Talk:Rotuma

Section header for previously untitled comments
Well, I think it very unusual that no effort has been made to really document, write about or at least cite rotuma, and life on the island, all this controversy over some obscure political footnote, all talk and no substance...

David,

I don't see discussion on this page for anything, so how did others add their edits to this page without discussion? Please explain. (Unsigned by Johnski)


 * I don't know what you're talking about! Nobody is REQUIRED to discuss anything on this page - they are free to edit the main article.  If an edit is controversial, however, it will be discussed on this page.  Otherwise, not. David Cannon 02:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was advised that I couldn't add a link to the article without first getting consensus on the discussion page so I looked here and wandered if that is true why no one else had to discuss the matter first before they post new editions, links. Since the link has been reverted indicating, "Revert. A Blog is not a good source for information on a islands history"


 * I found the blog to be the best I could find on the subject, linked not of the islands history, but of the secessionists movements there with court cases cited. Does anyone have a better link or should we revert back to the blog link? Johnski 05:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No one needs permission to edit anything on wikipedia. You are an equal and a peer of all other editors. If someone removes content that you add to a page, you can readd it and then leave a note on the discussion page explaining why you did so. If that person still objects, you can work it out with them on the discussion page. If you can't work it out amicably there are mechanisms in place for moderation or even arbitration. So it is up to you what to do -- if you think that what you added is appropriate, put it back in, explain your logic, and then see who disagrees with you. I am one of the few (I think) people who watch this page regularly, and I have no problems with adding a blog to the list of references. Rex 09:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the blog link. If better links can be found later, we can replace it then, but in the meantime, it's better than nothing. David Cannon 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the link to the blog is simply POV pushing on the part of those trying to claim that Rotuma and Bokak Atoll are legitimately part of DOM. I disagree that a blog is a creditable source of information. One can post almost anything on a blog (confirmed or not) and there is no way to know if the information is correct.


 * This is a legitimate grip not only with this article, but also with Bokak Atoll, Ecclesiastical State/Government as well as many other articles. Once these people are permitted to put their POV material in one article they will deem it legitimate and push it in to all related articles. If you think only one person has a problem with this, it is not true. There are several of us that have been removing the POV material from the articles I've mentioned. Simply put, it is an issue of creditablity. Below I have posted a excerpt from the blog link that was posted. Davidpdx 13:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "That's where the organized crime angle comes in. Present on Rotuma at the time, ostensibly as a "tourist," was Tzemach ben David Netzer Korem, the titular vice president of a micronation known as the Dominion of Melchizedek. The Dominion claims various Pacific and Antarctic territories and asserts a pseudobiblical basis for its sovereignty, but is in fact a complicated financial scam. Korem (whose real name is Ben Pedley, and who proudly notes that his high school class "voted him 'Most Original'") has used the apparatus of Melchizedek to conceal various securities and tax frauds, and has also made money from sales of licenses and travel documents."


 * "However shady Korem may be, however, he has shown a considerable amount of skill in promoting Melchizedek's interests. Among other things, Melchizedek has actually managed to secure diplomatic recognition from the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso (aided, I suspect, by a certain amount of money under the table), giving it a patina of respectability and increasing the value of its travel documents. With the chaos surrounding the Fijian coup, however, Korem saw the chance to take Melchizedek to the next level. If Rotuma became a de facto sovereign state under a friendly government, it would become not so much a shell company as a shell nation in which Korem could establish banks, corporations and other financial entities beyond the reach of the law. A unilateral declaration of independence on Rotuma likely wouldn't be recognized, much as Somaliland's separation from the dysfunctional Somali state hasn't gained international recognition, but in some ways that would be even better for Korem - a Rotuma existing apart from international institutions would be a legal black hole like Transnistria is for the Russian mob."

Blogs can be used.
David, Please read the rules again as blogs can be used in some cases. In this case, I feel that a New York lawyer may meet the requirements. See: http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/015237.html Also, please note that everyone else here agreed with using the blog but you, putting you in the minority. Cordially,Johnski 07:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First, According to the page on Reliable sources here is the information for using a blog:


 * Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet


 * Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.


 * This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.


 * Personal websites as primary sources


 * "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing."


 * Personal websites as secondary sources


 * "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources".


 * "That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website".


 * "The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial (wow and this is a controversial topic isn't it)— is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."


 * Second, if you think you and two other people are the only people that edit or watch this article, then you are sadly mistaken. This is the same thing you are claiming on the DOM article, Bokak Atoll as well as other pages. There are more then four people that edit or watch this article reguarly.


 * The simple fact is, you have failed to follow the rules over and over again. Blogs clearly CAN NOT be used in a controversial topic, which this topic is very controversial. You and Samspade have reverted articles against good faith efforts on the DOM page, refuse to follow Wikipedia's rule of reliable sources and then have the gull to tell me I'm in the majority. Unfortuately I have no reason to believe anything you say. Uncordially, Davidpdx 08:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, you are correct, after reading again the rules on blogs, they shouldn't be used in this case, but on this discussion page, everyone else that wrote about the subject had no problem with the link to the blog, probably because they know the information there is confirmable on the Hawaiian University web site which is linked from this article about Rotuma. I just thought it was the best review of the subject and from a lawyer. Cordially,Johnski 08:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

First inhabitants of Rotuma
There's a relatively recent addition to the page that Tahitians were the first inhabitants on the island. I'm confused what the sub-section headed 'Linguistic evidence' is providing evidence for. If the evidence is for the Tahitian arrival argument, then the sub-section does not appear to provide linguistic evidence in support of this theory. There is, however, scant mention of Polynesian loanwords being the result of later invasions, but there's work on that (see Schmidt 2001). Other work also talk about there being an aboriginal substratum of the language (see Churchward 1940, Schmidt 2001), but there hasn't been any linguistic research that points to Tahitian being that substratum.

On organization, the way that the 'History' section is organized is strange. As of now, 'Linguistic evidence' precedes 'Origins per linguistic evidence and history'. It would make sense to introduce the competing oral histories on (the first) settlement and then in a later sub-section provide the evidence, or write them simultaneously -- but not introduce the evidence first and then the theories in separate sub-sections.

I'd also caution against treating only a few similar words (Tagroa, Tagaroa, Siria) between Tahitian and Rotuman as linguistic evidence, especially if they have not been subjected to rigorous linguistic analysis. GrinIcrave (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)