The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to move. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiribatian parliamentary election, 2007 → I-Kiribati parliamentary election, 2007
  • Kiribatian parliamentary election, 2003 → I-Kiribati parliamentary election, 2003
  • Kiribatian presidential election, July 2003 → I-Kiribati presidential election, July 2003
  • Kiribatian presidential election, 2007 → I-Kiribati presidential election, 2007

I don't want to start an edit war over this, but the correct term is "I-Kiribati", not "Kiribatian". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should surely strive to be accurate. The Cambridge History of the Pacific Islanders (ISBN 0-521-00354-7) uses "I-Kiribati", not "Kiribatian" (cf.p.251). Barrie Macdonald's Cinderellas of the Empire (ISBN 982-02-0335-X), which is a history of Kiribati and Tuvalu, uses "I-Kiribati", not "Kiribatian" (cf.p.viii). The book Kiribati: Aspects of History (ISBN 982-02-0051-2), by I-Kiribati writers, uses "I-Kiribati", not "Kiribatian" (cf.p.122). Kiribati: A Changing Atoll Culture (ISBN 982-02-0197-7), also by I-Kiribati writers, uses "I-Kiribati", not "Kiribatian" (cf.back cover). There is consensus among scholarly publications: they all use "I-Kiribati"; none of them use "Kiribatian". So can we please stop using "Kiribatian" and start using the correct word? Aridd (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, I-Kiribati is used to describe the people of Kiribati, whilst Kiribatian is used as an adjective for things of or related to the country. Note use of Kiribatian in governmental [1][2] (European Union and UK government), academic [3][4] and general use [5]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you, User:Aridd, but the source you cite (free dictionary online) is just a mirror of Wikipedia.--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Thanks. Removed. Aridd (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In scholarly books, you find either "I-Kiribati" used as an adjective to refer to things or concepts related to the country (for instance "I-Kiribati identity", "I-Kiribati traditions" in Aspects of History, p.122) - or, occasionally, "Kiribati" used as an adjective. But never "Kiribatian". I've not seen that once in published works, be they by Western scholars or I-Kiribati scholars. Likewise the press; I've got dozens of articles related to Kiribati from various news sources (Radio Australia, Radio New Zealand International, Marianas Variety, Island Business, Pacific Magazine...), and I've just done a word search on the lot of them: not one of them uses "Kiribatian". Not once. There is a lot of confusion in the West regarding the correct terms to use regarding some Pacific Island nations, which accounts for "Kiribatian". But there is overwhelming consensus to favour "I-Kiribati", and, as you can see, almost no-one (scholars or journalists specialising in the region) uses "Kiribatian". I've never seen any I-Kiribati person use "Kiribatian", for any purpose. If that's not enough for you, look at the Constitution of Kiribati. It speaks of "persons of I-Kiribati descent" (sections 19 & 28). It does not use the word "Kiribatian", ever. Aridd (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a published scholarly work, as are links 3 and 4 above. And as you note, the constitution refers to the people, not the country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the works you cite and the works I cite is that the ones I refer to are specifically about the societies, cultures and history of Kiribati and/or of the Pacific Islands. They are written by scholars who specialise in those fields. Without any disrespect intended, you cite a book of general socio-economics which clearly doesn't focus on Kiribati, and the "Australian Indigenous Law Reporter". "Distribution of Tabercle-shaped Incisors in South Pacific Populations" at least does focus on South Pacific populations, but it's outweighed by the bulk of scholarly (not to mention specialised journalistic) consensus. My quote from the Constitution is an adjective refering to something from Kiribati; it is not a noun or adjective refering directly to people. If the Constitution of Kiribati speaks of "I-Kiribati descent", using "I-Kiribati" as an adjective for a noun relating to something from Kiribati, then clearly we should do the same when writing about the I-Kiribati elections. I think the authors of the Constitution knew what word they wanted to use. As I've pointed out, the I-Kiribati themselves do not use the word "Kiribatian" in English, for any purpose - surely a decisive point. Aridd (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As far as I am aware I-Kiribati refers to the people, whilst Kiribatian is used to decribe something of or related to the country. Also, note use of Kiribatian in governmental [6][7] (European Union and UK government), academic [8][9] and general use [10]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In response to Number 57's comment: In scholarly books, you find either "I-Kiribati" used as an adjective to refer to things or concepts related to the country (for instance "I-Kiribati identity", "I-Kiribati traditions" in Aspects of History, p.122) - or, occasionally, "Kiribati" used as an adjective. But never "Kiribatian". I've not seen that once in published works, be they by Western scholars or I-Kiribati scholars. Likewise the press; I've got dozens of articles related to Kiribati from various news sources (Radio Australia, Radio New Zealand International, Marianas Variety, Island Business, Pacific Magazine...), and I've just done a word search on the lot of them: not one of them uses "Kiribatian". Not once. There is a lot of confusion in the West regarding the correct terms to use regarding some Pacific Island nations, which accounts for "Kiribatian". But there is overwhelming consensus to favour "I-Kiribati", and, as you can see, almost no-one (scholars or journalists specialising in the region) uses "Kiribatian". I've never seen any I-Kiribati person use "Kiribatian", for any purpose. If that's not enough for you, look at the Constitution of Kiribati. It speaks of "persons of I-Kiribati descent" (sections 19 & 28). It does not use the word "Kiribatian", ever. Aridd (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm having déjà vu. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Usage seems unclear per quote below and "I-Kiribati" is awkward as an adjective in English. — AjaxSmack 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound "awkward", but Wikipedia should not be using an incorrect term just because it "sounds better". On that point, by the way, "e-kee-ree-bass" is actually easier to pronounce than "kee-ree-bass-in" or "kee-ree-bass-an", or however it is you suggest we pronounce "Kiribatian". More to the point, your quote below is an argument in favour of moving the page, albeit perhaps to "Kiribati parliamentary election, 2007" rather than "I-Kiribati parliamentary election, 2007". As I've already established, the Constitution of Kiribati (a first-hand source) uses "I-Kiribati" as an adjective in front of a noun. We could debate whether to favour "I-Kiribati" or "Kiribati" as an adjectival form, but the fact that "Kiribatian" is wrong is, I believe, beyond dispute. Aridd (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Wikipedia should not be using an incorrect term just because it 'sounds better'" but your arguments that "Kiribatian" is "incorrect" are not entirely convincing irrespective of that. The quote below supports a move request to "Kiribati" but that isn't what is proposed above. — AjaxSmack 18:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've demonstrated that "Kiribatian" is almost universally avoided. It's never used in print in any scholarly work specialised on the country or the region (with one single exception, an abberation outweighed by the bulk of contrary evidence), nor in specialised press articles, nor have I ever seen it used, in any context, in any text written by an I-Kiribati person. Quite frankly, I don't see how you can possibly say that I haven't proven that "Kiribatian" is incorrect. Regarding the quote below, your source recognises that "I-Kiribati" is "also employed sometimes as an adjective". Your quote is from a secondary source claiming that Kiribati's Cabinet has approved the use of "Kiribati" as adjective. Which, in itself, should be a conclusive argument for rejecting "Kiribatian". The fact that the Constitution of Kiribati as well as scholarly works (including those by I-Kiribati authors) use "I-Kiribati" as an adjective (but never "Kiribatian") would rather strongly suggest that "I-Kiribati" is not widely perceived as incorrect (unlike "Kiribatian", which is universally rejected). However, your quote simply confirms what I said earlier: "Kiribati" is a valid adjectival form. Aridd (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also all of the references I have seen on the Internet (I have not seen it elsewhere) of "Kiribatian" were from rather dubious sources. The fact that a Google search for Kiribatian site:ki gives zero results, whilst "I-kiribati" site:ki provides over one hundred should be enough. A similar search for Kiribatian site:gov and "i-kiribati" site:gov gives 0 and 63, respectively. site:edu for Kiribatian gives 8, site:edu for "I-Kiribati" finds 172. The Cia World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html claims] "noun: I-Kiribati (singular and plural), adjective: I-Kiribati"--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribatian parliamentary election, 2007 → Kiribati parliamentary election, 2007 — "Kiribatian" is not a word. It is a senseless Wikipedian neologism. Kiribati government usage, and scholarly documents, favour "Kiribati" as an adjective (and "I-Kiribati" as an adjectival demonym for people). There seems to have been consensus for such usage in the previous discussion, so perhaps this time we can all agree to get rid of the bizarre and unwarranted neologism "Kiribatian". Aridd (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiribatian parliamentary election, 2003 → Kiribati parliamentary election, 2003
• Kiribatian presidential election, July 2003 → Kiribati presidential election, 2003
• Kiribatian presidential election, 2007 → Kiribati presidential election, 2007

• Support - the US government does not use the term Kiribatian anywhere on the web, while the UK government uses it only in the single document mentioned in the move request above. In the absence of a recognised demonyn, we should just stick to "Kiribati ...." per the nomination.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.