Talk:Papua New Guinea/Archive 1

PNG rugby league game
There are a few errors about the annual Kumuls game. It is not against the Australian national team, it is against the Australian Prime Minister's XIII. They are not the same thing. Secondly the game is not always in Port Moresby. Most of the time it is but this year, for instance, it is being played in Lae. I'm going to edit. If it requires a citation I'll find one. Tigerman2005 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Old comments
Whoever has put this up, thank you. It is greatly appriciated by the Wikipedia community I hope, and it has improved the chance that this article can be featured on the main page. Thank you once again.

user:taylorr

Someone Clean this up!!!
Little was known in the West about sex until the nineteenth century, although traders from Southeast Asia had been sexing New Guinea as long as 5,000 years ago collecting bird of paradise plumes.
 * It was vandalism fixed within one minute of being added, although it's possible that you somehow saw a cached copy sometime later.- gadfium 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism
Papua New Guinea is different from a lot of places. Future revisions to the article should describe it in a sympathetic and unbiased way. Even simple terms can have an exclusionary effect, not to mention misrepresent life in the country. For instance,
 * "divided by ethnicities"
 * "remote," "inaccessible"
 * "underdeveloped," "least urban," "poor"

Clean Up
I have decided to put a clean-up tag on this article. Maybe that will improve it. If you think there is any way to clean it up more, then tell me on my talk page. Newguineafan 13:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea honours system
I am planning to make a page on this, I am going to store links here for now

http://www.png-gossip.com/news/g050916.html list of recipients

Bill Clinton got an Order of Logohu when he visited in Dec 06.

Longest river?
Both the articles on the Fly River and the Sepik River claim to be the longest river in PNG. The fly is 1050km and the sepik is 1,126 km, but the Sepik flows into Indonesian west new guinea in one section - perhaps this is why the Fly could claim to be the longest because it is in PNG for the whole route (although on the border in one part). So which one should be listed as the longest river? -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sepik should be stated as the longest IMHO. Just because it flows for part in Indonesia .. it should at least state that it is the longest river in New Guinea. Nomadtales 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig
There's no reason to have a link to the disambig page for the abbreviation "PNG" on the main page. "PNG" should go directly to the disambig page, no question, but typing "papua new guinea" into the search box and then seeing that link was confusing (and I also feel it's a little disrespectful to the nation).

Good article
Good work, folks. :) Metamagician3000 13:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'three major ethnic groups...'?
First para of the Demography section has:


 * All three major ethnic groups in the Pacific Ocean, Melanesians, Micronesians and Polynesians, are represented in Papua New Guinea.

I think this is a problematic use of the term 'ethnic group', espec in regard to 'Melanesian', which is a cover term for some very disparate groups. Plus I don't think there are any Micronesian or Polynesian groups indigenous to PNG--they're usually defined to exclude New Guinea. Dougg 05:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I made some changes. Dougg 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics
"Links with sub-Saharan Africans"? This seems fairly unlikely to me, unless someone can cite a reference to genetic research backing up the statement. ("Papuan Pasts" should have something relevant.) Suggesting that ethnic groups are related merely because of dark skin and curly hair seems pretty Eurocentric to me. MarcusCole12 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the statement for the time being. The statement was "[Papuans'] ancestors have close genetic ties with sub-Saharan African groups".- gadfium 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd statement
The section on politics contains the following statement:


 * It was originally considered that Papua New Guinea should be a purely legislative, as opposed to federal, state.

The opposite of the federal system is usually considered to be the unitary state. The legislature is commonly held to be one of three branches of government (the other two being the judiciary and the executive), a model that applies to both federal and unitary states. What we are saying here seems to be akin to saying:


 * It was originally intended apples should be green, as opposed to round.

Can somebody clarify? -- Chris j wood 11:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the originator of the text you query and in this context "legislative" is another term for "unitary"; both are used in constitutional jurisprudence and I am by no means unaware of the use of the term "legislature" as opposed to executive and judiciary that you mention. However, this may be somewhat arcane in a general interest article and the fact that you were confused by this use of the term raises the possibility that others will also be. I have no objection to the (in this context) synonymous term "unitary" being substituted; if it is less likely to be misconstrued then it is an improvement. Thanks for your query; I honestly hadn't given thought to the fact that the dual meanings of the term could give rise to confusion. Masalai 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
I have cleaned up this section - not sure how it ended up formated in way is has - Can anyone assist in fixing? Now Fixed --Wabat 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes - spelling of title corrected and two items deleted as information is included elsewhere in article (one was incomplete in any case)--Wabat 11:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the reference to airports to the less elegant airstrips, in recognition of the fact that it does not have that many fully serviced "airports". The formatting was like that because you had spaces to start the line, I removed the spaces also. Ans  e  ll  11:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with your change and thanks for fix and comments on formatting. --Wabat 12:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In a population barely over 6 million, how on earth can there be approximately 6 million different indigenous languages? Can we get a real value please? -samaraphile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.194.161 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was vandalised. Now fixed.- gadfium 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please leave the picture caption 'resident turkey of Bago Bago'? This is a technically correct description despite it's appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.238.146 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is clearly not of a turkey. If this is a ceremonial title, you need to provide a reference to that effect.- gadfium 05:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regions section
I've just added a "Regions" sub-section to the "Provinces" section. A couple of things are troubling me: Wantok 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've essentially pasted a copy of this "Regions" section into the Provinces of Papua New Guinea page as well - but duplication of information goes against the grain, for me. How best to handle this?  Should the Regions information be a page in its own right?  It's obviously closely linked with provinces, as a topic.
 * I noticed a comment earlier saying that there shouldn't be sub-headings on a country page. Should this Regions section be a full section (perhaps only containing a link to a Regions page)?  Or perhaps a part of the Provinces section without a subheading?

Portal:Papua New Guinea
This is a reasonably well-formed portal that has been unmaintained for about three months. The creator has not edited Wikipedia at all since March. I helped set up the portal but I am not willing to take over maintenance. Does anyone want to take it over? I would be happy to help someone learn the ropes.-gadfium 02:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal anthem
I think all Commonwealth realms should be in uniform in that the Royal anthem of each realm should be stated. Masalai has argued it is not known in Papua New Guinea that should be all the more reason to add it to give the people viewing this page an opportunity to learn about this country's history. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 8:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see much reason to list an anthem that isn't in use in the country.-gadfium 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why exclude something official just because people dont know about it. Thats like saying the encyclopedia should only have information that people already know. Wouldn't it be more helpful to give them knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have had? Ans e ll  06:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is my point exactly Ans e ll, people come to Wikipedia obviously to learn something. Why would you look things up on an encyclopedia if you already know them? Why not give the people the opportunity to learn they have another official anthem? Matthew Samuel Spurrell 16:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It has no official status in PNG. Until the very eleventh hour it had been assumed that PNG would not maintain the monarchy at all and the arrangements in the Constitution contemplate that the "Head of State" (which is the reference) would be an indigenous non-executive president. Masalai 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, is there any movement in PNG to cease being a Commonwealth Realm and become a republic currently? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Masalai 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be on the article. (I'm sorry, I should have checked here before I did so) Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a uniform royal anthem in Commonwealth countries. Some retain God Save the Queen as the national anthem (UK and New Zealand), others afford GSTQ a different status, some calling it a royal anthem. Incidentally I am not sure it was correct that there was ever an assumption that PNG would become a republic.122.59.73.31 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * God Save the Queen isn't the national anthem of NZ. God Defend New Zealand is. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous links
I've removed a miscellaneous links section from the article, because I could see no reason why some articles and categories are linked but not others. For example, some universities in PNG were linked to, but not all of them. If someone wants to find what other articles we have about PNG, they should start at Category:Papua New Guinea and explore from there.-gadfium 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fast food??
I have never seen a fast food restaurant in a photo of PNG. Does McDonalds exist there? Surely in a country of over 6 million there would be one - New Zealand is smaller yet they are plentiful there.Davez621 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there are no McDonalds in PNG, though there might have been one open in the last few years in Moresby (I don't usually spend much time there). Until recently there was no copyright law in PNG, thus the big chains like McDonalds stayed away as they didn't want their trademarks used by competitors with their own outlets (or something like that).  Some smaller chains have operated in Moresby - 'red rooster' for one.  However there many smaller 'kai bars', which are small takeaway places, in all towns (and there was one in Boroko called 'McDonalds', just for fun).  You can't really directly compare with New Zealand, as the population in NZ is much wealthier and more urbanised. -- Wantok 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Big Rooster is owned by Red Rooster, the West Australian-based chicken takeaway franchise. It uses a different name in PNG because of concerns with the risk of adverse publicity due to the risk of disease in PNG food outlets: the kai bars and produce markets have frequently been vectors of transmission of typhoid. The kai bar in Boroko which used the name "McDonald's" was forced by the international McDonald's company to desist from using the name. Although the Copyright Act, 1978, was not enacted (there is now, however, copyright legislation) such companies readily had resort to the common law of passing off. McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other fast food chains have in the past investigated commencing operations in PNG but have invariably concluded that issues of hygiene were too problemmatic.Masalai 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The local fast food joint in Tabubil when i was growing up was called Gobble and Go. always liked that name. I went to a good pizza restaurant in Moresby once, I think it was at the Travelodge. aliasd·U·T 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, all eateries in the district I was raised in were owned by a company called Poons. These guys had a monopoly on horrible food! they are the biggest fast food chain I can think of, but they werent into branding all that much aliasd·U·T 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

booming tourism industry
The page didn't discuss the rise of tourism in Papua New Guinea in the past decade. I've read in travel/recreation magazines (National Geographic) on the country is a popular draw for hunters, hikers, rafters, surfers, divers and adventure seekers. Several peaks in its' mountain ranges peak upward to 15,000 feet/ 4000 m., a challenge for mountain climbers and helicopter tours. Port Moresby is a retirement haven for thousands of expatriates from Europe, North America and Australia. Property values jumped several digits, but land purchases are cheap and there are low-tax incentives for foreigners to move in or start a business. PNG is mainly undeveloped, but the cities on the south coast reminded me more of Fiji or Tahiti than the commonly displayed image of primal villages or tree houses in the interior. I can tell you myself when I visited Papua New Guinea a year ago, I liked the weather and unspoiled scenery, but clear-cutting lumber firms took down many forests and new farming techniques by the native peoples changed the landscape. I don't see a McDonalds or fast food places, but spotted a modern supermarket right across from a new-looking school. Some new hotels, kai bars and travel clubs are everywhere. PNG gained more foreign investment, since banking regulations are lax or similar to the Swiss banking system. Wikipedia must further explore the issue on tourism and banks in Papua New Guinea. 207.200.116.69 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tourism in PNG is hardly booming. International arrivals actually dropped between 1996 and 2004 and have gained slightly since then. Approx 70,000 people visit PNG each year from overseas. Less than half of these people are tourists. A high estimate of the number of annual tourists is 30,000 people. The entire country gets only 1.5% of the number of international tourists as the CN Tower in Canada, which is only a single building!  aliasd·U·T 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Independance
There's loads of stuff on the constant struggle for the independance that was promised to them. Lots of poeple have died over it. I haven't seen it touched in this article, I think its a serious error to ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.127.197 (talk • contribs)
 * If you are talking about Bougainville, please see History of Bougainville. If you are talking about the independence of Papua New Guinea from Australia, see History of Papua New Guinea.- gadfium 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see your edit summary until just now. For the struggle for independence in West Papua, see Western_New_Guinea. You might like to expand this section.- gadfium 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous Beliefs
"About one third of the population adheres to indigenous beliefs. Many of these also claim to be Christian, while two thirds claim only to be Christians.  About one third of Christians are Roman Catholic, while the remainder are divided among several Protestant denominations." - I took this part away from the article since they are fictional. The national census in 2000 counts something like 98% Christians. This number is superficial, due to the way the census was conducted. However the further division of indigenous believers is just a bad guess. There are no substantial studies about how many citizens of PNG follow which religion. Basically "indigenous beliefs" mix with "Christianity". Carsten--212.41.248.242 12:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Melanesia at WikiProject Council/Proposals whose scope would include Papua New Guinea. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Type of Gov't
The CIA World Factbook (definately a reputable source) states the government type of Papua New Guinea as "constitutional parliamentary democracy" whereas this article states it as a "Constitutional monarchy". Are these the same, or what is going on here? However much I may like Wikipedia, I would be more apt to believe the CIA World Factbook, and therefore change the wording used here. If these are however two words for the same, there is no point. Can anybody help with this? Slithytove2 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The CIA World Factbook is as you say "definately" [sic] a reputable source but if you consult its entries on most parliamentary democracies, whether or not they have a monarch as head of state, it is often rather confused on the niceties of constitutional arrangements in such countries. A constitutional parliamentary democracy is, at least in the anglophone world, a system of "cabinet" or "responsible" government on the model of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Many such countries, such as India and Ireland, have abolished the monarchy and replaced it with a non-executive president; they may be called "republics" but the term is misleading as it may imply to some that the system of government is one of separation of powers as in the USA where the executive branch of government is separately elected and not responsible to the legislature. Where they have not abolished the monarch (Papua New Guinea, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK itself, among others) such parliamentary democracies are often called constitutional monarchies. Both terms are correct. I hope this helps. Masalai 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unity in Diversity
"We were faced with enormous challenges of creating a country out of a complexity of tribal and ethnic diversity. However we went forward with the national slogan: 'Unity in Diversity'." --Michael Somare, Dec 2004. (Currently unavailble - text retrieved from )

Google searching shows plenty of references to that being the national motto/slogan. The PNG constitution certainly allows for the parliament to choose a national motto. However, the PNG parliamentary website doesn't contain much information at this point in time. So while I suspect that the motto is correct, I haven't been able to prove it. Is there any reason to doubt it? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ben, I've added the ref. Wantok (toktok) 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (single)
This is my third opinion: it seems eminently useful to have a disambiguation to the other use of "Papua New Guinea" at the top of this page. The fact that it is a song and not a country (but sharing the same name) is exactly why a link is provided from this page. Grouse 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Agree that there should be a dab link, and per WP:HATNOTE (improper disambiguation links which ... link directly to trivial topics instead of a disambiguation page (such as adding to War "For the band, see War (band)")) it should not include a direct reference to a relatively trivial topic, so I've used the template. Hope that is an approach acceptable to all. Cheers, Wantok (toktok) 10:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how when it makes sense, theres always policy out there that agrees. aliasd·U·T 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Papua New Guinea
Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tok Pisin? Thanks! Chris 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Stap redi". cheers, Wantok (toktok) 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Chris 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

HIV "buried alive" story appears to be false
I'm removing reference to the story about HIV sufferers being buried alive in the Southern Highlands. Despite the worldwide media coverage, the story was based on the statement of one person only, and investigations since have found no evidence to back it up. Wantok (toktok) 09:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PNG
Why does PNG lead to Portable Network Graphics instead of this page? I would imagine a country would be a more commonly searched for article than, what seems to me, to be an article with a niche audience comparatively. 58.110.136.88 04:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed at Talk:PNG, but the discussion seems to have died. I suggest you raise it again on that page, and if you don't get any objections after a few days you change the redirect of PNG to PNG (disambiguation).- gadfium 05:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I've now made that change - PNG redirects to PNG (disambiguation) instead of Portable Network Graphics.  Cheers, Wantok (toktok) 06:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning mainly sourcing. Several sections need to be expanded in order to become more comprehensive. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Coloane (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs more citations before putting back on the GA list. These sections do need to provide more information in order to become more comprehensive: Actually they are still in a rudimentary stage and poorly organized.
 * The section of Geography - no citation is given
 * The section of Ecology - no citation is given
 * The section of Economy - no citation is given
 * The section of Land tenure - no citation is given
 * The section of Sport - no citation is given
 * The section of Religion - no citation is given
 * The section of Geography
 * The section of Culture
 * The section of Transport - only couple sentenses were given.

The section of demographics is pretty vague. Can the editor(s) provide clear ethnics percentages (stats. or figures) that is composing the general population of Papua New Guinea? Coloane (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the above comment here from WP:GA/R for easy reference by anyone who uses this talk page regularly. -Malkinann (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * pls refer to GAR. this article has been delisted rather than going through the procedure of GAR. Coloane (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

bali kyoto   montreal   montr%c3%a9al

 * < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7141660.stm >:


 * "We don't have to resolve all these issues... here in Bali," she said.


 * < http://cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/bali.agreement/?iref=mpstoryview >:


 * BALI, Indonesia (CNN) -- In a dramatic reversal Saturday, the United States rejected and then accepted a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing  carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

art.balikids.jpg


 * Protesters gather outside the conference center in Bali as delegates discuss climate change.


 * The White House, however, said in a statement that it still has "serious   concerns" about the agreement.


 * "The negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change  cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone. Major developing economies must likewise act," the White House said.


 * Under the global warming pact, negotiating rounds would end in 2009.


 * The head of the U.S. delegation, Paula Dobriansky,  undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, announced the United States was rejecting the plan. Her comments were met by  booing from other delegations.


 * The White House said the negotiations must "clearly differentiate" and link responsibility with the level of emissions, size of the economy and energy use among developing countries.


 * "In our view, such smaller and less developed countries are entitled to receive more differentiated treatment so as to more truly reflect their special needs and circumstances," the statement said.


 * After Dobriansky's announcement, a delegate from the developing country of Papua New Guinea challenged the United States to "either lead, follow or get out of the way."


 * Five minutes later, when it appeared the conference was on the brink of collapse, Dobriansky took the floor again to say the United States was willing to accept the arrangement. Applause erupted in the hall and a relative level of success for the conference appeared certain.


 * Kevin Conrad of  Papua New Guinea; I did not hear him mention  Tom Paine,  Thomas Paine,  Thomas_Paine_%28disambiguation%29.


 * < http://google.com/search?q=%22lead+follow+or+get+out+of+the+way%22+%22kevin+conrad%22+%22tom+paine%22+%22%22 >.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 01:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Category:Papua New Guinea stubs?
Why does this article carry the category Papua New Guinea stubs? It doesn't strike me as a stub. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've removed the category.- gadfium 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/exclusion of PNGBD link
A link to the PNGBD website was added by an IP user and removed by a well standing user for not being compliant with the guidelines for external links. I would like to probe for consensus for inclusion, as this site has: Furthermore, the administrator of this site has meaningfully contributed previously by allowing some images to be released under a free license on Commons, and I don't believe her motives here are completely related to self-promotion. aliasd·U·T 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article.
 * A failure to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. (such as flight schedules and tourism guide, which is a fairly good knowledge base)
 * A direct relation to the subject matter of the article.


 * You have more knowledge than I do; if you say the link is okay, I'll accept that. It shouldn't be the first external link in the section; that's reserved for the government web site. An alternative would be to add it to DMOZ, and we already link to that.- gadfium 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Ewing is in the house
PBS reported tonight major oil & natural gas finds... TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 39% of PNG is getting access to sustainable water the scarcity of water is a problem. Hydration, food, clothes, hygiene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.168.99 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

 * Moved from WP:VPT where it did not belong —DoRD (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 I've recently run into a conflict with User:Orderinchaos who seems to think my edits to articles like Kieta disruptive. He thinks it is necessary to have an old infobox for Papua New Guinea (obviously Papua New Guinea is so special it needs a seperate infobox) which uses an old fashioned x and y pin for displaying a rather odd looking yellow pin on a very dark map File:PNGlocation4.png, a png rather than a higher quality lighter svg. I think the old infobox is redundant, he disagrees. I tried to improve the infobox not only with a higher quality svg but with a beneficial locator showing the settlement on the island itself. This is going to need consensus wither way or the other. Which infobox is preferred. Orderinchaos claims that my infobox is ugly and bloated but he is failing to see that infobox settlement is used in 90% of our place articles on wikipedia and is obviously approved by a lot of people. He has a point about the size of the infobox, I just want articles to be consistent and familiar to the most amount of editors. The vast majority would not know how to edit the PNG infobox. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This comes down to a simple behavioural issue that has nothing to do with the scope of this board - Dr Blofeld has an obsessive, long running campaign to get various templates deleted, and in doing so will resort to any measure, not limited to raising spurious complaints, throwing round allegations of misconduct, obfuscating the issue, etc. The sorts of issues he is raising here were identical to the ones he used last year to try and get the Australian infobox deleted (without consulting anyone first, contrary to WP:DP), and following that, we actually fixed the infobox, to Dr Blofeld's apparent satisfaction as I got a barnstar for my work on it. I would suggest that instead of trying to game the system, Dr Blofeld actually does the one thing he never did at any time - raise the issue with those concerned and engage with them on how to fix it. Orderinchaos 16:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I preferrer Infobox PNG Place, which has the information it needs, over Infobox settlement which is bloated and not suited to PNG. Also rather insulting to PNG on the way you state "obviously Papua New Guinea is so special it needs a seperate infobox", why should everyone (PNG isn't the only project to have this forced without discussion) be forced onto a template that is overly complicated and bloated? Bidgee (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you are a fellow WP:Australia member so obviously you are going to side with Ordeirnchaos... Expect many more WP:AUs members to turn up and oppose this as the infobox itself is an Australian invention..

No, I think there are a lot of redundancies on wikipedia and I think having a special ifnobox purely for Papu New Guinean villages is one of them. It is not purely about infoboxes. I just want articles on towns and villages on wikipedia to be consistent and for the infoboxes to be familiar to the majority of our editors. Infoboxes are part of the process which I believe are towards a consistent familiar format on wikipedia. The encyclopedia is better off having a certain standard of layout and structure I think. Don't know about you but that dark map with a dark sea and bright yellow dot is not good on the eyes..., blurry and poor quality. Then you compare it to my island map with a precise dot...  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start showing some good faith! Really who fucking cares what project I'm with? I'm not siding with Orderinchaos because he is Australian, far from that infact. I also suggest you start discussing and not disrupting. Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It matters greatly, as it was your WP:AUS ganging up that rigged tens of template deletions back in September. Now it seems you are going to rig the continual use of this redundant old infobox because PNG is in on you "turf", or near it. Why is it none of you could give a monkeys about Papua New Guinea but now I am here to try improve the articles witha cleanup job updating infoboxes and adding text and references you suddenly turn up?? The PNG place articles are staler than a 30 year old piece of bread!! Dr. Blofeld      White cat 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Think what ever you want, there was a consensus to keep but improve the Australian place template. There was no rigging or ganging up like you're suggesting. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We didn't invent the PNG infobox, although they were heavily inspired by ours. And I don't think "standardisation for standardisation's sake" is a good idea, especially with a template that is so inherently problematic as Infobox Settlement. It's acceptable as a starting point but projects should use it as a springboard from which to launch later on in my view. And your complaints about the map, which have been noted, are irrelevant - I have already said at least twice that that will be looked at as soon as I get time, and I'll probably as far as I can get away with, copy the solution (which you explicitly approved after the fact) that worked for Australia last time you tried to do this.
 * We also didn't "rig" anything - you nominated a popular template for deletion without even following WP:DP which suggests talking to the creators/maintainers etc before taking such a drastic step. As an editor said in a more recent debate, "the discussion on Infobox Australian place [...] may have been a lot more productive if editors proposing change had taken the time to discuss their concerns with the editors who used the template rather than using process to push through their desired outcome." Process, in that case, even included threatening an admin with desysopping. And the debate, as I read it, pretty much demonstrates you were overruled on the facts, not on anything else.
 * And on the topic of redundancy - Infobox Settlement is definitionally redundant. 4,000 articles means 4,000 type declarations. On the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, that's a recipe for inconsistency and disaster. Having small-scale, "smart" templates means the data is coded into the template itself and is triggered with a reference. That's how things are done in the real world - I should know, I worked there for several years and one of my database designs is still in use in an ASX 200 listed, ISO 9001 compliant organisation. So please stop arguing that your template eliminates redundancy - it introduces it at whole new levels, and it bloats articles both in physical size and in appearance. Orderinchaos 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Obesity
I've removed the para on obesity. It was citing this page on a site called allcountries.org that presented PNG as having by far the highest obesity level in the world in "Country Rankings 2010", with 74.8% obesity for males and 79.5% for females. This sounded alarm bells for me - having lived and worked in PNG on and off for 20 years, it is obviously not the case that PNG has anything even remotely like the obesity level of countries such as Nauru, Tonga, Samoa and other small western Pacific island states.

The source that allcountries.org cites, the International Obesity Taskforce, has a table of country data listing a single survey for PNG dated 1991, with no further source details. However, the source became clear after some more hunting.

The World Health Organisation lists PNG as having insufficient data on obesity, and does not include it in its obesity country list. Digging into the "Detailed Data" section of that page, it shows details of six surveys in PNG. In 1991, five communities were surveyed (three rural and two urban), and the figures for one of the urban surveys (in Koki, near the Post Moresby CBD) exactly match those quoted by the International Obesity Taskforce - 74.8% for males and 79.5% for females.

For some reason the other data was not included by IOT. The other surveys in 1991 report obesity levels much lower than this for all the other communities, with male totals ranging from 6% to 48% and female totals from 4% to 43%. A 1995 rural survey, in the Purari delta, reported 17% obesity in males and 14% for females.

Overall it seems clear that a single survey of one village (Koki) is unrepresentative of PNG as a whole, and should not be cited in isolation.

Wantok (toktok) 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice detective work. I agree with your removal of the para.- gadfium 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request
Edit semi-protected

What the majority do needs a verb, not a noun.

"The majority of the population live in traditional societies and practice subsistence-based"... should be changed to

"The majority of the population live in traditional societies and practise subsistence-based"...


 * That is British spelling. In American English, practice is the noun and the verb and practise is not used. For this, see Manual of Style. —Stephen (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been reverting on principle, but which version of English should this article use? It seems currently a few different ones scattered throughout. Should we standardise to Australian English? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, change to Australian English. —Stephen (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian spelling generally follows conventions of British English - the edit request should stand as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.191.241 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the change originally, as "practise" looks odd. However, I think I was wrong, and this is correct for the verb although not for the noun in Commonwealth English. I now support this change.- gadfium 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's becoming clear that once an article goes to US- or commonwealth-spelling, it should be flagged somewhere to keep confusion down to a dull roar. Kortoso (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Governor-General
"The Queen is represented by the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea, currently Sir Paulias Matane."

According to the article on him, he stepped down in December. So who is the present gouvenor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.144.97 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Michael Ogio was elected GG, after quite a bit of political turmoil around the issue of the vote. I've updated the article; thanks for picking that up. Wantok (toktok) 12:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Underlying law of PNG based on common law of Australia or of England?
The Papua New Guinea article says (in Section 2.1 Law) "The "underlying law" — that is, the common law of Papua New Guinea — consists of Australian common law as it stood on September 16, 1975 (the date of Independence)..."

The Law of Papua New Guinea article says (under "Underlying Law") "The Constitution declares the "underlying law" — that is, the separate common law of Papua New Guinea — to consist of the Constitution, "customary law" derived from the "custom" of the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the common law of England as it stood at the date of Papua New Guinea's independence on 16 September 1975."

Which is correct?203.147.102.1 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Air travel the only option?
The statement "In some areas, airplanes are the only mode of transport" seems to me to be a Westerner's POV (strapped for time but not for cash). I've made a search online and I can't find anything that supports this. The only results that go near it cover humanitarian flights such as those operated by the Mission Aviation Fellowship and commercial flights offering adventure safaris. Presumably the locals still rely on the network of forest trails and navigable rivers for their daily movements. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You must know a pretty well-off crowd of westerners. Daily movements probably take place on forest trails, but daily movements won't take you far. Lonely planet notes that travelling mostly means flying. According to the Australian government, flight is necessary because road links are slow or nonexistent. Air travel is expensive for each trip, but the infrastructure is much cheaper than a road through highly mountainous area. CMD (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lonely Planet and the Austrade aren't writing for the average PNG citizen.
 * The Austrade site states: "(...) highways in other parts of the country are in very poor condition. (...) Although open and well-used most of the time, it is advisable to fly to the Highlands due to the substantial travelling time incurred if travelling by road."
 * That's definitely a westerner's POV: "we don't have much time as we're on leave from work, but we have the cash to pay for a plane ticket". Also note that it states that roads are open (most of the time) and well-used. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's telling where you began that quote. Before that, the website says "Travel around Papua New Guinea (PNG) is limited mostly to air transport. Port Moresby is not connected to the rest of the country by road, and highways in other parts..." So clearly you can't get from Port Moresby to other major cities by road. It states a single road (the Highlands Highway) is open and well used, not all roads. If you have anything more substantial about this than the assertion that only westerners can afford to ride a plane, then post here. CMD (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I scanned over that too quickly, don't take it as bad faith! The key word in that statement would be "mostly", indicating that aircraft are not the only method of travel. According to this map, not even scheduled flights cover the whole country and presumably one would have to go by boat to reach the northern islands. Since we could probably keep running around in circles for a while, should we work on a better, more inclusive, wording for this issue? Preferably not using sources aimed at tourists. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found an excellent source at the World Bank ("Air services are prohibitively expensive for the rural population"). The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the sentence in question states "In some areas", so it's not covering the whole country. It probably refers to areas in the mountainous west, as the worldbank notes that air travel is necessitated by difficult topography. Odd that there are no flights to New Britain, considering the extensive mainland network. As a note, the Australian website isn't made for toursits, but for people doing business in PNG. What sort of wording would you suggest? We could add notes about the roads that do exist, and about how many coastal settlements are only accessible by sea. CMD (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we leave the subject of how people get about in PNG to the Transport section and beef up the Geography section with a bit more on the topography, something better than "you need an aeroplane to go shopping" (humour intended). The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. We can use the worldbank source you found to buff up the shopping info in Transport then. CMD (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"gained its independence from Australia in 1975"
Not strictly speaking true. Its independence was recognised by Australia as by other countries in 1975. But Australia only recognised its sovereignty as governments of other countries did -- at the insistence of the United Nations. Australia took administration of British New Guinea in 1905, four years after the British colonies of Australia entered confederation and the Commonwealth of Australia was formed. It seized German New Guinea in 1914 at the beginning of the First World War, being granted administrative power over it by the League of Nations after the war and by the United Nations after the second. The dominions of the British Empire — Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia were granted sovereignty by the Westminster Act in 1931. But Australia refused to accept it until 1942, halfway through the Second World War with the Westminster Acceptance Act. But a colony cannot have a colony, and there was never any formal alteration of Australia’s mere administration of British and then German New Guinea. Masalai (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Who says a colony cannot have a colony? — kwami (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, it's a stretch to say Australia was a colony between 1901 and 1942 based on Masalai's logic. The Statute of Westminster has zero to do with any of this. It was a legislation that formalised something already accepted - that Australia was an independent nation. You've clearly just lifted the Wiki entry from there without giving it context. AFAIK the British parliament didn't take any steps to reject any legislation passed by the Australian government before then. And what does "mere administration" mean? That's pretty much the definition of one country controlling another entity? I have not seen a decent source that doesn't suggest PNG was under Australian control before independence. This revisionism is frankly weird and I don't know what his angle is. He's brought it up again in 2015 as if PNG suddenly decided it was going to form a government out of nowhere. Complete baloney. The administration of PNG was undertaken through laws passed in the Australian parliament and an Australian appointed administrator in PNG. To suggest Australia was just a passenger to any of this is to reject the truth of the matter. Tigerman2005 (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect graphic? Seems to have been tampered with
I thought it seemed strange that 8.3% of Papua New Guinea's exports are poles, so I went to the source of the graphic (in the Economy section) that makes this claim. The original source says "Wood in the Rough" where Wikipedia's version says "Poles, treated or painted with preservatives." Can someone fix this?

Here's the link to the original version:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses.hetfield (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The MIT version is highly interactive. "Freezing" it into simple graphics file doesn't do it justice. There must be another way of displaying this. Kortoso (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

History
I have reviewed the entire article and made several edits to improve clarity, conciseness, word usage, and punctuation. Now, upon reviewing the section on "History", I notice that the dates skip around quite a bit. For example, in the second paragraph, it goes in a few sentences from 7000 BC to 500 BC to the 18th century. Then, in subsequent paragraphs, the dates go back a few centuries and then forward. Does anyone care to take a look at the "History" section and attempt to put events in an order that is closer to chronological order or some other order that makes sense? If I don't hear from anyone, I will work on it myself.CorinneSD (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Error
The opening para states papa is part of South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.51.106 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism. Reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Economy
The third paragraph in the section "Economy" ends with the following:


 * " the actual construction phase for natural gas exploration, production, and exportation in liquefied form (Liquefied Natural Gas or "LNG") by LNG tankers (LNG carrier), all of which will require multi-billion-dollar investments (exploration, production wells, pipelines, storage, liquefaction plants, port terminals, LNG tanker ships)."

It is not really clear whether this is just general information or is information about a specific project. It seems just tacked on to the end of the paragraph and not connected to anything. The fourth paragraph describes the first major LNG project, a project of a consortium led by Exxon-Mobil. If the information quoted above from the third paragraph is really about the project introduced in the fourth paragraph, shouldn't that information be in the fourth paragraph, adding to the description of that project? – CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
Clinton does not belong on this page - she belongs on the US-Papua New Guinea Relations page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Republican assumptions
Is there any real evidence for the claim that there was an assumption PNG would be a republic? It seems highly improbable that the monarchy was retained solely so that royal honours could be kept.122.59.73.31 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Human Rights Source Citation Correction
"According to UNICEF, nearly half of reported rape victims are under 15 years of age and 13% are under 7 years of age[34] while a report by ChildFund Australia citing former Parliamentarian Dame Carol Kidu claimed 50% of those seeking medical help after rape are under 16, 25% are under 10 and 10% are under 8."

The article referenced an article by the Guardian that references the original source, ChildFund. I corrected it so that it now references the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcbride91 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Independence from Australia"
Vastly incorrect. Australia was never the colonial master of PNG. Australia refused to accept sovereignty under the Westminster Act, 1931 and reluctantly accepted it in 1942 halfway through the Second World War. So its acceptance of governance over British New Guinea soon after Australian "Federation" (so called)and German New Guinea after the First World War was NOT a matter of becoming the colonial power. It was not "Independence from Australia" but merely "independence." Masalai (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "So called" federation? Well what would you call it? Whatever the lead up, it is still clear that in 1972 at least Australia was administering PNG and the vast majority of sources state this. But sure if you've got some decent sources stating that PNG was not being administered by Australia then go for it. I don't think Australia (at least post WW2) really saw themselves as a colonial ruler but the Aust government appointed an administrator up to independence so I don't think it's unreasonable to say PNG achieved independence from Australia. You don't become independent from nowhere, you need to be independent from something. Tigerman2005 (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Papua New Guinea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20090715/news05.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mj.gov.tl/dntp/rel/DATA/LLP%20I/ARD%20Reports%20and%20studies/Compartive%20Study/Comparative%20study%20by%20HBW%20Inc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Papua New Guinea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140110165335/http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20130625/tuhome.htm to http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20130625/tuhome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of PNG in Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu
The Tok Pisin name is Papua Niugini, not "Papua Niu Gini". The long form in Hiri Motu is Gau Hedinarai ai Papua-Matamata Guinea (short form: Papua-Matamata Guinea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.117.199 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording
From the politics section: In the early years of independence, the instability of the party system led to frequent votes of no confidence in Parliament with resulting changes of the government of the day, but with referral to the electorate, through national elections only occurring every five years.

Is there any other way to word that sentence? It sounds wrong, but I can't figure out why... --Ph03n1x77 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Margalob (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)--Ph03n1x77 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It starts out by documenting a fact (the frequent votes of no confidence) and its cause (instability of the party system), then ends by asserting a viewpoint (that national elections happening once every five years is not very often), while trying to relate the two through a clause that doesn't make much sense with regard to either of them. Perhaps it needs to be two sentences:


 * In the early years of independence, the instability of the party system led to frequent votes of no confidence in Parliament, resulting in changes of the government of the day. National elections were held every five years.


 * Although we then also need to work out if national elections are still held every five years -- is this mentioned elsewhere in the article, because if it is then perhaps that second sentence can be removed entirely. MPS1992 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Republic in Oceania?
On the Mobil View of this article, there is a subtitle "Republic in Oceania" under the main title (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea). Because Papua New Guinea is a monarchy, there should definitely be "Monarchy in Oceania" or at least "State in Oceania". Can somebody fix it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.167.72 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Discovered by the Portuguese
The island was discover by the Portuguese in 1511 and named it Nova Guiné (New Guinea) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.229.142 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There should be a section that references the high level of Marijuana production and consumption
Papua New Guinea is the world's largest consumer of marijuana and a significant producer. However, if you were to try and figure out the "why" behind this you'd find yourself lacking any easy-to-read material. There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the topic however the page is not referenced in this page. In fact there is no reference at all to the significance of marijuana or the plant used to create it despite the fact that this country sits at the very top of marijuana consumption, by country, also a Wikipedia page. The unique proximity of Papua New Guinea with the high rates of marijuana consumption may give the impression that cannabis plant species are native to the region when in fact they are not. However, they are native to nearby regions. This lack of clarification on the cultural significance of marijuana consumption in Papua New Guinea can easily give rise to inaccurate assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbman8 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PM
Could someone change "The List of Prime Ministers of Papua New Guinea heads the cabinet" to read "The Prime Minister heads the cabinet" with a LINK to the List of Prime Ministers of Papua New Guinea?Jraykennedy (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Papua New Guinea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/pages/NT000027A2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/21/languages-on-papua-vanish-without-a-whisper.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824183514/http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/wmr2005/profiles/papuang.pdf to http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/wmr2005/profiles/papuang.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) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)