Talk:Nakorotubu District

make it better together

Nakorotubu has an interesting history the article however needs considerable work, I have added a reference and broken it into sections, I will try and edit and add further footnotes, references and external and internal links, please assist me in helping this article be a better encyclopedia article, Vinaka, Maikeli MB (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vunivalu of Kubuna - NLC Family Tree.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regions and subregions

Saqiwa, DrKay As regards the wording in the lead, the first reference, from Unicef, states quite clearly that Ra province has 19, not 7 districts. Another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference, as stated in [WP:circular] "Do not use Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." (And I checked the article,[1] none of it has inline references)

The third reference quoted, [2] says nothing about "subdistricts" but describes Nakorobutu as having 7 "subregions" and lists 5 villages, and 2 settlements. Possibly the way to go would be just to state exactly what it says in the reliable sources? proposed wording:

Nakorotubu is one of the 19 districts in Fiji's Ra Province.[1]. It consists of seven sub regions; the villages of Nadavacia, Namarai, Naocobau, Nadavacia, and Verevere, and the settlements of Nakorodalawe and Taliki [3] Curdle (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine by me. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

DrKay (talk).Curdle (talk). Unfortunately you have both misread the report. Nakorotubu sub region (with 5 villages of Namarai, Saioko, Verevere, Naocobau, Nadavacia and 2 settlements of Taliki and Nakorodalawe) is one of the 7 subregions (Nakorotubu, Bureiwai, Kavula, Bureivanua, Nakualilava, Mataso, Navitilevu) of the main Nakorotubu District, i.e. one of the 4 main districts of Ra province. To be specific, please refer again to the report http://hq.tab.gov.fj/GeneratedReports/Ra/Nakorotubu/Nakorotubu.html and it is saved as Nakorotubu/Nakorotubu that indicates that the survey for Nakorotubu sub region was part of the 7 subregions (Nakorotubu, Bureiwai, Kavula, Bureivanua, Nakualilava, Mataso, Navitilevu) surveyed for Nakorotubu main district. Can you please note that the author of the report is concerned that this is a misrepresentation of the report and can cause a lot of miscommunication and implications later in critical decision making in Fiji. The author has suggested to use the main article source Bula Vakavanua. Semi B Seruvakula – 2000 – Ethnology (Fiji); Fijians (Social life and customs), ISBN No;9820201519 9789820201514 with reference to chart composition if you are citing wikipedia rules.Saqiwa (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the link is saved as Nakorotubu/Nakorotubu means nothing; if you click on the link to the parent province Ra, (http://hq.tab.gov.fj/GeneratedReports/Ra/Ra.html) you see its been saved the same way, as Ra/Ra...you cannot assume that means Ra is a sub province of another Ra, surely? again, http://hq.tab.gov.fj/GeneratedReports/Ra/Nakorotubu/Nakorotubu.html lists only the 5 villages of Namarai, Saioko, Verevere, Naocobau, Nadavacia and 2 settlements of Taliki and Nakorodalawe, and states that Ra is the province it belongs to (as indicated by the backlink to province Ra mentioned above, which when clicked on, lists Nakorotubu as one of 20 districts).

You state "the author of the report is concerned etc" I'm sorry..which author do you mean, Scott Sheridan, as described here? http://vp.tab.gov.fj/ there do not appear to be any mention of possible misrepresentations; quite the contrary.

Yes, I can see that the chiefs wiki article lists the whole book Bula Vakavanua. Semi B Seruvakula – 2000 – Ethnology (Fiji) etc as one of four references that were put in after the charts were composed with the vague direction "reference to chart composition"- which of its 169 pages specifically states Nakorotubu is a subregion of another Nakorotubu? Curdle (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't misread anything. Look at any page in that official report. The number of sub-regions always, and I mean always, matches the number of villages and settlements listed. You are simply wrong.

My guess is that you and Semi Seruvakula are conservative indigenous Fijians who are trying to ignore the actual political geography of your country, removing any mention of it and instead skewing Wikipedia towards a traditional tribal structure that is not reflected in official districts. DrKay (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)s

DrKay (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC) My observation was correct all along, your intentions to my articles have come out by your accusation; you and Seruvakula are conservative indigenous Fijians who are trying to ignore the actual political geography of your country, removing any mention of it and instead skewing Wikipedia towards a traditional tribal structure that is not reflected in official districts. You have misread the report and I have already proven that to you and your argument is way out of context and it is amazing to observe the interest and strong demonstration of twisting the information of Nakorotubu just as in the other articles of Monarch of Fiji, Roko Tui Bau, Roko Malani, etc. So sad that as a wikipedia volunteer you have resorted to racist abuse and misreading and causing the deterioration of information here. I will definitely raise this abuse with the wikipedia founders so that some sort of arbitration should be set up for such so called volunteer editors like you. Saqiwa (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't misread anything. You are confusing the traditional clan structures that deal with specifically ethnic Fijian issues with the actual local government districts. They are not contiguous. DrKay (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) Everyone in Fiji are fully aware and can back up Government of Fiji and academic reports to prove that the name Nakorotubu is one the 4 main districts of Ra province i.e. Nakorotubu, Saioko, Nalawa and Rakiraki. There is also another Nakorotubu sub district that is part of the seven (7) subdistricts or subregions of Nakorotubu. Therefore, the introductory sentence that Nakorotubu is one of the 19 districts of Ra province will not present Nakorotubu in totality. Calculated steps have been observed in omitting significant historical facts with subtle reasonings, inconsistent editing and selective source attachments. It is sad to note that while the academic thesis of Heasley Murray http://www.justpacific.com/fiji/full-text/Heasley%E2%80%94Cakobau-thesis.pdf were removed as sources on the original Nakorotubu ancestral lineage from Vunivalu of Bau and Roko Tui Bau citing that you would not allow academic thesis, yet you have allowed the academic report by Nakorotubu Range Report by E.Nakoro which incorrectly mention the Nakorotubu study area as one of the 19 districts when the study is actually about Nakorotubu, one of the 4 main districts of Ra. This can be proven in the geographical study area of the report which include the Bureivanua subregion, etc. all part of the main Nakorotubu district. Yet, this unreliable source has been included and promoted by you. The subtle reasonings are just so obvious. Saqiwa (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Saqiwa I'm not misreading that report either. It is just that there is nothing in it to support the statement that there are two Nakorotubu. Your reply didn't really clarify or prove things at all. Would you be able to answer my question about which author you were talking about that "is concerned that this is a misrepresentation of the report and can cause a lot of miscommunication and implications later in critical decision making in Fiji." and where they said that? and what page numbers in the book Bula Vakavanua by Semi B Seruvakula discuss Nakorotubu? To gain consensus for edits, you need to provide verification, so readers can see where the information comes from. Curdle (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Curdle (talk) When the Roko Malani article with numerous ISBN quotations were added by your side, there were no questions asked about page numbers. Saqiwa (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Saqiwa My side? what on earth are you talking about?

Every ref on Roko Malani currently points the reader to a page number of a book. If an editor supplies a reference from a book or article, they should always supply a page number, because that is how a citation should be written, and what a citation/reference is for, so readers can check for themselves. Whatever has happened during the editing of the Roko Malani article has nothing to do with the questions I asked you about the sources you supplied for this one. I am trying very hard to "assume good faith" but the fact that you resort to vague conspiracy theories and accusations rather than answer basic questions about your sources, makes it very hard to continue. Curdle (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Curdle: According to the University of the South Pacific, Faculty of Science, Technology and Environment there is a Nakorotubu in Nakorotubu. According to that source , which seems reliable, Nakorutubu District is divided into five subdistricts named Bure, Kavula, Nakorotubu, Navitilevu and Nakuilava.

Source link: https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=6380&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=433&cHash=13a0a93bacfa160212c49271d27ffcaa - the page can't be linked to directly since there are square brackets in the URL, which the MediaWiki software can't handle, so you'll have to copy it to a new browser window to get there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh thankyou @Thomas.W: nice find!. That article is talking about "traditional body consisting of 24 Turaga ni Yavusa (chiefs)" etc, so it sounds like as Dr.Kay alluded to above, there are clan structured areas and "government" ones. Thats why I was hoping that Saqiwa would elaborate on their statement regarding which author had mentioned misrepresentation about the report, as it seemed a useful thing to mention in the article. I tried to find some more information along those lines after reading that comment but what I found didn't go into enough detail, or was about the wrong area. Curdle (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Thomas.W: There might be a better solution, but you can URL-encode the problem chars "[" and "]" with "%5B" and "%5D" like this: [3]. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the source cited above says Nakorutubu District is divided into five subdistricts named Bure, Kavula, Nakorotubu, Navitilevu and Nakuilava. What it actually says is "The Bose Vanua Cokovata Nakorotubu, a traditional body consisting of 24 Turaga ni Yavusa (chiefs) from five sub-districts of Bure, Kavula, Nakorotubu, Navitilevu and Nakuilava,". What is the "Bose Vanua Cokovata Nakorotubu"? Is it a tribal council or is it the "official" name of the district? Perhaps one way to differentiate between the two would be to add a sentence stating "Nakorotubu is one of the five sub-districts of the Bose Vanua Cokovata Nakorotubu". According to this article, "Bosa Vanua" means "chiefs council" and there are 203 (including 14 provincial) of them.

Finally, the Can you please note that the author of the report is concerned that this is a misrepresentation of the report and can cause a lot of miscommunication and implications later in critical decision making in Fiji. comment made above by Saqiwa seems to be a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's role is intended to be. Wikipedia doesn't even consider its own articles to be reliable sources for pretty much any purpose; so, if those making critical decisions in Fiji are trying to use this article one way or another to help them make these decisions, then that's a problem that goes beyond Wikipedia and needs to be resolved outside of Wikipedia. If there's some controversy the district about that can has been receiving coverage in reliable sources, then perhaps neutrally worded content in proper context can be added about that, but that's about all the article can really do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I realise its not a definitive statement; its just the first reliable source that hints there actually is another way of referring to Nakorotubu; I was really hoping to discover something that would enable us to include that there was a difference...that Fiji sun article about the 14 provincial chief councils could explain some allusions I came across to there being 14 Provinces, not 19...its all very confusing :)

I had no idea what Saquiwa was referring to; I was hoping the Semi B Seruvakula book they pulled from the war chiefs article (which appears to be a book about cultural mores) discusses it, and somehow that is what was being referred to, (book is 20 years old, doubtful it discusses current government boundaries or debates about such) or .anything really. The book ref was inserted after I twice reverted attempts to use the Wikipedia article itself, and as there are no page refs, it could just be a red herring. I can actually get access to the book, but as it appears to be in Fijian, and 169 pages long, it would not be feasible to attempt a translation for a verification check without a page number.

Another issue is the history section, which has several problems. The one article I put in a link for doesn't altogether support the statements attributed to it, as it refers to an "oral tradition" while our article writes as if fact; it also seems to be referring to several different clans of the Nakorotubu area, when our article implies a single coherent whole; most importantly it seems to be about the tribal area, not the government district of the article title, so it possibly shoudn't be in the article at all. Curdle (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)