Talk:Solomon Islands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
»The Solomon Islands are a nation in the South Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea...« As a physical geographical description it would be probably more appropriate to say »... east of New Guinea is the island's eastern half). --Peterlin 13:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] General Clean-up
The blurb about Jacob C. Vouza stated that he received the highest American award for bravery, without stating what it was. I fixed it, but it seems awkward. Someone have a better phrasing?
One of the most highly decorated coastwatchers was Sergeant Major Jacob C. Vouza who retired from the local constabulary in 1941, volunteered for coastwatcher duty, but was subsequently captured, tortured, then bayoneted and left to die. He survived and escaped to make contact with Marines warning them of an impending Japanese attack. He recovered from his wounds and continued to scout for the Marines. He was awarded the Silver Star and Legion of Merit by the United States and later received a knighthood as a Member of the British Empire.
Rktect 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictions in the article
The article states: "There were 74 languages spoken in the Solomon Islands, although four of these are extinct.[4]
How can a spoken language be extinct?
As in, it was spoken, but is no longer common. Latin is an extinct language.138.163.160.43 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PM update
Why isn't it updated to show Synder Rini? This is correct when you go to the Prime Ministers entry, but incorrect when included on the main country page?
- Rini stood down, and the parliament re-elected Manasseh Sogavare.--Peta 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi pottia??????
[edit] Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Melanesia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Melanesia whose scope would include Solomon Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 Earthquake
I added the tsunami paragraph to the history section about an hour after the tsunami. This may have been premature, although it does looks like it was a bad tsunami. We will probably have to wait weeks for a conclusive assessment of the damage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.234.57 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Chapter "Tensions" 5th paragraph
The 5th paragraph in the chapter "Tensions" didn't fit in the screen, a very long line, but I don't know how to fix it. Could anybody do it ?203.80.51.225 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. It was looking that way because, after the commenting out of the deleted image, there was a space at the start of the line; this turns it into a monospaced code block. Cheers, Wantok (toktok) 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC )
[edit] British Solomon Islands
Why does "British Solomon Islands" redirect to this article? That is just like "the 13 colonies" redirecting to the "United States"! Surely there should be a SEPARATE article on the former British colony?
[edit] Australian/RAMSI propaganda in article
There seem to be any number of Wikipedia articles hijacked by imperialist, Rightwing interests with agendas (something they are always quick to accuse us Leftists of) -- and the Solomon Islands article here appears to be one of these. Some day I'll have to slap pages like this with a NPOV claim (if someone doesn't beat me to it); but for now I'll simply object here, in the discussion page.
While solomon islanders themselves might not be spending a lot of time on Wikipedia if at all, that is no excuse for allowing pro-Oz imperialists -- including 'liberals' and NGO-types -- to simply take over Solomons citizens' interests on the Internet. The australians and others are causing enough damage on the ground in the Solomons as it is. And the fact that someone feels it important enough to hijack this page is proof enough that I am not barking up the wrong tree. This might even be Oz-imperial policy, worked out as part of the occupation plan, as far as I know.
But since I could not likely expect you people to admit to even having a non-NPOV agenda, let alone being imperialistic, working this article into objective shape will likely have to await the attentions of others. I'm busy.
Pazouzou (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- For your information, there is no "us people". Wikipedians are not a homogeneous entity. Among Wikipedians you will find people with all kinds of political views, including leftists (such as myself); most Wikipedians, whatever their own personal views, strive to make each article confirm to the NPOV policy. If you have noticed specific examples of bias in the article, please point them out. If you have links to credible sources which criticise RAMSI for its alleged "imperialism", you are not only invited but urged to provide them. Likewise if you have sources describing the "damage caused by Australians" in the Solomons. You may also wish to look at the article on RAMSI itself, and make suggestions. Are you disputing the facts as they're stated in the article, or are you saying that a particular slant exists in the writing, or are you saying that some crucial facts are missing? Simply saying "this article is biased" will achieve nothing if you don't give specific, concrete examples. Aridd (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted removal of "the"
I reverted the removal of the definite article "the" from the front of all the mentions of the Solomon Islands for several reasons:
- The change broke at least two things on the page (the flag graphic and a category at the bottom).
- The pluralization changes which would be required if we dropped the "the" were mostly not made, leading to inconsistency and poor grammar.
- Including an article on the front of a collection spoken of as one thing is proper English (cf. the Philippine islands and the Brothers Grimm).
- As such, leaving off the definite article just sounds clumsy.
- The other "Islands" nations were not likewise changed (the Marshall Islands and the British Virgin Islands) leading to yet more inconsistency.
This is a major change which should be discussed before it is made. -Nkocharh (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. "The Solomon Islands" means 'those islands which we call Solomon'. "Solomon Islands" by itself means 'some islands which we call Solomon', rather like "desert islands" are 'some islands which have a particular property of being dry'. -- Evertype·✆ 10:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Solomon Islanders seem to call their country "Solomon Islands", not "the Solomon Islands". See for example this page on a Solomon Islands government website. Or this one. RAMSI uses both, but calls itself "The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands" (no "the"). The Solomon Times uses "Solomon Islands" (no "the"). It seems to be established practice in Solomon Islands' English to call the country simply "Solomon Islands". I'm fairly sure I've heard Australian politicians call it "Solomon Islands" (with no "the") too, but I may be wrong. Aridd (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- That may well be, but in standard English the article is used for this and other archipelagos. We talk about the British Isles, the Sandwich Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, etc. -- Evertype·✆ 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't mind what we do one way or the other. I'm simply raising the issue and drawing attention to the fact that Solomon Islanders themselves call their country "Solomon Islands", with no article. Now the question is whether we adopt British English or Solomon Islands English (which is also Australian / New Zealand English, I think, but that would have to be checked) on this issue. Aridd (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)