Talk:Pitcairn Islands/Archive 6

Seventh-day Sabbath practice
I removed a claim from the article that the Pitcairn Islanders practiced a seventh-day sabbath prior to their conversion to Seventh-Day Adventism, here. There was a reference given, but it doesn't support the claim. Another wikipedia article, List of Seventh-day Adventists, uses a couple of different references for the same claim, but neither of these have anything pertinent, either. In fact, a preacher denouncing seventh-day adventists, in 1928, claimed that exactly the opposite was true, except for creative book-keeping, here.

Of course, anyone finding actual evidence for this is encouraged to replace it. --kundor (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The Islanders were attracted to the Seventh Day Adventist faith, in part because of the Saturday Sabbath, because of a problem with the DateLine. The Bounty Mutineers had sailed east and not adjusted for what we now call the International Date Line. So for over 20 years they practised a Sunday Sabbath on what was actually Saturday. Fletcher Christian's eldest son, the first child born on the island was known as Friday October Christian (because he was born on a Friday in October) until he was over 20 years old, when the island corrected the date. It was not until 1808 when the Topaz visited that they became aware of the mistake, and not til 1814 when the British visited that they corrected the date and day of the week. So when they read about the Seventh Day Adventists they were attracted to the idea that they had in fact been right in their choice of Sabbath. 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)~ Noel Ellis, Wellington, New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)


 * Sounds like romanticized BS. Pitcairn, Tahiti and Tofua are all in the western hemisphere, and the international date line in 1788 was as far west as the South China Sea. The ship would have crossed the date line for the first and last time long before the mutiny. 89.172.88.67 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong about Thursday October Christian being originally known as Friday. All the accounts of the visit of the Tagus in 1814 refer to him as Thursday. With regard to the "Date Line" the Bounty had sailed east and had not adjusted the date, partly because none of the local population in the Pacific would be using a calendar to tell them that Capt Bligh was wrong. At the time of the mutiny the Bounty was east of Tonga so in the Western Hemisphere. It is recorded that the error in the date (and day of the week) was corrected by Capt Pipon of the Tagus in 1814 when he noted that Adams (aka Alex Smith) was one day out in his reckoning. As for the Date Line, British ship's captains, such as Capt Cook or Dampier only made the adjustment at Batavia in the Dutch East Indies. While the Spanish in the Philippines kept "American time" until 1844 because of their connections west from Mexico. 02:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Noel Ellis

Edit request from, 24 October 2011
The Pitcairn site as currently written does not address the massive crimes perpetrated against the women of that island. a large percentage of the men on the island are convicted child rapists. (Karen Marks, "Lost Paradise: From Mutiny on the Bounty to a Modern-Day Legacy of Sexual Mayhem, the Dark Secrets of Pitcairn Island Revealed", Free Press, 2009)  I have tried to place verifiable information that references that truth on the site. That information keeps being removed. Where the current post says "sex crimes" that is far too vague and does not offer sufficient warnings to possible future victims, "child rape" is accurate and more responsible as a warning to those who are trying to understand the situation on the island. (From the Independent in Britain: Pitcairn Island mayor gets three years for child rape)

Nothing that I have tried to post is even close to controvertible I feel that by preventing the editing of this article, you are protecting the wrong people. where the post currently says "Children under the age of 16 years require a completed entry clearance application in order to visit the island.[24]". I feel it should say: "Children under the age of 16 years require a completed entry clearance application in order to visit the island.[24] This prohibition is in place due to the high percentage of adult men on the island who are convicted pedophiles with a prison record for child rape."

For sure this is ugly stuff. But ugly is different from false. Keeping the truth off the site is not ok.

Nextbook (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC) nextbook
 * Any chance you could cite your sources, there? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking this request as answered; feel free to restore it if and when sources can be provided. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing posted about the long history of child rape and abuse of women on this site. it may not be pretty stuff, but it is none the less true and verifiable. whether or not the people like it, it is a relevant, important, and timely part of the discussion about this place. to prevent postings that notify all people that there are a number of convicted child rapists free on the island may serve the criminals but how does it serve the victims and future victims? I am certain that most people convicted of crimes would prefer the details not be available on Wikipedia, why is that relevant? Nextbook (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Gulleyowl


 * See Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, which is indeed linked from the text of this article. Please also be aware of the stern policies here as to biographies of living persons. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Info regarding the sexual assault trials had been grouped under the British Colony sub-heading. I don't see what they had to do with the subject of British colonisation; so, I have given them their own sub-heading in the history section. Rational: It seemed to be the only way to incorporate a 'main' link into that body of text and, It seems that a subject that is sufficiently notable to have its own article, should have at least a sub-section in its parent article. Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why on earth are there so many redactions in this? It's on the public record that residents were convicted of sexual crimes with underage girls. -82.19.152.29 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I removed them, that's completely unnecessary and not at all what BLP is about. I don't know why User:Gwen Gale did that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

National Geographic Special: Sharks of Lost Island
I am not sure where to put the following into the article:

In 2012, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Enric Sala produced Sharks Of Lost Island which at the end discusses the Pitcairn Islands being turned into a Marine Reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damionpaulhart (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Land expropriated at Pitcairn without compensation (against E.U. treaties?)
The Talk page for Palmyra Atoll about "the world's most remote private land" says Pitcairn is supposedly disqualified because the British government took everybody's private land without compensation --- around when the sex case came up. If this really happened (and possibly was illegal under the United Kingdom's European Union treaties requiring fair compensation for land takings by government), then this is noteworthy and should be described in the Pitcairn article itself. Quote from Talk:Palmyra Atoll:
 * The Pitcairn Island colony is not a candidate for having "the world's most remote private land". The Pitcairn Islands LAND TENURE REFORM Ordinance (Revised, 2006) currently online at http://www.government.pn/Laws/Land%20Tenure%20Reform%20Ordinance.pdf expropriated all private (freehold) land parcels from the landowners (including the local island residents and non-resident descendants of Pitcairners who live at Norfolk Island, New Zealand and elsewhere).  Private freehold land was abolished and converted into government-owned land, and local island residents were granted temporary leaseholds.  Section 10 of the Ordinance states that the landowners receive no compensation, although the United Kingdom governing Pitcairn is a signatory of European Union treaties that require compensation for a government taking of land.  Pitcairn is as remote as Palmyra but there is no longer any private land at Pitcairn (unless the Ordinance is reversed or overruled by a court in London or Brussels before the scheduled 2019 "Brexit").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.152.133 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The European Court of Human Rights, which would decide this, is in Strasbourg, not Brussels. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Brexit point above is wrong. No need to file court cases before Brexit, about the missing payment for Pitcairners' expropriated land.  Cases claiming compensation can be filed after Brexit, ... first in Pitcairn, then appealed in New Zealand, then in London, and finally in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France all  under Art.  41  of  the  European Convention on Human Rights.  The UK does not intend to withdraw from that treaty, and it will still be the law in the UK and Pitcairn after Brexit.  Refusing to pay just compensation  (“just  satisfaction”) to landowners violates the Convention, including taking all the Pitcairners' private land parcels on Pitcairn Island without any compensation under the Pitcairn Land Tenure Reform Ordinance, since the Ordinance violated "just satisfaction" and Art. 1 ("Property") of Protocol 1 of the treaty.  Apparently, the non-resident Pitcairners did not get anything at all for their inherited properties on Pitcairn Island. (I don't know whether there were any private lands on Henderson Island, Oeno Island and Ducie Island in the colony.)  Almost all of Pitcairn Island was private land, as officially recorded locally there for centuries.  99.118.152.133 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Prominent solicitor Ainslie Nairn (1930-2011) of Edinburgh successfully prevented Scotland from expropriating the Scottish feudal landed titles without compensation, based on those E.U. treaties. That seems similar to the Pitcairn land expropriation. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there are two issues here, not one. First, the Crown has ultimate ownership of all land. so all that happened is that the title to the land granted by the Crown changed from a freehold to a leasehold title. Freehold title usually gives the holder greater rights and is often referred to as "private" ownership, but this needs to be seen in the context of the ultimate Crown ownership. Second, by exercising its right to change the title it offered to the islanders, should the Crown have offered compensation? When the Crown "takes over" "private" land, as it does all the time all over the world (where it has sovereignty), it sometimes does and sometimes does not offer compensation. This will depend on the specific situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, compensation is said to be required in most circumstances, as in the EU case James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 54, Series A no. 98 (ECtHR 1986) http://echr.ketse.com/doc/8793.79-en-19860221/view/ applying Article 1 (P1-1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Suddenly converting a private, perpetual freehold into a temporary leasehold or else nothing (in the Pitcairn Ordinance, island residents got leases but the non-resident Pitcairnese landowners evidently got nothing) looks like a "taking" of some property or value at least.  Anyway it's a pretty significant fact in Pitcairn's history (and for the Norfolk Island Pitcairnese too who lost their inherited properties).  Courts can decide the compensation issue.  The "ultimate Crown ownership" aspect isn't relevant since all fee simple (private) land in the U.K. is theoretically "held of the Crown" in that way (unlike Allodial title in Shetland, Orkney and the Isle of Man), but it gets fair compensation when taken.2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. As I understand it, the Pitcairners had painstakingly maintained their deeds and other written land ownership records at the Adamstown land registry for hundreds of years, all apparently wiped out by the new Ordinance. 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cuisine of the Pitcairn Islands redux
I didn't see, while it was underway. Looking at it now I am concerned some of the merge arguments should have been discounted.

One merge opinion said "Merge the article pretty much starts by saying that the cuisine isn't very notable, no need for a separate article." Irrelevant, since Cuisine of the Pitcairn Islands should never have included this unattributed opinion, in the first place.

Animals, including proto-humans, and our ape cousins, Chimpanzees and Gorillas, have no cuisine. But once early hominids started using fire to roast food, started drying food in the sun, or allowing it to ferment, pickle, or cure, like cheese, they had a cuisine.

Even the simplest food preparation techniques of our hominid ancestors was orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the non-preparation of proto-humans, and would be potentially notable.

The key point to consider, for topics that are potentially notable, is whether reliable sources wrote about them. The personal opinions of wikipedia contributors, my personal opinion, or the personal opinion of those voicing the merge opinions at ? Irrelevant.

Another person voicing a merge opinion noted "...that the Cuisine article appears to have been translated from the Czech equivalent ... neither here nor there, as I can't read Czech..." So what, surely google translate is sufficient to evaluate the depth of coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Naming the ship Bounty
removed the definite article from the name 'Bounty' today. This topic has been extensively discussed elsewhere before. See here. It seems that Llammakey has an agenda to follow. There is a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the use of the definite article depends on the context, is not wrong, and in many cases is preferable.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

19th century migrations to Tahiti
WP article about Tahiti refers to one wave of migration from Pitcairn to Tahiti (and return), in the mid-late 19th c. But this are not mentioned in this article. I believe that it should be, perhaps in a new subsection under "History", but do not have time take it on myself, esp. as this likely would also need more new citations. Acwilson9 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)