Talk:Rikitea
 | A fact from Rikitea appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not clear edit
It is not clear to me how one man can enslave 9,000. As it is, this article is self-contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- The slavery and slaughter come from Nvvchar and Rosiestep. Nvvchar seems to be a person of less education, with a conflict of interest. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight seems to have a COI, with more education than Char. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- The alleged source, Stanley 1999, does not mention the passage at all. It is a fake source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have looked at page 266 of Stanley and the murders are not mentioned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen fake sources before, produced for much the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rosie does actually have a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen fake sources before, produced for much the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have looked at page 266 of Stanley and the murders are not mentioned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- The alleged source, Stanley 1999, does not mention the passage at all. It is a fake source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
History section has signs of bias edit
The history section does not come across as being written from a neutral point of view. The author seems to have a clear bias towards the missionaries.
It's reasonable that documentation prior to the arrival of missionaries would have been sparse, and so it makes sense to focus on the information that is available. That said, there is exactly one sentence about the culture of the settlement pre-missionary involvement, and it states that cannibalism was practiced before the arrival of the missionaries. While this may be true, reducing the culture of a people who have been colonized to "they ate people" is inappropriate and comes across as a ham fisted justification for missionary involvement.
I cannot speak to the veracity of the story of Laval "driving the people to their deaths". That said, the reasoning provided by the author is worrisome. Whatever happened with Laval and the depopulation of the island is self-evidently controversial, and citations/sources are not provided for the assertion that Laval is innocent. Furthermore, the author supports their claim that the "story" cannot be trusted with this line:
"The story about Laval driving the population to their deaths was spread by a French judge, Louis Jacolliot, who dabbled in the occult and had a grudge against Laval and wanted to discredit him."
From the structure of this argument, it is clear that the author considers Jallicot's alleged "dabbling in the occult" to be evidence of his mendacity. I don't know what Jallicot's religious practices were, but they aren't relevant to whether or not he is a trustworthy source. Citing Jallicot's (alleged) religious deviations from the church as evidence of poor character is unambiguously bigoted and completely inappropriate for a nominally factual article. 2601:646:C300:B730:228A:277B:B3A2:FB27 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)