Talk:Grenada

Bias?

I'm kind of detecting heavy helpings of bias in this page, particularly the section on cricket lauding Devon Smith. He is hardly as famous as the article makes him out to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Understand my world (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fepresentative

What the heck is a "Fepresentative"?? 72.75.53.241 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections

Free elections? Come on! Maurice Bishop, the "Marxist" terror, was the most popular leader in Grenadan history. Following the US invasion, a bunch of good British "Sir Xs" and "Lord Ys" won what were almost certainly rigged elections -- not that it matters, the Grenadans knew very well that if they elected leaders Reagan didn't like, he'd invade again in ten minutes -- and proceeded to clamp down on free speech, close radio stations, confiscate "subversive" literature, etc etc etc. It's a corrupt pseudo-democracy set up in line with American, not Grenadan interests.

Grenadan interests are not different than anyone elses, and that is to have their individual rights protected. Democracy cannot legitimize a government that violates rights. There is right and wrong even in the voting booth. Freedom and sufferage are not a license to do wrong.--Silverback 19:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why does wikipedia take all its country information from the CIA, anyway?

Because it is in the public domain. However, it is up to us to make it more balanced and NPOV ...

What I want to criticize here is that the elections that gave M.B. the power are just called "elections" and the ones after the US invasion are called "free elections", without giving any evidence in what way they were more free than the previous ones ... But the use of "free" here could make the reader think the ones before were not free.

So I removed the "free".

--zeno 05:38 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Bishop was never actually elected to power. He overthrew the Gairy government, and then was overthrown himself. "Most popular leader in history?" Hmmm . . . If so, why can't his party win any more elections?

Probably because it doesn't stand for what he stood for anymore, and because the people of Grenada fear being invaded again by the Colossus to the north if they go against its wishes. 24.3.178.63 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt the general population of Grenada shares your fear.Esszhey (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the mentionened COA correct (St-lucia?) Bemoeial 12:52, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) The best time of my life in Grenada was when Bishop was running the island.

Bishop was indeed a popular leader, and Reagan hated both Bishop and the Cord camps. It is highly likely the overthrow of Bishop was coordinated by the CIA so that Reagan could kill two birds with one stone, three if you count that fact that the invasion was a "wag the dog" distraction from the Bombing of the marines in Beirut from which Reagan waved cut and ran waiving the white flag of surrender. When one realizes that today the Sandinista rule Nicaragua, the FMLN rule El Salvatore and Southern Africa is free of Western puppet regimes and CIA created terrorist groups, Granada represents Reagan's ONE (1) foreign policy victory in his 8 years of proxy wars as president Cosand (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes

Ivan struck here. I saw video of the damage in St. George's. --Patricknoddy 13:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 13:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 9:30 September 11, 2004 (EDT)

Ivan was a Category 3 when he struck Grenada. Pobbie Rarr 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Country

I take issue with the phrase "second-smallest independent country" as Grenada is not recognised as a country by the UN and does not constitute one of the 192-194 countries of the world. Can we replace "country" with "independant nation" or similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.126.243 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume your joking, right? Grenada is a member of the UN and is most certainly a country. Russeasby 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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 1 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

Independence

How can Grenada be independent if the queen of the UK is still considered the head of state? Can we at least point out the the "independence" is quasi?

The queen is also head of state of Canada and Australia, but nobody ever calls them "quasi independent" - it's just a ceremonial position.

Legally they are independant, they just share a head of state. The Queen is queen of many countries

Celiamaria 13:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Grenada IS independent. It makes it's own laws and has a constitution like other countries who share a monarch. One is confusing constitutional monarchy and government. Acorn897 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling, Grammer, Syntax, and other broken stuff

The first historical mention of Grenada/Granada in the article has the 3 a spelling. Yet there seems to be no mention of a change. What gives? Kdammers 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to Rhonde Island on the Geography page is broken ChuckBiggs2 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GRENADA is the Correct form of Spelling. It is My Nationality I need no Source.........................

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Grenada, 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 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Clearly a hit-piece on Reagan. To write about the invasion without mention of the Cold War or the pre-invasion Cuban Maxist intervention is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.225.120 (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article is scary in how POV it is. Just look at how much of it is devoted to the invasion and how little devoted to the government pre invasion. The invasion should be made into a seperate section and scaled down considerably with a link to the main artcle at Invasion of Grenada and the History 1958 - 1984 expanded and rewritten to be much more neutral. I am adding this to my list of things to do and urge others to help. Russeasby 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to edit the Independence and Revolution section. Aaronhumes--206.27.244.160 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP editor at 164.156.231.55 is actually working to make this article even more US centric POV, especially shameful to be doing so today while they celebrate their independance. I dont have one of those roll tools installed to roll back to the "Joseph Solis in Australia". Can someone else do it? This article is going in the wrong direction. NPOV is the goal or at least representing both views. Russeasby 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a reasonalby easy way to do it Russeasby 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pre-invasion Cuban Maxist intervention"? You mean the air strip a water purification project and a medical network to vaccinate children? Totally ridiculous. I think what you mean is the Pre Invasion CIA intervention to overthrow Bishop and set Bernard cord up as a patsy, not to mention a distraction from 200+ dead marines in Lebanon Cosand (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

American students comment lacks NPOV

There are numerous testimonials from the students who were at the University who claimed they were put under a 24 hour shoot on site curfew. This was claimed by both students and the US military who had taken reports. It's OK to be against the invasion, but there's been a resurgence of talk about Grenada because of the war in Iraq. After doing some research on the topic, it appears that a lot of the sources saying the students were experiencing some kind of island paradise situation is illegitimate when they clearly have their own angle (just like the US military.) Moral of the story, it's POV. That entire section shouldn't even be on this page, but on the invasion of Grenada page. This Time magazine article offers a more NPOV [1]--DevCharles 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's probably because this Wikipedia article, like many others, was written and edited by liberals or communists with too much time on their hands. The section regarding the invasion of Grenada is so obviously and pathetically biased that it's actually quite funny to read. Where do Wikipedia editors get their facts from, anyways...? Wikipedia? 70.121.163.115 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 .Could it also be written by a right winger who think Bombs and Guns(War) is the answer. The U.S baited Jamcaica and others into invading Grenada. The main reason was To Squeeze Cuba and the souviets into Submission. The School isn't just serving an education purpose but watch dog have u notice the Location? Think about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.13 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 

1/3 born there don't live there?

This looks like a guess to me in the demograghics section, how do we know the other countries with large populations from Grenada are not counting children born to Grenada immigrants? Should we remove the comment?

Serious POV problems

"A power struggle developed between Bishop and a majority of the ruling People's Revolutionary Government (PRG), including the co-founder of the NJM, Bernard Coard. This led to Bishop's house arrest; he and many others were eventually executed at Fort George on October 19, 1983 during a hardline PRA coup which brought a new pro-Soviet/Cuban government under General Hudson Austin to power."

- Given the importance of these events, the description is absurdly short and limited in scope compared to other material in the article.

- Calling what happened a "power struggle" isn't accurate.

- The claim that a "majority" of the PRG supported the illegal overthrow, arrest and murder of Bishop is pure POV.

- Using the term "house arrest" tries to pretend that an extrajudicial action was somehow within the law. It would be more accurate to say that Bishop was kidnapped in the course of the government being overthrown.

- The description of the murders at Forrt George as "executions" is inaccurate.

- The description of the post-Bishop group as "a new pro-Soviet/Cuban government" is not accurate. The post-Bishop government was no more pro-Soviet/Cuban than Bishop's government. The difference between Bishop and what replaced him was that the new government ruled by force with no legitimacy or regard for law.

"Premier Sir Eric Matthew Gairy, who became the first Prime Minister of Grenada. Eric Gairy's government became increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial, prompting a coup d'état in March 1979 by the charismatic and popular left-wing leader of the New Jewel Movement,"

- The description of Gairy's government as "authoritarian and dictatorial" is POV.

- The description of Bishop's overthrow of the government as a coup d'etat is not remotely accurate. a coup d'etat typically involves the military of a country overthrowing the government. It would be more accurate to describe the events of 1979 as a revolution in that a small group of men overthrew the legal government by force.

- Calling Bishop "charismatic and popular" is POV. It is especially POV in the context of a description of his overthrowing the government.

70.234.244.0 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you have said and have brought up the POV issues of this article in the past myself. The article needs a real expert on the topic to revamp this section. And I dont mean some expert who just reads US point of view propiganda on the subject. The reality of what happened in Grenada pre-intervention is vastly different then what was generally reported in the US media. I am not suggesting pushing a Grenada POV either, but there is a complete lack of balance right now and weasel words throughout. You seem to have a fair grasp on the topic, perhaps you can take a stab at a rewrite? The main problem that exists however is that most sources and references easily available tend to be US centric and support the US POV. One doesnt have to spend long however talking to Grenadians who lived through this whole era to realize how false much of the US POV is. Russeasby 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What's a Camerhogne?

Why does the word "Camerhogne" appear twice in this article, when it is not explained? Is this a defacement? --76.224.90.253 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From googling the best I can figure is that Camerhogne was the Caribs name for the island before Columbus came along and "discovered" it. I did not find anything solid enough to properly source that though, so I am not going to jump in and change it. I suspect at one point this article probably explained the Camerhogne orgin but it got edited out through revisions, and unfortunate problem with WP sometimes. Russeasby 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

climate

grenada climate is tropical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.172.38 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain further? Is this a question or a change you would like made in the article? (EhJJ)^TALK 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Illegally

There has been some disagreement about the term "illegally" in the section about the invasion. I'd like to reach consensus on the matter here. One user has insisted that the term be added [2][3][4][5] while several have removed the term [6][7][8]. Here is the exact sentence: "The next day, October 25, Grenada was illegally invaded by combined forces from the United States, the Regional Security System (RSS), Jamaica, and Barbados." (emphasis added). Given that the legality of the invasion is then discussed in the next few sentences, I don't think that the word should be included (by exclusion, there is no implication that it was legal, simply states the fact that it was invaded.) I believe avoiding the word helps reduce bias and allow the reader to make an informed decision. (EhJJ)^TALK 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Illegally" under what law? Was the invasion supposedly illegal under any law whose jurisdiction actually covers the US? Not to mention, any law which the US actually acknowledges the legitimacy of? Remember, being "condemned" by the UN does not make an action illegal. JDS2005 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree "illegally" should be omitted before "invaded", if this is even an issue any longer. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to still be an issue, as there has been a low-grade edit war for the last few days between an IP range and several editors. To be thorough, do we still have consensus that combined with the UN resolution discussion further down, adding "illegal/illegally" in the section header is unnecessary POV? VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's superfluous, and serves only to express one, or several editors', agenda (edits appear to be from same IP range as this charmer [9]). The content does the job already, without the added POV thrusts. JNW (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All the IPs involved in this come from Bangkok, and are related to this longterm vandalism [10] as well. I think we're looking at one user who's had what could kindly be called an original research agenda, with attendant personal attacks against other contributors, for several years. JNW (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

America invaded a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to any other nation. That is illegal. Certain bags of crap and delusional right-wing nuts believe otherwise but it should be pointed out that they are delusional, right-wing nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.75.13 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-first Century History

I'm not sure of the technical term, but the following section seems to fail miserably at being NPOV:

"Grenada has recovered with remarkable speed, due to both domestic labour and financing from the world at large and the wonderful work done by the New National Party Administration of Dr. Keith C Mitchell and his competent team."

I haven't edited the page, as I don't know which flags are appropriate, but I thought it should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.152.171 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Grenada's national bird

Is it significant enough to be put on the opening paragraph of the page?--172.191.170.98 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it was endangered for a while... The company which Simon Cowell was affiliated with ( www.cinnamon88.com -- Wealthy Britons are discovering paradise in Barbados and Grenada) Cinnamon88 was being blamed for destroying the habitat. At least according to some of the people I know from Grenada. Not sure if the bird issue captures everything there is about Grenada. It sounded like a hot-button political issue in the nation though with the current party making promises to protect the bird or something to that effect. CaribDigita (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Change in airport name

Since my sister was last in grenada in the summer and me at christmas the airport "Port Salines airport" had in fact been changed to "Maurice Bishop International Airport" and i do not know how to change this on the article so whoever does please could you do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymcollkid1 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you see this in the article? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Military of Grenada

This is such a small article, dealing with security forces rather than military forces themselves, that it would have greater context if it were included in the main Grenada article. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't anything to merge from. The invasion is already detailed. IMO the page can be redirected. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[[ I LOVE GRENADA]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.211.61 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shillingkid, 20 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} To whom it may concern, My name is Caleb Gabriel also known as Shilling, i am the producer / artist or Redshield Recordz and I noticed that my group was mentioned in the culture heading of this article. I am very happy that we are being noticed and we are mentioned on the Grenada wikipedia page,it is an honour. I would like if you can just hyperlink the words Red Shield Recordz to our myspace page at www.myspace.com/redshieldrecordz.

Thank you for your cooporation, Caleb Gabriel

Shillingkid (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't link to external sites within the text.  fetchcomms☛ 02:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, About Grenada country in spanish wikipedia

I've been working on standardization and regularization in several countries in Latin America and Central America (in spanish wikipedia), in respect to the Human Development Indices of the United Nations and I find the surprise that when you go to Granada page I see this being used as a page of a city in another country without any relation to Granada (name of Grenada in spanish), I'm really bemused, and unfocus trying to understand the arguments that seek to revalue a city over a country, however, my contribution to wikipedia is not regular, so my opinion not worth, may be that Granada (country) is always a secondary page of es:Granada city of Spain. I tried to doing something but I need help. If some of you are interested to follow is important because They aren't impartial, They really love that city--Hipergeo (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, i will remember to mention that example the next time i hear people moaning about systemic bias on the English language wikipedia. It is rather strange that a city takes priority over a country. Although here on the the English language wikipedia we stop Georgia from being about the country because there is also a US state, but having a disam page like in that case seems fairer.

You are probably breaking some wikipedia rules by asking us to join in that debate, so whilst i agree with your concerns i will not be going there. What i would suggest you do when you next comment there is ask for the country to also be noted at the top of the article. At the moment it only links to the Disam page, the country should be listed too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Adjective of Grenada.

The country is called Grenada, shouldn't the adjectival form be 'Grenadan'? 'Grenadian' sounds odd or even silly to me. Afterall, we do have 'African' not 'Africian' and 'American' not 'Americian'. Although I note that Merriam-Webster lists both forms, and it is probably a valid Americ(i)anism in the US, it is illogical ('Canadian' notwithstanding).1812ahill (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there are many pages with 'Grenadian' in the title so I guess it is not an option to change it. I guess it depends on whether one pronounces 'Grenada' with and American or British accent. Antone know how the inhabitants of Grenada refer to themselves?1812ahill (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The local usage is 'Grenadian'. My wife is Grenadian so although I am British I visit the island frequently. treesmill (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's UK based spelling/pronunciation that leads this. It's like "Canada" -> "Canadian". 207.245.38.122 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion

The religion table is quite confusing considering that within the 'Percentage' column, it mixes the Christian percentage with churches within the Christian religion. Perhaps making this bold or moving this to the bottom of the table would make sense. marchaos (talk) 14:11 13 May 2011 (GMT)

Now it really is confusing. Roman Catholic, Anglican & Other Protestant sum up 100 percent. And then there is couple percents of other religions, going up over 102 percent. 85.217.44.216 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011 incorrect link to Brathwaite

The link to Nicholas Brathwaite is incorrect. It should NOT link to the British musical composer.

Robvious (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the input. Dru of Id (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Grenada's Human Development Index rank can be updated as it has changed from 74th to 67th in the World with an HDI of 0.748 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Joshman40 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done:Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. While we generally trust the accuracy of information on the site, we would run the risk of circular referencing. Can you find another source? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Ruler Pre-French?

Didn't the Muslims rule Grenada for 200 years before the Norman Invasion?