Talk:Palau/Archive 1

mismatch?
I moved the following text here since it seemed rather misplaced in the "history" section and didn't seem to be referring to anything in the article. Angela. 02:42, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

articles: "Independent Histories of Human Y Chromosomes from Melanesia and Australia Dr. Manfred Kayser Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Department for Evolutionary Genetics Inselstrasse 22 D-04103 Leipzig, Germany email:  kayser@eva.mpg.de books:
 * Legends of Palau Vol I & II
 * History of Palau: Heritage of an Emerging Nation

Demographics
Micronesians, Polynesians, Indo-Europeans, Asians (mostly from the Philippines) and Europeans...

Who are Indo-Europeans in this context?

Probably people of mixed Indian and European ancestry. 203.171.95.32 10:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it means people who speak an Indo-European language, in all likelihood. — N-true 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Language
The official languages of Palau are Palauan and English, except for three states (Sonsorol, Hatohobei, and Anguar) where the local language is official instead of Palauan... Is this a typo? Should the second official here be english? --Crid 16:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's correct. On the 3 mentioned Islands, the local languages are the official ones. — N-true 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. According to Art. XII, Section 1 of the Palau Constitution, "The Palauan traditional languages shall be the national languages. Palauan and English shall be the official languages. The Olbiil Era Kelulau shall determine the approriate use of each language." As far as I know, the OEK has not made any such determination on the "appropriate use" of any languages in Palau, whether they be the national languages, official language, or otherwise. But suffice to say, only Palauan and English are defined as OFFICIAL languages in Palau.--Ipsedixit (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Trusteeship / Creation of new nation
I changed the initial paragraph of this article to say that Palau emerged from U.N. trusteeship administered by the U.S.A., rather than that it "gained independence" from the U.S.A., because Palau was never a territory of the United States. Rather, the U.S.A. held Palau in trusteeship granted by the United Nations, following military occupation while Palau was a colony of the Empire of Japan during WWII. &mdash;Ryanaxp 16:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What's differlent from League of Nations mandates and United Nations Trust Territories?--210.230.7.103 04:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capital
I've heard from various sources that Palau is constructing a new capital city on the main island. Is this true? bob rulz 02:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

121.55.192.54 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Yes a new capital has been completed on the village of Melekeok on the main island. It has been called by many as the most beautiful capital building in the entire pacific. The design features many local features along with western features such as the huge dome that have surpassed their original purpose and have become icons of democracy.

Matriarchal?
Is that right, and does someone have a better source?

I added a source for the matrilineal part, but the more recent patrilineal statements in the article could not be corroborated from the post I found. This is not to say its not out there somewhere, it just can't be found at either my source (government website) or the other source given. I await anxiously for someone else to find a source for that assertion.

YuriSapiens (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.palauanpride.com
 * In Palau on Sun Jul 16 21:16:04 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
 * In Palau on Mon Jul 17 16:16:49 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
 * In Palau on Thu Jul 27 00:55:42 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Small edit made
I added some internal links under the "History" section. "australia", "polynesia", "Asia", "melanesia" an others.--Sowsearsoup 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject
There is now a proposed WikiProject dealing with the area of Micronesia at WikiProject Council/Proposals. 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 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna
This is not mentioned at all, although we know it exists because of the beautiful gallery pictures. I came here hoping to link to some articles I've been working on, but there's nowhere to place such things, or even a link to a Biota of Palau -type article. Totnesmartin 21:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Palau
Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Palauan? Thanks! Chris 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Japanese official in Angaur?
See Talk:Japanese language#Disputed. CutieNakky 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on December 21, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it: had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to the Verifiability policy, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." There are only 7 sources with two (30%) to travel guides. A severe lack of sources for an article this length is apalling, with nearly every section unreferenced. Any editors who wish to bring this up to GAN standard, I suggest citing more sources (at least 40, considering this is a country), but not only that; reliable ones too. Some sections like Nuclear-free constitution also have fact tags placed on them. If you wish you can take this to reassessment to get it discussed by other reviewers and/or other editors. I encourage you to do the steps listed and resubmit when finished. Thank you. Regards, Rt . 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Palau History
Not a word mentioned of the German Rule 1899-1914. Why? The Germans found phosphate at Angaur Island and developed the deposits, even built a small railway there. During the Japanese Rule 1914-1944 Palau Islands become a " tropical paradise " for the Japanese tourists. No mention of the Japanese built Koror electric tramways at all. If this is the level of Wikipedia one should be shamed of this kind of information. Peharps one expert in history of Palau is re-writing the main article. The history of the Palau do not start in 1944 when the Americans occupied the islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.82 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have the sources for all that, be bold and add the info to the article. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Scientific Discoveries
There probably ought to be some information in the article on recent skeletal remains found on the islands. people dnt noe bout' palau...if theydnt they shuldnt write about it

Although an initial find in a cave suggested to some the existence of a new species of human, nicknamed "hobbits" recent discoveries of thousands of human skeletons in caves have made it more likely that the small size of the skeletons may be due to founder effect and insular dwarfism, although they exhibit many features which appear very primitive.

Discovery of Palau Bones - National Geographic

Lee-Anne (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The research done at Palau is as of yet extremely preliminary. The archaeological data collected so far has consisted of one 1m x 1m x 50cm excavation and recovery of surface bone material - all of which has been extremely weathered or otherwise compromised. The analysis of the osteological materials in the original article consists to a great extent of dodging statements such as "The pelvic girdle is represented by three specimens, two of which are measurable" and "we have discovered several relatively complete crania, but all of them are heavily embedded in calcium carbonate." All this, of course, is not to mention that a majority of the article is comparing the Palau skeletons to H. floresiensis as opposed to exploring the samples on their own merit, and the conclusions drawn are more about the "hobbits" than about the Palau burials.

I would also like to make clear that the Palau bones were not ever said to be (to my knowledge) the "hobbits" (H. floresiensis) themselves, as H. floresiensis was from Java, not Palau.

Whatever decision is finally made concerning this topic, I would ask two things: 1) extreme caution and skepticism be used, including both arguments for and against, and introducing the shortcomings and unreliability of the research so far conducted, and 2) the link to and information from the original article at PLoS ONE be used, as opposed to the National Geographic website.

YuriSapiens (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article which originally proposed the dwarfism hypothesis appeared in March 2008, and was quickly dismissed within the same year. Since this was just a short-lived and marginal hypothesis. it should not be given undue weight by mentioning it in Wikipedia (WP:UNDUE). Austronesier (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mail Addressing?
As Palau uses the US domestic mail addressing format, when and how should a "country" be indicated?

For mail from California to Palau, which of these is officially correct? For mail from France to Palau which is officially correct?

Name Street Koror, PW 96940

Name Street Koror, PW 96940 USA

Name Street Koror, PW 96940 via USA

Name Street Koror, PW 96940 Republic of Palau

Name Street Koror 96940 Republic of Palau

Name Street Koror, Koror 96940 Republic of Palau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.125 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See response at Talk:Federated States of Micronesia.

Better map?
It would be nice if the map in the infobox both a) had Palau more clearly marked so you could see it at display resolution and b) had a higher resolution version. As it is, I can't make out at a quick glance where in the Pacific it is. The map with disputed copyright status on Geography of Palau is MUCH better in this regard. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uyghur Detainees
I added a reference to an article stating that Palau has agreed to accept the Uyghurs from Guantanamo Bay. As more information develops, this may merit its own section given the current attention given this. Packetmonger (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The recentism is getting out of control. These 17 people are but a small part of Compact 2 negotiation. The $200 million is the Compact 2 support for 15 or 20 years (whatever Compact 2's length is), not for resettling 17 people. The media's misinterpretation and ignorance of the Compact or Palau must not be perpetuated here. We have plenty of discussion about the Compact in this article. HkCaGu (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The most recent topics usually go at the end, so I moved this section here... Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit did not include any comment regarding Compact 2- I intentionally avoided referencing any suggestion that this was some sort of quid-pro-quo relationship. All my edit -in the MEDIA section- said was that it was reported that Palau had accepted Uighurs from Gitmo- and I included a link to the first major media source I could find reporting that.  I came to the page today to edit it and add a link that the President of Palau had stated that a decision had not been made.  This is not recentism- the discussion regarding whether Palau does or does not accept Uighurs will be a major reason people remember the name Palau- many (possibly unreasonably ignorant) commentators and newscasters in the US mention that this is the first they have heard of the nation- and can't pronounce it correctly.  I recognize that this may very well be a relatively minor issue in the overall history of Palau, but the discussion in the press has been, and will likely remain, far more significant than that regarding Enyas song, a single episode of a children's show, or a World-War II movie.

Perhaps you had concerns with other edits that were made to this section, but your comment does not seem to address why you removed my earlier edit. As such, I am going to re-add the article I linked, as well as a link to the article with the president of Palau. If you have a concern with these specific issues, please explain how it violates a policy, is not good for the article, and address my points above before your remove it- or discuss here what you propose to do differently. Packetmonger (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Packetmonger (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

explanation
I am going to restore the Uyghur section to an earlier version -- not because I want to take over this section, but because I want to collaborate starting at a version that is not marred by serious factual inaccurracies and misconceptions.


 * 1) In my opinion this excision is based on a serious misconception of policy. If I understand the contributor's justification for the excision, they are challenging whether the material they excised was correct.  But the key wikipedia policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth".  The suggestion that Palau accepted the Uyghurs in return for the $200 million in foreign aid is very widely reported.  That is it is verifiable.  It is not our role, as wikipedia contributors, to suppress verifiable material, written from a neutral point of view, if we personally believe to be incorrect.
 * 2) This edit has three serious errors:
 * 3) The Uyghurs were not captured in battle, or on a battlefield. No official US document accuses them of this, and this claim is inconsistent with their testimony.  It is clear that they were captured in Pakistan, a day or two after they escaped the American bombardment of Afghanistan -- not Tora Bora.  They arrived at a village on the Pakistani side of the border, which welcomed them, gave them a big feast, told them they would help them get to safety -- and then arranged for their capture.
 * 4) The Uyghurs, like all the rest of the Guantanamo captives were never determined to be "illegal enemy combatants" by their Combatant Status Review Tribunals in 2004. The Combatant Status Review Tribunals' mandate was to confirm that the captives were "enemy combatants", a very broad term.  The first captives to be convicted following a military commission -- Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Ali Al Bahlul -- were determined to be "illegal enemy combatants" by the Presiding Officers of their Guantanamo military commissions.  That is a whole other story.  If I am not mistaken they are the only two captives to be determined to be "illegal enemy combatants".
 * 5) As of September 2008 none of the Uyghurs were classified as "enemy combatants". They are no longer held as "enemy combatants".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But verifiability alone does not mean inclusion. If you look at the whole "politics and government" section, having a Guantanamo resettlement subsection is already bordering undue weight and recentism (the latter one can probably be tolerated for a while). But adding the quote about $200 million thing is way past its relevance and indeed tramples on the whole section about COFA and foreign policy. Again, the quote is perfectly acceptable over at the other article(s), and what's left in the subsection without the quote is perfectly fine (for now until we can review its relevance a few years from now). HkCaGu (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to re-insert the section you excised -- today. I am going to call on you for a clearer explanation.


 * Please understand that contributors are not allowed to delete material solely because they think that material is misleading. Doing so is a lapse from compliance with WP:VER and the policy on the policy on the neutral point of view.  We aren't supposed to inject our personal opinions.  We aren't supposed to suppress material based solely on our personal opinion.  Doing so is just as much a lapse from NPOV as inserting material based solely on our unreferenced personal opinions.


 * There are articles I have worked on, where my personal opinion is at odds with what the currently available WP:RS report. In that kind of situation we don't really have much choice.  If we are going to work on those articles we have to fairly, neutrally and accurately use the existing references, without regard to whether we personally disagree with them.


 * I quoted that interpretation, rather than supply my own paraphrase, because the quote is short enough to qualify as "fair use", and it is controversial enough that my paraphrase, or your paraphrase, or anyone's paraphrase, is likely to be regarded as flawed and misleading. Now if you can cite references that dispute the widely reported interpretation that the acceptance of the Uyghurs was in return for foreign aid -- then please, improve the article by including those references.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: WP:RECENT is an "essay". It is not a policy or guidelines.  In my opinion it is a very serious mistake -- highly misleading -- to cite personal essays as if they were official policies.
 * Note: WP:UNDUE is is also cited above. The first sentence of that section states:
 * Sorry, but I am going to call on you to make a harder effort to explain how you think the material you excised lapses from the undue section of NPOV. Could you please clarify which "significant viewpoint" you think is being neglected?  Wouldn't it be better if you included references to the verifiable viewpoint you thought were being neglected?  Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth: ‘GTMO deal not linked to Compact’. Sources that don't bother to introduce the word "Compact" have to be discounted in terms of "reliability". It seems like you're treating this as a news event, which is fine with the other article. But this is the country's article, and I really think it belongs to the "in the media" section. Maybe eventually. Anyway, my supplying of the Palau Horizon source is meant to explain why $200 million should be excluded, not to make it even longer. If these two different "sides" have to be explained, it should be the "media" section, not "history" or "government". HkCaGu (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the local newspaper report. I am sure you noticed it said: "He said in his meeting with U.S. representative Daniel Fried, there was a discussion about financial support for the transition of the detainees from Guantanamo but any funding aid is no way near the $200 million reported by a wire agency."


 * I am not trying to be unpleasant, but the opinion that sources that don't mention the word "compact" are unreliable looks like your personal opinion. I suggest, again, that suppressing this material because you, personally, don't consider it reliable does not comply with NPOV.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Something widely heard/reported for a couple days doesn't mean inclusion everywhere in Wikipedia. I can't see why the RS vs. non-RS is even a POV issue. Basically my point is this: If you know what Palau is about, you'll understand why the "17 refugees for $200 million" is not worth inclusion. And I've been trying to explain that to everyone. Essentially, some US official was trying to explain that the two countries have been talking/negotiating many other things anyway, but that point didn't get through. The NPOV way of mentioning it is "resettlement is part of the Compact 2 negotiation". Saying "17 refugees for $200 million" or even the opposite is POV. HkCaGu (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think balanced, neutrally written, well-referenced quotes can be a violation of NPOV? I am really doing my best to take your concerns seriously.  No offense, but you haven't explained this one.


 * You wrote something in your last comment, that is your personal opinion, and I think you may not recognize that it is your unreferenced personal opinion. You wrote:


 * Please see this editorial from today's Globe and Mail, a serious newspaper.


 * I think the headline from the following editorial got the story right. I could name over half a dozen of the possessions that came to the USA following the Spanish-American War.  I couldn't name Palau.  This is not a peripheral story.  It is an important story.


 * I've pointed out that you seemed to be concerned that the widespread reporting as incorrect, and that acting on this kind of concern does not comply with WP:VER and WP:NOR. I am not trying to browbeat you, but I think this discussion would proceed best if you responded with to this point with your counter-points -- or acknowledged it was a valid argument.


 * WRT to WP:Indiscriminate -- please be specific about which passages from that section you think apply here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * People are very ignorant about Palau, but if anybody understand them, it's Americans (really, the government) more than anyone else. If the US press can't report accurately, do you expect Canadians and Irish can? I guess I had assumed you had more knowledge about Palau, TTPI and Compact, but the fact that you dared to cite the Irish Times report (how X coincided with Y) and how Palau had nothing to do with the War of 1898 showed me that you still want to support the ignorant reporters' viewpoint with pieces of the puzzle (much like how they're solving the Air France Flight 447 mystery) instead of just starting with the big picture and learning the history and basics (such as by reading the articles closely related to Palau mentioned above). I am not going to cite every point I make because it's either in the related articles and this is a talk page, not the article. So here are the basic historical facts:
 * At the end of Spanish American War, the United States acquired the Philippines and Guam. Spain leaves the region, but the US didn't want the other islands, which were then sold to Germany, which lost World War I to Japan, which governed the islands until losing to the American forces in 1944.
 * In 1947, the UN entrusted the US to run Micronesia (minus Guam), forming the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Basically the US pays for everything in terms of running the government, and was tasked to bring the islands to self determination and self government.
 * The Marianas District chose to integrate with the US. A referendum was put to a vote on the rest of the TTPI. Palau and the Marshalls rejected becoming part of the FSM.
 * Each (of 3) new nation then negotiated with the US for arrangement to become independent (politically) sovereign nation and to get the UN trust terminated (the two steps didn't happen at the same time). The arrangement is accomplished through the Compact, which dictates the two sides' roles and responsibilities.
 * Essentially, the new nation would at least in the beginning be financially dependent on the US, and the principle is that they would become more independent. For all 3 nations, the Compact was for 15 years with a short-term extension clause. (FSM's and RMI's Compacts were 1986-2001, and they were extended until Compact II took effect in 2004.) Palau's Compact I is 1994-2009, and they've been talking in the recent months for renewal. In this process, the two sides review how the nation and its economy has changed and what the real needs are and chart a course for the next Compact period (which for FSM and RMI was 20 years).
 * So the Micronesian countries have always been receiving financial assistance from the US since 1944. While I'm not clear on the exact dollar figure, Palau will not be financially MORE dependent on the US after 2009 than during Compact I (1994-2009). (It's clear that Palau has since developed a tourist economy to some degree.)
 * Some of the "foreign aids" aren't even money given to their government. For example, the US government forecasts their weather, delivers them mail, controls their air traffic and pays for their citizens' financial impact to Guam, Hawaii, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.
 * I hope by now I've clearly illustrated the absurdity of "$12M for each Uighur", which is so unbalanced and therefore POV. For the sake of " balance", the Uighur settlement is not even notable in Palau's history or government, but is notable because of worldwide attention this month, much like the nationwide attention during "Survivor". HkCaGu (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The details you have provided are interesting. I'll respond to each of your bulleted points with a numbered point.
 * The USA didn't control some of the former Spanish colonies the entire time, from the Spanish-American war, to their steps to full independence? I didn't know that.  But I don't see how this is an argument for your excision.
 * Interesting, but I don't see how this is an argument for your excision.
 * Interesting, but I don't see how this is an argument for your excision.
 * Interesting, but I don't see how this is an argument for your excision.
 * Here you make a point made by some of the press reports you want to suppress -- Palau is not yet fully independent. You make the point that Palau has depended on the USA in the past?  I don't doubt this assertion.  But you make this assertion as if it made Palau less vulnerable to US pressure, not more so.
 * Again you repeat the point made by some of the press reports you want to suppress -- Palau is not yet fully independent.
 * Not relevant to the point made in the Irish editorial -- the agreement to give asylum to the Uyghurs "put Palau on the map".
 * Thanks for the interesting details you have provided. I don't think they support your excision at all.  No wikipedia contributor inserted the unreferenced personal opinion that the USA will pay Palau $10 million plus for each Uyghur.  What you excised was not a wikipedia contributor's personal opinion, or their paraphrase of WP:RS -- it was a direct quote from many WP:RS.


 * You haven't tried to suggest that quote was not a fair quote of what those WP:RS said. I doubt you could make this a credible argument.


 * Again, when we think the WP:RS on a topic are incorrect, we have to use them anyhow. If we think we have superior insight into a topic than the WP:RS available to us, and we make contributions using what we regard as our superior insight, we are lapsing from compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR.


 * Consider the conflict between mainstream medicine, and alternative medicine disciplines, like homeopathy and iridology. Wikipedia contributors who think they have personal insights into homeopathy would be lapsing from compliance with WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, if they tried to "correct" mainstream medicine articles, using their personal insights into homeopathy.  And provided the articles on homeopathy, iridology, and other alternative medicine techniques used WP:RS in a neutral manner, then no contributor should try to "correct" those articles using their personal insight from mainstream medicine.  No offense, but I continue to think this is what your excision amounts to -- an excision contrary to what our WP:RS state, based on what you regard as your superior knowledge.


 * You sound well-informed. I am not challenging whether you are well-informed on the history of Palau, and other former US protectorates.  What I am challenging is whether policy allows you to make editorial changes, in article space, based on your personal insights.  Even if you had a PhD in this topic inserting your personal opinion, or excising based on your personal opinion, would be a violation of wikipedia policy.  Period.


 * There are other projects, like the Citizendium, where contributors are allowed to make some use of their personal knowledge of topics, when it conflicts with, or fills holes in, what is reported in WP:RS. But that is not allowed here.


 * With regard to whether US aid to Palau enabled it to put pressure on Palau to accept the former captives, and whether the US would be compensating Palau, didn't the President of Palau acknowledge the USA would be compensating Palau? There is an anecdote, often attributed to British wiseguys Winston Churchill or George Bernard Shaw, where he was trying to make a point, and he asked a woman who was arguing with him about the sanctity of marraige, whether she would sleep with him for one million pounds.  In the anecdote, after she replied, "of course", he then asked if she would sleep with him for a shilling.  According to the anecdote, when she was outraged, said, "of course not!  What kind of woman do you think I am?" he is supposed to have said: "My dear, we have already established what kind of woman you are, all we have establish now, is the price."  Since the President has acknowledged Palau will be compensated, what remains to be established is the price.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
(Moving back to zero indentation for easier reading.)

Please, I simply want to change your approach in thinking, as you're seemingly still trying to put pieces of the puzzle together without first looking at the finished picture on the box (i.e. the big picture). I used the bullet points to paint that picture for you, but you only judged each bullet point on the merit of whether it justifies the "excision". So please, stop worshiping WP:V as the only god of Wikipedia, and that will help you put UNDUE and INDISCRIMINATE in their places and help you interpret NPOV and RS.

And please, stop labeling what I said as "personal opinion", and I can tell you it's not even "personal knowledge". Knowledge about the three freely-associated states is "universal knowledge" in those countries, and is "common knowledge" in the U.S. Pacific territories and to some degree common in Hawaii and in certain circles in Washington.

OK, I hope you have reread everything and I'll restate why the $200 million should not be mentioned.

The quote in question does not assume the reader know anything about Palau or its history of relations to the U.S. This Wikipedia article, however, will teach the reader everything by the time you get down to the section concerned. Therefore, to simply repeat the quote which doesn't say it's the Compact negotiation creates confusion (as if there is a separate negotiation just for the 17). The Palau Horizon article already confirmed it is the Compact negotiation in progress.

The "resettlement of 17 for $200 million" misconception, whether the original AP author intended or not, had been realized (as shown in the Canadian and Irish articles) independently of my "attempt of suppression" here in Wikipedia. (I said it would create misconception before learning it actually took place in Canada and Ireland.)

Palau had gotten aid from the US for all 15 years of political independence, and the aid ain't going to drop to zero if Palau didn't take in the Uighurs. (Proofs: FSM's and RMI's Compact renewal.) What exact part of $200 million is due to the 17, only the negotiators can tell you (who knows when), but what the president says is plain reasonable, the 17 didn't result in $200 million.

Without knowing what the exact effect was, putting in that quote is NPOV (as in perpetuating the fact that it's all for money). The only POV way to say it is that "it's part of the Compact renewal negotiation" (pure gesture or exchange of conditions, we don't know).

I hope you get the big picture and see why "$200 million", the apparent whole sum of the next 15-, 20- or X-year Compact, while appropriate if mentioning Compact 2, is not appropriate to be credited to a soon-to-be-forgotten portion of it. Verifiability doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't fit, and let the footnotes link to whatever the reporters reported.

This is a free encyclopedia and not a computer game. You mentioned a lot of "not allowed" rules that I'm not even "breaking". Remember, rules are like traffic signals. High-speed pursuits, emergency vehicles, construction workers, and police officers override them. It's the same principle as WP:IAR. So before you find more rules telling me why I can't "excise" something, think about the article in whole. It is not worth explaining the whole controversy in this article like what we had to do here in Talk. Simply reduce it to non-controversial elements is the way to go! HkCaGu (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I took out the block quote. Putting one news writers statement in a block quote is wp:undue--Work permit (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to spin off a new article named something like: Uyghurs in Palau?
Or maybe Uyghurs formerly held Guantanamo in Palau... Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Education?
The article contains no information about education in Palau. This is an important oversight that requires correction. ThaddeusFrye (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. If someone can add something about the public school system, it will help. PeterEasthope (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Culture of Palau
Apart from description of libraries and museums, the Culture section includes only links to Music of Palau and Palauan language, but I have to think there is something that could be included to inform about culture and customs of indigenous Palauans. Would somebody who knows more about this please add to this section? Newportm (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Section on Jews
Deleted a section on Jews, which consisted of three paragraphs immediately below the introduction and index. The info may be relevant to demographics. It was added in good faith. 89.240.251.88 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Melekeok isn't capital?
In many sources states, that capital of Palau isn't in Melekeok town but in State of Melekeok in place named Ngerulmud (see: US Department of State. Background Note - Palau: Government offices moved to a new National Capitol Building complex located at Ngerulmud, Melekeok State; US Department of Interior, President of the Republic of Palau Inaugural Address; Adresses of Palau Government offices). Aotearoa (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Military of Palau into Palau. "Military of Palau" has essentially no information that isn't better covered here, since apparently Palau HAS no standing military of its own. Comments, since "Palau" is apparently better-attended than the other page? DeMatt (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done--Work permit (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Before the WW2, Japanese and Okinawans and Koreans were separate?
Before the World War Two, all Japanese including people living in Okinawa and Koreans are under Imperial Japan. So in my opinion, in those days it is not correct to take that Japanese and Koreans and Taiwanees and Okinawans and Ainu people and so on. I propose to edit the sentence from "Japanese, Okinawans and Koreans. " to "the people of Empire of Japan maninly from Japanese Archipelago including Okinawa, and Korean peninsula". Especially, Okinawans were originally a part of Japanese based on their language and also currently are feeling that they belong to Japanese. It is not correct to take Okinawans as a another ethnicity other than Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet train (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your overemphasis on temporal political nationality instead of ethnicity is a breach of WP:NPOV. Your edits eliminated the wikilinks to the "peoples" in favor of geographics places. The fact is that most history writers as well as current residents in Palau and other regional islands remember these immigrants by their ethnicity and languages separate from "Japanese". HkCaGu (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I will respectfully note that Okinawans are no more Japanese that Norwegians are Swedish, or Portuguese are Spanish. The Okinawan language is distinct from Japanese, and Okinawans are physically distinct from Japanese. I believe that objective study of the historic record on both sides shows that Okinawans consider themselves distinct from Japanese, and that Japanese consider themselves distinct from -- and superior to -- Okinawans. These differences were clear and obvious in Palau as in other parts of the Japanese Empire.66.162.249.170 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Melekeok State appears to be Capital
Whoever brought up that Ngerulmud is capital of Palau quoted three misleading sources. The first one clearly states Melekeok as the capital and quotes a population for the state of Melekeok rather than the village, the second and third merely state that the new capitol building is situated in Ngerulmud which indeed is within Melekeok state. The third source has a link to Palau's Visitor's authority which quotes the capital as Melekeok. Furthermore the CIA World Factbook quotes Melekeok as the capital.

http://www.visit-palau.com/placestostay/index.cfm (search for Melekeok)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ps.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.71.1 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See: [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1840.htm US Department of State. Background Note - Palau: Government offices moved to a new National Capitol Building complex located at Ngerulmud, Melekeok State (in Geography and People section)]; US Department of Interior, President of the Republic of Palau Inaugural Address with Ngerulmud as plece of this inauguration; Adresses of Palau Government offices with Ngerulmud as seat of government). I think Palau hasn't official capital (i.e. capital named in official act or bill), but de facto capital is Ngerulmud in Mlekeok State as seat of government. Aotearoa (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The name of the capital is whatever reliable sources say it is, not the "de facto seat of government". Beijing, not a certain district thereof, is the capital of China, because that's how they defined it. From most every news source available over the last few years you'll find they decided to move the capital from Koror to Melekeok when they finished the road. Given Palau's size, a state is a city, and that's definitive enough to be a capital. Unless more sources begin to use Ngerulmud instead of Melekeok, it should remain Melekeok. HkCaGu (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The three sources quoted by Aotearoa are the three misleading sources I was referring to earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.71.1 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Official website of Government of Palau isn't "misleading source". Palauan gov. website: Ngerulmud 14 times,  Melekeok 43 times, but almost all about state not settlement. CIA World Factbook or other non-Palauan websites isn't official source. Aotearoa (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PRIMARY regarding the uses of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Furthermore, you've only proven that the CAPITOL building is in Ngerulmud, not that the national CAPITAL is legally defined as Ngerulmud. HkCaGu (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Melekeok State isn't capital. According Constitution of Palau The provisional capital shall be located in Koror; provided, that not later than ten (10) years after the effective date of this Constitution, the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall designate a place in Babeldaob to be the permanent capital. Constitution said "a place" not "administrative unit". Ngerulmud settlement is this "place" where government were located (not Melekeok settlement). There is no any official Palauan documents or information listing Melekeok as capital of Palau, but many document listing Ngerulmud as seat of government and parliament. Aotearoa (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what was designated? My point is the capital is more than a building (the capitol). Are there other buildings or offices that are in Ngerulmud? At least as of the time the Google satellite picture was taken, Ngerulmud wasn't even a settlement; it was only a place name. HkCaGu (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Map
The current map is an interesting one, but it is not consistent with the other pacific states in this regard.

Example map, location of Nauru:

A map similar to this would be great for Palau, putting it in line with every other small Pacific Island state (bar Fiji and Vanuatu, whom also need new maps) Can anyone do this? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason for move of capital
Does anyone have any information on WHY the capital was moved from Koror to Melekeok? I've been looking for anything I can find and nothing says anything about the reason or purpose of the move, only thing I can find are questions as to whether the capital is Melekeok or Ngerulmud.

All I have is a personal guess that (given that Melekeok seems no more unique an area than the rest of the island and the new capital building stands fairly alone) the government may be trying to construct a new (possibly planed) capital away from established population centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.113.212 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This was an initiative that began after in the 90s, when the Island Nation first attained independence. It was thought up by the government of the time, meaning the Office of the President, the Judiciary Branch and the Olbiil era Kelulau (Congress). The people of the time believed that the island needed its capital closer to the center of the Nation in anticipation of the completion of the main road in Babeldaob. The people here belived that once that road (Compact Road) was completed, people who worked in the commercial center, which is Koror, would begin returning to their states, and because the Government was the largest employer on island, it would need to move to a more centered location to accommodate for its employees. 202.124.232.218 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Palau
Does anyone know, why the "yellow sun" on the "light blue" background is not centered on the Palau flag? On the other hand, the "red sun" of the Japanese flag, (another, bigger, islands in western pacific), is centered on white background, i.e.

93.223.226.190 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC) IP

Ecology of Palau
Copyediting this. Given the incredible diversity of Palau, a section (and accompanying main article) on the country's natural history (call it what you like) seems apropos. Lfstevens (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Independence
Palau is not independent, or a sovereign nation. It is "in free association with the United States", i.e. a dependency of the USA.101.98.175.68 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. HkCaGu (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The UN website, the CIA website, the European Union sites all say Melekeok is the capital. Only website that says Ngerulmud is Wikipedia.
I know the topic is controversial, since Melekeok is a state and not a town, but I understand that original research is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia, and all sources that are always used as sources for capital cities in Wikipedia are all unanimous in saying that the capital of Palau is Melekeok: see for example the official website of the United Nations,, of the USA's CIA, and that of the European Union. Debslotss (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources:


 * The government of Palau recognises Ngerulmud as the capital, as per its own website. The Palauan media also recognises Ngerulmud as the capital (e.g. ), as do the wider Oceanian media. And, despite what the CIA World Factbook may say, the U.S. government demonstrably recognises Ngerulmud as a separate locality, as Ngerulmud – not Melekeok – has its own zip code. These sources are the most reliable sources we have when it comes to this subject, and thus the ones we should use. There is simply no definition of capital city that would allow either the village of Melekeok or the state of Melekeok to be called Palau's capital.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. You didn't provide any single source saying explicitly that Ngerulmud is the capital. Your sources don't say that. Also, note that, even though your sources don't even say explicitly that Ngerulmud is the seat of government, even if they did, the seat of government is not necessarily the capital - the seat of government of Bolivia is La Paz, but Bolivia's capital is Sucre; the seat of government of the Netherlands is The Hague, but its capital is Amsterdam. Even if you were right, what you're trying to do is original research, what goes against the core rules of Wikipedia. You are welcome to find and present us with explicit and verifiable sources that back up your claim, but until then, please refrain from reverting my edits. Alternatively, we could simply ask for a third opinion / moderation from Wikipedia's administrators. Debslotss (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally the onus is on the person proposing a change to gain consensus for their edit. You're welcome to seek more opinions or open a request for comment, but until consensus changes, the article stays in its current form. The reason I listed the above sources is to demonstrate that (a) Ngerulmud is recognised as a separate locality and (b) the Palauan government gives the addresses of its governmental departments as Ngerulmud (not Melekeok). Normally "locality containing seat of government" = "capital", but if that's a stretch too far for you, the BBC explicitly states that Palau's capital is Ngerulmud, as does statoids.com ("The capital is located in Ngerulmud, which is a village or settlement in Melekeok state."), which is used as a source for a number of Wikipedia articles.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that the reason the World Factbook, etc., list Melekeok as the capital is that many news reports before the capital was officially shifted merely stated something along the lines of "the new capital is being constructed in Melekeok" (referring to the state). This was of course true, but not as specific as it could have been. The researchers at the CIA may very well have just assumed that Melekeok was the name of the capital (not being completely up to scratch with Palauan geography), and carried this forward into subsequent editions.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think referring to Ngerulmud as just the seat of government (which is indisputable) might be a good compromise, as this is obviously an unusual case. The alternative is to list the capital as "Ngerulmud, Melekeok State", which would immediately clarify the situation to the reader. I think this is how it was before, but someone changed it.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  06:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For example the Polish list of states is saying explicitly that Ngerulmud is the capital (p. 29). Unfortunately in many sources a administrative units and not a locality is lited as a capital (and not only in the case of Palau). Aotearoa (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the new edition of Independent States in the World list of the U.S. Department of State Ngerulmud is listed as a capital. Aotearoa (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Palau. 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/20111006012927/http://palau.usembassy.gov/rop_cofa.pdf to http://palau.usembassy.gov/rop_cofa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006012927/http://palau.usembassy.gov/rop_cofa.pdf to http://palau.usembassy.gov/rop_cofa.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palau. 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/20130526205103/http://www.palauembassy.com/Documents/ConstitutionP.pdf to http://www.palauembassy.com/Documents/ConstitutionP.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930054317/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/27/content_12117618.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/27/content_12117618.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027025150/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/tiny-nation-of-palau-proves-sharks-worth-more-alive-than-dead/551759 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/tiny-nation-of-palau-proves-sharks-worth-more-alive-than-dead/551759
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607085400/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/palau.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/Palau.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

dubious assertion
I placed a dubious after the assertion that Palau employs just 18 maritime officers. Both the Remeliik and the Kedam will require crews of a dozen, or more. Palau also operates smaller inshore vessels. All these vessels will require dockyard staff, and senior officers, and their staff, to exercise overall control over their operations. The true size of the maritime force is probably well over 100 individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does the country top the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita?
Is that because of inter-island transport? If so could it be added to the article along with any proposed solution?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the function of the "why" template but I am genuinely curious. I know nothing about the country so I am totally guessing that there are lots of light planes flying between the islands? If so do they have any plans to upgrade them to hybrid or electric planes? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you that the primary data alone will leave the reader puzzled, so we have to look for a secondary source that gives more background info about the high figures (including reliability and significance of the data), and the almost fivefold leap in 2015. –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked on the internet but could not find any more info. Perhaps someone local could find out whether EDGAR is correct and if so why and if not what the correct figure is. Perhaps this will be important for the country's image when tourists from Korea return? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/23/could-a-green-new-deal-turn-south-korea-from-climate-villain-to-model Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Languages
Japanese and English are spoken languages. Renrenpolitician (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely claim
The article states that the federal government has, on multiple occasions, tried to interfere with the traditional government’s gaining of power. I looked at the constitution, and from what I understand, something like that would be highly unconstitutional - I’m new to editing, didn’t want to make any changes before verifying. http://www.paclii.org/pw/constitution.html Joden1 (talk) 3:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Palau National Motto
I have found [https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/wires/features/travel/palau-a-heavenly-place-on-earth/#:~:text=A%20rainbow%20in%20the%20sky%20over%20Palau%2C%20whose,alone%20in%20the%20water%20like%20a%20giant%20mushroom. this page,] as well as several other sources stating that Palau national Motto is "Rainbow's End", as of yet however I have been unable to find a local translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedesamos (talk • contribs)
 * It may be that it's a phrase used only in English (for example, in tourism marketing). Best I can tell, Palauan for "rainbow" is orrekim, and "rainbow's end" should be something like resl a orrekim, but I'm not seeing that phrase anywhere. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)