Talk:Māori King Movement

Marriage date

Te atairangikaahu married Whatumoana Paki in 1952 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.44.41 (talk • contribs) on 15 May 2006

Hereditary/Election????

"It is a hereditary role, the succession occurs through the primogeniture mechanism. The current Māori Queen, Te Atairangi Kaahu, is of the line of the first Māori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero and was elected in 1966."->Being a hereditary role, how can there be an election? It is an assumption of power. --Midnighttonight 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) EDITED: that was all me, not an anon followed by me. --Midnighttonight 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not hereditary. Tawhiao was chosen from several contenders including his sister and Kerei and Wiremu Tamihana. When Te Rata died, a choice was made between Koroki and his 2nd cousin Te Puea (see http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/M/MaoriKingElectionAndCoronation/MaoriKingElectionAndCoronation/en). And I believe Piki (Te Atairangi Kaahu) was not an automatic choice. I'll contact the editor who added that sentence to the article. Nurg 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, the source which I cited that from said that it was through such a mechanism; albeit, I wrote that in the article a long time ago now and I cannot relocate that source. The clear contradiction must mean that the Hereditary statement should be removed. -- Greaser 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is arguable that this is an elective monarchy so I have changed the wording to reflect the potential for disagreement on that point. Other elective monarchies it is clear who the candidates are, and how the nomination process would work. The vatican for example, draws its candidates from the college of cardinals. It appears that the tribal leaders in this system draw their candidates from a royal family, and there has not been a monarch from outside that family. It also seems likely that there is an ethnic requirement that the candidate must be, racially, a maori. The argument that the monarchy has hereditary aspects should not be squelched or this tends towards a one-way POV towards an elective monarchy. Sandwich Eater 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Derby

I don't suppose anyone knows which "Lord Derby" the text refers to? I've made a guess but since there is not exact date there is at least one other possibility. - SimonLyall 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems correct, as Edward Stanley was Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time of the petition.--Lholden 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-English Language

This article makes use of several non-English terms. These ought either to be defined or else English language equivalents used. --Aaron Walden 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Which terms do you refer to? --Lholden 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Role of other iwi

I guess the article be updated to include the suggestions that have appeared in the NZ Herald that the other iwi are largely just 'rubber-stamping' the selection by Tainui Nil Einne 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't heard anything to that effect and it doesn't sound very plausible. I think I'd leave that out, especially if it's just suggestion. Mona-Lynn 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Te Paki o Matariki

I would suggest a pic and explanation of Te Paki o Matariki be added to this site. As well as the royal flags. --unsigned comment by User:Nzbboy 28 August 2006.

"Monarch" numerals

Somebody had labelled every monarch herein as "NAME I, Māori King." However, it is incorrect to do so. A monarch can only become NAME I after there has been a NAME II. For example: Queen Elizabeth I of England was known simply as "Queen Elizabeth" until HM Queen Elizabeth II became Queen. William I, Henry I, Edward I (who should've strictly been Edward III), Richard I, George I all had "I" added after there has been a William II, Henry II, Edward II, etc. Hence why King Stephen, King John and Queen Victoria are styled without an "I" numeral, because there is only one of each.

This system of retrospective "I" enumeration is not just a British system, but is the system around the world and would thus, if used correctly, apply to the Māori kings. There can not be a Koroki I if there has been no Koroki II. --unsigned comment by 84.71.12.146 (talk) at 01:55, 18 October 2007

Ever heard of Juan Carlos I of Spain, Michael I of Romania, Paul I of Russia or Louis Philippe I, King of the French? None of them has had a successor of the same given name, yet each uses a regnal number. This is determined by each monarchy: there is no generic principle or rule which settles the matter for each realm or each dynasty. Maoris get to decide for themselves how they style their monarchs. FactStraight (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Currently the lead states:

The position of Māori monarch was constituted in 1858 by chiefs (rangatira) from all the tribes throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.

My understanding was that not all iwi actually participated in the formation of the Kingitanga, in fact a lot of the southern rangatira were opposed to it (see NZ History). Ngaphui and Ngati Pourou never joined.

Kingi Tuheitia is the internal Sovereign Partner to the External Sovereign Partner Māori Trustee Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

This is a highly dubious claim. Firstly, the Kingitanga is a non-constitutional role. There was never any claim to being a "internal Sovereign partner" to the Monarch. In fact the position of Maori King was meant to compliment the British Monarch. (see NZ History & [1]).

It is a role invested with a high degree of prestige (mana) that symbolises a bridge between Māori and the western world.

Again, this is highly dubious. Perhaps this was the case in the 1850s, but simply isn't true today.

Since the 1850s the role has been vested in the Tainui tribe (iwi) who agreed to guard the position when it was created.

More dubious claims - ref statements by other North Island iwi at the NZ Herald.

The Kīngitanga movement and its influence has expanded since its establishment and it is widely recognised and respected by Māori in many parts of New Zealand today.

Again, this claim is dubious although probably accurate. It needs to be cited. --Lholden (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the silliest ones out. There may well be some grain of truth to the election bit tho, I am sure you'd find something accurate on Te Ara. The Herald I wouldn't trust at all. Kahuroa (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. By election do you mean Tainui's guardianship of the Kingitanga? I agree that does make sense. --Lholden (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No I meant the selection of successor. The Kauhanganui (Tainui parliament) meets after the death of the incumbent and elects the successor. The guardianship/founding of the Kingitanga should be easy enough to research I would have thought. (BTW it would not be a simple matter for another iwi to take the role - Tainui has a lot of dedicated supporters for the role from its people and has the infrastructure too) Here are a few general sources in the meantime te ara old, te ara, NZDB, last four paragraphs Kahuroa (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Guardianship doesn't seem correct in this context. --Lholden (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As your cite tag indicates, we need a reliable source for "who agreed to guard the position when it was created". I wouldn't rule it out, it could well have been stated at the time Potatau Te Wherowhero accepted the kingship, and in effect Tainui are the guardians of the position. But a source is needed. Kahuroa (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More sources - longer, older: Gorst, in particular this appendix, Buddle, Cowan, on the choosing of the first King, Harrop Kahuroa (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'll read through those sources and figure out some text that's verifiable and accurate. --Lholden (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

More from the old Te Ara Sinclair and this is a parliamentary research paper see section Separate Māori institutions Kahuroa (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done on additions

Excellent, exactly what was needed.Kahuroa (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the king of Maori ?

Attention has been drawn to an anomally in the tile of Maori King. According to 1 editor it is "well known" that he is not the Maori king but this would be news to many kiwis .Mr Rankin is highlighting an important issue to do with tribal independence and that the Kingitanga is only held in respect as long as the monarch behaves themselves.There have been various issues raised in the media about the king's actions,his demeanor,his spending ,his friends and his son,which do not sit well with many conservative Maori.One person is saying what many are feeling.To call The king the "King of Huntly" is insulting and that is not included in the article for that reason but Rankin has raised an important constitional issue that deserves a bit of space.Claudia june 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.170 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede does say "The Māori King Movement or Kīngitanga is a movement that arose among some of the Māori tribes of New Zealand" (emphasis added). The actions of the current King, or his family, do not really belong in this article, but some elaboration about where the movement does and doesn't have support would be useful to add. It may be well known among Māori, but we need to write for a more general audience.-gadfium 06:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The title is long-established as Maori King, but the fact that he doesn't stand for every iwi is also long-established (and could perhaps be better covered in the article). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3 mentioned tribes make up a majority of Maori in nz in terms of total population(both in 1860s and now)-Nga Puhi alone is "probably" as big as all the other iwi put together. The 3 iwi are all extremely well known ,with great mana.If you have not heard of them then that is your problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.158 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it highly improbable that 50% of all the Māori in the world are Ngāpuhi (of part of Northland) and find it even more so that anything similar could be said of Ngāti Porou (of the extremities of the Gisborne area). As for the Ngai Tapu, I can assure you that I have never heard of them; they do not even have an entry in Wikipedia. I would recommend you click on the red-link above and start creating an article on them, starting with explaining where their rohe is (as I live in the Kaitahu/Kati Mamoe/Waitaha end of the country, doings at the other end of the country may not make the news). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ngai Tapu is probably a typo, not to be confused with a taipo. Kahuroa (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

New Article for Political Entity?

I am wondering if there should be a new article created for the state or confederacy ruled over by the Maori monarchs and allied chiefs. It seems like from the time the confederacy was formed in around 1858 until 1881, when the Kingitanga Movement finally left its isolation and finally made peace with and opened up to the settler government, the Kingitanga functioned as an independent state.

From what I understand, the Kingitanga held power over a substantial portion of North Island, originally centered in the Waikato Region. Then the settler government under Governor Grey interpreted their existence as a threat to British sovereignty and justified attacking them and initiating the Land Wars in the Waikato based on a claim that Ngati Maniapoto warriors helping other tribes fighting settlers in Taranaki Region were Kingitanga agents. After brutal fighting, the Kingitanga government occupied Ngati Maniapoto territory and became a neutral player throughout the rest of the Land Wars although remained independent from and at war with the Colonial Government until they opened up the King Country in 1881. Afterwards, they progressively integrated with the rest of New Zealand over several decades, beginning with rail projects several years after peace was established although the Tainui chiefs and Maori king directly ruled the territory and didn't suffer land confiscations like other regions which allowed for a higher-than-average Maori population to exist there even to the present day. Based on this background, do you think it is reasonable to create a new article for a state with this information included or that it should be included only here in the Maori King Movement article or both or neither?Nanib (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The following are relevant articles on nzhistory.net.nz, a New Zealand government history resource that is a wealth of information for New Zealand and even other Polynesian histories:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/build-up-to-war http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/response-to-war http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/the-maori-king-movement-1860-94/raupatu-confiscations http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-king-movement-1860-94/maintaining-te-kingitanga http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/the-maori-king-movement-1860-94/tensions-ease

Your account of this aspect of NZ history is seriously flawed although here and there you touch on a correct fact. The key to the mystery of the Kingitanga is the invasion of Taranaki by Waikato iwi during the long and brutal Musket Wars. The Taranaki tribes suffered savage treatment from Waikato which dislocated the various communities. Taranaki tribes saw the treaty as a method of trying to claw back some of the land and the mana that they lost during those times. Waikato seized on opportunities to increase their power or mana not only over Taranaki but over the Government as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wording of intro

SymonLyall has made this revert [2] on the grounds that reference to "an expression of Māori unity" is "a little fluffy". I'm open to guidance here and welcome discussion on this, but I think that unless the Kingitanga movement is essentially an historic phenomenon, the emphasis in the opening sentence should be on the present, not the past. The wording I inserted is drawn from NZHistory Online and I think encapsulates what it is; that initial statement is preferable to an immediate explanation of why it arose. My understanding, from what I've read, is also that the Maori King is essentially a Tainui institution; if that's the case, is it not important to identify that fact immediately as well? (SimonLyall also removed that from the opening statement).

I'm slowly working my way through this article to improve what was pretty shabby and vague coverage. All suggestions are welcome, but as someone living in Australia and thus slightly removed from whatever routine coverage there is of the Maori King (despite my strong interest in colonial-era NZ history), it seems to me that the article in its newly amended form clouds rather than sharpens understanding of what the function of the King is.

This may, in large part, come back to the issue of the title of the article, "Maori King Movement", which tends to place an emphasis on the past (as in the establishment of the "movement") rather than the present. That in itself may need addressing, with the article possibly better renamed "Maori King" and clearly explaining who and what the King is and then the origin of the institution. Any comments and response would be very welcome. BlackCab (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My main problem with your wording was that the first sentence or two should be a description of what the article is about in an almost stand-alone way. The equivilent might be 1st sentence of Australian Labor Party being The Australian Labor party is an expression of the late 19th century Australian workers movement, possibly true but not really what it actually is. So more or less what you have said above but with a bit more detail to people who hear "Maori King" and assume they are actually part of the government. We need to get the basic introduction out first. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For our Aussie friend.Last month the king was too sick to attend a hui and his son attended and spoke in his place. This point was mentioned,with a photo of the son, in the Waikato Times which gives reasonable coverage of Kingitanga events.I would agree with discussions above that the Movement part is largely historical. There is no longer any "movement" in the sense that the Kingitanga is trying to expand or develop its role.Having said that the King himself has or had some grandiose ideas of his power to spend money as he saw fit.The Times covered this spat about 2 years ago. The Kingitanga tries to keep its internal ructions under wraps. They are mainly squabbles about influence, authority, access to spending money, accountability, warring personalities etc. The infighting is mainly between the King the governing body and the separate business body. The business arm of Tainui is separated from the king.Of late -since about 2006(?) the business arm has done very well -mainly on the back of the massive development of the old air force base gifted to Tainui about 1992 into a huge modern shopping complex"The Base". The next (current) big project of Tainui is to develop what is called an inland port on land also gifted to Tainui in 1992 on the other side of the city near the University.The tribe has successfully had zoning restrictions changed from residential to industry. This port will be a transhipment zone for mainly container goods.The iwi has had good cooperation from the Hamilton City Council in this development- they have helped them through the red tape. The port is likely to start about 2014-15 and development continue for many years.The area is enormous. There is a rail link close at hand. A new multi lane highway passes very close to the new port. No doubt the king who plays no direct roll at all, will get(be given?) a new car to celebrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not Prime Agricultural land

I removed "Prime agricultural" as this is a very poor description of the Waikato in 1863. There was only a very small area of developed land that could be called Prime-the small area around Te Awamutu that had been developed with plants and technology from the CMS missionaries and included at least 1 flour mill. This constitutes about 2% of the Waikato at the most. There were small isolated pockets or gardens such as those near modern Hamilton city. These were man made soils for growing kumara in Kirikiriroa which had a very small population-about 70 all told just before the war. Some of these have been rediscovered just recently and cover an area about as big as a normal urban section, very close to the Waikato museum. Most of the Waikato was very swampy and still is to some extent. Waikato was an unproductive farming backwater until the mid 1920s and only really became prime agricultural land from the 1950s. There were a lot of natural obstacles such as the Waikato River, thousands of small streams and deep gullies that all needed bridging. The only common tree the Kahikatea -initially used for bridges is very prone to rot. The high rainfall in winter turned the Waikato into a quagmire over winter-early photos show carts up to their axles in deep mud. Of course for Maori the swamps and creeks did provide eels. There were lots of native ducks on the lakes. The figures for food provided from the Waikato to Auckland in 1854-about the time of peak Maori production, show that only a tiny amount of food came from the Waikato-literally 4 canoes of potatoes in the first half of 1854. The vast bulk of food came from Maori in Auckland itself or on the modern North Shore(Ngati Whatua) but mainly from Waiheke Island(Ngati Paoa) and the Thames(Ngati Maru) area. After the 1863-64 war most of the soldiers (mostly Australian ) who were given free land, walked off after taking a look at their new swamps and lakes"land". The population of Hamilton dropped from a peak of about 900(mainly military) in 1865 and did not reach 1000 again until 1901. It took mass application of modern technology and a huge input of labour to turn the Waikato into prime dairy land. Even today the wider term "agricultural " would be a bit sweeping as probably 95% of the lowland farms are dairy only with low hill country farms to the West being mainly sheep with some beef. Today there are only a tiny number of orchards or other specialized land use -a few flowers grown indoors, bee hives,race horse breeding around Cambridge. Many of the steep hills are exactly as they were in 1863 covered in native bush. Most are reserves. Hence just "land". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:George Grey#Grey launched the invasion of the Waikato . . .. As mentioned there, Keith Sinclair, James Cowan and James Belich all refer to the Waikato in general and Rangiaowhaia specifically as a rich agricultural area that provided most of their food needs; add Michael King to that list of reliable sources as well. BlackCab (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are fudging a bit-you dont quote any pages refs ,nor a time period , nor do you distinguish between a tiny area that was somewhat developed around Te Awamutu(largely due to the efforts of the missionaries) and the rest of the Waikato that wasnt. Also the word prime is not used. I would like to see the actual passage with context as clearly anyone who knows that time period and the Waikato as I do will recognise some kind of error has been made.I have attended lectures(many years!) ago where it was stresssed that Waikato's land has poor natural fertility and it was the application of technology , capital and labour -in huge ammounts that made it a great dairy farming region it is today. As an example the Ngati Haua ( a significant part of the kingitanga) were quite happy to sell a huge chunk of their land that was a giant swamp in the 1870s to the Morrin Brothers. These 2 were Scottish engineers who hired Irish navvies from the NZ gold field to hand dig an extensive drainage system to turn what was a shallow lake in winter, into prosperous dairy land. If you check on Google earth you will see that the Waikato still has many small lakes and swamp land. Also who does "their needs?" refer to -To Waikato iwi? Maori did not need "rich agricultural land" they were still mainly living from natural food supplies like ducks, eels, fish, weka,pidgeons, puha,and fern root nodules. This was supplemented by small patches of kumara and potatoes and later small area of introduced wheat fruit (especilly peaches). Most of the flat Waikato basin was devoid of Maori as it was so wet. Perhaps they were using the term "rich " in the sense of abundant natural food to support the existing 3000(?) scattered Waikato population? However the use of" agriculture" is still puzzling,as most Maori food was still from hunter /gatherer sources.The Waikato was about the last of the moderately populated areas in Nz to benefit from British farming methods.

I would not call the Grey talk site anything like a discussion -there is only a few vague lines from you and about 20 lines of specific information from me-thats it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fudging, I'm telling you that the sources the article is based on refer to the area as a rich agricultural area. I'm happy to find some quotes for you. BlackCab (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou in anticipation of the quotes and contexts. Not "prime"land then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And when are you going to start showing some courtesy and signing your posts as you have been asked to do repeatedly? There is even a shortcut on the edit bar. BlackCab (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have retraced the books I have been using for the basis of this article to find references to the value of Waikato agricultural land. In short:

• Michael King, The Penguin History of New Zealand (p.216): "This action also secured for the NZ government the land with which to reward the militia troops and settle new colonists. What was taken was selected more for its fertility and strategic importance than for the owners' part in the so-called rebellion."
• WH Oliver, The Story of New Zealand (p.88): "In a situation of artificial land scarcity ... land hunger was deflected to the rich lands held by populous tribes on the Waikato and Waipa rivers. These were the Maori who supported the King movement. They had been hard-working farmers, exporting their wheat, pork and potatoes through Auckland to Australia."
• Ranginui Walker, Struggle Without End (p. 122, 129): "(Grey) argued that since there were only 3,355 natives residing on the fertile lands of the Waikato ..." "Confiscation of 360,000 hectares of fertile Waikato land was a much more serious blow to the King than military defeat. It crippled the Waikato people for the next 60 years."
• Michael King, Te Puea (p. 26): "The Government was not interested in justice, as it claimed. Its real objectives were the dislodging of the King Movement and the acquisition of the most fertile Waikato acreage; both were achieved."
• James Cowan: The New Zealand Wars (p.352, 361): "The large unfortified settlement of Rangiaowhia came in sight, a scene of peace and beauty. Fields of wheat, maize, and potatoes extended over long gentle slopes, and peach-groves shading clusters of thatched houses were scattered along a green hill trending north and south." "The whole of the mid-Waikato and the fertile plain of the delta between the Waipa and the Horotiu (upper Waikato River) as far south as the Mangapiko River was now under British occupation."

The wording in the article you object to is "The confiscation of 486,500 hectares of prime agricultural land as well as burial sites ..." These authors do not use the word "prime", but they do emphasise the fertility of the land, of which the Waikato Maori were making some use. Perhaps a better term would be "fertile" land. BlackCab (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes.So -NOT "Prime" NOR "Agricultural"! It is quite clear from this that all seem to be using the same original source without perhaps any real investigation. Cowan, who knew the Waikato refers only to the Rangiaowhia area which is very small. The delta referred to at Horotiu is also a very small area. There are plenty of farming text books that say the whole of the south Waikato area was infertile due to the lack of critical trace elements such as cobalt in the volcanic soil-only solved in 1937 by a visiting Australian scientist. It is notable that the Rangiowhia area had that appearance because of the important influence of missionaries and some early Pakeha settlers who helped introduce the European plants(and animals) described. I would take Ranganui Walker's words with a grain of salt (a BIG grain.) I know him and his partial attitudes beliefs well. The Oliver quote smacks of gross generalization and seems to be just parroting Cowan's words. It is interesting that the actual food statistics do not support any of this generalizing. The very detailed figure for food supply to Auckland, by Maori,in the mid 1850s show that the vast majority came from the Auckland's isthmus and what we would call the North Shore today,Ngati Paoa"s Waiheke Island and Ngati Maru's land by Thames. The 3,500 in the whole Waikato is a tiny number given that a lot of Maori food came from lakes swamp etc. Hamilton's (Kirikiriroa) Maori population just before the war of 1863 was about 70 people total by count. The only references I can find to actual crops are peaches being grown by Pukete Pa and the very small area of potatoes and kumara being grown by the present Waikato Museum on a small river terrace. "Burial sites" is a pretty blunt "semantic hammer". In pre European times Maori buried bones all over the place so any land could have bones on it. Just yesterday a bunch of Maori bones were found in the sand hills of Taranaki near New Plymouth I think. Bones of truly important men of man were always uplifted and taken with an iwi or hapu when they moved. If the bones were left behind they were of people of no importance. This happens even in modern times -there has been a lot of anger expressed about Hone Heke's bones being taken by his whanau and reburied just last year. I wonder why so much land was given back to Waikato about 6 months after it was confiscated? If the land was so fertile why did so many farmers around Hamilton just walk of it in 1868 and go back to Australia? Why did Ngati Haua ,specifically Wiremu Tamiha's son(who was still actively involved with the Kingtanga) so willingly lease and the sell vast areas of swamp to Morrin and Firth in the East Waikato in 1870? Would they sell off prime agricultural land? If the land was so critical to Waikato why did they continue to sell off enormous chunks in the 1900-1912 period? To me there is a big disconnect between the generalizations and the reality. Even today there is a huge peat dome swamp south of Ngatea that is unusable for farming-an area of 200 square km! I suggest a statement along the lines that settlers were deluded in thinking of the whole Waikato as being fertile as only very tiny areas such as ---- were used for Maori crops and this European style farming development only started in the 1840s again in very limited area. Then a statement about how Maori did use the natural resources of the land and swamp land and a bit about how they created man made soils to grow isolated pockets of Kumara. Then a statement about changing Waikato Maori attitudes to land that allowed those even at the heart of the kingitanga to justify selling off their remaining land. If you just say "fertile land" that gives a totally erroneous idea of what the land was like.One final point- the "fertility" of the Waikato soils today is only due to the liberal use of superphospate (mainly from Nauru Island up till the 1980s)and lime on the land. What do you think?Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Phew! I think if you hit the Paragraph Return button twice each time (instead of once) it will create the para break properly. It's just exhausting reading this slab of text. Unless there is a reliable source that states that settlers were "deluded" about the agricultural value of the land, such a statement in this article would be original research. There is certainly no need to go off on a tangent in this article about anything to do with how the Maori used the natural resources of land and waterways. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Save it for your blog perhaps. I will replace the term "prime agricultural land" and that should be sufficient. BlackCab (talk)

Maori bank

I am not satisfied that this edit [3] by 122.62.226.243 claiming Tāwhiao "used his influence to withdraw all the money for the trip from the newly set up Maori bank. When depositers found all the money gone they burnt down the bank" should remain in the article. The source material, which is far from adequately cited, paints quite a different picture. Stuart Park's article in the New Zealand Journal of History at this site quotes from the Australian Insurance and Banking Record (21 June 1916); this states that the deputation to London was led by (or comprised only) bank directors Aperahama Te Rei and Hone Te Parikou (to whom it refers as "Abraham the Jewel" and "John Slippery Fish" respectively. There is no mention of King Tawhiao; nor does it even seem to correlate with the 1882 deputation to London by a group of northern chiefs described by Ranginui Walker (Struggle Without End, pg 160.)

Park observes: "The tone of this (AIBR) article is very negative, typical of much Pakeha writing about Maori of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Much of the content might well be factual, like the description of grievances over Treaty issues, although the names given to the chiefs appear so strange as to be quite unlikely. No contemporary Maori sources examined record such names." He concludes that the report has "dubious reliability" and reflects the "supercilious, patronising attitude" of earlier press articles on the bank.

In any case, this is the first and only reference in the Wikipedia article to the Maori bank. It seems mischievous to introduce it with a highly suspect article written in a clearly patronising and insulting manner that assumes, on thin evidence, that it was referring to the 1884 deputation to London led by Tawhiao. I'll try to find the second sloppily cited source provided, "King Potatau. Pei Te Hurinui Jones. p 230-231" and see if it is any clearer. BlackCab (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite the writing style of the paper there is ample evidence that the facts are indisputable. The names of the Maori mentioned are authentic-they were directors of the bank but not on the official party to London which consisted of Tawhaio, Te Tuhi,Te Wheoro,Turoa,Ropiha and Skidmore. 4000 pounds were taken from the bank -a huge ammount then. The money was spent like water in London. Rather than a political exercise the trip turned into a lavish tourist party with the contingent visiting operas, ballet, the zoo, Madam Tassauds, mass choirs and many parties. The names mentioned by you are among the names in the documents at Cambridge Museum. Another source I haven't mentioned is the Cambridge Museum which as a piece about the burning of the "Bank".Victoria University also holds documnets relating to the trip which refer to all the points raised. Likewise the well known Blackly study. The bank was actually just a raupo whare(hut) so it didnt take much to burn. The kingitanga itself had set up the bank after the 1882 visit and meeting in Auckland. This was when the London visit was first mooted and may in fact have been the real motivation for setting up the bank. Mapori were tired of handing over all the money to what they considered "government " banks which paid low interest. Maori were getting a steady income by leasing and selling land through the Native (Maori) Land court. The income stream to normal Maori had suddenly increased. From about 1870 Kingitanga tribes such as Ngati Haua started leasing huge areas of what was basically swamp to Auckland based entrepreneurs. Ngati Haua were so keen that they signed up to leases even before the Native Land Court had made final decisions.(the leases were made subject to the NLC decisions being positive). Although the Kingitanga movement had nominally been "defeated" on the battlefield, it still held considerable but patchy influence-enough to persuade ordinary Maori to bank with the Kingitanga bank. Suspicions were first raised in Cambridge when local chiefs who ran the bank were seen driving fancy carts and wearing the latest fashion clothes. By 1884 Tawhaio's influence was at a low ebb-there were only about a thousand core Kingitanga supporters left and even the Ngati Haua who had been core Kingtitanga supporters were happy to lease land and then gradually sell land to farmers such as Morrin and Firth who both spoke Maori and were on good terms with the locals. The setting up of the bank, the borrowing of the money by the 1884 party to London headed by Tawhaio ,the holiday atmosphere of the trip and the burning down of the bank are all indisputable historical fact.

You will find Pei Te Hurinui Jones an impeccable source.He is THE Tainui historian. He(and his brother )was the off spring of one of the many Pakeha who lived with and married into the Ngati Maniapoto iwi from 1842. The Maniapoto "half castes "etc were and are very important to the tribe. You wont find many references to the money borrowing from Maori sources as the borrowing was kept secret for obvious reasons . The whole trip was kept secret until the party got to Australia. Another place you will find reference to the bank is in Kelly's book on Tainui-he was a one time friend of Te Hurinui Jones but "borrowed" his detailed notes when Pei was dying of cancer (so it was thought)and published them as his own. To his great surprise and I would say embarrassment, Pei lived ,so there are 2 books but from the same research.

When Tawhaio returned from Britain he behaved in an increasaingly irrational way insisting that Maori have complete and total separation from Pakeha despite, there being virtually no appetite for such action among Maori-he was increasingly clutching at straws. See Claudia Orange, Treaty of Waitangi, for details on that. Tawhaio was at loggerheads with many chiefs over the setting up of separate Maori councils which they wanted and he opposed. His returned coincided with a number of revolutionary changes in NZ and he was essentially a non event. The government was far more concerned with the solving the depression, breaking up the large run holder estates, making use of the new refrigeration technology and developing the whole dairy farming industry. See any good book about the Liberal/ labour socialist origins.

Further there are many contemporay accounts of the trip and what the king and his party did -from newspapers at the time. There have been at least 2 studies done on the events surrounding the bank and the trip -one is at Cambridge Museum. The Blackly study is about 50 pages long and contains copious detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(Copied from user's talk page)

Hello Blackcab. I am to find out why you find the edit information "dubious"- you have not said what part of the edit or the references you find dubious. Can you please expand. These are your words" alleged misuse of funds"not mine. They are not in the edit at all.I am not being obstructive in any way shape or form. Your responses have been very limited -I am merely trying to see your point of view and collaborate. I tried to expand of the information to show why I believe it should be included. I am trying to have a"conversation" with you regard the edit. You may have missed that I added several new references that all say more or less the same thing. Far from being tendentious I am trying to find out what happened based on a whole range of resources that all report more or less the same thing.

Can we agree: that:

1 Tawhaio went with 5 others to England with the main idea of seeing the Queen regarding land sales which he believed were dubious

2 He took with him 4000 pounds

3 He did not have an invitation from the Queen, nor did he see her

4 He spent several months in England -mainly in London

5 He and the group made use of the time to see a very wide range of London's attraction.

6 The trip arose from a meeting many chiefs had in Auckland in 1882. The initial plan was to send a large delegation of chiefs but this proved too expensive .

Rather than have nothing about the source of the money- have a statement along the lines : That it is not clear where the finance came from. It may have come from either direct gifts such as the 300 pounds mentioned (from Napier?)and /or from the bank. I see one source only that say the bank was set up in 1886, most say earlier without providing much detail. The other aspect is the reaction to the trip -would Pei Te Hurinui Jones have included this if it was dubious or reflected badly on his people? What do you say? It might be easier for me to get hold of a copy of Tainui than you in Melbourne,so I will do so in the next day or so and recheck what he actually said. Thanks Claudia.

The claims, both at this article and at King Country, cite:

• Te Peeke O Aotearoa.NZJH.
• King Potatau. Pei Te Hurinui Jones. p 230-231.
• National library of NZ .Te Ao Hou. No 29.The Maori Bank of Cambridge. N Chapple.
• NZ History On line. Maungatautari Whare Utu(Maori bank). Today in History.
• Papers Past.The Maungatautari Bank .J.F.Edgar

The first source is Stuart Park's article in the New Zealand Journal of History in which he discusses -- and dismisses as unreliable -- all but one of the rest of the sources you cite. The original 1886 article, supposedly by JT Edgar and quoted at length in Te Ao Hou, is described by Park as "coon humour". The "Today in History" item in NZHistory Online draws its information from the Te Ao Hou article. It is certainly not a reliable source for a claim that is so suspect. It is clearly inexcusable to cite a historian's article that dismisses as "unreliable" a claim, then repeat those unreliable claims as fact. Yet that is what you have done.

One last thing: your edit claimed that the directors withdrew "all" the money for the trip from the bank, and that "when depositors found all the money gone they burnt down the bank". The "Today in History" item in NZ History Online says "some" of the bank's funds were used ... to "help" pay for the king's trip. You have taken a dubious and unreliable report and then exaggerated even that! BlackCab (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly. I had not had time to read all the Park comments,which are fairly lengthy, until today as Ive been busy at work . I dont know who he or she is or how reliable their comments are-I have never heard of them. Perhaps you know of them? Park does seem to make some points and that's one reason why I suggested the abbreviated "6 point" plan version(or something along those lines) which leaves out any reference to any or all money being borrowed. Ive done a bit more reading and it seems that some money was paid directly by one iwi and "maybe" some came from the Maori bank. However there is still the Q about even if the Maori bank existed in 1884. What do you think of the 6 points above? Maybe suggest your own version?Ill try and find that Tainui book if I have time tomorrow- its a while since I looked at it. Looks like a nice day in Melbourne today. I lived in Toorak many years ago -it was always nice there. Claudia.

A brief reference to the establishment of the bank is worth including if an appropriate source is found. The article already contains reference to the creation of a newspaper, court, flag etc. There is just no need to go wandering off to repeat the biased rubbish coming from the 19th century settler press that was clearly aimed at ridiculing the movement. You have cited the Pei Te Hurinui Jones book, so I'm keen to find out what he did write about this. BlackCab (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Had a look for the book yesterday but the library systems were down so I'll have to wait a few days until they have their new system up.It seems from Parks information that the Kingitangi went to some considerable trouble to produce their own bank notes but maybe never actually used them -they may have just stuck with normal NZ currency . The comments about Maori not understanding the concept of percentage interest was revealing . This would suggest that it would have been difficult to sustain a banking system for long mainly due to poor understanding of basic principles as well as economics in general. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You explicitly cited pages 230-231 of the Pei Te Hurinui Jones book to support what you wrote. What did he write there? BlackCab (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I now have reviewed Pei Te Hurinui's book King Pōtatau. There are two edition: 1959 and 2010. They appear to have the same content, but page numbers differ and the later edition has had macrons added as appropriate. In the 1959 edition, page 230 contains only a title, and pages 231-2 have a detailed description of the King's coat of arms, and an explanation of the concept of mana motuhake. No reference to the bank or a trip to England. The 2010 edition devotes pages 230-231 to descriptions of the "golden age" of 1845-60 by the later historian James Cowan. Again, there is no mention of the bank or Tāwhiao's trip to England. Neither edition has any index reference to the bank or any related terms that I can see.-gadfium 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. The IP editor has previously stated that these events were "indisputable historical fact" yet historians seem not to have been aware of them. "Claudia" has also referred me [4] to Claudia Orange's The Treaty of Waitangi which supposedly provides the details of Tawhiao's "increasingly irrational behaviour" following his return from London. Orange nowhere accuses Tawhaio of irrational behaviour; she does however state that ₤3000 was raised for his London trip during a personal tour of the North Island (pg. 211). I'm wasting a lot of time chasing down these books just to check the truth of the claims by "Claudia"; many are just figments of her imagination. She has previously faked references, complete with page numbers, so this is nothing new. BlackCab (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are any other references you'd like me to chase up, please let me know. I usually go into the University of Auckland library (where I can view books, but not borrow them) and the Auckland Public Library each Thursday morning.-gadfium 02:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium for in help in tracking down Potatau. As you say there does seem to be some difference between different editions. When I have time I'll see what I can find.It finally seems that the source of Tawhaio's finance for the extended trip is revealed. In the latter period in the late 1880s and into the 1890s it seems it was fairly common practice for Waikato Kingitanga Maori to be levied a tax to support Kingitanga operations. I know Te Puea reinstated that tax in alater paeriod and it was commonly known as the whitebait tax in the Waikato. Perhaps the origins of this is in Tawhiao's fund raising efforts. By shear chance I was given a historical document yesterday that shows , far from the visit to Britain being secret, the Kingitanga party was accompanied by a village brass band from near Pirongia(Alexandra in those days) half way to the railway station at Te Awamutu, where another village brass band took over for the rest of the journey.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Maori king's son.

A few details have been included as there is such a huge public interest in NZ in this topic. The issue is ongoing and has been featured in the main stream media for over a week. It highlights certain aspects of the Kingites. On line polls show huge and continuing interest. Information has been supported by refs. Information has been gathered by the media from face book and video before going public. Maori in particular are outraged at the special treatment being given to the son because the connection to his father. As it is now a crisis for the king it is doubly important to have information that can easily be accessed. Clearly this is the most important event that has happened to the king in a long time. Stuff Nz had so many comments they had to close down the comments server before it crashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

See WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Notability#Events: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage ... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." This event may be embarrassing to the king, but it has no lasting impact on the Maori King Movement. BlackCab (TALK) 09:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As the anon (Claudia) and BlackCab are aware, there has been a discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Korotangi Paki about this. I started the discussion there as this affects more than one article. To date, the consensus has been against including the news stories about the King's son in Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion began the event has become much bigger due to the ongoing very serious revelations about the son. So the previous "consensus"re just one event, is largely irrelevant. To say it has no impact is complete,utter nonsense! The king himself used the word crisis. All the Tainui marae are now being consulted. Many Maori (as well as Pakeha) are outraged. Blackcab's comments are tantamount to attempted censorship which I will not stand for. How does he know it will have no lasting impact??There has been plenty of very critical comment but I left it out for brevity's sake. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blackcab and gadfium are representing a consensus of editors on this point. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) Nobody is being censored here, all that is happening is that you are not being given a platform to spout your wild theories. Nothing is stopping you from getting a blog and blogging about it. (2) The so-called "very serious revelations" since the previous consensus amount to one non-notable teenager using some bad language. (3) The probability that this will have no lasting notability is based on the fact that a few years ago a non-notable teenage child of a much more prominent politician than Tuheitia Paki was in the news for similar arseholishness; there is no mention whatsoever of this incident on the parent's page (and rightly so). (4) On-line polls are worthless sources and the news coverage of this matter has contained a number of errors of fact which lead me to suspect practically none of the commentators have much of a clue of what they are talking about. (5) How much of the "very critical comment" is from people who were actually in the courtroom and know the facts of the story? I suspect none of it. (6) As you insist in pushing this nonsense against consensus I will take it to the BLP noticeboard and will add a notice to that effect here once I have done so. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Have added it now. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just re-read User_talk:122.62.226.243 and I've been having second thoughts about our collective approach to some of these issues. Depressingly the main issues, lack of sourcing and edit warring, just don't seem to be improving. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The heading for this section is "The King's Son". This alone makes it notable and very different from some unknown teen. Im not sure what you mean by "wild theories". Can you point out the "wild theories" in any of the edits? All the information is direct from the Waikato Times and supported by refs from there. After the court case it emerged that despite attempts by the QC to portray the incidents as limited and perhaps insignificant this kind of behaviour is not new to Korotangi. The influence of the Maori king rests not on judicial or legal influence- it is totally by reputation. The king's reputation is tainted by his son's actions which in the last 2 years have included drunk driving ,breach or parole,theft, burglary,being thrown out of his rugby team for bad behaviour ,making racist comments on face book,using Mongrol Mob gang greetings and signs,using obscene language and behaving like an arrogant turkey in a video that is now public. The online polls,the talk back, the joke about Korotangi in the editorial page pf the Waikato Times simply tells us that this is of great public concern and interest. Maori women are particularly concerned about these attitudes of Korotangi and how our young Tainui men will perceive them. The polls were not used to reference any of the factual material in the article.

The only people quoted in the media have been A. The Maori King. B Tuku Morgan.C. The QC D. The judge. Are you saying that none of these people know what they are talking about? The reporter who wrote the first article was in court. You did not say which part of the newspaper article was wrong -please do so!!. As per the article this teen is in line to be the next king -this was the argument used by the QC to stop him being convicted. A consensus is not two editors!!! even if Stuart things so-especially when considering attempted possible "censorship". There is a big difference between the son of an MP and the son of a king. Firstly the MP has a position of influence by law and the king does not. Secondly the son of an MP did not get off because he was possibly going to inherit his father's role. In other words, as indicated previously, the King's mana or authority rests solely on his reputation-if his reputation is effected by his son's actions then that is serious not just for the king, or his son, but for the kingite movement.

Thankyou gadfium for your efforts which are a shining light of hope. I am very disappointed that other editors have not even attempted to answer my various points. In my academic world we have very time for individuals who don't respect others who produce information contrary to their own beliefs. In medieval times they chopped off the heads of folks who produced new, contrary facts-now they ban them from Wiki! Sorry that the discussion is now on various pages-my time is too valuable to answer on other pages as well.

Can we have a discussion or input from other editors who are not partial? At least one of the editors commenting is notorious for knee jerk "sounding off" going back many years. I note the use of a term above(3) that is rather disgusting and totally unnecessary. I want to see reasoned arguments not bad language and blather. Kia Ora Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, *my* feeling (as below) is that there's a case for some comment on TP's own page, but not here. The drama around his son raises some legitimate issue of various sorts about TP's character, the justice system etc - but they don't belong on this page, which about the movement/monarchy etc, not the individuals. I am surprised to see such a slight amount of text on both Te Atairangikaahu and TP. My feeling is that there'a a lot that could be said about the mana TA brought the position, and some relevant things about TP's "political issues" that would be relevant here. Snori (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Links

I've just added "main article" links for each monarch. In general I think that there needs only be a paragraph or two on each in this article. Certainly no comment the drama around KP should be here - but it may be perfectly appropriate on Tuheitia Paki's page. Snori (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about the appropriateness of coverage of Tuheitia Paki's son's misdeeds needs to be carried out at that page. I'm surprised there's an existing reference to his son's charges in 2011.

But regarding the extent of coverage of each of the kings, I think the existing content is fine. Arguably the issues confronting the first four kings are very much the story of the foundation and development of the movement and that content describes that in a chronological form. The article is also not overly long, and it allows readers to gain a good sense of the early challenges and Maori response to it. BlackCab (TALK) 10:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremists

The use of the word is well explained in the text ie that Maniapoto and Rewi Maniapoto were the extreme edge of the militant wing of the kingitanga compared to say the king himself or Ngati Haua's William Thompson, who both had more passive viewpoints. Gorst, who lived in the area and attended many of the meetings is very instructive on the very heated conflict within the various kingitanga factions.115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement about "extremists" was sourced to Keith Sinclair; he uses that word on page 119 of the cited source. Certainly Rewi Maniapoto was a hardliner; I'll use that word instead, which provides a sufficient distinction with the "moderates". BlackCab (TALK) 02:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Hardliner would be accurate if you are talking about someone who has "hard" conservative or firm ideas but it does not convey the idea that he was prepared to use violence, as Rewi repeatedly did. He was behind the attempted "assassination" of Grey and he constantly argued for the use of militancy and violence against Europeans in general as well as the the government. He was the source of the instructions to kidnap the wives and children of settlers in the Waikato. It was Rewi who riled up the Maori Catholics by claiming all protestants were in the pay of the government. It was W Kingi and Rewi who led the attack and burning down the Te Awamutu trade school and stealing the press. It was Rewi who argued with the king and W Thompson about attack the British. Rewi was clever -he realised that once he attacked Auckland the moderates would have to follow suit out of loyalty and because the British would not(or could not) distinguish between extreme militants or moderate militants -if they were attacking the army or settlers they would be shot. It was mainly Rewi's men who launched the initial attack on Auckland, along with locals who acted as guides. They killed random settlers who had not left, stole cattle etc but were surprisingly (a surprise to both sides)defeated at the battle of East Pukekohe Church. After this Ngati Haua and other joined the Auckland attacks so the "moderates" did not remain so -they joined in the general violence. All these acts show that Rewi had hard line ideas in the sense he was uncompromising but extremist or militant are better and more accurate terms to describe what he did rather than what he thought. If Sinclair used the term in this instance he was right.

All very ironic really given that after the collapse of the King country Kingitanga "nation" and their formal surrender, Rewi became the leading member of the Gov Grey fan club who even wished to be buried alongside Grey!115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC) I've restored the original quote removed by the unknown editor.This is what Sinclair actually wrote, he didnt write "hardliners". You cant just wily nilly change historian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sinclair's description is far from the last word on this. It's a highly subjective, and highly dubious description by one historian. I'll see if I can find terms used by other historians to describe Rewi's relative position among Maori of the time. BlackCab (TALK) 12:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In view of what actually happened in Auckland, Sinclair's use of the word "extremists " is most apt. I'm sure if this happened in today's world the rebels who killed the unarmed settlers would be called terrorists. The kidnapping of settlers' wives and children , mass theft of property (mainly in Taranaki), targeting of government property ( courts,schools) is not a million miles from more recent terrorist acts in the Middle East. If anything, Sinclair's choice of words was rather constrained .115.188.178.77 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sinclair is definitely wedded to the phrase: he repeats it in The Origins of the Maori Wars (searchable on Google Books). However it is probably his writings that Belich criticises when he says (The New Zealand Wars) that the terms "moderates" and "extremists" are "contemporary misnomers" that have stuck. Tom Brooking's The History of New Zealand (p.55) refers to Grey's "portrayal of the Kingites as extremists", but does so in a manner that suggests he is not convinced. Vincent O'Malley addresses the "extremist" tag directly in this report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal in 2010. In what is essentially a review of historians' views on the claim that there were divisions within Kingitanga between "moderates" and "extremists", he says: "The depiction of Ngati Maniapoto generally and Rewi Maniapoto in particular as extremists with an almost fanatical determination to fight the British runs deep in the historiography of the New Zealand Wars, all the way from John Featon to G.W. Rusden, James Cowan to Keith Sinclair and Alan Ward." (p.360). In the end, he says the term has little merit at all and greatly exaggerates the ideological differences within the movement. Given that tertiary source, and the fact the term is disputed, it would be better to remove from the article any description of Rewi Maniapoto or Ngati Maniapoto as "extremists". BlackCab (TALK) 07:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a good example of "undue weight" and "recentism". I'm not criticizing O'Malley but it is only a single opinion against the weight of many others you have listed. If you read the full accounts of what actually happened at the various meetings such as at Peria and others in Te Awamutu it is obvious from the bare accounts there was a huge difference between differing Waikato factions-both before and after the war. To take one event -near Mercer one groups of Kingites were throwing timber in the river while another was pulling it out.There was yelling and screaming and they almost came to blows.The timber was for a magistrates court that moderate Kingites had requested. At Peria, Wiremu Kingi and the king were both moderates-both arguing for more talks and both against the use of violence. Rewi was clearly leading the pro violence group. He was being encouraged by Catholic missionaries who never missed an opportunity to point out that the government , the magistrates and the LMS and Wesleyan missionaries all held hands. As for Grey, he understood more about Maori culture than Maori!

King (not mentioned above)was a great one for over looking unsavoury detail that reflected badly on Maori. He could barely bring himself to write the word cannibal! It is typical of Belich's well known revisionism to knock any idea supported by the British of that era. The moderate (anti violence)views of Thompson and Ngtai Haua are shown by the fact that after the initial skirmishes in 1863 they played no major part , surrendered as soon as possible ,lost little land (none of their core rohe) and by 1865 were busy making arrangements to sell large areas of their core rohe for cash- to the very people they were fighting against. You cant get more moderate than that, as, allegedly, holding onto their land was a core Kingtanga belief! No Ngati Haua went with Rewi into the King country. No Ngati Haua fought at Orakau.

Once in the KC a clear rift developed between the moderate, passive King and the warlike Rewi. It is not well known that after Orakau, Rewi built 3 more pa in the King Country -at Haurua,Te Roto-Marama and at Paratui ie while the moderates wanted peace the extremists wanted to keep on fighting. For some time the king was so angry with Maniapoto he set out for Taranaki with his entourage. Maniapoto's continued belligerence is shown by Rewi's forces murdering 3 Europeans along the Puniu River soon after the war had "finished". Based purely on what they said and did at the time it is very clear there were a wide range of views within the rebel camp. Don't forget the whole point of modern treaty tribunal was too paint the government as black as possible.It was not a legal court but an advisory body. There was no cross examination and mythological hearsay from 150 years ago was accepted as evidence. One researcher was even told to rewrite what he had researched otherwise he would not get paid.115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You may need to read the Wikipedia essay on recentism: it bears no relevance at all to your argument. Since we are here discussing just one adjective, there is also no issue of undue weight. As O'Malley's paper highlights, there is great disagreement among historians over the use of the term "extremists", and so the term should not remain because it expresses just one, disputed, opinion. I will therefore remove it from this article as well as Invasion of the Waikato. As a compromise, I have kept Sinclair's description, but added the contrary views. BlackCab (TALK) 09:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have totally distorted what O'Malley wrote! What he did say was that most historians, like Sinclair, supported the "extremist" view. Only 3 had opposing -one of whom is not even an historian but works in media. At least one of the "anti" brigade is himself an "extremist" who regularly promulgates separatist views. It is very clear that Rewi was an extremist compared to nearly all of the other key Maori leaders, especially Wiremu Thompson. It is important to look at Rewi's personality to see why he held such views and why he acted in certain ways. Importantly why did other chiefs eg Wiremu Kingi and other hapu find it easy to persuade Rewi to take part in violent acts -often seemingly against his best interest? 115.188.178.77 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

O'Malley's conclusion about the appropriateness of frequent references in the past to extremist factions is pretty clear, Claudia. If you choose not to see that, I really can't help you. BlackCab (TALK) 13:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes he said it was a minority view.If he had looked into the background of the few who had that view he would have seen the low calibre ofeven these few. One of them is a close associate of Tuki "underpants" Morgan. Enough said!!!!

Capitalisation of 'Movement' in article title

The capitalisation of 'Movement' in the article title seems incorrect, unless 'Māori King Movement' is a proper name. In the List of social movements, 'movement' is not generally capitalised when it is not part of an organisation's name. Te Ara uses 'Māori King movement'.[5] NZHistory is inconsistent but mostly uses 'Māori King movement'.[6] Should we move the article to Māori King movement? Thoughts? Nurg (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)