Talk:Te Raekaihau Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Point is Saved

Thanks to the extremely hard work of many individuals and the passion of a core of people who simply believed that it was wrong to use open space in such a way, the 'Point' has been saved from development, for now. The David vs Goliath battle is clear from the numbers; The Wellington City Council and associated organisations spent $1.5 Million while the opponents spent something under $200,000, of which at least $100k is still owing, and is subject to fundraising activities over the next several months.

All the copy editing in the world will not alter the basic facts:

  • Te Rae Kai Hau Point was saved by several groups of people acting on their honest conviction that it was simply wrong;
  • that the majority agreed that it was wrong when properly informed, (the public were seriously misled)
  • that the process was subject to serious flaws and needs to be investigated
  • that the work to raise the money was a necessary component
  • that All citizens of Planet Earth need to look at this example, and act accordingly.

by Paul Moss. Advocate of open spaces, dark sky (Taonga), lower wasted energy (less lights, less pollution), freedom of speech (respect), truth, and justice prevailing.

Please consider a re-write ahead of a delete, I understand that it takes more time and effort, but it 'saves points'

Now that the aquarium dispute seems to be settled, I've condensed the article to make it look less like a noticeboard, and more encyclopedic. Anyone know if there a standard box for the LINZ info?Efil's god (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A regular environmental event is held at Te Rae Kai Hau Point every Full Moon

A regular environmental event is held at Te Rae Kai Hau Point every Full Moon, usually the day before, to allow seeing the moon with the sun in the sky together, if clear. see [Sharing Space] for details.

also by Paul Moss.

[edit] news article from dompost wellington new zealand

Marine deaths 'warning sign' 26 August 2006 By NICK CHURCHOUSE AND KERI WELHAM

An opponent of a proposed Wellington aquarium says three dead seahorses found washed up nearby are a sign Maori "guardian forces" are against the plan.

Actor Toa Waaka presented the dead fish during his submission against the $20.4 million aquarium, saying they were a significant sign the project should not proceed.

"This can be referred to as He Tohu o Nga Atua – a sign from the guardian forces," Mr Waaka told the resource consent hearing yesterday.

"These three taonga (treasures) alerted my attention . . . When these signs show up they tell us to take heed and listen to the land and the people."

Mr Waaka suggested the dead seahorses were tohu, a message or warning. This was dismissed by other Maori, who said they had not heard of the seahorse being significant.

Mr Waaka, who identified himself as Ngati Toa, Te Ati Awa, Ngati Raukawa and Kahui Tara, gave evidence as part of a group of southern suburb residents against the development of Te Raekaihau Pt, the site for the proposed development.

His submission included concerns that the aquarium discharge would affect the gathering of kaimoana and that the proposal paid only "lip service" to the rights of local iwi.

The aquarium's developer, the Wellington Marine Conservation Trust, said yesterday that the project enjoyed widespread support from local Maori, including the Wellington Tenths Trust and iwi from Ngati Toa, the Kapiti Coast and the top of the South Island.

Wellington City councillor and aquarium advocate Ray Ahipene-Mercer, of Ngai Tara, said: "There have been many hundreds of seahorses washed up on the coast because of all the storms, and there is, quite frankly, no other meaning that can be attributed to the three seahorses."

[edit] Toa Submission Points

  • mahinga mataitai Customary Gathering rights
  • kaitiaki Guardian
  • kaitiakitanga The process of guardianship

[edit] Toa Waaka

This might seem like an inflammatory question (although I hope not), but why is Toa Waaka's submission given three paragraphs of text and a list of points, when the thousands of other submissions receive no significant mention? I think it'd be fair to have a section that describes the different submissions, but focusing on one submission seems a bit excessive. At the moment this article reads as very one-sided. Izogi 07:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not an imflammatory question at all. The article sure needs dealing to. I earlier left a note at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board hoping to get someone from Wellington who is au fait with this to knock it into shape. Hopefully it will happen. Moriori 08:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
simple answer, look at the history, hardly anyone has cared to contribute the necessary balance, and with the hundreds of other articles around desperate for attention, balance is a clearly a lower order task. Good to see you guys in here re-shaping, thats a really good thing to do. This article is about the point now, rather than future, and the submissions to the hearing could be listed on a page that was specifically for them, and Toa is certainly notable enough to have an article about him, so the material could be moved, and the 'point' article left for stuff about itself, as opposed to some future possible development, that a whole bunch of us are going to do our best to prevent ever happening anyway. so the reason why that is here, is because he is the only one I made a video of, apart from vicki's and mine (astronomy use requires dark sky), and mine (objective submission mapping), and a little bit of the 'group against development at Te Rae Kaihau Point' (the residents), and I havent permission to use the others yet. It's actually much bigger than I or anyone ever thought, and is changing daily, and could do with someone updating a specific site accordingly. I would prefer to remove all dispute content to another article asap, and leave the 'point' article purified of it. Links to all the relevant articles should suffice.moza 10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is Toa? I've not heard of him. Izogi 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
He is an actor, with good credits, and more importantly brought his and the greater Ngati Toa position to the debate about development along the south coast. Front page of the Dominion Post is more than enough for wikipedia standards, and acting in the movies and television also qualifies, but he is an awesome person as well. IMDB and [http:// shoaib.netfirms.com/ToaDompost26thAugust2006.jpg dompost frontpage] a copy of the front page of the dompost, I see the stuff news link fails now.moza 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry about that link you need to take out the space after // to make it work, apparently the site is blacklisted for wiki. another thought, there are nearly 10,000 submissions, roughly 5000 each way, so any article thats balanced is going to be rather largish, or multiple, and probably wont ever be made. I will only be able to post a few short pieces of video and perhaps some framegrabs, otherwise the workload would be out of the question for me. I have and will continue to urge all to examine all the issues for themselves, and form their own informed opinion. I will publish my objective mapping of submitters at some stage, even if its only those 'opposed' its still a valid part of the overall picture. I will also publish the statistical analytics, its very interesting. If someone can data entWaakary the 'supporting' submitters addresses, then I will do a free analysis of them also, worth about $7200.moza 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
one more, he’s on TV1 Te Karere At 6.10am tomorrow morning, wed 30th aug.moza 11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all 10,000 submissions need to be detailed to make the article balanced. That would be far too much information. (It's supposed to be an encyclopedic article -- not an appendix.) Wouldn't just a summary of the points people have made be enough? That said, I do think there's probably a bit too much space given to Toa Waaka. Maybe a mention and a couple of lines as part of a summary of other people's points, since he does have quite a prominent submission, but I'm not sure it'd really warrant more than that. Izogi 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

yes youre quite right, although 'supposed to be' is a bit of an interpretation that varies across wiki communities of interest, some feel the sum total of human knowledge can be held here. The feeling i have now is that the article is now more about the debate than the point. I know i caused that by including Toa, but now the tables are turned, I want to suggest its broken up and part moved/dissolved into another debate article, and just the precis and refs left. There is more than enough published info to have a nice article about a nice place. so thanks for your awesome effort, and concern, thats a significant factor in my re-newed effort to make the place beautiful in the longer term, and usable to astronomers / night sky watchers. what should the name of such an article be? to be honest, with my laptop in service, and no bedtime editing, I'm unlikely to do much wiki stuff for a while, then i'll do a catch up. can we have a suitable pic at the top to give a first impression of how fantastic it is to be there?..moza 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Moza. Re: supposed to be: With respect, I don't really agree with you here. If you want Wikipedia to be the sum of human knowledge, you should be arguing with the Wikimedia Foundation to change its official policies, since right now they're intending to shape an encyclopaedia, which holds much less than the sum of human knowledge. They'll probably just direct you to one or more of their other wiki-based projects that isn't Wikipedia. It sounds as if you're confusing Wikipedia with something much more general; maybe a combination of sites such as Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, or Wikibooks.
Back to the article, though, I personally think that the main reason that Te Raekaihau Point is notable happens to be due to all the controversy that's currently going on. In the future, I think it'll still be notable simply because the controversy took place (if nothing else). I'd be perfectly content to see a good summary of the issues presented in the article, and I'm not really sure if it'd be necessary to split it off. That's just my thoughts, anyway. Izogi 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the info re Toa Waaka, regardless that he is a fine chap and all. Wikipedia looked quite silly, biased even, by carrying only information about one of the many who made submissions. Moriori 05:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it was in holding pattern, and there are thousands of those already so one doesnt alter the already silly status. did he get an article about him with it on? sigh, i'll write it. youre right, of course.moza 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Holding pattern? Riiiight. But even if one holding pattern is fixed, then that improves Wikipedia. On Tuesday I removed the following public notice advertisement from the "holding pattern" :-
Hearing Schedule released
  • Week 1 Tuesday 8 August – Friday 11 August
  • Week 2 Monday 14 August – Friday 18 August
  • Week 3 Monday 21 August, Wednesday 23 August
  • special dates. Friday 25th August. Wellington Regional Council Office* Week 4 Monday 28 August, Tuesday 29 August
  • TIME: Commencing 9.15am till 5.00pm (unless otherwise specified). Changes to times are to be expected due to the large number of submitters wishing to be heard.
  • VENUE:' Council Chambers, First Floor, 111 Wakefield Street, Wellington, New Zealand. (except * special dates. Friday 25th August. Wellington Regional Council Offices.)-
  • HEARING SCHEDULE (LIST OF SUBMITTERS) can be viewed at hearing schedule list
  • It is suggested that if you have indicated you wish to speak at the hearing, you check that Council have confirmation of this from you and that your name is listed on this schedule. At least one submitter was left off the list of submitters in error.
  • Wellington City Council WEBSITE for additional information can be veiwed at public notice
Cheers. Moriori 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the name

'Headland that eats the wind' is not the only translation, it is just what you get if you split the word up into its components. The word kaihau has meanings other than 'eater of the wind' and other translations are possible. Anyway, no need for a quasi-linguistic 'analysis' about the nature of compound words. Kahuroa 19:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kahuroa, yes and I agree with you. I've spent quite a lot of time in the last few months with local IWI, with a focus on saving the point from development, but also sharing a wider view of educating and informing all humans on the value of looking after the 'three scapes'. I'm caught between being a licensed LINZ data user/reseller and a kiwi committed to getting it right, and that means finding out what's right for a range of people and moving along the paths available to us to make changes where we believe they should be made. The local naming of this place is different to the LINZ naming, according to those here that I have come to trust as being the source of such information. So at some stage I will remake a page and call it Te Rae Kai Hau to acknowledge the local source, and point this one to it, or vice versa. I may well take up the challenge with the naming authority, as another guy has already with many other names in this country, with some success I might add.
When the decision of the second resource hearing is announced, possibly tomorrow, I will likely create a page about the dispute, and then whoever is interested can add the case for destroying the present character of a special place, and I'll add the case to protect it from such insanity. I sat through much of the second hearing and have a good handle on both sides of the argument, and have seen the behaviours of both sides of the submitters. To be honest though, I'm healing from a lot of behaviours here, and it will be a bit longer to wait before i jump in full on again, if ever. I am rebuilding much of my own webspaces and learning how to present specific areas of Maoritanga that are not very well known but of immense importance. I will be glad to hear of any contributions that you have to make about the meaning of the name for this place, I'll ask about that locally and report back. mozamoza 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] edit time is here again

The dispute is in the environment court so its a bit tricky to determine what can and cant be said here, but at least all the community activity can be reported to illustrate how far reaching this whole thing has become. i can say that there is now plenty of web based reference material available for citation, I made a list on the GADOT sites here: MUSIC LINKS and here: GADOT LINKS. Please consider any edits carefully and research the origins before deletion, I'll endeavour to continue to substantiate anything that I havent so far The consent document is available and the cultural impact report is available, in fact there is a HUGE wealth of material availble on line now, so thats the real challenge, finding people that are fully dedicated to balancing the article with the other side. A decent image of the place could be put up the top of the article though I reckon. Note that the aurora pics that I actually took from the site and were published by the University of Canterbury. I felt that they perfecty represented a valid case for no lighting that was presented to the hearing by the Wellington Astronomical Society, and was acknowledged by the commissioners in the consent itself. That was a first for NZ resource consents, and astronomy, and as such made national history. Given the interconnected relevance to ecology, environmental responsibilty, and global policy changes going on, it has extraordinary value in the debate. The many thousands of people that visit those images monthly create notability for them, although verification of that may be a bit hard to accept, I have to trust the google tracking data at some point. I'm off to Parliament for the Urban Design Protocol celibrations so I hope to bring back more relevant and verified material with acceptable citations for it, to underscore some of the points. moza 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)