Talk:Trinidad and Tobago/Archive 2

External Links

I just revamped the external links section, which was left as a wild wild west for far too long breaking every WP:EL rule. The links presently listed are government websites or sister wikis. I suggest we discuss links here and reach consensus before adding any new links. A possible addition could be the CIA fact book entry (which is standard for all other country pages). Rasadam (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish as a First Foreign Language (not "Official" language)

[1]

The Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish site is quite clear in not calling Spanish an "official language", but as a "First Foreign Language". It's a 15-year plan to help Trinidadians learn Spanish as a "first foreign language" in order to facilitate trade - that's why it's part of the ministry of Trade. BMW(drive) 09:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the SAFFL iniciative is to eventually become Official also by 2020, which would be the logical next step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.232.19 (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the possible goal, but that clearly means that it is not currently an official language ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But certanly that is the goal but the real thing is that spanish has a special status. --80.26.10.217 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've had to do some google kung-fu to try to find a legit source about this situation.

Here's what I have thus far:

"Fiction: SAFFL seeks to displace Trinbago’s culture (including the English language) and promote that of Latin America.

Fact: The SAFFL initiative involves no policy to align T&T’s culture more closely to that of Latin America. It does not seek to replace English with Spanish as our first language. Nor does it aim to make Spanish an official second language, partly because of the complex social, bureaucratic and legal ramifications this shift would entail.

It does, however, recognise that our country already possesses a rich cosmopolitan culture which is interconnected at various levels with that of Latin America. Therefore, it seeks to highlight some of these links to demonstrate that speaking Spanish is not alien to our society and that many facets of our heritage is in fact Spanish in origin. In our recently published article, “Spanish place names in Trinidad” (Guardian, August 31, Pg 31), we highlighted the Spanish roots of various streets and cities in T&T."

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2005-10-11/PA.html

Does this sound good then? Spanish's not going to be official, but it's going to be pushed very much to have a presence there.--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my prior comment further down the page. This was a policy pushed by a previous administration, and I can't find any evidence that this has been continued by the current administration or that it made any real impact beyond a few headlines. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

created a userbox for people (like me!) who weren't born in tt but has parents who were. voila! to use it, use the code

{{User Trini descent}}

This user has Trini ancestry.

Snoopyloopy (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Work to do

Ok, I'm going to slowly tackle the cleanup of this article, and I hope to have some help. My overall goal is to raise the class of this article by improvements of style, tone and content.

For article-style comparison purposes only, I am using Zimbabwe as a model. That country-based article is a GA-class article, so the layout, format, and style should be a good model. (NOTE: don't think that I'm comparing T&T to Zimbabwe! It's style comparison only).

Tasks that I can think of

• wikify
• new sections based on List of Trinidad and Tobago-related topics as compared to sections on Zimbabwe
• improve existing sections based on source material from above
• realign/reorder sections for flow

Please add to this list, and help as you can.

As part of this, I already added a new section yesterday on Defence Forces. I think it appropriately summarizes the source article (which, by the way, needs massive cleanup itself).

Thoughts and ideas? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this.

I recently compared this article with the country FAs. The MOS for country articles suggests the following sections:

• History
• Politics
• Subdivisions
• Geography
• Economy
• Demography
• Culture
• See also
• External links

Most country FAs have those sections, but not necessarily in that order. Many also have Etymology sections, which might be a useful addition here.

I'm not so sure about the whole armed forces thing, not as a top-level subheading. It might be more appropriate in a country with more of a military tradition. For good or ill, we don't have one.

The other thing that needs some real attention is the whole Demography section. You can't write about TT without writing about race, but nothing you write about race will satisfy everyone - and anything that meets NPOV will probably satisfy no one. The problem is that it's a section that attracts bloat - unsourced bloat. But part of the problem is the fact that the Demographics daughter article is so weak. I strongly suspect that the only way to keep that section manageable is to make the subarticle substantial and comprehensive. Otherwise people will keep adding their opinions.

Politics suffers from similar problems. The Economy section, on the other hand, suffers from neglect. It's too hard to write, and it needs facts and numbers. The challenge there is to keep it up to date. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite the undertaking. It's not only the layout.. have you actually read the History section? It's a lot of garbage! Repeated information and a lot of dubious sourcing. I think part of the problem with the main T&T article is that the sub-articles are crappy (For example History of Trinidad and Tobago is bad, so summarising that Article here and linking it is difficult). There is no History timeline or anything. Culture (not just Music) Language and Sport need their own articles. So I'm not sure how we can take this one to GA without having the support structure of decent sub-articles. --  R45  ^talk! 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. I figured by defining structure, it would force us to work on source articles too. Any comments about the addition of an education section, as has suddenly arrived today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion: Roman Catholic, 29%

The largest religion in Trinidad and Tobago is Roman Catholicism, almost 30% of the population. Correct the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.181.90 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

...do you have a reference for that, because we can't simply take your word for it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in Trinidad and Tobago. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism fall into the category of religions. Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism and others are sub groups of the religion called Christianity. Similarly other religions also have sub groups but not every sub group is a religion. To refer to Roman Catholicism as a "religion" not appropriate. 186.44.137.53 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Anthony Mowlah- Baksh.

Very true ... and it was fixed 2 years ago :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How can Vector-Images.com claim to speak on behalf of the CoA of T&T?

Vector Images cannot actually speak for a coat of arms because they are NOT the copyright holder. Coat of Arms are copyrighted by the Government that holds them. So in fact Vector Images.com appears to be misusing copyright law themselves. I don't know how they can speak on behalf of a copyright that they don't own. In former British colonies the Crown (usually the Office of the President, Governor-General, or other minister) owns the rights to the coat of arms and any likeness thereof.

• National Symbols of T&T
• Copyright law of Trinidad and Tobago concerning emblems vested in the state

Sorry but Vector-Images has no legs to stand on. They recreated something that has a likeness to something already copyrighted and now are trying to gain from it. I wonder if the government offices around the world know about this Vector-Images.com ? I might need to send some emails and get them shut down for breaking copyright law.

CaribDigita (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV time, at least to begin with? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear (at least to me) that renditions of national emblems are not copyrightable. In the US, any government work is in the public domain. WP has a policy article on the use of emblems: Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. Kbrose (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical care

Regarding this revert, the statement that was re-inserted appears to have real POV problem. I don't see how sourcing can solve the problem of slanted information. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the statements in the entire paragraph are of the same quality, making statements of condition of various aspects without citations. It is not at all clear why this particular sentence was singled out for deletion, its no more subjective than others. How is it slanted? The whole paragraph does read like a travel guide, unfortunately. However, the content would be highly relevant and appropriate if references can be cited. The unreferenced facts should be tagged first, so editors have a chance to add citations. Someone, perhaps who wrote this, this might have the original source of content. Kbrose (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it slanted? The government has always blamed the doctors and nurses for the state of the health-care system, claiming that the equipment is there, but that the doctors and nurses selfishly emigrate after being trained at government expense. This sentence endorses that POV. The doctors and nurses, on the other hand, tend to blame the government. As does much of the public. Many would question the assertion that the public hospitals are modern, and that investment in equipment has been adequate.

And, of course, race and politics come into it. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If these statements are controversial, than they should be rephrased to indicate the source of the various 'opinions', such as The government asserts that xyz is modern, while many critics blame the government of something. The assertion of being 'slanted' is no more credible or notable as the article's statements and should not be used to remove content. Show that it is slanted. Perhaps a citation of documented discussion (newspaper articles, etc) of such controversies would help. Kbrose (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with our sourcing policy. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you want to re-insert material that has been challenged, it's your responsibility to provide supporting citations. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kbrose's deletions

Regarding this mass tagging and deletion, I am curious about several deletions, especially the following (deleted portions italicised

1. Sugar cane was once a prominent crop of Trinidad but commercial production has ceased since 2007.

   Do you dispute the shut-down of Caroni (1975) Ltd, and if so, on what grounds?

2. Digicel and Laqtel were granted cellular licenses in 2005, breaking TSTT's monopoly.

   I am especially puzzled by the fact that you chose to delete half of an unsourced statement, but not the other half.

3. Whites once made up a larger proportion of the country's population, but many fled following threats made during the 1970 Black Power Revolution or during the economic crises of the late 1980s.

   Again, what's your rationale for deleting only the latter part of the statement?

4. English is the country's only official language, but the main spoken language is a dialect or a creole which reflects the Spanish, Indian, African and European heritage of the nation and is spoken by all Trinidadians regardless of ethnicity.

   Again, why delete only a portion of an uncited statement?

5. Cantonese is also spoken by Chinese immigrants.

   Reason you believe this is false is...?

6. The cat o' nine tails ("Cat") was used to flog prisoners.

   Despite the fact that the following sentence had a citation that supports this

7. Homosexual acts are still illegal in Trinidad and Tobago (see Gay rights in Trinidad and Tobago) and under Article 8 (18/1) of the Immigration Act, non-citizen homosexuals are not allowed to enter the country.

   Cited to Article 8 of the immigration act. A non-primary source would be good, but the statement includes a supporting citation.

8. Other indigenous art forms include soca (a derivate of calypso), Parang (Venezuelan-influenced Christmas music), Chutney, Rapso music, which was made famous by Cheryl Byron and Pichakaree (musical forms which blend the music of the Caribbean and India) and the famous Limbo dance.

   Not sure about the Cheryl Byron bit, but again, I'm curious about what your reason to doubt what's basically common knowledge. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Kbrose is up to ... their changes to this article have been bizarre. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Economy - obvious error

I've been trying to make sense of "Petroleum, petrochemicals and natural gas continue to be the backbone of the economy. Tourism is the mainstay of the economy of Tobago, and the island remains a favourite destination for many European tourists." You have two statements which appear to contradict eachother, side by side. Perhaps someone with knowledge on the subject could rephrase or explain the truth? (The remainder of the article was readable enough, as someone who came here with a genuine curiosity on the subject of T&T.) BlakJakNZ (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago are two separate islands in one country. Trinidad (the island) is highly industrial, and the petroleum industry is the highest source of income for the entire country. Tobago (the island) is "the jewel of the Caribbean", and although tourism is not as developed as much of the Caribbean, it is the major industry for Tobago. It does not bring in anywhere near the same amount of money as petroleum. Hope that makes sense... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much as BWilkins says. Guettarda (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, I didnt do as good a job reading the article first time around as I should have. :) BlakJakNZ (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Trinidad sector

On the Trinidad sector they are all the picture of beaches in photo. why did you tobago photo on trinidad sector but the tobago sector they are all tobago. Please someone put photos of Trinidad on the Trinidad sector and put Tobago photos on the Tobago sector. Thank for reading my comment. (Kylekieran (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Er, but this article is about Trinidad and Tobago. Where the photos go is somewhat irrelevant (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime

No section on crime? That's rather surprising considering our article on List of countries by intentional homicide rate places Trinidad and Tobago 6th in the world. -- œ^™ 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, I can say that there is a big crime story every day reported on the news.The Trini Flyer (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity

This heading is common on country pages, but was absent for Trinidad and Tobago. A subheading and information about fungi have been added. Further subheadings and information about animals, micro-organisms and plants would be good.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion. I have unfortunately removed your re-addition. As per the concept of bold, revert, DISCUSS, please do not re-add it until you have WP:CONSENSUS to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents about the issue: we have articles on flora and fauna, and I believe fungi as well. As such, anything to do with biodiversity should (if it even exists) be extremely short and refer to those as main articles. If you feel the need to create a separate article on Biodiversity in Trinidad and Tobago, and use it as the main article, then that might also be possible. However, for the main article that intends to link to other articles, the addition was far too wordy and detailed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The unfortunately removed re-addition was not a reversion. It was different and attempted to take on board the points raised. It was already shorter and less detailed. Here is some further discussion. There are general wikipedia articles about "flora", "fauna", "animals", "fungi" and plants" etc., but to refer to them as main articles directly from the Trinidad and Tobago page would give no information about the state of knowledge of these organisms specifically in Trinidad and Tobago. It would be similar to having nothing specific for Trinidad and Tobago about "history" or "politics" or "military" or "geography" or "economy" or "transport" etc. and instead to refer directly to the general wikipedia articles on those topics, all of which exist. A general search of wikipedia, using a wide range of combinations like "animals of Trinidad and Tobago" or "Fauna of Trinidad and Tobago" or "plants of Trinidad and Tobago" etc. turned up no pages dedicated to these topics. Supposing nothing has been missed, it seems likely they do not exist. With the exception of geography, all the current headings on the page for Trinidad and Tobago deal with humans and their culture and society. To have no information at all about the thousands of other species which inhabit those islands, apart from Homo sapiens, hardly seems a balanced entry. It is also not clear what is meant by the suggestion that information about biodiversity of Trinidad and Tobago should be extremely short. Granted, each entry should be a short summary, but should the summary for Trinidad and Tobago's biodiversity, which has to deal with potentially thousands of species in a vast range of different habitats, be shorter than, for example, the entry on sport in Trinidad and Tobago, which deals with just one aspect of the behaviour of one species? A quick look at other country pages for the Americas shows that Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Panama, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Uruguay and the USA have no mention of biodiversity (I didn't check all the Caribbean island states), while Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and Suriname all treat the subject of biodiversity in greater or lesser detail, usually under the heading "biodiversity".Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all a question of WP:DUE. Generally I think that the few countries that are lucky to be megadiverse deserve to have their wildlife mentioned, but otherwise it is more debatable. I suggest that you create the page Wildlife of Trinidad and Tobago, and subsequently nominate it for WP:DYK. After the whole fleshed out article is seen we can see what's appropriate for this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would actually like to hear from another administrator, User:Guettarda who has written a wide range of the articles related to snakes, flowers, etc of Trinidad and Tobago (see for example List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago and List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago), because he would of course point us in the right direction. Have you considered joining the project related to T&T?

(As a side note, re-introducing basically the same information through a separate edit still does not help you get by WP:BRD...so thanks for bringing this to discussion instead) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for various comments, and for advice about wikipedia etiquette. Thank you for the suggestion about the Trinidad and Tobago wikipedia project: I will look into it. When used with countries, the term "megadiverse" seems to be defined purely on the basis of numbers of endemic plant species. That means the diversities of animals (annellids, arthropods, chordata, echinoderms, molluscs, nematodes etc.), of fungi, and of micro-organisms are simply not taken into account. Categorizing a country as "megadiverse" is a political value judgement - something for wikipedia to observe and perhaps comment on, but not necessarily to adopt as part of some sort of policy for determining page content. Suggesting that the biodiversity of Trinidad and Tobago is only worth mentioning on the main page if it there are a lot of endemic plants is rather like saying that the sport of cricket should only be treated if there are a lot of wicket-keepers. If a balanced entry is to be achieved, then some mention needs to be made of the thousands of species other than humans which are also found on these islands. Reading the entry at present, the impression is of a country / islands with lots of human activity, a national flower, a coat of arms with a couple of birds on it, but no nature.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is assumed that there are many other animals in Trinidad and Tobago other than humans. A note of this is certainly appropriate, but it is debatable as to whether it should have its own subsection, and I think highly questionable that each group of organisms deserves its own section. It's important to note that countries are human creations, and many facets of a country are defined by human activity.

As for megadiversity, it's a measure of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plants and selected groups of insects. I recommend making the wildlife article anyway, as it seems like it is a far greater loss to the encyclopaedia that the wildlife does not even have its own article, irrelevant to whether it is prominent on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries are human creations, but Trinidad and Tobago are both islands. There is a geographical context as well as a human context, and that is already recognized on the site. What about putting "Biodiversity" as a subheading under "Geography", and then giving sub-subheadings, or whatever they're called, to animals, fungi, plants and micro-organisms. Assuming there are many other animals (and fungi and plants and micro-organisms) in Trinidad and Tobago is not so different from assuming that - given humans are present - there is a history, and there are politics, and there is transport, and there is sport and religion etc. Assumptions may miss important points. Thank you for clarifying the point on megadiversity: the rest of the arthropods and all the other invertebrate groups and fungi and micro-organisms are still left out of the equation. Thank you for the suggestion about a wildlife page. I will also study that idea. Sorry - done in a hurry - dinner time!Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

True that they are islands, but in that situation information may be more appropriate for the articles Trinidad and Tobago (and Little Tobago and all those other islands) then the article on the country. Just as an explanation of where I am coming from in general, a wikipedia article can only be so long. Per the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guideline, the article should only be so long and contain WP:DUE information. Within that overall space, there is a need to determine what content is inserted, and how it can be arranged. Obviously there needs to be some headers so a reader can access an overview of what they want to see, but you also shouldn't have an article stuffed with a bunch of tiny sections (eg The current demographics section of this article). There's a whole WP:MOS which determines all this, but I don't recommend trying to read that all now.

Anyway, those are the guidelines which I think are the most relevant to constructing an article. In terms of biodiversity in this article, myself (and I assume BWilkins) feel that the information you have written is much too specific for this article, that it is WP:UNDUE and breaks the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guideline. This article must include only a certain amount of bytes of important information about Trinidad and Tobago, and information on biodiversity and especially on different kingdoms does not quite make the cut. In addition, I'm personally against including level 3 headings (or subsubheadings!) in any country article at all. Frankly I'd agree that at the moment this article does have rather a lot on things like sports, so I'd like to clarify that I'm not at all arguing that everything currently on this page is due, or that certain parts don't in my opinion already break the summary style guideline.

At any rate, I commend the writing you have tried to add to this page, sourced and with sources already formatted (something I didn't figure out for ages). It would be a great start for a wildlife article. If you have new rewrites you'd like to suggest, I'd recommend posting them here or writing them in a subpage such as User:Middgeaugh-Botteaugh/Sandbox. Sorry about the length of this post, trying to clearly explain my position, and perhaps went out of the scope of this talkpage slightly. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if there are any questions I have raised. Hope I haven't been too abrasive! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

General answer would be that some mention of things biological is badly needed in this article (as is general cleanup). That said, the addition creates WP:UNDUE problems. TT is probably best known for its avian diversity. Plants, coral reefs, mosquitoes, snakes, herps in general, bats, non-volant mammals...all these things are well documents (and thus, could be considered notable). Perhaps the best studies organism is the guppy. While fungi are certainly important (and deserving of their own article) the problem is that outside of the context of plant pathology in general (and cacao pests specifically), the fungi of TT are badly understudied. Which makes them a poor candidate for inclusion on the main TT article. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all these helpful comments. While it would be great to have separate articles about the biodiversity of the individual islands of Trinidad and Tobago, that does not get round the point that an entry at the country level is also needed: biodiversity, since the 1992 Rio Convention, is a political matter at the national level, and Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory of that convention. Thanks to the previous contributor, perhaps some consensus is emerging that there needs to be some mention of biodiversity on the country page. An earlier contributor expressed a strong aversion to sub-subheadings. There are concerns about space. I wonder if it would help to re-allocate the section on "Rugby Union" to "Sport" - it seems a little strange to have it as a separate heading - and then a new heading for "Biodiversity" could be put in without any increase in the overall number of headings. Maybe Trinidad and Tobago's membership of the Rio Convention could be cited there. It would then be possible to have separate subheadings within "Biodiversity" for animals, fungi, micro-organisms and plants, each with a very short summary. They are all important. While fungi of Trinidad and Tobago are badly understudied, the situation is better than in most other islands of the Caribbean: there are three major published works exclusively or significantly containing information about fungi of Trinidad and Tobago, and there is also a dedicated website for the topic. Providing basic information about those resources, and similar information about animals, micro-organisms and plants, seems hardly excessive. I agree also about the need for separate pages for animals, fungi, micro-organisms and plants of Trinidad and Tobago but, still being new to this business, I haven't yet worked out how to go about this! Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and removed that ridiculous Rugby section which didn't even have any text. A biodiversity heading would be well placed below the Geography section. The problem with subheadings followed by short summaries is that any section should ideally have a lot of information in it, if it doesn't it shouldn't be a section. Anyway, at the moment any information is good, format can be cleaned up later. After adding a summary here, to create a new article simple type the title into the search bar and click on the redlink that pops up. Or just click through a redlink like Wildlife of Trinidad and Tobago or Fungi of Trinidad and Tobago and go. There's actually only one country Fungi article on wikipedia, so any Fungi work would be extremely useful. Good work on Georgia by the way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest cities

I have removed the following template because it is broken, and I can't figure out how to fix it. a. It has blank spaces for cities 17-20 b. The edit link goes to a non-existent article.

Largest cities or towns in Trinidad and Tobago 2011 Census*
	Rank	Name	Municipality	Pop.	Rank	Name	Municipality	Pop.
Chaguanas San Fernando	1	Chaguanas	Borough of Chaguanas	101,297	11	Sangre Grande	Region of Sangre Grande	20,630	Port of Spain Arima
	2	San Fernando	City of San Fernando	82,997	12	Penal	Region of Penal–Debe	17,952
	3	Port of Spain	City of Port of Spain	81,142	13	Scarborough	Tobago	17,537
	4	Arima	The Royal Chartered Borough of Arima	65,623	14	Gasparillo	Region of Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo	16,426
	5	San Juan	Region of San Juan–Laventille	53,588	15	Siparia	Borough of Siparia	14,535
	6	Diego Martin	Borough of Diego Martin	49,686	16	Claxton Bay	Region of Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo	14,436
	7	Couva	Region of Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo	48,858	17	Fyzabad	Borough of Siparia	13,099
	8	Point Fortin	Republic Borough of Point Fortin	29,579	18	Valencia	Region of Sangre Grande	12,327
	9	Princes Town	Region of Princes Town	28,335	19	Freeport	Region of Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo	11,850
	10	Tunapuna	Region of Tunapuna–Piarco	26,829	20	Debe	Region of Penal–Debe	11,733

Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Language

I moved the following text from the article because it was a. overly long for the main article, b. uncited, and c. incorrect in at least the following cases: Penal and Debe are not names of Indian origin (Penal is actually Peñal in older sources, suggesting Spanish roots), while Indian Walk refers to Amerindians, not Asian Indians. Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

removed text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because of the country's colonial heritage, the names of places in Trinidad are derived in roughly equal proportions from five languages: English: Chatham, Brighton, Green Hill, St. Mary's, Princes Town, Freeport, New Grant French: Blanchisseuse, Sans Souci, Pointe-à-Pierre, Basse Terre, Matelot, Petit Bourg Spanish: Trinidad, San Fernando, Sangre Grande, Rio Claro, San Juan, Las Cuevas, Maracas, Manzanilla, Los Bajos Indian: Fyzabad, Barrackpore, Indian Walk, Madras Settlement, Penal, Debe Amerindian languages: Chaguanas, Tunapuna, Guayaguayare, Carapichaima, Mucurapo, Chaguaramas, Arima, Arouca, Guaico, Oropouche, Aripo. In Tobago, English names predominate. However, there are several names which suggest its colonial past: Belle Garden, Bon Accord, Charlotteville, Les Coteaux, Parlatuvier (French), Auchenskeoch, Blenheim (Dutch), Great Courland Bay (the Courlanders).

Signed Language

As a deaf person to visit Trinidad will I be able to communicate with the Deaf in American Sign Language or do the sing British Sign Language. Thank you. Karl Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.201.160 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're not all that able to assist with question like this. I would suggest that generally - since English is the primary language, and they have significant North American influence, that it should be possible in some situations. A quick Yahoo Search for "sign language Trinidad" reveals some discussion and resources related to the hearing impaired (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Location of Trinidad and Tobago on the map not clear enough

IMO, on the map on the right (the File:Trinidad and Tobago (orthographic projection).svg) it isn't clear enough where Trinidad and Tobago actually is. The zoomed square on that page is large enough, but the actual location has only 6 vaguely greenish pixels... --82.171.13.139 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a smaller box and lines to show where they are in the world. CMD (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that does help. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, better like this. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish

The whole "Spanish as a first foreign language" issue seems overblown. The most comprehensive overview (and by far the best source) is this article from the Trinidad Guardian which says

The SAFFL initiative involves no policy to align T&T’s culture more closely to that of Latin America. It does not seek to replace English with Spanish as our first language. Nor does it aim to make Spanish an official second language, partly because of the complex social, bureaucratic and legal ramifications this shift would entail.

So no, it wasn't an attempt to make the country officially bi-lingual[2]

Secondly, it was an initiative of the Manning administration, which has been out of office since 2010. There's nothing to indicate that this initiate remains a priority of the current Persad-Bissessar administration. The Guardian article, for example, says

For more information on the Spanish as the First Foreign Language (SAFFL) initiative, please contact the Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish (A division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry

However, a search of the MTI website did not turn up a "Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish", and most references to Spanish at all were in a paragraph of apparently boilerplate text in a series of undated promotional brochures. Similarly, investtnt.com turns up just a single mention of "Spanish as a first foreign language".

I'm not convinced that this is notable enough for the main TT article at all. But more than anything else, we need to avoid basing our content on splashy hyped articles from over half a decade ago that were misleading enough that they elicited a "Facts & Fiction" response from the very body in charge of the initiative. Guettarda (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One additional comment on the sources used - while the Independent and the LA Times are, overall, reliable sources, these articles are error-filled. For example, the Independent article says

It may seem surprising that the introduction of a new language has met little resistance in a country which, before March, had had English as its official language since Britain gained control of the islands from Spain in 1797. But Trinidad, with 40 per cent of its population Hindi-speaking East Indians and a good smattering of other ethnic groups with their own languages, has never been a monolingual society.

The LA Times article makes similar errors

Before March, when the government's Spanish program kicked off, English had been the sole official tongue since the British wrested control of the islands from Spain in 1797. East Indians, who make up 40% of the population, often speak Hind

Obviously

• Trinidad did not have English as it's "official language" since 1797 - Spanish was the language of the courts until the late 19th century, and
• "Hindi-speaking East Indians"? Maybe 100 years ago, but only a handful of people are fluent in Hindi today.

Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I know videos aren't acceptable sources, but I found a news report from 2010 about the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJ5uCFYSdc

Also found a story on the SIS holding a graduation ceremony, also in 2010.

http://www.news.gov.tt/index.php?news=3528

There is also still mention of it on the Trinidad & Tobago US embassy page (As "the country’s first official foreign language.")

http://www.ttembassy.org/index.php?page=about-trinidad-tobago

And lastly, a PDF from 2009 mentioning the SIS.

http://www.mpa.gov.tt/pdf/Annual%20%20Report%202008-2009.pdf

While I do very much agree with you points however, and do find it very strange that there has barely been any mention of it since 2005, I don't think this means that they have necessarily discontinued it. Tbh, while it seems something worthy of mention on something like Wikipedia, it doesn't seem important enough to keep reporting on general news year after year unless something major happens to it. Plus, since it seemed so highly touted back around 2005, I doubt they would have gotten rid of it without some sort of mention. Plus I believe that, while you have pointed out the inaccuracies within the 2 stories, that as long as the info about it on the status of the language as the first official foreign language is confirmed, that it should still be valid.

I believe that it should have some sort of mention on it here, at least until someone can find a confirmed report on it being no longer around. Otherwise claims about it not existing anymore are just speculation IMHO.--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Look at the dates - the graduation story is from March 2010. The MPA Annual Report covers 2008-2009. All of these are prior to 24 March 2010. As I said before - it was a Manning administration programme. Why would you expect the current administration to carry on this specific programme?
2. [W]hile it seems something worthy of mention on something like Wikipedia, it doesn't seem important enough to keep reporting on general news year after year unless something major happens to it - Actually I think you have this wrong. The job of governments is to tout their achievement, year after year, no matter how mundane. Governments report how many roads they paved in a year, Wikipedia does not. This is, after all, the top-level article for Trinidad and Tobago. This sort of a factoid might be more appropriate in the Manning Administration (2001–2010) article, or Languages of Trinidad and Tobago (probably need an article about that at some point)...something like that.
3. [S]ince it seemed so highly touted back around 2005, I doubt they would have gotten rid of it without some sort of mention - was it really "so highly touted"? It was one element of the whole Vision 20/20. It just happened to be one that was picked up by a wire service reporter and spread as a curiosity...based on a misconception. That's the whole thing - if the story had been "Trinidad and Tobago wants to strengthen the role of what is already the main foreign language taught in schools" no one would care. After all, replacing French and Latin with Spanish as the main foreign languages taught in schools was a much bigger deal, but that happened half a century ago. Replacing Spanish with English as the language of the courts - now that was actually noteworthy. As was the replacement of French by English as the spoken language of Trinidad. Before adding trivia, we should add what's actually notable. Like, you know, sourced information about the English, as spoken and used, and about indigenous (but nearly dead) Trinidad Creole French and Trinidad Hindi. These were actually the languages that were spoken by the majority of the population when my grandparents were children. Trinidad dialect is still peppered with patois and Hindi words. That's far more notable than some government policy that may or may not have yielded anything concrete.
4. [A]]s long as the info about it on the status of the language as the first official foreign language is confirmed - I still think it's trivia, but that's a start. What source is there that says that it is the first official foreign language of Trinidad and Tobago? The parliamentary website has copies of the Hansard and of bills and motions passed, going back to the late 90s. And I could only first three references to "first foreign language", all as comments in passing, all by members of the Manning administration. Nothing debated in Parliament on the issue. No bills past designating Spanish as anything.

   So it boils down to one mention, in passing, one one embassy's website. If this was something real, something notable, it would show up on government websites. And, of course, there would be legislation documenting this and debates concerning that legislation. Granted, it would be SYNTH to declare (in an article) that this was a Manning administration policy that was abandoned by the current government. But it would also be misleading to say that this is anything. What we have, in terms of sources, are two error-filled newspaper articles (probably based on the same wire service report), and a press release from the government debunking "myths" (presumably, those news reports).

Basically the only deduce is that, at some point in time, a "Secretariat for the Implementation of Spanish" and a "Spanish As the First Foreign Language (SAFFL) Initiative" existed. But that doesn't tell us what they did. And there's no evidence to suggest that either of them still exist - they don't appear to exist in either of the ministries that housed them - Trade and Industry or Public Administration. When we write a detailed history of the second Manning administration, it might have passing mention of this initiative, among all their other plans and schemes. But it's not something that belongs in this article, the top country-level article. Here it's non-notable trivia. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO (and as I don't live there, I'm not 100% up on it), the "policy" makes a degree of sense. It was clearly never intended to be an official language. The UK article comes across as whining/sour grapes/unhealthy interest in poking their nose in the business of a former colony AND a horrible mistake in understanding. I have no issue having something in the article suggesting a push may have or may still exist to improve Spanish in order to do more trade with "local" countries, but don't expand its intent beyond that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're not saying anything I can disagree with. But I still believe that, until a legitimate source is found saying it has been done away with, its' just pure speculation at this point. I agree with Bwilkins though. I believe there should be mention of it and perhaps a statement about the uncertainty of it's current status.

Perhaps something like "In 2004, Spanish was implemented as the "Official First Foreign Language" by the Manning administration in order to increase trade and ties with it's Latin American partners. However, as of 2010, its status is uncertain as there have been no further reports on it's current condition."

The only current source I can find seems to be from an investment firm saying that "In 2004, the government initiated Spanish as a First Foreign Language Program, heralding a large increase in Spanish proficiency in the following years." However I'm not sure on it's credibility.

http://www.investtnt.com/resources/2011-Investment-Guide.pdf--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing makes little sense, partly because "official" was never in the mix: it should be more along the lines of "in 2004, the government began a Spanish as a First Foreign Language program, designed to help domestic businesses better compete and integrate within neighbouring Spanish-speaking countries". Again, it was never to make Spanish official ... it was to encourage enough people to speak it that it could then become the widest-spoken language, other than English - the word "foreign" is intentional. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, I don't think this is notable enough for the main article. Even on the narrow topic of language(s), there are dozens of things that are more important in this article. Given how short that section is, adding a lot of information about this policy strikes me as WP:UNDUE. One other point - Spanish already is the most widely spoken foreign language - almost everyone does at least a few years of Spanish in school. It's worth comparing this with the equivalent section in the US article. In that article, despite the fact that 12% (!) of the population apparently speaks Spanish at home, it merits a single sentence. The second paragraph covers laws in NM and LA that provide for the use of Spanish or French, and the fact that many jurisdictions provide voter information and things of the sort in languages other than English. Nothing here rises to that level.

As for the a statement on the current status - no, we should not say anything about its current status unless we find a source. But it's important for editors to realise that this programme has, by all appearances, been abandoned. We can't add unsourced information about the programme, but neither can be use outdated sources to make potentially misleading claims. We have no source that says this programme continues. We also have no source that says that the programme ever achieved anything notable enough for inclusion in the main article. The most notable thing about this programme, I think, is that it led to a series of misleading articles, that prompted a response from the government. Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)