about Elizabeth II. The fact that she was the only person to hold this title is beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the article, at many places the phrase "the queen" is specific to Elizabeth II and should be capitalised per the MOS.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  17:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguments against retention of the monarch included the idea that it was a "bad form" for a newly independent country which gave the queen "too many residual opportunities [to interfere]" is about the position, not the person
 * Mary, Princess Royal represented the queen is about the position, not the person
 * The queen's message to the people of Trinidad and Tobago is about the position, not the person
 * The 1962 Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago retain the queen as "direct and immediate" head of state. is about the position, not the person
 * The constitution vested executive authority in the queen is about the position, not the person
 * While the queen remained head of state is about the position, not the person
 * Elizabeth II had a personal flag as queen of Trinidad and Tobago is about the position, not the person
 * You also removed "and her spouse" without explanation. It's useful for readers to know why this other person with no formal role is mentioned in the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mary represented a person. It was a person who sent a message. And it was a human who came for royal visit.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a message from the institution, not the person. Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The message was signed "Elizabeth R" .  Peter Ormond &#128172;  17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this imperialist nonsense is tiresome. Fight your culture wars at home. My country has been looted for centuries and sacrificed untold numbers of lives to enrich a rapacious monarchy. No need to add insult to injury. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not a Briton and my country also went through this. Indeed colonialism is a bad thing. But most of edits are related to monarchy related articles, because I have been interested in European royal history for many years. Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, Empire was part of our history. Yes, we were nominally a monarchy for 14 years after independence. But this is a bad thing. This is an institution based on exploitation, on murder, on enslavement, on genocide. And here you are trying to whitewash it. I don't know if you consider exploitation, murder, enslavement and genocide to be good or bad, but please note that when you're writing about other countries, you need to understand that it was a bad thing for us. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you think I am whitewashing it, please amend this article as required to make it balanced.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is that my responsibility to stop you from using Wikipedia to POV-push? Shouldn't that be your responsibility to stop adding bad content? Guettarda (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Content you added to this article has been tagged for months, but you can't be bothered to fix it. Why do you expect people to clean up after you, but when they do, you edit war? Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not going to respond further. I don't know what "bad content" I have added. Again, I you think so, you should establish a consensus and edit as required. Please stop exaggerating a single revert, which I did per the MOS, as "edit war". Also, I am very busy, on Wikipedia as well as in real life. If you find mistakes, then you should correct them. This encyclopedia is written by thousands of users, not just me. Nobody is perfect.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I said something very similar 3 months ago. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Some examples
 * 1) "Council of Ministers" (here) is not in the cited source
 * 2) "Ministers of the Crown" is not in the cited source
 * 3) 'Within the Commonwealth realms, the monarch is deemed the "fount of honour"' - does this apply to Trinidad and Tobago?
 * 4) 'The government of Trinidad and Tobago was officially known as Her Majesty's Government.' - the source uses the phrase once, but it does not support the claim that the government was "officially known"
 * 5) Statements that you added have been tagged as needing reliable sources since November, if not earlier

"I am not going to respond further" is not acceptable. Stuff has been tagged and explained for months, but you can't be bothered to fix your mess. And yet you insist on edit warring to preserve the seriously POV tone. Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't remove tags without fixing the entire problem like you did here. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)