This subject is featured in the Outline of the Bahamas, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Caribbean / Bahamas (Rated C-Class, Top-importance) CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles Caribbean portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bahamas (marked as Top-importance). WikiProject Countries (Rated C-Class) CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WPCountriescountry articles Geography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Accessibility: criterion met WikiProject Countries To-do List: edit · history · watch · purge Help Reach FA Status: Afghanistan, Ecuador, Russia, United States of America, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Saudi Arabia Review and Assess: All De-Stub: None Create: Every nation has a WikiPage, but please add to those in need. Create: more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries; See Wildlife of India for reference. Add Gini coefficient to each country. See: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 11#Can anyone create a bot that take Gini Coefficients from a page and add them in each country ? Template talk:Infobox Country/Archive 5#Adding Income inequality / Gini Index Update all national militaries with {{Infobox National Military}}. Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class) This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale (comments). Wikipedia for Schools The Bahamas is included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see The Bahamas at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 10, 2005, July 10, 2006, July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, and July 10, 2009.

Archives
Archive 1

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved.

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board 2 Economy Sectoion 3 Deletion discussion 3.1 Result 4 Is The Bahamas just a Realm? 4.1 response 5 Junkanoo copyright violation 6 My contribution today

[edit] 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 03:40 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Sectoion

Why does the economy section stop around 1986? Was somebody copying from an old encyclopedia? Do we have anything interesting to say about Bahamanian economics in the last 20 years?

[edit] Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamian British Badagnani (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Result

As usual in these cases, the entire text of the article was deleted rather than merged. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bahamian_British. Badagnani (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is The Bahamas just a Realm?

Some UK article editors feel that it is important that countries like The Bahamas are descirbed as "Commonwealth realms" while the UK should be described as a "Constiutional monarchy". The below is the UK discussion replicated. As regards The Bahamas, do you have a view?

The article currently has this sentence:

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Constitutional Description")

Should it read as follows: The UK is a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Realm Description").

Which description should be used - the Constitutional Description or the Realm Description? Whatever is decided needs to be applied consistently to all 16 "Commonwealth realms" - after all, they have the same constitutional relationship vis-a-vis the Monarch as the UK has. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --

Constitutional monarchy comes first in the history of the state, and its more important in terms of understanding the constitution. Non WIkipedia sources uses phrases like "The UK is considered to be a commonwealth realm". --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I cannot understand your answer - which description do you support using (the Realm Description or the Constitutional Description) - I've added a simple list-type response to make it simpler for Users. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Constitutional Monarchy is the most helpful description however the article should mention that the United Kingdom is a commonwealth realm. At the moment the Commonwealth realm is only linked to Queen Elizabeth II, it doesnt say the UK is one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Constitutional Description:

1. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. The two are not mutually exclusive. The constitutional monarchy phrase has primacy, much as the UK's membership of the EU comes further down. Kbthompson (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. One of the silliest issues we have had here. Agree with Kbthompson. --Snowded (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Constitutional monarchy is my choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. It depends on the context; however, if it is the lead we are specifically discussing, then I'd say keep it as "constitutional monarchy". "Commonwealth realm" is an unofficial descriptor. I've undone those changes Redking made (prematurely, I think) to the various country articles; those that weren't undone by others already, that is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Constitutional monarchy. Any "Commonwealth realm" must be a monarchy, but Constitutional monarchy is the more precise and descriptive term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
8. I am agreeing with the majority -- Phoenix (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree with the silliness mentioned by Snowded. Leave as constitutional monarchy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Realm Description:

1. [insert your user name]

Miesianiacal - Why have you undone my changes...No one has so far even supported the Realm Description? I disagree with you and think my changes clearly should be left as they were. Do you think the articles should be inconsistent...some using the "Constitutional Desciription", others the "Realm Description"....That does not appear to make much sense to me. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking, so far NO ONE supports your "realm" proposals (not even you). I don't even accept it as an either or, and I note you did not attempt the change on Canada or Australia. I hadn't realised you had made the changes elsewhere or I would have reverted before Miesianiacal tracked them down. --Snowded (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded - I think there is confusion. My view is the same as yours. I support the "Constitutional Description". Oddly Miesianiacal supports the "Constitutional Description" but not for the other "relams" where I had changed them so that the "Constitutional Description" would be used. Apparently, Miesianiacal thinks it is appropriate on these articles (countries like Papua New Guinea etc) to say "Papua New Guinea remains a Commonwealth realm". I disaagree and think what has emerged from this discussion is that they should be described in the same was as the UK, i.e. "Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state." They should not be described in some sort of "lesser" way than the UK. Do you agree with me about this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always confusion on articles on constitutional status. SO let me be clear, I do not think consistency is appropriate. Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries. Oh and by the way I don;t think either description has more intrinsic value than the other. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re.: Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries - what does that have to do with anything? Does it have any relevance to their current constitutional status? Do these countries have a different relationship to the Crown vis-a-vis the UK? Please give reasons for why, in the opening paras, you think it is appropriate for them to be described as "Commonwealth realms" but not appropriate for the UK? Why should consistency not be applied. It is a core Wiki principle. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why you should think the manner of a countries creation has nothing to do with its constitutional status. In the case of the UK its status as a constitutional monarchy came way before any notion of being a commonwealth realm. In the other cases the countries concerned were created as commonwealth realms (in the main). Its not an issue of consistency. --Snowded (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with snowded on this although i do think we need to mention the fact the UK is a commonwealth realm somewhere in the introduction. At the moment that is not said, but we dont need to remove "constitutional monarchy" to be able to include that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My intent was to restore all the articles to their status quo until discussion here was finished. It may only be my opinion, but I think Redking making such wide reaching edits before hardly anyone had even responded here was bad enough, but re-reverting (sometimes more than once) is generally poor form. I agree with Redking in that there is no difference between the UK and the other realms in terms of their presently being Commonwealth realms or constitutional monarchies; however, my position, for the record, remains the same as above: context decides what is best. I would say that "constitutional monarchy" (a more concrete and official term) is best for the context of the lead, and "commonwealth realm" (a non-official descriptor) should be mentioned somewhere else in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds very grand indeed. Such a desire to uphold consensus but advance no arguments against the change nor any arguments to as to why the principle of consistency should not apply. It seems the majority here are happy to apply the "Commonwealth realm" tag to the "ex-colonies" but not so keen as regards the UK...I am simply going to apply the smell test and it smells like politics to me. I'm bowing out. I expect you, my fellow editors, will leave the "ex-colonies" with their "Realm tags". I will leave it in your collective hands. Hope you surprise me. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming up: The United Kingdom is an Olympic realm... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why consistency? UK existed before Commonwealth. Was its constitutional status changed? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this is not an either/or situation since all the Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, a situation which is extremely unlikely to change. Therefore stating that a country is a Commonwealth Realm currently, and for the foreseeable future, implies that it is a constituional monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As to "Why consistency?" Why not? Its a Wiki principle. Explain how the UK is not a "Commonwealth realm" and the others are? That would seem to be the only reason not to be consistent. UK existed before Commonwealth. Correct. Relevance? Are you saying it is not a Commonwealth realm? Are you saying the others are not Constitutional monarichies? Pick one description and be consistent. "Was its constitutional status changed?" No. The sentence that the others "remain Commonwealth realms" is incorrect too - It implies they have always been "Commonwealth realms". They have not. They have only been "Commonwelath realms" since they became separate realms.

As to it not being an either/or situation - If you are happy to call the UK a "Commonwealth realm", do so and be consistent with the others "ex-Realms". As it stands, Users prefer "Constitutional monarchy" for the UK and the "Commonwealth realm" tag for the "ex cololnies". Explain the inconsistency please? After all there is no constitutional difference in their position. Please explain why you differentiate between the two. The description concerns their current status - it has nothing to do with whether (as in the UK's case) it has been a Constitutional monarch for centuries or (as in the case of Barbados) merely for decades. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree all Commonwealth realms should say (country name) is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. They are all equal in the eyes of the monarchy and in constitutional standings so they should be treated as the same. Its a very logical argument to make. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phoenix. I am glad I am not alone. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for trying to make these changes. It seems I am alone because no one else is bothered to do anything about it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So what is your view as regards The Bahamas?

[edit] response

Actually you are wrong, the UK page made a decision for the UK, its up to each other page to make its own mind up. And Why or WHY do you have to reproduce the whole talk page? Heard of pipelinks? --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The question of which description to use is the exactly the same for The Bahamas as it was for the UK - so the above discussion is relevant. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Heard of pipelinks" --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bahamas owned your face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.175.68 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be the consensus to have both descriptions consistently for all commonwealth realm articles:" "[Country Name] is a constitutional monarchy. It is also one of 16 sovereign Commonwealth realms, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state." I think both are important as there are countries in the Commonwealth that are monarchies without EII as head of state.Gary Joseph (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Junkanoo copyright violation

I have removed the following text from the Culture section of the page as a copyright violation:

Junkanoo is a street parade with music, which occurs in many towns across The Bahamas every Boxing Day (December 26), New Year's Day and, more recently, in the summer on the island of Grand Bahama. The largest Junkanoo parade happens in Nassau, the capital. Junkanoo is a Bahamian cultural expression, which has been derived from Bahamians' ancestry. In theses parades, the locals showcase a wonderful part of their culture in three forms: Music, Art and Dance.

There is a huge controversy about the origin of Junkanoo, as many historians have offered explanations for the origins and beginning of this festival. The most accepted one is that the word “Junkanoo” comes from the name John Canoe, who was an African prince and slave trader operating on the Gold Coast in the seventeenth (17th) century. He was said to have outwitted the English and subsequently gained control of Fort Brandenbury. Therefore, the Dutch and English alike feared him. However, to the slaves, he was a hero and was worshipped and idolized by them. Those slaves who were brought here to the Bahamas kept up this distinct form of worship.

In the pre-Emancipation era, the slaves were allowed three (3) days off during the year: 1st January, 25th December and 26th December. On the 1st January and the 26th December, they were allowed to perform their Junkanoo festival. The 26th December was the day for exchanging gifts and visiting friends. After Emancipation however, the festival continued, and individual characters such as Neptune and Amphitrite portrayed John Canoe. On the entertainment and arts side, the Bahamas is well known for having talented songwriters, vocalists, actors and had its' first movie produced and released in 1996.

The text appears to be cut-and-pasted from a blog entry dated 20 February 2009. The version of the Wikipedia article of that date shows that the text existed at the blog before it appeared at Wikipedia. I have not found the exact edit which added the text since that's a lot of edits to sift through, but I think the dates are reason enough to conclude that it is a copyright violation. I have written a brief line about Junkanoo to replace the copyvio text. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation of the Junkanoo article shows that the text was added to that page 16 Nov 2008, which is a few months before the blog post I thought it copied from. I've left my removal as-is on this article since the text copied from the Junkanoo article is just redundant, and three paragraphs is too long for this article anyway. (It also needs copy editing, as does much of Junkanoo, but copy editing that whole article is beyond what I can tackle right now.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand with more research, I found a PDF on the history of Junkanoo published by Nassau (bahamas.gov.bs) which appears to be the original source of the text both here and at Junkanoo. So, it does appear to be a copyvio. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My contribution today

I would like to contribute with an file should it ever be needed in the concept of relationship of the Bahamas to the world. thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)