Talk:Thirty Meter Telescope protests

Expansion

The subject of the article has a great deal more sources and details to be added. Expansion is underway.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To-do-list

1) Expand the origins section to include more detail about the background of the observatory protests since 1970.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sensitivity to BLP and Native Culture

The article is likely to change here and there depending on certain BLP concerns, personality rights issues, sensitivity to the Hawaiian culture (as well as adhering to our MOS on Hawaii related articles) and the ongoing changes that seem to occur almost daily. The article doesn't attempt to keep up with the news but since the protest has moved very quickly the changes in the situation are notable, as the article is expanded to include more details on the rest of the protest, I will also be updating information on the current status of the TMT project, the meetings with the different departments as well as the rally at the capitol in Honolulu and meeting with Governor Ige etc. There is a lot of content still not in the article and while Wikipedia has no deadline, a big chunk of the details still needs to be added.

More images will also be added but copyright, proper attribution and licensing takes time. We can't just take stuff off the net so requests for images was made and a few great images have been donated to Wikimedia Commons.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

After a great deal of research I feel confident that the mentions of individual living persons and the images used and captioned are relevant, notable and accurate enough for mention in the article but continued care is being taken not to focus on any individual. While this does not appear to be a leaderless protest; in fact it can be referenced to reliable sources that there are clear leaders, the same sources do not seem to give details on what portion or part individuals are leading. For now, mention of protest leaders should remain confined to sourced claims with specific details on what is being led, such as a specific group effort, fund raising etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article for further sourcing/discussion

According to State of Hawaiʻi law HAR 13-5-30, eight key criteria must be met before construction can be allowed on conservation lands in Hawaiʻi. Among other criteria, the development may not “cause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources within the surrounding area, community, or region,” and the "existing physical and environmental aspects of the land must be preserved or improved upon".

Expanding March blockade and April arrests

I wanted to give some space between the blockade in March and the arrests in April before expanding the section with more details. There was a lot left out but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I wanted to be sure and give some time before summarizing more. Its been a month now so I feel the protests have not only held notability but actually increased in many ways.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

" 31 indigenous peoples" this is meaningless, all people are indigenous in some way or another. If you mean Native Hawaiian then please say that and show some citation for the claim. Otherwise please remove it. kanoa (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I don't want to make any major edits to this article directly, since I could be perceived to have a conflict of interest (I don't have an actual COI: I'm an astronomer, but I'm not an optical astronomer, and I have no connection with this telescope). I have some suggestions/comments, though:

• "The TMT project is a response from scientists, answering a recommendation from the US National Academy of Sciences that a thirty-meter telescope be the top priority of astronomers and suggested it be built within the decade." - that's rather circular, along the lines of "scientists built it because scientists recommended it be a top priority for scientists". The Thirty Meter Telescope has discussion about the development of the project; it might be better to adapt some of that here.
• In the 'Continued local demonstrations' section, there's several mentions of 'hundreds', which is a bit of a weasel word. Can a more precise number be given?
• Some of the categories at the bottom are a bit odd. I can't see the connection between this and the Occupy movement, and there's no discussion about it in the article, so it shouldn't really be in Category:Occupy Wall Street and Category:Occupy movement in the United States. The infobox implies that it's part of the Category:Hawaiian sovereignty movement (although there's no reference included in the article for that). There's also no discussion that implies it is a meme, so it probably shouldn't be in Category:Internet memes.

(@Mark Miller) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be concerned about at COI. Mark Miller is a well known anti-TMT activist yet he apparently has no problem maintaining this page. The page is clearly not neutral and I agree with all of your points. Please edit. kanoa (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As an expert in the field, that is not at all anything to be concerned with a conflict in the slightest. If you are directly involved in the development or would potentially gain financially from the TMT that would be a COI. But Wikipedia always encourages true experts in the field whenever possible to assist in our articles. My general knowledge and interest in the science is not enough to cover the more technical aspect in a timely manner as it requires more extensive research on my part to make sure the claims being made by sources are up to date, accurate and discuss the technical portions correctly. But I really appreciate your taking time to address these points.

• (T)hat's rather circular, along the lines of "scientists built it because scientists recommended it be a top priority for scientists".

I see what you mean. That could use a good copy edit however, I think at the moment it has been removed. I have a couple of book sources that have an overview of the TMT and E-ELT projects and what they are, how they were proposed and the direction of the science today. It is actually used in the article as sourcing for one claim and I need to use that and other "overarching" sources that have direct context to the TMT to give proper context in the sources to be clear the claims and content are not original research but I am taking my time as there is no rush and we now have more editors contributing. Basically this is accurate information. Several sources make the claim and seems to have encyclopedic value. But yes, the circular manner in which that was written is clunky.

• The Thirty Meter Telescope has discussion about the development of the project; it might be better to adapt some of that here.

That really depends on what discussion you are talking about. Anything from the TMT project would be considered a primary source. Opinion, editorials and discussion comments, social media etc., are not acceptable sources for facts, but the TMT history section or really, anything from the TMT website can be used to site information on the subject itself within limits, if there are no other sources for the content. What I am discovering is that we need to be more sensitive to the fact that the TMT and the E-ELT are competing projects and to much mention of other telescope projects can be seen almost like taunting. On the other side of that is the major differences between the two and the similar ways they were conceived. There really are huge amounts of sourcing for the origin of the concept, proposals and the possible discoveries and information these telescopes could provide, but that all needs to be sourced to both reliable sources but also, sources that have direct context to the TMT project. With more eyes now on the article, editing is bound to pick up but please Mike Peel feel free to edit the article or discuss your concerns further here.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article does not have a neutral tone and material is copied to and from multiple similar pages like Opposition to the Mauna Kea Observatories. I do not dispute that the subject matter is relevant but I don't believe that the articles are encyclopedic or balanced in tone. kanoa (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe tone is what you are concerned with.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I know the articles are encyclopedic because, the subject passes notability for Wikipedia for a stand alone article. I am unfamiliar with "balancing tone". I do understand "encyclopedic tone" and of course the articles are rough and you are welcome to help improve them but you are not welcome to delete sourced and relevant content from reliable sources. Per WP:V the burden of evidence rests with those that ad or restore content and is satisfied with a reliable source. Consensus is needed to remove sourced content unless it is clearly inaccurate or not supported by the source itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems there is a great deal of weight placed on the objection a few people to a project that will benefit all of human society. Perhaps this protest fails to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia.Cameronarndt (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the case here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Mauna Kea Hui

This group sole target is to protest Thirty Meter Telescope. So, I propose to merge it into existing article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the article is large enough for a stand alone article and seems to be heavily sourced (have not reviewed the article). Certainly we can add information from that article here. Also, I am not certain those are the entire goals of the organization. That seems to be a rather broad brush stroke.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the merge tags for now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Terrorists

Something should be added to the article to mention that these protestors are environmental terrorists trying to halt the progress of science. They've committed a great crime against the progress of science. Thoughts? Ergzay (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree: that's the use of "progress" if you don't talk with the rest of population? In this case they clearly didn't talked and thought about going with this project on their detached towers. The protesters weren't environmental terrorists, but the US government... Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Human civilization is an exercise in negotiating the conflicts between groups. These people don't seem to realize that our "holy ground" is progress, although they're apparently happy with all the benefits of it.

They have western medicine, air travel, the Internet, and bluejeans because of sacrifices made by everyone else. Protesting the observatory is naked selfishness—very human, but not very civilized. Ylem (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

woah woah woah there. I think you two need to slow down on what your saying. waste has been left on that mountain. the fact that the summit is used as a burial makes it entirely sacred. nothing should in actuality be on the mountain. this "science vs culture" talk needs to stop. if your gonna say "environmental terrorist" thatss quite dramatic speaking that there was MERCURY SPILLS from the telescopes already on the mauna. Mi'ilani Trask and the Sierra club had to clean up hundreds of pounds of trash. your claims are sadly miseducated. you need to learn what has been messed up on our mauna and you need to have respect. no more will the hawaiian people let such acts happen to places as important as mauna kea. when they committee of safety illegally overthrew Queen Lili'uokalani one of the members said "if we are ever to have peace and annexation, we must obliterate the past". he meant our culture too. that mauna is a vital part of our culture. we aren't giving that up for a telescope. the bones of our chiefs are more important than the destruction and construction on mauna kea. that is all I have to say 808Poiboy (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

A Shame

It is unfortunate that the TMT has become ensnared in what is really a political/religious conflict. The scientists, engineers, and technicians of TMT are sympathetic to the environmental and economic concerns of the Hawaiian people, and were prepared to provide significant educational support that is sorely needed by the Hawaiian community in general, but is of no concern to the Hawaiian separatist activists. There are Hawaiian young people with a strong interest in pursuing scientific education at the secondary and college level who will be hurt by the success of the activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

this isn't the place to cause controversy in what already is. this isn't politics vs religion, nor science vs religion, it is culture vs suppression & desecration. the hawaiian people have been suppressed for far too long then we have needed. Mauna kea is where we crossed the line to say "no" no more will we allow. with Mauna kea we let the world know we get problems and we not letting them go unheard or unfixed. 808Poiboy (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Puʻuhonua o Puʻuhuluhulu into Thirty Meter Telescope protests

In it's current form this article is difficult to understand and lacks neutrality. The Thirty Meter Telescope protests article seems to cover the same topic and is much better developed. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge It's clearly a part of the protests and is best covered in that context.----Pontificalibus 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

“Caused by” and “goals”

Aloha, Here are some thoughts. 1. Under the “caused by” section it says “lack of community and native input” that should be removed or changed to “ignored native Hawaiian input and Hawaiian law” because the general consensus with the people of Hawai’i and Kanaka Maoli (native hawaiian) was and always be opposition towards desecration and unjust treatment of Hawaiian lands. That was expressed time and time again throughout history, but never listened to by the government and corporations looking to benefit off the backs of Hawaiian people, land, and resources.

2. Under the “goals” section it will benefit to add “removal of previously decommissioned telescopes and waste.” there are abandoned telescopes sitting on the mountain that have been decommissioned and vacated for years, along with the waste from said structures.

Mahalo, A Kanaka Maoli Makoa808 (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No 2 above is false. There is only one telescope not in use and its already in the process of being decommissioned. Work continues on the decommissioning since the road is no longer blocked. It is the only one not currently in use, but was active in 2018. It takes time to get permits to decommission the telescopes, just like it takes time to get permits to build. Also, there is zero waste outside of the structures. All waste is taken away from the site and disposed of. There are four more telescopes to be decommissioned once construction of the TMT begins. These other telescopes are currently active, in use, and generating science discoveries.

BornRaised808 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.138.114 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of Puʻuhonua o Puʻuhuluhulu merge

I'm failing to understand the purpose of some of the content moved over. The most important point is that Puʻuhuluhulu was designated as a puʻuhonua in support of the protests, but the rest of it reads like an advertisement. Does this need a cleanup?

2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:C993 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)