Talk:Mariana Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

germany or US?[edit]

The article refers to some islands as US territories, and others as US commonwealth, but the article is under the category of "german colonies." This is, at least on the surface, contradictory, and merits either correction or explanation. Shaggorama 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

They are former german colonies.
Right, and to clarify, the Mariana Islands (a former German colony) were split into two protectorates: Guam and CNMI. See the specific articles for their present political fates. Graham 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mariana Islands vs. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),[edit]

I just removed a paragraph that refers to the current scandal (ca. 2004-2006) regarding Jack Abramoff, partly b/c it violates NPOV, but mostly because this issue has been well-covered where it belongs, in the Northern Mariana Islands article. "Mariana Islands" is a geographical concept, involving two political entities, the CNMI and Guam. Any edits regarding CNMI should be made there. Graham 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Area units fix, plus a reminder: this is NOT CNMI![edit]

I fixed an edit that accidentally translated sq mi into sq km without converting the figures. While I was at it, I corrected the areas to the currently published ones and added a citation.

And, remember, like in my previous comments: this is the geographic and/or historical Marianas, not the commonwealth. There's no reason to confuse the issue by including details about each one (like the areas) here: put such things in the county-specific articles unless they pertain to the old colony. Thanks! Graham 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Is there supposed to be some image or map on this page?

Ti Taotaomo'na Hit[edit]

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of "taotaomo'na." Taotaomo'na does literally translate to "People who came before." However, that does not only mean the ancient ancestors from the pre-Spanish era. The term taotaomo'na is in reference to ALL our ancestors.

That being said, WE are not taotaomo'na. We are just taotao, and if you must qualify it, we are taotao på'go. Moreover, to say Magellan was met by the taotaomo'na is misleading. In the most literal sense, it is true, because they were the people before us, however, in the more commonly understood meaning of the term "taotaomo'na" it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadao01 (talkcontribs) 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition of theft[edit]

The main article reads "The Spanish crew, assuming that the natives were giving them the supplies, considered this theft - - ". I doubt very much if that is the way that the Spanish crew thought. Hence I will revert once again. David Tombe (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot flip the order of events. The Chamorros gave supplies first, and then took whatever from the Spanish. This is the way I read it in every source I encountered. One or both sides probably didn't "negotiate" properly or simultaneously, leading to the perception of theft. HkCaGu (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

HkCaGu, I will now read directly from Antonio Pigafetta's diary. Antonio Pigafetta was one of the few people who returned home to Spain alive after that three year journey. So I don't know what sources you are talking about. Here is an exact quote from Pigafetta's diary,

And the captain-general wished to approach the largest of these three islands to replenish his provisions. But it was not possible, for the people of those islands entered the ships and robbed us so that we could not protect ourselves from them. And when we wished to strike and take in the sails so as to land, they stole very quickly the small boat called a skiff which was fastened to the poop of the captain's ship. At which he, being very angry, went ashore with forty armed men. And burning some forty or fifty houses with several boats and killing seven men of the said island, they recovered their skiff.

I do not see any evidence at all for your interpretation of the events. And I would advise you to have a look at the precise way in which you have worded your own account of events on the main article. You have implied that the Spanish considered the act of being given supplies to be theft.

So your edit is wrong on two counts. You have painted a picture of the Spanish as being unreasonable people who went ashore, interpreted hospitality as theft, and then attacked those that had given them supplies.

If you cannot produce an alternative reliable source, I will revert once again.

I think that you need to take a serious look at your edit again. David Tombe (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you read the word "this" to mean the supplying, as only "taking" (the boat) can logically be considered theft. Regardless, I changed the wording to reduce ambiguity. What you quoted was obviously not the first encounter. HkCaGu (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

HkCaGu, That's what I said. It was illogical. But now you have corrected that illogical aspect of the paragraph. It only remains now for you to produce a source which confirms your assertion that the natives assumed that Magellan was engaing in trade and that their actions were not theft. Pigafetta's diary doesn't back up your assertion in this regard. I'll put a citation tag in. David Tombe (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The text clearly says "common account" and you can find that in articles such as History of Guam and various other on- or offline publications. I do not think Pigafetta is (or needs to be) authoritative on what Guamanians and Chamorros think today. HkCaGu (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm waiting to see those other accounts. How would the people living in the Mariana Islands today know better than what it says in Pigafetta's diary? The native Chamorros that were around at the time of Magellan's voyage became extinct a long time ago. So I really don't know what your higher authority on the matter is. David Tombe (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Extinct? Then you really don't know what you're talking about! Again, what is "common account" today does not have to jive with what Pigafetta wrote, period. HkCaGu (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it's best to leave Pigafetta's diary alongside the so-called common account to let readers make up their own minds, since Pigafetta's diary is the only existing written source on the matter. It strikes me that certain persons have been trying to make retrospective excuses for the actions of the natives. The Spanish response to the taking of the skiff did seem somewhat over the top, but that in itself suggests that the natives didn't give much indication to the Spanish that they were assuming that it was all about engaging in trade. It will be very difficult, or perhaps impossible, to ever ascertain the detailed facts of the incident exactly. Anybody who says that the natives assumed that the Spanish were engaging in trade is only guessing. David Tombe (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IP deletions[edit]

Here [1] Appear in good faith by somebody who knows about the Pacific Islands, but is a new editor. I've left a note on his TALK page. SBHarris 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

US elections[edit]

Something should be said about their right to vote in US elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that they don't have any? [2] That the Guamanian congressional representative is a non-voting one, and so Guam has no impact on US national politics? SBHarris 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Elections should really belong to the other two articles (Guam and Northern Mariana Islands). HkCaGu (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundant links[edit]

Article seems to be littered with redundant links. I've removed some. I'll try to comb over the article and remove more as time allows. Anybody want to help? Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Apparent Discrepancy in "Spanish Exploration and Control"[edit]

The historic site for the landing of Magellan's fleet on Guam is stated as Umatac, Guam. The section goes on to state that this is probably not true, as further study of the "navigator's diary" reveals that Magellan's fleet passed between a large island to the north and a much smaller island to the south, making it more likely that they passed between Guam and Cocos Island, not Guam and Rota as previously thought.

But as the reader, this would then seem to support Umatac as being the location of Magellan's first landing, since it's right there on the south of Guam where you'd be if you pass between Guam and Cocos.

Is this a mistake? It seems like a contradiction. Patwinkle (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)