Talk:Solomon Islands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible Request for Comment on official name

The result of the conversation at Official name seems to have been that SI articles were moved to remove the definite article, whereas the SI categories still use the definite article. Would editors interested in the Solomon Islands be interested in tidying this up (Yes), or are you happy to leave things as they are (No)? Before changing anything I would recommend a Wikipedia:Request for comment to invite participation from the wider community as the earlier discussion only had a small number of participants.

I have not previously been involved with (the) Solomon Islands, but I have taken part in a discussion of a category name now at Official name and category names above and was informed that there are 458 categories containing the phrase "the Solomon Islands" (thanks to BrownHairedGirl for https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17329102).

Pinging users involved in the previous conversation: Aridd, Dan, Good Ol’factory, Aridd, Ex nihil, Libhye, Number 57, John B123, Anne, Qexigator. TSventon (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in favour of a tidy up to remove all references to the definite article, since I've now heard it from the horse's mouth! Anne (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, because it causes unavoidable problems:

1. if "the" is used only for post-independence categories, it would create an inconsistency in the category names as discussed above
2. if "the" is used for all categories regardless of time, then categories for the pre-independence usage will be named anachronistically.

Inconsistency in category naming creates a maintenance nightmare for editors, as I explained at length above. As I noted above, per WP:CAT, the main purpose of categories is navigation ... and a change which makes navigation harder to sustain clashes with policy. So Option 1 is bad news.

The only way to avoid inconsistency is by Option 2 ... but that is "wrong" for pre-independence categories. Consistency can be achieved only by using the "wrong" format for one era or the other. Since there is no one-size-fits-all-solution, please stick with the current format which has the clear advantage that it follows normal English-language usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

PS Please can any RFC include a table to demonstrate the effects of any new naming convention on a sample of pre-and post-independence categories, as well as on some categories not bounded by time? e.g.:

Colonial era

• Category:19th century in the Solomon Islands
• Category:1890s in the Solomon Islands

Independent era

• Category:21st century in the Solomon Islands
• Category:2010s in the Solomon Islands

Both eras

• Category:Crime in the Solomon Islands
• Category:Landforms of the Solomon Islands
• Category:Elections in the Solomon Islands
• Category:United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the Solomon Islands

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• No The indefinite article should always be used per common usage. Also worth noting that the discussion linked to above did not have any result. Number 57 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot speak as a Solomon Islander but they definitely don't use 'the' now and I would imagine seeing it anywhere would be an annoyance, since it harks back to colonial days. Furthermore, even though in common usage pre-independence 'the' was more simply used colloquially - back then, much more commonly it was known simply as 'the Solomons'. I do not believe (although I might be wrong) that it was "The Solomon Islands" prior to independence, as enshrined in the constitution as it were. That being the case - is it at all possible for 'the' to be totally removed throughout Wikipedia in relation to Solomon Islands - both pre-and-post independence? Is that an alternative option? I'm afraid that the technical aspect of all this is passing me by. Anne (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, even if "the" wasn't in common usage now, it wouldn't be appropriate to remove it from historical use. But the claim that " they definitely don't use 'the' now" is clearly untrue; the top story on the Solomon Times has the introductory text "Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has confirmed that six students from the Solomon Islands studying in the Philippines have...". Number 57 16:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over this, especially since on a personal level the Solomon Islands would be my overall choice, but if there is one man on the planet who knows the correct answer then it is Tony Hughes [1][2] no matter what some journalist may have written. Have you listened to his talk? If I had his phone number I would ring him up and ask him to join this discussion! If, from the technical spect, it can only be with or without the 'the' then I still maintain that all 'the's should be removed. Anne (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Yes It is important, for the following reasons:

1. It is legally defined as Solomon Islands without the definite article. The name is first defined in the Constitution of Solomon Islands, as Solomon Islands and starts off "We the people of Solomon Islands, proud of the wisdom and the worthy customs of our ancestors, mindful of our common and diverse heritage and conscious of our common destiny, do now, under the guiding hand of God, establish the sovereign democratic State of Solomon Islands.
2. The United Nations gazetted English language name for the nation is: long form term Solomon Islands, short form term also Solomon Islands
3. Diplomatic protocols always get it right, which is why all the foreign embassies and high commissions and consulates are named similarly to The Australian High Commission, Solomon Islands or the Japanese Embassy, Solomon Islands and RAMSI was the Regional Assistance Mission Solomon Islands because the legal agreement under which RAMSI was permitted to operate had to reflect the legal entity name. To do otherwise would be a major diplomatic gaffe that would be corrected the day the ambassador presented credentials to the Governor General.
4. The Queen invariably uses the term Solomon Islands herself when addressing the nation as in The Queen's message to the Governor-General, Solomons Islands: "I was deeply saddened to learn of the devastating floods that have affected Solomon Islands during the last week." She tends to get these things right because she is good at these things being the Queen of Solomon Islands. I have the charter appointing the Governor General, which I cannot find a link to, but I can assure you she appointed Frank Kabui as the Governor General, Solomon Islands
5. The national anthem starts off : "God Save our Solomon Islands from shore to shore" and repeats this throughout.
6. Solomon Islanders would like people to call it Solomon Islands partly to distance themselves from their colonial history, partly to make it look more like a nation such as Vanuatu or Tonga rather than that just a collection of islands, but they are facing an up-hill battle. I used to work for the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, Solomon islands and our letterhead was this way. It is not a matter of 'Solomon Island English', the Chief Justice knows how to use the definite article.

• Confusion arises from at least five sources:
  

1. The pre-independence term The British Solomon Islands Protectorate, which was an administrative description rather than a name and the definite article is attached to the Protectorate anyway.
2. The fact that the nation is sometimes referred to as the sovereign State of Solomon Islands (note the lower case s in sovereign because it is not part of the title) and the article refers to the noun 'State'.
3. The Solomon Islands is a legitimate term referring to The Solomon Islands (archipelago) as this is a group of islands sharing similar ecological and geographical features but this covers a different geographical area from the nation of Solomon Islands and includes bits of Papua New Guinea.
4. During World War II the campaign referred to the Solomon Islands, meaning the archipelago, including the British Solomon Island Protectorate and other bits belonging to other people conveniently included for military reasons. That was fine, and the nation of Solomon Islands was yet to exist.
5. A Google hit count will always show a majority for 'the' but this is because it is picking up a vast anount of WW2 campaign material and the archipelagic material and its pre-colonial history. Wikipedia can do better than Google hits, there is an objective reality.
6. Lastly the misnomer is perpetuated in websites such as Wikipedia.

• It is abundantly clear what the actual name is, legally and objectively, and also what Solomon Islanders would like us to use; their neighbours, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu, invariably use Solomon Islands, the Festival of Pacific Arts was hosted by Solomon Islands and the participants would never have used the colonial 'the'. If you visit Solomon Islands, you will soon be dropping the 'the'.
  
• Also note (and this is a not inconsiderable point here) that a very large amount of work has been done within and between many Wiki articles to keep the following things seperate: a).The historical colonial era names and the terminology used during WW2; b). the natural geographical entity known as the Solomon Islands (archipelago) for example fauna and flora that inhabit the archipelago including, say Bougainville, which is not in Solomon Islands but is in the archipelago and c). the nation state of Solomon Islands itself. To abandon the correct usage would cause a deal confusion to readers, because it is actually confusing if you don't know the history, and merry hell among editors in unpicking all of this careful distinction - it is many pages. Renaming the templates would be a huge advance and reduce confusion but be careful that the template actually refers to the nation state of Solomon Islands rather than the archipelago or an historical entity. For example, Category:Landforms of the Solomon Islands should maybe be renamed Category:Landforms of the Solomon Islands archipelago if attached to Bougainville, or else unattach it from Bougainville, and Category:1890s/19th Century in the Solomon Islands could maybe remain as is because it is true as is. Fixing these templates would be a great and useful thing to do. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If I was closing an RM, this is the kind of comment that I would give zero weight to, despite its length (and why do the worst arguments always insist their support/oppose is a strong one?). What the official name/usage is, or what people would like it to be, is irrelevant (and some of the points above aren't even relevant to whether an article is required or not, such as the national anthem). What matters here is what the common usage is. Number 57 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • i have to agree with Number 57's observations and with their dismissal of the points made by @Ex nihil ... who seems to entirely ignore the policy WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Lean towards "yes", per reasons given above. It seems preferable to abide by what is both the official name and the local usage. Though preferably without retroactive anachronism. It was indeed "the Solomon Islands" prior to independence, and categories covering pre-independence history should not be changed. Aridd (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aridd: which part of the policy WP:AT supports using the official name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree with points made by @Ex nihil, but I think that the things that he or she is trying to establish are recognisability and naturalness. I have also worked for the government of Solomon Islands and my experience is that the lack of definite article is the normal and natural-sounding way to refer to the country for anybody who is there, near to there or familiar with the country. If the debate is whether we should follow common usage in the country (and region) itself or common usage in its former colonial power, then I am surprised if anybody feels comfortable siding with the latter. I would hope that "neutrality in article titles" is also taken into account here -- I would have thought keeping a colonial-era name after it has been explicitly rejected by the government and people of an independent country should cause unease. On the separate point of how category names should be arranged, my view would be that categories oriented towards the post-colonial period should omit the article and vice versa. Where categories firmly span both, my inclination would be to omit the article, because the country as it exists today should (in my view) determine recognisability and naturalness much more than discussion of its historical past (again, at least for people who are there, near to there or familiar with the place). But I am poorly placed to comment on how big a technical headache this would create and whether it is worth it. Dan (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Conclusion. @BrownHairedGirl, Number 57, Arbil44, Ex nihil, Aridd, and Dan Hetherington: Thanks for your responses. I have decided not to proceed with a request for change to the Solomon Islands categories as I am not confident that the request would succeed, given the small number of editors who have supported the change here. If anyone else wants to proceed they are welcome to, but I would suggest that they should read BHG's comments in the preceding section first. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate change and disappearing islands

I am surprised to see no mention of the five Solomon Islands that have disappeared due to sea level rise/climate change. See https://abcnews.go.com/International/solomon-islands-disappear-pacific-ocean-result-climate-change/story?id=38985469#:~:text=One%20scientist%20estimates%20seas%20could,the%20journal%20Environmental%20Research%20Letters. and https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011/pdf Surely this should be a section? 51.9.50.162 (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• By all means, if you have the sources, write it up. Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Related requested move at Talk:Human rights in Solomon Islands

There is a requested move at Talk:Human rights in Solomon Islands, which I am mentioning here because it is related to several of the past discussions above on "Solomon Islands" vs. "the Solomon Islands". Interested editors are welcome to participate there. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briaalexm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sino-US rivalry

Nobody reading this article (as distinct from the linked article about the 2021 riots), either its history or its diplomatic relations sections, would realize that the Solomon Islands are now some kind of conflict zone as a result of Sino-US rivalry, despite there being plenty of reliable sources that point this out implicitly (and probably also explicitly). Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, I am probably not sufficiently interested to make the necessary changes myself, but this section is to suggest that other more interested editors might usefully try to make the RS-backed necessary changes, for the benefit of our readers (and to improve the article and the encyclopdia). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(In case a reader or editor doesn't understand what I'm talking about, and/or wants suitable keywords for relevant Google searches to help improve the article) it can easily be discovered from various Reliable Sources (with suitable Google searches) that in 2019 the Government switched recognition from Taiwan to Beijing, that the Malaita Prime Minister objected and tried to hold an Independence referendum, deemed illegitimate by the Government, that the US then gave 35 million dollars of aid to Malaita, and that we now have Australian forces sent in to keep the peace following riots seemingly mainly by Malaitans (and some of which seem to be targeting Chinese businesses) which the Government blames on unnamed foreign opponents of their recognition of Beijing. (And there may well be more of which I am unaware).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's one RS to get people started. Here's another. And another. And there are plenty more, some of them probably already in the 2021 riots article. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

SI now has a security agreement with China; game over. 14.2.198.139 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)