Template:Did you know nominations/Takapūneke

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Takapūneke

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Takapūneke in New Zealand, which is sacred to Māori and may become a national reserve, is the site of Akaroa's sewage treatment plant? Source: Takapuneke became a Wahi Tapu Area in 2002. A Wāhi Tapu is a place sacred to Māori. As stated on page 3 of the reserve management plan, the Council decided at its meeting on 7 June 2018 to make a formal application to the Minister of Conservation to apply for National Reserve status for Takapūneke Reserve.)

• Reviewed: Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
• Comment: Well, this needs a tad more work. I had been working with a source (a 2015 article published on Stuff) that appears to be wrong as the Waitangi Treatment Ground does apparently not have National Reserve status. I'll look into it, fix the respective pages and comment here when done. But it needs to be nominated now as 7 days is nearly up.

• Should be all good now. Schwede66 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Created by Schwede66 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - No. "planning treachery" for instance; the source just says that the Ngai Tahu traditions say that Tama-i-hara-nui heard say that the Ngati Toa who were asking to come trade for greenstone were planning treachery (and the Ngati Toa who said they wanted to trade got killed in a dispute over a piece of greenstone, which does not provide proof that they were planning treachery). The source also seems to say that both parties had firearms. The complexity of the whole conflict need not be included in the article, and it's going to be difficult to describe it neutrally.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Schwede66, this is clearly an article about a location. Would it be possible to include co-ordinates? Then we could have an OSM locator map in an infobox (Template:Infobox settlement might be suitable). I'd imagine quite a lot of people even in New Zealand don't know where Akaroa is without looking it up, so it would be helpful to readers. HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, HLHJ. I've added an infobox and coordinates. Don't worry about New Zealanders, as they would know where Akaroa is located, but it's of course useful for non-New Zealanders. What was holding me back is a lack of a photo of the site (there are few photos online but none suitably licensed, and I'm not keen on a 200 km round trip to take one myself). I have clarified the sourcing for the bulleted list. Would you mind pointing me to uncited content in the lead, please? I assume you are aware of MOS:CITELEAD. With regards to NPOV, I've consulted another book that I've got in my library (and I'm not sure why I hadn't looked at it before) and its author is (or was) the authority on Banks Peninsula history. He uses the words "Te Rauparaha's chiefs were ambushed and killed within the pa in what seemed to be ... a well-judged pre-emptive strike ..." hence I don't think that the previous wording was out of line, but I've changed it nonetheless. The "offending passage", including the word "treachery", has been reworded and it should now be neutral enough. With regards to the complexity of the whole conflict, we will have to disagree on that point. There is, as you can imagine, a whole lot more to it and I have tried hard to distill it down to the bare essentials to give readers enough context without them having to read other articles before they can understand what was going on. Have a look and let me know what you think. Once again, thanks for checking this DYK nomination. Schwede66 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Here it is, looking southeastwards into the bay; Takapūneke is just right of the last of the residential housing on the far side. What a great anchorage!

Chart showing holding ground

• Ah, the pitfalls of trying to review something one knows nothing about... at least I'll ask all the stupid questions. Thank you for your patience, Schwede66. Firstly, Earwig is now functioning (bug), and the page was always copyvio-free. Check. Thank you very much for adding the Infobox and locator map. Thanks for clarifying the list refs; that should have been clear to me, but was not. "the events subsequently called the Elizabeth affair" is uncited, and I should have specified that initially; I do not consider this serious and you can leave it if you like. The lede also states that Tama-i-hara-nui was tortured and killed; his Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry says he was certainly killed, and that most accounts agree that agree that he was tortured by the wives of the eight Ngāti Toa chiefs, but this is not in the body of the article, so it is not cited.

I wasn't advocating that you remove detail on the conflict from the article; I was trying to say that I was not insisting you go on to add every detail you could find. I should have noticed that this could be ambiguous in a text-only channel. Your goal of distillation seems good. Certainly I wasn't suggesting that you go there and take photos; I was actually thinking of a live zoomable OSM map, as at Ōnawe Peninsula. However, you prompted me to poke around Commons, and I did find a (very high-res) panorama that shows it, but no closer images. It's also technically shown in File:Bucht in Neuseeland.jpg.

On neutrality: if you have a book source which says that the Ngāti Toa were only pretending to want to trade for greenstone ("pre-emptive strike" does not quite imply that the Ngāti Toa did not come to trade for greenstone on that occasion), then "pretence" is fine; otherwise it might be better something like "Eight of Te Rauparaha's chiefs were killed after they had entered Kaiapoi Pā claiming that they wished to trade for greenstone". It seems that the Ngāti Toa had just razed one or two Ngāi Tahu pās, which does rather cast suspicion on the intentions of the eight chiefs, but this is supposition; I would have no objection to your leaving the reader to make it, or quoting an RS making it. The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography says (of an immediately preceeding conflict): "Tama-i-hara-nui was less than enthusiastic to fight when he saw the returning refugees were armed with muskets, although his party also had guns", which seems to contradict the statement that the Ngāi Tahu had no guns (though they might have had far fewer); possibly I have missed something here.

The rest of this is suggestions, not review. Ignoramus-perspective again, but while I don't fully understand the roots of this conflict, it seems that John Stewart's involvement was very simply grounded in a payment of 50 tonnes of muka (which implies, rather appallingly, that he set a value on human life of three or more lives to the tonne of muka). Would it make sense to mention that Te Rauparaha hired or chartered the brig and captain? This need not take more than one or two words, and seems relevant to the subsequent legal proceedings. I attempted to give a hint of the nature of the causal link to the Treaty of Waitangi; crit welcome. I've globalized the New Zealand English slightly by referring to Phormium tenax as "harakeke flax", as it makes the later statements about collecting flax make more sense than if one is imagining retting the stems of purple-flowering plants in the corner of a field... if you object feel free to revert or modify. I've also modified flax, as Wikipedia readers include speakers of New Zealand English . HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

HLHJ, thanks for taking such a deep interest. Rather than writing a long and detailed response, I shall work through the list by individual edits and documenting what I've done in edit responses. As for the photos, yes, I've also done a deep search on Commons. The photo you included on this page is taken from Hilltop; it's "the photo stop" when you travel to Akaroa as it's the first (and best) place to gain a view of Akaroa Harbour. The peninsula at the beginning of the bay is Ōnawe, by the way. As for a photo of Takapūneke itself, I took one of the sewage treatment plant a few years ago but it's vanished. I've only recently become aware of Takapūneke's historical significance, which is somewhat surprising given my deep interest in local history. Schwede66 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I tend to overdo DYK reviews, Schwede66. I've made suggestions that go far beyond DYK requirements; don't feel obliged. The lack of photos on Commons does rather suggest that the site is not a major tourist destination (well, so did building a sewage plant). Thank you for documenting it; the article will now be accessible through many map interfaces. In Ngāi Tahu, I came across a source on the Elizabeth incident, and European reactions to it, along with the very extensive https://teara.govt.nz/en/ngati-toarangatira and https://teara.govt.nz/en/ngai-tahu (including a detailed account, with an account why the chiefs were thought to be pretending to trade (overheard comments; the Ngāti Toarangatira may have relied too much on differences in local languages), and the surprising info that the legal difficulty was that anyone considered heathen was not allowed to be a witness in court: https://teara.govt.nz/en/ngai-tahu/page-6). HLHJ (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No trouble. It's not a tourist destination whatsoever! If and when the national reserve status goes through that'll presumably change. It's good to have a decent article for it, though. I've finished working through the feedback; thanks heaps for taking so much interest. The article is all the better for it. Schwede66 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Jeez! Move all this to article talk please! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• See further discussion on Talk:Takapūneke. @Schwede66: Nearly ready; conflicting accounts of an episode in a war still need a bit of work for neutrality. HLHJ (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. I've tweaked a few things in line with the discussion on the talk page. Much of the discussion goes well beyond the scope of this article but where it's relevant to what's written about Takapūneke, I've adjusted things. Schwede66 19:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Schwede66. Most of the talk page stuff was just my sourcelist as I read up around the topic, and especially the points I'd previously raised. The destruction of Takapūneke generated a lot of controversy and many conflicting accounts.[1] Neutrality here is hard, and I hoped to make a slightly less a ham-fisted mess of it by informing myself a bit more. I hope I did not give the impression that I wanted you to add all that stuff. The only things I think need work are, with apologies for harping on quibbles:

• "an unequal war was being fought as Ngāti Toa had firearms but Ngāi Tahu either did not or had very few". Is this cited to Ogilvie 2010, p. 13.? A citation bundle of conflicting sources would be fine, too. Own speculation, but if Tama-i-hara-nui and neighbours bought as many more guns as possible between 1829 and 1830, which they rather had motive to do, that might account for some of the conflicting sources (and the end to Te Rauparaha's southwards drive).
• "Eight of Te Rauparaha's chiefs were killed after they had entered Kaiapoi Pā under the pretence of trade"; "pretence" is still not quite cited. This is the Ngāi Tahu account; the Ngāti Toa account is that they actually did come to trade. As you pointed out, an modern and presumably pretty neutral RS calls it "a well-judged pre-emptive strike", and it seems quite unlikely that Te Rauparaha's motives were entirely peaceful. I'd be happy with "claiming that they wished to trade for greenstone" or any word which does not actually directly imply that they did not come to trade, or with an attribution of "pretence" such that Wikipedia's voice is not claiming insight into the thoughts and intentions of the chiefs.

So one print cite to confirm, and one fine distinction in the meaning of one word. No major issues. On the updates front, it is now firmly resolved that the sewage plant is to be moved,[2] so there may soon be better photos of the site available (and your lost photo would be a historic image). HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a look at A History of Canterbury (promising title, eh?) and yes, the 1828 affair is described in quite some detail. It's outside the scope to record what happened within the article but it does confirm the word "pretence" as a neutral party who had stayed with the Ngāti Toa outside the pa had overheard the planning of the attack and conveyed this to the Ngāi Tahu the next morning. And given that it says that they were there to trade greenstone for muskets, it's fair to conclude that subsequent to that visit, Ngāi Tahu would at least have had some (and I've adjusted the wording accordingly). Thanks for the link to the sewage plant page; I wasn't aware that it's been resolved (bar the ocean outfall, but it seems that construction of the plant itself is imminent). I'll amend the article accordingly. Schwede66 19:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Schwede66, HLHJ, I think we need to call time on this one and finish up now. The article doesn't need to be perfect; so long as the article and hook are both supported by reliable sources, it's time to move on. Additional enhancements to the article can always be made going forward. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve responded to every bit of feedback and suggest that the article is as close to perfect as it’ll ever be. It just needs a reviewer’s tick :). Schwede66 17:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

HLHJ hasn't edited for a week. Maybe somebody else wants to give this a tick. There were two issues to resolve:

• The use of the word "pretence". The book that I cite in my response above confirms that the visitors had planned an attack and the word is thus justified (and not a violation of NPOV).
• Whether or not Ngāi Tahu had firearms in after 1828 or not. Based on the book cited above, they would have had at least some and I've changed the text accordingly.

The above explanations and these edits should be an adequate response to HLHJ's two outstanding concerns. Schwede66 19:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Just reviewed this, and it looks satisfactory regarding NPOV and everything else to me. It's my first review, so I tried to look at everything extra thoroughly; hopefully I'm not missing anything. That area of New Zealand is gorgeous, so if there were a good photo I'd say we should use one, but File:New Zealand - Canterbury Plains - Akaroa.jpg seems to be from too far a distance? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just confirming that there is no better photo available. Although of high importance, the site is virtually unknown to the public. Next time I'm in Akaroa I shall go and take photos myself. Schwede66 02:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

References