Talk:Saint Helena/Archive 1

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


Please[edit]

Someone please disambiguation-ify this page. --Smack 04:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly "none" of the other meanings have pages. The disambiguation should probably be at Saint_Helena (disambiguation) rather than at Saint_Helena.
Most or all uses are probably about the British Island, thus Saint Helena (Britain) is probably better at Saint_Helena, see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Saint_Helena. User:Docu
As in the meantime Saint_Helena has been moved to Saint_Helena (disambiguation). I took the liberty to move Saint Helena (Britain) back to Saint_Helena. User:Docu

Nothing about Euro-discovery, whether previously inhabited, or source of name. Any relationship to the Barons St Helens, namesake of Mount St Helens? Jerzy(t) 20:52, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

The sentence "Napoleon Bonaparte ended his life in exile on St. Helena" could imply suicide. Changing to "spent the last part of his life in exile..." for clarity.

One crop economy[edit]

"The island's economy was a one crop economy for many years, but is now very weak, and is almost entirely sustained solely on aid from London."

What was the "one crop" the island depended on, or what does this refer to? Can someone who knows please clarify this? Jonathunder 17:07, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Fish?--86.29.243.157 16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Development of Article[edit]

Is "the administrative unit that includes it and ..." the "Crown Colony of St. Helena"?

This needs to become a typical country article, with the links to "main articles" integrated into a summary article.
--Jerzy(t) 17:50, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Remoteness[edit]

Saint Helena is one of the most remote islands in the world. We should probably mention that. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure where it would fit. Also, I'm not sure by exactly what metric it is most remote. I've heard that Napoleon was banished there because of its remoteness. 4.242.147.147 02:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Connection with Africa?[edit]

Why does this article use the {{Africa}} template? No geographic, ethnographic, or historic ties to the African continent are indicated by the article. --Dcfleck 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Should be removed. Boldymumbles 10:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which continent do you think it is in then? Or perhaps none? Astrotrain 10:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None. I see someone has removed the template. --Dcfleck 13:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template has returned. I don't see why Saint Helena would be part of Africa, but I will let the template sit for a while. If no one says anything, I will re-remove the template and category. LeSnail (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's off the coast of africa.. so it is technically African! See [1], [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.144.70 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an oceanic island on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge half way between Africa and South America Saint Helena is not geographically part of any continent. It is not on a continental plate. Historically and by way of present links it is closer to Africa than to South America though, because Britain has had possessions in neighbouring parts of Africa but not South America. Koekemakranka (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by GramlerGrindstone (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

name, or is it discovery?[edit]

The island is said to have been discovered on 21 May 1502 by the Portuguese navigator João da Nova and named after Helena of Constantinople, although there is evidence to the contrary.

This is needlessly cryptic. There's no indication of what this evidence is, nor of how it contradicts the usual theory—did someone else name the island? Is it named after a different Helena? Is it not named after a Helena at all, but garbled from something unrelated? Or is it that João da Nova didn't actually discover it, or didn't discover it on 21 May 1502, or whatever? Who can tell? Not readers of this article. Googling turned up nothing useful, so I've tagged the sentence as needing citation for now; if it's now made useful soon I'll delete it. —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn. This was added by a sporadically active IP in August of this year; I've left a message, but chasing whispers like this rarely leads anywhere. —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife[edit]

As I have pointed out over on the TdaC page, why isn't there anything about the islands' flora and fauna? Surely they must have some unusual birds or plants, considering that they are remote, but also have a mild climate. --MacRusgail 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wildlife of Saint Helena page. W2ch00 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't know how I missed it.--MacRusgail 05:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

My father and I have listened to Radio Saint Helena day in the past. The island has been pronounced [ha-LEE-na]. I don't know how to cite or add this to the article. I also don't know if Radio Saint Helena should be mentioned for the shortwave listeners out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samyam (talk • contribs) 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Helena, Heleena or Hélèna?--86.29.243.157 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation is indeed [ha-LEE-na] (I live here) - also, the inhabitants are called Saints! Schizolocal (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of St Helena?[edit]

The population figures do not tally. The article mentions 3000 people onAscension, and also mentions only 1100, as does the Ascension article itself. The table adds up the poulation of the whole group to 6000. It also says there are 4000 and 3000 people on St Helena itself. Does anyone have any accurate (ish) figures for the population of these 2 islands? Tristan appears to be ok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.183.168 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Climate[edit]

Does Saint Helena have any seasons? I know the climate is tropical so there is no noticeable variations in temperature over the year. However, there might be a clear difference between a rainy and a dry season. Anyone who happen to know?

2007-07-24 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Area and population figures do not match[edit]

The area and population figures in the infobox and the tables in the article do not match. Also, the area in the infobox is for the whole Saint Helena territory (incl. Ascension and Trista da Cunha), while the population in the infobox seems to exclude the two dependencies. So there are a lot of contradictions in this article. Chanheigeorge 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area figures are now correct for the Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island articles. YourPTR! (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I believe that the history sections of this article need to be merged to History of Saint Helena (which looks extremely similar, maybe identical in large chunks, though I haven't been through it in detail). A much shorter history summary needs to be retained in this article. 86.147.160.75 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The few number of edits made to the History of Saint Helena over the past year are indicative of the fact that relatively few see that link from the main St Helena page. Whenever I have tried to make the link more prominent, it has been amended back to its present unobtrusive appearance. Doubtless the unobtrusive appearance is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but this means that most people wanting to read about St Helena's history only get as far as the main page. Hence, it is better to put the full history on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirebooks (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no need for such a long section on history on this page (see WP:SS). Having almost complete duplication between the history section and the History of Saint Helena page, makes the latter redundant and will become outdated if only this page is updated. The {{main}} link is plenty prominent as demonstrated by numerous other pages. If the history section on this page is just a short synopsis, anyone really interested in more detailed history will have no trouble finding the History of Saint Helena page. -- P199 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

  • Most confusingly the history section on the main page has quite a number of sub headings. If one navigates via the sub-heading index, you never get to see the link for the detail page. Further, the summary on the main page misses out a lot of information that is important. e.g.
there is no mention of the interment of Boers during and after the second Boer war. [1], yet the "summary" of the history goes into some depth on many aspects that seem irrelevant in a summary.
  • This _must_ be corrected- It would be best to give a terse summary of the history, maybe including a time-line, all under a single heading. It should be be obvious to the reader that for a proper historical perspective one should visit the detailed link. As it is, it is very easy to miss this even when not navigating via the index at the top.
  • If the longer summary is kept, each sub heading must contain a link to the full history for that subsection, else the reader will never know that is more detail available except of he happen to see the top of the history section.
  1. ^ http://www.angloboerwar.com/other-information/89-prisoner-of-war-camps/1842-camps-for-boers-st-helena

GramlerGrindstone (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)GramlerGrindstone[reply]

Coffee and economy[edit]

The article has this sentence:"Saint Helena also produces what is said to be the most expensive coffee in the world".well, why is it the most expensive coffee in the world? About the economy of this island, we ust remeber that its ocean is full of fish.Why there's no much more fishing in this great ocean?Agre22 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

"History of the Media"[edit]

This seems odd as a top-level heading. It's prominence implies that the media is of above-average importance on St. Helena which is not correct.

Suggest relocating this section, either as a sub-section of "Transport and communications" or to a separate page. Burgh House (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-> Same comments apply to the "See also" list - why is Saint FM top of the list? Schizolocal (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

While very detailed, this article is entirely too long. Much of this is due to the history section. Why not create a separate article, so that this main article isn't too long. I think this is one of, if not THE longest articles I've come across.

The separate article exists but the two are inconsistent now. needs a bit of work Towel401 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were possible to make the link near the top of the Main page to the separate History of St Helena page more prominent, it would be possible to move the detailed history to the History page. However, measured from the small number of changes made to the History of St Helena page, it is obvious relatively few people are aware of its existence. The problem is that the link to the History page is unobtrusive. Alas, whenever I have attempted to make the link more prominent, it has been quickly reverted back by others to its present low profile appearance. Doubtless, the present appearance of the link is in line with Wikipedia presentation guide lines, but its unobtrusiveness means only a small proportion of people will ever find the History page. That does not seem sensible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirebooks (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would the St. Helena page need a more prominent link to its history page than any other country page? To assume that "only a small proportion of people will ever find the History page" is unfounded; the {{main}} link is plenty prominent as demonstrated by numerous other pages. -- P199 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps provide a significant income?[edit]

Surely this can't be correct? There can't be that many stamp collectors in the world and the number is fast declining since the rise of the internet. The price that people are willing to pay for a tiny postage stamp coupled with the fact that there aren't that many stamp collectors today, it could never be enough to provide a reliable and consistent source of income for the island. Either that, or the island must have basically nothing of value to export.

Impulsion 11:57, 24 February 2009

Factual accuracy dispute regarding CIA factbook stats[edit]

[copy and pasted from Shirebooks talk page]


Hello Shirebooks, please do not remove material from the article that has been supported by a citation from a source that is commonly used in the encyclopedia and deemed reliable and authoritative , the CIA factbook is such a source. Your reasoning for removing it, based on what appears to be your own "original research", does not constitute a valid basis according to our policy regarding "verifiability" (please see WP:VERIFY). Please do not remove the material again until further discussion has taken place on the article's talk page regarding the matter. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Deconstructhis

The claimed ethnic split in St Helena’s population (African descent 50%, white 25%, Chinese 25%) is sourced from the CIA’s World Factbook. Their source for this information is probably “Serendipity in St Helena” by Dr Ian Shine (Pergamon Press, 1970) which analyses the genetic diseases prevalent on the island as a result of interbreeding within the population. Page 16 of this book quotes these precise statistics for the population for a century to a century and a half before that time, ie. about 1820-1850. Unfortunately these statistics are contradicted by all known historical facts. Most importantly, they completely fail to take account of the fact that slaves mainly came from Asia, not Africa.

The tendency for historic documents to describe all slaves as “Negro” irrespective of their place of birth certainly adds to the confusion, that term implying to modern readers that they came from Africa. St Helena was mainly visited by ships returning from Asia and thus the slaves they carried tended to come from the Spice Islands, India and Madagascar. For example, in one of the earliest visits to the island in 1588 (by Cavendish in the “The Prosperous Voyage of M. Thomas Candish esquire into the South Sea, and so around about the circumference of the whole earth, begun in the yere 1586, and finished 1588”, Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations Voyages Traffiques & Discoveries of the English Nation, 1598-1600, Volume XI.), one of the “Negroes” found there came from Java. A few African slaves were brought into the island in 1661 from the Guinea coast early after the English settlement (St Helena 1502-1938 by Philip Gosse, 1990, p 50), but by 1684 they were being imported from Madagascar (Gosse, p 79). Indeed, by 1676, all ships trading with Madagascar were obliged to leave one slave from that place (Gosse, p 81). Early records also show slaves being brought back from Surratt in the Spice Islands (Janisch, Extracts from St Helena Records, 1673-1716).

That slaves continued to be sourced from Madagascar up to 1760 is demonstrated by the comment in the records that “. . . of all blacks, those from Madagascar had always proved the best and most docile” (Gosse, p 192). In 1763 two ships were specifically sent out to the far east to fetch slaves from that region (St Helena, the historic Island by E. L. Jackson, Ward Lock & Co, 1903, page 52). The inclusion of a St Helena slave to act as interpreter (Janisch, 1750-1799) is indicative of numbers of other slaves on the island of similar ethnic origin.

The importation of slaves was interdicted in 1792 (Jackson, page 54), but it is hopefully clear from the above that the assumption that 100% of the black population came from Africa is wrong. They mainly came from Asia.

Some African ethnicity certainly entered the population from the earliest years of the island, but more significant was the African Liberation period 1839-1874 during which time the British navy seized all slave ships crossing the Atlantic between Africa and the Americas, bringing African slaves to St Helena for recuperation (Gosse, pp 310-311, 320 & 329). It is estimated that 16,287 Africans were liberated at St Helena and then removed from there to other British colonies (William A. Green, “British Slave Emancipation: The Sugar Colonies and the Great Experiment, 1830-1865”, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1976, page 273). Only a few were allowed to stay at St Helena (A. Schulenburg, The Wirebird, No 26, 2003, page 24). Most liberated Africans were sent to the West Indies, although most wanted to return to Africa – toward the end of the period in 1871, 200 were indeed returned to the Cape; a further 260 petitioned to go to homeland but were variously returned to Lagos or Siera Leone (Jackson, page 89).

Only two very rare photographs are known to have been taken of liberated Africans and can be found be found in books by Jackson and by Oswell Blakeston (“Isle of St Helena, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1957, opposite page 49). The paucity of photos has been commented on in the literature (Schulenburg, page 25) and reflects the small numbers of Africans remaining on the island. The number of resident Africans is mentioned by John Mellis (“St Helena: A Physical, Historical & Topographical Description of the Island”, Reeve, 1875) in which he mentions “The negroes, or pure West Coast Africans, who constitute about one-sixth of the population”. His estimate of one sixth is the only quoted estimates of actual numbers that I can find and seems high compared with other general descriptions. Nevertheless, even this figure would only equate to about 17% of the population, considerably less than the 50% quoted by the CIA.

Next comes the question of Chinese ethnicity. The first consignment of Chinese itinerate workers arrived in St Helena about 1810 (Gosse, page 245). The history of these workers has been published in some detail by Barbara L. George (“St Helena: The Chinese Connection”, Printsetters, 2002). The numbers reached a maximum population of 645 in 1818, falling to 442 in 1821, 233 by 1826. A final 103 left the island in 1835, only 27 Chinese workers being allowed to stay. Even at their peak of numbers in 1818, the Chinese only represented about 15% of the population and rapidly fell to a much smaller number. From these numbers, it is difficult to understand how a Chinese ethnicity of 25% can be quoted.

So far as European ethnicity is concerned, the 1817 census showed a white population of about 50% and a letter from Governor Elliott in 1868 (Barbara George, page 93) also estimates that about half the population was of European origin. However, the same letter goes into some detail in describing the difficulty of discriminating “between the various strains of blood of which the body of the population is composed . . . beyond the two plain distinctions of black and white. . . . We have a considerable mixture of Chinese, Hindu [please note this mention of Indian extraction] and other races mixed with European, part European, African and part African blood in various proportions”. Over a 140 years later, the impossibility of splitting the population into its ethnic origins remains true. In short, the figures quoted by the CIA cannot be correct.

I therefore hope you will agree that the quoted ethnicity statistics in Wikipedia should be deleted. There are no statistics to replace them. Incidentally, I have separately written to the CIA asking them to edit or remove the information on their web page.

Shirebooks (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Thank you for your show of good faith by continuing to engage in discussion regarding this issue. Unfortunately, despite the fact that you personally appear to have a solid grasp on the history of the past ethnic composition of Saint Helena, Wikipedia policy makes us as editors entirely dependent on only adding material to articles which can be directly supported by citations from "reliable" previously published sources. Our own opinions, even if they are derived from actual personal expertise on a given subject, are of no use in this context, in fact without proper sourcing being provided, the added material is considered to be, as I mentioned above, "original research" (please see WP:NOR). As is mentioned in the first line of Wikipedia policy pertaining to verifiability, WP:VERIFY"[t}he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I'm sure that you can understand that without that safeguard in place, the content of the encyclopedia would be left open to the whims of any individual editors personal interpretation of a given subject. I'm going to post a "factual dispute" template at the top of this article, to encourage other editors to contribute to the discussion and hopefully move toward a consensus on the subject. I'm certainly not challenging your personal expertise in this area, I have no basis for doing so, however, it's easy to imagine how quickly the encyclopedia would degrade into near uselessness without the need to support the material with reliable references. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Deconstructhis

Thank you for your comments, which I do not fully understand because I quoted a considerable number of references for the information provided, none of which related to my personal expertise. I tried hard to base all I said on authoratitive history books on St Helena, providing full source references for everything stated. I even identified where the CIA web page had sourced their information - “Serendipity in St Helena” by Dr Ian Shine (Pergamon Press, 1970), page 16. This book does not state the source for its ethnic information.

The debate really comes down to the question of whether the ethnic information from this book is more accurate than the many others I have quoted. You state I have have not given proper sourcing. May I remind you of the sources used for the information I provided:

Asian Ethnicity (Presently Stated as Zero in Wikipedia): 1. Cavendish in the “The Prosperous Voyage of M. Thomas Candish esquire into the South Sea, and so around about the circumference of the whole earth, begun in the yere 1586, and finished 1588”, Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations Voyages Traffiques & Discoveries of the English Nation, 1598-1600, Volume XI.). 2. St Helena 1502-1938 by Philip Gosse, 1990, pages 50, 81, 192 3. Janisch, Extracts from St Helena Records, 1673-1716. 4. St Helena, the historic Island by E. L. Jackson, Ward Lock & Co, 1903, pages 52, 54.

One point I should have added is that the ethnic mix of Madagascar is Malayo-Indonesian (Merina and related Betsileo), Cotiers (mixed African, Malayo-Indonesian, and Arab ancestry (Source: CIA web site, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ma.html)

African Mainland Ethnicity: 1 (William A. Green, “British Slave Emancipation: The Sugar Colonies and the Great Experiment, 1830-1865”, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1976, page 273. 2. A. Schulenburg, The Wirebird, No 26, 2003, page 24, 25. 3. John Mellis, “St Helena: A Physical, Historical & Topographical Description of the Island”, Reeve, 1875.

Chinese Ethnicity: 1. St Helena 1502-1938 by Philip Gosse, 1990, page 245. 2. Barbara L. George, “St Helena: The Chinese Connection”, Printsetters, 2002, page 48.

European Ethnicity: 1. I neglected to quote the source of the 1817 census - Janisch, Extracts from St Helena Records, 1800-1832. 2. Barbara L. George, “St Helena: The Chinese Connection”, Printsetters, 2002, page 93.

You state that “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. Are you saying that only the Dr Ian Shine book/CIA information is reliable and quotable whilst all the above references are unreliable and therefore cannot be quoted? If so, why? These are properly researched history books, most of which are referenced whereas the CIA information is based on a single book that does not identify the source of its information. I should add that if I took the time to do so I could probably find addition references that also support the view given by the above sources, ie. that contradict the view given by the Dr Ian Shine book/CIA web page. The most glaring error is the claim that there is zero Asian ethnicity. Secondly, the ethnic split claimed in the Ian Shine book relates to the period 1820-1850, not to today. Thirdly, the races are so mixed in today's population, the ethnic origins could probably only be ascertained from extensive DNA tests - please note, this last statement is the only example of my personal opinion, and does not have a referenced source!

Shirebooks (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

What you're doing in my opinion is putting forward a perfectly plausible hypothesis that attempts to directly refute the figures that are currently in the article. The problem is, and I believe that other editors might agree, what you're lacking are secondary sources that support your refutation. Remember, according to the encyclopedia's policies (see WP:OR) the content of Wikipedia articles should not contain our own conclusions based on our own study of primary documents, our task is to responsibly quote, or lightly paraphrase reliable *secondary* sourced material only. No "hypothesizing" is allowed; even if we honestly and earnestly hold it to be true that our own theoretical position is self evidently correct, unless we can cite a reliable secondary source, Wiki policy strongly discourages posting the material. Please don't personalize the debate here Shirebooks, like you, I'm only attempting to try and protect and perhaps even improve the encyclopedia, when I point out policy to you, it might across as petty, but it's the world we have to live in, if we wish to participate in working on Wiki. What you need to do is come up with a reliable source that explicitly states the thesis that you're putting forward to refute the CIA numbers. I feel sort of bad you've put what appears to be a fair bit of attention to citing material at length, in truth, all you really need is one source that simply and exactly puts forward what you're saying. I'm continuing to invite input from other editors here, if you like we can actively seek a "third opinion". I invite you to carefully read the policy links I've been dropping in here, occasionally underlying these problems is a simple misunderstanding. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Deconstructhis, thank you for your comments. I am sorry if you think I have personalised my comments. I do not know where I did that or if I have come across sounding rude, but this was not my intent. I still remain baffled by all this. I believe that information sourced from the Ian Shine book is wrong and have quoted information from a considerable number of other books to demonstrate that fact. Please may I emphasise that I am not hypothesising, that I am not taking a theoretical position and that I am not basing my conclusions on my own study of primary documents.

You state that “the content of Wikipedia articles should not contain our own conclusions based on our own study of primary documents, our task is to responsibly quote, or lightly paraphrase reliable *secondary* sourced material only. No "hypothesizing" is allowed; even if we honestly and earnestly hold it to be true that our own theoretical position is self evidently correct, unless we can cite a reliable secondary source”.

My understanding of the phrase “Primary Documents” are that they are the actual original documents written by the participants of the time, original letters, government documents, etc. To write about these does indeed require a degree of interpretation. Likewise, I understand the phrase “Secondary Sourced Material” to mean books based on an examination of the “Primary Documents” and which to some degree therefore express varying interpretations of those papers. If that is also your understanding, then there is no difference between the Ian Shine book and all the books I have quoted – they all fall into the category of “Secondary Sourced Material”. They are none of them “Primary Documents”. You say I should "come up with a reliable source that explicitly states the thesis that you're putting forward to refute the CIA numbers". You will realise that I have already quoted quite a few books that do this, but probably the best single source is the Gosse book.

I tried to make clear that none of this is my personal hypothesis. The facts I have brought forward represent the orthodox views of the many history books regarding ethnicity at St Helena. Because it differs from all other known “Secondary Sourced Material”, the Ian Shine book presents an unorthodox view on the subject of ethnicity.

In this situation, why is the view expressed by Ian Shine’s book more acceptable than all the other books? Is it because his ethnic figures have been picked up and published by a third party, the CIA? Does the inclusion of information on the CIA site somehow make it more acceptable than all these other sources? If so, please can you advise what steps are required to refute their data? Had the John Mellis ethnicity figures been put in at an early stage, would someone wanting to quote the Ian Shine/CIA figures have similar difficulties in amending the figures, i.e. does this come down to whose figures are quoted first? Would it help if Ian Shine (if he is still around) renounced the figures in his book?

Shirebooks (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

It boils down to the fact that we can only use sources which are both reliable by our guidlines and policies and that explicitly gives a breakdown of the current (give or take a few years) ethnic population of St. Helena. If Gosse gave a current ethnic breakdown that was the same or different from the CIA it wouldn't matter as we could us both, but he doesn't. So you seem to be stuck with the CIA and the comments of the official tourist agency as used at Demographics of Saint Helena. I will add that the current ethnicity of Madagascar probably doesn't affect the ethnicity of any slaves from there, which would be African as Madagascar is considered part of Africa as I understand it. But that's a side issue to the issue of sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Dougweller, It is true that Gosse neglects to mention the results of the 1817 census. If I am only allowed to quote from one single reference source, rather than Gosse, let it be Janisch’s book, “Extracts from the St Helena Records” – this may be regarded as a secondary source within the meaning of Wikipedia in terms of his interpretations and commentaries on the records. Janisch does provide a detailed analysis of ethnicity for the 1817 census: White Inhabitants exclusive of Civil and Military and their families 821 (23%), Slaves 1,540 (44%), “Free Blacks” 500 (14%), Chinese 618 (18%), Lascars 24 (1%).

If at this stage it is assumed that all slaves and “Free Blacks” are all of pure African mainland descent, and assuming that the term Lascars means Asian origins, these figures translate as 23% European, 58% African, 18% Chinese and 1% Asian. This is already different from the Ian Shine/CIA figures of 25% European, 50% African and 25% Chinese.

The next question is whether the 58% slaves and “Free Blacks” figures purely relate to ethnic Africans. Dig further into the Janisch book and there will be found a considerable number of references of slaves brought from Asia, India and Madagascar. The vast majority seem to have come from Madagascar, which indeed forms part of Africa, but the ethnicity of that country is certainly not 100% African, and ethnicity is what we are talking about. I can dig out all that information if it sorts out this situation.

Is the Ian Shine/CIA data to be accepted on Wikipedia merely because those figures, for which no reference source has been supplied, have been shown on another web site? The source of the Janisch ethnic information is quoted and differs significantly from the Ian Shine/CIA data. Further, Janisch shows where most of these slaves came from, and it was NOT from mainland Africa.

All of this seems very academic though considering that all these figures refer to ethnicity one and a half to several centuries ago. It is quite explicit in Ian Shine's book that the Ian Shine/CIA figures do NOT refer to today's population. I am unaware of anything published that provides today’s ethnic split.

Shirebooks (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

(copied and pasted from Deconstructhis talk page)

Hello Deconstructhis Apologies for contacting you again on this Talk page, but I see no further comments being made on the St Helena discussion page and I am wondering where we go from here? I believe I have put up a number of strong challenges sourced from secondary sources to the existing Wikipedia ethnicity figures, of which perhaps the strongest is that those figures claim to be today’s ethnic split, whereas Ian Shine (from whom the CIA sourced the figures) said they relate to one to one and a half centuries before his 1970 book, ie to 1820-1850. As you know, I am personally certain Ian Shine’s figures are wrong anyway, but even he did not claim his figures related to the present day. Perhaps you would let me know. My own preference would be to state on the St Helena Wikipedia that today’s ethnic split is not known.

Shirebooks (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Hello again Shirebooks, as Doug Weller mentioned in his comment, this all comes down to whether or not your contention that the current statistics in the article based on figures in the CIA factbook are wrong can be substantiated by a reliable previously published source, but remember, the disputing citation must *specifically* (ie literally) make that claim, no extrapolation whatsoever is allowed. If you can provide such a citation (even one) I would have no objection whatsoever to footnoting the current stats and including that information at the bottom of the article with the citation. Shirebooks, your dispute here seems to me to actually be with the factbook itself and their vetting processes for the information they include in their publication. Even if a world renowned expert on a given specific subject edits an article, they can not make a claim that hasn't already previously been published in what is deemed a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. In a situation like that, policy might even allow them to quote themselves, but again, that would only be permitted if the *specific* claim that they're adding has already been previously published in a reliable source. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Deconstructhis I think I understand what you are saying. By definition, the figures quoted on pages 15-16 of Ian Shine’s 1970 book “Serendipity in St Helena”, from which the CIA have quoted their information, precedes the CIA information. By quoting this, I am making no extrapolation since I am quoting the CIA's actual source. Here is the relevant paragraph from Ian Shine’s book:

The first inhabitant, Fernando Lopez, was a Portuguese nobleman who had turned traitor in India, was captured, mutilated and granted voluntary exile accompanied by three Negro slaves. He died in 1565. The first settlers, in 1659, were Europeans who imported slaves from the Malabar, Bombay, the Maldives, Calabar, the Gold Coast of Guinea, Bengal and Madagascar, the latter being particularly prized; and from 1679 onwards all ships calling at the island were required "to leave one Madagascar slave". Following the abolition of' the importation of slaves in 1792, the East India Company introduced Chinese indentured labourers from their factories at Canton. In the nineteenth century Britain pursued the slavers with the same enthusiasm that she had previously applied to the trade itself, and in consequence large numbers of West African slaves were brought to the island where they were technically freed. Some were returned to Africa, most were sent to the West Indies, and an uncertain number remained on the island. Thus a century or a century and a half ago approximately one-half of the islanders were African, one-quarter were European and one-quarter Chinese. The races then mixed one with the other so that there are now very few individuals of pure descent and very few traces of Chinese or African culture or language remain.

In short, the CIA have made two errors. First they interpreted the above 50% African, 25% Chinese and 25% European figures as being the split today rather than a century or a century and a half ago. Second, they have not taken account of the last sentence of the above paragraph, describing the ethnicity today – that it is impossible to define today’s ethnicity. To the extent that they have made these two misinterpretations of Ian Shine’s text, this surely needs to be judged as an example where, in this one particular case, the CIA’s information cannot be deemed a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. Incidentally, you will note mention of slaves from Asia even in Ian Shine's book.

I am not very happy about the idea of keeping these ethnicity figures in Wikipedia, even with a footnote, when it has been demonstrated that they are based on a complete misinterpretation of a Secondary Source. I think a statement should be made that no ethnicity figures exist for today's population. To do what you suggest is bit like Wikipedia quoting a Secondary Source that states that black is white, with a footnote to say this statement has been disputed.

Shirebooks (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

If you can find a reliably sourced citation that includes the contention that "no [reliable] ethnicity figures exist for today's population", you are more than welcome to add it in footnote form to the existing statistics. The crux of this to keep in mind whenever you're editing an article is found in the opening line of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I would like to close on a personal note and say that even though I reside thousands of miles away from the island, I am a tremendous 'fan' of St. Helena, the "Saints" and their culture. I am an almost daily Internet radio listener of Saint FM[3] and would love to visit one day to learn more first hand. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deconstructhis for your comments. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I can find reliable Secondary Sources that confirm the difficulty of quoting the ethnic split, then it is OK for me to:

1. Remove the present ethnic statistics split figures.

2. Remove the CIA reference for that split.

3. Replace those figures with the statement “no reliable ethnicity figures exist for today's population” quoting reliable references sources. Here are three which I immediately have to hand:

a. Ian Shine’s book (see above for details): “The races then mixed one with the other so that there are now very few individuals of pure descent and very few traces of Chinese or African culture or language remain”.

b. Barbara George’s book (see above for details, page 93-94): “From cause not difficult to understand, there can perhaps be no position on the face of the earth where it would be more difficult to discriminate between the various strains of blood of which the body of the population is composed than here in St Helena. . . In 1994 when I wrote this, intermarriage of all the races which came to St Helena has taken place, and so most St Helenians could represent the United Nations in person. This I feel sure, will be what the peoples of the world will look like, when all barriers of racial and religious prejudice have fallen”.

c. St Helena: One Man’s Island, Ian Baker, Wilton 65, 2004, pages 29-30): "It would be impossible to define a `typical St Helenian. But they might just fall into two very broadly-defined categories. Those with a range of physical characteristics and a skin colour ranging from European, and all that that entails, to a mid, almost reddish, or coppery, brown, or bronze, difficult to pin down, Indian. And a second broad grouping, of those with physiological features associated with West Africans and all that that entails. It doesn't help the concept of neat definitions that a number might be fitted into either of these rather artificial categories".

As I say, these are just the first three Secondary Sources, but I know I can find more. Do you need more?

Assuming I have not misunderstood you, and also assuming you are happy with the above three sources, will you please first remove your notice that this article's factual accuracy is disputed.

On a separate matter, as Doug Weller pointed out, these erroneous CIA figures have also been quoted at Demographics of Saint Helena and possibly elsewhere. What is to happen to these?

Shirebooks (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

You've misunderstood me Shirebooks. Since the CIA factbook is regarded as an "authoritative source" by Wiki, until the statistics are removed from their website, or a reliable source of sufficient weight *specifically* refutes those *particular* figures, as Doug Weller suggested, we're "stuck" with them; a footnote indicating that they are disputed is the best we can do at present. Could you please add the page number(s) for the Shine quote you provided in your last posting? Anyone is invited to clean up my bibliographical formatting, it's a skill I'm somewhat lacking in. As far as what to do with the other St. Helena articles quoting the factbook, I'd suggest that footnoting them in a similar fashion is the preferred approach. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deconstructhis In answer to your question, the relevant paragraph of the Ian Shine book comes from pages 15-16.

If this really is the only way of settling this issue, to ensure everything is done correctly, please will will you put in the footnote.

I write that last sentence with the greatest of reluctance given what I regard as the complete illogicality that Wikipedia regard the CIA as the "authoritative source" on this matter of St Helena's ethnicity even though it has been proved that their information is wrong. Is it really in Wikipedia's interest to knowingly publish inaccurate facts? You ask for an "authoritative source" to refute the CIA information. I have told you this already - the same source that the CIA used, which does not actually say what the CIA quote. Their source is the Ian Shine book, which clearly states that his ethnic split refers to a century to a century and a half ago and that it is now impossible to state what the ethnic split is. Is the problem that, although you recognise the CIA must have misinterpreted Ian Shine's figure, you still want this inaccurate information published in Wikipedia because their data has not been formally highlighed and refuted in a published book by an "authoritative source"? That seems to be stretching the rules of Wikipedia beyond what is normally accepted as common sense. Shirebooks (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Thank you for providing the page numbers for the Shine quote Shirebooks; I've added them to the article. Many Wikipedia articles contain reliably referenced, but diametrically opposed positions on a given subject matter. When editing it's quite common for all "sides" in such a debate to argue that their positions are self evidently that ones that represent the interests of "common sense" on the issue. Personally, it's one of the things that keeps editing interesting and challenging for me. Thank you for contributing to the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deconstructhis You will notice I have expanded your comments on the note you made yesterday, for two reasons. First to succinctly explain the two ways in which the CIA figures are believed to be wrong. Second to explain why they have been retained - I hope I have quoted your reasons accurately.

Shirebooks (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Your most recent edits are explicitly based on the assumption that the factbook statistics being used as a source are directly derived from Shine's book; however you have provided no references to support that position. Even if the two sets of figures exactly correspond, it does not necessarily follow that the factbook numbers are exclusively utilizing Shine as their source for the statistics, that is an assumption on your part and itself would need to be based on a reliable source. As you pointed out, the factbook, does not include a referenced source for its information in this regard. Your attribution of an "error" on the part of the factbook in my opinion constitutes a non-neutral position that is arrived at through original research on your part. Once again, remember, the key here is "verifiability" not "truth". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deconstructhis. Have you thought what the odds are against the CIA independently come with the identical statistics as the Ian Shine book? Come on, where else did their figures come from?

Shirebooks (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks[reply]

Ham Radio[edit]

There's a section on ham radio, which has been recently added. It doesn't make any sense and doesn't seem appropriate for the article. 62.25.106.209 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section (again)[edit]

As has been discussed before, the "History" section of this article is far too long, and it is duplicated in large part at History of Saint Helena. What we need is the full detail at History of Saint Helena and a much shorter summary here.

I have looked through the first section, covering 1502-1658, and it seems that everything of interest at History of Saint Helena is also at Saint Helena, but not vice versa. Therefore, I have copied this section in its entirety from Saint Helena to History of Saint Helena. The next step is to abbreviate the 1502-1658 section in Saint Helena down to a reasonable length, [NOW DONE] then move on to the subsequent sections. 86.161.40.145 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Under Construction" banner

I have placed this banner on the relevant pages so that editors do not fall over each other. Until this rationalisation is completed, I suggest we try to keep track here of what's been done and what's being done to the "history" sections. I intend to pick away at it, but if anyone else wants to chip in then that would be great! 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.40.145 (talk)

  • Section "British rule, a Crown colony, 1834–1981" now synchronised across the two articles. Summarisation of this section in Saint Helena is to be done next. NOW DONE 81.157.197.235 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final section treated in the same way; "under construction" banners removed. 86.152.241.219 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take as long as I expected!

photo from space is "upside-down",[edit]

so I noted that fact in the caption. If someone could rotate the photo 180 degrees, that would be preferable! 71.246.238.214 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really so abhorrent to have "north" to the bottom of a photo? David (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a beautiful image isn't it. Much better than the view available on Google Earth where most of the island is a blurred mass. Good eyes on actually noticing the direction at all; you must be a "Saint"! I am going to edit the caption only slightly though. Although I know exactly what you're talking about, that it is presented "upside down" (ie north is down) in comparison to the standard view usually found on maps; the term "upside down" itself is a relative and potentially less than useful expression when you're discussing geography and possibly may unnecessarily confuse some. "North is down" alone alerts the average reader that the island is being shown in a less than common way in the image, which is all they really need. Thanks again for spotting that, good job. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dpaajones beat me to it. "South" is good too; no offence intended. :) Thanks for clearing this up everybody. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, I did notice that the photo "pointed south" ages ago, but it didn't bother me!! David (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David and Deconstructhis! Your wording of the caption is a needed improvement on mine. David, I did hesitate, but the traditionalist in me won out. Thanks for the kind words, Decon. Never been a saint of any type, but I'd sure like to climb Jacob's Ladder some day. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boer War concentration camps[edit]

At least some mention should be made of the British concentration camps that were situated here during the Boer War, wherein thousands of prisoners lost their lives. --Michaelphillipr (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ran into the same issue I did. See my comments under the history section. Even so - There shoud be some mention of it on the main page, even if only in a "historic timeline". As it is, it remains an omission GramlerGrindstone (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)GramelerGrindstone[reply]

Slavery[edit]

It is not clear when slavery was banned in Saint Helena, 1792, 1818, 1827, 1843 or some other time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing slavery to?![edit]

"preventing slavery to Brazil"

What does it mean to "prevent slavery to X"?

GeneCallahan (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"to prevent slavery to X" means "to take measures not to become enslaved by X". Better late than never. 82.83.212.129 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Newspapers[edit]

"The Sentinel newspaper was introduced in 2012 and is known as the island's best newspaper. The main reason for this, being two awesome employees. Damien O'Bey and Liam Yon are responsible for most of the newspaper's female buyers, due to their masculine essence and compelling attraction from the opposite sex."

Seriously? And user LKY23 (who added this) wouldn't by any chance be Liam Yon? 79.229.97.59 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's obviously a joke and needs removing. Maud1mouse (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Reinhold and Johann Georg Forster[edit]

The article does not appear to contain any information on the voyage of the HMS Resolution, during which Johann Reinhold Forster and his son, Johann Georg Forster, stopped off in St. Helena and conducted ecological research that came to shape their influential opinions on the effects of human presence on the local environment. Their research was published in the 1778 text Observations Made on a Voyage Around the World. This information seems pertinent to an article on St. Helena. [Green Imperialism by Richard Grove] Aleary1 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Aidan Leary[reply]

  • My view would be that if you added everything that happened in a place to that place's article then you would end up with a very large article - E.g. "The Earth" article would be pretty damn long! Pingu7931 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Feedback[edit]

I think this article has a great lead in section; it gives readers a perfect snap shot of St. Helena and why it is important. However I found the article as a whole to be rather daunting because it is especially lengthy. It seems that the article is split into many, short sub sections, which I think effects the flow of the article, making it choppy pieces of information here and there. I think it would be most important and helpful to focus on the History section. It is currently split up into 6 sections based on date and each section is pretty hefty. The sections are very thorough, which I applaud however I think it is too much information. If someone was reading this to simply learn more about the subject I don’t think they would even read all of those details because there are so many! Therefore I think it would be smart to cut it down. If a reader was looking to learn even more they would do further research, potentially using the reliable sources already used in this article. I think in making this change it would make this article more effective. Alilafferty (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article on George Gabriel Powell[edit]

I have just had an article on George Gabriel Powell published, which concentrates primarily on his life in South Carolina, after his disgrace on St Helena. I'm not suggesting that there be any refrence to him made in your article (which, by the way, is excellent), but in case the article is expanded, or if you or your colleagues are thinking of setting up a list of St Helena Governors, or similar, you may wish to include a link to the G.G. Powell article.

CheersMPCR (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks - I've used the information to update http://sainthelenaisland.info/briefhistory.htm (the update should go live next Saturday, 16th May) John Turner, Burgh House (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again John. The info you copied on George Gabriel Powell for your fantastic St Helena site looks great. The only suggestion I have relates to the South Carolina St Helena - see the comments I posted on the GG Powell talk page in which it is clear that the name was given to the island by the Spanish well before Powell arrived in South Carolina. I'll also make a small edit to the sentence in the St Helena article re Cook's visit to Australia, as he wasn't responsible for the European discovery (Hartog has that honour in 1616). Cook was hjust the first European to chart the East coast. Cheers MPCR (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article uploaded on Gabriel Powell - 1684 St Helena rebel[edit]

Hello again - Just a quick note to let you know that I've uploaded another Powell article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Powell_(rebel). This time it is on the first Powell to settle on St Helena, i.e. the soldier who came with Munden in 1673 and turned planter before joining rebellion of 1684 and then escaping to Europe in 1689. He was the grandfather of George G Powell. Cheers MPCR (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Saint Helena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Saint Helena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Africa or Americas?[edit]

Do we have a cited reason for categorising St Helena in Islands of Africa? Although it is slightly closer to Africa, and has transport and cultural links with African countries, the Commonwealth Games 2014 website [4] lists Saint Helena's Commonwealth Games Association under Americas. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it is closer to, and has cultural links with Africa. Air and sea contact with the Island has normally come from Africa. However, geologically, it is well to the east of the centre-line of the Mid Atlantic Ridge, and on the African plate. Affiliation with a particular sporting association is not sufficient reason to justify saying that it should be categorized under the Americas. Everlong Day (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Saint Helena. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saint Helena. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Districts[edit]

There are two curious additions to the Administrative Districts table in the main article. Royal Mail Ship St. Helena and Jamestown Harbour. They are NOT administrative Districts, they are simply places where some of the people who were included in the 2016 Census were to be found at the time of the census; in the case of the RMS St Helena, it was further broken down into 56 crew and 127 passengers.(St Helena 2016 Population & Housing Census (PDF). Jamestown, St Helena: St Helena Statistics Office. 6 June 2016. p. 9. Retrieved 16 October 2017.) The use of the term "District Balance" in the column header just confuses the issue. That there is a difference between the total number of people in the census and the total number of people counted in the Administrative Districts should be explained in a footnote. Everlong Day (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that St Helena child abuse scandal be merged into Saint Helena. I think that the content in the St Helena child abuse scandal article can easily be explained in the context of Saint Helena, and the Saint Helena article is of a reasonable size that the merging of St Helena child abuse scandal will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The "scandal" was a storm in a teacup whipped up by tabloid reporting, based on discredited allegations made by disgruntled employees; for it to have an article itself gives it very undue weight. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Saint Helena#Child abuse scandal which is more than sufficient, and probably needs an extra sentence or two about the subsequent debunking of the allegations. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that the allegations were debunked as lurid fantasies, it is WP:UNDUE to have a separate article, and what little is relevant can be placed here. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’’SUPPORT’’’ - the report found nothing of interest. Amisom (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant airport sections[edit]

The sections Saint Helena#Air and Saint Helena#Airport are redundant. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Helena/Archive_1&oldid=1027671493"