Talk:Guam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Eurocentric view of Guamanian history

i copied some info about Chamorro history from the "history of guam" article but i know nothing about Guam, so my editing decisions were based only on stylistic concerns... i have no idea if i left out important factual info... someone with a bit of knowledge should address this section to make sure Guam is presented on its own terms... Marionleenor (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

why has the information on pre-1521 history mentioned below by Ohilist been removed? surely something noteworthy happened on Guam before the Europeans arrived... surely the Chamorro people were doing something interesting before colonization...

-Marionleenor (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they didn´t record it.--79.146.210.158 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the article

It is mportant to keep an hostorical perpsective. If the first people to inhabit Guam arrived 6,000 years ago it does not make sense to say that it has a "long" history of colonial occupation when that only began in the 17th Century.

Peter Browne (86.3.120.186) 08:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New History of Guam Article Update

Read "Post-WWII Guam" section and decided to expand it a little and add some analysis of Guam today and Guam History in general. Also created "Further Reading" section and added two important (and thorough) histories of Guam. Anyone who has pictures to add to Guam History article, please do so (especially for post-WWII period). Olihist

Can we perhaps trim some of the "Guam in Entertainment section?" It really adds nothing to the piece, contributes nothing to an understanding of Guam, and seems to be a resting place for any time the word "Guam" is mentioned in a movie or book. Saint Mahone 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It reflects the perception of how Guam is seen by the rest of the world. Most people's view of Guam is in turn colored by what they see or read about in entertainment. It should stay. --Darth Borehd 18:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Entertainment" section should be modified because of a lack of relevance to actual entertainment pieces that are about Guam/Marianas Islands. Sanjat312

History of Guam Article Update

I've just added several paragraphs on pre-1521 Guam history, emphasizing Ancient Chamorro society and the latte stone. If anyone finds a usable latte stone pic, please paste it onto the article page (it could use some photos). And please feel free to expand or edit my brief summary. Olihist (Olihist) 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

US Mainland $$$

This place needs a Devil's Advocate... so I guess that will be me...

Guam is HEAVILY reliant on Federal grants from the US. I added in Economy, an entry reflecting this. If we're going to increase the entries of how Guam is "unfairly" a US territory, we need to make counterpoints to how fragile Guam's economy is, and how much of it is made buoyant by Federal aid. As proof: see how Guam Hotel Taxation was not enough to offset the Fiscal 2005 Budget. Who's gonna cover the cost? The US mainland of course. Guam gets over 1 billion dollars from the US government each year. Micronesia gets less than that in a 5 year period. If Guam is to get more "autonomy" from the US, it must understand it will get less "aid" from the US. Such a move would be detrimental.

In Politics of Guam, added how the US mainland views Guam's desires for statehood/commonwealth status. The entry seemed baised, as it made the Federal Government seem like it had no reason to deny such movements.

In Economics, added proof of Guam deficits and increasing Federal grant reliance. Did you know that the income tax of military personel in Guam goes to GovGuam and not the U.S. Treasury?I certainly didn't know that. Equality? Not for the military. I am planning a complete revamp of the Corruption article with the addition of such sources, but will most likely expand it to encompass more than just the political spectrum.

Any source for this? AFAIK, they have to declare Guam as their residence -- which is neither automatic, nor mandatory -- and in doing so, they essentially end up paying only Federal tax instead of Federal & State since there's no State tax for Guam. If they claim another state as their residence, as military personnell are permitted to do, then federal taxes would go to the Fed and state taxes (if any) would go to the state.--Albatross83 00:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's true ... military personnel stationed on Guam pay federal taxes, but it is sent back to the government of Guam by the federal government in what is known as "Section 30" funds (named after the section of the law that mandates this transfer). I don't have any definitive sources, but you can check these out:

http://www.house.gov/bordallo/Press_Releases/2004/0929040.html (second paragraph)

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS01/603310312/1002 (near the end)

Freeguam 06:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nitpick on an Entry

This is a nitpick just for mild discussion...

In whatever form it takes, most people on Guam favor a modified version of the current territorial status, involving both greater autonomy from the federal government (similar to the autonomy of individual states), and also greater rights and freedoms as Americans. Perceived indifference by the U.S. Congress regarding a change-of-status petition submitted by Guam has led many to feel that the territory is being unjustly deprived of the benefits of a richer and more equitable union with the U.S.

How do native Guam residents have "less" rights than Americans? They are American citizens thanks to the Organic Act, and have all the protections that go with it. Also, as Guam is a US Territory that does not provide Federal tax to the US, exactly how can it recieve "benefits of a richer and more equitable union"? Guam recieves millions from Washington D.C. each year, without a requirement to pay it back. A counterpoint should be entered if it remains as so. Some mainlanders argue that Guam is getting a "free meal ticket" for not paying Federal taxes - a growing trend thanks to a growing deficit in the US (although that bucket of worms has nothing to do with Guam really). In their minds, if Guam wants greater autonomy, Guam should request less Federal funding.

the quoted phrase seems to be statment of the attitudes of "most" of the people of Guam - not really an assertion that the belief or attitude is necessarily well-founded - a counterpoint or elaboration of the point would involve a discussion of the beliefs and attitudes of the people of Guam towards the U.S. - that said, a section on the relationship between Guam and the U.S. might be a Good Thing - e.g. the first statement under History "Guam's history of colonialism is the longest among the Pacific islands." presupposes that Guam is currently a colony of the US. Syslib 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Guam *is* currently a colony of the United States. It is officially called an "unincorporated territory" by the U.S. federal government (and in the Organic Act of 1950) and a "non-self-governing territory" by the United Nations. If you look up the "colony" in Wikipedia itself, you will find striking similarities between the characteristics of Guam and that of a modern-day colony--similar because it is one. As the entry suggests, another meaning would be "overseas possession," which Guam very much is to the United States. However, it can be said that those countries who have these possessions prefer not to use the term "colony" due to the negative connotations attached to it today.

Guam is NOT a colony. A "colony" does not have a choice in its status to the "parent" nation. Guam has the option of total sovereignty, but chooses to be a US Territory. The same goes with others such as Puerto Rico. If the citizens of Guam voted to be separated from the United States, they would be allowed separation. As historic and political documents state, only incorporated States do not have the option of leaving the Union – something Puerto Rico has considered as a reason it does not wish to be the 51st state. Guam receives a great deal more from being US Territory, than it would be independent, and thus is the reason why it is. There is a movement in Congress that desires to terminate all territory status to such US areas, which in their arguments, "saves" millions and would expedite Puerto Rico into statehood. Sad as it is to say: Guam has a lot more to lose if the US mainland terminates ties with it. Hawaii favors moving all military assests to itself, and the Navy would wet itself if they could "persuade" Japan into taking nuclear powered vessels (something that has become more likely as China and NK get more agressive).

We really do need more about the politicl status of Guam in this article, because it has always confused me. If Guam isn't a colony, when did it cease being one? Was it when the UN said the people of Guam should have a chance to vote on their status, or when we started electing our own territorial government? Is self-determination really possible right now? Could Guam sever ties with the US if the people wanted it?

Guam has had the chance for selecting its future for years. It's just that voters and the government haven't been aggressive about it. Case in point: In late 2002 (September or October), GovGuam was supposed to arrange an island wide vote to determine if Guam was to seek statehood (which would have been denied by the US Congress), remain a territory, or become independent. There was a MAJOR corruption scandal involved (imagine that) and the entire thing fell apart. For the record, over fifteen thousand people were eligible to vote on this (because of the regional voting system and whatnot... Electoral College and all that) - only FIFTEEN registered. This was under Gutierrez's administration. Since then, nothing serious has really been done to change how things are. So again, Guam is not a colony. It can be independent. People just have to do something about it. Puerto Rico also could become independent, as well as the Virgin Islands. Only STATES cannot leave the Union. Crazies in Hawaii and Texas, claiming their going to be independent, are the ones who can’t realize it without starting a Second Civil War.

IMHO, if Guam did cut ties to the US, it would be suicide. The GDP of Guam is not enough to match government expenses. That's why Guam gets 1.5 BILLION dollars from the US - to pay off the negative bill. Also, the US military owns the water plant and a lot of the local infrastructure. If forced to leave, they'd take it with them to wherever they'd go next (Saipan probably). With that kind of domino effect, it would total the tourist trade: especially the lack of funds to maintain infrastructure.

I think it would be fair to say that although Guam does recieve funds from the United States, it has coastal territory of which is being and has been controlled by the United States. If the United States Navy were to pay to lease what is currently being used--approximately a third, if not half, of Guam's coast--then not only would the government relieve itself from the debt procured by the government, but it will provide the students with more books to one day help decolonize Guam. If you want to talk politics, let me ask you these questions? What county, if possible, has more military bases than does Guam being the size that is? Also, what county in America sends more troops into battle for the United States? Also, whose troops continue to die for the United States without their children being granted the right to vote for the government who is responsible for the death of their parent? Answer these questions and I think you would understand that until their is some sort of ignorance filter on wikipedia, there will still be people like you posting things about Guam--a place you may have lived for a small portion of your life or perhaps have just read about in a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.156 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this about Guam not being a colony? I would like to know where the anonymous contributor came up with this definiton of a colony: A "colony" does not have a choice in its status to the "parent" nation. If this definition is right, then I suppose that India, Niger, Burkina Faso (Upper Volta), Jamaica, Malaysia, Chad, Suriname and Trinidad were never colonies either since they were all able to choose independence, correct?

Also if (according to this article) residents of Guam were only granted US citizenship in 1950, then what were they from 1898 to 1950? Guamian citizens? US nationals (but not citizens)? That sounds pretty colonial, so even if you don't want to call Guam a colony now (and today it is no more a colony than the Channel Islands or Cayman Islands) then it was most certainly a colony from 1898 to 1950.

I was posting in response to the person who said, "Guam *is* currently a colony..." I never said anywhere Guam was never a colony. I said it was not a colony as in present tense. I would never deny that the US had (and in some cases, still practices) imperial and colonial policies. The nations you listed, at the time of their "colony status" could not leave without sparking a war or causing all sort of polical hell (like India technically did). Guam CAN leave the US without sparking a war through a vote - and had the chance several times. Honestly however, Guam needs the mainland far more than the mainland needs Guam. Now I understand that Guam is an important part of the US military for containing China and whatnot, but Saipan has requested and been willing to host a larger US presence, so alternatives are available to the mainland. Guam ditching the mainland does NOT help the island, so seperation is not really a smart option. Just lookup statistics of the "free" Federal grants provided to the island. Long story short: Guam is not a colony. It is not a state either. It is a territory with voting US citizenship (granted non-voting in some aspects, simply because it is (A) not a state, and (B) does not pay Federal taxes). Guam being part of the US helps the island, and the mainland having Guam helps the US.

Colony or not a colony? That is a silly semantic game. Why play it? Does colony = bad and territory = good? Guam is what Guam is and thorwing around deliberately ambiguous terms like they are judgements is completely irrelevant to the reality of the situation. DHB

It's a matter of political and historical context. It's like comparing forced slavery with willing servitude. There’s a tremendous difference between a medieval serf and Victorian maid. Yes, its all “just words” to some, but for those of us who study the specifics of history and its context, these “little words” can mean a huge difference. People use them as political weapons – especially in a situation like this. I hate that. Individuals will use the term “colony” without understanding the depth of its meaning. They merely quote something out of a dictionary or the UN Charter without grasping political definition or ramifications. Just as how a lawyer can free a murderer by twisting a loophole in the Law, a politician (or people who act like one) can transform a comparatively innocuous event or international treaties into social disasters. In a field like this, "just words" can define everything. To see it as a "word game" is dangerous, least we become complacent and accept it as the truth, rather than a twisting of fact.

Several points: 1) Guam has never been given a choice by the U.S. The votes that you mention were supposed to be non-binding, with no commitment by the U.S. to allow Guam to have the choice that it selects. It was only supposed to be a first step. 2) When Guam petitioned the U.S. for commonwealth status in the 1980s, the U.S. executive branch stalled and finally came out against the status change, so it doesn't look as if the U.S. is willing to grant a change from status quo unless Guam becomes violent or something. 3) Whether Guam "needs" the U.S. because of economic or military reasons is irrelevant to whether or not it is a colony. 4) Guam does not currently have the right govern itself, and has never been given this right, by Spain, Japan or the U.S. The U.S. has only given Guam the option of limited home rule (the Organic Act of 1950), but any changes to that act must be made by the U.S. Congress, not the people of Guam, and the U.S. Congress is not elected by the people of Guam. Therefore Guam is not self-governing, and is a colony, and has never been offered a choice by the U.S. The vote you mention was not offered by the U.S., but was initiated by certain people on Guam as an attempt to decolonize. 5) "Colony" is indeed a politically charged word, but it is an accurate word, and it is only seen with a negative connotation because most people view colonization as a bad thing these days. However, how you view colonization does not affect whether or not Guam is a colony. Call it a territory or colony. They are the same.Freeguam 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Guam is the possession of the United States as ceded to the US after the Spanish American War. All matters regarding the status of the Guam, Puerto Rico, and The Virgin Islands are subject to approval by the United States Congress, as evidenced by the Organic Act of 1950 which Congress passed to certify a government for Guam. Guam is a colony, as is Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They cannot vote for independence or for statehood unless Congress approves an enabling act to allow such a vote in any of its territorial possessions. This is how it is, these are the facts as written into law by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Insular cases of the early twentieth century. All referendums are meaningless unless Congress acts upon them and they will not because possessions do not have voting representation in Congress. For those that do not believe that this is true please read a book, any history book by a real historian, and it will all become clear. In addition, the people living in the possessions of the United States are not endowed with equal rights. The Bill of Rights as it is in effect in all U.S. possessions is "conditional" to the wishes of Congress, and at anytime Congress may unilaterally revoke any or all protections included in the Bill of Rights. Congress may NOT do this in any State of the Union, this is one salient difference.Mad05963 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Corruption in Guam

Removal of the topic in question does not fairly allow readers to assess Guam politics. It is a fact that Guam is mired in tremendous political corruption - and although it is horrible to say, on a near weekly basis there are new investigations of past politicians' activities. Although corruption is present in all forms of government, Wikipedia articles of other countries also have entries and/or seperate articles of this. Guam is no different. This is an information site: not a travel sales pitch.

Information on Guam's corruption needs to be included, but when it has it's own topic heading it implies that it is one of the island's most defining features. We don't even have subheadings on Guam's demographics, culture or wildlife. Does our island's corruption overshadow all that? I don't think the topic should be removed, but perhaps it should be subtopic under "Politics of Guam". A separate article outlining the history of Guam's corruption in more detail would be great.Onionhound 07:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

An excellent idea! It would allow readers to learn more if they so desire, and also avoid leaving an initial blemish on casual visitors. Created a new article on the subject, and entered a link in the "See also" section.

Well, if there's going to be something of this ilk, there should also be a counter. Perhaps a detailed account of the racist colonial policies of the United States on Guam? Corruption on Guam is not limited to the local government, the private sector also has their hand in it. Indeed, one can say that politicians on Guam are only taking a page from their stateside counterparts, who are corrupt on a whole different level. However, that is neither here nor there, is it?

Wow, that extension article was grossly biased. I think that should be termed an editorial rather than an article.

I wouldn't say it's harsh... just brutally direct. A counterpoint within the article would be an excellent addition, but making the counter argument something about "racist colonial policies of the United States on Guam" wouldn't seem right. For one thing, its like a spite response trying to justify a wrong with another wrong. The US does not tolerate racism or colonialism any more, and is all about changing its sins of the past. The counterpoint should be how Guam is handling economic and political corruption without aid from the US mainland... although to be honest, there isn't much in that (the only thing I think GuamGov has done, was the high school fraud). IIRC, the US miltary still owns the water treatment facility and some parts of the power infrastructure, so corruption control in those areas have been directed at the Federal level. Also, the connection of political/economic corruption between Guam and the mainland US is small. Most - if not all - of the 2004 and 2005 cases are domestic of nature, using Federal funds. Japan is a MUCH larger source of the frauds. One involving a housing and banking ripoff was in the newspaper last week (OCT 11th). I can double check the case records at the court house, but I'll need several days to get clearance (standard OP).

On a side note, US Federal corruption has its entry in the US article of Wikipedia.

Maybe the article on corruption could be expanded to include how injustices in the Spanish and American colonial systems helped lead to the problems today. It would need to be a very long article if it is going to cover the entire history of corruption in Guam. "Racist colonial policies" that have hindered Guam's development might fit better in the history or economy articles. Someone should add information about the fight for Chamorro rights against unjust US colonial policies under the Naval government. The History of Guam article leaves this and many other topics out.Onionhound 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Aye. Agreed. Also, while there is corruption, not everyone is corrupt. Heck... the only reason why most corruption is discovered, is because someone reported it. I'll look into "toning down" the harsh text in that article. Posting the source of where the corruption information is from, so that others can make their own opinions of them, should be made as well (i.e. court orders, case information, etc). It should also have an entry of how corruption has been less severe and less active than previous decades. Things are getting better, not worst. And that's what matters. Right?

A side note on this discussion of corruption: Today's NYT has an article asking "Which is the most corrupt state", comparing the levels in the various states and territories. Counting by absolute numbers of convicted public officials, Fla, NY, and Tex come out on top (ie, worst), but counting by convictions per capita, DC, Guam, and the Virgin Islands come out on top. What interests me here is why non-states should be so high on the list. One of the reasons for DC is the sheer number of public officials, many of them federal (think of all the presidential appointees whose convictions would be attributed to DC). Another reason that non-states score high on corruption may be that the governments are more appointive than elective, although based on this article that doesn't appear to be true in Guam. Then again, there is an implication that a change to commonwealth status would provide more self-governance. Clarification of this would be nice.

It's not likely that a purely factual discussion of corruption would be damaging to Guam. Those of us who have observed government in action for any period of time know that corruption happens. And it might also be helpful to explain how the government of Guam actually works for ignoramuses like me. I know very little about how territories are governed. Ngriffeth (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wondering how to edit this Entry?

The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

The legal status needs clarification since the link to "unincorporated" doesn´t say very much.

A map of where Guam is globally would be nice if anyone can find one. This should work and it's from the CIA World Factbook so it's public domain. Could someone resize and add it.

For "National Anthem" and "National Motto", I went ahead and placed the correct information for the island. However, with the word "National", I think it's a little unclear if we're referring to the USA or just the island.

I don't particulary consider Japanese to be an official language at all. It's akin to saying Spanish is an official language of the US; it's heard, and some (and when I mean some, I would say it's only 1 out of every 500 people) non-native speakers can speak it, but it's not taught in schools and it's not like street signs and newspapers have Japanese translations. I would say that Filipino is much more widely spoken. --Mariana 09:18, 5 November 2004 (UTC)

There should be more extensive discussion on Guam's self-determination movements: Independence, Statehood, and Free Association. The first two were explicitily mentioned in the article, but I wouldnt necessarily characterize Free Association as a "modified version of the status quo." There should also be a more extensive discussion of Guam's socio-political and economic relationships with the U.S. military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.32.56 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

PHOTO

someone should post a photo of what a Guam resident looks like.

That's really like saying someone should post a photo of what an "American" looks like. 23:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heres what an american looks like. http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=EQHMKYR&key=ASW

USA is an immigrant country

Uh, that's my point. Guam is just as diverse as the "USA", whatever that means. And you seemingly contradict yourself when you put up a picture of GWB as an example of an American. And don't vandalise my Talk page. Mariana 13:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Guam citizens are American citizens. Saying the US is an immigrant country makes it sound as if you're not even Americans. Think before you speak and insult others... or do you not think Guam is part of America?

If you want to see what a Guam resident looks like, you can see what a Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Micronesian, Caucasian, or Indian (from India) look like. As far as Chamorros goes, well we're roughly a "blending" of Malaysian, Spanish, and Filipino. That last part probably doesn't help much, but hey, I tried.

Seems some serious biased text in regards to tourism.

I agree. I'd change the text there, but I don't know enough about Guam to do it. Funnyhat 07:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's completely untrue, but someone should fix the part about Tumon Bay. Mariana 23:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I lived in Guam for 2 years, trust me when I say that race in Guam is just as varied as medium-large sized cities in the mainland United States. If you'll excuse my over-simplifying... Guam primarily has Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. The native Chamorros most closely resemble Hispanics, maybe not an exact match but it's the closest generalized term. If you're wondering what people in Guam look like then Google any of those races. =P

I suppose that the majority of Whites and Blacks are military personnel stationed on the island, while the majority of Asians are tourists from their respective countries, and the majority of Hispanics are native to the island. Again, that might be generalizing a bit but I believe that it's a fairly accurate representation, based on my time there between roughly 2001-2003. Really loved being there, nice place and a lot of friendly people. =) AnotherSchmoe (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to find a flag?

I'm looking for a flag of Guam please contact me at : crackwindobe voila.fr

I'm not going to email an anon, but in case you come back here, or in case anyone else is interested, a quick websearch indicates that you can get Guam flags online at http://www.flags.com/Country-Flags/c8759_210/index.html?letter=g#Guam. Don't know if that's gonna help much in France...they're kind of expensive from these people, but they're available at least from them. Tomer ^TALK 18:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Bit of Organizing

I removed this sentence:

Guam saw catastrophic damage in 1997 after Super Typhoon Paka slammed into the island at nearly Category 5 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Scale.

& added a mention of a more recent typhoon under a new section on weather. If you feel that it should be returned to the page - feel free (not that you need my permission) Syslib 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Guam population includes military personnel?

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not the figure of 163,941 given as Guam's population includes US military personnel resident on the island? I believe that they are considered a different class of inhabitant (in terms of how they pay their taxes) so I was wondering if they were or were not included in that figure. --Jfruh 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the military is counted as part of the population of Guam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.165.74 (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities

Sister cities of what? The entire island of Guam? Or its capital? Elderberry 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read where Guam has a sister city in Japan and maybe one in Korea. Now, the military bases on island "adopt" a particular village in the name of PR or whatever and volunteers from the base help with projects in that village.Jlujan69 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sister city" when it comes to Guam usually refers to the entire island, as the capital city of Hagatna has only a few hundred residents. Guam has several of these relationships, including an agreement with the city of Kashiwa, Japan (signed in 1991). The adopted villages by the military bases is a separate arrangement, and is usually known by a different name.Freeguam 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Guam in entertainment

Like all Wikipedia sections that relate a topic to U.S. popular culture, the "Guam in entertainment" section is of no value. It degrades the Wikipedia article.Lestrade 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Agreed.--Albatross83 00:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed. Onionhound 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Subject order

The order of subjects listed in the contents did not follow the format used for most countries and states in wikipedia. It is more aligned now. It could use demographics and culture sections maybe. Also, scouting, the list of radio stateions, the list of schools, and ecology should probably have their own articles with summaries or links on the Guam page.Onionhound 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

We need a citation for the statement that the Apatosaurus is Guam's official dinosaur. Also, establishing it as the official dinosaur in Guam is not a major event in the island's history. It should be placed elsewhere in the article. I am deleting the statement for now until this is worked out.Onionhound 17:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put the apatosaurus reference back in. Inexplicably. I've deleted it. If you are going to add this sentence back in, please explain why it is important in Guam history. Which it isn't.Freeguam 08:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Transportation and Communications

There's a lot of information in this section. A lot of it could be moved to the invidual articles on transportaion and communication.Onionhound 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have moved the information to appropriate pages.Freeguam 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

corrections made

In the Transportation and Communication section, I made some corrections because some of the information was highly opinionated, inaccurate, or outdated.Jlujan69 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also organized the subjects a little in that section as well.Jlujan69 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this part: "A flight to Japan or Korea takes 10-12 hours with another 3-4 hour flight to reach Guam" What takes 10-12 hours? There are direct flights to Japan, I know (3 hours from Nagoya.) Aren't the flights to China and Korea direct? --Timepilot 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've cleared up this section. It should be easier to understand now. Freeguam 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Time Dilation

There is an extraordinary temporal effect associated with this island. I spent a decade of my life there one year.Lestrade 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ecological Issues

Leave comments on disputed neutrality so it can be fixed or fix the bias yourself if you think it should be done. Several statements in this section that I find questionable are: 1. The brown tree snake section without references that fails to mention other factors in the decline of Guam's bird population. 2. Use of the word "Arson" 3. Passively blaming hotels for problems in Tumon bay. Perhaps these should be changed 67.169.128.235 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to help fix these areas mentioned. I don't think this section merits a neutrality tag, however. If there are problems, just try to fix it. Regarding your issues:

1. If there are other factors in the decline of the bird population that should be mentioned, please add that in.

2. The word "arson" is taken from official Guam fire reports. It is not a subjective term, but one meant to mean fires intentionally started by humans, which in this case is entirely accurate as many fires are believed to have been started by hunters. I've provided a link.

3. Regarding blaming the hotel for Tumon Bay problems ... this is a legitimate complaint. I think the hotels are definitely at least partially responsible, especially when you factor in their larger output of sewer than the village previously had, but there are no sources listed here. I've found some documents that can be used, but the paragraph will have to be rewritten.

I will try to work on this section a bit more, and then if no one objects, will remove the neutrality tag.Freeguam 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the neutrality tag is needed, but then again I wrote most of the ecology section. The Tumon ecology section does need rewriting. The Tumon article also needs work.Onionhound 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanihi

I understand that fanihi (the Marianas flying fox) is a traditional Chamorros dish, cooked and eaten whole, but the animal is endangered (through a combination of hunting for food and the snakes). Is this correct? Should it be mentioned somewhere, either here or in Chamorros? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Icon / flag / template for Guam?

Is there a Icon / flag / template for Guam that works like these examples: Palau or Maldives?

GeoFan49 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. {{GUM}} =

Guam J i m p 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject dealing with the area of Micronesia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Micronesia. Any interested parties should add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest in this project to try to officially start it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Guåhån

The culture section was slightly repetitive and confusing to those unfamiliar with Guam's culture. I tried to make it slightly clearer. Information on Guam's contemporary culture including religion, fiestas, food, and music should be added. 71.198.167.192 06:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the article introduction, spellings for places should be consistent with the rest of the articles about Guam and should be official spellings. It doesn't matter that the "t" in Hagåtña is more similar to a glottal stop when some people say it. The familiar version approved by the legislature should be used. Guåhån is a completely acceptable way to spell the island's name, but is unfamiliar to anyone who isn't from the island. We should do our best to keep everything in Wikipedia understandable to those who don't have inimate experience with the topic they are reading about.Onionhound 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Guam

File:Flag of Guam 1934.gif

I went to Flag of Guam and found two flags. The article says "The flag of Guam was adopted on February 9, 1948." and goes on to describe the one with the red border. So, what's this other flag? The image page it's on is called "Image:Flag of Guam 1934.gif" so I assumed that it was the 1934-1948 flag. I added a caption saying so but is this correct? If not, what is this borderless version? J i m p 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The current flag and seal have been the same since 1917. It seems like the borderless version is a mistake. http://www.fotw.net/flags/gu.html has a talk page about it. Haikon 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How many troops?

Could someone add how many milatary personel are on the island.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Place names

The EPA refers to "Piti and Tanguisson Counties" as air quality non-attainment areas.[1] This article does not mention counties in Guam. Do they exist? Are they co-extensive with municipalities? I can't find any mention of Tanguisson, but there is an article on the village of Piti, Guam. -- Beland 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here they describe these areas as those within 3.5 km of the Piti and Tanguisson power plants. On other web sites, I do find references to "Tanguisson Beach" and "Tanguisson Point" (apparently a small hill), which would be useful to explain in the encyclopedia. -- Beland 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Chamorro Scouting

Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Chamorro? Thanks! Chris 15:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military Land vs Island Size

All old literatures say Guam is 1/3 military land. Well, Andersen AFB shook off quite a bit of land over the years and the Agana NAS got turned over to GovGuam, so I tend to think 1/4 is more reasonable. Can somebody find the exact square mileage?HkCaGu (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fibre optic communications hub

I've heard Guam is a hub for trans-Pacific submarine fibre cables. Does anyone with knowledge/references about this want to add it to the communications section? -- Chuq (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guam Customs

The section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam#Transportation_and_communications mentions no customs from into Guam. Would there also be no customs for US citizens traveling from Guam to the US Mainland or Hawaii? - 68.228.36.165 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It says Guam is fully autonomous in terms of customs, so if you enter Guam (wherever you're coming from), you get inspected. The Hawaii (and potential Mainland) flight's passengers skips immigration and go right to customs. In a regular US airport, USCBP carries both immigration and customs function, but for Guam, it's only immigration.

And if you go from Guam to Hawaii, you're subject to a full US CBP customs inspection, although exemptions amount would be different. HkCaGu (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Watch

I've reverted 2 vandals after their "work" was left untouched for more than 12 hours. Please, any registered user who reads this, add "Ur mom" to your watchlist! This article doesn't get edited too often, and the proportion of bad faith edits is on the rise! HkCaGu (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests

Please follow the instructions at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Guam to request photo within Guam. GregManninLB (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

electoral significance

should the significance of the vote today be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.86.34 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It could very well be a one-time thing. Both parties had never given the decision to the general voters until it matters this year as the Guam Democrats had done. HkCaGu (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

brown tree snake issues on page

/* The brown tree snake */ removed "—but rather harmless—" - this is an arguable judgement; perhaps "harmless" to people (except infants, which is a real concern)... certainly not harmless to wildlife... better to simply omit it

philiptdotcom (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to read the following:

"Thought to be a stowaway on a U.S. military transport near the end of World War II, the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) came to Guam and killed virtually all of the native bird population on an island that has no native species of snake; this snake has no natural predators on the island. While slightly venomous, the brown tree snake is relatively harmless to human beings. Although some studies have suggested a high density of the brown tree snake, residents rarely see these nocturnal snakes. Prodigious climbers, the snakes cause frequent blackouts by shorting across lines and transformers."

If anyone disagrees with that, feel free to change it again. But I agree with Philipdotcom in that it's a slightly more accurate description. I moved the venomous description to follow "this snake has no natural predators on the island" because I was having a hard time changing the wording without it coming off as too long and redundant in the first sentence. So I just made it into its own sentence in order to keep the paragraph looking as neat and clean as possible. AnotherSchmoe (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"White (10%) indicates of both European often of Spanish and North American ancestry" Anyone able to translater gibberish into English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Civilian Government"

"It is one of five U.S. territories with an established civilian government."

"Civilian government" means government by civilians, as opposed to military government. I think what somebody was trying to say was that Guam is one of five U.S. territories with an autonomous government. Do I have that right? Isaac R (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilian means civilian, as opposed to other military-run territories (such as Wake Island) and previous military administration (1898-1950). Guam is technically not autonomous, since its constitution, the Organic Act, can be unilaterally revoked by the U.S. government. HkCaGu (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Magellan's nationality

Magellan was born in Portugal but relinquished his Portuguese nationality and became a Spanish subject before he set sail for the Pacific. He was Spanish when he sighted Guam. This article is about Guam. When Magellan sighted Guam he was Spanish. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, Magellan was Spanish, but for abundance of information, the fact that he was Portuguese-born is also mentioned. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood your edit at first - agree that he was a Spanish subject when arriving at Guam. Although for the record I don't think that that necessarily means that he was a Spanish national as there was no Spanish nation at that time, and because nationality as a concept wasn't developed then. I don't have a problem with the current wording. This revision by Maunus as at 01:19, 10 July 2009

Charles I of Spain, is gererally regarded as first king of Spain, as well as Holy Roman Emperor, King of the Romans, King of Italy, Archduke of Austria, and (Titular) Duke of Burgundy, cf. List of heads of state of Spain. He reigned as king of Spain from 14 March 1516 to 16 January 1556. When Magellan sighted Guam in 1521, he was a subject of Charles I King of Spain. Therefore, it is appropriate to call Magellan a Spaniard, and Spanish, since Charles claimed to be King of Spain, and historians generally, accept that as fact. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with the current wording.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Population increase with transfer of Marines

In the article it is claimed that the population of Guam is approximately 173,456 and that it will increase by 18,000 with the move of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force to Guam and that this will result in a 25% population increase. However, that only gives you about a 10% increase in the population. If you include the 10,000-15,000 potential Filipino workers, that still only gives you at most a 19% increase. Where does the 25% figure come from? Tweisbach (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I put the value at 10%. Tweisbach (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Continental Micronesia HQ photo request

Would someone please photograph the Continental Micronesia headquarters in Tamuning? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

talofofo

what does talo means in chamorro? --114.142.221.205 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if has anything to do with improving this article, but I'm not sure that it means anything in particular. "Talo'ani" means "noon", and "ta'lo" means "again", but I don't think "talo" on its own is significant. I think it's like asking what the "Cleve" in "Cleveland" means. -- Atama頭 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

between the mountains.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Guam

I found:

Parker, Wayne. "Guam report: turned on in Tumon." Hawaii Business. Monday September 1, 1997.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. Sprinkler21 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Spinkler21

No Man is an Island

According to IMDB, the movie No Man is an Island was not shot on Guam, but in the Philippines. It is set on Guam, but was not shot here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

was bold and corrected this entry. Also, I noticed that imdb does not have a listing for an Arcahnid (1998), only an Arachnid (2001) and it wasn't shot in Guam. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

author Werner Gruhl as a verifiable and reliable source

Werner Gruhl is published via Rutgers University press. I see nothing about him as amateurish. Sprinkler21 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Villages and military bases

Sounds like the one of the odder section titles in Wikistan.

Can we have a section on the military significance of

"the U.S.’ tip of the spear in the Western Pacific" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/2012/04/30/usc-dornsife-scientific-diving-the-international-policy-rationale-for-the-military-buildup-on-guam-and-some-environmental-drivers/

please? Hcobb (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Official Language(s)

The info box reads, in essence: Official language -> Spanish (unofficial)

Yeah. 108.0.5.145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed it, it is silly to have an unofficial language listed among the official languages. I left English and Chamorro. -- Atama頭 03:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro is too long

Can we have like one paragraph on colonialism in the intro that mentions the Japanese as part of the general pattern? Hcobb (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Alaska & Hawaii are Colonies??

So, who decided that Alaska and hawaii were US Colonies in the intro, rather than American Samoa and the Northern Marianas? And how come no one's noticed? Just curious. Doug O'Connell (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Name change section

The information in the "Proposed name change" section simply isn't important enough to be in this article, let alone taking up such a large chunk of the "History" section. Therefore I have removed it from the article, but I will leave a link to a version of this article which includes the latest revision of the section here (in case someone finds some use for the information e.g. starting a new article on the topic).--Philpill691 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In establishing an editor consensus, I agree with Philpill691's edit decision.Sprinkler21 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Concur. HkCaGu (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"on Guam" vs. "in Guam"

For consistency purposes, should we go with one or the other? Anecdotally... most everyone living here says "on Guam", while 'proper' American English probably calls for "in Guam". Kokobird (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's American English vs. Guamanian English. It's more like a perspective of Guam as an island or as a territory which affects the preposition used. Technically Guam the island would exclude Cocos, but "island" sometimes means territory, e.g. the governor's "state of the island address". HkCaGu (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, particularly re reference to the Governor's address. Additionally, with regards to the preposition ("on Guam" vs "in Guam"), I get that the former is probably more of a remnant of outsiders referencing Guam as an exotic place (similar to how we refer to landing "on the moon" instead of "in the moon", or "on the open seas" vs "in"). But regardless of derivation (or whether this is an example of an internalized colonialist linguistic legacy or an active effort to decolonize through reappropriation/reclamation), the term "on Guam" is much more common today, and use of the latter ("in Guam") almost always flags a person as not being from, or very familiar with, Guam. My take? Wikipedia aspires to describe and record, as well as use/respect the local vernacular when possible. So my vote is to change it all to "on Guam". Thoughts? Kokobird (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It has almost nothing to do with the exoticness and everything to do with the size of the island vs the concept of a territory. In English "on" is used for small islands and mountains, while "in" is used for larger landmasses and for political territories. To the extent that exoticness plays a role it would only be in people underestimating how big Guam is compared to islands closer to their homes.Readin (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's generally been my understanding as well. However, I've chatted with a handful of activists and academics who argue that exoticness plays a key role in the original use of the term as well. One example: "in" is used for places that are accepted as being civilized and having established boundaries, while "on" is for places that are completely empty or populated by 'savages' (one lands "on" the moon, or travels "on" the open seas, or lands "on" a distant land... once it's accepted as being populated by a civilization rather than simply 'savage natives', "landed on a distant land" becomes "landed in Oz", for example). I'm rambling, and this is all beside the point. Bottom line is, it looks like "on Guam" is more appropriate regardless of the derivation of the usage of "on". Kokobird (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll also look into GovGuam drafting guidelines (the kinds used to formalize how laws are written) to see if this question is addressed. If so, it may be best to follow suit with the local jurisdiction. Kokobird (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Discussion! I second "on Guam." Sprinkler21 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

There's the complicated and related issue of the usage of the word "Island" as well. "Guam Island" sounds outdated, but OTOH, "on Guam" implies the speaker's knowledge that Guam is an island. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. In light of this, I'm leaning toward "in Guam." It's both the more universally accepted means of referring to a jurisdiction, and it doesn't assume one's knowledge of Guam being an island. Granted, it may not match the more common "on Guam" used in colloquial speech, but perhaps that terminology is best suited for use in Wikivoyage. As for local legislative drafting guidelines, they appear to be mute on the issue, and I'm coming across examples of both "on" and "in" in recently enacted laws and resolutions. Lastly, there's the bonus argument that use of "in Guam" appeases those who view "on Guam" as an offensive/condescending remnant of colonialism. In light of all this, I'm curious if Remnant21 is also okay with changing his/her vote from "on" to "in". If no disagreement within a week or so, I'll go ahead and start changing "on Guam" references to "in Guam." Thank you everyone for the input! Kokobird (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But what we're talking about IS Guam. Why not use colloquial speech? Why use how others perceive us? Believe me, this issue is small potatoes for me. If others want to say "in Guam" then ok. I'm just excited that people care enough about Guam to make the best article possible. Thank you. Sprinkler21 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

If people on Guam say "on Guam" then it makes sense to me that we use their term. The people on Guam are the probably the people who most frequently use either term (they and people who have recently left, as well as their friends and relatives, all of whom are likely to use the same term). Kokobird mentioned some unspecified activists disparaging the use of "on Guam", but activists shouldn't be given any special weight unless they have evidence that a large number of people actually agree with them. Activists certainly aren't unbiased and you can find activists making pretty preposterous claims about all kinds of things. We shouldn't worry about appeasing 'those who view "on Guam" as an offensive/condescending remnant of colonialism' unless there is some evidence that such people really exist. Readin (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd lean toward "on Guam" as well. Wikipedia is there to bring knowledge. As long as "on Guam" is legitimate and has a significant base of knowledgeable users, it should prevail, despite the possibility that it may not be the "most common" use. (Similar to Daylight saving time, even if "savings" may be more common, the legitimacy and significance of knowledgeable users of "saving" should prevail.) HkCaGu (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Great discussion. And like Sprinkler21, I'm just happy that people care enough about Guam to work on making this article as solid as possible. I'm okay with "on Guam" as well. If anything, if someone in the future is concerned about the language, they can propose adding a brief subsection in the Guam article discussing the different views regarding the use of "on" vs "in". But for now, it looks like "on Guam" it is. I'll wait a week or so, and then start making the changes. If someone wishes to jump ahead and start doing so now, feel free to. Thank you everyone for the lively and thorough discussion! Kokobird (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, thank you so much for making the Guam article the best it can be. Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

And when we're done, "Saipan" is heavily WP:UNDUE'd with all the past garment/labor stuff that needs some trimming. HkCaGu (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've begun working on article making "on Guam" the standard, as discussed. I can do a little each night as my current work schedule is exhausting. Sprinkler21 (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Shouldn't the word be including instead of and?

"Approximately one thousand people and 400 women died..." Last I checked, women were people too. "Approximately one thousand people including 400 women died..." Bizzybody (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! LOL! Sprinkler21 (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

WWII

The WWII section should document the collusion and treason of members of the local Japanese immigrant resident alien community with the Imperial invading Japanese Army and Navy. This is well-documented in the memoir of the Guam Vice Governor, Captive of the Rising Sun, by Commander (later Admiral) Donald T. Giles, who was present and captured.

One member of the local Guam business community, Mr. Shinohara, was "tried, found guilty of treason against the United States, and sentenced to death" after the war! [page 208] The military command phone lines were cut shortly after the Japanese invasion began, and at least three local Japanese were later found to be "rewarded handsomely" by the Imperial invasion force: Mr. Shimizu, Mr. Shinohara, and Mrs. Sawada. [pages 55-56] Commander Giles calls it an "undetected fifth column" that aided the enemy in capturing Guam.

This is critical information regarding the fall of Guam to the Imperial Japan invasion of December 1941. Starhistory22 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Guam. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005100501/http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/workingpaper/wp_09_02.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/workingpaper/wp_09_02.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131411412600/http://ns.gov.gu/geography.html to http://ns.gov.gu/geography.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4897%3Acont-mic&catid=45%3Aguam-news&Itemid=156
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guamlegislature.com/25th_Guam_Legislature/Bills_Introduced_25th/Bill%20No.%20089.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509143001/http://www.pac.dodea.edu/aboutus/contacts/ContactSchools.htm to http://www.pac.dodea.edu/aboutus/contacts/ContactSchools.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Guam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jon Tuck's active MMA career and his constantly changing win/loss record isn't worth tracking on the article about Guam..

So are we going to change this site every time Jon Tuck goes to work? Currently this site is "boasting" about his record which is now inaccurate and outdated. It might be more of a hassle than it's worth to track his win/loss record on the Guam page while he's still an active competitor. You might as well say that Guam's president is George Bush and that Trump is dating Marla Maples. My point is, just say Tuck is an active member of the UFC roster and don't include his constantly changing MMA record until his career reaches it's conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.183.28 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pacification

I find the terms "pacification" or "pacified" to be inappropriate. And sad. It really means "killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.84.99 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Very true. I've changed it to a more accurate term- conquest. Earthscent (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rugby Union

"Guam's biggest win was a 74–0 thrashing of Brunei in June 2008." - Although a trivial sentence in a very trivial section, is the word "thrashing" in context and relevant in an encyclopaedia article (a rather sad and childish "sporting" POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.204.127 (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What is a Current caretaker King of Guam

This is not explained anywhere else in the page. Is this a real thing, or is someone playing a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.70.122.65 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Earthquakes and tectonic situation

Guam is actually not "on the western edge of the Pacific Plate" but rather on the Mariana Plate, a micro tectonic plate situated between the Philippine Sea Plate to the west and the Pacific plate to the east. Earthquakes originate in a subduction zone to the east of Guam where the Pacific Plate subducts under the Mariana Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate. The text has been corrected and a USGS ref added. Piperh (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Map sucks

The map doesn't not provide much context, is too small to understand the relative size of the island compared to the rest of japan and surrounding territories. I mean, just look at it, it's a circle around a dot, and the second map is basically a circle in a random spot in the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroelectronic (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Guam isn't the farthest west US territory, since it's located at longitude 144 EAST. Alaska has the US's farthest north, east, and west points.