Talk:Michael Somare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

This is the sort of article that absolutely shows how fantastic Wikipedia can be! --PeterMarkSmith 11:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting wealth/Somare House section

I'm deleting the "Somare House" section, containing allegations of extreme wealth and with suggestions of impropriety, per the

Biographies of living persons policy. This kind of material needs strong sources, especially for a living person biographic article. Wantok 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Full title

Is it really necessary to mention his full title in every paragraph? General practice seems to be to outline it initially and then just use the person's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.231.86 (talk • contribs)

You make a good point. I'll have a go at altering this. --Bduke 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re the recent edit war here - the

Wikipedia Manual of Style section on honorific prefixes
says:

Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.

Accordingly, this article should use "Sir Michael Thomas Somare" in the first sentence, and simply "Somare" inline throughout the article (as it currently does), with the existing brief mention of the full title in the Honours section. There is absolutely no need for the full title to be used at every point in the article - that does not accord with Wikipedia policy or everyday PNG usage. Any copy of a daily newspaper makes it clear that the full title is rarely, if ever, used in the PNG media. Wantok (toktok) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. I would simply point out, though, that "Sir Michael" is also acceptable as an alternative to "Somare" - assuming PNG follows British custom in this matter, that is. Aridd (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would be odd for Sir Michael to accept this British honour but not to follow British custom. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article seems to skim over the controversies - notably the Moti affair - of Somare's career. This and the overuse of honorifics suggests that the material was written by someone with a heavy National Alliance bias, or was copied straight from the PM's website. 125.255.9.231 09:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is copied from the PM's website, you should be able to point to details. I can not reach the site at present. I see no need for the tag on the article itself. You have made a good point here and I'm sure that editors will address them. It is not as if this article has only had one editor. It has been edited by many people over quite a time. --Bduke 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly agree we need a section on the Moti affair here. As for some single biased author, or being copied from his website, those accusations are pretty clearly unfounded. I think the article should have a section on the Moti affair added, and the bias tag removed. Wantok (toktok) 11:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a section on the Moti affair. Any objections to the bias tag being removed? Wantok (toktok) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I removed the Fifty kina note section too - it seemed pretty pointless in its current state. Feel free to bring it back to life in a way that improves the article. Wantok (toktok) 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the POV tag since the reason it was added no longer is a problem. Antonrojo 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a great deal of confusion between removal as prime minister and removal from parliament. Also, did he resign or was he removed. If neither, how could a successor be elected? On what grounds did the supreme court overturn O'Neill's appointment? If O'Neill was not validly appointed, doesn't that mean that there is no PM - not that Somare's resignation/removal is somehow reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moti affair

  • I've made a new section here in talk for the Moti affair, as it will no doubt need plenty of discussion in future. I've just made some changes to the Moti affair section, to improve referencing, make things more chronologically ordered, clarify the circumstances of Aini's sacking, and to change some wording... such as "suppress" to "did not release" ... we have to be mindful of
    WP:LIVING. Looks like good coverage of the affair now, to me. Wantok (toktok) 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image clarity

I have left this note for the creator of the image at the top of this article.

Please correct this image.

At first I thought this image might be a case of vandalism to report. I could not see an image of a person in your photo until I enhanced it - it requires considerable brightening for it to be of use on the two web pages that are using it.
Thanks--User:Brenont (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Honourable Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare

Do not change this. The Right Honourable the Grand Chief prefers that all his titles be used. He makes a point of coming after and severely punishing those who denigrate his dignity.122.105.110.204 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly doubt that. In in any cases, his hypothetical wishes in this matter are immaterial;
Wikipedia has clear guidelines on the issue. This has already been discussed. His full title will not be repeated over and over; kindly abide by established policy. Aridd (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You will note that there was no follow-up to the Post-Courier's and the National's scandalous reporting of the Hau Yuk Chun episode as to purely private matter of His Excellency the Right Honourable Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare's clever and talented sale of Papua New Guinea passports and gold mining licences to Hong Kong Chinese. His Excellency the Right Honourable Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare will ensure that no one who denigrates his dignity can ever remain in or do business in Papua New Guinea and he has amply demonstrated over the years his determination in this regard; His Excellency the Grand Chief's son the Honourable Arthur Somare MP is now watching for such outrages: deportation is the remedy and it is amply employed. Do not revert His Excellency the Grand Chief's dignities again. 122.105.106.129 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out whether you're being serious, or whether you're just
trolling... PNG is a democracy, where there is frequent criticism of the Prime Minister by the Opposition, among others. In any case, as has been explained several times, Wikipedia has clear guidelines and policies. The content on the article will be based on those policies. If you can't understand that very simple principle, you have no business editing this encyclopedia. Aridd (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Papua New Guinea is a democracy, but His Excellency Grand Chief the Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare will insist on his being properly respected. The Post-Courier and The National know that they must behave themselves if they want to continue doing business in PNG. Do not denigrate his dignities. And do behave as they do.122.105.106.129 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Office of the Prime Minister now advises that the ordering in this article of His Excellency's honours is incorrect. It should be Grand Chief His Excellency The Right Honourable The Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare. "Grand Chief" should at all times precede His Excellency's other titles. We trust that you will honour The Grand Chief's wishes in this regard. 122.105.106.129 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And wikipedia policy and guidelines says that we do not. Policy takes precedence over the Office of the Prime Minister of PNG. I have reverted your change and protected the page to allow you time to recognise this fact. You have been repeated told this. We could
ignore all rules of course, but you have not obtained consensus here to do so. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

We have given you fair warning. You are obviously an expatriate. Do not attempt to conceal this. The Office of the Prime Minister has no time for expatriates, particularly those from Australia. From now on, no one who has any connection with Wikipedia will be granted a visa and any expatriate in our country who is found to have a connection with Wikipedia will be deported immediately. Kindly restore our edits at once. Also change "laplap" to "skirt." No one outside our country knows what the word "laplap" means -- this is how we know that you are an expatriate -- and it is a matter of urgency for His Excellency Grand Chief the Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare that expatriates know he wears a skirt, not trousers.58.110.131.244 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expatriate, but I have worked in PNG. I will not be threatened. There is an article on lap-lap so readers can find out about it. That is what encyclopedias are for. I suggest that you follow wikipedia policies and guidelines if you want to edit here. It would for example be better if, instead of threatening people, you took the opening that I offered you to argue for ignoring the rules on this matter and obtain consensus on this the issue of the titles. You have not done this. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See
MOS:HONORIFIC, which prohibits the use of honorifics in the main text of the article. I seriously doubt that PNG's laws require the use of all six honorifics, but even if it does, our servers are in Florida in the USA, where the law most definitely does not require the use of all eight honorifics. Kindly don't threaten me with legal sanctions; I've never been to the Southern Hemisphere or seen the Pacific Ocean, let alone lived in or worked in or visited PNG. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This anonymous editor is clearly just making stuff up. I very strongly doubt he has any relation to the Office of the PM - the website of which, by the way, does not make any mention of any such requirement.

Post-Courier. Our anonymous editor is talking sheer nonsense. The claim that "it is a matter of urgency for His Excellency Grand Chief the Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare that expatriates know he wears a skirt" is clearly trolling. Case closed, I hope. Aridd (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh no -- do think again carefully. If you look properly at the website of the OPM you will see that the Grand Chief is indeed to be referred to as I have instructed you. Public servants, particularly in the Department of Foreign Affairs, are under strict instructions to pay special heed to the Grand Chief's sensibilities as to his assorted dignities. if you do not pay these issues proper accord it will come back to haunt you, be assured.122.111.76.229 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where on the website? Link me to a specific page. I don't believe you're actually being serious. I think you're just trolling and trying, unsuccessfully, to make Somare (and possibly PNG as a whole) look silly. Aridd (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pm.gov.pg/pmandcabinet 122.111.76.229 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That merely lists his full title, which is the normal thing to do, once, when introducing him. You'll note that on his biopage, he's simply introduced as "Rt. Hon Sir Michael Somare GCMG CH". Nowhere does it say what you claim. Aridd (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are very very wrong. It says he is "Rt Hon. Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare, GCL GCMG CH CF KSt.J, MP." But PNG diplomats are sternly warned as to how they must refer to the Grand Chief. In fact they are told that "Grand Chief" must precede all foreign honours. And so must you be if you ever want to be admitted to our country. Or if you are lucky enough to be admitted, not to be immediately deported once it comes to the Grand Chief or his family's attention that you are entering into this discussion.122.111.76.229 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His own official biopage, which I have linked to, does not use the title "Grand Chief". You've failed to provide any reference for your highly implausible claims. This discussion has become grotesque. It's quite clear that you're talking rubbish - deliberately or not. In the end, the only thing which is relevent is this: Wikipedia will adhere to Wikipedia policy, and you will not be permitted to make a mockery of this article or of Prime Minister Somare through absurd edits. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Aridd (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, the PMO website expressly denominates the Grand Chief as the "Rt Hon. Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare, GCL GCMG CH CF KSt.J, MP." I wonder why you choose to ignore this. It might seem "grotesque" to you. It is not "grotesque" to the Grand Chief and it is certainly not "grotesque" to Papua New Guineans or to members of the public service, who violate the Grand Chief's preferences at their dire peril. As would you if you ever attempted to function in our country. But public servants are strongly advised to put "Grand Chief" before "Right Honourable," as the Grand Chief wants autochthonous honours to be given preference over foreign ones. Please consult the Grand Chief's autobiography "Sana," in which he made clear as long ago as 1975 how vital it is to him that his dignity be accorded proper respect. (And why he wears a skirt.) Especially by the expatriates, notably Australian ones, he has always made clear he despises. Are you aware, though you are presumably a native speaker of English, incidentally, that "relevant" is spelled that way, not as you have spelled it? We don't accept condescension from expatriates, and we certainly laugh at ones who can't even spell their own language. 122.111.76.229 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either you are serious - in which case (a) you want us all to believe that Sir Michael Somare is the greatest tin-pot dictator in history and (b) I know the names of some good psychiatrists - or you are seriously trolling. Either way, you've had your fun and we won't be entertaining you anymore. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the greatest respect for Michael Somare and do not believe that he would support this nonsense of having his full title given 58 times in this article. I protected the page a few day ago. I informed the Administrators' noticeboard, now archived here. You will see that my action was fully supported by other administrators. I am now going to remove that protection, but let me make one thing very clear to the IP editor at 122.111.76.229, or 122.105.110.204, or 122.105.106.129, or 58.110.131.244, or anywhere else. You have had your say. You have produced no convincing arguments, but merely blustered and threatened. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are clear. We are not going to list all his titles more than once, let alone 58 times. Any attempt to add them back will result in them being reverted and the IP address blocked from editing wikipedia. As JackofOz says "we won't be entertaining you anymore". I am not going to give you any more warnings. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe you do indeed have the “greatest respect” for His Excellency Grand Chief the Right Honourable Prime Minister Michael Somare. But take heed: he does not want Australian expatriates like you on his side: did you notice that he has announced that he will, after all, be running for Parliament again in the next elections, despite his previous suggestion that he would be retiring? This is splendid news for us, his East Sepik wantoks and his family. If he survives another five years it will have been 1973-2015 that our magnificent Grand Chief has been in power, with occasional periods out of office before he was able to get rid of the ridiculous notion of “no confidence motions.” (An expatriate outrage, of course.) There will be plenty of opportunity to punish you in the next few years for this lèse majesté, if you ever try to come to our country again. 114.78.3.164 (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can now restore in this article the Grand Chief's honorifics which you scandalously stripped from him. Yes? 122.104.167.78 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly can not. Did you not read what I wrote above? Your changes were reverted by another editor. I would block you IP number but you are most likely not using it any more and I do not want to disadvantage other Optus users. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O turangu long yu lapun masta. Bilong wanem yu no save? Nau tasol em i 35-pela yia mipela igat independence long Australia. Nau tasol yupela lapun masta i no inap tokim mipela olgeta yupela i mas wokim dispela samting, yupela imas wokim narapala samting. Bihain ating yu indai pinis na bai mipela bakarapim ol wok nogut bilong yu long dispela stori bilong Grand Chief the Right Honourable Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare. 122.104.160.45 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging edits

There seems to be a consistent trend of (usually anonymous) editors making disparaging edits, adding negative comments on Somare while sarcastically claiming that they're doing so to praise him. Given the tone, I strongly suspect it's the same editor under new IPs. The most recent edit is a case in point: introducing derogative POV phrasing into the article, while leaving an edit comment claiming that the edit is in Somare's favour (allegedly from a PNGan POV). It seems clear that we have an editor who has a bone to pick with Somare and is trying to do it via this article, shielding himself with sarcasm or hypocrisy and bad faith. If it continues, I would recommend semi-protecting the article to prevent anonymous edits. Established editors have better things to do with their time than continuously revert someone's anti-Somare campaign. Aridd (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. That was exactly my thinking when I reverted that edit. It is quite clear the IP editors are the same person. When last checked they were Optus in Brisbane, if I recall correctly. They are not that frequent however to semi-protect, but if they become so, I will do it. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More controversial editing

Two days ago, unregistered user 110.32.62.98 replaced this paragraph

Somare's face appears on the face of the PNG fifty-kina note. This is due to the fact that Somare led the country to independence in 1975 and then served as founding Prime Minister. It has reportedly been perceived, some 15 years ago, that Somare is the King of Papua New Guinea.<ref>''The Papua New Guinea Post-Courier'', Tuesday, 30 January 1996; ''The National'', Tuesday, 30 January 1996.</ref>

with this:

Somare's face appears on the face of the PNG fifty-kina note. This is due to the fact that Somare led the country to independence in 1975 and then served as founding Prime Minister. It has been reported that Somare has represented himself as King of Papua New Guinea on the basis of his appearance on the currency, in connection with selling PNG citizenship to foreign nationals overseas.<ref>''The Papua New Guinea Post-Courier'', Tuesday, 30 January 1996; ''The National'', Tuesday, 30 January 1996.</ref>

I reverted, with the following explanation: "Don't change the information without a source to back you up. I've never heard it said that Somare "represented himself as King"." Our anonymous editor then restored his version, with the edit comment: "Silly fellow. It's reported right there." I've reverted back again. Since the source is a paper article from 14 years ago, I can't verify what it actually says, but the anonymous editor has changed the wording in a controversial way, which seems unlikely to be supported by the source. He's using an unverifiable source to support a significant change in the wording of what it supposedly says. Significantly, I can find no other source, anywhere, which backs up the astonishing claim that Somare styled himself "King". I've read a number of books and articles about PNG, and I've never come across this. What I did read, once (though I've forgotten what book it was in) was the fact that the featuring of Somare's face on banknotes did lead some people to perceive him as the incarnation or symbol of the state or nation. But 110.32.62.98's claim seems like a wildly unsubstantiated distortion, which makes it seem as though Somare actually claimed to be King. Seems like nonsense. I also don't see the connection with the add-on "in connection with selling PNG citizenship to foreign nationals overseas", which 110.32.62.98 slipped in there not-so-subtly. Since 110.32.62.98 has also made an edit (with insufficient sourcing) claiming that Somare's "probity has frequently been called into question", it appears that 110.32.62.98's sole aim is to smear the Prime Minister in any way he can. His tone ("Silly fellow") also makes it likely that this is that same old editor who's been disrupting the article for a while now. Aridd (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, taking a look at 110.32.62.98's only other edit to Wikipedia (the day before he edited the Somare article) gives us this little gem. No comment needed, methinks... Aridd (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

To anyone else watching this article, the anonymous editor who recently caused disruptions seems to have also been active on the article Paulias Matane (PNG's Governor-General). That may need keeping an eye on too. Aridd (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aridd. I saw your link to Michellecrisp that you posted before. There's one editor who had some history with Michellecrisp, who's been warned twice on his talk page by other editors such as Bduke regarding the edits on Sir Michael's titles (although to establish a link between that editor and the anon edits Bduke would've had to have traced IP's). If Bduke did successfully trace IPs in that instance, I think we both encountered said editor on the Julian Moti page. Are you thinking it's that same editor? Xlh (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the thought had occurred to me. Same edits as our anonymous "contributor", and same "style" (if you can call it that) in their personal comments. I'm fairly certain it's the same person, now using a registered account for legitimate edits while making disruptive edits anonymously. Aridd (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask all wikipedia editors to keep this crazy guy out of this article. He is a sick man. I am a Papua New Guinean and clearly, true Papua New Guineans never mask themselves from weaknesses of technology to settle their dislikes about another countryman. If he is serious enough to contribute constructively to this article tell him to come over to the University of Papua New Guinea where he can get some good facts about our current Prime minister. Keep up the great work and keep building this wonderful concept of making information available to all of Humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.165.193.129 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 18:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 00:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Somare/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

several discussions in past years
, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

For all his positives, maybe this article could touch on his negetives. Like the rampant corruption withing the PNG government...

Last edited at 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

It is now 25 February 2021 in my home country (the United Kingdom) and his death is given as 26 February 2021. This is the day after today's date, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rollo August (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea is ten hours AHEAD of the U.K. Editrite! (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, per the family statement, he passed away at 12am today (Friday 26) PNG time. [1] Wantok (toktok) 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Somare&oldid=1215523178"