Talk:Takapūneke

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you know nomination

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)[reply]

(
)
  • 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.

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


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: No - 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: Yes
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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.[1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Jeez! Move all this to article talk please! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ There are a lot of near-misses: the headland on the right hosts the Britomart Monument shown at File:Akaroa 4 (31225076752).jpg. Also, File:Akaroa village grassland (Unsplash).jpg, view of the headland which hides the bay, far right, the bit just hidden behind the foreground hills to the far right here and here, and File:Banks Peninsula.JPG

Moved DYK discussion to article talk

OK, Johnbod; you're right, I should have done that earlier. Thank you for all the work you've put in, Schwede66. Everything seems to be cited now. A few minor points:

  • It seems that Tama-i-hara-nui was clapped in irons and taken to Kapiti Island; he was held by John Stewart and not handed over to the Ngāti Toa until two months after the massacre at Takapūneke,[3] because John Stewart was hoping, in vain, to be paid.[4] The article phrasing is ambiguous, and could imply that Tama-i-hara-nui was tortured and killed at Takapūneke. The article currently describes the fate of Tama-i-hara-nui and omits the names and fates of Te Whe, Nga Roimata, and the enslaved Ngāi Tahu (probably also taken to Kapiti, and set to dressing muka in a plantation-like economy;[5] some were subsequently released[6]). Since this article is about a location, it might make sense to just way they were all carried off to Kapiti, and have the events at Kapiti in a different article, unless there is a solid reason to link those events to this location.
  • The "Ngāti Toa had firearms but Ngāi Tahu did not" and "pretence of trade" are unaltered; could you maybe give the supporting quote from page 13 of Ogilvie 2010?
    • It seems as though firearms were rather spottily distributed at the time.[7] It's hard to get a unified picture from the limited online sources I'm reading. It seems likely that the Ngāti Toa in the taua which attacked Takapūneke had more firearms and more experience using them than most Ngāi Tahu; this is however my synthesis.
      • Te Rauparaha seems to have first acquired firearms between 1810 and 1815; by ~1820, he had over twenty gunmen.[8]
      • Mid 1920s: "Ngai Tahu from the south had obtained guns from Kent and other Sydney traders earlier than their northern relations. However, the wars between Ngai Tahu did not spread south and came to an end after 1828, as Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa began his invasions of the South Island. Beginning in 1829, after Te Rauparaha's first attack at Kaikoura, southern Ngai Tahu chiefs sold land to obtain more guns and ammunition. In the 1830s their whaling boats were armed with small cannon when carrying war parties."[9]
      • 1827: "He also wanted to control the supply of greenstone, and the South Island, where greenstone was to be found, was open to conquest as the tribes there had not yet acquired guns." [10]
      • 1828: Te Rauparaha attacked Kaikoura and the eight chiefs were killed at Kaiapoi pa.[11]
        • One of the eight chiefs killed and eaten was Te Pēhi Kupe, the senior chief of Ngati Toa. His bones were made into fish-hooks. Others were Pokai-tara, Te Ara-tangata, and Kiko-tiwha.[12]
      • in 1930s: "However, Ngāi Tahu now had muskets and were much more difficult to fight."[13]
      • The Murihiku and Otakou Ngāi Tahu had guns from the Pakeha whalers, and used them in the 1830s wars.[14]
      • "By the 1830s, most tribes were heavily armed."[15]
      • By the mid-1830s, Ngai Tahu had acquired guns, from whalers in Otago.[16]
        • Te Rauparaha went no further south than Akaroa.[17]

The Ngāti Toa and Ngāi Tahu seem, unsurprisingly, to give different accounts of the fight between them. For instance, at Kaiapoi pa, Ngāti Toa accounts say the eight chiefs were killed while sleeping; Ngāi Tahu, that they were killed in a quarrel over a block of greenstone after Te Pehi Kue said to a Ngai Tahu named Moimoi: "Why do you, with the crooked tattoo, resist my wishes – you whose nose will shortly be cut off with a hatchet?".[18] For neutrality, I think we must either confine the article to statements agreed on by all accounts, or give the differing accounts with some indication of their weight. The level of expertise required to do the latter is considerable, so in practice I think this would mean finding good sources that weigh the different stories. This is difficult.

Paora Taki of the Ngāi Tahu took part in the Elizabeth affair, survived, retained his freedom, and later wrote an eyewitness account of some part of the wars.[19] If it is this source,[20] it is not directly relevant.

Another source on the Elizabeth affair; account detailed, but old and possibly inaccurate. It says that Te Whe was captured separately, and gives another account of the legal difficulties; your "variety of legal questions" seems like a wise summary. The source also casts a lot of doubt on some parts of the story; says: "The Elizabeth incident was seized upon and embroidered to suit the various “parties” of a later day, and in the course of time many gory details were added. In addition to the account given in Governor Darling's dispatches, there are also Ngati Toa, Ngai Tahu, and whalers' versions which all differ on material points, including Stewart's part in the affair." [21]

Alistair Te Ariki Campbell wrote a vivid poem about events including the Elizabeth affair.

I've learned a lot about New Zealand in the 1810s-1830s. Sorry for the delay. HLHJ (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty chart, surveyed 1849-1850. Labels "Takobinek", showing the Red House and another building across the gully from it. Interestingly, the name is applied to these buildings; the point to the south of them, where Takapūneke stood, is a long way from the label. It would be a shorter pull from Takapūneke to an anchored ship than from most places on land.

Update: it seems that the sewage plant is now definitely to be moved, as was suggested in the Management plan.[22] HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the sewage plant, I've added something to the article. The city council's project website is somewhat nebulous with regards to what is going on / where things are at. I've written to them and asked them to provide some clarity through their website (e.g. when will they build the new treatment plant, what will happen when the consent of the existing plant expires in October 2020, and what happened to the consultation that they were due to hold in early 2020 which forms the basis for further decision making?). Schwede66 23:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Takapūneke"