Talk:Te Atairangikaahu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Te Atairangikaahu was the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight from 30 July, to 13 August 2006 For details on how the article improved, see the NZCOTF history

Contents 1 Her successor...? 2 First nation 3 Replacement image 4 Name 5 Image 6 URL for Dominion Post ref? 7 Lineage 8 Link to Remembering Memorial

[edit] Her successor...?

Does anyone know who her successor will be?

He or she will most likely be named within the next few days. aww 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the line stays within her family, it will almost certainly pass to her eldest son, Tuheitia Paki (21st April 1955). I could not find a wikipedia for him.
If the title leaves the Tainui, it will likely be passed to Tumu Te Heuheu of Ngāti Tuwharetoa.
Manaroa 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a stub article at Tuheitia Paki. Please add to it.-gadfium 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First nation

The first nation link redirects to the indigenous Canadian people. I don't particularly want to remove the link, mainly because of my ignorance on what "first nation" refers to in the Pacific Islands and Oz/NZ. Can someone clarify and maybe edit either this or the first nation article. Thanks. Tellkel 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement image

The Methodist Church of New Zealand has another image of Kaahu-- http://www.methodist.org.nz/index.cfm/Touchstone/July_2006/Maori_queen_honoured.html -- Zanimum 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to see a photo of her from her 1966 coronation or at least of photo of her as a younger woman. I'll look for one but I'm not very experienced at uploading photos to wikipedia.Lisapollison 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this one such an image? older edit --Kunzite 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it to that image, the one that was up when I made my comment. The one that had replaced it was an AP image, which we should never use. -- Zanimum 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with this one taken at her Coronation in 1966. -- Manaroa 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Radio NZ, NZ Herald, BBC, dozens of other sources have her as Te Atairangikaahu. I've changed it to that. -- Zanimum 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should insert an IPA pronounciation. That names a mouthful. 71.214.251.22 00:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Māori Wikipedia site has her as Te Ātairangikaahu FUNgus guy 00:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just pronounce every vowel and you will be fine Te Ā-ta-i-ra-ngi-kaa-hu WP 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I don't think we can use this image in the article; according to the fair use rationale "the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above [...] qualifies as fair use". This isn't the case here, and in fact Wikipedia:Fair use specifically states that "an image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover" is not fair use. Ziggurat 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the fair use tag that's wrong. The image is not of the whole cover, and it does not include the publication's name. So it's not really an image of the cover, but simply an image of Te Atairangikaahu, and the fact that the source is a magazine is not especially relevant to whether it would qualify as fair use in this article. {{Fair use in}} would probably be a better tag. Whether NZ editors can rely on fair use is another question. -- Avenue 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly a better tag, although I'm personally diffident about using fair use images at all. Ziggurat 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Press photos cannot be used as fair use images. See WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. BigDT 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL for Dominion Post ref?

It says the foll ref was "retrieved" which implies it is online. What's the URL pls? "Four decades of our kind of queen; THEY SAY", The Dominion Post, 2006-05-27. Retrieved on 2006-08-15. Nurg 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a LexisNexis search. It's not linkable.

SECTION: NEWS; NATIONAL; THE INSIDER; Pg. 15
LENGTH: 1363 words
HEADLINE: Four decades of our kind of queen; 
THEY SAY
BYLINE: SCHOUTEN Hank
...
LOAD-DATE: May 30, 2006

--Kunzite 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lineage

Here's a source with a full title and names of all children as well as predecessors. --Kunzite 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Remembering Memorial

I have once again added in the Remembering Link to this memorial because it is totally relevant and certainly not 'mere promotion.' The online memorial established here is true testimony to the regard her people and the wider community held this person in and is the ONLY NZ national record of its kind. It contains personal comments of a significant number of people and has historical value. I consider it far more relevant than any general news item about the event which also serves to 'promote' the publication concerned. This memorial was established free of charge and developed with a conisderable amout of volunteer effort - unlike any general 'news' item which has been placed in a paid publication. Could you please reinspect this link as the servers were down for an extended period yesterday for upgrading. --Remembering 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at your site, and it is clearly a commercial one. You charge people a fee to put up a memorial page for their loved ones. I wish you every success, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to publicise it. - gadfium 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again I must take issue with the removal of the external link to remembering.co.nz on the Dame Te Ata memorial. The fact is that Television New Zealand, the New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand, stuff etc are all commercial organisations. Do these groups pay you to keep their links on the page? I can only assume this because two of them no longer work and another two are no longer live - that's out of 12 links. Television New Zealand also has a very limited number of personal tributes on its page just as Remembering does. Would a link to Remembering be better placed in the References section. Just how do you define a commercial site? This is not a mere attempt to score publicity! We have no need for that. Remembering receives scores (sometimes hundreds) of visitors on a daily basis. Many edcuational organisations use us regularly and this is a PERMANENT memorial quite unilike the commercial news links which Wikipedia is littered with and which don't last. I respectfully request that this request be reconsidered and a link at least be added to the References section. --Remembering 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand Herald etc are not placing links themselves. Other editors place links to their websites because the information they contain is useful and in many cases act as references. You are placing links to your own website, and this is directly against Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. You may have noticed that I am not the only editor to have removed your links.- gadfium 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a poor answer and one based more on prejudice than any worthwhile consideration or discussion of whether the link is really relevant. Surely a link that clicks through to a story that is no longer present is totally irrelevant but you have continued to publicise the media organisations concerned! I am a newbie here but I am staggered to learn that I am unable to place a link to add to the resources on an item purely because I am one of the site's co-owners. Irrelevant links would surely be removed anyway. Are you therefore saying only major media are allowed into your Oceania section? When I look at our counters I see we have been given less than three minutes of consideration and none of you have even bothered to view this memorial's Legacy page which contains the official press releases of 21 major organisations. We are a journal of record and we formally archive relevant electronic material for future reference. I find it staggering that the NZ Herald considers us a relevant link, Christchurch Libray, Councils and Govt departments also link us were appropriate but Wikipedia won't. --Remembering 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[Note: the above conversation was] Retrieved from User_talk:Gadfium

The content of the page is not the issue; the fact that you are using the encyclopedia to promote your own website is. Take a look at the link Gadfium provides above. It explicitly notes that you should avoid adding "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." There are numerous other concerns that could be raised, but it is this conflict of interest that is the sticking point; it is highly inappropriate to link to a site that you potentially profit from. Ziggurat 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I accept I have not exactly followed the rules of submission and may have been a little Brash in proposing the link in this manner but I certainly intend taking this further.

To me the responses made are arrogant, dismissive and can only be based on prejudice, if not against Maori then certainly towards traditional media. No response has yet been given on why or how you can justify links that don't work!

I find phrases like "sweet" and "best of luck" are not only condescending, but reflective of a culture of intellectual arrogance or, dare I say, bias.

It seems quite obscure to me that if someone (a general public or an anonymous employee of the Herald) suggests a link that it can automatically be any less biased than one suggested by the owners of the site concerned. At least we have identified ourselves.

Lets be frank here, we are journalists ourselves and some of us are employed by the major media to which you grant sole linking rights. We are fully familiar with the issue of bias but believe this partcular memorial is a valuable and relevant contribution.

I could fully understand the position you have taken if we had suggested a link to the front page of the Remembering site but the link we propose goes directly to the memorial concerned. Certainly we gain financial benefit from the site but so too do all the other traditional media you have linked to. They even present adverts first up (in the banner) we don't. --Remembering 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction you are not making is that traditional media, while commercial, are good sources of verifiable facts. Each of those links exists to verify the truth of a statement. --Limegreen 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. How then are Wikipedia readers expected to obtain any reliable information when you insist on retaining links to media articles on the Maori Queen site that no longer present any information? I'm sorry Limegreen this just keeps getting worse. What you are really saying is that the information presented in the traditional media is more reliable than anything presented on Remebering. In short, that the funeral of the Maori Queen, really did happen only because the traditional media said so - variable facts. Oh dear! O dear!--Remembering 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that dead links are not very helpful. However, where they retain a full reference, it could still be verified from in a public library.

What you are really saying is that the information presented in the traditional media is more reliable than anything presented on Remebering. Absolutely. No hidden agenda there at all. If you read this, you'll find that "sources of dubious reliability" are those "with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". I don't see Remebering (sic) offering such a service, and while you might have many valid concerns about mainstream media, they at least have some oversight. Further, your website is at best a tertiary source. Even if the information you have on Michael King [1] is true, for example, the source of your information (presumably a secondary source) would be better.

We are mainstream journalists. The checks and varifications we put on material are the same we apply in our daily rountine. If this can be a justification for not linking to Remembering how then do you justify the Wikepedia link to NZEdge.com from the material installed on Arthur Lydiard? Obviously you can overlook the commercial nature of this site but how do you justify your process of varification here? It seems to me your process is less than fair and far from equal. I think we're really wasting our breath.--Remembering 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Never been to Arthur Lydiard, so can't comment. Nobody is all seeing, so stuff will always get through. Just because some stuff gets through, doesn't mean that the rules should be relaxed.

2. What novel contribution do you propose that Remembering has? As a repository for information available elsewhere (just like wikipedia)? Distil for me exactly what your link adds to this page that is fitting for an encyclopaedia?

3. Nothing is fair or equal. That is life. Further, as a journalist, you ought to be able to differentiate between the quality and reliability of different sources. This site has a couple of lazy heuristics to avoid arguments such as this. One of which is to avoid self published websites (but things like the Herald and Radio NZ exist in other mediums).--Limegreen 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[RESET INDENT]

I have read the page you refer to and appreciate the points made. As a result I put my request for a link to the memorial created to Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu on Remembering for the reasons listed below. I ask the editors responsible to consider this link request in relation to the points made below and in reference to the guidelines offered on WP:RS which make allowance for "commonsense and the occasional exception." I consider such a link would add value to the current information provided because:

1. This online memorial contains a considerable body of comment, both Maori and Pakeha but mostly Maori,that significantly captures the mood expressed on the loss of a person held in high esteem. It is the only significant memorial of its kind.

2. That unlike the current media material linked to, this memorial contains comment made by those affected in their native language, something traditional media is unable to do.

3. That, in comments made, the memorial makes reference to Dame Te Ata's years of dedicated service to the Maori Women's Welfare League and to the development of Maori language and culture through Kohanga nationwide. Neither of these contributions are currently referred to in the present information placed on Wikipedia. A link to this memorial would, in part, cover this shortcoming.

4. That in its legacy section this memorial provides full reference to the entire press release issued by many organisations - not the highly reduced version offered by the traditional media which is often reduced and incorporated with other material.

Finally, we consider we hold a taonga on behalf of the people of Tainui, many of whom have made comment througout this memorial.

NOTE: On the matter of self published web sites we understand and accept Wikipedia's general concerns. In this case however, we believe the exception is warranted also on the basis that Remembering itself has directly overseen and taken charge for the development of this memorial. This is indicated by the statement "This memorial was created by Remembering on 15/08/2006" which appears at the top right of all memorials of this type. In the case of Dame Te Ata's memorial there were three independent reviewers or 'editors' as you might call them, one who is University based, a second who is a respected Maori cleric and a third volunteer contributor who reviewed and cleared the contents of a particular press release. Big Brother Barry - http://www.artsfoundation.org.nz/barrybarclay.html has no financial interest with the site was also called upon for his views. This was in addition to the efforts of three senior journalists, ie ourselves Peter Barclay, Allan Barclay and Denise Barclay--Remembering 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Might you insist that Remembering be linked to Mark Porter as well? Personally I think your website is commercial ickyness, but that's just my POV re the content. As a link it fails verifiability, neutrality, conflict of interest for starters and I agree with the editors who have deleted it. Moriori 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I would not be making such a request. This memorial, although initiated by us has not been developed by Remembering. Please see above.--Remembering 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Have I got this right? The work of some authors on Remembering may be linked to Wikipedia but but not the work of other authors? Remembering is therefore not a reliable reference link? What would you say if someone insisted Remembering be linked to Mark Porter because of precedent, in the hypothetical event it was already linked to the Dame Te Ata article? Moriori 02:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line has got to be editors choice but that choice, in Wikipedia, is subject to certain 'tests'. Just because you linked to the Dame Te Ata memorial would not, in our view, imply automatic agreement to link to all or any other Remembering memorials any more than it would with the NZ Herald or Stuff - the material has always got to be relevant. In this case under the page WP:RS there is provision for editors to make an "exception". That's what we are asking, for the reasons listed above.--Remembering 06:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I confess I am not sure whether you are deliberately obfuscating. But, assuming good faith, I'd accept your bottom line of "editors choice" providing you don't mean editor's choice instead of editors' choice, aka consensus. Moriori 07:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a look around the site. Im not really sure a like to it is really correct. Is there a more "offical" tribute site that could be linked to? - SimonLyall 07:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain I fully understand your meaning here Moriori but I don't believe I am trying to be deliberately obscure. The request we make is as explained in the points above but there are other concepts involved and, in Maoridom, they have to do with the collective voice of the people and its 'allowance' to be heard. I refer you to the following: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0608/S00470.htm

... maybe it could be written a little better but if you read down far enough you would have come across a phrase that talks of giving Maori "a legitimate voice in their own right" Traditional media struggles with this and because you folks base so much of your verification process on traditional media, how then can you not face a serious struggle yoursleves. Once again we suggest that probably the only way this matter could be approved is as "an exception" as provided for on WP:RS. I rest my case ;)--Remembering 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of Kāti Mamoe and Kāi Tahu iwi, and I reject the inference that Māori should be given a legitimate voice. Māoridom has to do it itself, without demanding that others do it for them, and without asking for special treatment, i.e., the "exception" you mentioned. More than that, it seems to me that you seek a unique exception, a link that isn't designed to support Wikipedia's article, but instead is designed to disseminate other information. That info might usefully be used in Wikipedia anyway, so why don't you create new Wiki articles? Ka kite. Moriori 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)