Talk:Politics of Trinidad and Tobago

This page shouldn't list the US ambassador to T&T, and the T&T ambassador to the US. Wiki isn't a US source book but a world one. Nobody outside the US is likely to have any interest in US-T&T diplomatic links. If they are there, so should T&T ambassdors to other countries. If they aren't there, the US one shouldn't be in isolation. JTD 16:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Diplomatic representation in the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Michael A. ARNEAUD
chancery: 1708 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
telephone: [1] (202) 467-6490
FAX: [1] (202) 785-3130
consulate(s) general: Miami and New York <p>Diplomatic representation from the US:
chief of mission: Ambassador Edward E. SHUMAKER, III
embassy: 15 Queen's Park West, Port-of-Spain
mailing address: P. O. Box 752, Port-of-Spain
telephone: [1] (809) 622-6372 through 6376, 6176
FAX: [1] (809) 628-5462 Link to US diplomatic link removed as per reason above.

I don't get it. This looks like encyclopaedic information to me. Perhaps it should be in a different article. I've moved it to a new article, probably badly named and it obviously needs to be fleshed out with actual discussion of the diplomatic links and so on, but it can always be sorted out later. -- Oliver P. 16:18 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

user:-- April and I talke about that awhile back (a year ago? longer?) and decided it aggravated the U.S. bias on wikipedia, and since we couldn't balance it out with e.g. info on Diplomatic relations with Tunisia, it might be best to remove it unless the relationship with the U.S. is contentious. Maybe not the best decision, but that was what we decided & why we decided it. Maybe I can find the actual discussion somewhere. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:21 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

The whole encyclopaedia is biased towards America anyway, what with all the Rambot city articles and so on, but I'm not complaining. I don't think we should remove information about one country just because there isn't a corresponding amount of information on other countries. People add what they know, and leave what they don't know to other people. That seems pretty sensible to me. This Wikipedia thing is continually growing, and eventually it'll all fill out nicely, I think. -- Oliver P. 16:34 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense. we decided that before the rambot came through, so I guess it's kind of a Sysyphean task now to correct the bias, but still one I'd undertake if we decided to. Koyaanis Qatsi

I'm all for correcting the bias. But by adding more stuff, not taking it away. :) Oh yes, and welcome back, by the way. :) -- Oliver P. 17:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. In this instance I believe it would be a fundamental mistake to leave the US stuff in.

1. Who is the ambassador to which country is irrelevant to a piece on any country. Naming prime ministers, governments, etc makes sense, but knowing who is an ambassador is quite frankly useless information, not least because it changes so often, (as other info in this article is pre-2000, these names probably date from the Clinton administration and are out of date!) this information is only going to be of interest to 0.000001 of Wikipedia users. Even diplomats aren't going to need that information and if they do, they will look to government publications for that information. You won't find Enclopædia Brittanica or the World Book listing the British ambassador to Brazil, the French ambassador to Australia or the American Ambassador to Ireland. It isn't just space considerations, it is because they would see it as utterly irrelevant to an article on a country. About the only place it would be relevant is in an article on [United States Ambassadors] or [Ambassadors to the United States].

1. Wikipedia is heavily biased in its information. Saying that can be corrected when at some stage in the future someone adds in non-US information is mis-informed. The more of a US bias there is, the less likely people are to correct it because they will see Wikipedia as in effect Americapedia, only of use to and read by Americans. I've just finished talking to a friend of mine on this very topic and he said he doesn't use Wikipedia because so many sites he consulted were so heavily American-orientated it seemed to him written by Americans for Americans. When he mentioned the sites and what they contained, I could understand his argument.

For example, we wouldn't accept an article on abortion that was exclusively pro-life or pro-choice, on the basis that someone from the other side at some undetermined time in the future might put in the alternative argument. We'd start from day one trying to create a balance, which either side can flesh out while maintaining that balance. Adding in consular information that is exclusively American is the same. Putting in largely irrelevant information such as this risks damaging Wikipedia by giving the impression that it is American-orientated (and thus only of interest to Americans), all through including information that in any case is probably out of date and irrelevant to almost anyone who might read this article. That makes no logical sense whatsoever. Either put in all the information on all consular offices to and from T&T (or at least a lot), or none. Or if you think this sort of technical minutæ is required, keep the American stuff separate on this page until you have other information on other diplomatic missions, so as to keep the balance and avoid needlessly re-inforcing the impression that Wikipedia is really only Ameripedia. Putting in only American stuff (especially when it is so irrelevant to the article) is too big a risk, in terms of the longterm damage it on its own can do to the whole project. JTD 17:58 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Please don't shout at me... Look, I haven't put the US information back into this article: I've relocated it to Diplomatic representation of Trinidad and Tobago in the United States. Are you happy with that? The title makes it clear that it's a US-oriented article, and people not interested in the US don't have to look at it. I do think we should include lists of all the ambassadors ever, as it happens, as it would make a great reference source. I sort of started back in November last year, and made an ambassadors page, but that particular project is rather dormant at the moment. I'm going to put some more effort into it later, and see if we can build it up into a truly international list. I hope you won't object too much to it... -- Oliver P. 18:12 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Shout??? Sorry, I wasn't, or didn't mean to. Apart from anything else I have too much respect for you to do that. If you thought I was doing that I unreservatively apologise. I was simply trying to highlight my opinion. As to the idea of an ambassadors page, an excellent idea! If can help I will. JTD 18:22 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that's okay, then. Apology accepted. :) The word "respect" there might be going a bit far, though... ;) -- Oliver P. 18:25 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the info on USA representation was an artifact of the first version of the article (as was true of articles of many nations) being taken from the P.D. CIA World fact book site, which are sometimes usefull starter articles but which wikipedia really should go beyond. I agree it's inappropriate to only list USA diplomatic representation in other nations-- unless of course the USA diplomats play a major and unique role in the politics of the country. -- Infrogmation

I'm the one that pasted almost all of those country articles in originally; and if I had thought ahead I would have left out the U.S. diplomatic info to begin with. Anyway, yes, they are all originally from the CIA Factbook, and about 2/3 of them have been supplemented (also by me) with info from the U.S. Dept. of State site, which has its own bias which I should have more aggressively corrected. Koyaanis Qatsi

no problem. Working on Wiki is a learning experience for all of us. :) JTD 18:40 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)