Jump to content

Talk:Solomon Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juror1 (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 12 January 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Comment

»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)

nothing posted since 2007? must be some newsJuror1 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?

[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? 

Hi pottia??????

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)[reply]

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).[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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 )

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
       Taking a NPOV stance(I use this term in line with the modern english speaking
       culture's love of acronmys in place of  full english, which I might point out was good  
       enough for Shakespeare, although I am yet to master it anywhere near to the level which 
       he did), I am curious to know whether you are willing to clarify some points in your 
       agruement or whether you will do as so many people do on the internet and simply make 
       claims and then run and hide when their claims are challenged. Once again, I stress 
       this is strictly from a NPOV. My reasoning is that I am tired of people making claims 
       and not willing to back / defend their agruement. A process, arguement followed by 
       rebuttal followed by supporting agruement/evidence, which forms part of the foundation 
       upon which free demoncratic societies, such as Australia, Unitied Kingdom and the 
       Unitied States Of America, etc, exist.



       Firstly, you say that "australians and others are causing enough damage on the ground 
       in the Solomons as it is". You speak as though you have been "on the ground". I am 
       curious if you are willing to clarigy when and where you were, as you say, "on the 
       ground" in the Solomon Islands.

       Secondly, as the previous commenter alludes to, are you able and willing to provide 
       documented evidence of the so called damage caused by Australians and others.

       Thirdly, and this not a question but rather a correction, the word "Australian" is  
       spelt with a capital "A". As Sun Tzu alludes to in his writings in the "Art of War", 
       one should ALWAYS maintain a healthy level of respect for one's opponent. In line with 
       this, the term "pro-Australia" should have been used in place of "pro-Oz". Only the 
       friends and allies of that country have the right to call it by it's nickname, and 
       clearly you are niether.

       Alas, I am resigned to the assumption that from your statement "I'm busy", you will not 
       complete the democratic, and what is considered polite/ respectful, process of 
       supporting your agruement with evidence or further agruement/debate, you will do as so 
       many do and simply hide from those who challenge your arguement and claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzDog26 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  1. The change broke at least two things on the page (the flag graphic and a category at the bottom).
  2. The pluralization changes which would be required if we dropped the "the" were mostly not made, leading to inconsistency and poor grammar.
  3. 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).
  4. As such, leaving off the definite article just sounds clumsy.
  5. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It also appears to be called "Solomon Islands", and not "the Solomon Islands", in Australian English: [2]. 83.199.174.210 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (Aridd not logged in)[reply]

error

in economy page, it shows per capita GDP as 340USD, but in main artical 600USD. Which correct? 152.1.62.165 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rennell island

Hello, Please check the article, Rennell Island.

I would hate to think that I am one of those "hijacking articles" as you so eloquently claim. --Phenss (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Solomon Islands just a Commonwealth realm?

Some UK article editors feel that it is important that countries like the Solomon Islands are descirbed as "Commonwealth realms" while the UK should be described as a "Constiutional monarchy". The below is the UK discussion replicated. As regards the Solomon Islands, do you have a view?

The article currently has this sentence:

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Constitutional Description")

Should it read as follows: The UK is a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Realm Description").

Which description should be used - the Constitutional Description or the Realm Description? Whatever is decided needs to be applied consistently to all 16 "Commonwealth realms" - after all, they have the same constitutional relationship vis-a-vis the Monarch as the UK has. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --[reply]

Constitutional monarchy comes first in the history of the state, and its more important in terms of understanding the constitution. Non WIkipedia sources uses phrases like "The UK is considered to be a commonwealth realm". --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I cannot understand your answer - which description do you support using (the Realm Description or the Constitutional Description) - I've added a simple list-type response to make it simpler for Users. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Constitutional Monarchy is the most helpful description however the article should mention that the United Kingdom is a commonwealth realm. At the moment the Commonwealth realm is only linked to Queen Elizabeth II, it doesnt say the UK is one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support use of Constitutional Description:

  1. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The two are not mutually exclusive. The constitutional monarchy phrase has primacy, much as the UK's membership of the EU comes further down. Kbthompson (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One of the silliest issues we have had here. Agree with Kbthompson. --Snowded (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Constitutional monarchy is my choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It depends on the context; however, if it is the lead we are specifically discussing, then I'd say keep it as "constitutional monarchy". "Commonwealth realm" is an unofficial descriptor. I've undone those changes Redking made (prematurely, I think) to the various country articles; those that weren't undone by others already, that is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Constitutional monarchy. Any "Commonwealth realm" must be a monarchy, but Constitutional monarchy is the more precise and descriptive term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am agreeing with the majority -- Phoenix (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with the silliness mentioned by Snowded. Leave as constitutional monarchy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support use of Realm Description:

  1. [insert your user name]


Miesianiacal - Why have you undone my changes...No one has so far even supported the Realm Description? I disagree with you and think my changes clearly should be left as they were. Do you think the articles should be inconsistent...some using the "Constitutional Desciription", others the "Realm Description"....That does not appear to make much sense to me. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking, so far NO ONE supports your "realm" proposals (not even you). I don't even accept it as an either or, and I note you did not attempt the change on Canada or Australia. I hadn't realised you had made the changes elsewhere or I would have reverted before Miesianiacal tracked them down. --Snowded (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded - I think there is confusion. My view is the same as yours. I support the "Constitutional Description". Oddly Miesianiacal supports the "Constitutional Description" but not for the other "relams" where I had changed them so that the "Constitutional Description" would be used. Apparently, Miesianiacal thinks it is appropriate on these articles (countries like Papua New Guinea etc) to say "Papua New Guinea remains a Commonwealth realm". I disaagree and think what has emerged from this discussion is that they should be described in the same was as the UK, i.e. "Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state." They should not be described in some sort of "lesser" way than the UK. Do you agree with me about this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is always confusion on articles on constitutional status. SO let me be clear, I do not think consistency is appropriate. Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries. Oh and by the way I don;t think either description has more intrinsic value than the other. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re.: Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries - what does that have to do with anything? Does it have any relevance to their current constitutional status? Do these countries have a different relationship to the Crown vis-a-vis the UK? Please give reasons for why, in the opening paras, you think it is appropriate for them to be described as "Commonwealth realms" but not appropriate for the UK? Why should consistency not be applied. It is a core Wiki principle. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you should think the manner of a countries creation has nothing to do with its constitutional status. In the case of the UK its status as a constitutional monarchy came way before any notion of being a commonwealth realm. In the other cases the countries concerned were created as commonwealth realms (in the main). Its not an issue of consistency. --Snowded (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with snowded on this although i do think we need to mention the fact the UK is a commonwealth realm somewhere in the introduction. At the moment that is not said, but we dont need to remove "constitutional monarchy" to be able to include that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was to restore all the articles to their status quo until discussion here was finished. It may only be my opinion, but I think Redking making such wide reaching edits before hardly anyone had even responded here was bad enough, but re-reverting (sometimes more than once) is generally poor form. I agree with Redking in that there is no difference between the UK and the other realms in terms of their presently being Commonwealth realms or constitutional monarchies; however, my position, for the record, remains the same as above: context decides what is best. I would say that "constitutional monarchy" (a more concrete and official term) is best for the context of the lead, and "commonwealth realm" (a non-official descriptor) should be mentioned somewhere else in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds very grand indeed. Such a desire to uphold consensus but advance no arguments against the change nor any arguments to as to why the principle of consistency should not apply. It seems the majority here are happy to apply the "Commonwealth realm" tag to the "ex-colonies" but not so keen as regards the UK...I am simply going to apply the smell test and it smells like politics to me. I'm bowing out. I expect you, my fellow editors, will leave the "ex-colonies" with their "Realm tags". I will leave it in your collective hands. Hope you surprise me. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming up: The United Kingdom is an Olympic realm... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why consistency? UK existed before Commonwealth. Was its constitutional status changed? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore this is not an either/or situation since all the Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, a situation which is extremely unlikely to change. Therefore stating that a country is a Commonwealth Realm currently, and for the foreseeable future, implies that it is a constituional monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to "Why consistency?" Why not? Its a Wiki principle. Explain how the UK is not a "Commonwealth realm" and the others are? That would seem to be the only reason not to be consistent. UK existed before Commonwealth. Correct. Relevance? Are you saying it is not a Commonwealth realm? Are you saying the others are not Constitutional monarichies? Pick one description and be consistent. "Was its constitutional status changed?" No. The sentence that the others "remain Commonwealth realms" is incorrect too - It implies they have always been "Commonwealth realms". They have not. They have only been "Commonwelath realms" since they became separate realms.
As to it not being an either/or situation - If you are happy to call the UK a "Commonwealth realm", do so and be consistent with the others "ex-Realms". As it stands, Users prefer "Constitutional monarchy" for the UK and the "Commonwealth realm" tag for the "ex cololnies". Explain the inconsistency please? After all there is no constitutional difference in their position. Please explain why you differentiate between the two. The description concerns their current status - it has nothing to do with whether (as in the UK's case) it has been a Constitutional monarch for centuries or (as in the case of Barbados) merely for decades. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree all Commonwealth realms should say (country name) is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. They are all equal in the eyes of the monarchy and in constitutional standings so they should be treated as the same. Its a very logical argument to make. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phoenix. I am glad I am not alone. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked for trying to make these changes. It seems I am alone because no one else is bothered to do anything about it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your view as regards the Solomon Islands?

response

Actually you are wrong, the UK page made a decision for the UK, its up to each other page to make its own mind up. And Why or WHY do you have to reproduce the whole talk page? Heard of pipelinks? --Snowded (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of which description to use is the exactly the same for the Solomon Islands as it was for the UK - so the above discussion is relevant. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only view expressed on this talk page is in favour of the "Constitutional Description". Redking7 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a TV statiion in the Solomon Islands.www.onetelevision.com.sb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.166.215 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Country?

The article states that the country is independent, but it also states that the head of the country is the English queen. Contradiction or mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.10.245 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's neither, the Solomon's, like Australia, Canada and several other countries are independent nations that all share the same person as Monarch.
- IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have removed the following link from the External links (other) section: [3] The images on the page linked to contain racist language such as "Pikinnini" as descriptors of children from the islands. Other descriptors include "More pikinnini, W.Province." For context of removal See: Pickaninny: "Pickaninny (also picaninny or piccaninny) is an offensive derogatory term in English that refers to black children or a racist caricature thereof. It is a pidgin word form, which may be derived from the Portuguese pequenino (an affectionate term derived from pequeno ("little")." --Hartopp (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pikinini", apart from any English meaning/connotations, is also the most common Solomon Islands Pijin word for "child", with no negative connotations. For instance, the only Pijin version of the Bible uses the word freely (published by the Bible Society of the South Pacific). I find it very hard to imagine a Solomon Islander being offended by it. Notice also that the Wikipedia page you linked now describes it as only a "potentially" offensive term in English. Dan (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education in the Solomon Islands

This should be merged with the article. Sarcelles (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yelling at trees a myth?

I found a 2007 discussion about this on the Wikipedia: Reference desk: Yelling at trees in the soloman islands. Did anyone find more in the meanwhile? Wiki-uk (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Taare Zameen Par‎ Wiki-uk (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A Comment and A Question

First the question: How does the recognition of the Republic of China by Solomon Islands give the ROC vital votes in the United Nations? Does Solomon Islands automatically vote as the ROC directs?

And the comment: The history section jumps from World War II to 1998. A gap of more than fifty years that including, among other things, its 1978 independence! Mapjc (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vital votes is in relation to the existence of two chinese governments, but only one chinese UN seat. It was originally the Republic of Chinas (In control of Taiwan) but was given to the Peoples Republic of China (Rest of China) in the 1970s (I think, correct me on the date if I am wrong), as more countries recognized the PRC. The government which received the most votes was in the UN, hence the 'vital vote', (though I'm not sure how it qualifies as vital)
As for the history, I noticed that too. I am going to try and add that, and shorten the section generally, as there is a seperate history article. Remember, be WP:BOLD and edit where you see fit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

The history section seems overly long for a general overview. It also lacked an independence section, which I added. The whole thing needs to be shortened and rewritten. The Civil War Section especially needs reworking. It reads like a PHD thesis, not an encyclopaedia article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Name

Why are they called "Soloman" Islands? Was this a British name given to them on discovery? Was there a native name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.74.52 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at History_of_the_Solomon_Islands#European_exploration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which solomon islands were german territory?

when i looked up german colonies in the pacific in the section saying today a part of it had soloman islands. so which solomon islands exactly were territory of germany's colonial empire? 76.244.154.251 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information is found at North Solomon Islands. CMD (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

makes no sense in English -

"In late 1998, militants on the island of Guadalcanal commenced and had a campaign ..." - I don't have the source here, so I can't rewrite, but this should be corrected. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

The chapter "2nd World War" states that US troops were fighting Japanese. Yet nowhere before was there any mention of Japanese living there or having landed there. When did the Japanese get there in the first place?--dunnhaupt (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Solomon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

< On 27 December 2006, the Solomon Islands Government took steps to prevent the country's Australian police chief from returning to the Pacific nation. >


The reader has to guess that 'the Pacific nation' means 'the Solomon Islands'. Why not say so?


86.141.61.177 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official name

As far as I know, it's conventional for Wikipedia to use the name an English-speaking country gives itself. In English, Solomon Islands calls itself "Solomon Islands", with no definite article. See for example the Constitution, or the website of the National Parliament. Likewise the country's press: See for example this article in the Solomon Star, or this one on the Solomon Times. It's also called "Solomon Islands" rather than "the Solomon Islands" in Australian English (http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=30).
For now, I'm simply going to make a note of the usage in the article. But if there are no major objections, I'll fix the name throughout the article in a week or two. Aridd (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would support the removal of the definite article, for the reason you give -- it's up to the government of an English-speaking country to determine the English name of that country. There is no hard-and-fast rule as to whether a country name "should" include the definite article, the country (or rather the government) just decides for itself. The Marshalls and the Cooks clearly include it, as did Solomon Islands before independence, but that's irrelevant. It's clouded slightly by the fact that usage isn't 100% consistent anywhere, whether in Australia or in Solomons, even within government. But the vast majority of the most authoritative documents available use no definite article. I could add a couple more examples, like the Cotonou Agreement (on p4 and elsewhere of the 2005 revision) and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat consistently omits the definite article. And here's a book published by Sols' Ministry of Foreign Affairs that omits it. I think there's a strong case for removal in this article and any other article that refers to the country. Of course, the geographical archipelago is a different matter. Dan (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we re-open this issue? I kind of disagree, based on WP:COMMONNAME. To my knowledge, we don't defer to the English name that the country chooses for itself. We defer to WP:COMMONNAME, and from what I can see that seems to be to use the "the" (except at the beginning of a phrase or sentence, as would be expected). I'm not arguing that the official name doesn't use the "the", just that most sources do and that using it would be the common name. This would not affect the name of this article, but relates to the naming of other articles like Politics of Solomon Islands/Politics of the Solomon Islands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It's a bit of a tricky one. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy which says that, for articles about an English speaking country, the local variant of English is acceptable, even preferred? Plus, even if most people outside the Solomons tag on a definite article, it's presumably because they assume there should be one, based on the ordinary rules of English grammar. I would hazard a guess that most people don't actually know that Solomon Islanders don't use a definite article for their country's name. Thus it's not so much a case of "common name" as of ignorance (in a non-pejorative sense of that word). Hence, RAMSI, an international operation, is called "Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands" (with no article), because those involved actually do know what the country is called. In specialist usage, you find the local name respected; for instance, the definite article is lacking in this Australian publication about Solomon Islands. Also, it seems odd to me for us to "correct" (as it were) a country's official name...
Whatever the consensus may be on that broad issue, there are also some finer points. Do we agree, for instance, that "National Parliament of Solomon Islands", which is the official name of a government institution, should not be "corrected"? Likewise titles, such as "Governor-General of Solomon Islands", which is constitutionally defined (art.27), and which is respected as such by (for example) the Governor-General of Australia (who also calls the country "Solomon Islands" rather than "the Solomon Islands"), or by the Commonwealth? Aridd (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a super-expert on WP guidelines, but I am not aware of a guideline that says we favour official names of governmental bodies and the like over the WP:COMMONNAME principles. I think we look to what reliable sources call the body, and if there is a dominant name that is used, we go with that. In your first sentence, I think you're referring to the WP:ENGVAR guideline, which does favour local variants of English, but AFAIK it typically deals with issues of spelling and choice of words rather than the choice of what a particular thing is called. But I do see and understand your point that if it's usually referred to in a certain way in SI media, why should foreign media override this. ... I agree it's a bit of a difficult situation, and maybe it requires some broad input. At the very least, I thought that the articles should probably go through the WP:RM process to remove the "the", which is why I moved some of them back. It's not that I couldn't support the removal if consensus was to go that way, but I haven't seen much discussion on this, that's all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was thinking of ENGVAR. As for WP:RM... I suppose you're right, yes; that's the best place to obtain broader input. I'll try to get round to it reasonably soon. Aridd (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as knowledgeable as either of you on this subject, but I would note that WP:COMMONNAME includes its own specific subsection referring to National varieties of English which states that "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation", which I would take to mean that we should prioritise authoritative sources within Solomon Islands over foreign sources --- and the definite article is usually omitted not just in government sources but by the local press and radio, too. The only exception given is where the local name may be unintelligible to a foreign audience, but that's clearly not the case here. WP:RM seems sensible, though. Dan (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is time we settled this. The nation actually has an official name and it is not a matter of English usage. The correct term is legally defined as Solomon Islands without the definite article.
The name is first defined in the Constitution of Solomon Islands, as Solomon Islands and starts off "We the people of Solomon Islands, proud of the wisdom and the worthy customs of our ancestors, mindful of our common and diverse heritage and conscious of our common destiny, do now, under the guiding hand of God, establish the sovereign democratic State of Solomon Islands.
The United Nations gazetted English language name for the nation is: long form term Solomon Islands, short form term also Solomon Islands
Diplomatic protocols always get it right, which is why all the foreign embassies and high commissions and consulates are named similarly to The Australian High Commission, Solomon Islands or the Japanese Embassy, Solomon Islands and RAMSI was the Regional Assistance Mission Solomon Islands because the legal agreement under which RAMSI was permitted to operate had to reflect the legal entity name.
The Queen invariably uses the term Solomon Islands herself when addressing the nation as in The Queen's message to the Governor-General, Solomons Islands: "I was deeply saddened to learn of the devastating floods that have affected Solomon Islands during the last week." She tends to get these things right because she is good at these things, by contrast, her webmaster slips a bit and sometimes refers to her as the Queen of Solomon Islands and sometimes the Queen of the Solomon Islands. (I am writing to them now, so they may lift their game soon). I have the charter appointing the Governor General, which I cannot find a link to, but I can assure you she appointed Frank Kabui as the Governor General, Solomon Islands
The national anthem starts off : "God Save our Solomon Islands from shore to shore" and repeats this throughout.

Solomon Islanders would like people to call it Solomon Islands partly to distance themselves from their colonial history but they are facing an up-hill battle. Confusion arises from at least five sources:

  1. The pre-independence term The British Solomon Islands Protectorate, which was an administrative description rather than a name.
  2. The fact that the nation is sometimes referred to as the sovereign State of Solomon Islands (note the lower case s in sovereign because it is not part of the title) and the article gets transferred on truncating but that term is a description not the title.
  3. The Solomon Islands is a legitimate term referring to The Solomon Islands (archipelago) as this is a group of islands sharing similar ecological and geographical features but covers a different geographical area from the nation of Solomon Islands and includes bits of Papua New Guinea.
  4. During World War II the campaign referred to the Solomon Islands, meaning the archipelago, including the British Solomon Island Protectorate and other bits belonging to other people conveniently included for military reasons. That was fine, and the nation of Solomon Islands was yet to exist.
  5. Lastly the misnomer is perpetuated in websites such as Wikipedia.

It is pretty clear what the actual name. Unfortunately Wikipedia pages perpetuates the confusion by referring to it variously by both terms, we need to determine the correct term and use that throughout. I started doing that once but it tended to get reverted by people who counted Google hits (which will include the archipelago, WWII and pre-independence) The actual name of the nation is not what we think it might be, it just is. Wikipedia needs to establish the truth by doing the research and the links above are a start; we can't just do a Google hit vote and end up telling another country that their country's name is different to what they thought it was, it's an English speaking country and they read English Wikipedia expecting to find the truth.

I propose that: Having lived and worked in Solomon Islands, having worked in the justice system there for five years and being familiar with their legislation and observed their practices, and after people have satisfied themselves as to which is correct, we use the name Solomon Islands throughout when referring to the nation and retain the historical or geographical names when referring to things that are not the nation.

Support Solomon Islands Ex nihil (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Solomon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solomon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon_Islands&oldid=820049442"