Talk:Pitcairn Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Version 0.5
WikiProject iconThis article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.


Referring to the follwoing article in New Zealand's 'Newswire' online:

Residents of the remote Pitcairn Island are a step closer to the outside world with the introduction of a host of modern communications.

Thanks to funding from the British Government, all homes now have a private telephone and fast internet connection, as well as live television broadcasts.

Pitcairn's Deputy Governor, Matthew Forbes, says islanders previously communicated via unstable satellite phones and an intermittent internet service.

He says the new services will help reduce Pitcairn's isolation and are being met with enthusiasm by the island's 50 or so inhabitants.

Mr Forbes says a video-conferencing system has also been installed and will be used for contact with health practitioners in New Zealand, and educational purposes.'

Does anybody know if the private telephones in each home refer to the satellite phones in the Wiki article, or are they replacements for them? and the 'fast internet connection', is that the governements sponsored satellite link mentioned in Wiki article?

And the 'live television broadcasts', is that the Free-to-air satellite connection mentioned in Wiki's article, and does anybody have any idea what channels are accesible?

Thanks a lot 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


6 people have been convicted on the child abuse trials. This may change the island those 6 people are the one that operate the long boat access to the island. Without the long boat no food and supplies can get there.

The labor force consists of twelve men, and more than that are on trial in New Zealand -- is this correct? If convicted, will there be zero working-age males in Pitcairn? Tuf-Kat
CIA factbook say 12 able bodied men, presumably theres about 20 men on the island (given a 50:50 male:female ratio) Paul Weaver 21:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
More than 12 men have been accused of sexually abusing young girls.
Like how many? When were they accused?
The men of Pitcairn Island blame the police for convincing the females involved to press charges.

Is there police on the island? AxelBoldt 09:51, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

According to Swedish press, 7 out of 14 men are currently on trial. There is no police or justice system, so the whole justice system had to be flown to the Island (presumably increasing the pulation radically). :) Women on the Island claim that no sexual abuse is happening and that 12 years is a normal age for girls to have sex. Of course, the accusation of abuse go much lower down in age than that. Regebro 22:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, although there is a magistrate. I'll investigate mroe at the weekend but I think that some of the accused have left Pitcairn over the last decade or so. Paul Weaver 07:37, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The original charges were developed by a visiting/rotating well-meaning English police officer (female) who overheard a conversation between two girls. Pitcairn, with its limited population, extreme isolation and unique history, had obviously developed some social customs that were

Another Map?[edit]

Is it possible to get a map with some other perspective? This map doesn't include any well-known countries or even Latitude/Longitude lines. As shown, the reader has no idea where these islands are. -- 15:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have added a link to a map.--Patrick 22:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island[edit]

I understand that Pitcairn Island itself is undeniably the most important island in the group from almost every perspective, but I think it would be best to create an article, probably containing the bulk of the Pitcairn Islands material, on Pitcairn itself, rather than just leaving Pitcairn Island as a redirect to Pitcairn Islands, which is a geopolitical division and entity encompassing other widely scattered locales in addition to the island itself. Tomer TALK 04:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno but after reading the article, don't you ever wonder what a scary navy these guys might have?
Hahaha. I'm still laughing. Thanks. Levity is good. :-D Tomer TALK 01:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what purpose that would serve aside from taxonomic correctness. Splitting the information about the Island vs. the Islands would be tricky, and probably lead to people adding material to one that's already on the other. If someone wants to learn about the Island, they'll need to know about the Islands, and vice versa. If it were a very large article and this would split off a substantial amount of material, I'd agree, but this would just create (depending on how the split was done) two half-articles, or one nearly-complete article and a stub. Tverbeek 11:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We surely need a seperate article. Are the Indonesia and Java articles one? Nope. One article should talk about the entire colony, and one about Pictarin. Read the start of the Henderson, Oneo and Ducie articles. They read out like an island article, stating individual facts about the island at the start, such as the dimensions and the area size. I would really like to see a Pictarin article that reads out in this same way. Also, we could have the Pictarin Islands article for the colony, it would read out like a colony, country or state/provine article. You might know that the Hawaii article is not entirely about the Big Island. Seperation would also provide a division among information, and keep the access to it convenient. I also noticed that there is not even a seperate section in the article for Pictarin; everything is mixed. Why is it that they are so inextricably tied? Is it because of the name? If the colony had a different name, perhaps La Encarnación, then we would probably have a differnt article for the island of Pictarin, and the colony. I don't know why. I know that Pictarin is the only populated island, but to summerize what I just said, seperate them into island and a colony articles. -- Wuffyz (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates[edit]

Which are the best Geographical coordinates?

I preferred my own geographical coordinates (except the first and the second of geographical coordinates) in the list below: -- Citylover 22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands as a group of islands (25°04′00″S 130°05′00″W / 25.06667°S 130.08333°W / -25.06667; -130.08333) (Getty)

I don't much care what you prefer, if you don't tell us more about your procedure, such as the source from which those numbers were "manually obtained". Almost all of these, of course, are going to span several seconds of arc. You may well be just trying to pull our legs. The obvious one, of course, is Ducie Island, because if you have a correct value, it is not going to contain any 60″ figure. Gene Nygaard 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed the geographical coordinates of Ducie Island by manually obtaining them again. They lie now also a little bit closer to the geographical coordinates of the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online.
  • By the way, the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online does not always provide correct geographical coordinates:
    • Sometimes, the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online is very reliable, for example in the case of Pitcairn Island (see above).
    • Often, the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online is just reliable, for example in the case of Ducie Island (see above).
    • But sometimes, the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online is also incorrect:
      • for example in the case of the geographical coordinates for Henderson Island, which definitively do not lie in the center of Henderson Island (see above).
      • or even worse in the case of the geographical coordinates of Oeno Island, where the E is written instead of the W (see above). -- Citylover 08:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the way I manually obtained the geographical coordinates (copied from Geographic coordinates (obtaining)):
    MSN maps provides geographical coordinates of a location selected from their excellent maps (better than Multimap) if you know the trick. The trick is: First find the feature or the location you want to know the geographical coordinates of, either by manually using the map and zooming in or by entering it into the search field (first click on "Find a Place", then choose Place name in: World Atlas, then choose the right feature from the list). As soon as you approximately see the feature on the map, zoom in as far as possible or necessary. Then, left-click exactly into the center of the feature/area you want to know the geographical coordinate of. Then wait for a short while until the map is rebuilt. Then, right-click on the map wherever you want, choose "properties" and wait for a short while until a pop-up tab appears. In this pop-up tab, the geographical coordinates are already written (in degrees only). Then perform a "select all"-"copy". The degrees-only geographical coordinates can be directly entered into Wikipedia's {{coor d||N/S||E/W|}}-Template. In the preview, click on the template and you will get to the page . There, the degrees-only geographical coordinates are converted into degrees-minutes-seconds anyway and displayed automatically at the top of the page, so you can still decide if you want to convert the degrees-only-geographical coordinates into the degree-minutes-seconds-format (alternatively, you can also use the website for the conversion from degrees-only into degree-minutes-seconds). -- Citylover 07:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I tried to figure out how the 60" figure was created. It is probably an error at rounding up, made by the page I used for the conversion from degrees only to degrees-minutes-seconds ( You can check it for example with the numbers 24.683, 24.6833 and 24.683333333333333 . My numbers are not extremely precise at the second(")-level anyway because the zoom level of the map is high, but not very high, so it is difficult, especially in the case of very small islands to point with the mouse to the middle of the island. One will have to wait for maps or satellite pictures with a higher zoom level in order to adjust the geographical coordinates to an even higher reliability. But since the numbers are probably already now more precise than the minute level, I chose to use the second-level too because this is the standard format. Furthermore, especially for example in the case of Ducie Island, it is difficult to define the center of the island because the center of the island itself might be actually not on land, but south of the small land bridge in the water and furthermore, if you center on the whole reef of Ducie Island and not on the island itself, the geographical coordinates would probably lie even further in the south (if you use/look at for example the MSN Map, you can see it what I mean). -- Citylover 08:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


I'm thinking of moving this page to Pitcairn. My rationale has three parts:

  • Pitcairn appears to be the official name (it's the name used by the United Nations)
  • If Pitcairn is the official name, it is likely to be the name Pitcairners use themselves (since there are so few of them)
  • Where there are variations of English usage Wikipedia standard says to use the local one

It looks like Pitcairn Islands might describe the group of islands, whereas Pitcairn describes the geopolitical entity.


Ben Arnold 00:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the group of islands as well as the political entity. There certainly isn't enough yet to justify splitting.
Guesswork about possible variations in lanugage by a total of 48 men, women, and babies isn't particularly relevant. Gene Nygaard 00:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course, one of the major sources of income for the Pitcairn Islands is the selling of stamps to stamp collectors. Just what in the world do you suppose it says on those stamps? See
Looks like a half-baked idea to me (you didn't even have enough sense to look for the official government web site, which is listed right there at the bottom of the article in the "External links"). You political-correctness types really irritate me when you go overboard. Gene Nygaard 00:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Tahitian women[edit]

I've read at least one historical account that the Tahitian women brought to Pitcairn by Christian and his mutineers were not willing, ie., that they were kidnapped from Tahiti in order to provide the mutineers with "wives". (This is from the book "The Bounty" by Caroline Alexander) Assuming this is the truth, I think it should be noted in the article. It certainly would provide a hint that the Pitcairn traditions of patriarchy and oppression of women were in place right from the start. Does anyone object to my adding the note on the Tahitian women being brought against their will? -Kasreyn 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll tae that as a no. I've added the reference, using the term "kidnapped", though I'm not really satisfied with it. Can anyone think of a better way to make the point? -Kasreyn 11:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this book, by Caroline Alexander a work of fiction? If so I most definitely object to the inclusion of the term "kidnapped". Does Alexander say the Tahitian men were kidnapped, as well? -- Geo Swan 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a very serious historical effort; by "book" I didn't mean novel. It was already being cited as a source on this article before I ever came along (see the end notes). Check it out. It's in fact extremely thorough referenced, with thirty-seven pages of endnotes on its sources and a bibliography that made my head spin. Alexander essentially says that the Tahitians were guests onboard the Bounty at its last stop at Tahiti, and Fletcher Christian cut the cable and sailed away without informing them. One of the women dove overboard and managed to swim back to shore, if I remember correctly. The others were essentially stuck with the mutineers, and when the Bounty was burned, they had no way home. I suppose it would probably be more appropriate for us to say that all the Tahitians were kidnapped, but the paragraph will need a significant rewrite as it's currently worded very awkwardly. -Kasreyn 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

67 people[edit]

would it be out of the question to list them?

I doubt it would be "out of the question", but there'd be notability issues. The mayoralty already has an article and some of the more well-known residents do likewise. The real question to ask would be whether or not all 67 residents have claims on being listed. BigHaz 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the 67 are "not notable", just as most of the residents of a village of 67 people on a contiental land mass would be "not notable", and I would suggest that privacy concerns of non-notable, non-public persons should trump any desire to list them here. Rlquall 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hey you know the pitcairn accent, "bou yo bin" and all that its mostly 18th century portsmouth talk


It's funny how Wikipedia has such a huge article about this, including the history, culture, religion, and form of speech, when only 48 people live there.

if we do decide to list all the people living on the Island here is a link with there names Scubasteve55 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject[edit]

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 the Pitcairn 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 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Jewnited (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Adams' Amnesty[edit]

The history section contains this sentence: "When the American sailing ship Topaz found Pitcairn again, John Adams was granted amnesty for his mutiny". How can an American vessel grant Adams amnesty for an offence under English law? --ukexpat 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say Americans granted amnesty READ the sentence. An American ship found them. After the Americans found him they undoubtedly turned him over to the British who granted amesty. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are talking nonsense. The Americans did not hand him over to the British. Adams (also know as Alexander Smith, the name he used when he enlisted on the Bounty) was carefully to never leave the island, and was weary of visitors. No amnesty or pardon was ever issued, it was just that with the passage of time, the British Admiralty decided not to pursue the matter, as it would have meant breaking up the community. Noel Ellis, Wellington NZ

hmm, I only wonder, why would a portuguese sailor name the islands he found with spanish words.Just a thought...

Perhaps because he was, as the article states, in Spanish employ at the time. Given that Portugese and Spanish are rather close, how would the names have differed if he had used Portugese? (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

geography vandalism[edit]

As of 11/15/07, the geography section contains vandalism. Someone please find the vandal's edit and revert the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Just wondering... if there is internet access here, are there any wikipedians? --Chinneebmy talk 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear power[edit]

Must be the only community in the South Pacific that has the backup of the UK Armed Forces. Looking at places like Diego Garcia and Ascencion Island, perhaps Pitcairn has more of a strategic role that what is publically admitted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


We need the pronunciation of Ducie and Oeno. kwami (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ducie is pronounced to rhyme with the English girl's name Lucy; Oeno is pronounced /ˈoʊːiːnoʊ/ oh-EE-noh), NOT as suggested by some in the Greek fashion /ˈiːnoʊ/ EE-noh). My wife spent much of her childhood on Pitcairn; this is how Pitcairners say it. The fact that it is named after an American ship with a Greek name is irrelevant to pronunciation. Local pronunciation is the norm (or Americans would have to pronounce Des Moines in the French fashion, or Texas in the Spanish (te-has)!). Ptilinopus (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to justify people's pronunciation: how they say it is how they say it.
Is Ducie "DEW-see" or "DOO-see"? kwami (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It is "DOO-see" to rhyme with the girl's name Lucy...Ptilinopus (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Some dialects lack that distinction. I've added it to the article. kwami (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't everyone be...[edit]

Wouldn't everyone be either a politican, a judge, a cop, a prisioner, a child, and something to do with safety and politics. I mean with a population of 50 wouldn't everyone not have a job that actually produces stuff. It just seems so many are politics and police officers and stuff so who does the farming. What about schools? Who teaches? What about college? does anybody go to college? Maybe its the fact that I live in the US but how can a country have a population of 50 (or close to that) and have so many government/diplomatic jobs? It means almost nobody is a cleaner, baker, fisherman, trahman, mailman, etc etc... Who does all those jobs? I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that politics is not a full-time job in such a small nation. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Pitcairn is not a nation, it's an administrative territory of the UK. There are a number of low paying, part time government jobs to be had, these are sought after by Pitcairn residents because they bring cash, however little. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With perhaps the exception of the school teacher none of these jobs are likely to be full-time. It's probably something akin to being the accountant for your local chess group or belonging to the local PTA - your responsibilities only take a bit of time every now-and-again. (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

I don't know jack about life in Pitcairn, and I'm betting the majority of readers don't either... I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful in any way, I'm just curious how such a small group of people...grows in terms of the population? In such an isolated and small community, I'm sure it's hard to find a partner and start a family. I'm talking about avoiding inbreeding to put it bluntly. I mean surely everyone must be related in some way, so how do they avoid that kind of thing? I think readers might want to know what the family aspect of this society is like--do the majority of the islanders travel abroad to live elsewhere and then return later in life? I don't know where you'd find information like that. I was just curious. Night w (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This article barely mentions it, but there was a big incest case a few years ago, Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Things which can be sourced: Pitcairn has had "demographic" worries for half a century. The population has fallen a lot. Although getting on and off the island is still either expensive or a big deal to set up, anyone who has the will to make it happen can get out within a few months. Older kids are sent to faraway schools (mostly in Australia and New Zealand) and many never come back. The birth of a single baby on the island lately was a major historical event. The population is aging, their only industries are the hand crafting of tourist knick knacks (these are skillfully done and fun to behold), a beekeeping/honey project of unknown profitability and the long-standing sales of Pitcairn postage stamps to philatelists. The economy is wholly supported by subsidies from the UK (without money from London the lights on Pitcairn would quite literally go dark), bringing UK law and practice up close, the outcome of which has been unhappiness and meanwhile, London would evacuate Pitcairn like they did Nikumaroro half a century ago, if they could pull it off. Thrown into all this are a mish mash of draconian laws and taxes which stifle immigration, visits of any kind, development and tourism. There is no port at all, only a crack in the cliffs (and no way to build anything close to a port without spending tens of millions of pounds) and a geography which makes building an airport almost unthinkable. Pitcairn indeed has the resources to support a more or less happy flock of people on their own terms and with modern technology too, but not with any overlay of heavy European economic and "living" standards. It's all daunting any nobody knows where it will lead, say, twenty years from now. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The birth of a baby on the island was not news because of lack of births - it was news because it was born ON Pitcairn, instead of the mother going to New Zealand for the birth, as is the more usual practice. The population is not aging more than elsewhere around the world - kids form a significant part of the population! Just subscribe to and read Pitcairn Miscellany - the monthly newsletter, for an idea of the major presence of younger people. Yes, older kids sent for education overseas DO often stay overseas - but have the right of return, and some do; others come for a few weeks or a few months. I suggest you document the "draconian laws and taxes which stifle... visits of any kinds...". Most small island entities have to limit immigration, or they risk being swamped (many not so small entities do it too! - try getting a work permit/green card for USA!). Those who have gone there as visitors need to pre-arrange things, of course, as there are no hotels. Nothing illogical or draconian about that. I rather think you are overstating the situation a bit! Ptilinopus (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seventh-day Sabbath practice[edit]

I removed a claim from the article that the Pitcairn Islanders practiced a seventh-day sabbath prior to their conversion to Seventh-Day Adventism, here. There was a reference given, but it doesn't support the claim. Another wikipedia article, List of Seventh-day Adventists, uses a couple of different references for the same claim, but neither of these have anything pertinent, either. In fact, a preacher denouncing seventh-day adventists, in 1928, claimed that exactly the opposite was true, except for creative book-keeping, here.

Of course, anyone finding actual evidence for this is encouraged to replace it. --kundor (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The Islanders were attracted to the Seventh Day Adventist faith, in part because of the Saturday Sabbath, because of a problem with the DateLine. The Bounty Mutineers had sailed east and not adjusted for what we now call the International Date Line. So for over 20 years they practised a Sunday Sabbath on what was actually Saturday. Fletcher Christian's eldest son, the first child born on the island was known as Friday October Christian (because he was born on a Friday in October) until he was over 20 years old, when the island corrected the date. It was not until 1808 when the Topaz visited that they became aware of the mistake, and not til 1814 when the British visited that they corrected the date and day of the week. So when they read about the Seventh Day Adventists they were attracted to the idea that they had in fact been right in their choice of Sabbath. 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)~ Noel Ellis, Wellington, New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talkcontribs)


Why isn't the Demonym of Pitcairn Islands listed in the infobox? Thanks --George2001hi (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Can you list ALL the names of the people there? I am very interested.-- (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that'd violate some kind-of piracy law, anyway it's trivia - as I imagine the majority of people on the islands are not notable. --George2001hi 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There is such a list here: (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Telephone calling code?[edit]

The infobox lists the calling code as 870, which is Inmarsat satellite phones, but the text of the article says Pitcairn uses New Zealand's country code, 64. Lincmad (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed this. List of country calling codes says that the Pitcairn Islands don't have fixed lines or GSM, so they only use satellite phones and that this is why they don't have a country code. However, I found a website somewhere claiming that they had exactly one pay phone. Unfortunately, I don't know how this payphone is connected to the rest of the world or whether it has a number for inbound calls and which country code it belongs to. Given that there is no telephony infrastructure on these islands, I suppose that this payphone uses either a satellite network or VoIP. -- User:Dynam1te3, 2011-04-16 13:17 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Most remote?[edit]

Pitcairn Islands and Tristan da Cunha both seem to claim this.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bouvet Island too. --George2001hi 19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as Amsterdam Island (in the south Indian Ocean).
It's hard to tell; what's the criteria? Distance to nearest settlement? Distance to nearest mainland? Difficulty to travel there? Pitcairn is pretty remote by all of these, that's for sure, but this kind of labeling isn't useful by lack of clear definition of most remote. Jaho (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


Pitcairn Island is one of the smallest and most isolated community of individuals in the world. It has a population of 47 situated on a 4.5 sq km island 1,277 km from the nearest settlement (Easter Island). Even polar stations in Antarctica have more people, and space stations are closer to the earth's surface. Pitcairn Island became a British settlement under the British Settlement Act (1887). From 1952 to 1970 it was administered by the Governor of Fiji, before administration was transferred to the British High Commission in New Zealand. To assist the Governor there is a Commissioner based in Auckland. Locally there is a mayor on the island, and a council of ten members (six who are elected).

The islanders are unhappy that they have been abandoned by London. Despite the island having its own flag, newspaper, internet country code (.pn), stamps, phonecards and language (Pitkern), there is precious little infrastructure. Yup - No airport. No industry (aside from marginal farming and handicrafts). Just one flush toilet. And amazingly there is still no harbour - people have to be taken by boat to ships moored at sea, which come only a few times a year. In lieu of taxation, people aged 15 to 65 are required to donate their labour to community service.

A recent criminal case involving sex crimes with under age girls has required the intervention by Scotland Yard and the establishing of a special court on the island (it is impossible to form a local jury guaranteed to be impartial since everyone knows everybody else). Several defendants have argued about the validity of British law on their isl

"Even polar stations in Antarctica have more people, and space stations are closer to the earth's surface." Huh? Space stations are closer to Earth's surface than Pitcarin Island? That makes no sense. The islands are ON Earth's surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he means "closer to the nearest uninhabitated territory". WilliamDracul88 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think that it is hardly notable since people forget how close space is. Isnt the atmosphere opnly about 50 miles above sea level? Dainamo (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011[edit]

The Pitcairn site as currently written does not address the massive crimes perpetrated against the women of that island. a large percentage of the men on the island are convicted child rapists. (Karen Marks, "Lost Paradise: From Mutiny on the Bounty to a Modern-Day Legacy of Sexual Mayhem, the Dark Secrets of Pitcairn Island Revealed", Free Press, 2009) I have tried to place verifiable information that references that truth on the site. That information keeps being removed. Where the current post says "sex crimes" that is far too vague and does not offer sufficient warnings to possible future victims, "child rape" is accurate and more responsible as a warning to those who are trying to understand the situation on the island. (From the Independent in Britain: Pitcairn Island mayor gets three years for child rape)

Nothing that I have tried to post is even close to controvertible I feel that by preventing the editing of this article, you are protecting the wrong people. where the post currently says "Children under the age of 16 years require a completed entry clearance application in order to visit the island.[24]". I feel it should say: "Children under the age of 16 years require a completed entry clearance application in order to visit the island.[24] This prohibition is in place due to the high percentage of adult men on the island who are convicted pedophiles with a prison record for child rape."

For sure this is ugly stuff. But ugly is different from false. Keeping the truth off the site is not ok. Nextbook (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC) nextbook

Any chance you could cite your sources, there? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Marking this request as answered; feel free to restore it if and when sources can be provided. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing posted about the long history of child rape and abuse of women on this site. it may not be pretty stuff, but it is none the less true and verifiable. whether or not the people like it, it is a relevant, important, and timely part of the discussion about this place. to prevent postings that notify all people that there are a number of convicted child rapists free on the island may serve the criminals but how does it serve the victims and future victims? I am certain that most people convicted of crimes would prefer the details not be available on Wikipedia, why is that relevant? Nextbook (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Gulleyowl

See Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, which is indeed linked from the text of this article. Please also be aware of the stern policies here as to biographies of living persons. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Info regarding the sexual assault trials had been grouped under the British Colony sub-heading. I don't see what they had to do with the subject of British colonisation; so, I have given them their own sub-heading in the history section. Rational: It seemed to be the only way to incorporate a 'main' link into that body of text and, It seems that a subject that is sufficiently notable to have its own article, should have at least a sub-section in its parent article. Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth are there so many redactions in this? It's on the public record that residents were convicted of sexual crimes with underage girls. - (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I removed them, that's completely unnecessary and not at all what BLP is about. I don't know why User:Gwen Gale did that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Huge population discrepancy[edit]

It's 48 in the lede, but 67 in the infobox. The absolute difference of 19 people is trifling in itself, but in proportionate terms it's a huge difference of 28%. Imagine if we over/understated a major country's population by 28%. Surely they haven't lost track of 19 people in a total population of only 67. What's the real figure? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 23:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted external links restored[edit]

I restored external links that were deleted by user EdBever, 13:20, 14 April 2012 [1].

Deletion was described by user EdBever as "general link cleanup, wikipedia is not a collection of links, per WP:EL".

It should be noted that user EdBever regularly deletes external links in dozens of articles per day - see contribution list: Contributions/EdBever.

In this particular case the deletion was mistake - restored links should be kept as they are:

  • sorted
  • related to article (relevant)
  • notable
  • checked
  • survived in article for many years, while irrelevant links were regularly deleted.

Please discuss this before you decide to delete restored links again.

Thank you. --Bluewind (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Official name[edit]

Quote: In 1938, the three islands along with Pitcairn were formally incorporated into a single administrative unit called the "Pitcairn Group of Islands".

But the lede says the formal name is the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands.

Why the discrepancy? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 11:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your responses. I fixed it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic Special: Sharks of Lost Island[edit]

I am not sure where to put the following into the article:

In 2012, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Enric Sala produced Sharks Of Lost Island which at the end discusses the Pitcairn Islands being turned into a Marine Reserve.[1]


  1. ^ "Sharks of Lost Island". National Geographic.

Origin of the Warren Surname?[edit]

It is noted that one of the four surnames actually represented on Pitcairn Island today is Warren. The other three were those of mutineers, yet Warren doesn’t appear to have even been a Bounty crewman. Does anyone know who the first Warren on Pitcairn was and how he (or the name) got there? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appeared to have found the answer to my own question. I watched a video entitled “Pitcairn Island Today.” The “today” was 1935 and by looking at the video, it seems to have been the golden age of Pitcairn. It was before the mass conversion to the Seventh Day Adventist Church when the islanders still considered themselves Anglicans and a member of the Christian family acted as the minister. Anyway, it appears as if Warren was a whaler who visited the island and decided to stay and was accepted by the population. This apparently happened sometime around 1875 and one of his grandchildren is featured in the video. It doesn't say what nationality Warren had been, presumably British, but perhaps American. If anyone is interested in watching it, here is the link (around 9 minutes): — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talkcontribs) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above I have noted that: Samuel Warren was an American whaler in 1864. But I didn't record the source. In terms of famillies: In 1858 two families of Young, and in 1864 four families of Christian, McCoy, Buffett, and Warren returned from Norfolk, since then the McCoy and Buffet names have died out. John Buffet was an early settler (1823). In 1988 there were only four surnames: Christian, Warren, Young and Brown. Noel Ellis (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The most distant[edit]

Just a question: Is Pitcairn the most distant inhabited place from any Continent? Pirilinqui —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No. That's Tristan da Cunha. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pitcairn's marine environment[edit]

'Researchers say that "immediate protection" is required for the waters around the remote Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific, home to one of the world's rarest and most valuable collections of marine species.'

Sojmed (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)sojmed

Spelling error?[edit]

Hello, I believe "philhi' under the title of Culture is misspelled. -Dominator1453 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dominator1453: You’re right, “philhi” was definitely misspelled. I believe that Tautama’s initial addition of the word was likely meant to say “pilihi”, which is what we now have there.

Official Name[edit]

The official name of the territory is called Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands and the governor is officially called The Governor of the Islands of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno. It's not an article about the one island which is called Pitcairn although I understand that most of the talk will be about life on that island as it's the only inhabited one but that does not change the fact the territory is offically called the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands.

If the interpretation sections and explanatory note within the constitution itself isn't enough evidence then the following are a just 2 of hundreds of examples on the UK government website identifying the territory by its full official name, [2] [3]. Or check out the seal at the bottom of documents like the Pitcairn Island Council minutes [4] clearly showing the full name or new laws which the governor has just enacted [5], [6] [7] or [8] all clearly including the official name of the territory in use.

Unless there is another source, other than the official documents, I've detailed above that shows the territory is simply called Pitcairn and not Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, I would suggest we use the evidence attached and change the article to the name as written in the 2010 Constitution and detailed on both the UK and Pitcairn Islands governments websites. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 23:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi ThinkingTwice. I think you may be correct. There seems to be some confusion about this online but it seems to me that the primary source is the British Nationality Act 1981 that names the then 'dependency' as Pitcairn plus the other three. The official name change from the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 amends the names in the 1981 act only by changing dependency to territory. Some territories have had a more substantial name change eg Falklands, but that has come from seperate legislation. Pitcairn does not seem to have had a specific act of its own so its name stays as it was in 1981 (except dependcy - territory). The 2010 Pitcairn Constitution is a red herring and needs changing as a reference point on the wiki site. IMO it relates only to local self govt, meaning locally created laws can refer to 'Pitcairn' and mean all four islands, but that cannot override the ultimate authority of UK legislation which makes the official name Pitcairn +3. The 'commonly used' term of Pitcairn Islands for the whole BOT seems to have a semi-official status that confuses matters. This site (p11) is official from the F&C office and so seems a good reference point. [1]Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I now tend to agree that the official name is all the named islands I think the source reference is incorrect (the constitution) because it does confirm quite clearly that the official name is just Pitcairn, but this is only for local use. It later confirms that he constitution does not change any UK laws. The citation given (7) should be changed to refer to The British Nationality Act 1981, or something else better still if available.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In most cases we dont use the official names for articles, it is clear from the usage in the documents cited that the article shows the common name "Pitcairn Islands" so we dont really need to change it to anything else. Note the term "islands" already indicates more than one island. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hay Roger 8 Roger, if you look at the British Nationality Act 1981 as published on the UK government website (link [9]) the islands are only called the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands between Montserrat and st Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha in Schedule 6. Based on this and the other evidence I'm updating the first section of the article again to show the correct official title of the islands instead of just Pitcairn and MilborneOne don't worry I was only talking about the name in the first section, the article is correct to have it at the common name. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Land expropriated at Pitcairn without compensation (against E.U. treaties?)[edit]

The Talk page for Palmyra Atoll about "the world's most remote private land" says Pitcairn is supposedly disqualified because the British government took everybody's private land without compensation --- around when the sex case came up. If this really happened (and possibly was illegal under the United Kingdom's European Union treaties requiring fair compensation for land takings by government), then this is noteworthy and should be described in the Pitcairn article itself. Quote from Talk:Palmyra Atoll:

The Pitcairn Island colony is not a candidate for having "the world's most remote private land". The Pitcairn Islands LAND TENURE REFORM Ordinance (Revised, 2006) currently online at expropriated all private (freehold) land parcels from the landowners (including the local island residents and non-resident descendants of Pitcairners who live at Norfolk Island, New Zealand and elsewhere). Private freehold land was abolished and converted into government-owned land, and local island residents were granted temporary leaseholds. Section 10 of the Ordinance states that the landowners receive no compensation, although the United Kingdom governing Pitcairn is a signatory of European Union treaties that require compensation for a government taking of land. Pitcairn is as remote as Palmyra but there is no longer any private land at Pitcairn (unless the Ordinance is reversed or overruled by a court in London or Brussels before the scheduled 2019 "Brexit"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The European Court of Human Rights, which would decide this, is in Strasbourg, not Brussels. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Brexit point above is wrong. No need to file court cases before Brexit, about the missing payment for Pitcairners' expropriated land. Cases claiming compensation can be filed after Brexit, ... first in Pitcairn, then appealed in New Zealand, then in London, and finally in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France all under Art. 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK does not intend to withdraw from that treaty, and it will still be the law in the UK and Pitcairn after Brexit. Refusing to pay just compensation (“just satisfaction”) to landowners violates the Convention, including taking all the Pitcairners' private land parcels on Pitcairn Island without any compensation under the Pitcairn Land Tenure Reform Ordinance, since the Ordinance violated "just satisfaction" and Art. 1 ("Property") of Protocol 1 of the treaty. Apparently, the non-resident Pitcairners did not get anything at all for their inherited properties on Pitcairn Island. (I don't know whether there were any private lands on Henderson Island, Oeno Island and Ducie Island in the colony.) Almost all of Pitcairn Island was private land, as officially recorded locally there for centuries. (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Prominent solicitor Ainslie Nairn (1930-2011) of Edinburgh successfully prevented Scotland from expropriating the Scottish feudal landed titles without compensation, based on those E.U. treaties. That seems similar to the Pitcairn land expropriation. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here, not one. First, the Crown has ultimate ownership of all land. so all that happened is that the title to the land granted by the Crown changed from a freehold to a leasehold title. Freehold title usually gives the holder greater rights and is often referred to as "private" ownership, but this needs to be seen in the context of the ultimate Crown ownership. Second, by exercising its right to change the title it offered to the islanders, should the Crown have offered compensation? When the Crown "takes over" "private" land, as it does all the time all over the world (where it has sovereignty), it sometimes does and sometimes does not offer compensation. This will depend on the specific situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, compensation is said to be required in most circumstances, as in the EU case James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 54, Series A no. 98 (ECtHR 1986) applying Article 1 (P1-1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Suddenly converting a private, perpetual freehold into a temporary leasehold or else nothing (in the Pitcairn Ordinance, island residents got leases but the non-resident Pitcairnese landowners evidently got nothing) looks like a "taking" of some property or value at least. Anyway it's a pretty significant fact in Pitcairn's history (and for the Norfolk Island Pitcairnese too who lost their inherited properties). Courts can decide the compensation issue. The "ultimate Crown ownership" aspect isn't relevant since all fee simple (private) land in the U.K. is theoretically "held of the Crown" in that way (unlike Allodial title in Shetland, Orkney and the Isle of Man), but it gets fair compensation when taken.2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
P.S. As I understand it, the Pitcairners had painstakingly maintained their deeds and other written land ownership records at the Adamstown land registry for hundreds of years, all apparently wiped out by the new Ordinance. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed merge with Cuisine of the Pitcairn Islands[edit]

Not developed enough for independent article; lacks sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete it or merge it is my opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure there's much to merge that's not already covered in the "Culture" section here. I note that the Cuisine article appears to have been translated from the Czech equivalent, which has two sources cited in that language (may be neither here nor there, as I can't read Czech). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be merged Jkd4855 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • keep-two targets, not just the one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge- their cuisine itself is not notable, but worthy of inclusion as a subsection to the main article...Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge- not notable enough for a separate article. Fine to be included in main article. There are too many of these sorts of articles in Wikipedia. No one yet has given a good reason to keep it as a separate article. Robynthehode (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge the article pretty much starts by saying that the cuisine isn't very notable, no need for a separate article. BRFC4104 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge- Definitely doesn't warrant it's own article, and won't be too long merged into the main. MutchyMan112 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Last v Only[edit]

As of today's edit and reversal. I can see both sides of the argument, but think 'only' is better. There never has been another BOT in the South Pacific. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Visa requirement and child sex abuse[edit]

Your statement, Pmyteh, is under the heading of sexual abuse trials which strongly suggests a link between the granting of visas and child abuse. The two cites given make no such link, Being from a RS does not mean you can use those citations to justify what amounts to a POV. There may well be other reasons for not allowing staff to take children there, to a very remote isolated place like Pitcairn. Please get agreement here before edit warring. I suggest those citations belong elsewhere in this article, not in a child abuse section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I will move them, along with the rest of the paragraph they're attached to, to the 'tourism' section, which I agree is probably a better place. As it stands, the last para of the 'Sexual assault trials' section implies that the authorities no longer have any concerns about children's presence on the island, which is entirely unsupported, by reliable sources or otherwise. Given that there is either a special entry procedure in place for under 18s (per the FCO page) or it has just been removed (per the recent revision to the other source in that paragraph), and the FCO are *literally warning the public that their own staff are not allowed to take their children*, a statement that is present on no other FCO travel advice page that I've been able to find, that they were added to the FCO Pitcairn advice page sometime between 2007 and 2008 (there are repeated snapshots of FCO country advice on, and that HMG has been deeply involved in child protection issues on the island since the abuse cases, I believe the statement is misleading as it stands.
On a different note, I'm a little disappointed in your tone. Disagreeing with your revert is not 'edit warring', and it's particular inappropriate given that you've now re-re-reverted without making any effort to actually collaboratively edit the article. I've been here a long time, and getting the occasional slap from another editor isn't a big deal - but being scrupulously friendly is more likely to retain the fresh blood that the project needs. Pmyteh (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 'tourism' is the best place for it, if a new section on immigration is not created. I did not mean to imply that you were edit warring, just trying to pre-empt that occurring. I reverted because the statement had no RS to back it, as explained. Without a RS any editor has a right to remove a comment, as you no doubt know. Whether this talk page discussion should have occurred first or not, may be ambiguous, but I still think the onus was on you to prove your case rather than on me to disprove it. FWIW, no offence was intended. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cuisine of the Pitcairn Islands redux[edit]

I didn't see #Proposed_merge_with_Cuisine_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands, while it was underway. Looking at it now I am concerned some of the merge arguments should have been discounted.

One merge opinion said "Merge the article pretty much starts by saying that the cuisine isn't very notable, no need for a separate article." Irrelevant, since Cuisine of the Pitcairn Islands should never have included this unattributed opinion, in the first place.

Animals, including proto-humans, and our ape cousins, Chimpanzees and Gorillas, have no cuisine. But once early hominids started using fire to roast food, started drying food in the sun, or allowing it to ferment, pickle, or cure, like cheese, they had a cuisine.

Even the simplest food preparation techniques of our hominid ancestors was orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the non-preparation of proto-humans, and would be potentially notable.

The key point to consider, for topics that are potentially notable, is whether reliable sources wrote about them. The personal opinions of wikipedia contributors, my personal opinion, or the personal opinion of those voicing the merge opinions at #Proposed_merge_with_Cuisine_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands? Irrelevant.

Another person voicing a merge opinion noted "...that the Cuisine article appears to have been translated from the Czech equivalent ... neither here nor there, as I can't read Czech..." So what, surely google translate is sufficient to evaluate the depth of coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Naming the ship Bounty[edit]

@Llammakey: removed the definite article from the name 'Bounty' today. This topic has been extensively discussed elsewhere before. See here [10]. It seems that Llammakey has an agenda to follow. There is a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the use of the definite article depends on the context, is not wrong, and in many cases is preferable.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)