Talk:Michael Somare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Melanesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the sort of article that absolutely shows how fantastic Wikipedia can be! --PeterMarkSmith 11:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deleting wealth/Somare House section

I'm deleting the "Somare House" section, containing allegations of extreme wealth and with suggestions of impropriety, per the Biographies of living persons policy. This kind of material needs strong sources, especially for a living person biographic article. Wantok 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full title

Is it really necessary to mention his full title in every paragraph? General practice seems to be to outline it initially and then just use the person's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.231.86 (talk • contribs)

You make a good point. I'll have a go at altering this. --Bduke 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Re the recent edit war here - the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on honorific prefixes says:

Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.

Accordingly, this article should use "Sir Michael Thomas Somare" in the first sentence, and simply "Somare" inline throughout the article (as it currently does), with the existing brief mention of the full title in the Honours section. There is absolutely no need for the full title to be used at every point in the article - that does not accord with Wikipedia policy or everyday PNG usage. Any copy of a daily newspaper makes it clear that the full title is rarely, if ever, used in the PNG media. Wantok (toktok) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article seems to skim over the controversies - notably the Moti affair - of Somare's career. This and the overuse of honorifics suggests that the material was written by someone with a heavy National Alliance bias, or was copied straight from the PM's website. 125.255.9.231 09:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is copied from the PM's website, you should be able to point to details. I can not reach the site at present. I see no need for the tag on the article itself. You have made a good point here and I'm sure that editors will address them. It is not as if this article has only had one editor. It has been edited by many people over quite a time. --Bduke 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly agree we need a section on the Moti affair here. As for some single biased author, or being copied from his website, those accusations are pretty clearly unfounded. I think the article should have a section on the Moti affair added, and the bias tag removed. Wantok (toktok) 11:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added a section on the Moti affair. Any objections to the bias tag being removed? Wantok (toktok) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I removed the Fifty kina note section too - it seemed pretty pointless in its current state. Feel free to bring it back to life in a way that improves the article. Wantok (toktok) 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I removed the POV tag since the reason it was added no longer is a problem. Antonrojo 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moti affair

  • I've made a new section here in talk for the Moti affair, as it will no doubt need plenty of discussion in future. I've just made some changes to the Moti affair section, to improve referencing, make things more chronologically ordered, clarify the circumstances of Aini's sacking, and to change some wording... such as "suppress" to "did not release" ... we have to be mindful of WP:LIVING. Looks like good coverage of the affair now, to me. Wantok (toktok) 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)