Talk:Tokelau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Tokelau has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Flag Tokelau is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Polynesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, which collaborates on articles related to Polynesia. 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] History

This was on the History of Tokelau page. As it makes no sense, I am moving the contents to here in the hope that someone can make something of it and am redirecting the history page to Tokelau. --Roisterer

Still not good enough for an entry on a separate page, but at least it now makes a bit more sense - Grutness|hello? 13:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HISTORY OF TOKELAU Tokelau was originally settled by Polynesian emigrants from surrounding island groups. Originally it was comprised of three traibal chiefdoms, each rules by an Aliki (chief).The states were Atafu, Fakaofo and Nukunonu.

[edit] Atafu

[edit] Rulers

  • ?-? - Toniua
  • ?-? - Foli
  • ?-? - Tongia
  • ?-? - Fafie
  • ?-29 February 1916 - Tuilaka

[edit] Fakaofo

[edit] Rulers

  • ?-? - Letaiolo
  • ?-? - Poufau
  • fl. 1841 - Taupe
  • fl.1846-fl.1852 - Havaiki I
  • fl.1858 - Lika
  • fl.1871 - Longotahi
  • ?-May 1881 - Vaopuka
  • fl.1881-ca.1890 - Te Taulu
  • fl.1892-1902 - Tavita Te Fuli
  • 1902-29th February 1916 - Ielemia Havaiki II

[edit] Nukunonu

[edit] Rulers

  • ? - ? Sunga
  • ? - ? Kakaia
  • ? - ? Ngala
  • ? - ? Ulua
  • ? - ? Falevai

? - 29th February 1916 Takua

[edit] dollar figures

Are the dollar figures in the economy section New Zealand dollars or U.S. dollars? The Euro values have been added subsequently by an anonymous user. It's possible that the original numbers came from a U.S. source (like the factbook) or from a N.Z. government source. Ben Arnold 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Tokelau

according to the CIA World Factbook, it shares the flag of New Zealand. However I have seen many references to its own flag. eg [1] Maybe its just supposed to be decorative, not "official."

There is a very interesting article in the May 1st 2006 "New Yorker" which documents a referendum for Tokelau's independence as well as the land's history.

[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 Polynesia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Polynesia whose scope would include Tokelau. 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 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Capital?

Tokelau has no official capital. But according to the Fakaofo webpage, Fakaofo is the "chiefly atoll" of Tokelau. The history page asserts that Tokelau became a unified entity when Fakaofo conquered the other two atolls. So could Fakaofo perhaps be listed as a "traditional capital"? Inkan1969 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just visited Tokelau, it appears to be three relatively autonomous atolls each wishing to assert their dominance and role. This would account for none of them being chosen as the "capital". At present they operate as separate states in a confederacy and are likely to continue to do this after they vote for independence. At present the capital it probably technically Wellington in NZ. There are administrative offices on Atafu where the head of government currently lives. There is also an administrative office in Apia although now, with the internet and good telephone links to the world, these functions are gradually being moved back to Tokelau. Rather than someone in Wikipedia deciding on a capital, it might be best to leave that to the country to decide once it has self-determination. There remains the possibility that it might never declare itself to have a capital and have the meetings of the fono rotate between the atolls. Now wouldn't that be interesting.
--CloudSurfer 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Your post seems to assume they would vote for independence, but that did not happen. They have chosen to remain part of New Zealand. Johntex\talk 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent visit and projected future visits

Having just returned from a trip to Tokelau, I have uploaded a number of photographs and made some edits to the various entries. I have some other photographs I could upload and will probably return to Tokelau next year and could take any specific pictures that might be helpful. I am based in Apia, Samoa where the Tokelau Apia Liaison Office (TALO) is situated and could access further information from them if thought valuable.

If someone or some group is caring for this page, please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --CloudSurfer 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Brilliant. Keep up the good work. Pics from Tokelau were sorely needed. Thanks! --Targeman 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tokelauan Scouting

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tokelauan? Thanks! Chris 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Tokelau

I would prefer that this page show the unofficial flag of Tokelau, on the grounds that its the only flag in use which actually represents Tokelau specifically, official or not. But if a flag absolutely has to be official to be displayed, we shouldn't show anything at all — the New Zealand flag, while covering Tokelau, is not "the flag of Tokelau", as displaying on this page would imply. ("Flag of X" and "Flag of the country that X is part of" are not interchangeable, or else there's no such thing as a subnational flag). -- Vardion 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the official flag (the flag of New Zealand). Wikipedia article are consistent in displaying the official flag. If we deviate from that, we would open the door to all sorts of independence movement flags, rebel flags, suggested flags, etc. Johntex\talk 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But the New Zealand flag is not the official flag of Tokelau. It's the official flag of the country that Tokelau is part of, and these two very different things should not be confused. -- Vardion —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the position of Vardion. However, the unofficial flag is now represented twice and NZ's flag not at all... Alice.S 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topography

Does anyone know the topography of the islands in terms of their mean elevation above sea level and/or their highest elevation? I am wondering how much danger this territory faces from hypothetical rising sea levels. Johntex\talk 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

consists of three atolls (Atafu, Fakaofo, Nukunonu), each with a lagoon surrounded by a number of reef-bound islets of varying length and rising to over 3 m above sea level CIA, On google earth some parts seem to get up to 10 or so meters, most is at 0-4m. So I'm thinking they would be very vunerable to rise in sea level. Looks like a funny place, so small and yet so few built up areas, unlike other small island countries that seem to have destroyed large portions of the forest areas. I think it wouldn't be too hard to move them even if the sea level did rise though :p, only like 1500 of them, they would fit on one boat. Jackaranga 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nov. 4 reversion

I am reverting the last few edits for the following reasons...

  • Introduction: addition of a run-on sentence and several instances of passive voice ("was," "were," etc.)
  • Improper use of parentheses throughout the article
  • Unnecessary redirects
  • Ungrammatical sentence and what appears to be, I could be mistaken here, removal of a sizable chunk of content in the "Government formation" section
  • Most of the law section is not notable enough to merit inclusion at all. What is notable should be moved to another section
  • POV changes to the "Internet" section
  • Improper grammar and spacing near the end of the article
  • Addition of several incorrect categories - Tokelau is not a country, it is part of NZ. It therefore also does not belong in Category:NZ-Pacific relations.
  • I figure it's more... diplomatic of me to explain my reversion before proceeding. Perspicacite 06:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done for bringing it up here Perspicacite. Rather than reverting, can you please obtain consensus for your proposals here first? --John 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to obtain consensus for change before changes are made. I have taken the liberty of reproducing your bulleted points below (but with numbers so that we can more easily discuss them):

  1. Introduction: addition of a run-on sentence and several instances of passive voice ("was," "were," etc.)
  2. Improper use of parentheses throughout the article
  3. Unnecessary redirects
  4. Ungrammatical sentence and what appears to be, I could be mistaken here, removal of a sizable chunk of content in the "Government formation" section
  5. Most of the law section is not notable enough to merit inclusion at all. What is notable should be moved to another section
  6. POV changes to the "Internet" section
  7. Improper grammar and spacing near the end of the article
  8. Addition of several incorrect categories - Tokelau is not a country, it is part of NZ. It therefore also does not belong in Category:NZ-Pacific relations.

With regard to 1, 2 and 3, please could you give specific examples of the existing text and that to which you wish to change it?

4: Please specify the offending "Ungrammatical sentence" and then exactly what you wish to change it to. What exactly do you think has been lost? Are you aware that the post 1948 part was moved to the new section "Government"?

5. Why do you think it not notable that villagers make their own laws - especially in the context of the UN view that Tokelau is still a "colony". What section should the "law" sub-section be moved to?

6. What are the "POV" changes to the Internet section? Do you mean "external links"?

7. As regards these, if they are trivial, please just make the changes as that's probably better than discussing them - if they're bone-headed I'm sure someone will quickly correct them - that's the way Wikipedia works.

8. I'd have to disagree that the category "NZ-Pacific relations" is inappropriate any more than the inclusion of the Cook Islands in this category would be inappropriate since neither are de facto integral parts of NZ (even if they both are de jure NZ territory). I feel that categories are useful to people wishing to study a particular area of interest and this categorisation is appropriate to anyone wishing to study the relationship - historical and contemporary - between "colonizer" and "colonized" Pacific peoples such as Samoa, the Cooks, etc.

Finally can I point out that reversion is usually just used for vandals (or perhaps where complicated syntax changes have been made to tables, etc, that are difficult to individually edit).

Rather than revert why not edit the existing article - that way you are less likely to lose valuable meterial from other editors such as conversion templates, etc (in your self-reverted 4th revert, for example, you lost referenced and cited material and the (1916) date of attachment to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands)... Alice.S 07:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, and 4 are all in the reference you added to the beginning. I saw prior to the partial reversion that the 1948 part was moved to "government" so I kept that change. For 5 I dont think Tokelau's nine soldiers are notable enough to be mentioned. I would move most of the "law" section to "government." I consider the last changes to the "internet" section to be POV. I dealt with 7 in the partial reversion. I dont feel strongly about eight. The NZ-Pacific relations category is fine. Your comment about reversion being used by vandals is completely untrue and would indicate inexperience with Wikipedia. Perspicacite 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Great!

So, unless anyone else disagrees, we have a consensus to retain 8, the categorisation.

(You are absolutely right about my inexperience - if you check my contributions history you will see that I have not yet made thousands of edits. However I did not write that reversion is used by vandals. I meant that it was a good tool to counter vandalism.)

Do I understand that your objections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are objections to the QUOTE in the citation!?! I really don't have the experience to deal with that. Do you think quotations should be included in the "citeweb" template, John?

5: Are you actually reading the same article as me, Perspicacite: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokelau&oldid=169088980 ?

Nowhere in the version of our article that I completed does the text contain a mention whatever of "Tokelau's nine soldiers" or even any soldiers whatever! (The closest reference I can find is, again in a QUOTE in a citation and that refers to nine POLICEMEN!)

May I beg you again to actually type out here the "the last changes to the "internet" section" that you "consider" " to be POV." so that we can all see exactly what it is you think warrants reverting rather than correcting? Alice.S 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My objections are not to the quote, but to the parenthetical comments and subsequent commentary. The quote is way too long anyways. Soldiers... police officers... whatever. There are not enough of them to merit inclusion. See what I just changed to the Internet section. The previous changes I would consider POV. Perhaps members of the NZ-WikiProject could weigh in on this. Perspicacite 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you have just reverted AGAIN and excised sourced material without concluding a consensus here (or even answering the questions put to you).

Are you really so pressed for time/contemptuous of your fellow editors powers of judgement and understanding that you can not wait a few hours to discuss your proposed changes fIRST?

Where is this "internet" section? Can you not type it out below so we can see what the heck you're on about?Alice.S 09:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I disappointed you :(. Perhaps members of the NZ-WikiProject could weigh in on this. Perspicacite 09:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)