Talk:Kiribati

All four hemispheres?

"Kiribati is the only country in the world to be situated in all four hemispheres."

This is demonstrably false as France has overseas departments (think U.S. states), counties (French Polynesia), and New Caledonia (a collectivity) in all four. 99.74.177.187 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I'll relax the wording. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

good wording but saying that France spreads all over the world is not very significant…-Arorae (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Another person removed this claim again, and User:Ohnoitsjamie restored it with a different source from the one cited previously to support it. Unfortunately, it's one of those oblivous things that one can find in generally reliable sources that is obviously false to anybody who knows a few other things readily corroborated by reliable sources, such as the fact that metropolitan France is in the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres, Martinque and Guadeloupe and French Guiana are in the Northern and Western Hemispheres, and Réunion and Mayotte are in the Southern and Eastern Hemispheres. Understanding that this information from reliable sources falsifies the claim about Kiribati is no more impermissible synthesis than WP:OR says simple arithmetic is.

If somebody is determined enough to have the fact stick, they could probably change it to read "all four principal quadrants" as long as we think readers will understand this to refer to the four intersections of pairs of the major hemispheres. None of France is in the southwestern quadrant,—as long as we exclude unincorporated territories such as French Polynesia. Largoplazo (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

'All four cardinal quadrants' is just fine as is. It is an academic nicety to consider French Polynesia as France even if the area is a collection of semi-autonomous overseas territories, the concept is too subtle for most readers and a stretch for the rest. Even the main France page does not claim that the pays d'outre-mer constitute an integral part of the country of France itself. If we do include the French pays d'outre-mer as part of France then we will also have to include the British Overseas Territories (BOTs) or UKOTs, which also occupy all four quadrants. Maybe there are even other countries. We will also be compelled to add the same observation to Wallace and Fortuna, New Caledonia and the other administrative areas. None of this seems desirable. Ex nihil ^(talk) 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"All four cardinal quadrants" is not as it is. The problem is it says all four cardinal hemispheres, which is false, albeit invalidly asserted in what are probably generally reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite right Largoplazo, 'all four cardinal hemispheres', as is, is good, unique, and referenced, don't know where quadrants came into my head. Ex nihil ^(talk) 12:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Whereby you've completely ignored everything I wrote about why the current text is problematic and Kiribati is not unique in this regard. Unless you want to press the argument that French Guiana and Mayotte are figments of everybody's imagination and appear nowhere in reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Largoplazo, I did actually address your text in me previous, have a reread. The main points being: the nation of France is not generally understood to extend to its overseas administrative areas; if it were to then one would have to include the UK & possibly others; it's not what the citations say. Ex nihil ^(talk)

"... is not generally understood": Is it your position that lack of knowledge supersedes reality for purposes of Wikipedia? These places are all integral parts of France, just as much as Alaska and Hawaii are integral parts of the United States. They are not "overseas administrative areas" like French Polynesia and Saint Pierre et Miquelon, or comparable to Guam or American Samoa, they are full departments, just as much so as Calvados, Morbihan, and Vosges. You will readily find citations that tell you this as you will find citations telling you that Hawaii is a full state of the United States despite lying way out in the Pacific Ocean, so stop telling us that citations don't say so. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The other side of this coin is that mentioning this topic at all in the article is to give it WP:UNDUE weight. The concept of "cardinal hemisphere" is of so little interest that when I Googled "cardinal hemisphere", I received only 17 hits—in which almost none of the references to it have anything to do with the hemispheres that we're talking about here. That points to the preferability of removing the remark from the article altogether as inconsequential trivia. Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That is probably the main point here, the hemisphere thing is WP:trivia without much impact on the actual country. (As opposed to say the date line which has moved from trivia to having an impact on tourism.) CMD (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to object if it's removed again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

NHS Physicians Post-Independence

This is only a minor point but it may be of some interest for the Health section. After Independence (1979), at least through the early 80s, UK physicians (and their families) were posted on the major islands. I don't know when the postings ended. Perhaps someone with better access to NHS history/archives could add a line and cite or efn. Zatsugaku (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lengthy Christian denominations list in the infobox

@Arorae: has added a lengthy list of Christian denominations in the infobox which were previously included in the "Other Christian" category. It's a burden on the lead and the relevant religion section of the article is the better place for elaborating the denominational breakdown from my perspective. RegardsNeplota (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota:: are you serious? You, not me, have started an editwar on this article as you have did on other articles since July. You have not respected the rule of 3 edits on Kiribati and you are putting other things than sources say. So your "perspective" is not an argument. and I will ask for your account to be blocked.--Arorae (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote on your last diff comment "I am just defending the stable version of the article before you added a lengthy list of the Christian denominations in the infobox which can be better elaborated in the relevant section.". The problem is that the new results of the 2020 Census were published on June 2022, and I have updated them because they give other keys and figures of each religious denomination, especially after the new Kiribati Uniting Church, created just after the 2015 Census, started again to divide itself into 2 completely different denominations, since 2015 and on. And you cannot add together KUC with KPC and also with complete different religions, some are not even Christian.--Arorae (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't added KUC with KPC. I think you have been mistaken. KPC is included in the other Christian category.Neplota (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Neplota, you say that I am disrespectful with you, but you have systematically undone all my edits since July 2022 without replying at one of my comments. So I am glad that you have finally accepted to discuss this topic. You say that on your opinion, we cannot insert all the denominations in the Infobox. So you have decided to put together "potates and carrots" as said my old math teacher. The problem is that you cannot only indicate the RC and the KUC, the 2 main denominations, and ignore the third one (KPC). And ignore also the Bahai (2.1%) or the Adventists (same figure). There is no technical limit in the length of an Infobox, but you cannot make strange additions that doesn't exist in the Source (official 2020 Census, published June 2022) about the 119,438 inhabitants of Kiribati. You have reverted so many times all the data in less than one month (according to an Admin, you haven't reverted it 3 times in less than 24 hours, you are lucky because you will receive no block), but it is not the very first time that you show few capacity of fair exchange, not replying or opening discussion so lately, as you have done here. Of course the article Religion in Kiribati could me more precise and complete than the Infobox, but the source is primordial and you cannot alterate numbers. Regards.--Arorae (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This was overly detailed for the infobox. I removed another Christian denomination, outside of Catholics, it is very mixed. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Kiribati in Gilbertese

Re the recent infobox edits, here are some citations for the pronunciation of Kiribati in Gilbertese. https://www.britannica.com/place/Kiribati and https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/kiribati I can provide some assurance that this is generally correct, but I have no info whether the correct convention here should be Kiribas, Kiribass, or kɪrəbæs. Zatsugaku (talk)

@Zatsugaku:. Gilbertese language pronounces Kiribati as /Kiribæs/ but IPA ([ˌkɪrɪˈbæs]) should be more specific or accurate. Most of the people pronounce the letter i as in English "bit". --Arorae (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) Relating to Wikipedia's article on Gilbertese, there does not appear to be the phoneme for "s". Is there, in fact, a sound for "s" which is not represented by that letter, namely, by "ti"?

(2) At least, one of the sources cited (Oxford) does not support just giving /Kiribæs/ as the correct pronunciation. Rather, it gives both, including: /ˌkɪrɪˈbɑːti/. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224329/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kiribati. Hence, I think that both pronunciations ought to be given.Mwidunn (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kiribati Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Currency

In the currency section of the infobox, it has a note saying that the Kiribati dollar is not an official currency with no source. Is that really correct? I understand that the Australian dollar is the de facto currency there, but I think that note is incorrect. Anyone have any more info on that? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

More than being de facto, the Australian dollar (AUD) officially replaced the Kiribati dollar (KID), to which it was pegged 1:1. Here are two references: https://www.kiribatitourism.gov.ki/kiribati-pacific-ocean-location/practical-info/ and https://www.monito.com/en/what-is-the-currency-in/kiribati

Based on information on Kiribati dollar, the currency only existed physically as coinage and was last produced in 1992 and mainly exists as collectables. Nevertheless, I don't see stated anywhere that the old Kiribati dollar coinage was legally demonetized, so the situation is ambiguous, but really just on the level of splitting hairs. (It is reasonable to assume some incidental local circulation and some Forex platforms still post a page for it.)

While there is a main page for the Kiribati dollar, it is probably appropriate to describe its history with a sentence or two in this article body rather than only a cursory footnote. Zatsugaku (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but the very rare Kiribati dollars coins still available in the country are nowadays only collectors and of course they are pegged to the Australian dollar 1:1. I haven’t seen one coin like last year (I stayed there 3 months) but only one collection dollar in a dusty box, sold at ANZ bank for A$10 (and it took one week to find the Government account to be credited of those $10!). You can consider that de facto those coins didn’t exist anymore. Arorae (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Modest additions to improve wikilinks

A couple of topics might be worth adding enhancing so we can add wikilinks.

1) Should there be a short section here on Kiribati’s response during the pandemic? There is a main page COVID-19_pandemic_in_Kiribati, but it doesn’t seem to be referenced on this page. It also isn’t referenced in the list on National_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic page. I think there should be enough mentioned here to at least to have wikilinks.

2) A recent event that has been in the news has been the hospital ship visit by China to several Pacific nations, including Kiribati. Does it justify mention here or merely on the Foreign_relations_of_Kiribati main page and/or only on the China–Kiribati_relations page (neither of which mention the visit yet)? Zatsugaku (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

These sound like very specific additions to this very general page. Have you considered whether other subpages may be a more appropriate? CMD (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

CMD, sure. However, for 1 I think the minimum is a single sentence somewhere to contain the wikilink to the current COVID pandemic in Kiribati main page. And I can also add a new list entry on the National responses page also going to that page. For 2, if you think the ship visit only belongs on the China-Kiribati page, that is just fine. At some point it might be appropriate to be part of a more integrated discussion on the Foreign relations page. Thanks. Any other thoughts? Zatsugaku (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the current state of the article a sentence on Covid-19 might fit in history, over time secondary and tertiary sources should establish its relative importance more clearly. I do not think the ship visit belongs on this page, but it may be appropriate for Foreign relations of Kiribati. CMD (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I just found an additional page, COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania that should probably be fit. into the same sentence. Zatsugaku (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Additions done. Zatsugaku (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I discovered a page for Amalgamated Telecom Holdings Kiribati Limited Aka Telecom Services Kiribati Ltd (TSKL) and linked it. I noticed that that page's content hasn't been updated in several years. However, there is a fairly current LinkedIn page for TSKL and I'll expand/update.

The Independent and Sovereign Republic of Kiribati

Twice now, User:Sri Imperator Maharaja has edited this article to report the formal name of Kiribati to be the "Independent and Sovereign Republic of Kiribati", the second time supplying two sources in the edit summary, and User:Glide08 has reverted it as mistaken. I checked the country's constitution and found no declaration of its official name. There is section 132, "Interpretation", that defines terms used in the document, including:

• "'Kiribati' means the territories which immediately before Independence Day comprised the colony of the Gilbert Islands, and which are more particularly specified in Schedule 2 to this Constitution". "Kiribati" isn't defined here in terms of a longer formulation, as it would be if it were meant to be understood as a substitute for an official name. Instead, it's defined directly in terms of the geographical expanse of the country. This suggests to me that "Kiribati" is its official name.
• "'the Republic' means the Republic of Kiribati". The capitalized "R" suggests that "Republic" is part of the country's name, but "Republic of Kiribati" appears no where else in the document (except as noted below), and, as I already observed, "Kiribati" isn't defined in terms of it. I suspect it's just a matter of a spelling practice that I wouldn't have recommended if I'd been consulted: it should read "'the Republic' means the republic of Kiribati".

At the end of the constitution is Schedule 1, "Oaths and Affirmations". which provides four oaths for various occasions, such as

I, , swear by Almighty God [or solemnly affirm] that I will uphold the dignity of the office of Beretitenti, and will justly and faithfully carry out my duties in the administration of the Independent and Sovereign Republic of Kiribati in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

Here, we do have "Independent and Sovereign Republic of Kiribati". But because this has appeared nowhere else, and given the ceremonial nature of these oaths, I think that this is no more than floral verbiage contrived for this purpose alone and that it is in no way an official name. Perhaps the sources SIM provided observed this formulation and concluded that it must be the formal, official name of the country. That might seem to be a reasonable inference, but, as I've shown, it doesn't hold up in the broader context.

Oh, but now I just looked at the UN's list of official names of its members. It gives "Republic of Kiribati". If that's the name Kiribati is giving to the UN to use, then maybe they do treat it as the official name even though their constitution doesn't say so. Maybe it's been declared in legislation. Largoplazo (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Republic of Kiribati, without "Independent and Sovereign", is the name that appears on the EU's Institutional Style Guide and the United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (UNTERM), and also on the cover of Kiribatian passports, so that's the correct one. Glide08 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the sources Sri Imperator Maharaja used include worldstatesmen.org, which is flagged as an unreliable source here. Glide08 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be "Republic of Kiribati"/"Ribaberiki Kiribati", per all sources given plus UNGEGN. CMD (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)