Revision as of 06:10, 1 July 2008 editCampoftheamericas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users659 edits →Article tone; financial services industry← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:02, 20 July 2008 edit undo99.11.4.201 (talk) false informationNext edit → | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Aha! I just noticed your entry. I agree with your points, but what do you want to do with all the information about the Cayman Islands as a supposed Tax Haven? Ignore it or use it? If you want to counterpoint CI as a tax haven, then provide some facts and references! Please, I'd love it! By the way, I'm very ignorant when it comes to Obama. How's that for your ignorance? <-joke --] (]) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | Aha! I just noticed your entry. I agree with your points, but what do you want to do with all the information about the Cayman Islands as a supposed Tax Haven? Ignore it or use it? If you want to counterpoint CI as a tax haven, then provide some facts and references! Please, I'd love it! By the way, I'm very ignorant when it comes to Obama. How's that for your ignorance? <-joke --] (]) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
==Regarding laws and homosexuality== | |||
The following passage has been re-added several times, despite explanations that parts of it violate ] and are false, when compared to the source used for the article: | |||
:''Gay and Lesbian tourists should avoid the Cayman Islands because of both the local culture and the fact that certain laws and customs are still in effect from British Colonial rule. Homosexuality is illegal in the Cayman Islands, and gay men and lesbians will be jailed and expelled from the Cayman Islands if caught.'' | |||
The cite, however, makes clear that homosexuality is not illegal in the Caymans, though there is a tradition of homophobia and a documented incident of an American tourist briefly detained for a public show of affection. The cited source makes no mention of likelihood of imprisonment or expulsion. Nor is the exhortation to avoid the Caymans acceptable in an encyclopedia. Further reversions and addition of spurious information may be considered vandalism, and will merit administrators' attention. ] (]) 01:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:02, 20 July 2008
Caribbean: Cayman Islands A‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
I would like to announce the establishment of the Misplaced Pages:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
Administrative Districts
There appears to be a disconnect between the text description of the administrative districts, and the provided map. Someone with the knowledge to correct the ambiguities ought to take a look at it. Booklegger 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Infobox
Is there a special reason why this article uses {{Infobox Countries mk. II}} and not {{Infobox Country}}? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Proposed WikiProject
There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including the Cayman Islands, at Misplaced Pages: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 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Financial services
The financial services section needs to talk about the negative aspects and views toward the Cayman Islands role in offshore banking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
- snip*
Someone made an unsigned comment stating that this section was "propaganda". Who was it? I can assure that I, as the author of what you call the "propaganda", have no stake in the Cayman Islands. I found all these quotes in trying to research if Cayman Islands was a safe place for privacy in banking/investing. There is something from every point of view that I could find. I was hoping more people would discuss and bring about truth. If there is anything that you would consider *slant*, it is that I would rather bring forth conspiracy theories when there is nothing to worry about, than not bring anything out when there is something to worry about. You may suggest that the 'financial services' section does not sound traditionally encyclopedic, but I disagree. When the truth is not known, as many of available sources and clues speak the truth so much more so than one person's review. The only way to clean up, is to resolve the issue by finding a truth that all parties will accept.
My own experience and opinion: Cayman National no longer has autonomy (never had autonomy?) in serving its clients. They are under the control of the British government, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. They seek as much information as possible from individuals applying in the tradition of "know your client". Someone out there is building a very big database of information about individuals. A distopia in the making. Guard your privacy. Do everything you can to avoid revealing information about yourself. Someday it could come back to haunt you.--Campoftheamericas (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Government
The second half of the paragraph dealing with the Eurobank collapse needs cleaning up.
"The only mole known at the time was allowed to leave the country, never to answer for what he (or the United Kingdom) had done."
What had he done? Why is the UK accused? Why "never"? Why should someone not be allowed to leave the island? This sentence is a little "tabloid".
"This infuriated the elected members of the legislative assembly as they maintained that the governor and the United Kingdom had put into question Cayman's reputation as a tightly regulated offshore jurisdiction. Some saw this as the United Kingdom meddling in the territory's affairs to benefit itself (and the EU), at the expense of the islands' economy."
Which members of the legislative assembly? What were their arguments? What happened to the governor? Who says this is the UK meddling? Unless these remarks are properly attributed, this part of the article fails to maintain a NPOV.
Richardhearnden 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Belieze?
What's this about the islands serving as a base for Belieze? Ace-o-aces 05:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Eye care on the Cayman Islands
This statement here:
"There remains an urgent need for retinal surgery on the islands. Currently, residents with severe diabetic eye conditions or retinal detachments become blind, unless they have the financial means to seek prompt care on the mainland."
is a matter of opinion, and, as such, does not belong in an encyclopedia. However, it could be tied to statistical reports or news stories about this issue in the Cayman Islands, and inserted in this, or possibly more properly an article on the need for expanding medical services to residents of the Cayman Islands. Thanks. KP Botany 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Seven Mile Beach 2006.jpg
Is there any way we could replace this image with something more professional looking? This panorama has obvious stitching errors and differences in exposure that make it look like a holiday snap rather than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. 217.169.31.79 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Article tone; financial services industry
Why has offshore financial centre been replaced with tax haven across the article? Why is there a sentence claiming the local population lives in poverty? Offshore financial centre is the correct term in common use and includes things such as hedge funds and company and ship registries that have nothing whatsoever to do with being a "tax haven." At best if that word is to be included here it should be in the context of "some have said the Cayman Islands are a tax haven" and should be counterpointed. Where offshore financial centre was previously used it was in the context of saying we were one such leading centre with a neutral or positive feel (there are others, and we are among the best, so it is fair to say so) but tax haven shifts the article to a distinctly political mainland view; I would not be surprised if an Obama campaign staffer wrote it. I will admit to a bias of my own here but all I ask is to have a balanced view on here. Put a reasonable selection of criticism and response and while we're at it, the long list of onshore regulators, inter and non-governmental organisations and international bodies that have said we are equally diligent or better than OECD countries. Travisritch (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha! I just noticed your entry. I agree with your points, but what do you want to do with all the information about the Cayman Islands as a supposed Tax Haven? Ignore it or use it? If you want to counterpoint CI as a tax haven, then provide some facts and references! Please, I'd love it! By the way, I'm very ignorant when it comes to Obama. How's that for your ignorance? <-joke --Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding laws and homosexuality
The following passage has been re-added several times, despite explanations that parts of it violate WP:NPOV and are false, when compared to the source used for the article:
- Gay and Lesbian tourists should avoid the Cayman Islands because of both the local culture and the fact that certain laws and customs are still in effect from British Colonial rule. Homosexuality is illegal in the Cayman Islands, and gay men and lesbians will be jailed and expelled from the Cayman Islands if caught.
The cite, however, makes clear that homosexuality is not illegal in the Caymans, though there is a tradition of homophobia and a documented incident of an American tourist briefly detained for a public show of affection. The cited source makes no mention of likelihood of imprisonment or expulsion. Nor is the exhortation to avoid the Caymans acceptable in an encyclopedia. Further reversions and addition of spurious information may be considered vandalism, and will merit administrators' attention. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories: