This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Wikipedia is not for commercial self-promotion. I was pretty horrified to find my efforts at balancing the basic neutrality of the article undone, and basic accuracy trampled entirely. This telescope faces such major legal challenges that it is really only a theoretical project; there is no legal way it can be built, and that is a FACT. In addition, my references to an article in a major Hawaii Island newspaper were blocked. Blocked!! Seriously, when did Wikipedia become a paid advertisement? Because if it is, it should not be asking for contributions from good-faith, longtime editors such as myself. Laualoha 02:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Soooo.... lemme get this straight. Scientists can't build an important telescope even though there are a lot of telescopes there already because the Hawaiʻi hoi polloi think "the gods" live there.
Right?
I mean, that IS what you're saying, right?
> Wikipedia is not for commercial self-promotion.
Who's doing self-promotion by describing a telescope?
> there is no legal way it can be built, and that is a FACT.
No Laualoha, that is an OPINION, and as such, it should be ignored by wikipedia. Mine is that the project will be routinely rubber-stamped by whoever had the common sense to approve the last telescope and the one before that.
This site only includes FACTS. And it only includes the subset of facts stated by serious, published experts in the subject. Here,lemme give you a tutorial.
This belongs in Wikipedia:
"The spectrophotometer of the new telescope confirmed that the metallicity of Population II stars is far greater than that observed in Population III stars because nucleosynthesis in the latter's supernovæ seeded the interstellar medium with metals like carbon and oxygen."
This does not meet the same standard:
"The natives oppose the project because they think it will anger the invisible people with super-powers who live on the barren rocks in permanent subzero desolation but don't starve or freeze to death because they can do magic."
That erudite theology might be good to describe in the local newspaper you mentioned, or "News of the Weird", but it isn't relevant to a serious article about the telescope.
Okay?
Now, I'm going to delete the reference to your mythology, Laualoha. Please don't start an edit war. And for Poliahu's sake don't take it personally.
HelviticaBold 15:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Aloha, HelviticaBold. No, that is not what I am saying. I must say that I think it is inappropriate for you to make references to "my" mythology, while I am discussing referenced facts. Please discuss before making further revisions, and let's stick to the facts. Thank you! Laualoha 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
HelveticaBold,
Though the cultural / spiritual controversy regarding the telescope may or may not have a place on the page, there is quite a discussion going on regarding waste, ecological impact, and the mishandling of the current telescope sites by the state. This, I think, has a place on the page as anyone researching the TMT should probably know that it is at least controversial.
"According to a state audit in 1998, UH did not fulfill its obligations as a responsible leaseholder of conservation lands. It was reported that development had increased under the direction of UH’s Institute of Astronomy, historic preservation had been neglected, historic sites had been damaged, cultural value of the summit had gone unrecognized and trash from construction had been visible. State auditor Marion Higa summarized that, over the years, more than $600 million was spent to construct the 13 telescopes and the antenna on Mauna Kea. Another $50 million per year was spent by agencies involved in the operation of telescopes. Higa stated in the audit, “A small percentage of these substantial amounts could reasonably have been used for environmental protection and to provide basic services to the public. However, this is not the case.”
Recommendations were then made by the state and the Office of Mauna Kea Management (OMKM), which was created in 2000 to deal with the day-to-day management of all resources within the UH management areas. The OMKM members are appointed by the UH Board of Regents. The state conducted a follow-up audit in 2005, which still found management plans to be insufficient."
http://honoluluweekly.com/feature/2011/09/mauna-kea-sacred-summit-or-cash-cow/
Also, from livescience.com, re: the ecological impact.
"Maunakea is a precious natural resource, a unique and critical habitat to the many species that inhabit the island of Hawai'i. It is home to numerous endemic and endangered species, including birds, plants and insects, and to their respective fragile ecosystems. [48 Species Proposed as 'Endangered,' All Hawaiian]
The mountain also plays a central, but far from understood, role in the water ecology of the island. That hydrology is of vital importance to tens of thousands of human inhabitants residing at its base, residents for whom agriculture is the very basis of the local economy.
With all those vital considerations, there is little surprise that the presence of man-made facilities with their toxic chemicals, human waste and history of environmental mismanagement is causing controversy. It doesn't help when this entire scenario is transposed against a history of colonialism and exploitation in the Hawaiian islands."
http://www.livescience.com/29451-hawaii-telescope.html
Obviously, there's a lot more going on than just 'building a big telescope' and I believe the Wiki page should reflect that.
Indeed there was a lot more going on here. Namely, there was a 4-year long period of econutjobbery, "fight against colonialism" etc. The mountain has an area of about 300 sq.km. Even if its "hydrology is of vital importance to tens of thousands of human inhabitants", I fail to see how a telescope building and a few additional roads can measurably affect such a huge area, but that's just me, an evil white man, oblivious to the suffering of "numerous endemic and endangered species, including birds, plants and insects", which undoubtedly will promptly die out as soon as they see TMT's dome. Telescopes are deadly. 2A00:CA8:A14:6A01:B66D:83FF:FEFB:2A2A (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thankfull someone added this section cause I was wondering why any of the local fights against this project wasn't in the original article...
I don't see this in the article. Of course big construction and engineering projects often get their completion dates pushed back, but the official projected finish date is still newsworthy and should be in the article.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:4C0E:701D:89F6:38F0 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This bothers me about Wikipedia articles. Articles are not marked (from what I can tell) for dialect usage. Here we have "characterization" (US spelling) and "amongst" (UK spelling). Can we all just get along? Kortoso (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to a request from OTRS about the emphasis of the article.
1. In the introduction, should the sentence about protest and the current halt to construction be moved from the begining of the introduction to the end of the introduction?
2. Should the paragraph beginning "Hawaiian cultural practitioners cite impact..." be moved to the protest article.
Just noticed this today. Yesterday I moved the mention of the protests to the end of the lede to correspond with the sections as summarized with the opening sentence mention the location proposed is controversial as the opposition, protests and arrests have only escalated and become as notable as the project itself in some limited ways.
Parts of this article (those related to section) need to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (April 2015)
The current US$80 million, five-year design and development program is planned for completion in 2012.[1] Construction is expected to commence immediately thereafter, leading to initial science operations in 2018.[1] The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has committed US$200 million for construction. Caltech and University of California have committed an additional US$50 million each. TMT is actively seeking additional major partners for the construction and operations phase.
In 2008, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) joined TMT as a Collaborating Institution.[2]
In 2009, the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC) joined TMT as an Observer.[3][4]
In 2010, a consortium of Indian Astronomy Research Institutes (IIA, IUCAA and ARIES) joined TMT project as an observer. The observer status is the first step in becoming a full partner in TMT and participating in the engineering development and scientific use of the observatory (Subject to approval of funding from Indian Government).
In 2012, India and China became partners, with representatives on the TMT board. China and India will pay a share of the telescope construction costs, expected to top $1 billion.[5][6]
Japan, which has its own large telescope at Mauna Kea, the 8.3-metre Subaru, is also a partner.[7]
TMT has received design and development funding from the following
public and private organizations:
This article is not about the history of telescopy or even the history of large telescopes. Any citation used needs to specifically reference TMT. Any information in this article needs to be specifically about TMT. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake Softlavender. I used overarching sources that are about the Thirty Meter Telescope but did not use them in the section. This is a common way this proposed telescope is discussed in sources. If I add anything I will use direct context sources along with any addition RS to support the scientific or claims. By the way, we can't use the TMT primary source to make claims about the science case they put forward. A mention to the primary source quoting direct content briefly is acceptable but not an entire section based entirely on the primary source. Also, TMT is acceptable to use after the initial use in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for removing "18-story" from opening sentence: maintaining neutral POV
I am aware of no other observatory (proposed or completed) whose physical height is listed in the opening sentence of its Wikipedia article. To the best of my knowledge, only opponents of the TMT describe it as an "18-story" observatory, which is why I think this description isn't neutral, especially in the first sentence. In addition, the term "story" implies a floor of a building which is designed for regular occupation by people; indeed, "18-story" links to the Wikipedia entry for "storey," which provides a functionally equivalent definition to mine. As a result, a reader might easily interpret the "18-story" description to mean that there will be 18 floors in the observatory. This is factually incorrect, and it conjures images of an 18-floor office building atop Mauna Kea, which might bias the reader against the construction.
Considering that my earlier deletion of the "18-story" description was reverted, I propose the following compromise. I've changed the description of "18-story" to "18-story-high" and moved it to the second sentence in the first paragraph, which describes the controversy surrounding the construction. Reactions? 129.133.176.140 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I think that it would be better to list the actual height of the enclosure, just to eliminate any possible confusion over the nature of the observatory. But we need a reliable source for that. Also, I think that in the interest of maintaining neutrality, there needs to be a brief acknowledgement in the opening paragraph of the scientific benefits of the proposed telescope alongside the acknowledgement of the controversy.129.133.176.140 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there mare many sources that mention the height at 18 stories. I don't agree that moving it is being neutral but can see it as a compromise for now. I will add sources reliable sources as inline citations.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also went ahead and moved the majority of the opposition information further down in the lede but changed the opening sentence to reflect the controversy over the location. That is proper balance to the facts. I am sure that may still need some refinement but I feel strongly that there be some mention in the opening line about the opposition and protests that are as notable to the reader as the project itself. Remember, this is still not a thing yet. It is a planned development that has enough notable opposition (having blocked or stalled the project numerous times) to be mentioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I favor mentioning the height of the proposed structure in feet, also converted to meters. That is neutral. The notion of "stories" applied to telescopes pushes the "it's way too big" POV, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that is POV in itself. I favor the use of storey because it illustrates the size. This is an extremely large jump in observatory size. Listing stories is actually basic math and contains important encyclopedic information. Trying to make it sound smaller and make it look ridiculous for anyone to oppose this is not neutral either. Generally I would edit the article to reflect the concerns I feel there is no need to debate over, but this is one I feel is worth debating. Perhaps we should just try an RFC to determine this point? I seriously feel that attempting to remove the height of a building in such terms is disingenuous.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my view: Measuring height of a proposed structure in "stories" is imprecise and should only be used as a secondary indicator when a structure has regularly spaced floors. Measuring the height in feet and meters is accurate, neutral and encyclopedic. Of course, I would be happy to hear how other editors interpret policies and guidelines in this case, and will defer to consensus. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not imprecise. It is a valid architectural description of any building or structure and is used in sources. I could see clarifying that to read, "comparable in height to an eighteen storey building", but I disagree strongly with meters here since that might confuse the reader with the name that refers to the diameter of the mirror, but and 30 meter mirror is going to need a structure much larger than existing observatories and its size is one of the most notable aspects of the project. I feel very strongly that the article not avoid summarizing the accurate aspects and historical size of this project. To do so is truly POV. It one of the main aspects that drove funding and interest...it's size.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Mark Miller's proposal ("comparable in height to an eighteen-story building") is a good compromise; it's neutral, it's sufficiently precise, it's readily understandable, and it's a fundamental reason for the opposition to TMT. For example, the lede might contain a sentence along the lines of, "Opponents point to the fact that the TMT structure would be comparable in height to an eighteen-story building." I'd be comfortable with language to this effect, as long as the lede gives equal acknowledgement to both sides (which it basically does now, except with unnecessary verbosity). Mark Miller and Cullen, thank you both for responding to my concerns. I was originally opposed to any mention of the structure's height in the lede, but I now see that this fact (if phrased correctly) is relevant in terms of fairly articulating the reasons for opposition to TMT.129.133.176.140 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe we should respect the rough consensus of not mentioning it in the lede as too much detail for now. I know one other editor was concerned about the mention being undue for the lede. Also, at the moment, we have not updated the protest section for now until the main article is fleshed out more. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I have purposely not updated even the main article until some time has passed to see what has sustainable notability for mention. I think we can begin updating the main protest article and then discuss what has due weight for mention here. I willupdate the body of the article to reflect this however, if Cullen disagrees, I would understand the revert.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to to fix a dangling participle in the sentence about the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, but think it is still a run-on sentence. Maybe somebody else can improve it further. Also did not add any reference for the decision, looks like the link above is authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.244.17 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Thirty Meter Telescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I think we should update the article soon with new information, given that construction has been approved, going forward. I also noticed that is has a very non-neutral tone, for example, stating in the second sentence that the mountain is sacred to Native Hawaiians, when there is no documented historical basis for this. A man did try to place human remains there during the protest, but they were not part of an archeological site. In fact, part of the recent judgement by the Hawaii Supreme Court upholding the permits to build the telescope specifically addresses this, noting that for something to be considered sacred or an indigenous place of worship, it must have been treated that way since Nov 1892. Essentially, the court seems to be saying, you can't call something a traditional Native Hawaiian practice, or a sacred place, when you've only associated that meaning to it in the past 20 years or so.
So, in summary, the current state of this article seems to embrace an opinion contrary to established tradition, contrary to general public opinion in Hawaii (which is largely in favor of the telescope), and contrary to the court rulings. I'll try to make some edits accordingly.
As far as I can determine, the coordinates currently in the article are correct. Both the OpenStreetMap and Wikimapia show the Thirty Meter Telescope at that location (though, being user-generated, they're admittedly not entirely reliable sources). The coordinates you've given above are those of the existing Subaru Telescope rather than those of the not-yet-built Thirty Meter Telescope. If you still think that there is an error, you should probably provide a fuller explanation of where you think we've gone wrong. Deor (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: For some reason you don't want to start a new section here, so let me do it. "some Native Hawaiians" has been in the article for months and that's the factual statement. No source says it's sacred to every Native Hawaiian - but that's the impression your phrasing here gives. I understand that you feel strongly about this topic, but it makes me question if you have sufficient distance from it to write neutrally here. If you have a conflict of interest it might be in the best interest of Wikipedia if you stop editing these parts completely. It's a choice between Wikipedia and your personal beliefs. You might value the latter more, and that's perfectly fine, but that's not a good approach to write an encyclopedia. I have followed the news and I see the pattern here, of course. The TMT opponents want to play the oppressed victims, and that works best if they pretend all Native Hawaiians are on their side - against the evidence that this is not the case. But Wikipedia is not the right place for this, and personally I think a telescope is an odd choice for the protest. Why not protest against a new stadium or airport extension? Whatever motivation the advocates of TMT among Native Hawaiians have (probably not the same for everyone), clearly they don't think the mountain is too sacred to build another telescope there, and there are many of them. The introduction should reflect that. --mfb (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No source says it's sacred to every Native Hawaiian - but that's the impression your phrasing here gives". Uhm...several reliable sources use that EXACT wording. I have providing the inline citations and the exact snippets from where the content is sourced from within the reference itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I understand that you feel strongly about this topic, but it makes me question if you have sufficient distance from it to write neutrally here". Why...because of my race? My interests? Or is it because you feel your strong feelings for the topic out way whatever it is you think I feel about the topic? I see you have strong passions for subjects relating to this article but I did not add weasel wording to add doubt to a source.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If you have a conflict of interest"....same to you sir...I live in California and have never even been to the Island of Hawaii. If you have a concern, you need to complain to that noticeboard. I have no conflict of interest. Do you?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a choice between Wikipedia and your personal beliefs. You might value the latter more, and that's perfectly fine, but that's not a good approach to write an encyclopedia." How many discussions have you had in forming that guideline? I actually do understand it. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I have followed the news and I see the pattern here, of course." Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is this talk page for you to reflect on your personal beliefs.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
""The TMT opponents want to play the oppressed victims, and that works best if they pretend all Native Hawaiians are on their side". At this point I feel it important to remind you that the talk page is not for the general discussion of the subject and also that this seems to be where you show your bias. I am done with the discussion. Everything after this is absolute garbage and little more than you accusing me of ...what...being a part of the protest? ANI Next? I'm game if you feel you are so in the right here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep editing this, I'm not sure I replied to the most recent version everywhere:
It was a partial revert of the IP, to take their concerns into account I changed the phrasing a bit. That was in October, and everyone was fine with it for months. Context matters, using the same four words as the sources doesn't have the same meaning here, and if the sources are not independent of the protest activities or TMT advocates then we can't use them anyway.
It's quite clear, e.g. from your user page or now your comments here, that you have a strong personal connection to the topic and Hawaiian culture. I didn't say you have a COI, I said I question your neutrality, but at the moment I don't think we need bureaucratic steps to discuss this further. I'm neither an astronomer nor Hawaiian, I try to keep the article as neutral as possible. The talk page is not for genera discussions of the subject, but discussing the motivations some users might have to push for certain edits can be useful.
I didn't have any discussion in forming WP:COI because it existed long before I joined Wikipedia, but I'm sure there were numerous discussions in forming that.
Anyway, we had one consensus version in the article for months. You don't like that. You didn't like my alternative version either, without commenting what you didnt' like about it. What about the version we had in the article before October? Or any alternative suggestion that reflects reality - many oppose it for religious reasons, many do not? I'm open for ideas. --mfb (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My idea...don't add any further weasel wording or try to slant the text to conform to your idea of what the "issues" are. The sources speak for themselves. We just summarize them...accurately.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's quite clear, e.g. from your user page or now your comments here, that you have a strong personal connection to the topic and Hawaiian culture. I didn't say you have a COI, I said I question your neutrality" As I question yours...from your actions not a summation of what or who I think you are. Get over yourself. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: You keep inventing new reasons to reject every suggestion I make. So please come up with one on your own. It's a fact that a significant share of native Hawaiians support the project, the lead should reflect this in some way. So what do you suggest to write? If you don't like the poll I added then add another one. I don't mind which one in particular we mention, they all have the same general conclusion. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep adding your personal bias. Your last attempt was to add verbiage to the lede using a cherry picked poll from August of last year as if it was important enough for mention in the article, let alone in the lede. It ignors more recent polling data. "Like"? Do you really think this is about what either of us like or dislike?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent hours sourcing the scientific portions of the article so it was not dependent on the official webpage and have made numerous changes to adapt the prose so it more accurately reflects reliable sources. My work on this article, I truly believe, speaks for itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my personal bias. I would like to avoid giving a wrong impression, and the current lead gives a wrong impression. See above, I don't care much about which survey we quote. If you found a more recent one feel free to add that. If you have an article summarizing multiple polls, even better. I don't care much as long as it is reflected somehow. I called it "mixed reactions", but you didn't like that two-word summary. You didn't like the extended version either, calling it too long now. So which length do you prefer? You don't seem to like anything that accurately describes the situation and you revert everything that is not word by word your misleading description. --mfb (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Planetaryperea (article contribs).
I am expanding the section of the opposition of the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope as well as including a new heading for the section. Details being expanded on include scientists' opposition to the backup site as well as the environmental/archeological argument against construction at the La Palma site.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
