Talk:Samoa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semiprotection request

Can we please activate semiprotection of this page? An anon editor keeps vandalizing this article, despite repeated requests that they discuss their edits --Lholden (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

First comment

I swapped the section concerning New Zealand's occupation of Western Samoa with the corresponding section in the History of Samoa article since the version in this article was more detailed. Kaldari 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need 2 maps of Samoa? Kaldari 17:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link to Wikimedia

There is a Wikimedia category called Samoa with lots of pictures, shouldn't it be linked to this article somehow? Kronocide 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the link of "Baha'is" to point to the "Baha'i" wiki entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.216.185 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Badly written

If you read the following, you may notice it was written by someone who has not yet mastered the English language... I neither have the time nor knowledge to rewrite this section of the article on Samoan culture, but if there is someone who does... Please do so :)

Long ago, the Samoan people had a spiritual hierarchy of spirits or aitu of their own. At the head of this important hierarchy was "Tagaloaalagi". Tagaloaalagi was the ancient supreme being or God who created heaven and earth from the Samoan point of view. The Samoan culture is mainly about respect. And ever since the Christian way of life was introduced by the "palagi's" as we call in Samoan: White People(Europeans, Americans etc) Ever since it was introduced in Samoa, most Samoan people were converted and from then till now, 98% of the people are Christians. But the other 2 percent, it's either unreligious, which means they still beleive in the Christian way of life but does not keep it, or does not belong to any congregation. Church or going to church is an important thing for the Samoans, the only ones who stay home on Sunday, are the only ones that's preparing the meal, or doing the "umu" for the Sunday Meal, every Sunday after church.

In the Samoan way of chieves in each village, like other cultures, the Samoan does their way of ruling in an hierarchical order. From the chieves(matai) to the citizens and the "aumaga's"-also known as the ones who does all the work in the village, for instance, cleaning the village each week and prepares a meal in an "umu" for the chief. The "aumaga" service is a volunteer service, and the most important task of the "aumaga's" is to protect the village from any other villages. The aumaga's are like the soldiers of a village, and long ago, the "aumaga's" were the ones who fought wars between villages. The consequences were simple, if anyone breake any rules, he/she will pay the village with giving the whole village "tongan tapas" or what we called in Samoan, "ie toga". These Tongan Tapas are not necesarily made by the Tongans. What we know according to some songs is that during the Tongan invasion of Samoa, they took the chief's daughter, "Sina", and while she was in Tonga, she created the first Tapa, and she calls it, the "Tongan Tapa" because she made it in Tonga, while she was a hostage in Tonga. These "ie toga" tapas were like money if I put it in clearer details, anybody can buy or trade anything with it. So basically when you break any rules, you have to pay for it, today they use money, but long ago they used tapas.

I've had a go at cleaning up some of the article (History of Samoa). Not sure if I have the energy to continue! Cpl Hicks 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Map Size

Is it possible to get a map of Samoa where the country is not miniscule? Maybe one to show its location in the South Pacific and then one to show the country itself. Ganymead 05:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religion

The article says that 100% of Samoans are Christians, but that 2% are Bahai - my rudimentary math skills add that up to 102% - which is accurate? Are 98% Christians?

It seems that at August 13 anonymous user (randomly?) changed all the percentages of of different religious groups. The old percentages were pretty much the same as in CIA World Factbook. Someone with better knowledge should do something to correct the percentages. TommiR 07:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed info according to 2006 CIA Factbook. Aranhamo 21:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible bias

I'm a little concerned with the language that is/was being used in the History of Samoa section. Obviously the author has a very dim view of the period of administration under New Zealand! Anyway, I removed a few subjective terms (such as 'foolish') but have left the most of it untouched, as I'm not an expert in this area. Nonetheless, there is a troublesome tone throughout - though I think some citations would help corroborate the author's opinion. Cpl Hicks 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Polynesia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Polynesia whose scope would include Samoa. 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)

Confusing dates/times

In the History section, in the paragraph starting Contact with Europeans began in... there are a mish-mash of conflicting dates, time periods, and time-relative terms. Among the (several) possible readings is that 1722 was in the late 19th century, which does not seem to be correct. Paul.w.bennett 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I got the European meeting date from the US State Department website and just changed it in the article. Also, the nonsense about the Germans repelling the New Zealanders sounds very unfeasable, not in the least because the dates contradict. --Gerolsteiner 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint/Information Incorrectly Put On Main Page

pop/density nmrs dont adup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Samoans and Asians arent' the same...just like how every asian says they're "Hawaiian"....there are few FEW pure Hawaiians today!!**** We did not come from Asia...God put everybody where we are now!! (from lil'mo), ps Samoa is known as the heart of polynesia. Some people believe that a temple on the island of Manono has a record, using a system of stone cairns, commemoratating more than 150 wars. Robert Louis Stevenson, who spent the last four years of his life in Samoa, remarked that "War is Samoa's favourite pastime." (It is fair to say that in contemporary times team competition, particularly rugby, volleyball, kirikiti, traditional song and dance, and traditional water sports, have replaced war.)

Removed MMA fighter BJ Penn from the list of Samoan atheletes. Until someone can provide a link showing proof that he's actually Samoan I think it's irresponsible to have his name there. - Billy Button

Is Samoa a sovereign nation? Is the Malietoa Tanumafili II the head of state?

Could somebody please clarify these two points. I've seen people assert in Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej that Samoa is not a sovereign nation, and therefore that the Samoan monarch is not the head of state. Furthermore, it's been stated that Samoa is not even a monarchy. Yet this article states that Mālietoa Tanumafili II is the head of state. I'm confused. Patiwat 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states (in the infobox) that Samoa became independent (of New Zealand) on 01 January 1962, making it one of the first independent nations in Oceania.--Ratzer 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Samoa is an independent nation. It became so in 1962, after 45 years of New Zealand colonial rule. Samoa has a Head of State who is Malietoa Tanumafile II. Samoa is not a monarchy.Paulava 09:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

- - No, it IS a monarchy. Even now, after Malietoa Tanumafile II's death and the new system or 5-year terms, Samoa is still a monarchy. 93.80.239.61 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)http://emir-sergei.livejournal.com/

American Samoa

Should that part under Sport in Samoa about Samoans in the NFL be removed? If the article is about the Independent State of Samoa, and all the Samoan players are from American Samoa, shouldn’t that info just be there? Or are there players living in the United States from the Independent State of Samoa in the NFL as well? —Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, and would suggest that the statement would also be true of many of the other mentions in the article e.g. artists, writers, who are actually not from samoa, they are from New Zealand or Australia or USA, maybe of Samoan descent, or born in samoa but havent lived in samoa for many years, and do not work in samoa or represent samoa (the independent state of samoa) , but the 'samoa' they identify with while living in another country. --Lupesus (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation Issues

The first three sencences in the Economy Paragraph were copypasted from the CIA World Factbook but uncited. I fixed it, but someone should go over the rest to make sure information is sourced properly. --63.164.201.237 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interim head of state?

Is there any provision in the Samoan constitution as to who exercizes the authority of the O le Ao o le Malo while the new one is being elected? Often it's the speaker of the parliament of some such, or the prime minister ... either way, if the vacancy is going to last any length of time (and when will the Parliament elect a successor) we should indicate the interim figure. --Jfruh (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

History Section

The history section was deleted by an editor using an IP address on April 17th. As that same user also vandalised other parts of the article on that day, I've assumed bad faith and restored it from the previous version. However, the separate article at History of Samoa actually looks shorter than this section. Someone with more time should look at rationalising the two. Rojomoke 11:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this history section is a summary/shorter version of what I assume the "history of samoa" page goes into in more detail, but I'm still curious why this history stub begins with the first contact with Europeans. Isn't that highly Euro/Western-centric? User: Ashley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.173.222 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro wrestling

Jimmy Snuka is Fijian, not Samoan.

I am pretty dang sure he IS Samoan, just from Fiji (Like I am Anglo-Saxon but born and raised in Hawaii, but I am not Hawaiian), maybe part Fijian? Billy Nair 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy vs Parliamentary republic

I have reverted a recent change from democracy to republic. The offical government site is less than clear on this issue. However, the Head of State in Samoa is appointed by the parliament and has many of the trappings of a monarch, including the address as "His Highness". The head of state has little executive power, unlike in many republics, although his assent is required to enact laws, as it is in constitutional monarchies. Malaysia comes to mind as a model for how the government is constructed and it is listed in Wikipedia as a Federal constitutional monarchy. Clearly the federation issue is irrelevant in Samoa. It is possible that Samoa is really a constitutional monarchy and when the last Head of State died he was referred to as the King by several papers.

The reference in Elective_monarchy does not clear up the matter. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Columbia Encyclopaedia and the UK Foreign Office all list Samoa as a Constitutional Monarchy. The CIA fact book lists it as a parliamentary democracy. The way the head of state is treated and referred to here in Samoa, and the UK Foreign Office's links with the Commonwealth, both support that it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

Can anyone shed any more light on this subject? If not, I think we should change it from Parliamentary Democracy to Constitutional Monarchy. --CloudSurfer 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Samoan constitution post-Malietoa Tanumafili II is more like that of Fiji, where the head of state is selected from a select group (in Fiji the former Great Council of Chiefs, who almost always have elected a Fijian chief as head of state). This is much the same as Samoa. In my view, Samoa is a Parliamentary republic. Further, a recent email from the Samoan government (see Talk:O le Ao o le Malo) confirms that the new office is a ceremonial president. --Lholden 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the two terms are not mutually incompatible. Samoa could reasonably be called a parliamentary democracy whether it's a republic or a monarchy; this is probably a good fudge term for this uniquely ambiguous case. --Jfruh (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting email from Deborah Mauinatu. I have to say though that he is treated more like a monarch than a president but this may simple relate to him being such a high chief. I presume he is also entitled to be called His Highness. I have NEVER heard the word president used in relation to the Head of State.

I am wondering if it is clearly set out in the constitution. Copies of this are in the library and I might go and have a look at it. Another avenue would be to ask the Head of State himself. He is very knowledgeable and having also served as a PM in the past he would well and truly understand the intricacies of the question. Of course he may be too close to the issue to answer the question independently. In the meantime, I prefer Jfruh's fudge suggestion of Parliamentary Democracy. --CloudSurfer 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a lower case "p". I think the constitution itself uses the term "Head of state" - but I'll live with the fudge term "parliamentary democracy", as Samoa clearly is. --Lholden 04:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user has again put in republic. I do not feel strongly enough about it to change it back for the moment. I will try to find out more and advise accordingly. --CloudSurfer 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just recalled something. A few years ago the incoming Australian High Commissioner referred to the PM as the President. This caused Tuila'epa to rebuke him by telling him that Samoa was not a republic and there was no president. Sadly, I cannot recall what form of governement the PM called Samoa. I am now starting to get very curious as to exactly what is the correct answer. --CloudSurfer 05:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I exchanged on word "republic" and will do so again and again because User:Therequiembellishere finally answered on this question in articles Talk:Monarchy and Talk:O le Ao o le Malo using the answer of Samoan government press secretary. --User:212.98.173.133 11:18, 24 July 2007

Well, it is just possible that she is wrong. But I won't get into an edit war without substantiation and I accept that the email from the press secretary is the current best information. It jars that His Highness, the Head of State, Afioga Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi as he is referred to on the official government site, is a ceremonial president. The Head of State is treated here as a monarch, not as a president. Certainly the previous one was and there is every indication the current one is being similarly treated. I will follow this up and provide the answer I obtain, preferably as a citable document. CloudSurfer 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it boils down to how you define a monarch, doesn't it? Since the current head of state is elected by the parliament and serves for a set term, that doesn't seem very monarchal to me, even if Samoa has a unique term for the office that isn't "president." The degree of reverence applied to the office holder, or the honoriffic titles people use to refer to him, strike me as irrelevant -- I'm pretty sure that the President of the US was referred to as "his highness" during George Washington's terms... --Jfruh (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe to User:Therequiembellishere and Press Secretary of the Government of Samoa, you can to request direct to own Tupua Tamasese Tupuola Tufuga Efi with one question : "IS SAMOA A REPUBLIC OR MONARCHY?". Kabaka (king) of Buganda Sir Edward Mutebi Mutesa II was the president of Uganda from October 9th 1963 to March 2nd 1966. But from the fact of presidency of Edward Mutebi Mutesa II The Republic of Uganda not became a kingdom. Last Bulgarian tsar Simeon II Sakskoburggotski, who reign in 1943-1946 before Bulgaria was proclaim a Republic, became a Prime minister of Bulgaria in 2001 ('til 2005). But after that Bulgaria not returned to monarchy. I think that His Highness is just trible title of Tupua Tamasese Tupuola Tufuga Efi. --User:212.98.173.133 02:47 27 July 2007.

This afternoon I spoke with Papali'i Uale, the head of the Press Secretariat. He remembered the original email and it was he who gave the answer of "ceremonial president". We discussed the issue and the fact that various governements around the world and the editors on Wikipedia have different opinions on the status of the Head of State and the type of government of Samoa. He said he would take it up with the Prime Minister and obtain a definitive answer, either from the Prime Minister or possibly from the Attorney General. I suggested that putting the answer on the government website would make it clear to the world as to these questions. Stand by for more news on this.

In terms of the title "His Highness", "tribal" titles here in Samoa are the names that various people are given which are added to the front of their birth name. (However, names in Samoa are much more fluid than in the west. There are not the strict rules associated with family names and given names.) These titles are held by families and bestowed on family members deemed worthy of them. The same title may be given to more than one living person. The honorific of "His Highness" comes with the position of being Head of State. It is not a "tribal" title. --CloudSurfer 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I wait final answer from Samoan officials with great impatience.--User:212.98.173.133 08:14 27 July 2007.

I have yet to hear back on this but in the meantime I have read part of the Constitution.[1] The Constitution states, "The executive power of Samoa shall vest in the Head of State and shall be exercised by him under the provisions of this Constitution." The executive powers vested in the Head of State are considerable and would argue against him being a ceremonial president. On the other hand, anyone may become the Head of State and so it does not appear to be an aristocratic election although in practical terms it of course is. It thus appears that it is not an elected monarchy. --CloudSurfer 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And now you agree, that Samoa is a Republic? :) --User:212.98.173.133 14:24 2 August 2007.

Well, we have yet to hear back from the powers here so the jury is in some ways still out. The system here is unusual. Constitutionally, the position of Head of State is open to anyone. Practically, the chosen person will come from one of the aristocratic families here and will be the current head of that family. The current Head of State was elected unopposed as you may know. Despite all the hype before the election about the possibility of anyone getting the job, his name was the only one put up. Once elected he, and it will be along time before it is a she, was given the title, "His Highness". Reading the constitution reminds me of this country's roots as a British Commonwealth nation and the constitution is framed based on the British Westminster system. If the only choices are monarchy or republic then Samoa is constitutionally a republic and practically an elected monarchy. In time, it may become a true republic. It may even become a true democracy. At present it is still firmly rooted in its "tribal" past on both of these matters. I still prefer Parliamentary Democracy and await a statement by the Government to clear this up. --CloudSurfer 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, that Samoa is aristocratic Republic de facto. Republics in names as well as Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Syrian Arab Republic, Azerbaijan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Togolese Republic have more rights to be called as monarchies than Samoa. --User:212.98.173.133 05:44 08.08.2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise that this was going on. I don't think that the title "His Highness" makes him a monarch. the President of the Philippines is known as "Her Excellency" and is firmly a president. Therequiembellishere 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Any news or follow-up on what happened last year CloudSurfer?That-Vela-Fella (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Those eligible for Parliament

The article currently states: "Universal suffrage was extended in 1990, but only chiefs (matai) may stand for election to the Samoan seats." The Constitution of Samoa states that:

45. Qualifications for membership-(1) Any person shall be qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament who -

(a) Is a citizen of Samoa; and

(b) Is not disqualified under any provisions of this Constitution or of any Act.

At preset it would be virtually impossible for a non matai to be elected since people in general vote for the person they are told to vote for by the hierarchy of their village and this will of course be nominated as a matai. However, there is no legal impediment to a non matai being elected. It would appear that the article statement needs to be modified. --CloudSurfer 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename and expansion

Description

I propose to expand the now-inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject American Samoa into Wikipedia:WikiProject Samoa to be more inclusive of both Samoas and all Samoan-topics. Including the independent nation, with three times the population, would improve (and perhaps save) the existing Project. Not to mention the large Samoan diaspora, Los Angeles being the largest Samoan city, as well as notables who have come from the culture, like The Rock, Sosene Anesi...

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

You could request that the project change its scope, and, if whatever response you got was affirmative and sufficient, change the existing project page, templates, blah blah blah. At that point, you could start tagging the articles of the new broader scope and try to get members that way. Listing it on the Community Portal would probably work too. But you really should get the approval of the project itself before making such changes. Of course, if others were to join the project and agree to the changes, no one could argue that. John Carter 22:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to be involved if this gets off the ground. By the way, Auckland claims to be the largest Samoan city. I wonder which is in reality. --CloudSurfer 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, I wonder if there is a Samoan diaspora article? Chris 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's just a little stub at Samoan American. Where could we get stats? Chris 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also found Category:Samoan New Zealanders and Category:Samoan Americans Chris 06:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given you the wrong information. Auckland claims to be largest Polynesian city and it includes 13% of its population (1.3M) as Pacific Islanders, including Samoans. 12% are Maori. I don't know the breakdowns and I have no idea of the Samoan population of LA. However, most in LA would come from Am Samoa which now has a pop of 65K while most in Auckland would come from Samoa which now has a pop of 220K. Anyway, interesting stuff. A diaspora article would be interesting. There are other models for this listed in diaspora. --CloudSurfer 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The NZ Statistics site lists a total of 115,017 Samoans from the 2001 census. I can't find a city breakdown however I think a disproportionately high number live in Auckland. --CloudSurfer 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Samoan Scouting

Can someone help render Be Prepared, the Scout Motto, into Samoan? Thanks! Chris 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User sm, User smo

Are there no templates like {{User sm}}, {{User smo}}, {{User smo-3}}? ... It's not for me ;-) --Roland2 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_language . It would not appear that there are. :( Chris 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Be easy enough to create. Just copy the french ones from in {{User fr}} {{User fr-1}} {{User fr-2}} {{User fr-3}} and replace any instances of "fr" with "sm" - Finally, replace the French language "I speaky teh frankika" with Samoan-language assertions of fluency in Samoan. MrZaius^talk 07:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic?

What's up with the recent edits asserting that Samoa is a republic? MrZaius^talk 07:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wake Up! Samoa is a Republic direct after the death of Malietoa Tanumafili II on May, 11th, 2007, according to a Constitution of Samoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyRepublican (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, please explain. I saw your edit summary/understand your assertion, but it'd be nice to have it backed up. There's no explicit reference to "republic" in their constitution. Got a second source or a clear quote to back up your statement? MrZaius^talk 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I didn't found the word "Republic" in Samoan Constitution too. May be Samoan language haven't word "Republic" at all. But articles 18 and 45 of Samoan Constitution exactly say (without using the word "Republic"): "Samoa is a Republic" ( Every Samoan citizen can be elected to parliament; every parliament member can be elected on the office of the head of state (president)). If you don't trust to Samoan Constitution, you can to request to Samoan Parliament and even to own O le Ao O le Malo and propose to them to declare Samoa the Republic (to endorse) once more (with using the word "republic"). That's all. And it have not sence to discuss over this issue further, because all is evidently! Learn Samoan Constitution! [2] CrazyRepublican 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy?

One anon user keeps reverting Parliamentary republic to Parliamentary monarchy. From the dicussion above, it's clear that Parliamentary republic is the correct term - see Talk:O_le_Ao_o_le_Malo for more. --Lholden (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eradication

"If the rhinoceros beetle in Samoa were eradicated, Samoa could produce in excess of 40,000 metric tons of copra."

This statement sounds like someone wants to get rid of them beetles, to me. It's like saying if prairie dogs didn't exist, ranchers could produce x more number of beef in the U.S. 216.187.227.49 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History, again

I've edited the History section a bit; I've italicized the non-english words, and red-linked to a couple of terms that maybe should have links, but I've no idea if I'm right. I'm not even sure if it's notable; does anyone know? What is Fa’alupega? And what do the slices of text say? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Like someone said above, the history section here is longer than the Main Article it links to; any ideas on what to do about that? And there’s nothing for history prior to the colonial period; again, does anyone know what the history was? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

samoans

as the samoans were slaves 2 the tongans until they went 2 war.they ate each other like savages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.145.98 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I dont know if anyone's said anything about before or what have you, but could someone put the coat of arms for Samoa where it belongs? It has a big question mark and I looked up the coat of arms and it's on another page of it's own but not for the article about the country. Is it supposed to be that way? If it is, Im sorry ;]] Redvans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Pronunciation of "Samoa"

The pronunciation given for the country name puts the stress on the "o" as in samOa rather than the way it is pronounced in Samoa as sAmoa. Visitors are corrected when they use the penultimate syllable. Could this be corrected please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.77.5 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

-- I agree that the more correct way is to call a place the way it was named originally. However, in English, and, for instance, in Russian, and, I am sure, in many other languages, it is now ultimately pronounced "samOa". All this should be explained in the article with both ways presented. However, "sAmoa" would be the more correct version. СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Most words of Indoeuropean origins stress the penultimate syllable. This is also the case in the Samoan language. There are however exceptions and in the Samoan language the name Samoa is one of them. This is at times signified by a line placed above the vowel in the syllable that is stressed. Many place names are changed in different languages such as "Roma" in Italian and "Rome" in English. "Paris" remains the same in French and English but with very different pronunciations. Melbourne, Florida is pronounced differently from Melbourne, Australia and each is pronounced differently for both cities depending on whether the person hails from Australia or the US. In Australia, the town of Laverton in WA is pronounced differently (LAY-ver-ton) from Laverton in Vic (lav-ER-ton).

Interestingly, in the Wikipedia article on the Samoan language, the first line gives a reference to the pronunciation of the word Samoa.

Wikipedia could follow the rule of common English language usage - samOa - or follow the rule of how English speaking people in Samoa pronounce the word. Is there a style ruling on this? --123.176.77.5 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was having troubles logging on but the above anonymous comments attributed to 123.176.77.5 are mine. --CloudSurfer (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the few references I could find that validated the long A in sAmoa and mentioned pronunciation. There are many references on the web with a macron (straight line accent) over the a. Robert Louis Stevenson, then a resident of Samoa, used the macron in his writing showing the long a required to pronounce Samoa. --CloudSurfer (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good reference. I'd also like to note that a great number, if not the majority, of native English-speakers in New Zealand pronounce it as Sāmoa, along with other places in the South Pacific. Would be good to have both pronunciations represented in the article. --87.194.181.170 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Road switch updating of article

After the second edit reversion in two days, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Samoa does not officially switch to the left until 6am local time on 07 September 2009. Please do not change the information in the country box to reflect the change until that time. If you have noticed that someone has changed the info in the box to 'drives on the left', please revert the edit and mention that the switch has not yet occurred. Thanks everyone Haku8645 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy? Republic?

I see the argument about whether Samoa is a monarchy or a republic has surfaced again:
Well I’ve read the section in the constitution and the O le Ao o le Malo page and I have to say I’m of two minds. The constitution certainly sounds like it’s a republic, but the O le Ao o le Malo page description (translates as “Head of State"; title is “His Highness"; the office is held by members of "two main family lineages" and “is to alternate between them") makes it sound like something else again.
It occurs to me the whole thing is deliberately vague, precisely to avoid this sort of argument breaking out there; and it is not the task of WP to “decide” the matter.
As far as this article goes, it is only the infobox we are talking about, the text of the article is broadly agreed; why not cut the Gordian knot and put "Parliamentary democracy"? That’s true enough, isn’t it? And the actual arrangements are explained in detail in the article itself. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the section you're referring to relates to the original two heads of state. There is no constitutional requirement that the head of state come from either family by hereditary, therefore, Samoa is a Parliamentary republic. --Lholden (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The sections I'm referring to are these (here, and here). And if it was as cut and dried as you suggest, there wouldn't be an issue, would there? But it's up to you; I was suggesting a neutral form of words to avoid the argument. If you prefer the argument, fair enough. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument has been ongoing since 2007, because for some reason Anon editors keep removing the republic tag and replacing it with "Elective monarchy".

BTW The NZ Herald article doesn't actually state that the O le Ao o le Malo is to oscillate between the two families. --Lholden (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Tsunami

I was just wondering if the 2009 Tsunami was a major enough event too have it's own section, I believe The 2008 Mumbai bombings don't have their own section in "Mumbai" and I don't think 9/11 has it's own Section in "New York City". Perhaps it should go under History or Geography with a link too the article? Just an Idea lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskardashian (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't have its own section in the long term, but for the next few days quite a lot of people will be coming to this article looking for information on it, and we should make it easy for them to find the more detailed article.-gadfium 05:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Districts

The districts are numbered incorrectly according to the map. I don't know how to make this edit. Please renumber the list of districts. Tuamasaga should be one. A'ana two, etc. There are only 11. Palauli is number 11. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.54 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Samoa visuals/photos

I've just added some 'Samoan' visuals and moved the photos around so that there's more balance, i.e. previously, Dr Solf's photo dominated the country page, and detracted from the long history of the Samoan people prior to colonialism - I've added exiled Samoan leader O.F. Nelson photo too - again, to add a balance between European colonialism & the Samoan perspective. Hopefully, the page is a bit more visually appealing with the tweaks. Teine Savaii (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Name "Samoa"

The Name "Samoa" has always referred to the Samoan Archipelago as whole; the western isles and the eastern isles together comprise "Samoa". Samoa has always been politically divided as far as reigning authorities are concerned, but through the System of the Fa'aMatai, from pre-Christian times up until today, Samoa Atoa has always been absolutely united in cultural practice, social understanding, religious devotion, and political justice from Savai'i to Manu'atele. It is simply unfair and unreasonable to point to see only the Independent State of Samoa featured on this page that has been entitled "Samoa." Instead, the entire Samoan Archipelago should be featured on the page that is entitled "Samoa," and in the italicized directory below the title, there it should say: "For the Independent State of Samoa, see The Independent State of Samoa; For the Territory of American Samoa, see The Territory of American Samoa." If I'm shopping at the makeki in Upolu, I'm shopping at the makeki in Samoa. If I'm competing in the Survivor television series in Savai'i, I'm competing in Samoa. If I'm having ice cream out at Sami's in Tutuila, I'm having ice cream in Samoa. We all know this to be true! Samoa = Samoa Atoa = Savai'i, Upolu, Tutuila, Manu'atele, and everything in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.201.33 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to move on: Political geography takes precedence in the mind of man. Inner Mongolia may well be in "Mongolia" but no one is confused about Mongolia; Luxembourg (Belgium) may well be Luxembourg but no on is confused about Luxembourg etc, etc. Samoa, a sovereign state occuping the large majority of the archipelego is the natural home for the term....86.45.51.0 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History of Samoa

Under the section on History there is a link to History of Samoa, which is said to be a "Main Article". But this article actually has less info on Samoa's history than the main article on Samoa. Should History of Samoa be merged with the main article? Roundtheworld (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Samoa is certainly worthy of an article, so the information from the section in this article should be merged into that one, and perhaps the information here should be reduced to be less detailed.-gadfium 07:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Samoa: lack of definitions

Below is an excerpt of the History of Samoa: 20th Century section. There are a number of (I presume) Samoan words/names which are not defined or explained. Someone should ammend this.

"By 1912, one of the changes the German administration had apparently achieved was its long-term objectives of understanding the traditional forces in Samoa politics, while maintaining a semblance of local participation in government. There was no more Tupu, nor even alii sili, but the two Fautua were appointed. Tumua and Pule were for a time silent; all decisions on matters affecting lands and titles were under the control of the Governor. To complete the process, the Fa’alupega for all Samoa was revised. The Fa’alupega, which had been nationally accepted from at least the late 19th century (and probably for much longer than that), was as follows:"

Ayilin (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)AyilinAyilin (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added some definitions in the section to redress the points above. This was done by discussion with a number of Samoans and I believe it is accurate but do not have references to back this up. At least it all now makes sense to a non Samoan speaker. CloudSurfer (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The following is an extract from "Coming of Age in Samoa":

"The name of the village, the ceremonial name of the public square in which great ceremonies are held, the name of the meeting house of the Fono [governing council] the names of the principal chiefs and talking chiefs, the names of taupo and manaia, of the Aualuma and the Aumaga, are contained in a set of ceremonial salutations called the Fa'alupega, or courtesy titles of a village or district. Visitors on formally entering a village must recite the Fa'alupega as their initial courtesy to their hosts."

This captures some of the significance of a fa'alupega but does not address the significance of establishing status. In some ways, it is not unlike the opening address of a speech in English which acknoledges the dignitaries present. CloudSurfer (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Time Zone

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13330592. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place the time zone is mentioned in this article is in the factbox, and the syntax seems to prevent adding a note like, "UTC+13 as of 29 December 2011". I'm not sure what to do. Here are some additional sources with the details: [3] [4] 216.99.209.244 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added this QI fact into the 20th century section (although I guess it should be 21st...) Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your exactness is ambiguous and may be premature. It is necessary to state the exact Samoan time at which the date/time jumps forwards by 24 hours. It seems to me that they may not yet have formally decided. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Drivers on the left

There is a footnote at the bottom of the infobox saying that they have been driving on the left in Samoa since 7 September 2009. In my view this makes the infobox focus on a recent event, and this detail should merely be mentioned somewhere in the text, if it hasn't been already. The infobox at Myanmar doesn't say that they've been using their flag since 21 October 2010, and the infobox at Nepal doesn't say that the country has been a federal republic since 28 May 2008, do they? --Theurgist (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

More Samoan tattoo pictures

I have finally got around to uploading some more pictures of the same traditional Samoan tattoo.

Full back

Detail of front

Front shot with genitals obscured

--CloudSurfer (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

TRADITIONAL ELECTIVE MONARCHY

As long as the Oleao-Alemalo is elected from one of the 2 main titled (chiefly) families, which are hereditary, I maintain that Samoa is an elective traditional (de-facto) monarchy, as well as a parliamentary democracy. He is elected for a 5-year term by the noble(Matai)parliament (The Fono). According to the constitution, the elected head of state should be chosen from the Fono or from the 4 main noble families. The current Oleao-Olemalo retains the title of "His Highness", normally reserved for royal princes. This does not fit the definition of a republic. The matter may be discussed again in June 2012, when a new head of state (Oleao-Olemalo) is elected.

---

Kaelin von Gross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.14.150 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How big is Samoa?

The article says:

The total land area is 2,934 km² (1,133 sq mi) (slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Rhode Island)... The land area is about the size of the two Hawaii islands Oahu and Maui combined.

How big's that then, for non-American readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.236.127 (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2,934 km², about half the size of Brisbane. I've removed the comparison, thanks CMD (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rugby League

The sections sounds like it was written by a Rugby Union supporter. I quote: "There are only eight rugby league club in Samoa with only 125 player in the country." I don't see any need for the use of the word "only" twice. The sentence reads perfectly fine without those value judgements. Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

media

Are there any tv, radio stations and local newspapers in Samoa? If so, these should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.255.173 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1914 Beginning of the New Zealand Rule of Samoa includes redundant material now positioned correctly under the German period of rule

Some fixing there required, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.3.228 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

MONARCHY!!!

Guys, I want to clear this up. When we talk about is Samoa is a monarchy or republic, we cannot use such approach as "de-facto" or "more close to", "resembles this and that", "looks more like something". It is the question of jurisdiction, of what is officially declared by the Government and how it is recognised by foreign Governments. H.H. Malietoa Tanumafili II has always declared his state a monarchy, "His Highness" is a monarchical title and in all official reference books Samoa was typed as monarchy. It was not declared officially that the form of government is being changed, so monarchy it remains, despite the introduction of 5-year terms. For Samoa to cease being a monarchy, all of the following conditions have to be met: 1) H.H. the O le Ao o le Malo should officially declare that the form of government is changed (exactly that way, not just introduction of 5-year terms), 2) It should be recognised by at least one foreign country. 3) The position of O le Ao o le Malo should be deprieved of the address of "His Highness". Only in that case it would be possible to say that Samoa is not a monarchy anymore. Also, it would not mean that is will be a republic. For it to be a republic, the O le Ao o le Malo would have to officially declare it "republic" and also it would have to be recognised by at least one foreign country. Up until then it will always be monarchy. Anyway, what is the difference with the situations in Andorra, Malaysia and the UAE? (The UAE President is also rechosen every 5 years despite the fact that H.H. Zayed never lost a vote. And, moreover, his title is "President") Still, nobody decides to call those countries "republics"? Why? Because it is not about what the form of government "looks like", it is about what is declared officially. Regards!

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been endlessly discussed, the resolution came when we were informed (see the article O le Ao o le Malo) that the Head of State was regarded as a "ceremonial president". Samoa is a Parliamentary republic because (a) the Parliament of Samoa is supreme (unlike the UAE) and (b) the position is elective and non-hereditary (again unlike the UAE). The country is most certainly not an absolute monarchy as the previous edits suggested. --Lholden (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

-- That email from a lady at a govenment website is certainly insufficient to judge the form of government of a state. It should be DECLARED OFFICIALLY.

Concerning the parliament, it is "supreme" in most constitutional monarchies if I understand correctly what you mean by "supreme".

The position of UAE President is also officially elective and non-hereditary. Moreover, the question if a country is monarchy or not does not depend on these issues. It is the issue of what is DECLARED OFFICIALLY. The positions of Co-Prince of Andorra and King of Malaysia are also elective and non-hereditary.

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be declared officially. The Samoan's don't have to declare themselves as a Parliamentary republic - the term is merely used to describe what sort of state the country is. The United States is described as a "Federal constitutional republic", the phase isn't actually used anywhere in the US Constitution or any other official declaration. We are in no position to differ with an official of the Samoan Government. Finally, if you read the description of what a Parliamentary republic is, you'll see the designation "absolute monarchy" is nonsense when applied to Samoa - their Fono is a democratically elected body, which is supreme over all other institutions, and subject to a constitution. That some monarchies operate this way is irrelevant - the point is the head of state is by law non-hereditary and elected.--Lholden (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Well, first of all, I have to say that I was mistaken when I put "absolute monarchy".

Second, perhaps it's the language differances between Russian and English. In Russian a monarchy is monarchy, a republic is republic. It is the official status. We cannot call a monarchy "republic", and a republic - "monarchy". But according to you it would mean that North Korea, Syria, Azerbayjan, Togo and some other countries are surely absolute monarchies, but Andorra and Malaysia are surely republics. That just turns the whole issue legs up. I would REALLY recommend to look at the OFFICIAL STATUS.

And about the lady's email, I can say that it is not correct on her part to say "Our Head of State is a ceremonial president." Because "President" is a title and to use that title it should be in the official documents. I really doubt it can be found in any official documents. But on the other hand, by saying "president", she did not say "head of a republic". She actually did not answer the question whether it is monarchy or republic. H.H. Sheikh Khalifa is also "President", but in that position - head of an absolute monarchy.

I am sorry, but I just now visited your page and I found out that you are actually a republican activist. You know, it seems to me that not the majority of English-language scholars would agree with you that it is not the official status that is important, but the "aura" of the thing, as I see it. I think that I am right.

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We in Russia have a joke about H.H. Malietoa Tanumafili II:

"In 1965: Of cource I am president, not king. In 1975: I am more like a president, than a king. In 1985: I am something inbetween a president and a king. In 1995: I am more like a king, than a president. In 2005: I am King!!!"

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My political activism is not relevant to this article. What's relevant is whether we should use the term "Parliamentary republic" or "Constitutional monarchy" to describe Samoa's government. This is a question of how Wikipedia deals with this information, not what you or I think.

Sure, the President of the UAE is the head of an absolute monarchy. That's why the UAE is considered an absolute monarchy. However, you'll see in the email from the press secretariat that she states Samoa has a representative government (i.e. a Parliamentary system) with a ceremonial president. That's different from the President of the UAE who has direct legislative and executive powers. Consider the definition of a parliamentary republic:

A parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a form of a republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government

Then compare that to the definition of a constitutional monarchy:

A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, where either an elected or hereditary monarch is the head of state, unlike in an absolute monarchy, wherein the king or the queen is the sole source of political power, as he or she is not legally bound by the constitution.

The Head of State of Samoa is not the sole source of political power. They're merely a ceremonial president - Part III of the Constitution of Samoa is clear: the Head of State is subject to the constitution, unlike a constitutional monarch. Furthermore, since the head of state is now always elected - and not always from the aristocratic families of Samoa - the Samoan Fono is supreme, and the Samoan government itself describes the Head of State as a ceremonial president, it's clear that Samoa is a parliamentary republic. --Lholden (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Samoa fits ideally to the definition of "constitutional monarchy" you provided. In the definition of a "parliamentary republic" it says "A parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a form of a republic..." The hack is that Samoa is not a "republic", so it in no way can be a "parliamentary republic" according to this definition.

Also, I don't think we can rely on that lady as the divine source of information. Also, she replied in very evasive words.

As to your last paragraph, I don't see much sense in it. Howcome a constitutional Monarch is not "subject" to a constitution? Why is the Fono "supreme"? Not the Samoan Government describes the Head of State as a "ceremonial president", but an email manager at a government website.

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Samoa isn't a constitutional monarchy on the above definition. Sure, the head of state is an elective position as noted above - but that is only part of the story. The other part is about how the constitution actually works - the actual place of the head of state in it. On your interpretation, countries such as the Republic of Ireland or the Federal Republic of Germany would be constitutional monarchies. There is a subtle difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The hack is that Samoa is not a "republic", so it in no way can be a "parliamentary republic" according to this definition." Well, the definition of "republic" is:

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.

Samoa's head of state post 2007 has not been a hereditary monarch. They're elected. The 1960 Constitution, as cited above, made the two Maletoa heads of state for life, and following on from them, the head of State was to be elected for a five-year term. That satisfies the first part of the definition. The second part, that the people must have an "impact on government" is satisfied by the democratic nature of Samoa's Fono. Actual government is undertaken by the Prime Minister, who must be a member of the Fono and is elected by it (Part IV of the 1960 Constitution).

Howcome a constitutional monarch is not "subject" to a constitution?

Because, as is the case of Australia and New Zealand, they are only bound by informal understandings - constitutional conventions. They're not subject to a Constitution in the way the Samoan Head of State is. Of course, on that basis the Samoan Head of State from 1962 - 2007 was actually a president in the republican sense.

Why is the Fono "supreme"?

The Fono appoints the Prime Minister (Part IV section 32(2)(a)), who then has the right to advise the Head of State (Part III section 26(1)) and appoint members of the Cabinet (Part IV section 32(2)(b)). The Head of State cannot make or pass legislation, only the Legislative Assembly can (Part V section 43) - the Head of State merely signs the Bills of parliament into law. Because the Fono is supreme, Samoa is a parliamentary republic.

Also, I don't think we can rely on that lady as the divine source of information. Also, she replied in very evasive words.

I'm yet to see a more reliable source from the Samoan Government that states otherwise. There was nothing evasive about what the Press Secretary said - it was an accurate statement of the functions of the Head of State. Unless there's another source that states otherwise, her statement stands. --Lholden (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Samoa isn't a constitutional monarchy on the above definition. Howcome, look: A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, where either an elected or hereditary monarch is the head of state. What is wrong with it?

On your interpretation, countries such as the Republic of Ireland or the Federal Republic of Germany would be constitutional monarchies. No, on my interpretation they would be republics as they are officially declared and recognised as republics. And same I apply to monarchies as well, including Samoa.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The hack is that Samoa is not a "republic", so it in no way can be a "parliamentary republic" according to this definition." You provided another definition for a "parliamentary republic": "A parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a form of a republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government" Under this definition in order to be a "parliamentary republic" a state must first be a "republic", and we did not yet prove that Samoa is actually a "republic" to fit this definition.

Well, the definition of "republic" is: Well, there are actually hundreds of different definitions of such political science terms when we talk of a type of government and not of the official status. That is why I advise to look primarily at the official status.

Because, as is the case of Australia and New Zealand, they are only bound by informal understandings - constitutional conventions. Well, that is the situation in the Commonwealth, but not only Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies, there are many more, so this rule does not work for constitutional monarchies in general.

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.239.61 (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Howcome, look: A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, where either an elected or hereditary monarch is the head of state. What is wrong with it?

Because, as I've explained above: (a) the head of state of Samoa is not hereditary and they don't serve for life, unlike the President of the UAE or most other monarchies (b) an elected head of state is only part of the definition of a monarchy - the other part relates to the constitutional position of the head of state.

No, on my interpretation they would be republics as they are officially declared and recognised as republics. And same I apply to monarchies as well, including Samoa.

Firstly, your interpretation is irrelevant and inconsistent. It doesn't make any sense to state Samoa is a constitutional monarchy when its constitution works in almost exactly the same way as other Parliamentary republics. The Template "Infobox country" merely specifies what Government type the country is, not what it has declared itself to be. On the basis of what Manu Samoa has officially declared itself to be, the country is simply an "Independent State". In that case it's not a monarchy or a republic - which of course is nonsense. Interestingly, the one other "Independent State" is Israel - a Parliamentary republic. The reality is that Samoa is governed as a Parliamentary republic. It's Parliament is the supreme law making body. You've not shown any reason why this isn't the case.

You provided another definition for a "parliamentary republic": "A parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a form of a republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government" Under this definition in order to be a "parliamentary republic" a state must first be a "republic", and we did not yet prove that Samoa is actually a "republic" to fit this definition.

Yes we did - you're just disputing the evidence that has been brought forward. This dispute over definition isn't new. I'm yet to see any reason why Samoa's government type should be changed to constitutional or elective monarchy, because there isn't any.

Well, there are actually hundreds of different definitions of such political science terms when we talk of a type of government and not of the official status.

Again, "official status" is irrelevant- the official status doesn't tell you anything about how the country is governed. You can argue over the definition all you like, but the fact that the term "republic" has many definitions only strengthens the case for using a specific term to describe the country.

That is why I advise to look primarily at the official status.

As I've said above, your advice is irrelevant. The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic, but the country has never declared itself as such. Should that article now be changed too?

Well, that is the situation in the Commonwealth, but not only Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies, there are many more, so this rule does not work for constitutional monarchies in general.

Yeah it does.--Lholden (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in to state I absolutely agree with Lholden. Samoa's a republic, period. —Nightstallion 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is where the notion that Samoa, just because its first Head of State was non-elected, made that country a 'monarchy' in any way prior to his death, but that doesn't really follow as not only are there a great many Presidents and other republican heads of state who are unelected, there are a great many who hold that position for life.Likewise, there are also quite a few monarchies both in the past (Poland and the Holy Roman Empire amongst others) and in the present (Malaysia, Vatican City, Andorra, and to a limited extent Saudi Arabia and Cambodia) where the monarch is elected. So it's not as clear cut as both sides on this debate would wish. personally, I'm a bit on the fence: the Head of State of Samoa is elected (although that fact itself doesn't necessarily make Samoa a republic), and yet he has the title of 'His Highness', whereas most if not all Heads of State of Republics (including Presidents) are styled 'his/her excellency'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how titles are relevant. Yes, there are elected monarchs, but not with fixed terms like Samoa's head of State. --LJ Holden 20:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Um...yes there is, the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia is elected for a five-year term from amongst the rulers of the Malay states.

He is a monarch, has a coronation (although being crowned is not always a pre-requisite to being a monarch), and he is styled 'His Majesty'. are you going to start arguing Malaysia is a republic now?

Also, one of the Co-Princes of Andorra is elected every five years as well (by virtue if him being the French President).

Having a head of state who does not have a fixed term does not mean that head of state is a monarch or that the state in question is a monarchy either: there are plenty of Presidents who have had themselves elected 'for life', and they are heads of states of Republics. In short, the difference between monarchy and republic is simply that in a republic, sovereignty at least formerly resides with the people of the republic, and in a monarchy, sovereignty resides in the monarch, at least in theory.

Plus, if you re-read what I said, I was questioning the claims that Samoa was a monarchy before the death of the late Malieotea simply because he held that position for life, which, bearing in mind Samoa did not change it's constitution or proclaim itself a republic upon its death.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I stand corrected. Yes there are elected monarchs who have fixed terms in office. FWIW I would add that there aren't any genuine elections of presidents "for life", just an awful catalogue, particularly in Africa and South America, of dictatorships masquerading as democratic governments.

Still, based on your observation that sovereignty in a republic resides in the people, the Samoan Constitution again is not clear cut:

"IN THE HOLY NAME OF GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, THE EVER LOVING

WHEREAS sovereignty over the Universe belongs to the Omnipresent God alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Samoa within the limits prescribed by His commandments is a sacred heritage"

Based on this clause then one could argue that Samoa is a theocracy! It does however imply that "the people" rather than the head of State are the source of the government's authority to govern, hence again I would argue that that implies Samoa is a parliamentary republic. --LJ Holden 05:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I would question the statement that Samoa was a monarchy between 1962 and 2007. Just because the late Malietoa held that position for life doesn't mean he was a monarch.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok - understand where you're coming from. But the statement you're referring to is from the BBC (Samoa profile). Unless there's a source which disputes the claim, it stands. --LJ Holden 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The style his highness doesn't mean a monarchy existed. Because non-monarchical heads of state like Oliver Cromwell used the style of his highness. What are the Samoans understanding of their government between 1962 and 2007?.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I would argue that Samoa was a republic between 1962 and 2007. I would argue furthermore that the fact the Malietoa held the position of Head of State for life did not make Samoa a monarchy.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Area

In Infobox writes that the surface state 2,831 km2, a section the geography [5] 2,934 km². What is correct?--Šokac121 ℗ 19:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed both figures to 2,842 km2, which is the figure used at List of countries and dependencies by area, and I have added a reference to the source used there, the United Nations Statistics Division.-gadfium 23:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Beheadings

Removed several convoluted sentences featuring "beheadings" just before and during German colonial rule. Any beheading event would have had immediate and severe repercussions by colonial authorities, yet the sources are silent. Allegations of beheadings during the condominium and colonial periods thus appear to be fiction and unverifiable fabrications.TrinityGate (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A minor problem with the history section of this page

Well thanks for the complete history of Samoa you know the ancients came and then nothing happened until the Europeans came. Who ever made this please make a section for history between these times. Thank you. 30/3/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.51.95 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is some material at History of Samoa. You are welcome to add more detail so long as you have suitable references.-gadfium 00:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand rule (1914-1962)

Since Samoa gained independence on 1 Jan. 1962 (even though the day of celebration is 1 June), NZ rule ended on 31 Dec. 1961. So should the heading be New Zealand rule (1914-1961)? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samoa. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.polynesia.com/samoa/island-map.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

• Samoa → Independent State of Samoa
• Samoa (disambiguation) → Samoa

– No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The name "Samoa" is contested by American Samoa. Can also refer to the Samoan islands. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose BMK (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revisit requested move

I'd be happy to make another move request. Americans (and not just Samoan Americans) frequently refer to American Samoa as simply "Samoa"; both countries are equally known internationally. I didn't even know Western Samoa had changed its name till I visited Wikipedia a few years ago and saw that "Samoa" only referred to one half of the actual island chain. Samoa really should redirect to Samoan Islands as the primary topic. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.183.169 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa is not a country. It's an unincorporated territory of the United States.-gadfium 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add reference

I can't see how to add a reference on the Mobile interface. Could someody please add references for the Yazaki wiring-harness production ending in August 2017? Here is one source:http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/337928/yazaki-samoa-employees-work-final-shift-after-25-years-in-business "Pij" (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind; I think I got it. "Pij" (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samoa. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-30/samoa-skips-friday-in-time-zone-change/3753350
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330024149/http://www.oma-online.org/worn_with_pride_04.html to http://www.oma-online.org/worn_with_pride_04.html

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) 15:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Daylight Saving

What is the reason for Samoa having Daylight Saving? Did it start just before 2000, for the “Millennium”? MBG02 (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Language

This piece reads like a travel advertisement. This line is the lead is problematic, imho, "They developed a unique Samoan language and Samoan cultural identity." Why is the Samoan language characterized in the lead as "unique"? According to the Wikipedia article on that language, it is closely related (i.e. not unique) to other languages. The object of a wikipedia article isn't to inflate the prose by adding meaningless adjectives. Perhaps the editor/author meant that the "cultural identity" (whatever the heck that is, wouldn't "culture" be a better word here?) is unique. Well, that claim needs to be either explained (briefly) or removed from the lead, imho. What are the NOTABLE ways (if any) that Samoan culture differs from, say, American Samoan or Fijian culture?40.142.191.32 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - good point. I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the word "unique" from that sentence. (Note that there are other uses of the word on that page that might also be scrutinized...) Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Samoan anthem.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of Electoral System and details of Electoral Constituencies

An explanation of the electoral system is needed to explain the criteria that decide who can vote and where as well as who can run for parliament and where (both for the traditional districts and the individual voters seats).

Also it would be useful to have a page that lists the varrious electoral constituencies and the villages that they are composed of and perhaps a history of incumbents and their parliamentary terms and political affiliations. The problem is where to fit this info in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.222.164 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Judicial System

Also it would useful to explain the TWO judicial systems that co-exist ie the western based Supreme Court and lowers courts and the Traditional based Lands and Titles Court which deals with traditional land and title (chiefly)issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.222.164 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Membership

This country is listed as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations at the official Commonwealth site: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirty-seven (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PoV / Bias of article name

Between American Samoans and Western Samoans (both are Samoans and consider their home/ethnicity Samoa), there is some rivalry considering what some American Samoans would consider usurping of the name Samoan (whereas Western Samoans would consider it taking it back). Anyway this is not a discussion that can be resolved, but this article should probably be renamed Samoa (Country), with Samoa being a short article discussing the longer history of the archipelago and linking to both Samoas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.67.34 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Islands in Samoa

The introductory paragraph currently says:

"Samoa ... is a country consisting of two main islands, Savai'i and Upolu, and four smaller islands (Manono, Apolima, Fanuatapu, and Namua)."

But looking at a map and following the links, Fanuatapu and Namua are themselves the smaller two of the four Aleipata Islands, with the larger ones being Nu'utele and Nu'ulua. So surely that's at least six "smaller islands" in Samoa, with the ones mentioned not even being all the largest islands in the group. Is there a reason that Nu'ulua and Nu'utele aren't mentioned in that sentence? They appear to be a part of The Independent State of Samoa rather than American Samoa or somewhere else, and the list as it stands is not just inhabited islands. Is it just the result of editing confusion at some point? I thought I should check before adding them in there. -- RichardW72, 5 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardW72 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

-- Since nobody seems to have objected I've rewritten that sentence to say: "Samoa ... is a country consisting of two main islands, Savai'i and Upolu, two smaller inhabited islands, Manono and Apolima, and several small uninhabited islands including the Aleipata Islands (Nu'utele, Nu'ulua, Fanuatapu, and Namua)." I removed the reference to a specific number of smaller islands because it looks as though there are a few other even smaller ones in the group as well. -- RichardW72, 6 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardW72 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Macron

Kiwi Wikipedians have had a long discussions on macrons, which in the end came to a resolution. I see that Samoa may also benefit from a macron as a pronunciation help. In today's Bulletin by The Spinoff, the issue is mentioned as they adopted the macron for Sāmoa into their style guide. Schwede66 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

cross references seems better than duplicating

Am struggling to understand why so much of this page talks of the history when there is a separate page for Samoan History ... similarly there were many sections on the Samoan Economy when there is a separate page for Samoan Economy ... etc etc ... does anyone care? ... are the guidelines about the extent to which a main page should reproduce content from another page?

Aus Meanderer (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aus Meanderer: Main pages should have a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of subpages. However, often additions and changes are put onto main pages rather than subpages due to their visibility, so things drift over time if noone is maintaining the article. Please feel free to transfer details from the main pages to subpages, leaving only a summary here! CMD (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Here are a few sources for the pronunciation: [7][8][9][10][11]. This has been the standard pronunciation in NZ for longer than I've been alive, and as I understand it is the pronunciation Samoan diaspora communities use in other countries (although I'm not sure how easily I could find sources for this). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)