Talk:The Gambia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Writing "[T]he Gambia" Violates Orthography Rules of English

Writing "[T]he Gambia" in the middle of a sentence violates orthography rules of English, and indeed of most languages that have articles such as "the". No country has this privilege according to English orthography (of any English speaking nation). Neither do the Netherlands, nor does the Gambia.

Yes, cities do, so The Hague is not the Hague, but The Hague is a city, not a country, and an extreme oddity in language. With countries this simply does NOT apply ever, and it is not a matter to be resolved through a poll of not very literate copy-pasters who make up over 95% of various language Wikipedias. Orthography rules must be observed. Hence, "the Gambia" is THE only option. Unsigned comment by 212.200.65.117

I agree, it should be "the Gambia." Just like the Ukraine, the Congo, the Netherlands, the UK, the U.S., the Bahamas, the Argentines, the Philippines, the Sudan. —Stephen (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

sigh... There have been four discussions so far on this. Every time there has been no consensus to change the name of the country to how foreigners would like it to be. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

<Do not delete my comments.> RESTORING: I haven’t seen any other discussions, and everybody is a foreigner to somebody. I’m American, so I’m not a foreigner to the English language. —Stephen (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're American, so you must know more about The Gambia than its unfortunate non-American inhabitants Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you’re determined to be nasty and confrontational for some reason, I’m finished talking to you. —Stephen (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the inadvertent removal of your comment, didn't notice I'd hit the rollback button. There are three discussions in coloured boxes higher up this page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As I clearly stated when I started this thread, this is NOT something that can be discussed and dependent on a "consensus".

Orthography does not rely on a consensus. Illiterate people's opinion is not taken into account when orthography rules are defined, and they have nothing to do with whether people agree or not. They are prescribed, and, for example, the form "it's" is NOT a possessive Genitive like "Mark's", but it must be spelled "its", and "it's" is a Subject+Verb.

If we were to look for a "consensus" on this rule, most people would find it too complex or too impersistent, but it is a rule none the less.

And so is the rule that "the Gambia" MUST NOT have the initial of the article capitalised. Full stop (or: "period" -- to use an orthographic metaphor). No further discussion. Writing it with a capital "t" violates orthography rules in English and there is no reason to condone this silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.111 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Right Side Bar Misinformation

The right side information bar has some odd statements that should probably be looked into. I do not know the correct information, but someone else should correct it. First, I feel like the motto and Anthem may not be true. Also, stating that the capital is "dirt" while the largest city is "ant hill" is probably not a geographic term. I'm not sure how to report the page or anything, but if you are reading this and you know how, please do so. Or simply reedit this page to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.26.117 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Weight issue on religious mixing

Syncretism is a very undue weight in an article about Gambia. Esp since "some scholars", think. Wikipedia is not what Scholars think. It is about NPOV and balance. For example UK [[1]] How many times in the Gambian newspaper does this issue come up? What aspect of reality in Gambia does it shape? Negligible. Thats why we have Religion in the Gambia (is for that type of detailed focus) Hence the stub link. More over it is not unique to Gambia, it is not Unique to Africa. It is not unique anywhere and is very subjective. It is like adding nominal Christians because most Christians are nominal Christians. Would To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view (academic community), might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute In Gambia and Africa today, when Islam or Christianity is discussed in the majority circles this word NEVER comes up as a focal point, outside of detailed studies by scholars. This article must stay true to Gambia and the majority reality. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nowhere in the main Article where it says some scholars think unless I've missed it. Not from my edits on the actual page anyway. I said in the edit summary I think Syncrethism should also be mentioned and that was even before I mentioned it with sources. As the Article's format was, it was crucial to mention it, but since you have changed the format, I have no problem with that. Syncrethism can be discussed in the relevant pages. For the purposes of balance, I will also be making the link to the Serer religion just as Islam and Christianity have been linked to the relevant religions.

Tamsier (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion in The Gambia is about being more than just scholarly or NPOV, although no one can deny that this is an encyclopaedia and therefore open to interpretation within the wikipedia guidelines. Being a nominal christian is something that most people may not appreciate within the larger context of how the dynamics of such religions may work in such a country especially having had such serious and long interaction with local customs and indigenous ritualistic beliefs. I strongly suggest that such a straightforward approach to the issue could ideally be supplanted with a more wholistic view of what christianity means and the forms and means that it would take and how this would be seen when it approaches a confrontation with an ingrained religious system such as Islam in the sphere of its own influence. The word 'minority' is therefore in very bad taste. Theodorebalthazar (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

History

This is a quote from the article: QUOTE As many as three million slaves may have been taken from this general region during the three centuries that the transatlantic slave trade was operated. It is not known how many slaves were taken by inter-tribal wars or Mexican traders before the transatlantic slave trade began. UNQUOTE Surely "Mexican traders" cannot be correct. Please change this.

A12th99 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Population ranking

In the box on the right it says The Gambia is ranked 150th in total size. On the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population page, i do no see gambia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.122.142 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, why does Serekunda disappears from the list of most populated cities? It should be number 1... Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaBaoLuo (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Olympics-related vandalism

Someone seriously vandalized the right-side information bar a few minutes ago with some "jokes" about Ryan Lochte, the Gambia, and Olympic swimming. I have undone all of the changes from today, which were all from the same IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.94.149 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Using Yahya Jammeh Full title

Under the politics header is this sentence: "The serving President is His Excellency Sheikh Professor Al Haji Dr Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh." The extremely long and unnecessary full title of President Yahya Jammeh seems rather biased and aggrandizing. I would suggest using the standard political title of President Yahya Jammeh, and leaving his full title to the page dedicated to him. I would appreciate further input as I do not wish to unilaterally edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharule (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it unilaterally per WP:BOLD. You have legit reasons for making the edit. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That would better suited under his personal article than here, so yes, please remove. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gambia has withdrawn from the Commonwealth of Nations

The Gambia has withdrawn from the Commonwealth, according to an article here; [2] - (203.211.71.211 (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

The article actually says that an announcement was made on Gambian state TV, but there has been no official notification, and the Commonwealth Secretary-General has "asked for 'clarification' from the country." There's another article where the Gambian officials confirm that they will not be participating in the 2014 Commonwealth Games, but I can't find anything yet that says that their withdrawal from the Commonwealth is official? Dracunculus (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Aaaa I spoke to soon! Here's a statement from the Commonwealth SG that there was an official confirmation. And here's the announcement in Gambia media. Dracunculus (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

History

Near the beginning of the section on "History" there is a box with two photographs and a small heading "Serer civilisation". Maybe I am missing something, but I don't understand the heading. I don't see any reference to "Serer civilisation" in the article. Also, I don't understand the reason for including the satellite image of mountains, the photo on the right in that box. CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Map is Ambiguous..

Although the map may be technically correct, it appears to highlight Morocco and not The Gambia. It probably appears this way because the map scope is too broad for the size of The Gambia, which hardly shows up. Christof Mayer (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The legend below the picture has these:

Location of The Gambia (dark blue)

– in Africa (light blue & dark grey)

– in the African Union (light blue)

So, grey for Morocco means it is not part of AU, and light blue means being part of AU. The problem with the small version is that dark grey and dark blue seem too similar. When looking the bigger picture, it is easier to notice the difference in color, but perhaps it could be clearer... 85.76.169.72 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say that the dark blue and dark grey are too similar, not the way it can be understood above. 85.76.169.72 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewable energy

Can this article be updated and rewritten in light of the 5th UN Assembly on the very ambitious Sustainable development goals, which require that we build ecological sustainability into social and economic equity of the SDGs? The Gambia Renewable Energy Centre (GREC) is only one part of Gambia's emerging renewable energy sector.MaynardClark (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The supposedly "Islamic Republic of the Gambia"

The statement made by the president has no legal value. The Constitution needs to be amended first, to be used here. Also, do not cite that news from the BBC about this subject. It lacks depth about this theme. The news published on Al-Jazeera provides a more wide and complete picture of the situation. Citing the opposition leader, this designation is "unconstitutional". --B.Lameira (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While I agree, I think we should probably take a vote on this to see if something not being said in the Constitution can still technically apply as I can also see why some people would disagree. Jackninja5 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And somebody has created an undue redirect (in my view) with that designation to this article. Also, do not forget that he is the same person who claimed to have reached a "cure" for AIDS, some years ago, and we would agree that he has not empirically found one. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to remind, an Islamic republic, is a state that has a political and legal system based on sharia law. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, just a question. Did they actually suggest they change the name to the "Islamic Republic of the Gambia"? I thought it was still the "Republic of the Gambia"? Jackninja5 (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to make its own judgments on the legality or illegality of political declarations. We should be looking for cases of the government using the purported new name in official contexts, and watching to see if ISO 3166-1 decides to update with any change. GeoEvan (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at current Gambian offical sources:

http://www.gambiaembassy.us/ - Republic, no mention of Islamic.

http://www.gambiaembassy.org.uk/ - Republic, no mention of Islamic.

http://www.statehouse.gm/ - refers to the Republic of Gambia in the mast head image, but the Islamic Republic in several subsequent news stories.

And the latest news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/29/happy-hour-and-drinks-are-still-flowing-in-the-gambia-the-newest-islamic-state

I don't see the official case for Islamic Republic being coherently made yet, so as far as I can tell.

I also don't see the official case for Arabic as the official language - no mention of it on the embassy webpage here http://www.gambiaembassy.org.uk/gambia/ .

Fanyavizuri (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And GeoEvan has a point. ISO 3166 hasn't changed either: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GM Fanyavizuri (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

With Jammeh's recent defeat in the elections, it's unlikely Gambia will remain an "Islamic Republic", too. 129.63.183.117 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the above, CIA World Factbook, updated last month and considered authoritative elsewhere on WP, has "Republic of" [3]. Yes, there are some other reliable sources that use "Islamic Republic of", but it seems that more sources, and better sources, use simply "Republic of." Since this issue is clearly still in flux, until there is a consensus among sources (or at the least, among editors here!), there should be no changes to the official name. Korossyl (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to keep reverting: what about all of the above? The Gambian Embassy to the U.S. uses "Republic of the Gambia" over and over again. The Gambian government website uses "Republic of the Gambia" over and over again. The Gambian state seal uses "Republic of the Gambia." The CIA World Factbook uses "Republic of the Gambia." There are other sources that use Islamic Republic of the Gambia'. But there's no consensus among the sources, and the most official still seem to use "Republic of the Gambia." At the least, the page should reflect that the country's name is not settled. But to say that the name is simply "The Islamic Republic of the Gambia" does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. Korossyl (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Gambia. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514231123/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tx.htmlCIA to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tx.htmlCIA

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

English or Arabic

The recent declaration of a change from English to Arabic as an official language doesn't yet have official recognition by international bodies (ISO, UN, etc), as far as I can tell. A source to this effect would be important for changing the language listed in the info box. Otherwise I think it should remain the same. Discuss? Fanyavizuri (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Gambian Embassy in the UK lists English, but not Arabic, as a language. ( http://www.gambiaembassy.org.uk/gambia/ ) CIA world factbook, for example, lists English as the official language as of 9 Feb 2016. What official national or international sources would offer better information? Fanyavizuri (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP reverted your reversal twice, and ignored what you wrote. But I agree with you as I do not see any indication of Arabic starting to be used by government authorities or by any Gambian media. --B.Lameira (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unregistered editor insists in changing official language from English to Arabic, without consensus and an accredited source. Plus, the page needs to be protected from vandalism. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)  Done. Semi-protected for 1 week. --B.Lameira (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your timely request for protection. We'll see in weeks/months/etc ahead whether it needs reactivation, or indeed whether authorities make Arabic official. Fanyavizuri (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The new formal name

The Embassy of Gambia to the UE sent a note verbale, dated on 10th February 2016, to MoFAs of Member States of UE, in which inform that "the Republic of The Gambia will from henceforth be called the Islamic Republic of The Gambia". Aotearoa (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Foreign & Commonwealth Office has updated its list of country names – it lists "The Islamic Republic of The Gambia"
• US Embassy in Banjul: The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Islamic Republic of The Gambia, ...'
• State House of Gambia: The general public is hereby informed that His Excellency the President of the Islamic Republic of The Gambia, ...

I think that what should count is the name defined by law. Could we have access to that, perhaps? --B.Lameira (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A law (act, bill, amendment of constitution) is primary source and is subject of interpretation. Wikipedia is not able to decide whether government decision is in line with low or not. We need secondary sources. Till now we have only few, in which one is very reliable – the list of countries by F&CO. I think we should still wait for some more sources like list of countries of US Department of State, UN list of states, EU list of states. It would be enough for change the long name in this article. Aotearoa (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. We should wait for some more sources like those you mentioned. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Several other official web-sites with the name of "Islamic Republic of The Gambia":

• Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Maltese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Embassy of the Islamic Republic of The Gambia in Rabat
• Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: list of member states
• Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

I think that we should still wait for an UN document, as we should base this on international law. But at the time we do the change, we should not change religion or system of government in infobox, without an official document as well. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. No change at ISO yet, though it may come. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GM Fanyavizuri (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I see the offical name has been changed. As UN has recognised new name there is no doubt that this new name is correct (btw PR of China has resumed diplomatic relation with Gambia and Chinese MoFA uses the new name). Aotearoa (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Other official sources:

• Foreign & Commonwealth Office country names
• United Nations Terminology Database
• ISO 3166 — Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions: Gambia

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

Change "cosmology" to "astrology" Zipmouth (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Slavery abolished in 1906?

I had thought slavery was abolished throughout the Empire in the 1830's. What is being referred to here? Or is there a mistake? 173.255.97.134 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this refers to the protectorate which was largely self-governing, as opposed to the colony which was not. However it seems slightly bizarre given Britain's anti-slavery crusade of the 19th century, in which slavery was used as an excuse to subjugate African kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.3.89 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Massacre at Busumbala

That section makes on sense. Someone correct, please?--Adûnâi (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just had a look in several Gambian newspapers, including opposition ones. Absolutely no word about a massacre. Nowhere on internet either. I think we should just strike out that line, until somebody comes up with a source. I can't know if it's true or not, but the death of some 30 people cannot be put into an encyclopedia without a source. Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now eliminated that line as I can't find no source for it. I'll put it here, so it can be put back as soon as a source is found.

On 14 January 2017 soldiers had entered Busumbala village. A line of men were taken away at gun point from the village and over thirty bodies were taken away by truck.

Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The Gambia

On the note written by Midtempo: When in the U.S. people use "The Mississippi..." people are indeed refering to the river and it has normally already been introduced into the normal conversation flow and an introduction -identification of the subject being spoken about - i.e. "Let's talk about the Jordan RIVER..."- here definitive article "the" is being used to define the river, not the name of it [definite object]. Another example would be "The English teacher" were we are referring to the job or profession - teacher - rather than the proper noun "English".190.242.67.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in English, it is grammatically incorrect to use definite article "THE" before a ANY proper names, days of the week, months of the year, etc. unless (simplistically) you are referring to a definite object, profession, etc. I've often come across this grammatical error in Wikipedia without anyone either objecting nor correcting this obvious mistake. Thank you190.242.67.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong: the conventional short form of this country is The Gambia. Any links to Gambia will be redirected here. Mav, thanks for undoing my "damage". --Ed Poor

Could someone explain why it's called 'The Gambia' i've never seen that form before, is it more common ? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:20, 2004 May 15 (UTC)

I suspect it has something to do with the river. We have the same phenomenon for "The Congo". However, I feel strongly that the definite article should be left out in the article title. We don't have The Bahamas, The Netherlands, The Solomon Islands, The United Kingdom etc. Why be inconsistent? -- Jao 09:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought we did have The Netherlands. -- 68.72.125.15 14:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope. --Iusenospace 23:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. It is called "The Gambia" because they wanted to avoid confusion with Zambia, at least according to a letter from their PM to the PCGN, attested here. With regards to the above other examples, only The Bahamas (which does indeed have the "The") and The Gambia out of all countries in the world have the "The" in their official short form names in English. The Netherlands, the Solomon Islands and the United Kingdom have it added merely as a grammatical convenience, rather than as a part of the name itself. -Blue sam3 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that postal services were having a hard time distinguishing between handwritten capital "G" and handwritten capital "Z", making it difficult to direct mail to the right country (Gambia v. Zambia). "The" was thus added to the official short form for The Gambia in order to emphasize the distinction. I don't have a source for this on hand, unfortunately, so it may well be an apocryphal story but I'll keep checking--maybe someone at the Universal Postal Union can verify?

I had a Gambian roommate once who said he would often get mail from Zambia. I guess that Africa uses a pan-African postal system to deliver mail? But yes, apparently Zambia and the Gambia often have problems with confused postal delivery. I don't think the official name of the country was changed for that reason - I think "The Gambia" is a reference to the Gambia River. And yes, in the United states the rivers are usually "the Mississippi," "the Ohio," and "the Missouri," but the states are known as Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri, respectfully. It's the reverse of this convention. Which just goes to show you just how screwy English is. Midtempo-abg (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I use the "The" whenever grammatically appropriate in an effort to give little Gambia whatever distinction it can possibly have. Besides, it sounds romantic and grand!

I'd be interested to know why the "The" is still used here, whereas with countries such as Sudan or Ukraine it sounds outdated or colonialistic. But it seems to be the convention (on the CIA World Factbook, for example), so we might as well use it. Lesgles (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this place I live in is called THE Netherlands. the official name is "Het Koninkrijk Der Nederlanden" which translates nicely into "The Kingdom Of The Netherlands". BTW, I can't see how someone would not be able to distinguish between a capital 'Z' or 'G'

It may be correct to call it "The Gambia," but is it correct to then capitalize the "The" midsentence? It sure looks wrong. Battlekow 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people always ask why we use the article "the" before "Gambia". This is because The country 'Gambia" is named after the river "Gambia". To differentiate the country and the river, "The is always put before "Gambia" to represent the country. When you write only Gambia, it refers to the river. This is rarely noticeable now because people are now used to the name Gambia being used to refer to the country instaed of the river.

That's interesting, because at least in the United States, the distinction is the opposite, that is, I live in Missouri, which is named for the Missouri (River). Oh and as the article says, "commonly known as Gambia", I think this really needs to be moved to simply Gambia. --Xyzzyva 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Gambia" (with definite article) is the conventional name of the country, according to the CIA Factbook [4], and the United Nations [5]. So yes, it's correct to capitalize "The" in midsentence, even though it looks as odd as that stupid exclamation mark on Yahoo! or miscapitalized names like eBay. - DavidWBrooks

Although I just noticed this in the UN site [6] - alisting of members that gives the address for "Permanent Representative of the Gambia to the United Nations" with lower-case "the" ... and to confuse us further, it's listed under just "Gambia" without any article at all. And it's just "Gambia" on the UN list of member states [7]. Oh, dear - just when I thought this was settled. - DavidWBrooks 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This "official" tourist site calls it The Gamiba [8], but this official site sometimes writes it the Gambia [9] and sometimes The Gambia [10]. Oof. - DavidWBrooks 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just call it A Gambia. 65.24.249.74 22:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

People may call themselves whatever they want, like that silly singer who used a scribble as his name and "the artist formerly known as {this or that}" and now talks about alien abductions, but it is not possible to write the definite article "the" in the middle of a sentence in English and use a capital letter "t" in it. It is simply not done. End of discussion. Yes, in the name of the article it can stay capitalised, because most articles do have the first letter written thus, but in the middle of the sentence -- no. It is wrong, it is ugly, and it is stupid (requires understanding of language a tiny notch beyond copy-pasting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.227 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the band The The? You'd have a hard time not capitalizing that! 12.251.77.102 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

General rule is: sovereign countries do not take the definite article. Someplace that is just an area does. So, when The Argentine becomes a country, it became known as argentine, or Argentina. The Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire, but in Soviet times became an independent republic, Ukraine S.S.R.. Many exiles thought this was a sham, and continued to refer to the place as 'The Ukraine'. On real independence in the 1990's, the place became just 'Ukraine'.

Only exception I know of is if the land's people insist on using the definite article. As do the people of The Netherlands. So, what do the Gambians want? 173.255.97.134 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is more on this; [11] - (119.224.80.18 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC))

Use of the definite article is compulsary when referring to The Gambia the country, as is the case with The Bahamas. This is for two reasons, the latter being the most important and final.

1. The country was named A Gambie (after its river) by the Portugese in 1455 when it was discovered and this was directly translated to The Gambia.

2. Following the formation of Zambia from The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1964 and the beginning of independence in The Gambia the country formally applied for the definite article to become part of the name so as to avoid confusion.

In the cases only if The Gambia and The Bahamas the definite article is obligatory and as important as the 'United' in 'United Kingdom' or 'South' in 'South Africa'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.240.91 (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A footnote on the President.

Considering the current presidential situation, I figured that it might be recommended to place a footnote about who the President is and who supports them if it is needed. Right now, there are only a few troublemakers, but I feel that it might be better to say this now than later. I do want to note that this also includes not just this article, but the articles of Yahya Jammeh and Adama Barrow. --2600:1008:B044:7617:19D6:A904:4D2E:BF0 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added the description "disputed between Yayah Jennah and Adama Barrow" in the President section of the infobox as i believe this was the consensus reached when a similar situation arose in Ivory Coast a few years ago. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources

1. https://www.yahoo.com/news/4-more-gambia-ministers-resign-flee-country-crisis-133021883.html
2. https://www.yahoo.com/news/gambian-president-declares-state-emergency-172500501.html\
3. http://www.visitthegambia.gm/
4. https://www.travelrepublic.co.uk/v2/holidays/gambia.html?dev=c&mkid=410744776&aid=3&adid=14121865077
5. http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/
6. http://kibaaro.com/
7. https://www.theguardian.com/world/gambia
8. http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/jammeh-declares-state-of-emergency-civil-liberties-to-be-respected
9. https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/africa/100000004877797/gambia-declares-state-of-emergency.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGambia
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/africa/gambia-yahya-jammeh-adama-barrow.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGambia&_r=0

92.20.193.245 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38682184 92.20.193.245 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The infobox map is pretty useless

Can we replace that map with a one with a magnified window for the region? Gambia is so small on a map of Africa that it's useless to convey where it is on most displays. --Inops (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Showing the AU seems very strange anyway. CMD (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Official name

The Barrow government has started referring to the Gambia as the Republic of the Gambia again, dropping the Islamic Republic added by Jammeh. Since Jammeh has finally left the country, and is no longer in power, we ought to restore the official name to just Republic of the Gambia. 50.163.127.27 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should've been changed in the first place. The burden of proof that a change should be made rests on those who are promoting a change, and I don't think that the "official" sources with the new name ever outnumbered the "official" sources retaining the old name to warrant making that change. Yes, I'd support going back to just Republic. Korossyl (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The name of "Islamic Republic of The Gambia" has been officially adopted. It was discussed in Talk:The Gambia/Archive 2#The new formal name. If new government change this name to former one, then we would also changed it. But the official confirmation about a change is needed. Aotearoa (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Adama Barrow says Gambia is no longer an Islamic Republic according to this article: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/gambia-president-adama-barrow-pledges-reforms-170128194124520.html 2601:187:4501:B110:5046:C299:9A3E:BF65 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Barrow have the authority to change the name of the country by decree? To me, the article is a bit unclear about whether it is saying the official name of the country has been changed or that he promises (or predicts or hopes) that it will be changed in the future. It says that he "said the country's official name will no longer contain the word 'Islamic', ..." OK, so when will it no longer contain that word? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

These official lists maintained by other governments do not yet reflect any change: http://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html#gotoG https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541084/country-names.csv/preview Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how often those pages are updated, anyways I agree we should wait for a more official source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm probably sure some law or constitutional amendment would have to be passed to officially change the Name. I don't think Barrow's words alone justify the change. Just wait and see as events progress. ProjectHorizons (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sure I protected the wrong version (as always...), but so be it; I hope a week is enough time for some clarity on the matter, and a consensus from editors. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The last reversion was me, just before the protection came on. Considering the IP's edit summary, and the removal of a reference to justify it, I felt that it was not an edit made in good faith. Home Lander (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess you got lucky then. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't care either way (not involved), just watching recent changes and noticed the aggressive summary/change. Home Lander (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am no expert, but if the prefix "Islamic State of..." was added just by the word of the former President, can it not be removed by the new one? Actually, the Constitution names the country simply "The Gambia", though there is no reason not to add a description like "Republic of". Far from being officially an Islamic republic, Section 1 says "The Gambia is a Sovereign Secular Republic". The former President was a law unto himself though! Hogweard (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No every constitutions list a official name of state. If the name be changed than the Gambian government will official inform other governments and international organizations (AU, UN, ...). Aotearoa (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Jammeh change the name to the Islamic Republic by decree also. The constitution was never formally amended. It still says that The Gambia is a secular state. 129.63.183.117 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources on "Republic of the Gambia"

I have found two authoritative sources that the state's formal name is now once again "Republic of the Gambia":

Encyclopædia Britannia

Republic of the Gambia - Office of the President

Both sources are updated to current-time and should be sufficient to confirm the Islamic prefix no longer applies.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

statehouse.gov.gm isn't good source – it still lists Yahya Jammeh] as the president. Aotearoa (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the place isn't exactly first-world and there are more pressing concerns but that's just ridiculous...--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite possible that someone from Jammeh's staff walked off with the admin account password when he departed. In recent years, they do not seem to have had a very clear concept of distinguishing between the president and the government. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Did the Encyclopædia Britannia previously say "Islamic Republic of", or did it just say "Republic of" before as well? I don't notice anything in that source that discusses the question explicitly. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an archive but I remember seeing Islamic before a few weeks ago, I may be mistaken.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Down at the bottom of the Britannica article, there is an "article history" feature. You can click on that to see what the changes have been. The formal country name has not been recently changed. It just said "Republic of" before also. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

UN Website has been updated. Islamic Republic of the Gambia and President of the Islamic Republic of the Gambia should be a redirection to Yahya Jammeh. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. UNTerm database informs that on 16th Feb Gambian authorities officially informed about new (ie. old) name. Aotearoa (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So, it's settled. And it's no surprise. El_C 19:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What is your opinion about my proposal to transform "Islamic Republic of the Gambia" as a redirection to Yhaya Jammeh ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It could maybe redirect to a section in his article that talk about him changing the name, yes, I suppose. El_C 12:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

'Islamic Republic of the Gambia' is just a redirect, but no content page actually includes a link to it: it would be easier just to delete it. Hogweard (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Gambia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112083827/http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf to http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/nnpg367/3/cmd367/arch/archDt367/032006/Default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.gm/thousands-join-first-lady-in-the-fight-against-cancer/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://conflict.sipri.org/SIPRI_Internet/index.php4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/another-new-bank-inaugurated
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_GMB.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17063

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Gambia Religion

Can someone clarify the religious adherence in Gambia?

It says 96% are Muslim, 8% are Christian and 2% are other. That amounts to 106%! Unless there are people following 2 religions, this does not make sense.

2602:306:CE4E:2DC0:DC7E:7E0A:1F7F:1F4F (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like different sources claim different numbers so it's hard to be sure. I don't know of any really good source to find out what reality is. The CIA World Factbook says "Muslim 95.7%, Christian 4.2%, none 0.1%, no answer 0.1% (2013 est.)", but doesn't tell what their source is. Religion in the Gambia takes its figures from that source. Any other ideas?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Volume 5 of 2013 Population and Housing Census: Spatial Distribution of Population and Socio-Cultural Characteristics: The 2013 census figures show that 96.0 per cent of the population are Muslims and 3.8 per cent Christians whilst the rest of the population (0.2 per cent) practiced traditional or other religions. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

CIA figures seem to come from Gambia Demographic and Health Survey 2013 Preliminary Report which only accounts for people age 15-49 and therefore inaccurate. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it "The Gambia" or "the Gambia" in the middle of a sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we settle this? The article currently uses both and inconsistently. There is also the problem of History of the Gambia, Economy of the Gambia and so on. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that it's The Gambia, but I'm not hundred percent. El_C 22:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@El C: That would imply a change to "History of The Gambia" and a lot of others. I am with you. But, we need a bigger quorum. This could affect over a 100 pages.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now look at this [12]. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there was a deliberate and strong consensus here. We should follow that. I propose we nomalize to "the Gambia" —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am agree. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

But later, there was no consensus here. That means there is currently no consensus.

Earlier discussions have shown that usage is divided and that dictionaries contradict one another. I therefore propose we go with the official spelling and use the Gambian constitution to determine that spelling. Libhye (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This a huge undertaking. The list of articles affected is over Hundred. For example: University of the Gambia, President of the Gambia, and many many categories. Since the discussion 6 years ago there has been a lot more internet access in the country. The results of a RfC should be different. I am going to leave an invite at a few relevant places.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Google Ngrams can be hard to interpret, because they may include headings or the beginnings of sentences, but this indicates that the capitalized version is fairly new since the mid-1960s and even now is only slightly more common than the lower case. It also indicates that about half the time no "the" is used at all. A review of on-line style guides seems to prefer The Gambia and The Bahamas, but lower case the Netherlands and everybody else.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Years later (in 2013), there was a consensus here and here for lowercase "the". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The first of these doesn't count: for two of three editors, it was about moving one article with ‘The Gambia’ in the title in order to achieve consistency with the gazillion articles with ‘the Gambia’ in the title.

As to the second one, Jafeluv's comment is spot on: This is not a new or uncontroversial issue. While it's reasonably easy to find a consensus between a few editors in a week-long RM, the last time (to my knowledge) this was discussed more widely there was no consensus as to whether it should be The Gambia or the Gambia. I have no real opinion on the issue, but I don't think an eight-day RM on a low-traffic talk page including three participants can be considered a definitive consensus that justifies "speedy" follow-ups.

In neither case did anyone leave a note on this page, where it had previously proved impossible to achieve a consensus. In short, I don't think we should pretend there is a consensus already but try to achieve one here. Libhye (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Those were both Wikipedia RMs that were open for at least a week. They were on other articles because they needed to be – since those were articles with titles that didn't start with "The" at the beginning of the title. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Some things to note: 1) WP:TITLE specifically opted for "The Gambia" until 2009 when it was removed without Talk Page discussion in a copyedit (diff here). That means there was a lasting high-level consensus for "The Gambia" until it was removed without discussion about that lasting opinion. Note: Not implying anything underhanded, AGF like always and it appeared to be a good edit for the guidelines. 2. Following WP:PLACE if there is no standard English usage, then you go with the more official usage. In this case, that would be "The Gambia." 3. However, our focus should always be on what is most likely to help readers and editors in the future. In this instance, I actually think "no rule" might be the most helpful pathway. It does not seem that The/the significantly harms readers and may discourage editing a page which seems to have a very strict usage. Conclusion (ignore as you will): A Soft Preference for "the Gambia" based on the understanding in a few different discussions highlighted above. The preference shouldn't be enforced as much as used for regular cleanup on pages related to The Gambia from editors who want to undertake such efforts. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I argue above that ‘the understanding in [the] few different discussions highlighted above’ is nothing to base a conclusion on. I agree with Janweh64 that we should come to a conclusion one way or the other, and I fail to see how that would discourage editing. As there is no clear conclusion to be drawn from the previous discussions, the issue should be debated on its merits here and a conclusion reached.

So what are the merits? I think the following points are relevant:

1. Usage is all over the place.

2. Dictionaries disagree amongst themselves.

3. As SchreiberBike points out above, on-line style guides prefer ‘The Gambia’.

4. As you point out, ‘[f]ollowing WP:PLACE if there is no standard English usage, then you go with the more official usage’.

5. Per the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, it's ‘The Gambia’.

I think we should take advantage of this chance to settle the issue once and for all. My ‘vote’ is for ‘The Gambia’. Please add your ‘vote’ below. Libhye (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If the usage is all over the place, why not follow the closest example we have to indicate what is the standard usage in English, which would be "the Bahamas"? The article about the Bahamas uses lowercase "the" in the middle of sentences. If there are only two countries in the world whose names start with "the", why style them differently from each other? (The Netherlands and other countries that are sometimes referred to with "the" are also lowercase.) Wikipedia guidelines say to follow standard English formatting when there isn't consistency for common usage. If you really want to settle it more definitively than in the two RMs of 2013, which both showed a consensus for "the Gambia" with lowercase "the", open an RfC, and start it with a statement that is "neutral and brief". —BarrelProof (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof that if we go with 'The Gambia' we will be breaking with usage across all the rest of wikipedia. We need a good reason from either A) Usage in sources (which we don't have), B) Guidelines (which WP:Place could support), and C) Focus on impact on readers and early editors. I'm not sure the PLACE guidelines justify the lack of consistency, but would be interested in any other thoughts. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also some other post-2010 discussion recorded at Talk:The Gambia/Archive 2#Writing The Gambia Violates Orthography Rules of English. A couple of people expressed their opinion rather forcefully that we should use lowercase "the", not "The", with an argument from authority and a list of examples. There was one other participant in that discussion who seemed skeptical about that, but didn't provide a very clear response.

I don't see any clear guidance in WP:Place. I also looked at WP:THE, but its scope seems basically limited to whether to include "The" at the start of an article title or not. A more directly relevant guideline is MOS:THECAPS. It says not to capitalize "the" in the middle of sentences unless that is an idiomatic expression established by common usage. Common usage, in this case, is not consistent.

—BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof, AbstractIllusions, Libhye, SchreiberBike, El C, and Panam2014:

I don't like the comparison to The Bahamas because of these:

• Ngram Viewer "of the Gambia" vs "of The Gambia" ---- Ngram Viewer "of the Bahamas" vs "of The Bahamas"
• Ngram Viewer "like the Gambia" vs "like The Gambia" ---- Ngram Viewer "like the Bahamas" vs "like The Bahamas"
• Ngram Viewer "with the Gambia" vs "with The Gambia" ---- Ngram Viewer "with the Bahamas" vs "with The Bahamas"
• Ngram Viewer "that the Gambia" vs "that The Gambia" ---- Ngram Viewer "that the Bahamas" vs "that The Bahamas"

These above are really interesting. It seems that there is common usage for "the Bahamas" but as we suspected no 'current common usage for "the Gambia."

BarrelProof Please don't give up on this. You make a great "devils advocate". Keep firing. I fully intend to create an RfC. This is a preliminary stage for that RfC. I am in no rush. I believe that is how the previous discussions failed. I was hoping to formulate a NPOV statement here first. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WOW! By using the keyword "the Gambia." (notice the period at the end) and "Republic of The Gambia", I was able to exclude the river which gives definitive proof now that it is "The Gambia". Compare it to the Bahamas as the control and we have really good data. I thought this kind of proof was unavailable. THANK YOU SchreiberBike.

My final argument:

• * The Gambia vs. the Bahamas
• in The Gambia vs in the Bahamas
• of The Gambia vs of the Bahamas

I saved the best for last: Republic of The Gambia vs. Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Which shows a distinct spike at Gambia Independence Act 1964. This combined with the constitution gives us enough to make a decision.

The only one that is inconsistent is "and the Gambia." but I think again this is the river coming back in. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Both BBC country profile^[13] and Africanews^[14] make use of The in the middle of the sentence. AllAfrica.com, sometimes does,^[15][16] sometimes dosen't.^[17] El_C 08:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am convinced that there is a more widely accepted English usage for Bahamas than for Gambia. But that doesn't mean there is a "widely accepted English name" for Gambia (per WP:PLACE). There is not. This isn't about finding the right use: There is no right use because English usage is inconsistent. It is about balancing different demands: 1. Ease and consistency vs 2. More official usage. I can't see the reason to prefer the later beyond that might be what WP:PLACE suggests. What benefit does it give to readers or new editors? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As an emphasis that The is part of the conventional shortform. El_C 16:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I may have been on the face fence before or even gone back and forth. But I am now convinced there is enough common usage to justify "The." As to ease and consistency we have tried "the Gambia" for 6 years and it has not worked because source after source uses the other form. English usage maybe inconsistent but should we not side on the side that is more prevalent. Wouldn't that eventually bring conformity in the special case of the Gambia. The uniqueness of the countries name is foreign to very few now. Do you really think they would be shocked to see it capitalized. Admittedly, it looks weird but that is all. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A benefit to the reader: simple disambiguation. If I write "the Gambia," I am talking about the river. Example: "Located north of the Gambia." If I write "The Gambia," I am talking about the country. Example: "Located north of The Gambia." In the first case I could have added "River." But in the second case there is no natural disambiguator.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to be convinced by arguments that start with "I think there is common English usage for The/the Gambia." This is false. The AP and NY Times says just 'Gambia,' the Guardian likes 'the Gambia', and BBC likes 'The Gambia.' Heck, there are even papers from Gambia which are inconsistent in their usage in the same article (see here, and pet peeve: AllAfrica isn't one source it is an aggregator.) This is the definition of not having "widely accepted" English usage (which is the standard you have to fulfill and not just 'common usage'). I might give a little weight to the disambiguation issues, but are people really going to get confused about President of the Gambia and think it is about the President of the river? I prefer natural English capitalization norms adopted across the rest of wikipedia and used by many (if not most) RSs about the country. My preference order remains: 1) Not deciding one way or the other and letting it be inconsistent, 2) 'the Gambia', and 3) 'The Gambia.' AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions: Article titles that may benefit from the disambiguation I mentioned, not necessary but beneficial: List of mammals of the Gambia, List of butterflies of the Gambia, List of birds of the Gambia, List of moths of the Gambia, and List of lighthouses in the Gambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of MOS:CAPS is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." I interpret that as saying that if the capitalization in sources is inconsistent and the rest of the guidance is unclear, we would expect Wikipedia to use lowercase. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

From web searches and the Google Ngrams above, it looks like "The Gambia" is in the majority, but it is not overwhelming. It is not even wholly consistent on Gambian government websites. Because standard usage for country names is to not capitalize the, I think we need a stronger indication than we have now that we should make a special rule for the Gambia and make the big effort that would be required for Wikipedia to change its standard use. If general usage becomes more consistent later, we can make the change then.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

BBC is inconsistent in its country profile for Bahamas. It mostly uses "the" in the middle of sentences, but there's one place that says "As with other Caribbean countries, The Bahamas faces the challenge of ..." The World Factbook uses "The" for both Bahamas and Gambia. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the river adds an added complication: but the country is The Gambia! (Out of all Gambias.) I do think it should be The, because I think the conventional shortform should be capitalized unless, like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, it's not. El_C 21:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick !vote to see where we are

Let's get a quick tally to see if this even worth arguing any further. Indicate your vote: The or the or don't care or stay inconsistent that is let editors local editors decide. This is not to establish a binding consensus. It's just to see if a full RfC is even worth it. I also wanna see if there are any people reading and not commenting.

• The —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• the:  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• the – per MOS:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and consistency with the Bahamas, given the inconsistency evident in reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• the - BarrelProof has made my arguments in a better way than I have. And has a much better name. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) provides a clear guideline: ‘When a widely accepted English name [...] [does not] exist, the modern official name [...] should be used.’ Libhye (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• The per above. --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Groaaaan Okay, all-lower-case the – because the formal name is the Republic of the Gambia and AFAIK the count of usage does not differentiate between initial-capital-The being at the beginning of a sentence or not, NOR does it differentiate between scholarly, non-scholarly, and completely ungrammatical text sources. An RfC should include ?he Bahamas. The result should be included in MOS:THECAPS. ... Hm, MOS:THEMUSIC has an interesting take on thes.

Or should it be The Republic Of The Gambia? —Geekdiva (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The. El_C 02:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• The – it looks wrong, but an encyclopaedia should have consistency, and that consistency should be with the terms used officially by the nations' own government. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• The The countries official name is The Gambia. One out of three countries apparently, from a BBC documentary some weeks ago. scope_creep (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• the, to be consistent with MOS:THECAPS, MOS:THEMUSIC and the Bahamas. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• The - [18] uses "Republic of The Gambia". Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussions (add !votes above)

Throwing my thoughts in here as a member of WikiProject Gambia who has been trying to improve some politics coverage in recent months given the re-transition to democracy in the country. This question is a real headache, but I'd also love to get to the bottom of it. As many more experienced editors than myself have pointed out, this is not a new topic, nor is it one that has not been discussed at length before on Wikipedia and probably in other domains. My personal preference is for 'the Gambia' in sentences over 'The Gambia' and that is the style I have used in creating and editing Gambia-related articles. That is simply because A. there is no current guidance on the topic and B. because it simply gives a more professional appearance. Not for any particularly evidence-backed reason.

I find it hard to base the decision off the BBC's country profile, for instance, which has a number of grammatical mistakes and appears to have been poorly sub-edited before being published on the website. The Guardian, which I believe has a very deliberate style guide, has opted for 'the Gambia' in the middle of sentences.^[19] This is also the style adopted by the CIA World Factbook. However, it is worth noting they also used 'Republic of The Gambia', rather than 'Republic of the Gambia', as the official country name.^[20]

The most accurate answer is likely to come from Gambian sources themselves. The State House official website, which I have observed the current government had some difficulty adapting during their transition, uses 'The Gambia' in sentences and 'Republic of The Gambia' as a country title.^[21] This is also the style used by a number of other government websites, such as the Gambian Embassy in the UK, and the National Assembly website.^[22][23] The African Union, however, record the nation's official title as 'Republic of the Gambia'.^[24] Noted Gambian scholar, Abdoulaye Saine, has used 'The Gambia' in the titles of his publications, as opposed to 'the Gambia'.^[25] Also, the preferred choice of the Foreign Office and the EU is 'The Gambia'.^[26][27]

Another interesting source is the UK Parliament's Hansard. Unfortunately, they sporadically use each (although as a record of spoken speech, they are likely accurately recording use of 'Gambia' without the 'the' prefix. 'The Gambia' and 'the Gambia' have both been recorded, but the preference appears to be with 'the Gambia'.^{[28][29][30][31]} Even the authoritative Historical Dictionary of the Gambia's 2008 edition did not remain consistent throughout, but shows a preference for 'the Gambia'.^[32] The London Gazette appears to have used 'the Gambia' rather than 'The Gambia' in these two examples (although others may contradict this).^[33][34]

From my reading of these sources and having taken in some things over the past couple of months, it seems that both 'The Gambia' and 'the Gambia' are used mid-sentence. However, 'The Gambia' is typically used in a more formal context, for example on government websites and the constitution. News sources opt for 'the Gambia' more often than not, but then again, those are primarily news sources outside of the Gambia. I'm going to drop an email to the National Library of the Gambia (or The Gambia, who knows) to ask if they have any guidance on this subject. If they do reply and have some advice, then I will surely pass it on. Also, pinging @Atamari: as I know they have an interest in Gambian-related articles, primarily on the German Wikipedia, and may have some insight. Would love to reach a conclusion on this rather than leaving it as another non-consensus. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Geekdiva: According to ?he Gambian constitution, the formal name is given as "Republic of The Gambia" (@Andrewdwilliams: we need an official copy).

AND my lengthy analysis using scholarly books by use of Google NGRAMS (see above) takes the problem of beginning of a sentence into account. Admittedly, the results are still mixed and only slightly lean toward The. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction: On second thought the NGRAMS likely includes even non-scholarly sources, but they are all published books. However, I have taken beginning of sentences into account by use of creative keywords like instances of "in the Gambia" vs instances of "in The Gambia."—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The NGRAMS stuff is very interesting, and I agree with what you say that 'the Gambia' appears to have been more popular pre-independence, and 'The Gambia' usage has picked up since 1965. However, usage of neither is definitive one way or another. To summarise essentially what I wrote, I've made a quick list of the usage of different forms mid-sentence by different organisations. They are as follows: 'the Gambia': The Guardian, CIA World Factbook, Hansard (mostly), London Gazette, Historical Dictionary of the Gambia (mostly), Jollof News, Kibaaro News; 'The Gambia': Foreign Office, the EU, Gambian Constitution, Gambian government websites, The Point, The Standard, The Gambia Echo, Foroyaa; and 'Gambia': The Times, The Economist, Associated Press. This provides no consensus but is an interesting resource. I have also emailed the Permanent Committee for Geographical Names to see if they have an opinion on this, and will email Abdoulaye Saine also. --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Noted Gambian scholar, Hassoum Ceesay, has used 'The Gambia' [35] and see * Official text of the statute Gambia Independence Act 1964. --Atamari (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have received a reply from Dr Abdoulaye Saine, who is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Miami University and whose work focuses on Africa in general and the Gambia in particular. He writes:

The Gambia, is the official name, and when used mid or beginning of a sentence, "The" is capitalized. Hope this helps. Thanks for your work.

--Andrewdwilliams (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask where this is going? I'm fine with diving down the rabbit hole further, but there is no standard usage, right? So, getting more evidence that some folks 'The' while other folks 'the' doesn't seem to be particularly helpful. The question as I see it is: Do we prefer consistency with the rest of wikipedia ('the') or go with closest to official name ('The')? The case for the first is that makes the encyclopedia consistent across countries, the case for the latter is NPLACE guidelines and 'let the locals define.' I find both to be good claims and am not sure how to balance the competing interests. It would be great if someone could figure that out (for me, at least). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to wait until more opinions show an overwhelming consensus one way or the other. I encourage you to tag more people to voice there opinion. I am not very familiar in how to attract more editors to this issue.

Also consider our articles on The New York Times and The Washington Post. They may not be countries but Wikipedia is not completely unfamiliar with the idea of "The" in the middle of the sentence. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We could list the above question as a formal RfC. I believe the question is neutrally worded by Janweh 64 and so it would just be a matter of attaching the RfC template there. I'd suggest rfc|style or rfc|hist: Which do you think is most appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbstractIllusions (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions: I think we can do both rfc|style AND rfc|hist. We should also strikethrough my comment above: This is not to establish a binding consensus. It's just to see if a full RfC is even worth it.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Andrewdwilliams' provides compelling evidence that makes it clear usage favours the The. El_C 22:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion of "The"

People from "The" (or 'the' as the case may be) Gambia reckon it's called "Gambia". They say, "you don't call England 'The England', do you?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense. The Gambian constitution uses The Gambia throughout. Libhye (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"The" is used throughout even in official documents and the constitution. This issue was raised many years ago if recall. "I am going to The Gambia", not "I am going to the Gambia". This basic concept is even taught in Gambian primary schools. It is considered lazy and wrong to use "the" rather than "The".Tamsier (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Libhye: On February 16, 2017, the Permanent Mission of the Gambia to the United Nations sent a letter to the United Nations Protocol and Liaison Service stating, in relevant part, "the formal (long) name has changed to "Republic of the Gambia" (no longer "Islamic Republic of the Gambia"), and the short name remains "the Gambia", e.g. "the Permanent Mission of the Gambia to the United Nations", but alphabetically is still listed under G." This follows the February 23, 2016, letter from and to the same, stating, in relevant part, "the short (alphabetical) name still includes the article "the" before Gambia. Therefore, it would be referred to as "the Gambia", e.g. "the Permanent Mission of the Gambia to the United Nations", but alphabetically is still listed under G." Based on this, the United Nations Secretariat has updated the United Nations Terminology Database to contain the same information [36]. In every of these correspondences, "the" appears uncapitalized. Do you have any contemporary, authoritative source that says otherwise? --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the constitution takes precedence over letters from the country's permanent mission to the UN. At any rate, the use of The and the in this article is governed by the outcome of the discussion above, which means there can be no changes to the spelling until a consensus is reached. Libhye (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

To quote the Wikipedia Manual of Style for capitalization: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." (italics in the original) That means that the constitution does not take precedence and letters from diplomats don't take precedence. We do it the way "a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" do it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That document is contradicted by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), as pointed out in the discussion above. Anyway, there is no point in discussing this further, as there is no chance of achieving a consensus. Libhye (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The UN letters are about how the country's name should appear. On the contrary, concluding that the definite article ("The") should be capitalized because a particular document capitalizes it is Wikipedia:Original research. Can you identify a contemporary, authoritative source that states that the definite article should be capitalized because the constitution capitalizes it? --Bsherr (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The UN link used does not refer to the capitalisation or not, of the definite article. It uses the lower case but that could be a careless mis-use of the name, as happens elsewhere. A quick search on google scholar for RSs gives many more uses of the upper case than the lower. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just not plausible. These two letters are specifically about how to style the name of this country. The purpose of this database is how to style names, including capitalizations. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The constitution is not just any document; it is the very document that defines the name of the country. The Gambia's permanent mission to the UN is bound by the constitution, so even if they did intend to prescribe the Gambia it makes no difference, as they have no jurisdiction in the matter. It needs to be understood that the constitution is ‘a contemporary, authoritative source that states that the definite article should be capitalized’. Claiming otherwise makes as little sense as claiming that the fact that the constitution gives the full name of the country as Republic of The Gambia doesn't in itself mean that the full name of the country is Republic of The Gambia, and that a source is needed that specifically says something along the lines of ‘The full name is Republic of The Gambia because the constitution says so’. Laws are in themselves sources for what they say; there is no need for a separate source that confirms that the law in question says what it says. Libhye (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, all of that is original research. But let's say it is true. In 2015, the Gambia changed its official name to the Islamic Republic of the Gambia. In 2017, the Gambia reverted that name change. [37] Neither time was the constitution amended. Both the United Nations and the International Organization for Standardization accepted both name changes. How do you explain this? (Ultimately, how you explain this is irrelevant. The question is how contemporary, authoritative sources explain this.)

I'm not saying the constitution isn't a source. But it is a primary source. You are interpreting it by claiming that the constitution authoritatively establishes the name of the country and thus its capitalization. However, according to Wikipedia:No original research, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That's why I am asking you for a contemporary, authoritative source that supports your assertion. --Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no original research going on here. The assertion that that sentence applies to this situation is patently absurd. It applies to things like presenting your own interpretation of a novel, not to simply reading a text. You seem to think that the mere act of reading a primary source and reporting its content constitutes interpretation in the sense of WP:OR, but that is just not the case. If a constitution establishes a country's name as Republic of The Gambia, we not only get to, but are required to, report that as its official name. A constitution takes precedence over all other official documents, and that is universal knowledge, not something that could be classified as original research.

As for the attempted name change, it was unconstitutional and therefore invalid, but it is hardly surprising that ISO would go along with it, and the UN will always do whatever the country's mission to the UN says. Libhye (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But no sources for that contention either, right? --Bsherr (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject of the International Organization for Standardization, ISO standard 3166, the international standard for country names, also uses a lowercase "the". [38] --Bsherr (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ISO is a private organisation unaffiliated with the Gambian authorities, so what it does and doesn't say is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Libhye (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? Because actually, ISO is comprised of member national standards organizations. The Gambia is represented by the Gambia Standards Bureau[39], an entity established by Gambian law. I think most would consider that "an affiliation with the Gambian authorities". ISO 3166 in particular is maintained by a 14 member committee that includes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and Universal Postal Union (UPU)[40] of each of which the Gambia is a member state. --Bsherr (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• The name used in a constitution is only the name used in a constitution. The constitution is the subject of interpretation as we can see in many democratic countries (in non-democratic countries a constitution is usually only piece of paper). There are lots and lots of bills, acts, decisions etc. in many countries that are obviously look as contradictory to the constitution of given country. However, till this bill/act/etc. is not questioned by the constitutional court (or similar court) this is in line with the constitution. In the last years we have some cases (Fiji, Nepal, Burma, …) when a government announced name change of a country, although the name listed in the constitution remained unchanged. And this new name was recognized in international for a as well as in media, encyclopedias and so on. That’s why in the case of the Gambia the spelling and capitalization used in the constitution is insignificant – the most important is the spelling and capitalization common use by the government, international organizations, publications and media. And we can’t say that spelling/capitalization used in the constitution is the correct and officially binding because Wikipedia is not a body to interpret any constitution and wordings used in it. Aotearoa (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

main page headline still uses the Islamic Republic of Gambia but name changed to The Republic of The Gambia per below

Gambia no longer an Islamic Republic Share January 30, 2017 By World Watch Monitor The Gambia Adama Barrow, Islamic extremism, The Gambia, West Africa, Yahya Jammeh The Gambia’s new president, Adama Barrow, has pledged reforms, including removing laws which violate freedom of religion.

In December 2015, ex-president Yahya Jammeh had declared the West African country an Islamic republic, saying the decision was made because Islam is the religion of most citizens, raising fear among Christians and human rights groups.

Speaking at his first news conference since returning to take office on Thursday (26 Jan), Barrow said the country’s official name will no longer contain the word “Islamic”.

The new president said The Gambia, whose population is 90 per cent Muslim, with the rest Christian and animist, was a republic, “not the Islamic republic”.

Gambia’s official name will no longer be ‘The Islamic Republic’. It will hold the name of — The Republic of The Gambia. #Gambia pic.twitter.com/OqbFsIypzI

— Adama Barrow (@adama_barrow) January 29, 2017

Fr. Peter Lopev from the Diocese of Banjul told the UK’s Premier Radio station the victory was an answer to prayer.

“For many Christians, this is like a heavy load that is lifted from our heads,” he said.

Source: Al Jazeera Tooplustwo (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by main page headline — all of this is acknowledged in the article already. El_C 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Gambia (The)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gambia (The). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox government form

I made an edit to change the infobox to say "unitary parliamentary republic " since I'm not sure what "presidential republic under a parliamentary system" is supposed to mean. Even so, should it maybe be "presidential republic"? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Add currency - $SFM,(Safemoon) the ambassador at large announced yesterday on a live stream with the CEO of Safemoon. 188.28.184.145 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Largest metro area

"Largest largest metropolitan area Serekunda" I don't know how to fix it, if i could i would, but i don't, this bothers me for no reason, pls fix. 108.176.230.82 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"the" or "The" again

The statehouse.gov.gm site is not working. The Ministry of Interior website https://moi.gov.gm/ uses The Gambia throughout. I would think whoever first wrote 'the' was not doing original research, but simply choosing. So discussing 'The' is not original research. Nor is it a matter of Wikipedia style, except inasmuch as we don't call it 'the The Gambia'.--2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:F88C:FB8F:15AA:615 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and there has been no consensus. I'd like to see a consensus because I think the mixed usage we have now looks sloppy.

We should make the decision based on Wikipedia's rules. The first rule is: "Generally, do not capitalize the word the in mid-sentence", but there are exceptions. One exception is The Hague; we need to decide if this should be another exception. This comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capitalization of The.

Wikipedia capitalizes less than some sources and more than some sources. We make our decisions based on: "Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources." That's from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters.

So what we should do is go out and look at independent, reliable sources to see what capitalization choice "a substantial majority" of them make. Note that the meaning of independent as used in Wikipedia is defined at Wikipedia:Independent sources and reliable sources is defined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. One thing that means is that it's not terribly important what the government of the (The) Gambia does because we use sources that are independent of the government.

If I've misunderstood the rules, please point out my errors, but if I've got the rules right, let's discuss, collect evidence, and make a decision based on the rules. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The Gambia" is the correct short name for the country. It has been used consistently by the United Nations in their reports and stats. "The Bahamas" is another one, these two countries are special cases which Wikipedia editors just have to remember.

Links:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoG

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gambia-the/ Vic Park (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 09:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

---

The Gambia → Gambia – If "The Gambia" or "Gambia" are both common, then we should change it to "Gambia" to keep the name concise. In addition, this is the name used by many international organizations, such as the International Organization for Standardization. RealIK17 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Britannica uses "The". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Countries has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Africa has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the nom might have overstressed the commonness of "Gambia" (without the definite article) which is conspiciously not used by Gambian government websites (eg Ministry of Health, The Gambia) or foreign governments (UK or US). It is also not used by the UN. I think there is quite a clear WP:COMMONNAME here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "the" is part of the name unlike other countries Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The same proposal has been discussed twice before (in 2008 and 2010) and not accepted. There are pointers to those discussions at the top of this Talk page. There have also been other discussions of the issue in addition to the formal RMs (see the Talk page archives). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, official name and there is the Gambia River.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Netherlands and WP:CONSISTENCY, also WP:THE Red Slash 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Netherlands is just "Netherlands", "the" isn't part of its name mind you though, the ISO name is just "Gambia" for The Gambia as well as "Netherlands". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The word is part of the common name. What will be proposed next, remove the same word from The Hague? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The official and common name have the definite article. A better debate is whether we should use lower case 't' when writing in the article. The title and at the start of a sentence would be upper case so there is no difference, but when we use the term elsewhere are we using the official name (no IMO) or the common name (yes IMO). In any case, for this specific proposal I say 'oppose'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose we've done this before, right? There are currently two countries that properly use the word "The" as part of the country name: The Bahamas and The Gambia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I highlighted your reply to save other editors from making a similar move request in the future, we had discussions about this over and over again which is a waste of time. Vic Park (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It seems clear that there is no consensus to change the articles title at the moment, and there is no evidence provided behind common name claims. Further discussion may need to take place at WT:THE, being the guideline behind "The". (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

---

The Gambia → Gambia – In line with other countries with "the" in their name (e.g the Netherlands redirects to Netherlands). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: These are all the country articles in which "the" is used commonly; the Bahamas, Central African Republic, Comoros, Cook Islands, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Republic of Ireland, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Seychelles, the Solomon Islands, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States (notes: Ukraine is not called "the Ukraine" anymore, Vatican City is also called "the Vatican"). So two out of 21 articles use "the". Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous recent discussion. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Question What was missed in the previous RMs? CMD (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  No one is answering this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. WP:THE. Shwcz (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: you mention WP:THE, but it endorses The Gambia. I'm confused.DBaK (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose and Snowball Close As per the highlighted comment made by User:力 in the previous Move Request discussion above. As repeated by many other editors, The Gambia and The Bahamas are two special cases which we just have to remember that the definite article "The" actually forms a part of the proper country name. They are not the same as the Netherlands, the Philippines or the Comoros.

As an interesting side note, some countries have deliberately avoided using the definite article "the" despite having a plural name (e.g. Maldives, Seychelles, Solomon Islands), again, these are special cases, we just have to remember them. As for the reasons, yes, all of them have reasons, mostly to do with distinguishing itself with another geographical or political entity, or distancing itself from its colonial past etc. We don't need to worry about their reasons, if in doubt, just refer to their official name, if it has "the/The" as a part of their official name, then it will always have "the/The".

Links:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoG

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gambia-the/

Vic Park (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia's general rule is at WP:THE, but there are exceptions for good reasons. This is one of them. I haven't looked today, but last time this came up the vast majority of sources referred to the country as either the Gambia or The Gambia. Wikipedia's capitalization of the name is unfortunately mixed, but use of the is and should be consistent. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the long-standing name. No one calls it "Gambia". Walrasiad (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody calls the Netherlands "Netherlands" but the article is called that. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not comparable. Let me put this way: no one with any vague familiarity with Africa or a geography book writes it "Gambia". It is always "The Gambia". It's a proper term. This proposal is beyond absurd. Please forgive my presumption, but I have a feeling this is probably the first time you've heard of this country. I'd suggest you look around a bit. Walrasiad (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: I've heard of every country and know a fair bit about geography. Yes, I know in a sentence you'd say "the Gambia" (i.e "I live in the Gambia.", I'm Australian but I'm just giving an example here), but you also say "the Philippines" in a sentence (e.g "I live in the Philippines.", again I live in Australia so this is just an example) yet the article is called Philippines. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

And that's where your error begins. You imagine this is a matter of speech. It is completely unrelated to that. It is the actual proper name of the place. It is written "The Gambia" on maps, articles, books, documents, even datasets and indexes (which need alphabetical ordering) enter it as "Gambia, The". There is no comparison to other countries. Except to "Bahamas, The". It may sound bizarre to your ears - and it is admittedly very unusual. That's why these are exceptions - and everyone knows they are. A simple online search should make that clear. Walrasiad (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement that "No one calls it 'Gambia'." is simply false. Lots of sources call it "Gambia" without "[T/t]he". This has been previously discussed. Some of the sources cited in the article do that in their headlines. Some publications and websites even do it in the names of their publications/websites. If I recall correctly, it is especially common in the context of sports. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't account for mistakes flying around the internet from ignorant writers, poor webmasters or graphic designers, who don't know better, or those who need to abbreviate it further for convenience. That's why I predicated in anyone who is actually familiar with Africa or geography. Published works are your best bet. Walrasiad (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of those sources are based in Africa, so you can't really say they have no familiarity with Africa or geography. You can insult people and say that what they do is a mistake driven by ignorance because you know what is correct, but that is not the only possible explanation. If you do a Google Advanced Search for exact phrases like "in Gambia" and "for Gambia", you'll find that many of the most well respected sources include such phrases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Find only mistakes or abbreviations or embedded in other phrases (e.g. "for Gambia Airways"). But it heartens me that you finally did a search. I am sure you now realize "The Gambia" is overwhelmingly and relentlessly used everywhere. Walrasiad (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:THE. This country is more commonly referenced without the definite article. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007 not convinced your assertion is correct. Please provide some evidence. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: you mention WP:THE, but it endorses The Gambia. I'm confused.DBaK (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as mentioned before "The" is part of the country's name unlike Netherlands per Britannica. Its "long" official descriptive name is "Republic of The Gambia" but its official "short" and formal name is "The Gambia". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I don't think having the "The" is valuable.

Ortizesp (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – this is completely and utterly wrong and a waste of our time to discuss it. The country's name is The Gambia so what people think is valuable or useful is wholly irrelevant because they don't get to rename countries on a whim. The comparison with other countries is completely meaningless, because it is a different country. We no longer say The Lebanon because that is not its name. We do say The Gambia because that is its name. It really is that simple. Best to all DBaK (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  But Lebanon never used (as far as I know) a definitive article (Ukraine used to be "the Ukraine" though). However, the articles about countries that do use definitive articles do not use it in the title (e.g the Netherlands redirects to Netherlands, the Maldives to Maldives, the Philippines to Philippines, the Seychelles to Seychelles, the Solomon Islands to Solomon Islands, the United Kingdom to United Kingdom, the United States to United States, etc). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are wrong. People (the old generations) used to call Lebanon "the Lebanon" and Ukraine "the Ukraine", but they are not the official English translation of these country names and people have now stopped using them.

  Solomon Islands is another special case which we just have to remember. "Solomon Islands" (without "the") means the island country in the South Pacific, "the Solomon Islands" means the archipelago which contains both the country of Solomon Islands and Bougainville (currently an autonomous region of Papua New Guinea, scheduled to become an independent sovereign state in 2027). Vic Park (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  The Lebanon (song) OK bye. DBaK (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: interesting, didn't know about that, always good to learn something new. Anyway, @Vic Park:, "the Solomon Islands" refers to both the country and the archipelago, "Solomon Islands" is never used by people who speak proper English. Trust me, I live in Australia which is near the Solomon Islands. Australian media uses the definitive article in sentences. For example, in this ABC News article the first sentence is (other than the image caption) "Children ran and traffic jammed as a magnitude-7.0 earthquake rocked the Solomon Islands capital of Honiara on Tuesday, while a major aftershock struck nearby 30 minutes later." Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  The above quoted sentence from ABC News is being parsed incorrectly. In that case, the the refers to the capital; it is not being used as part of the name of the place. That phrase can be shortened to "a magnitude-7.0 earthquake rocked the capital" or "a magnitude-7.0 earthquake rocked the capital city Honiara", dropping "Solomon Islands" for an in-context phrasing while retaining the. In that sentence, Solomon Islands is just identifying which country Honiara is the capital of. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: then perhaps I should point you to several other news sources that use the definitive article (e.g this video is titled "What's Happening with China and the Solomon Islands" and the first sentence of the video's description is "Leaked details from a security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands have raised questions from the US, Australia, New Zealand, and other regional states in Oceania about China's possible military ambitions in the South Pacific." Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I was just saying that particular example wasn't on-target. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, I am your fellow countryman. For people who don't know the difference, they use "the Solomon Islands" for both, including some journalists. For people who do know the rules, we follow the creditable sources and only use "Solomon Islands" for the country.

Quoted from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Solomon Islands page:

"Australia has a deep and longstanding relationship with Solomon Islands."

Link: https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/solomon-islands/solomon-islands-country-brief Vic Park (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vic Park: media uses the definitive article because saying "Solomon Islands is a country" sounds broken compared to "The Solomon Islands is a country". Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really, if you treat "Solomon Islands" as a political entity instead of a geographical feature, then it is okay to drop the definite article. It is not broken English (articles are unnecessary before singular proper nouns), at least not according to the Australian Government, they've used "Solomon Islands" consistently throughout their reports. I have not seen a single case where they used "the Solomon Islands" to describe the country.

Examples:

1. Solomon Islands is an archipelagic state situated in the south-west Pacific Ocean, approximately 2,000 kms to the northeast of Australia.

2. The UK granted Solomon Islands internal self-government in 1976, followed by independence on 7 July 1978.

3. Solomon Islands is one of the Pacific's poorest countries, with high costs of service delivery due to a small and geographically dispersed population. Vic Park (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:THE. The definite article is more often than not lowercased in running text. Saying "it's part of the name" is contrary to WP:OFFICIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Why does the fact that it's in lowercase matter? The fact that it's there is surely enough to infer commonality? No one would suggest renaming the article the Gambia. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  It matters because WP:THE says "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not (except in the case of musical groups; see below)." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point Necrothep. We should therefore look at what the significant majority of independent reliable secondary sources use. Govt publications are strictly primary, so let's ignore them, Gambian and others. I suggest a simple google count test using scholar or books. If there is no significant majority then we should achieve a consensus guideline. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hang on @BarrelProof and @Roger 8 Roger. WP:THE actually lists The Gambia as a case where 'the' should be included! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:The does not say that, please read it again more carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's under a big heading that says 'When definite and indefinite articles should be used'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If this move is supported, perhaps the Gambia item should be removed from that list of special exceptions. I was just saying that's why the capitalization matters to this discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the policy would need to be changed before the article title. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying that with no experience in writing Wikipedia policy though :). YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the wording that prefixes that list seems to leave some room for interpretation: it just says this is a case where "'The' is sometimes used", not that it should always (or even usually) be used. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting that very loosely. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

YorkshireExpat, I suggest once again that you read the policy more carefully. BarrrelProof has pointed out just one example where your assetion is incorrect. Your quoting the heading and saying it proves your point simply shows that you are not understanding the heading. Where does it say articles should be used, capitalised or not. Please check what original research means and consider that is what you are using. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: I put a notification about this RM discussion at WT:THE#Requested move discussion at Talk:The Gambia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per previous discussions. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The name has an article whether it's the official name or the common name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and place moratorium on future RMs. If a move request is made, it should be on valid grounds; arguing consistency between countries is irrelevant when each country is its own entity and not beholden to how other countries title themselves. SnowFire (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about proper usage of this country's name

Given a lack of consensus of prior RfCs on the issue of names for this country in article text, I have initiated a new RfC at WikiProject Africa to settle this manner rigorously. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The admin in the above discussion suggested future discussion should take place at WP:THE. Pathawi (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

These are slightly different issues. WP:THE and the above discussion were with regard to article title. The new RfC appears to be about the name when it occurs mid-sentence in article text, which would fall under MOS:THEINST. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:THEINST is the right guideline—it's about the use of the definite article with institutions, independent of name. The RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa explicitly cites the above discussion as motivation. Pathawi (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Transport

Wondering why there is no "Transport" section in the article, not even a brief mention about the country's transportation. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, just added one from another article. Nevertheless, the section needs more citations. Will try to find more on these. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Gambia Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What next for capital "T" in The Gambia?

I'm starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What next for The Gambia? about how to followup on the RfC which changed Wikipedia style to use a capital "T" for The Gambia mid-sentence and mid-article title. Please participate in the discussion there. Thank you,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That discussion can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#What next for The Gambia?. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was later changed to "no consensus". The discussion referenced above is now archived as described above. I should have noted that change here when the closure was changed; my apologies for any confusion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)