Talk:Parihaka

Comment

"Women and girls were raped leading to an outbreak of syphilis in the community."

There needs to be a source for this statement or I'm going to remove it (I have no idea if it is true or not). I've checked all five of the external links. Syphilis isn't mentioned at all. Rape is mentioned only once, in the PDF "Parihaka and the Gift of Non Violent Resistance". That document says, "THE INVASION WAS MARKED BY RAPES", but it is not qualified and no evidence is mentioned. --Cbotman 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Almost removed Military History tag as article is just barely within scope of project. More expansion to the article and the "invasion" would bring this article much more in line with the scope of the Military History project. --dashiellx (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

History section

In adding the chronology of the Parihaka settlement through the late 1800s, it's become apparent that a section under the heading "History" may not be appropriate. Most of the article is actually going to be history, which means that apart from a small section about redress, it's all going to fall under the one section heading, with way too many sub-headings. A better way, I think, is to treat the article as mostly an historical examination, so after the lead section, it will then go into section headings covering the initial establishment of the settlement, the growing tensions over land, the arrests and the invasion, etc. The information on redress and the peace festival can thus appear as their own sections towards the end. I'm still working my way through the chronology, approaching the invasion, so I'll make these changes when I go into it next if there are no objections. The article so far relies mostly on two sources, but I'll expand my search for more sources as I proceed. Grimhim (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Split

I have suggested a split of the article. There are two topics: the town and the resistance by Maori to the European settlers. The latter topic is a notable part of NZ history and as such it deserves its own article. The info about the "conflict" also overshadows the article about the town. I have suggested the "conflict" qualifier on the new article title. It is not particularly accurate since it suggests actual fighting on both sides. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the value in a split. This article is almost entirely about the 19th century history, with a little bit about modern redress and remembrance. The only material relating to the current locality is the infobox and first sentence. We would not normally have an article on such a locality, which has no amenities (such as a primary school) that I am aware of, and about which there is probably very little to say other than relating to its history. It may be appropriate to replace the infobox with one such as {{Infobox Military Conflict}}, and move the information in the current infobox into the article.-gadfium 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any value either. I ask you to please be very careful, I dont think it's appropriate to refer to this community as a 'town' either. I've been there several times, shot about 100 hours of HD video footage. The best plan would be to ask the local people how they would like to be represented here in wikipedia and take that into account. I do see that the Parihaka International Peace Festival deserves an article of its own, and I'm waiting for an era of solidarity in our kiwi contributors to create such a thing. The festival is a very important part of our summer music history, and is even more important as an annual sharing and source of alternative lifestyle and philosophy ideas and support.Paul Moss (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Gadfium's comments are right on the button. Absolutely no value in splitting this. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't write themselves. If you think the peace festival warrants an article, write it. As the author of the bulk of the history section within the article, I strongly support leaving it as it is without a split. Parihaka's notability is primarily due to the struggle that took place at that locality over land ownership and sovereignty, and most users reading this article would arrive there because they want to know more about that struggle and conflict. The suggestion that the people of Parihaka be consulted about how this article should be written is a curious one. Wikipedia articles are written by Wikipedia editors based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It's of no relevance how the subject of the article wishes to be portrayed. Grimhim (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors should closely check their history before deleting material.

The most recent history reasearch shows that Te Whiti knew he was illegally on land owned by the government.Te Whiti never came up with a coherent reason why he though he could just take over government land. He gave 3 different and conflicting justifications for his reoccupation. It is clear that from early on Te Whiti was hoping to force the governmnet into giving him title to the Parihaka land .It is clear he was thinking in terms of the Maori concept of ahi kaa-ie if Maori didnt occupy the land and use it then it was up for grabs. He chose not to ignore the fact that no such thing exists in NZ law. While the vast majority of South Taranaki Maori were content to take Takoha ( an equivalent of a modern "no fault"payment to settle a dispute.)from the government, Te Whiti was determined to bring about a confrontation. The government had drawn up plans for giving native reserve to the tangatawhenua near Parihakabut but they knew that many of the Parihaka people were not locals -they had come from many other hapu. The government had every legal right to build a road under the public works act.Te Whiti had no legal right to block the road. When the government refused to be provoked TE Whiti then ordered his people onto private farms(most had been owned by settlers for 20 years) and told them to take down farmers fences allowing stock to wander and destroy the pasture by ploughing it up. The law then is vitually identical to what it is now-you cant just block aroad or wander onto farms and start using them for yourself. It was a lawless act then and it would be lawless act now. At first site the use of an army seems a bit heavy handed, but ,not withstanding Te Whiti's message of peace, amongst his people were known criminals( at least one murderer) and Maori who had previously taken part in violent, warlike acts against settlers and the government in preceeding years. All of the people who were arrested were given ample opportunity to leave peacefully but chose to ignore the law. The arrests and trials were all according to law that had been passed by parliament -a parliament that had 4 Maori MPs. It is interesting that we have detailed information about the events in Parihaka from 3 neutral sources who had secreted themselves in the vilage despite the warnings of the military. Given the tension of the situation and the normal standards of behaviour of those days the removal of very determined squatters was done in a very fair and businesslike way. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone was raped-this is just another Maori myth.

What "most recent history research"? References, references, references. It is somewhat ironic that you are claiming that there is "absolutely no evidence" for something you call a "Maori myth" when you are either unwilling or unable to cite references yourself. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Language that is not easy to understand

Second paragraph of the opening, "arms against the settlers and killed Maori who wished to land part of their land. Recognising that he could never win a war against the government, Te Whiti and Tohu declared they would use spiritual powers" has two grammar mistakes first is to land part of their land and I cannot understand what it means. Next is "Recognising that he could... declared they would use" that is related to both Te Whiti and Tohu, appropriately they' not he.

Later, in First Resistence this: while MP Major Harry Atkinson encouraged farms to enrol as specials and begin drilling? Encouraged farms to.. begin drilling? This grammar and spelling makes it very difficult for translators to work with your text and correctly reporduce it in other languages.

I didn't go any further but It seems to me that you need a good editor with reasonable authority to clean-up your writing and make it readable. 124.171.197.138 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Minor adjustments made to help translation,although despite errors I think the meaning, in English anyway, was clear.FYI there is no such word as "reporduce" in English.I think you mean reproduce?Cheers 1%