Jump to content

Talk:United States Virgin Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Henkberg55 (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 2 January 2011 (→Dutch Creole: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

U.S. Virgin Islands
work group

citizenship

When did the inhabitants of these islands acquire US citizenship? This article gives a different year (1927) than the article on the History of the United States Virgin Islands (1932). Crusio 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC) What is the tax structure for inhabitants of the USVI then? Since they are US Citizens, do they pay US Federal taxes and then local taxes to their resident island? Or is there some other strucuture?[reply]

wondering

Wondering how to edit this Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

Denmark pressured to sell V.I.?

Someone is persistently editing out any reference to the duress the USA placed Denmark under. I shall find an alternate form of words, and if this article is selectively edited again I shall report that as vandalism. One should not suppress historical instances of US imperialism, no matter how justified they may appear; rather, context should be provided. PML.

Just goes to show why one should routinely cite authoritative references, otherwise no way to tell the fabrications apart from truth. The duress part is an interesting explanation for what has always seem unmotivated to me, but surely a real historian has published something about this episode. Stan 16:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I note the vandalism, and I shall report it before fixing it. The problem is that the nature of the pressure has been edited out, making it appear a voluntay acquiescence and not a rough wooing. PML

I understand what the edit changed, but you still need to prove your claim. Facts so obvious that every human being agrees on them don't need citations ("water is wet", etc), but accusations of political chicanery don't get to live without reputable authority to back them up. Now that I'm watching this page, attempts to put the statement back aren't going to last, not without a supporting reference that I can look up for myself. Stan 00:29 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I have suggested referring the matter to Danish sources. My own knowledge is indirect and not recent, and I don't have references to hand any more. (I looked up constitutional stuff, and one clue led to the Danish Crown holdings.) By all means disagree, and complain that I can't cite a source - but don't make out that that means there isn't one. It just means that when I saw this and put in something from memory, I didn't have the rest on hand. Editing it out is vandalism from pushing an unbacked view, with the difference that it isn't even backed by memory. So, no I do not need to "prove your claim" - it is prima facie plausible and it corresponds with my recollections of something that turned up in passing during otherwise unrelated researches. If we want to argue this, leave it as is while we check - don't suppress the US imperialism side while we do. (This isn't mere US bashing - feel free to put in what the British did at Copenhagen if you like, or in Iceland.) As for "chicanery" - that is well known in US behaviour of the era (examine all US Marine Corps interventions in the Caribbean around a century ago, if you like). It is distortion to suppress this! PML.
US intervention in Haiti, etc, is well-documented, and I have personally have added many mentions of it via various articles on the many Navy ships that took part. However, your claim is completely new to me, and if you can't manage the simple scholarly task of citing a source, why should I believe you? Your comments make it clear that it's more important to you to slur the US than to prove your assertions, so I have no compunctions about "suppressing" your claim. Stan 04:20 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Disagreements are not vandalism. Again, if you will supply us proof for your assertions, I will step aside, but until then, your assertions are POV and I will rever them. -- Zoe

I put it in as "The Danish Crown agreed to the sale, but felt pressured to do so, fearing the USA would simply seize the islands if they refused the sale" - is that NPOV enough for everyone? -- Jim Regan 06:17 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

NPOV has little to do with it (though that wording is subjective, ascribing a motive to the Danish Crown without indicating a factual basis for it - though the US motive was perfectly acceptable to the biassed, they refused to allow any mention of actual and historical duress on Denmark). I am after a wording that points out factual stuff, then leaves people to figure out whether US actions (under Woodrow Wilson, no less) were more imperialist even than the standards of the time. Negotiations took place between neutrals who were not themselves in immediate danger (see the dates), Denmark was not able to be subject to any US pressure or even incentive (self evident) except a threat of seizure and had no free incentive to give up the islands (an independent cash cow and perquisite of the Crown, the loss of which it could not easily replace - I know something of the constitutional history there), and US permanent acquisition went beyond the norm of temporary acquisition in these matters (see the Kew Letters and the 1941 occupation of East Timor). References to things like East Timor got cut - and then followed by the chutzpah of claiming I had given no backing to the factual stuff! PML.

Well, I don't have evidence to present which I could use to word it any other way, and even as it stands, I'm taking your word for it. I don't think you'll get much backing if your main motive is to try and show the US as imperialists, rather than to provide the best article possible, which should be your main motive. I know I'm not interested in helping you push an agenda. -- Jim Regan 06:59 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

On this one, you've got it backwards. Having seen the smoking gun and formed a conclusion, I feel it would be wrong to suppress that and make out that even presenting what is there is POV. PML.

As a follow up, I've just given up looking for any reference to the notion that the US may have put pressure on Denmark to sell the islands, and, finding nothing, have removed the reference accordingly. -- Jim Regan 07:09 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think you've made one big confusion here, between "Denmark" and "Danish Crown". Ipso facto, the USA had nothing to offer the Danish Crown; that colony was almost the last bit of financial independence it had, once it lost the toll rights through Denmark (there was a colony near Calcutta left). That's what I meant by prima facie plausible that pressure was applied - the USA had nothing to offer the owners. What happened in the end was that the payment was actually folded into an independent revenue stream, and a decade or so ago Denmark derived the Crown of even that. "Denmark" may well have co-operated in the power shift, for all I know (I told you it was a constitutional thing). PML.

I looked again, I found this "The Danes agreed (knowing that the U.S. would in any case seize the islands if Germany did take Denmark, and Denmark wouldn't get a dime for them), on the condition that the U.S. not interfere with enlargement of Denmark's control over Greenland." Out of 30 odd minutes of googling, this is all I turned up, and it doesn't support what you had written, or what I tried to write. -- Jim Regan 07:16 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I got my material, when I got it, peripherally and incidentally during readings of real world sources for constitutional purposes. I didn't expect it to crop up in a colonial context like this, so I didn't keep materials to hand and now all I have is recollections. I have since been asking around among local real world Danish resources (who reminded me about the Indian colony). None of which counts as evidence to the likes of Zoe. (Note that they had no problem with certain of my recollections - just with the context I wanted to give from other colonialists, the fact of the Danish Crown's involvement, and the permanency of US intentions.) PML.

OK, I put it back in, differently. It makes more sense to me that the pressure on Denmark is of the "in the case of invasion" variety, rather than just the US flexing its muscles. -- Jim Regan 00:33 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, clear up to the outbreak of US hostilities the USA was discounting the possibility of being dragged in. To have presented that sort of option in that way at that date would have been a pushy negotiating position at best. PML.

What other kind of negotiation would you expect in a time of war? Sheesh. -- Jim Regan 18:31 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


I am missing the legal status of these territories.

What is interesting to me is the unscientific notion that historians must be judgemental about things like imperialism. "Imperialism" is a set of actions used to promote one state over another state or territory. Whether the individual actions result in better or worse conditions is an entirely seperate question. Considering that Denmark held the islands as a colony and were bought by the US without the say of, or payment to the islanders, the negative judgement of "imperialism against poor Denmark" seems rather moot. If anything one might argue that this case of imperialism was quite beneficial to the Virgin Islands. Indeed, it would seem that that is what the Islanders think given that they have so far turned down the opportunity to be independant. My point is this: it is improper to assume negative connotations to political and social terminology when doing a study simply because of a personal/cultural like, dislike or moral judgement. DHB

HOVENSA

I was born and raised in St. Thomas, and never heard the oil refinery on St. Croix referred to as HOVENSA. By my understanding, HOVENSA is the holding company that operates the refinery. The name of the facility itself escapes me, however, and online searches haven't helped much. Any Wikipedians in the U.S.V.I. out there to clarify this? --Dsibilly 05:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HOVENSA is the company. I (also born/raised on St. Thomas) recall hearing "the refinery", "the Hess refinery", or "the St. Croix refinery", but The Daily News refers to it as "HOVENSA's Refinery, "the Hovensa refinery", or "Hovensa Oil Refinery". Not really a name, but close.... I'll try to find out what the actual name is.
Gruepig 18:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you were born and raised on STT before 1998, that would make sense. Prior to that, it was Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., or HOVIC. In 1998, HOVIC entered into a limited liability agreement with the government of Venezuela and created HOVENSA (the name "HOVENSA" is a portmanteau from HOVIC and Petrolos de Venezuela, S.A. - the Venezuelan gvmt's oil company). HOVENSA is neither a holding company, nor a "joint venture." It is a limited liability company which has exactly two members: HOVIC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hess Corporation out of New Jersey) and PDVSA. Many locals still refer to it as "Hess", but this is no longer technically correct.

Also, I have never, ever, ever, EVER heard anyone on STX refer to it as "Twin City." STJ residents definitely refer to themselves as "Love City", but "Twin City" = STX is either a historic relic or wholly inaccurate.

Twin City is definitely a term used in St. Croix. I grew up there and heard it all the time. - vgmaster

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 13:38 (UTC)

Naming of articles for each of the islands

Problem: The names of the articles for each of the islands are non-intuitive and inconsistent. The articles get renamed fairly often, links break, and there are multiple redirects, dead redirects, and redirect loops. The names are needlessly long, especially when compared with other place articles. The length and inconsistency makes wikification (without redirects) slightly more difficult and makes it harder for people to guess at the correct URLs.

Proposal: All article names be shortened, unless there is a need for disambiguation. That is:

In all cases, "Island Name, United States Virgin Islands" and "Island Name, U.S. Virgin Islands" (if applicable) should be redirects. While I'm at it, "St." should redirect to "Saint" where applicable (or maybe the article names should just use "St." since the "Saint" usage is rare outside of Wikipedia). Other articles should be modified to bypass redirects.

Agreement? Objections? Comments? Questions? If there are no objections in the next week or so, I'll start making the changes.

--Gruepig 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gruepig. I notice the same thing you did, and I just finished working with an administrator (some article were "stuck" and could not move) to rename everything to "city/island, U.S. Virgin Islands." Becuase I still do not get this UTC time offset, I am not sure if you posted this a few hours after or before I did this, but either way, I'm sorry for not realizing that you posted this on the talk page.
Basically, I was looking something up, and I realized, like you did, that "United States Virgin Islands" was way too long to be in every article and that half of tte articles said "U.S." instead of "United States" in their names. Based on the convention of naming places by city, state/provicnce/whatever, for non-major cities (ex: Trenton, New Jersey or Colwood, British Columbia) with the unabbreviated state/provicnce/territory name, I used the same format but with "U.S. Virgin Islands" as the larger area. I think I got all of the articles that existed, and assuming I did, everything should be at "[whatever], U.S. Virgin Islands" for all places in the USVI. All of the other articles (economy, geography, ...) should use "U.S. Virgin Islands" (NOT "United States...") as of now, and the only article at all that has "United States Virgin Islands" as its name is the USVI article itslef, since it's the "main" or "official" one I did not abbreviate it.
Again, sorry for doing this without realizing what you wrote (although i am not sure, like I said, if you wrote it after or before). If you do not agree with how I standardized everything to "U.S. Virgin Islands," obviously comment here. //MrD9 07:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see the time (since I posted), you commmented about half-way through what I was changing, so I can honestly say that I did not fail to read your comment before I changed anything, since I started before it was written. However, I just realized that the the British Virgin Islands islands are just [island name], not [island name], British Virgin Islands, which would be the lgoical parallel from how I named these. If you want to change the 4 main USVI islands back over to remove the "U.S. Virgin Islands" from their names, we can do that--the reason i put the U.S.V.I. in there in the first place was because some had it and some didnt, so I wanted to be consistent and just chose "U.S. Virgin Islands" in everything becuase most other USVI-related articles had it. Regardless of what we do with the islands, however, I think the cities should all keep it in their names--the islands can drop or keep. Again, I hope to hear your ideas/thanks. //MrD9 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Hawaii--their islands do not have "Hawaii" in their names. Their cities do. Therefore, my summarized recommendation would be
  • cities: "[city], U.S. Virgin Islands" (pretty much already done)
  • 4 main islands: "[island name]" (would need to remove U.S.V.I.)
    • lesser islands: keep the "minor islands" article same (uses "U.S. Virgin Islands"); individual pages for smaller islands, either way... "[island name]" or "[island name], U.S. Virgin Islands"; but possibly leave the nat'l park ones alone? I'm not sure.
  • main USVI article: "United States Virgin Islands" (already done)
  • all other USVI articles: use "U.S. Virgin Islands" over "United States Virgin Islands" (I think this is 100% [or very close to it] done)

//MrD9 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I like what you've done. I hadn't even thought about cities. I'll just move Saint Croix and Water Island and leave the rest. If I see any other "United States Virgin Islands" articles, I'll move them to "U.S. Virgin Islands". --Gruepig 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... Or not. These articles are also stuck. I've listed them at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I'm not sure if that's the right way to get an admin for an uncontroversial move. Is there something different I need to do? --Gruepig 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, listing them there is correct, but you need to add the move discussions to the talk pages. BTW, Water Island should not be mvoed since there is also a Water Island, New York and a company in Canada and likely a few other uses. Vegaswikian 06:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, if St. Thomas and St. John and Water Island all must keep "U.S. Virgin Islands" due to disambiguation reasons, wouldn't it be better to keep St. Croix at "Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands" simply for consistency if 3/4 of the other articles are named that way? //MrD9 06:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug* Sure. It doesn't seem like we have anything resembling a consensus, so we might as well keep things as they are. --Gruepig 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading this, it seems we did have consensus, especially since Gruepig said "If I see any other 'United States Virgin Islands' articles, I'll move them to 'U.S. Virgin Islands'." There appears to be no conflict anywhere. Therefore, I am going to move back a bunch of articles from "United States" to "U.S." that were moved today. //MrD9 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the general consensus above (minus potentially Saint Croix), the islands should be named:

This is consistent and matches the use of "U.S. Virgin Islands" in all VI-related articles (such as economy or politics or whichever there is regarding the territory) other than this main page, United States Virgin Islands. //MrD9 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense to me now. Thanks for working on reverting the "United States" ones back to "U.S." (I don't seem to be able to move most of the pages myself.) --Gruepig 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statehood?

Were the Virgin Islands every seriously offered statehood status in a referendum, as the article says? It seems like the population would be way too small. --Jfruh 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a referenda, but I don't think the U.S. was actually offering statehood. I think it was to decide whether there was any interest in pursuing it (or any other change from status quo) as a possibility. I'm going on fuzzy memory here; if you're really interested, I'll try to dig up references. --Gruepig 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional population threshold for statehood in the US was 60,000. [Northwest Territory ordanance] The pop estimate on this page is over 100,000. However, in the final analysis, Congress gets the final say [some states got in on the fast track while others were on the slow track for political reasons], but I can't see see them offering to give immedate statehood to a territory that's something like 1/5th of the population of the smallest state in the union. More likely, they were offered to be placed on a path that would lead towards becoming a state at a future date. 168.166.196.40 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is one-quarter the size of Wyoming's population. What the question was exactly I haven't found but it took place in 1991 after being delayed by hurricane Hugo. Rmhermen 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see some text on this in the article itself or in the article on U.S. Virgin Islands politics. Personally, I can't see why the inhabitants of the Virgin Islands would not be interested in statehood, so some information on the arguments pro and con would be interesting too. John Anderson 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about uniting with much larger neighbour Puerto Rico to form one new state? I'm not saying it would be a realistic opportunity, for historical and nationalistic reasons, but does anyone know if it has ever been brought up? --dllu 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is from a political, historical and social point of view a very unrealistic option since PR has it's very own nationality and culture(latin american, spanish speaking and catholic). It is not discussed in Puerto Rico as an option at all.--Royptorico 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a U.S. Congress approved or organized referendum concerning the territorial status of Puerto Rico as this article says. That sentence should be erased Gustavo Adolfo 70.45.96.227 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driving

  • The notation with regards to driving and which side of the vehicle carries the steering wheel is peculiar, and not particularly clear. For example, near the end it states that "...since the Virgin Islands drive on the left, the steering wheel is on the left side...", which is somewhat nonsensical. Unless the author is trying to say that ONLY USPS trucks have their steering wheels on the left, other vehicles on the right. Otherwise, this portion of the article simply serves to confuse the reader. It would be good if an editor could clarify this issue. 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The references to driving practices in the USVI needs to be cleaned-up. The actual situation in all three districts of USVI is that traffic is expected to yeild to the left, likely due to the European influence on the islands before US appropriation. (When I figure out how, I will upload the scanned-copy of the USVI driver's manual to WikiDocs.) The statement quoted regarding left-side driving and left-side steering wheel, while confusing and misstated, if factually accurate: The USVI, being a U.S. territory acquires most (or all) of it's vehicles from mainland US, most likely Florida and sometimes Georgia. U.S. vehicles are designed such that the driver's side is on the left, which makes sense considering US traffic drives yeilding right; it puts the driver closer toward the middle of the road, which is presumably adventageous. In contrast, the laws and customs of the USVI being that a driver yeilds to the left, when two cars pass one another in opposing directions, both drivers are oriented towards the outside of the road. I think this was the idea they were trying to get at.
  • As for the mention of USPS trucks... while the standard American USPS is functional here (well, sometimes functional, anyway), I have rarely if ever seen, in my two-years on St. Thomas, the typical state-side Postal Service trucks driving around the island. For example, the man who delivers mail to most of the North Side of STT (St. Thomas) drives a brown Toyota pickup. Those clunky USPS box-van things probably wouldn't last too long on the steep hills that are most often in very ill-repair.
If most vehicles are now LHD, wouldn't it make sense to convert the territory to RHT, before much more road development occurs? Especially if visitors are disoriented and cause accidents. I think of the monumental job it would be for Britain to change to right-hand side driving, and in the Virgin Islands, it would be comparatively easy to change a few signs over. GBC (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including the United States Virgin Islands, 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 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of the US and British Virgin Islands

I saw an article in the Island Sun newspaper on the history of the British Virgin Islands [1] and it says that in 1964 "A plebiscite on the question of merger between the US and British Virgin Islands is suggested but not acted upon". Does anybody know any more about this proposed merger and what it would have involved? Would the BVI have become part of the US territory or vice versa? Or would they have become a single territory under joint administration? (I've copied this query at the BVI discussion page)72.27.2.68 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why Hispanic/Latino numbers are shown after the demographics totals? It would seem that instead of the U.S. VI having 100% population totals, instead there is - add it up - 113.99%.

From the Demographics area: "76.19% Black or African American, 13.09% White, 7.23% from other races, and 3.49% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 13.99% of the population."

Why is this?

65.223.249.43 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics can be of any race.

Locator map

This article needs a locator showing the position of the territory in the world. -- Beland 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since supplied. -- Beland (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 or 3 Districts

The Districts and sub-districts of the United States Virgin Islands says it has three, while the CIA World Fact Book & the US Virgin Islands Tourism site both report there are three Islands, no use of the word Districts that I could find. So I'm unless missing something here, then my edit that was reverted should be put back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windscar77 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Danish name

I changed the paragraph about the Danish name. Believe it or not, Danes don't refer to these islands as "former". If you want to add a reference to the Danish article, you will see that it is simply da:De dansk-vestindiske øer. --dllu 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the whole reference, which is false. Danes refer to the Virgin Islands simply as De Amerikanske Jomfruøerne, which means (surprise!) The American Virgin Islands, or simply Jomfruøerne, with the "American" part understood. Some academics may use the deleted term, but not ordinary people. — J M Rice 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

To the anon who wanted to know what is wrong with large images. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images which explains most of the resons. I don't just blindly reduce the picture size. I check them out on a 15, 17 & 19 inch monitor and at screen resolutions from 800X600 up. I then take into account "However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article." and as you can see I didn't reduce Image:US Virgin Islands admin divisions.png as when I tried that it made the picture usless. Although not stated in the MOS there is at least one other reason to reduce the images. There are still a lot of people who don't have hi-speed internet and must make do with dial-up. A lot of large decorative images cause the pages to load slow and the text is the most important part of the article. If people want to see the large image then they can click on the link. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images doesn't explain any reasons that I can see. It just says it's "not recommended" without saying why. This guideline is widely ignored, I think. At some point we have to give up worrying unduly about people with low-speed internet connections to the detriment of everyone else. I didn't know that the default width was user-configurable though - that makes sense. Anyway, I made the map bigger as it's almost impossible to read at the moment. I left the others at small size. Matt 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
You would need to log in to be able to set the size. I'd be interested to know how the images look at the default size and a large size on a handheld device and the loading times while on Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand the controversy. If one wants to see the full-size image, they can just click through to it. For detailed images I always treat the front image as a big thumbnail. Of course, sometimes the front image is the full-size image, which is not a good thing. — J M Rice 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Status of Water Island

This article mentions "Water Island", and there is also a separate article about the island. But there is something about the history that just doesn’t make sense: According to this article Water Island was not included in the sale, but remained with The Danish East Asiatic Company. But East Asiatic Company did not constitute a sovereign nation, and had never been regarded as such. If Water Island was not transfer to USA it must have remained a Danish territory. No sale could have taken place in 1944 since Denmark at that time was under German occupation. There was no Danish government and The Danish East Asiatic Company was controlled by Germans. Perhaps it is only the wording of this paragraph confusing me, but something about this isn’t making any sense.

Apupunchau (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unless someone comes up with a explenation for the water island issue, I will delete all refrences to it. -Apu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.4.198 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

{[Territories of the United States]] says the islands were purchased to aid in the defense of the Panama Canal. Obviously there are lots of other historical details to add. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Creole

During the time that these Virgin Islands were Danish, a creole language has been spoken on these isles: Negro Dutch (Negerhollands). This language is currently extinct..

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands&oldid=405523011"