Talk:Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani

message: As explained in :WP:SCHOLARSHIP, academic papers, such as a :thesis, can sometimes be cited as sources for Wikipedia articles, but generally only when they've been published in peer-reviewed journals or have received coverage in secondary sources; the papers themselves are for the most part considered to be primary sources which means they need to be used very carefully. Claims made in such papers are for the most part considered to be original research until they've been covered in secondary sources or otherwise vetted for accuracy.I'm not sure what your trying to cite with this link, but it looks like a pdf file named :File:Archeological Investigation of Vatanitawake -A Ceremonial Mound on the Island of Bau, Fiji Islands..pdf that you or someone else uploaded to Wikipedia. That file was deleted by an administrator named ; so, you can ask him about it if you want to know why. However, files of scans/copies of reliable sources don't need to be uploaded to Wikipedia as long as the original source is considered to be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes; for example, an old newspaper article can be cited per :WP:SAYWHERE as long as it's from a reliable source and is used in proper context even if it's not available online. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the pdf file you uploaded, but perhaps maybe you can clarify what it is and where it came from (i.e. a newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). If it's a public or private document which has been :WP:PUBLISHED, then at the very best it would be considered a primary source and have limited use; on the other hand, if it's never been published or is otherwise user-generated content, then it wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia. --Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for justifying the removal of the Vatanitawake Archaeological report, however, I cannot help but observe the inconsistencies of certain Wikipedia editors. What about the removal of the newspaper- Fiji Times article of Nov 13th, 1985 on the installation of Fiji's highest traditional title of Roko Tui Bau on the late Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi in Bau. The Fiji Times article included the photo of the then Minister for Fijian Affairs, Adi Samanunu Cakobau and the then Ra Province Member of Parliament and Gonesau -Dr Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani's inside the traditional Vatanitawake temple? My point is that the Vatanitawake Archaelogical Report which contained the details (on pg 103) of the Ancient Monarchy of Fiji- Tui Viti sacred stone title or Tawake being kept at the foundation of the Vatanitawake sacred temple by Vueti, the 1st Roko Tui Bau and the Nov 13th, 1985 -Fiji Times article on how Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani as the original eldest lineage (Gonesau) of Vueti, the 1st Roko Tui Bau and the Ancient Monarchy of Fiji- Tui Viti. It is important to report such authority/approval/endorsement/etc. so that wikipedia readers, especially the younger generation of Fiji will understand the logic behind ancient traditional authority and protocols that were not reported well (not accurately) by Fiji's main stream media as well as early Christian missionaries during Ratu Cakobau's time. Fiji historians and missionaries have reported that the title of the Monarchy of Fiji-Tui Viti were self styled in the mid 1800s by Ratu Cakobau or his father Ratu Tanoa, which is incorrect. The Monarchy of Fiji or Tui Viti title was and is still a genuine traditional title and descendants are still alive today. Fiji is currently under a lot of political and economical challenges with significant external forces that continue to support miscommunication and suppression of ancient traditional authorities and the rule of law. There were reasons for the ancient traditional lineage to support the latter traditional authority but recently, this support has become more abused.The right has become more wrong and the wrong has become more right with abuse of power, corruption, suppression and injustices. I would have thought that my contributions to wikipedia would have contributed to my intentions to correct the miscommunications, that are politically and commercially motivated but frustratingly, the editing rules and the inconsistent editors have convinced my heart to move away. This will be my last contribution to wikipedia. I say this with a good heart as I do not want to be a point of continued disagreements with fellow wikipedia editors.  Saqiwa (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia article content is really only intended to reflect is written in reliable sources. When there are multiple conflicting reliable sources, then editors do their best to sort things out through discussion and possibly prevent both viewpoints, but it's not really the role of Wikipedia to correct mistakes found in sources or otherwise set the record straight. It's also not really Wikipedia's role to help younger generations of Fijians understand their history better. Doing such a thing surely sounds noble, but it's not really something suitable for Wikipedia. If there are inaccuracies in the reporting of Fijian mainstream media, etc. and these have received verifiable coverage in reliable sources, then this could possibly be mentioned in a Wikipedia article in some way; however, it's not Wikipedia's job to get media organizations to correct their mistakes. Perhaps, you should consider creating your own website (see :Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and :Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets) where you won't have to worry about Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and can present things as you see fit. I'm not trying to discourage you from further editing, but it sounds like what you're trying to accomplish is not really something suitable for Wikipedia. There are various websites, like :Wikia, which work similar to Wikipedia, but which don't have as many or as restrictive policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  Please stop re-adding a citation to  per :WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Care needs to be taken when trying to cite academic thesis as sources and it's better to try and find :WP:SECONDARY sources instead. You were :WP:BOLD the first time you added the citation, but after it was removed the first time you should follow :WP:BRD and discuss/clarify why you feel it meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. You can also ask about the thesis' reliability as a source at :WP:RSN if you want other opinions. Continuing the try and re-add the citation without doing either of those things, however, is likely going to be seen as edit warring and will lead to an administrator being asked to take a look at things and take action if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the guidance.I will make the necessary actions. Saqiwa (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources