Talk:Invasion of the Waikato

"Unjust confiscation" - isn't this POV? Some people would argue that for thousands of years men have fought other men for control over their land.

Well, considering the NZ government paid a lot of money and the Queen made a formal apology about it, perhaps it is a fair statement of fact. older≠wiser 23:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that was what I had inmind when I used the word "unjust". It was the judgement of history, not my own. ping 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"rendered the Paterangi Line redundant" ... I think the word should be "moot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.193.68 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's good to see this linked from the main page. However, the current title "Invasion of Waikato" seems wrong to me. It's always "the Waikato" in common speech, and in everything else I've read. However since it was changed from "Invasion of the Waikato" almost a year ago, maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone object to changing it back?

I think it should likewise be "the Waikato" and "the King Country" in the text. -- Avenue 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The title is wrong and misleading.This was a series of battles that was really a continuation of the Taranaki Campaign.It should be entitled "The Waikato Campaign".Dont forget that at least 4 Tainui chiefs had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so the Government was entitled to feel that the Waikato area was part of NZ.You cant invade a piece of land that you already have as part of your nation.When Te Whero wero was asked why he wouldnt sign he said (at Manakau )that he had not been given enough presents ie tobacco,blankets etc-ie he felt he had been undervalued by the govt.It is PC now to forget that the 1860 govt really did believe the Kingites were rebels.28 Sept 2010 Claudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.191.195 (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The use of the word 'the' is problematic for several reasons, in my humble opinion. First, it is too common, and often superfluous. It can cause problems with properly indexing the content. It often implies an event that is more important than it really is, although in this case the invasion effectively ended large-scale, organized resistance by the Maori.

Let me give you an example: The Battle of the Bulge was a seminal event near the end of the second world war. It reminded the allied troops that the German Army was not something to be trifled with, even as it was being defeated, and that whatever they thought they knew about its capabilities could in a moment be swept aside by the fact of a few divisions on the ground, racing for a sector classed as a resting area for active-duty front-line troops.

I would agree that for the Maori, invading Waikato was a seminal event. For the British though, it was a fairly minor policing action that the Maori had no chance of seriously opposing, given that besides the 2000 front line troops, there were an additional 8000 troops guarding forts along the supply route. In my example above, the Germans almost opened a hole in the allied line big enough to drive an entire army through.

I don't really care one way or the other, since I object to the title using the word 'invasion' in the first place. Maori had already recognized the technological and farming improvements brought by the British Colonialists (including potatoes). Maori might not like it, but the title would be more accurate if it were titled something like 'King Movement Suppression'. I know I don't have the ideal solution just yet, but agree we should talk about it. Kadathdreamques (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:Avenue. Furthermore the move from "Invasion of the Waikato" to "Invasion of Waikato" was done by User:Otto4711, a disruptive user who has long since been banned. Kadathdreamques mistakenly thought that Avenue was suggesting a "The" at the start of the title, and while Claudia disagreed with other aspects of the name, she agreed with a "the" before "Waikato". Nurg (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

One editor keeps adding things that look like links, and yet if I try a manual search with them, I get no results.

I am tempted to just remove them, but don't want to get into an edit war.Kadathdreamques (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

CONFISCATION FIGURES The problem with figures showing the ammount of confiscated land is that quite early on after the Waikato campaign a large ammount (275,000 acres or about 23%) was returned almost immediately returned-most of it was as native reserves but some of it (50,000acres)to individual hapu who had in fact supported the Govt.The kingitanga has always beeen sore about this as they claim it was returned to the wrong people but have never produced any evidence to back this point as far as I can see.I suspect they are quiet as the land was infact "stolen" from other hapu during the preceeding musket wars.

Now ,some of the total figures include land that was already returned.Of course in the Waikato only a fraction of the "Govt" land was ever taken up as so few settlers wanted land in the Waikato when they could get land much easier in the Sth Is,which was owned by the govt ,was largely flat and forest free.Most important of all it was peaceful there. Most of the land surveyed around Hamilton and given to soldiers was abandoned ,or on -sold to officers or land speculators by 1865-67.Hamilton did not reach 1000 settlers till 1900!ie Between 1863-64 and 1900 the population grew by 200 people-so much for the big land grab myth. Claudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.157.212 (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is a big stretch to call the Maori sytem of retribution "law".The system was suited to illiterate tribal folk in lieu of anything better and depended very much on the person and the mood of the people and the chief-in other words it was arbitrary.Without a literate society or a good chunk of society ,then the function and administration of law becomes haphazard in other words it was based on lore and custom.Maori had no separate legal or justice system.Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.160 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It has been suggested before that in view of what is now known that this is a better title than Invasion of the Waikato....It must be recalled that a significant number of Maori toa-some from the Waikato supported the Govt.A large number of the battles took place in Auckland -well north of the self declared Maori border giving significant credance to the "attack on Auckland "scenario.I believe in all there were about 9 conflicts in Auckland . After the war when the confiscations first took place a large number of hapu protested as they had either fought on the govt side or remained neutral- so they were returned land.The pa/stockade that was established at Rangiriri on a hill near the present village was occuppied by a rangitira who supported the govt.The confiscation figures show that the actual proportion of the land taken was small-even then much was returned after 1864.The old idea of the war being a "land grab" has been largely discredited.The Waikato did not have any real economic development of note till the 1920s-it was not till the swamps were drained , the land fertilized ,road and rail links established and the British market for butter and cheese developed that the population grew.Also can you "invade "land that is already part of Nz and had been for 23 years?It should be noted that 44 Waikato chiefs signed the treaty in 1840 according to the treaty road show.The old idea that the land wars was Maori v Pakeha is clearly wrong.What happened in the King Country after the war ie tension/conflict between Maniapoto and the Kingitanga over who should sell the land for the railway shows that the war was about Maori who wanted to sell land being able to do so without being threatened (or killed as happened at Waitara).With Maniapoto(who had been the most violent anti govt in 1860-1864-changing their mind to a pro govt stance, the Kingitanga was left high and dry-at one stage the King was so distraught that he considered going to Taranki according to the royal house -though to do what is not revealed.Clearly the govt wanted:-the rule of law-the suppression(note not necessarily the destruction) of the kingitanga and peace.King Movement Suppression anyone? Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.26 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The original Treaty Of Waitangi documents clearly show that 44 Waikato area chiefs signed the treaty.In the Treaty Road Show this was changed to 4 chiefs ,which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake. The iwi clearly broke the treaty by going to war against the government. The steps in the Waikato war were:1 the attack on Kawau Island to steal massive supplies of gunpowder,2 the attempted seaborne invasion of Auckland via the Waitemata Harbour,3 The attack by Rewi Maniapoto on the troops at Taranaki when a truce was in place.4 The attempt by Rewi to murder the CMS missionary in Te Awamutu,5 The burning down of the Te Awamutu mission and the Maori trade school 6 The building of the secret base for thousands of warriors in the Wairoa Hills in Auckland 7 The refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen 8 The refusal to hand in Firearms 9 The forcing of all settlers out of the Waikato 10 The actual attacks on settlers and soldiers in Auckland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.164 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article has been tagged since 2008 for inadequate sourcing. You continue to add material, much of it not directly relevant to the article's subject, without citations. I have also found one example (which I have removed) where the citation was incorrect. The charitable view is that the editor copied down the wrong page number; an alternative view is that it was added to give the appearance of authenticating the claim. Much of the problematic material has been added by one editor, and comments such as those above ("which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake") provide further proof of that editor's determination to have many NZ articles reflect their own outlook on history. All new material must carry a full and correct citation or it will be challenged and removed. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have seldom read such a pompous paragraph on wiki.The bottom line of wiki is assume good faith. Blackcob seems to ignore that and make all sorts of weird and wonderful assumptions and inferences that are far fetched and simply untrue. They seem dedicated to an ultra conservative view of history that bares little resemblance to the known facts in 2013.I would call it "1950s thinking". I no longer have the book which you refer to as having a wrong citation so I cant recheck it. I presume you have the book ?It would be more scholarly to put in the correct page number (assuming it is incorrect), rather than delete the whole section. You seem to be a very negative person. You use the term "problematic material", when I think you mean material that is new to you or that does not equate to your ultra conservative view of the world. To me it seems you need to read more widely and to adopt a new more open view of history.Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

Actually the bottom line of Wikipedia is the five pillars. The second of those is that material must be written from a neutral point of view (which you constantly ignore) and that articles strive for verifiable accuracy, which you also ignore. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." WP:V also states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Your answer above shows that you don't understand much of that at all, or choose to ignore it. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

IP user 122.62.226.243, who has been blocked several times for disruptive editing, has persisted in reinstating material [1] I deleted from this article for several reasons.
1. The statement about unprovoked attacks is unsourced opinion.
2. The reference to an unprovoked rebel attack in Taranaki explicitly contradicts the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal's report.
3. The Michael King citation is false. No such statement is at that page.
4. The claim that the king had no influence is unsourced opinion.
5. The reference to mounting Maori anger is inadequately sourced.
6. The wheat farms claim is unsourced opinion.
The IP user will be blocked again if he/she continues. BlackCab (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You continue to push the same line .Without going into all your points several of them are well covered by by the information from Gorst's book(which is already noted as a reference) who was actually present when most of these events were taking place.You should note that not all information from the Waitangi tribunal is reliable as this is not a court of law . The evidence presented is not sworn nor do the normal rules of evidence apply ie hearsay is quite acceptable. The tribumals"evidence" has to be weighed against what actually happened at the time, not an interpretation of what happened.There was a very disturbing event in 2012 when a historical researcher investigating Maori population trends in the South Islandin the 19th century, was refused payment by his employer because his findings did not match the preconceived ideas of his employers.Before he could be paid he was forced to alter(ie falsify) his conclusions. No doubt his "evidence" will appear online soon if it is not there already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whether the Waitangi Tribunal is a court of law is immaterial. Its report is a reliable source, though you've shown repeatedly you care nothing for that concept anyway. To you, whatever you believe is the truth. BlackCab (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

To repeat what I wrote above, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Also, from WP:V, Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. I did just that. BlackCab (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any sort of reference for that? I am sure, given past experience, that if any such event ever actually happened then the media would be all over it like flies on the proverbial; but I have never heard of any such event. Let's see a reliable source for it. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dave .Im not sure to whom that Q above is directed.Can you say what it is you are refering to when you say"...ref for THAT? I will then attempt to answer your question if it was directed to me.Thanks.If you are refering to the incident of "paid South Island pop history"from memory it was covered lightly in the media about 6??months ago.I saw it quite recently and like you was not aware of it thru the media.I will endeavour to track it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC) The author of the book "Treaty Corruption",the (previously!) highly regarded Dr John Robinson confessed that he had caved in to demands to change his findings to meet the expectations of his employer The Crown Forestry Rental Trust who have a large budget to buy historians.They were trying to prove that Maori pop decline was mainly due to the actions of Europeans settler (I gather-not having read the book). Robinson's original research showed otherwise but he changed his findings so he could get paid. Thee are numerous refs to this just google his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried googling for the author name and title you have supplied and the result was not one single link to any sort of reliable information about that alleged book; the only links are to blogs that appear to be reprinting an entry from a New Zealand-based white-supremacist blog. As such I sincerely doubt that any such book even exists, at least in any printed form.

If you are seriously claiming that white-supremacist blogs are any sort of reliable source for articles dealing with Māori topics, then I do not think it is possible for you to achieve any sort of consensus in these matters, and I do not believe any further conversation with you could be productive. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The book referred to here is The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy: A Treaty Industry Overview, published by Tross Publishing, which is evidently a niche or pay-to-publish outfit. The book seems to be very narrowly distributed and its sole publicity so far appears to be from anti-Maori conspiracist bloggers and Ian Wishart's Investigate magazine and website. WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES would seem to discount the book's use in an encyclopedia. BlackCab (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dave,

Your assertion that Paul Moon is a fringe writer of NZ history reveals your totally abysmal ignorance of New Zealand Historical literature.You should gracefully withdraw from editing any NZ history topics in the future while you maintain whatever little credibility you have left. I wander if you should be editing at all given your admission that you have a hot headed unbalanced approach.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please do not attack other editors, and instead address their arguments. Appropriate arguments would include Moon's qualifications and the positions he has held, and reviews of his works by other historians.

Moon is employed as Professor of History at AUT, and that makes him a professional historian in my opinion.-gadfium 08:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou gadfium!We have been through this all before- last year.I was being ironic! The problem is that old Dave follows my edits around destroying weeks of research by what I would call editorial mutilation. He is intensely negative, finding multiple reasons for deleting research that he doesnt agree with. His latest efforts are directed towards removing all material that uses Richard Stower's book on the Forest Rangers as a reference. This is the only book on the Rangers in NZ and is it backed by Chris Pugsly, New Zealand leading military historian and writer of a dozen or so books on NZ military history. What I was pointing out to Dave in a blunt way(clearly he recognise subtle hints) was that if he thinks that Paul Moon is a fringe writer then he has no credibility as an editor. Dave has already written to you last year that he suffers from a "knee jerk" anger problem when he makes edits. I think Moon is now up to 22 books and is a best selling author in NZ. In my correspondence with him I have always found him a very well balanced, thoughtful and level headed man. Stowers did a great job on the Forest Rangers filling in many of the blanks about this military unit in its operations in the Waikato and particularly in the East Coast.(no doubt Dave has gone and removed all that info as well -I haven't checked.) Stowers is a straight forward writer not a historical re interpreter such as Belich and not with a carefully hidden family history such as King.C. Does Wiki have a rule about editorial vandalism?It seems to have rules about everything else!Thanks for your patience.Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources at WP:USERG states: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Stowers is a fairly prolific writer on New Zealand military history and judging by his Forest Rangers book, he seems thorough and balanced. The question is whether reliable third-party publications accept him as an "established expert. The Waikato Times has referred to him as a "Gallipoli historian"[2], while NZPA and the New Zealand Herald have also published at least two stories based on his research.[3] [4]; the latter story included Stowers as a source alongside the curator of history, Auckland War Memorial Museum; an RSL historian, a researcher at Massey UNiversity's Centre for Defence Studies, and the Hocken Library, Otago. The Bay of Plenty Times also published a story in 2012 about his deal with a UK publisher of aviation books, militaria, collectables and art for distribution in Europe; this article also refers to Stowers' extensive catalogue of published works. [5] I'm quite comfortable with accepting Stowers' work. The IP editor has to stop inserting his/her own comments and opinions in edits, however. All will be removed. I have no idea of the significance of Peter Moon in this thread and suggest the IP editor discuss the issue without resorting to childish personal attacks. BlackCab (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am very busy and do not have the time to address this typically Claudiatic tissue of conspiracy and fabrication other than to point out that (1) much of her claims are outright falsehoods, most easily demonstrated in that the polytechnic Mr. Moon is not even under discussion, neither is he quoted in the article; (2) anyone who, as shown in the previous section, gets their information from white-supremacist blogs is the one who should not be editing subjects on New Zealand history; and (3) the most relevant Wikipedia 'rule' on vandalism is here. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am going to begin a very necessary cleanup project on this article, which has suffered for too long from an excess of extraneous, unsourced detail. The article does a poor job of explaining the background to the invasion and includes simplistic claims about why Grey launched the invasion. There are excellent sources that can be used, including Belich, Keith Sinclair, Michael King, WH Oliver, James Cowan and BJ Dalton; the few citations the article does use are incomplete and in some cases questionable.

I have completed the first stage, which I'll upload in a day or two: this cleans up the lead section and replaces "Aftermath of the First Taranaki War" with a new section, "Background and origins of the invasion", which will be fully sourced to those authors. My guess is that the section "Preparation to suppress the Kingitanga", which is completely unsourced, ignores Wikipedia style, and will repeat sourced material in the new "Background" section, can mostly be deleted. I'll continue to work my way through the article, cleaning up sections on specific battles as I go. BlackCab (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

First section completed. I'm now pausing to clean up Battle of Rangiriri, from which I'll create a more succinct summary to insert in this article. BlackCab (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor has added a statement that "However recently historians who worked for the Treaty Tribunal are questioning whether the decisions reached were based on sound research and good judgement. Historian Michael Belgrave says that the Tribunal started with preconceived ideas of the outcomes..."[6] Only one historian is mentioned here; who are the others? Does his comment relate directly to the Waikato settlements? If not, the statement would not be relevant to this article. Can a page number also be provided for this statement. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to the author, who worked with the tribunal for many years ,the tribunal's view was that the NZ Wars was just one event,although with intermittent outbreaks of actual warfare, in different areas, with just one cause traced back to events around Waitara. He does not name the other historians but makes it clear that it is not just his view. Possibly protecting the jobs of those historian critics who still work for the tribunal? He was also disturbed at the tribunal accepting uncorroborated oral evidence of ancient events(I guess ancient 5th hand?? hearsay)but not investigating written documentations which apparently contradicted the oral submissions. He was referring to the 1990s-he made no comment on if this is still happening. However given events around the historian who resigned over the tribunals attempted manipulation of his Ngai Tahu research more recently, this kind of event still appears to be an ongoing issue. The Tribunal would no doubt argue that it is not a court, so it is not bound by the same laws as courts, so they can admit hearsay evidence in the interests of equity. Also they don't cross examine witnesses as they do in courts to establish the basis of their evidence. Equity is a concept behind many of their decisions, just as it was for the earlier Sims report. Belgraves goes into far more detail of the tribunal belief systems. You have to remember that it was an organization set up so Maori could extract equity from the crown so its driving force is quite different to a court of law ,as are the systems it uses to extract equity.

My own thoughts are that because the government of the day does not have to accept the tribunal's findings there is much emphasis on painting the crown's historical actions as black and as dramatic as possible to attract the media's attention to build public pressure or expectation. This was especially evident with events in Taranaki and Parihaka in particular, where historians were embarrassed by the tribunal's use of highly fanciful language. The media normally, of course, pays almost no attention at all to the actual proceedings-Tama Iti has to fire off his shotgun before they will turn up!

The one thing that has emerged from the tribunal's dealings with Tuhoe recently is that they are highly selective in the "evidence " they hear as it relates to time and occupation -ie investigating evidence that shows Tuhoe as tangatawhenua of the Ureweras but totally ignoring evidence that does not support this view. This seems to be the kind of situation that Belgraves and others are rightly concerned about, although this particular issue is outside the time frame of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your edit still contains a very sweeping statement and I want to ensure it is directly relevant to this article. So three simple questions. On what page does Belgrave make this statement? Where does he state that this is the view of other historians? And are his comments directed specifically to the Waikato wars? BlackCab (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your (122.62.226.243) statement is also completely undermined by the phrase My own thoughts are. As editors we're not here to think and research, we're here to summarise the reliable, published secondary sources, even when we believe or know them to be wrong. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have just removed this again, twice. It seems to me that there are several things wrong with having it in the intro including: (1) It doesn't summerise a point made in more detail in the body; It is a both a primary source, and an offline one - surely if this what he says is both important and credible there should be online or offline discussion of it that can be referenced? - and of course it ruins the tidy "wrap" of the intro (g). Now, if these things are addressed, then his opinion may have a place in the body of the article - but I doubt that it would warrant any change to the intro. Snori (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The statement might, with better sourcing, be appropriate at Waitangi Tribunal, but it doesn't belong in this article at all in its present state because it doesn't directly address the subject of the Invasion of the Waikato. For it to be relevant to this article, it would need to specifically criticise the findings or process of the Tribunal in its consideration of these battles, and on a matter which was of sufficient importance that this article mentioned the Tribunal. At present, the only such reference appears to be the rather general statement in the second to last paragraph:

The Waitangi Tribunal in 1985 declared the Tainui people of the Waikato had never rebelled,[42] but had been forced into a defensive war.[43]

Did Belgrave and others (who need to be named so we can determine their relevance) say anything specific about this conclusion?-gadfium 06:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gadfium. The point that Belgrave was trying to make was that the findings of the tribunal can be considered unsafe as so many of the findings were based on unsound "evidence". In another section he makes the point that the tribunal accepted as gospel some previous highly dubious previous histories.ie the histories were accepted by the Sim report, so that was good enough for the tribunal. He also makes the point that the tribunal even accepted Scott's Parihaka book as an honest unbiased basis of what happened(!!!!)to help them form their opinions. That is a new low. But no-he(nor the tribunal), referred specifically to this campaign against the Kingitangi rebels because they considered the Land War one long event starting at Waitara. And no he didn't say anything about "a defensive war" in this context ie re this campaign, although he did make comment re the Waitara start of the war -"how can you rebel if you are attacked first" was a position that the tribunal accepted as fact.[ie Without knowing or caring about the context,particularly the position of the government]this bracketed part was suggested by Belgrave as a negative.ie they should have considered it to form a more rounded,secure position. Yes, probably best in both the NZ Land Wars and the Tribunal Section but I am rather too busy at work at the moment to bother with all this now. I have strange feeling that one day that statement will come back to bite the tribunal in the bum. But notice that the raupatu deal with Tainui was done directly with the government, not through the tribunal process, as Tainui had legal advise they would not win. What this means is that the "evidence" was going to be tested in a real court of law,not a "make believe" tribunal. Any good QC could drive a bulldozer through the tribunal "evidence" by eliminating hearsay,cross examining witnesses and not accepting books written by extreme socialist marxists, as factual. Tainui was smart enough to read the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In short, the editor's input was a generalised comment on tribunal findings by historian Michael Belgrave, which the editor decided to apply to a specific case. Clearly not acceptable here. BlackCab (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. That is not the case at all. As there were lots of campaigns,hundreds of battles and many more minor conflicts spanning 20 years or more etc the tribunal clearly couldnt look at each in minute detail, so it simply made a global decision or ruling that includes the Waikato Campaign and everything else. That is quite a different position altogether from what you are trying to state. Belgraves comment simply comments on the unsafe standard SOP of the tribunal.Its that simple really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted this edit[7] which stated that "in contrast", Browne persisted in trying to contact Tamihana to effect a peaceful settlement. Dalton (a New Zealand historian, not an American) was not reporting on any "contrast" to the well-known sequence of events leading to the Waikato invasion. As he explains in his JPS article (see p.202 and footnote 31) and his War and Politics book, Browne viewed the Kingite stance as a threat to Crown sovereignty; the only way to "peace" was if the King Movement renounced its claim to equal footing with the authority of the Crown. Browne briefly held a hope that Tamihana might be prepared to push the King Movement back from that hardline position, but it was about this time he learned he was to be replaced by George Grey as Governor and abstained from any further action to as to avoid locking his successor into any course. Thanks for the reference to the JPS article, however; I was previously unaware of it. BlackCab (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am going to revert the series of edits by IP:122.62.226.243 (aka Claudia) dated 27 October 2013 that changed the "First engagements" section heading to "The War In Auckland behind the Front" and added another section heading, the lamentably spelt and capitalised "Koheroa and the River Campaign at Mere mere". The edits are sloppy work that:

• (a) repeats material already in the article (see Camerontown, Martin's Farm (or Martyn's Farm as Claudia calls it), Pukekohe East as examples);
• (b) adds woefully inadequate citations (War Comes to Pukekohe. T Ryan. Stone Ed. 2005 and Papers Past. Attack on Parata.Colonist. 22 Dec 1863.p3 as examples);
• (c) contains manifestly careless writing ("The Kingitanga Maori were able to manoeuvre freely in the extensive bush covered hills in the Pokeno and Hunua(Wairoa)ranges to the north Of the the Mangatawhiri stream that the Kingitanga had claimed was a border."Maori hovered in the long belt of bush.. and so threatened the general's(Cameron) communications" ... as an example).
• (d) A flagrant disregard of Wikipedia style. "Four natives were killed, including 2 it was assumed ..." is just one example of a disregard for WP:MOSNUM and WP:ORDINAL. Sentences conclude with a fullstop, then another fullstop is added after the citations. "Sept 8 1863" disregards style on abbreviations. There are spaces before fullstops.

Without wanting to appear precious about this, I have worked hard to give this article a much-needed clean-up. It is of no benefit whatever to shovel in redundant material that is so poorly written. BlackCab (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your efforts to improve article but there are still big gaps. Because you have leaned quite heavily on Belich, NZ Wars, the article contains much the same emphasis. Belich's approach is recognized as flawed- mainly trying too hard to correct earlier accounts. Clearly the "Fighting behind the Lines" deserves its own section as it was a distinct and very important part of the conflict. I had not finished improving the new section (good things take time!)when you deleted it. I realised it still need a bit of work. You put in a lot of hard work on this one-time to let others improve or do your own improvement. Another suggestion: If you see technical wiki errors how about fixing a few rather than just deleting? That would be a far more positive contribution don't you think? To me some of your complaints are a bit pedantic.No one "owns" an article.Thanks Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a bit of detailed information from various sources-mainly C. Pugsley ,military historian from 1997. The plan of the pa on the site is not quite correct in that it does not show the projecting arm which appears to be an incomplete pa extension. A visit to the site shows all the positions quite easily. It reinforces the old idea that the pa was VERY poorly sited. It is on land that is virtually flat to the West, North and North East. It is overlooked by a thin ridge 800m to the SW. This ridge a far better pa site too and about 15-20m higher than the site used. Some authors have confused the position of the 4th on the battle field. On some maps they are shown as being in plain view of the Pa that is only 200m away to the North West. They may have been placed there on a rough map by Carey, but no self respecting British soldier would sit less than 200m, down hill, from a Maori pa and in the open. While most Maori in the pa were armed with double barrel shotguns they did have rifles that could easily reach 200m. On the down side Maori had a lot of coarse gunpowder they had made themselves by this late stage in the campaign, so shooting may have been variable. It is highly likely the 40th took up positions behind the hillock /slope. This would have given them shelter from any stray shots/shrapnel from the guns that were shooting across their front from the left. We know that many were employed cutting ti tree for the sap protection leaving only a few to guard the position. Perhaps the "ake ake" speech, where Maori inferred they would go down fighting, was just a ruse, it was only a few hours later that the bulk fled into the swamp past the 40th, chased by the forest Rangers. The present monument is very sparse, though in good condition. The information boards could be improved by the Historic Places Trust which have done a good job elsewhere.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re the links in the Battle of Rangiriri. Think it is fair to day that the link to the SMLE 303 is incorrect, being it didn't enter service until 1895. Assuming that the link should be to the page for the Pattern 1853 Enfield. All happy to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.194 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that was my error, and I think you're correct. I'll fix it. Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the chapter "Background and origins of the invasion", the final sentence of the first paragraph reads: "In response to Browne's belligerence, Kingite leaders formed plans to launch a violent raid on Auckland on 1 September, burning the town and slaughtering most of its residents.[12]"

That sentence gives the impression that Auckland was not only attacked, but was burned and most of its residents killed. I'm not aware of any burning, let alone "most" of the residents being killed. Due to bad grammar, the sentence appears to convey a false impression that the plan was carried out. Wouldn't a better construction be: "In response to Browne's belligerence, Kingite leaders formed plans to launch a violent raid on Auckland on 1 September in which the town would be burned and its residents slaughtered.[12]"

To be honest, I still don't like "violent raid", which is overly emotive, and in fact redundant since the town would be burned and residents killed. If the sentence is verbatim from [12] (Sinclair), it's not obvious from the text. I think that a far simpler construction would be "...formed plans to attack Auckland on 1 September and burn the town and slaughter its residents.[12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akld guy (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

There has been no response to my suggestion and the sentence has not been changed. It is not enclosed in quote marks, indicating that it's probably not a verbatim quote from reference 12. Accordingly I have edited the sentence to reflect my suggestion above. Akld guy (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The addition of details of the 1865 land return by the new government shows examples of who got the land and how much they got, as well as its exact location. All of this is new information which adds materially to understanding of the topic. As the source is 1865 the term "in rebellion' was (and still is) understood to apply to Maori who fought against the government in a failed attempt to set up a new Maori state under the kingite system. Further the detail shows that it was "rebels" who surrendered that got the land, not those who retreated into the King country and who were still "at war" with the government. The term rebels is a good one to distinguish between the minority of Maori who "rebelled" and fought the crown and the majority(or kupapapa) who either supported the NZ government or remained neutral. Further it shows that the defeated rebels had to swear allegiance to the crown -something that had been requested and refused prior to the Waikato campaign against the rebels starting in 1863.

W Thompson surrendered to the British after Rangiriri but then took up arms again in an ineffective, half hearted stand on the slopes of Maungatautari. He was rewarded for turning his back on the kingites by being allowed to keep most of his land(basically from just a few Km west of modern Morrinsville- all the way east to the Kaimai ranges). The strip of land that was taken was to protect the government supply lines along the Waikato River. Ngati Haua never did "own " or control that strip anyway-the best that can be said is that they had shared and overlapping interests with other Waikato hapu. That Ngati Haua land retained ownership can be shown by the fact that Wiremu Thomson/Tamihana was very busy selling swamp land to Auckland business men /farmers like Morrin and Firth in the 1870s and later Ngati Haua gave the Te Aroha hot springs(in the extreme east) to the government. The value of the swamp land sold in modern terms was about $1.5 million-not bad for a patch of bog. Further when the escaped convict and renegade Te Kooti rolled into Ngati Haua territory while on the run from the law, he was offering to protect their land as their new "king" in January 1870. Clearly he saw they had plenty of land that needed "protection" and of course he knew by then that Ngati Haua and broken with the kingites. At Matamata he came to realise that Ngati Haua had thrown their lot in with the government and the Europeon settlers. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

Sourcing this kind of thing to a single historical primary source of this nature is entirely unacceptable, as is the characterisation of the actors in this event. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Claudia", I am not interested in your views of history. I have already explained at your talk page that the sourcing is problematic. It is inadequate, unverifiable and unreliable. BlackCab (TALK) 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

An editor has added a section on the Army Commissariat Transport Corp, which Belich (p.124) says was established by Grey, probably early in 1862. The section contains some interesting information. It is sourced to "Alexy Simmons. Comestibles of the Waikato Campaign. Simmons, Simmons and Associates.Hamilton. 2014". Is this is a book? Is it self-published? Does anyone know of the author or their credentials? BlackCab (TALK) 06:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I googled it just before. It's an Otago University PhD thesis. I left a note on Claudia's talk page suggesting she edit it down, format the reference properly and add it to the Commissariat page instead. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some of it could be included if there's a source to say it was a revolution in supply systems or food types that resulted in a significantly lower rate of sickness and thus helped them win the campaign. As the edit was, it was mainly a list of foods the soldiers ate, which adds little to an article on a military invasion. It says it was a "fundamental change", but doesn't say what the change was or what difference it made compared to other military campaigns over a great distance in rough terrain. It also says "Recent studies have showed ..." but cites only one person. It's unclear if the author wrote about other studies or conducted one of her own. BlackCab (TALK) 07:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I havent quoted the PhD as the info was not directly from that but from a report but it appears it was based on the PhD. Speaking to her it is clear that she has added to her knowledge since, with ongoing research. The information is all from the same source. Commissioned by the HCC to celebrate 150 years since the army arrived in Hamilton to establish the city. Simmons, Simmons and associates are a local archaeology business. A. Simmons is the sociologist for them.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

What you've written now is better, but it nowhere states the basis for the claim that the Commissariat Transport Corps was "a critical part of the success of the campaign". It doesn't state that this was a new development; for all the reader knows this was standard operating procedure in British military campaigns. Without that detail, the diet of the British soldiers is no more interesting than the diet of the Maori fighters. I can't find any definition online of the Otago pack saddle. Your citation is still inadequate: it is impossible to properly identify the source.BlackCab (TALK) 00:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've located a few more sources on the commissariat that may help to explain its benefits. An Australian book, Equal to the Task by Neville Lindsay,[8], refers to a Commissariat Department, which operated from a base at Port Waikato, and a Commissariat Transport Corps, which operated from Auckland to the base set up at Waikato Heads. It says they comprised volunteers from the regular and militia regiments. Another book, Salute to Service: A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and its Predecessors by Julia Millen [9] (pages 27-31) explain the Transport Corps was part of the Commissariat Department. It also refers to the 5 percent sick rate, citing Belich. A Captain Francis Cadell was appointed superintendent of the River Transport Service on 15 February 1864, and he served in this capacity until 31 January 1866. He seems to have had no prior service in Crimea.[10] Belich spends some time discussing the benefits to the British campaign of the commissary under H. Stanley Jones, the commissary-general. BlackCab (TALK) 08:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My understanding from previous research is that the Earl Of Newcastle(Duke?) who was an influential figure in the UK was a key person in changing the army but the Crimea disaster was a well known motivating factor that pushed the whole country to do better. Of course the most well known aspect is in the medical field . The Waikato campaign was exceptional in this regard too with plenty of surgeons and doctors to attend to accidents and wounds of both soldiers and loyal Maori and Maori rebels. From the UK Hansard information it seems that the Crimean figure was often well above the 14%. Even so 5% is a spectacular improvement. No doubt helped by the benign weather and the brevity of the campaign. It is interesting that in every post eg at Alexandra (Pirongia) and Kiririiroa, the most common find was empty booze bottles-mainly rum and schnapps.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Kingite movement itself could be called extreme, in that it was a minority of Maori and that it wished to separate Maori from New Zealand jurisdiction. After its "defeat" in the Waikato in 1864 this is in fact what the Kingtanga did in the King Country.ie set up an independent (but short lived) separate Maori kingdom. However within the kingitanga movement in 1863, before the Auckland war broke out,there was no unity on the degree of violence to be used to achieve this independent state. Gorst is very good on the heated conflict between the militant Maniapoto, who in early 1863 showed they were prepared to use murder, and the far more passive Ngati Haua and their christian leader Wiremu Tamahana who argued for continued negotiations with the government. Caught in the middle were many Waikato Maori who were more influenced by the christian message of peace. Even within the "Christian " Maori community there was ill will between the Protestant Maori and Catholic Maori which nearly came to blows.It was the Maniapoto who went to attack Auckland and achieved some "success" against scattered settlers in areas like Runciman before their defeat at Pukekohe East Church. "Recentism " raises its head here. Many editors forget that Waikato was part of sovereign New Zealand. 44 of its chiefs signed the treaty. Sovereignty was proclaimed over the whole of NZ ,not just parts. The fact that a chief had declared a boundary over which Europeans could not pass was an example of a separatist act. At the time the governor saw it as his absolute right and duty to defend sovereign NZ against attack.

Recent events and person have attempted to recast history-sometimes quite successfully, in that until the Governments Treaty road show many kiwis believed that Waikato WAS actually independent. It WAS commonly believed that no Waikato chiefs had ever signed the treaty. The treaty tribunal is one partial organization that had a serious role to play in recasting history. A number of well known historians, who were employed to do research for the tribunal, were very upset at how this research was used (or in some cases not used). The most critical point is the use of hearsay as reliable evidence. As one historian said-they preferred to accept hearsay from over a century ago -incapable of being proven or refuted ,to establish historical "facts" over the force of written records from the same time period which present a contradictory point of view.

I believe "extremist" should stand .It means someone who is prepared to use violence against the state.Tt fits the case exactly. In any ones books the Maniapoto were the extreme edge of the kingitanga. Others may care to comment?115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cowan, in the source cited (chapter 26) says the plan to launch a murderous attack on Auckland on 1 September 1861 "was favoured by most of the Kingites", so unless the Kingite movement itself is accepted as an extremist group, the term is inaccurate. The IP editor above contends that the Kingite movement was indeed an extremist movement because it advocated military action against the state (which of course was itself in breach of the Treaty by using armed force to drive Maori off their traditional lands), but I know of no reliable source that suggests this is the case. BlackCab (TALK) 03:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your arguement is seriously flawed.You are relying on 'recentism" again. You are confusing -what the govt knew and thought at the time(1850s-60s)ie historical fact, with what politicians and the treaty tribunal would have us believe now( partial interpretation of events). Clearly the NZ govt at the time did not believe Maori had a right to go to war to create an independant Maori state. Your statement "most of the Kingitanga Maori were in favour of the attack on Auckland" is ample proof, in itself, that they were extremists.ie prepared to use force and violence to get their way in violation of the Treaty of Waitangi. You dont seem to comprehend the difference eg-Trump is hardliner,ISIS or Al Quada are extremist organizations. The violation of the treaty was about the extent of chiefs' powers which were restricted to their own iwi and rohe. There was no provision in the treaty for a separate Maori state or a Maori king. The govt had sovereignty over all of NZ. Chiefs only had local control over their own affairs. Note Wiremu Kingi , the Taranaki warlord, left his rohe to join with Rewi to attack the government. He was in breach of the treaty.115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re reading your comment- "murderous attack"- is pretty damn extreme in my book !!I intend to change it back to reflect reality unless you can convince me that "murderous attacks" were normal?115.188.178.77 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Judging by your comments below, you seem to be pretty flexible with your definitions of what conduct is acceptable in wartime. You seem to suggest "murderous attacks" are not "normal", yet within a very short time (and without that attack even taking place) the government was driving bayonets through the guts of Maori men and women defending their hereditary lands, and turning armstrong gun fire and hand grenades against them. Would you say those soldiers, or the governor commanding them, were extremists? The plot against Auckland was certainly horrifying, but to label them "extremist Kingite Maori" would be a subjective opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 07:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was Cowan -not me -who said Maori planned to launch "murderous attacks".The word murder is fair because the people killed were unarmed settlers-17 all told in Auckland (some accounts say 23) one of whom was a boy. Your other comments seem to refer to the Battle at Orakau, when the British, at great danger to themselves approached the pa and offered to allow women and children free passage, only to have their messenger, operating under a flag of truce, shot in the shoulder. The rebel men refused to let them leave. Note the treaty gave Maori chiefs influence over their own people in their own rohe, while the crown had rights over the whole of NZ. An attack on Auckland by rebels was clearly outside the treaty terms! The Auckland attack didn't take place?? Tell that to all the 30-40 odd Maori rebels who were killed at Pukekohe East Church!In all there were 17 separate rebel attacks on Auckland. The soldiers of course had every right to kill enemies of the British crown who had been offered every chance to compromise or surrender, but chose to fight. At Orakau over half of the rebels didnt even come from the Waikato so they weren't defending their hereditary land at all,they were fighting to set up an alternative Maori state, or perhaps in Tuhoe's case , just fighting. You will recall that Rewi Maniapoto didn't even want to fight at Orakau but was persuaded by Tuhoe from the other side of the country. He was shamed into fighting. So much for defending their land! It should also be noted that many Waikato Maori materially assisted the Government in a variety of ways- they clearly didnt believe in a separate Maori kingdom either. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually I think "murderous attacks" was my phrase, not Cowan's. And let's not over-egg the pudding. The raid on Auckland was planned for September 1861, but didn't take place. Both Dalton and Belich have made clear (and these statements are in the article) that Grey lied his arse off in his subsequent reports to London, greatly exaggerating the supposed threat to British settlers in order to get troops. He knew there was in fact no threat and that your so-called "extremists" were angry, but not planning any bloody uprising at all. You mention the Pukekohe East attack: this took place in September 1863, two years after the rumoured raid and two months after Cameron led an invasion with 4000 troops to drive the Maori off their land so white settlers could move in. The raids north of the frontier were guerrilla tactics aimed at harassing the Maoris' enemy. BlackCab (TALK) 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion at the Maori King Movement talk page, I have removed the term "extremist" from the lead section. The term is subjective, disputed by some historians, and—given the description of the feared attack as a "violent raid"—actually unnecessary. BlackCab (TALK) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a grossly misleading statement in the context of the 1863-64 WAR. Is is not normal to place defeated enemy combatants on trial -not now and not then. For much of this unsettled period and later the government had passed laws enacting martial law, in which there is no provision for trials, yet a few editors continue to make very POV statements about the "lack of trials". Its bit like saying that people caught speeding in Melbourne taxis were not beheaded last week.115.188.178.77 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Battle of Rangiriri article, in the "Aftermath" section, provides the context for that statement. There was considerable debate at the time about how the prisoners should be dealt with under law, and what charges they should face — high treason possibly, or a court-martial under the specially-passed 1863 Suppression of Rebellion Act. In the end the government chose to bring them before no court and simply kept them locked up. BlackCab (TALK) 06:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I missed reading that. It seems, in view of what was apparently discussed, that the defeated rebel prisoners got off very lightly. I guess it was a case of let sleeping dogs lie. By that time it would have been obvious that the rebellion was no immediate threat to Auckland and that the kingitanga rebels were on the run, despite the lack of the one decisive victory Grey apparently sought. Grey was so very confident of defeating the kingite insurrection he visited the front. The British troops were obviously in a confident mood. Shortly after this they were having a cricket match while waiting for supplies to catch up. As for being "locked up" -it seems they were able to roam very freely with almost no guard at all. They escaped with not much effort. As far as Ive been able to find out, none of the kingitanga escapees from Kawau Island ever went back to fight.115.188.178.77 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Readers should take with a large grain of salt any adverse comments by B J Dalton about Governor Grey. Dalton wrote a PhD, then a book, which is largely his PhD revisited but with a new name. The primary object of both was to discredit Grey and restore the reputation of Browne, the previous Governor. While Grey was not the perfect human being Dalton did him gave disservice. Dalton totally ignored the domestic political situation in which Grey operated. He ignored the fact the this was a transition period- from being a British colony run by a governor alone, to a parliamentary democracy with elected representatives having to listen to the voters. He ignore totally the impact of voters opinions on MP's actions. In particular he ignored Grey's vast knowledge and understanding of Maori culture and politics compare to that of Browne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk)

Thanks Claudia for more ignorant commentary on yet another highly respected historian who apparently knew a lot less than you. Once again your comments have nothing to do with improving the article. Please stop using Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for your uninformed rants. BlackCab (TALK) 02:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The comment about Dalton comes from a well known NZ historian that you regularly use as a source! You once again wrongly assumed the comment was mine ,which is never the case. Current NZ historians ,especially military historians, pay close attention to an author's beliefs, real knowledge,comprehension and prejudices before accepting their works as gospel. Something you could well remember. Historiography is better understood now. Universities teach about the influence of the Marxist and the New Left approach where the politics justifies the methodology (or frequently the lack of it).115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You have been caught out inventing quotes and inventing sources on Wikipedia, so you have zero credibility. You have your own twisted take on history and it's probably best you keep it to yourself. BlackCab (TALK) 09:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply