Talk:Port Moresby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated Start-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

[edit] Comments

• I removed the reference to the Economist's ranking of Port Moresby as the worst place in the world to live in. This sort of bad press seems unecessary to me -- not to mention false(!), and potentially damaging -- though others may have different views about this sort of issue. -- 163.1.159.220 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. With no offence intended, PM has received the unwanted title on other occations (among them a UN 2005 Quality of Life survey). The article currently informs us that the city "does have some problems with crime". Corrupt police and rampant gang culture: this may just be my POV, but the wording sounds a bit mild. Also; this is an encyclopedia, not a travel magasine. I am reverting. If anyone wants to discuss this; please feel free, but please provide some strong arguments for excluding infromtation from this encyclopedia. --Swift 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, okay. I won't push it. But really, I just think these kinds of rankings are ridiculous. Is Port Moresby more dangerous than Baghdad (or anywhere else in Iraq)? Kabul (or anywhere else in Afghanistan)? Bogota? Jerusalem? Pyongyang? Kyrgyzstan? Just about anywhere in Cote D'Ivoire, Congo, Liberia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. etc? 163.1.159.220 21:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted. But then again, no ranking is really perfect. The UN QoLS didn't look at Baghdad or rural Afghanistan and the EIU probably didn't either (I haven't tracked the report down). The article mentions that only 127 places worldwide were compared (only capitals?). It is (hopefully) obvious to all what that means in therms of limitations of that ranking. If anyone can find the report (or perhaps a list of the bottom ten) and link to it from the article, that would certainly put things into perspective (a mention of the criteria used in the report would also be informative).--Swift 00:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • One thing that can be said in defence of the EIU mention is that most people will only have heard of POM from such "worst cities" rankings. It is regularly listed at the bottom of such surveys, and so its part of the identity of the city even if the surveys are questionable. Having said that, there is no reason to simply present the EIU ranking as if it conferred a special insight. Rather, restate the EIU mention as one reason POM is well known and transition to a discussion of perception versus reality of the city's "law and order problems."
        • Firstly I note that the article cites 1994 as date of report whereas Guardian article looks to be dated 2004. Is an adjustment necessary? In relation to the comment itself.. there is no doubt POM is crime riden and has deteriorated over the years since independence. The EIU ranking is for livability - while serious crime situation contributes negatively to this there are other factors to be taken into account - to cite a few --- public transport - shocking in POM, housing - outrageously expensive or of poor quality, availability of basic foodstuffs - average at best, availability of consumer and luxury goods - poor, telecommunications (telephone and internet) - average but one of the worlds most expensive, arts/culture - in POM nonexistant - granted rich culture generally in PNG but transport/communications difficult and expensive meaning difficult to access, level of corruption and public service - shocking, healthcare - poor....................... I wont continue. Note that I lived in POM for a number of years and enjoyed it imensely so have no axes to grind nor am I an Australian expat. I agree that the press get great enjoyment out of sensationalising PNG generally but - no smoke without fire.--Wabat 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-colonization

The section discussing the city before colonization is, quite frankly, a joke. No time period is mentioned and the text gives absolutely no background on the people discussed--very uninformative. Someone who knows more about the subject should create some significant additions. ~~

[edit] Crime, unemployment etc

Could we have some evidence for these assertions? I love the Guardian, but on Port Moresby I do not trust it anymore than other newspapers. Having lived there I know that if one thing happens, e.g. Prince Charles going here to open Parliament, mobs of journalists go there and file reports on all kinds of horrors that are not really researched and annoy the people who live there, in some cases because they are over the top and in other cases because they minimise the problem. Bduke 11:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Guardian is cited and the link to the article is provided. Verifying all the information (by factchecking every article and survey used) would be an impossible task. Based on the source, the reader will have to make up his/her own mind as to how credible it is. If you can demonstrate the inaccuracy of those reports then, please, mention that. If not; it's the best we've got. Sorry.--Swift 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have to say that the Guardian article doesn't make for a very robust source. You mention that it would be impossible to verify all the information, but there isn't hardly any concrete statement to verify--it is mostly anecdotal evidence. "Murder rates are exceptionally high" is a pretty subjective statement, for instance. Yes, POM has high crime rates, but anyone who says that it is the "worst place in the world" has believed too many exaggerated tales from Australian expats. The page definitely needs a section about the crime problem, but including an article full of anecdotal evidence for calling it "the worst place in the world" severely compromises the integrity of the article. You seem to have a bit of an axe to grind, Swift, but try to objectively consider the scholastic properties of the cited article.--70.137.65.66 04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)