Talk:Tāwhiao

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Connection to Mormonism section

It would be great to have some non-Mormon sources in this section, I've looked, without success.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

upload a creative commons image of this subject?

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/Cow01NewZ-fig-Cow01NewZ236a.html Says it's CC licenced, but I'm not quite sure how to upload it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 09:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Currently the article is in Category:New Zealand Latter Day Saints , Category:Converts to Mormonism and Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand. I propose to remove it from the first two, because there is considerable doubt about his conversion. The third is a good category, because whether or not he converted, he is a figure in the history of the church. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not much on the Character of the second Maori King

There is some evidence that the king was homosexual or perhaps bi sexual. Maori sources are very quiet on this aspect of his character.It was during his London adventure that these tendencies came to the fore.There is plenty of evidence that the King was very simple but how much this was due to lack of intelligence and how much due to just ignorance is hard to say. His reaction to sudden surprises was quite child like. Likewise he seems to have been very gullible. The best continuous record of these traits is from the London newspapers of that time. This was the only time when he was closely observed at close range by literate observers . It should be noted that not all "native" leaders were seem in this light in England, as African native "Kings" were lauded for their behaviour and perception during this period. The king still behaved in a very simple way in the 1880s-not dissimilar to many rural Maori struggling to understand European New Zealand. In this late period the king nearly came to blows with the government after he removed some navigation lights -mistaking them for some political symbol. At the same time Maori in the north were upset because dogs were being taxed. Their reaction was -"What next -men being taxed?"115.188.178.77 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The chances of finding rubbish like that in a reliable source are pretty low. You seriously think it would be worth including in an encyclopedia? BlackCab (TALK) 02:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is relatively little contemporary detail about the king. No one has ever disputed the facts of the newspaper accounts, which are extremely detailed. His trip lasted many months. If the newspaper accounts differed from other accounts then they may be suspect but in fact they tend to reinforce other opinions. Note other members of the king's party received coverage too but they were not considered to be so odd. It is important top show how the king was actually behaving and how people perceived him at the time.115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Grey speech to Kingites pre Waikato Campaign 1863

Grey made reference to a lot of kingite wrongs in the detailed speech -taking up arms, threatening attacks, murdering settlers etc and at the end refers to the treaty specifically in terms of their land. As the for attack on Auckland- not only did they have a plan (see Rewi talking with G.Mair post war) but they actually carried it out! There were 17 attacks of one kind or another in Auckland ,the largest was the attack on the East Pukekohe Church which resulted in a defeat for the Maniatoto lead insurgents. As well, many farms in the Runciman area were looted and animals shot for food. Ngati Haua forces attacked Auckland from the Wairoa Hills to the east which were covered in thick bush in those days. So the attack on Auckland was a classic pincer movement. The Wairoa Hills insurgents were cleared out by Forest Rangers who acted as "special forces" with their own weapons,(revolvers and bowie knives) uniforms and tactics.115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to Grey's speech? The statement you have reinstated in the article is unsourced and will be removed again if you don't provide one. BlackCab (TALK) 10:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The reference to the invasion of Waikato being "in defence of the Treaty of Waitangi" is only part of the very problematic paragraph I deleted. In what is meant to be a biography of Tawhiao, you have launched into an unashamedly one-sided presentation of the biggest campaign of the NZ Wars. Here, readers learn that:

• Many "loyal" Maori, including Waikato Maori, joined the government in their attack on Kingite forces;
• The invasion (which historians have stated plainly was aimed at securing more land for white settlers), was to "remove the threat of an attack on Auckland". Dalton and Belich have made plain that Grey exaggerated the "threat" to the Colonial Office in order to gain military support for his long-planned invasion;
• Waikato Maori "tried to attack Auckland but were defeated at Pukekohe East". Utter rubbish. The attack was part of a long series of harassing guerrilla attacks by Kingite forces. You might like to produce any evidence from a reliable published source that the attack in September 1863 was part of a larger attempt to attack Auckland.
• The Kingite forces were "defeated in 17 more battles", ignoring whatever victories that took place; and
• The Kingite forces were "forced to retreat in the face of superior generalship, a naval armada, a huge modern professional army ..." emphasising only their defeats.

Sorry, but that's not balanced encyclopedic coverage, it's propaganda. The Te Ara encyclopedia entry on Tawhiao, by contrast, presents a balanced biography without attempting to portray him and the Kingite movement in such a negative light. BlackCab (TALK) 11:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I intend to revert your ill considered deletions. All of the points above are historically accurate and factually correct. For instance the number of Maori deaths at Pukekohe East was similar to those at Rangiriri. Are you saying Rangiriri was not an important battle? Pukekohe East is in Auckland. Most of the 17 victories were in Auckland.(eg Burts Farm, Titi Hill, Kiri kiri, Martyn's farm, Rhodes clearing, Williamsons clearing etc)If the rebels weren't attacking Auckland then who was? Whatever "victories" the rebels had in Auckland were largely murdering unarmed settlers and ambushes of unprepared supply troop with their arms stacked. The last point is indisputable! Cameron was a vastly superior general to any of the Maori leaders-more importantly he won! He was on a completely different level. Yes, they did have a vast riverine naval force-indisputable.The rebel Maori waka were captured and or sunk so they had to walk . The number and effectiveness of loyal Waikato is often over looked but is refereed to in numerous texts.To enumerate:1 Rescued the wives and children of settlers who were about to be kidnapped(pre war)and took them to safety. 2 Guided the British troops past Maori defensive lines at Paterangi. 3 Piloted naval ships through the Waikato Heads allowing supplies to be bought in by ship. Built and manned blockhouse at Rangiriri after the battle to control that area.4 The loyal chief of this are became an MP in the NZ parliament 5 Supplied local fresh food to the troops. The govt forces would have won anyway but the cooperation of the Waikato people who remained loyal speeded up the process and stopped unnecessary bloodshed. Grey's speech: you have been caught out! You previously claimed there was no reference to the treaty in his speech but clearly you didnt even read it!! Other interested editors please take note! It is really stupid to suggest that this is just propaganda. You are being ridiculous. Rebels were attacking Auckland. Are you saying that if the army had just waved to them they would not have gone into the town and created mayhem? Remember what happened in the Bay of Islands?? . Other knowledgeable editors may have some suggestions for Black cab. Remember what Sir Winston Churchill said -"you never win a war by running away".The surrender of Ngati Haua and their large land selling programme post 1864 showed that the kingtangi was so divided it had no future. Ngati Haua had come in from the cold. Ngati Maniapoto followed. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a published reference to Grey's speech! I am dying to know when he delivered this speech and to whom, and when he said the invasion of Waikato was "in defence of the Treaty of Waitangi" as you claimed. To expand your own woeful knowledge of events that led to the July 1863 invasionm you may wish to read Vincent O'Malley's excellent 2013 NZ Journal of History article, "Choosing Peace or War: The 1863 invasion of Waikato". In the meantime, please desist from inserting your laughably one-sided version of history into this article. BlackCab (TALK) 08:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with BlackCab on these issues. The edits being made by the IP address read to me as being heavily influenced by the general tone of the 19th-century propaganda that was written about this topic. Modern sources are far fairer and neutral in tone and substance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This IP user, who sometimes identifies herself as "Claudia", (see [1] and [2])) was blocked in November 2014 for similar problems—ignoring reliable sources, claiming certain historians with whom she disagreed were "discredited", fabricating sources, adding sloppy, poorly-sourced material and treating other editors with ridicule. She seems to have learned nothing from her 12-month block and I am approaching the point of reporting her again. Her past inglorious history is on display here, here and various other places in ANI archives. She has a very definite agenda and is unwilling to yield to others. BlackCab (TALK) 08:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors sometimes miss the point that although it is history now it was real life back then. It is important that history is seen through the eyes of the contemporaries, as well as modern eyes. While later historians are of course free to make comments they frequently overlook the culture(or mood) of the time. Its ironic that all sorts of allowances are made for a Maori view point (as per the treaty tribunal)but there is a great reluctance to admit that that the British also had a valid, contemporary, cultural perspective . Of course neither is acceptable now .The Maori culture was often naive, barbaric and backward and the British was understandably Eurocentric and confident ,although they had far greater understanding of Maori than Maori had of the British- largely due to their greater literacy,education ,experience in governance and more advanced technology.Even extreme militants like Rewi Maniapoto eventually came to understand that but too late to prevent bloodshed. Leaders like Grey did have a genuine understanding of Maori. He got a lot of his knowledge from Octavius Hadfield a remarkable individual who had been assimilated by Maori.

O'Malley is one of about 60 authors I am familiar with who has written on the topic.The worst author, who had owned up to having anti British attitudes is J.Belich. I have noticed that Blackcab relies very heavily on this revisionist historian in many of his edits. It is ironic that since the criticism of his populist book(and Tv series which Blackcab is partial too) on the 1863-64 war, Belich has been remarkably quiet on the topic ,especially after military historian C Puglsey politely and scientifically dismembered many of his arguements. I do note that his "Replenishing the Land" has quite a different ie less strident and more reasoned viewpoint towards the British -lesson learnt. Of course his excuse was that the book was based on his university thesis, as if that is somehow acceptable.

If you care to check Grey's 11 july 1863 proclamation(published 15 July 1863 NZ Gazette)near the end you will see: "They (kingitanga extremists)will forfeit the right to them(lands)guaranteed under the the treaty of Waitangi which lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting then in the future".The proclamation (-NB proclamations had the force of law and were used when there was some urgency to a matter) was written in both English and Maori.This is the account you clearly didn't read when you said the treaty was NOT referred to by Grey. It occurs to me this Melbourne editor may be a a Mozzie? For editors outside NZ and Australia this refers to a person of NZ Maori descent living permanently in Australia. In Maori culture there is a strong belief that women should not speak out but men should be the talkers and leaders. This is based on a hangover of the ancient warrior code that held women to be of little account, perhaps best seen in the widespread practice of female infanticide in the old Maori community. This can still be seen today in the banning of women from talking on a marae or not allowing women ,however well qualified (such as when NZ had a female PM) from even sitting on the front bench of the marae. This feeling is still very widespread and deep seated even today.You cant detect such attitudes on a computer screen of course but a characteristic of such people is to find any reason possible to stop women having their say.

To go back to my original point: editors must be very careful not to give undue weight to recent accounts of history which are written totally from a modern perspective. Revising history must be done in a very careful and thoughtful way, always bearing in mind the immense cultural gap between then and now. In retrospect some of the information put in this article by me would be better elsewhere as it does not relate directly to the 2nd Maori king.115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Claudia, your claim in this edit was that the colonial government invaded Waikato "in defence of the Treaty of Waitangi." In this comment at the talk page you claimed Grey explained this in a "detailed speech". You now refer to Grey's second proclamation to hostile Waikato Maori, (dated 11 July but, as O'Malley proves, not printed or distributed until July 15, four days after he began the invasion) in which he threatens them with the loss of their lands the treaty had guaranteed. It is totally fallacious to suggest that Grey's written threat of war (days after he had begun it!) and confiscation was in any way a defence of a treaty signed 23 years earlier. There was no speech, there was no "defence". Your edit was wildly inaccurate and completely dishonest. BlackCab (TALK) 01:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again you are exaggerate. A proclamation has far more legal force than a speech.It is law. You said there was no reference to the treaty (without even reading it!)On the face of it, it seems that Rewi and the other violent extremists could argue that they weren't warned their land was going to be confiscated but this would be to totally ignore the flood of information coming in to Grey re Kingite plans to attack Auckland and the enormous flow of detail between Grey and R. Maniapoto over the preceding years. ie Grey knew from T. Ngapora that Rewi was behind all of the violent acts that preceded the war as he (Rewi) wanted war. I know you don't like the idea that such a plan even existed but there is 100% certainty that it did exist AND of course it was put into action which makes it conclusive! The most important and reliable source for this was Tamati Ngapora of Ngati Mahuta, who had moved with 131 N.Mahuta to Mangere with Te Wherowhero, ironically, to defend Ak against Maori attack. He was very highly place by both camps(Te Wherowhero actually wanted him to be the next king). When the king went back to the Waikato Ngapora stayed behind to be the king's representative to the Governor. When the war started Ngapora went back to be with Tawhaio to his advisor but kept out of the fighting. Don't forget that Grey had intercepted a message from Rewi saying "Me patu te Pakeha"(kill the Europeans ) so he was in no doubt of Rewi's intentions. It was Ngapora who kept Grey informed of Ngati Maniapoto plans to attack Auckland as Ngapora was in the "peace" camp. When the major attack took place - at Pukekohe East, Auckland in Sept 1863 about 150 of the rebels were N Maniapoto. The total rebel force was about 300 warriors -bigger than at Rangiriri when the rebels were defeated. The defeat by a tiny force of just 17 settlers and soldiers in the church resulted in about 45 dead rebels -about the same number who died at Rangiriri. You cant just make the Pukekohe East Battle vanish or pretend it didn't happen!115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for your skewed interpretations of history. Wikipedia articles stick to the facts contained in reliable published sources. Unfortunately, Claudia, other editors are forced to follow you round Wikipedia undoing and correcting the rubbish you write into articles, which is why you were blocked for a year from contributing. BlackCab (TALK) 05:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:King Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero, by Gottfried Lindauer.jpg

His portrait or not? Can be used in articles. --Shakko (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)