Jump to content

Talk:Turks and Caicos Islands/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vandalism

Removed the reference to Luke Harrop in the 'Notable Events' section. No sources are quoted. Entry was written subjectively and the 'conclusion' was objectionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em2007 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Will whoever wrote 'It's basically a bunch of stupid niggers waving their penises at tourists' not do it again or else... 08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know anything about the proposal that was floated a while back to somehow associate the T&C with Canada? - user:Montrealais

Take a look herehttp://www.craigmarlatt.com/craig/canada/provinces&territories/turks_and_caicos.html - it says the proposal has bounced off. Jeronimo

Isn't {msg:Commonwealth_of_Nations}} and {msg:Crowncolonies}} a bit redondant? The later is contained in the former. Why use both? Smartcowboy

"the governor appointed by the monarch" Is the governor actually appointed by the monarch or rather by the British government? Perhaps "the governor appointed by the british government on behalf of the monarch" would be better. Danfranklin

Actually, the governor is really appointed by the monarch. In the 18th-19th centuries, the choice would have been solely influenced by the british government, but in this case, I guess the T&C legislature has a much greater influence than the british one on the choice of governor. "appointed by the monarch on behalf of the parliament" is a more correct description than the inverse. UnHoly 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

From Wiktionary

I was by-chance on Wiktionary, and saw this load of unwikified stuff appear. I dunno if its good shit or not, but if it figures, then you can bung it somewhere

(Text that was transwikied to Religion in the Turks and Caicos Islands, per Wiktionary RFD discussion, redacted. Uncle G 23:28, 2005 May 16 (UTC))

--Thewayforward 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

I'm going to assume "Turks" is pronounced the same as the nationality/ethnicity, but how are you supposed to pronounce the other one? Where's the accent, and for that matter how's it syllablized? Anyone know and willing to share? Thanx 68.39.174.238 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name?

It would be nice to explain how the islands got their name. Funnyhat 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Turks?

I am a Turk, and I would like to know how the islands got that name, too.

I am also wondering it...
Source Page
The popular story is the name Turks being derived after the indigenous Turk's Head "fez" cactus [1]; and the name Caicos, a Lucayan term "caya hico," meaning string of islands.
A more romantic, origin of the name is a reflection of the Islands' pirate history, when 17th and 18th century pirates used the islands as hideouts and preyed upon the passing Spanish treasure ships bound for Europe. The term "Turk" for a pirate stemmed two centuries earlier when the Ottoman Empire dominated the Mediterranean and Turkish corsairs harried European Atlantic shipping, thus translated "Turks" Islands becomes "Pirate" Islands!
my note: "CAICO" is similar in pronunciation to Turkish word "KAYIK", meaning small ship, boat...

The point is Turks didn not made fez they imported it from Morroco

True, but the guy who named the cactus thought the fez was Turkish, since that was the common belief in Europe at that time (and still is, btw).

Do we really need the "Commercial Tourism Guides" section? Too many of the external links look like spam to me. Wmahan. 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been itching to remove them...I'll take a few of the more suspect ones out for now. Mindmatrix 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I just removed a few more. Wmahan. 17:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I took out the section - it doesn't add encyclopedic value and becomes a magnet for linkspam. --Siobhan Hansa 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Union with Canada

Ref this:

  • For the islands to join Canada as a full province would require amending the Canadian constitution, which is considered highly unlikely. The last new province, Newfoundland and Labrador, was brought into the country in 1949 by an act of British Parliament. Joining as a territory would be easier, as territories can be created by an act of federal law.

This suggests that it would take another British act to join Turks and Caicos to Canada. I thought the Canadian constitution had been repatriated, and it was now purely a matter for Canadians to amend their constitution. JackofOz 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


I think it implies that the entry of Newfoundland was easier because it could simply be enacted by the British government, as opposed to a constitutional change. The Newfoundland reference acts almost as an answer to an unasked question.

Newfoundland and Labrador is NOT the last province -- Nunavut. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofocleus (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Nunavut is not a province, it is a territory. The creation of a territory is relatively easy as it only requires an Act of Canadian Parliament. However, the creation of a province would require a constitutional amendment, which is fairly difficult under Canadian law. Admitting a new province, I believe, would require all 10 existing provinces to agree plus the federal government and probably a nation-wider referendum. Getting all the provinces in Canada to agree on anything is very difficult, which makes any constitutional amendment highly unlikely for the time being. --Lesouris 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I think one large issue that is missing from this section is what the local people of the islands think of this idea. Do they like it? Do they care? Are they completely against it? Do they know that this discussion exists? -Anon from Montreal Oct.27.2007

Last last time I checked the islanders were happy to join Canada. The Turks and Caicos islands would NOT become a province or territory, but would rather become part of Nova Scoria... I think. --Funky Hum24n (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be a part of any province, because it would give a huge advantage to that specific province. If this ever happens, T & C will be a territory. Norum (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To join Canada, it would more than likly be considered a Territory. The last Territory to join confederation was on April 1st, 1999 when the Northwest Territories split into 2, with the Western side retaining the NWT and the Eastern side (former District) as Nunavut Territory. Since the Canadian Constitution is invested within the Canadian Confederation, it can be done without British action. The last British involvement was technically in 1982 via the Canada Act. --Aleeproject (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I think we all know that the British government would never agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.8 (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Area

There seems some discrepancy in the area figures quoted on this page. The box says 417 km². The geography section says 616.3 km². And just to add a bit more variety, the CIA Factbook says 430 km². Does anyone have a definitive figure? Matt 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

  • Some more:
[2] says 193 square miles (= 500 sq km)
[3] says 497 sq km
Seems no-one knows. Matt 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

It depends on whether one measures to the low water mark or the high water mark, and whether or not uninhabited islands are included. The UN and CIA Factbook only include inhabited islands. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. My view is that unless specifically stated otherwise, area should be measured to the high water mark, and should include all islands whether inhabited or not. Areas below high water cannot really be considered "land", and there is no justification at all for excluding unihabited islands. In any case, the substantial difference between the two figures currently given in the article needs explaining. Unfortunately I still don't know what the correct area should be, according to my definition, since none of the sources that I can find explain how they are defining it. Ho-hum. Matt 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
The official source, the TCI Lands and Survey Department, gives a land area figure of 616.30 km² (above the high water mark) and 948.23 km² above the low water mark. The area figures for every single island in the territory are also given in [4]. Based on these figures, I determined the areas of the Districts of the Turks and Caicos Islands.--Ratzer 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Turks and Caicos 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 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

" Inquiry urged into UK territory" - BBC News story

I don't have time to edit properly, but this BBC News story about the islands would seem to be relevant. 86.132.141.6 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Error in the geographical coordinates

The article states that the Turks and Caicos Island are situated at 1770 km (+ distance in miles) northeast of Miami (Florida). This is incorrect. I do not know the exact distance from Miami to these Islands thus cannot help. Please correct if you have the exact coordinates 158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map just below the anthem is pretty useless. You're supposed to be able to tell which dot is actually darker than all the other dots representing islands. Can we at least get a full version to link to instead of just a thumbnail? Jerry (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Scanlan! Those little dots look clearer on a different computer, for some reason, but you can see that the new map is far more representative. Jerry (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed "an autonomous part of the British Empire" from the end of the second paragraph. It seems to me that the wikilinked "British Overseas Territory" in the opening sentence covers the Islands' status adequately, and indeed we don't have any equivalent to the "British Empire" comment (relating to present-day status, that is) in similar articles such as Gibraltar, Cayman Islands or Bermuda. In any case, the term "British Empire" is now extremely outdated; not only has it completely fallen from governmental use, but I (British) haven't heard anyone say it (in other than a jocular manner) for many, many years. Loganberry (Talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Black

"The vast majority of inhabitants of the Turks and Caicos Islands are black...". I'm not a big fan of political correctness, but "black" is very imprecise and this seems a bit of a blunt statement. Could someone expand on this a bit? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, turns out this was from the CIA World Factbook, so probably we can't improve on it. I made it a little more precise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better way to phrase it, which would also be more accurate and informative, is to say that "the majority of the Turks and Caicos population are descended from the original native population of the area". Just a thought....Themoodyblue (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Except that your wording would be innacurate. "The majority of the Turks and Caicos population are" NOT "descended from the original native population of the area". - They are descended from people from Africa - that is what "black" means. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "are of African descent" would be best. If they are descended from slaves brought to work in plantations on the islands (or other Carribean islands) in the 18th and 19th century, that would also be good to mention. --Jfruh (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to wonder how "of African descent" would improve the text, given that "of African descent" seems to be how most reading the article have interpreted the wrod "black." If you really want to get technical about it, "of African descent" is somewhat less precise because, if I remember correctly (and I might not), I'm pretty sure we all are. 12.19.84.33 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored Premier to infobox

The office is still extant, just suspended, ergo, I have restored it to the infobox, with a note explaining its status. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the name

Although the point had already been discussed in the past, I am not at all convinced, on the origin of the name. For one thing, the name Turk can be found on the atlases drawn byVenetian cartographer Vincenzo Coronelli in 1688. In 1688 fez was unknown Turks and Venetians knew Turks quite well, for they were the previlaged merchants in Turkish lands. I think it was impossible for a Venetian cartographer to link Turks to fez.(Turks began wearing fez only in 1820s after Mahmut II forced soldiers to wear it. Even then most of the population, preferred to abstain from fez.) Thus the story which refers to fez seems to be hoax. Maybe it is best to by pass the very first sentence of the section History. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When in 2010 did the Bahamas PM discuss having TCIs joining Bahamas?

When did the Prime Minister of the Bahamas pitch for having the Turks and Caicos Islands join them in a Federation?

Turkish?

May I suggest that Culture of Turkey is a better target for the adjective "Turkish" (as in "Turkish fez") than is Turkey. -- Donald Albury 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Found a source for discussions about joining Canada, but not very up to date [5] siafu (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographic location

The Turks and Caicos, as are the Bahamas and Bermuda, are not Caribbean islands. They are actually located in the Atlantic Ocean, as Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerton Rico and the islands of the Leeward and Windward islands form the border between the Caribbean and the Atlantic proper. It is a common error, because of the islands' common connection with Britain. Keeble McFarlame Toronto, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.7.241 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

This article says: "Turks and Caicos Islands are named after the Turk's-cap cactus (Melocactus communis)" / Is it true? The Turks were not wearing the fez before 1826! Böri (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable People

The entry of Trevor Ariza has been deleted under the Notable People section due to the fact that Trevor Ariza was not born in Turk and Caicos, but in Miami, Florida. He is only of maternal descent. - sglooney316 03:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

BOGUS Economic Statistics

The economic statistics are from 2006 and 2007, BEFORE the economic meltdown. Even more outrageous, the sum parts of the economy add up to ~ 124% -- a very unique economy! Can someone who knows how to access accurate info please correct this bovine excrement? Tapered (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify: "However, in the mid-2000s, "

However, in the mid-2000s, Would that be midway between 2000 and 3000, so around the year 2500? or between 2000 and 2100, so 2050? Or can it be as little between 2000 and 2001, so around July 2000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.91.119 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

??

The resident population is about 49,000,[2] of whom 23,769 live on Providenciales in the Caicos Islands. The total population on the islands including foreigners is approximately 49,000.+surfaceareainkonsistnt430><600+81.11.220.141 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Union with Canada

I think this sub-section should be removed or significantly changed. It is better in the Canada article because the idea comes exclusively from within Canada, not from T&C or from the UK. Therefore it has little, if anything, to do with the T&Cs.The article as it stands is also poorly structured and is loaded with wp:weasel. The citations are not good in this case because much of them are speculation - a reference from a good source does not necessarily make the reference good - wp:rs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been in the article a long time (at least 10 years), so its disappearance with little explanation was certainly noticed. I've no problem with significantly changing/truncating the section down to one paragraph. If there is a reliable source that debunks this, that might be sufficient for such a paragraph, as the details can be dealt with in the source for those who are interested. The section heading could be removed at that point. - BilCat (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Roger 8 Roger, the whole proposition is preposterous and any political will for it can be found solely within Canada. Just because an unreliable and misleading piece of information has been on the article for a couple of years does not make that information relevant to the article.
1) Rufus Ewing's proposed referendum before his election defeat involved asking voters whether they wanted to remove the post of governor, become fully independent or retain the status quo: no serious consideration was given to joining Canada and Ewing was defeated by a wide margin of more than 60-40 as a result of his desire for independence.
2) MSN is equatable to Tabloid journalism, and is not a valuable source.
I think that some of the historical proposals for union with Canada is interesting if you can find further evidence to back up this, but today it is completely off the cards: the article is misleading as it implies the Canadian government actively want Turks & Caicos to join Canada, when the truth is it was hesitantly discussed (not supported) by Canada's third party a couple years ago and dismissed by the government of Turks & Caicos. Brythones (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Population numbers?

The population numbers in the section Geography (which are said to be from 2012 and sum 31,458, the same number that is given as results of the census of 25 January 2012 in section Demographics) differs widely from the numbers in the table in the section Population breakdown which adds up to 46,350 which is also said to come from the 2012 census.

Why is there such a huge difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraculix65 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also ask about the 57.5% immigrants listed under demographics. I can't find it in the CIA factsheet. 57.5% of the current population was not born there and moved there? That would be interesting. From where? If it means 57.5% are descendants of immigrants, that would not be interesting, as they all are.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that most of the immigrants in the Turks and Caicos are from Haiti (as is the case in The Bahamas), but a quick search didn't find any sources. I have placed a citation needed template on the statement. - Donald Albury 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

An error in demographics data

It doesnt make sense that there are two seperate categories for "caucasian" and East Indian, as East Indians are caucasian. That'd be like setting two different categories for Russians and "White people". All the census data I could find says white, not caucasian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailingsmooth5 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turks_and_Caicos_Islands/Archive_1&oldid=1232176574"