This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Discussion moved from User talk:Kaiwhakahaere):
Hi Kaiwhakahaere, Thanks for your change at New Zealand land confiscations, but I've reverted to what I had. I struggled to find a one-sentence explanation of the policy, and settled on that one in the end because it more accurately presented its purported aim. The article explains the more likely intention of the legislation and its effect a little further on in the introduction.
I'm still working my way through the history ... the failure of the policy and government admissions of wrongdoing. I'd welcome any thoughts. Grimhim ( talk) 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The original article completely ignored the fact that enormous areas of land were ,by mid 1865ie a few months of the initial confiscations,returned to both loyal(kupapa) and rebel kingitanga without distinction. By 1873 half of all the land had been returned.The idea that Tainui or better Waikato weren't involved in the war in any aggresive way is nonsense.NZETC records the names of many Waikato who took part in the early fighting .It ignores the fact that Tamihana repeatedly threaten Grey ina series of letters .It is true that Waikato Tainui were then very bitter that Maniapoto had not had land confiscated (though this omission was later corrected when the government took land for a prison farm).This became a very sore point when the kingitanga started to try to exert their mana over Maniapoto while still acccepting the hospitalty of the people of that land.Relationships between W and M became strained to breaking point when Rewi decided he had been wrong all along and decided to sell land to the government for the railway.Rewi seems to have become very concerned at the level of drunkeness among the younger Maori sth of the Punui and this was was of the points he was most insistent on when meeting with ministers in Te Awamutu -there was no land sales unless alcohol sales were stopped -hence the King country becomming dry for so long.Even on the day of the signing this threatened to unravel months of talks.Rewi seem to have been right-once the law was passed and locals got well paid jobs on the railway, problems such as the murdering of surveyors stopped.Tainui-Waikato continued to feel miffed as they knew Maniapoto had asserted their mana as greater than the kingitanga.Worse for the kingitanga ,Rewi got back his whanau's land at Kihikihi and even got a new house .He became agreat friend of Grey and even wanted to be buried with him .Talk about rubbing their noses in it.Claudia Feb 2011
Te Whiti was by all accounts a very strange person. We have quite accurate accounts of his actions as he was visited by Maori speaking Europeans and Maori loyal to the crown. His regular speeches to his followers show the he was a racist and xenophobic. He constantly talked about some great violent event that would push the Pakeha into the sea. Clearly he did not support the treaty of Waitangi or the legitmate rights of settlers to live in peace in NZ. Perhaps what is ironic is that his village relied heavily of money from the government-his initial capital appears to have come from the sale of land by one his wives-he took the money despite her protests. His regular addresses appear to have used a kind of "speaking in tongues" which he used to convey emotion rather than reason-even fluent Maori speakers came away bemused by his message. Even further ironic is that far from being a Maori papakianga it was a near European style town, with streets ,a school, a church and the mass growing of European crops, as well as electric light at a later stage. Some like to portray him as a pacifist but this image is tarnished by his harbouring of a murderer who was wanted for the killing of a settler. Likewise it is strange that for a man of peace he should provide refuge for one of Nz's most notorious outlaws-a man who in today's terms would be called a terrorist. He would have continued to be a violent menace if he had not tried to rape a women and thereby loosing the trust of his rebel gang.
Finally there is the question of the hidden firearms. Why would a pacifist farmer need 200 muskets? It is interesting that intially these were not discovered so they must have been hidden. The muskets were mainly Tupara-2 barrelled -the weapon of choice for Maori during the land wars. It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if the police had not turned up armed. Would this have been the start of the great calamity to push Pakeha into the sea? Claudia April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.185.3 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is the article should be improved by including information that balances the very lop sided, incorrect impression the article currently gives.I dont have the sources at the momentwill have to look up the relevant texts.Apart from the last sentence it is not my opinion.The last sentence is to link it back to the question that was asked above.Claudia April 2011
Re lop sided article-any article that calls the campaign in the Waikato an invasion is biased. As the Waikato was part of NZ-it was not a sovereign Maori territory-you cant invade your own land!In 1840 4 Maori chiefs signed the treaty. Note that Waikato Maori tried to kill settlers etc(Gorst)during a time of peace at the start of 1863. During this time of peace a string of threatening letters were sent to Grey from the Waikato which he rightly interpreted as trouble. Maori had aleady tried to attack Auckand once and would have suceeded but for the presence of a British warship and troops in Fort Britomart.There is also the stealing of several tones of gunpowder from Kawau Island.Note several tonnes. There was also the construction of a a large secret base in the Wairoa Hills which was only found by the Forest Rangers when they were searching for the killers of an unarmed farmer and his boy. A second point is the Waikato confiscations. If they had followed Maori tikanga they would have killed all the captured Maori and eaten a few. They had a legitimate reason or take for the campaign because of the attack by Maniapoto in Taranaki against a group of soldiers escorting a British prisoner.Also the threats against Grey alone were take enough because of his mana. The utu would have been the taking of the land and enslaving the people -but this didnt happen.If you read Hansard you find that about 6 months after the land was "confiscated" huge areas were returned. It is not the fault of the govt if the Kingitanga wished to stay in isolation south of the Punui River and not take up its land that was returned. Dont forget some members of Waikato -Tainui fought for the government and gave good servive and informtion to the troops which materially helped the campaign and bought about peace much sooner.They were rewarded with land which is correct tikanga.In tikanga you only hold manawhenua over the land if you stay and defend it-the Waikato-tainui rebels fled and refused to return even when land was returned and peace was restored. Dont forget that the kingitanga represented a minority of Maori-probably about 20-30%, if you are optimistic ie noone in the South Island or up North or the East Coast from Thames and even Taranaki had a pitiful contribution. In recent times this has been glossed over as has the major fall out betwen Maniapoto and the Kingitanga in the 1870s-all over land- and underpinned by drunken depression, and yes the basis of the arguement was who had the right to sell land to the goverment!!How the worm turns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.38.114 ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the lede states that:
The New Zealand land confiscations took place during the 1860s to punish the Kingitanga movement for attempting to set up an alternative, Māori, form of government that forbade the selling of land. The confiscation law targeted Kingitanga Māori against whom the government had waged war to restore the rule of British law.
That the Kingitanga Māori were targeted in the confiscations is not in dispute. But including it in the opening sentence is problematic, since the confiscations weren't limited to Kingitanga Māori, with kupapa and neutral Māori also having land taken (sources for all these groups are in the lede). I'm not saying that Kingitanga shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, but rather I think that the opening sentence should be more inclusive. And at the very least, the New Zealand wars should be mentioned somewhere in the lede. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have twice reverted [1] [2]edits that refer to the sale from 1900 to 1912 of Waikato land that was returned by the government in 1865, and also government compensation given following the 1927 Sim royal commission. The statements need much better sourcing than has been provided, and also require a better description of events, particularly timing and the extent of the sales. The IP editor 122.62.226.243, who has been adding this material, has referred to some of these events at the article on Te Puea Herangi, which is almost entirely drawn from Michael King's book. There he/she has identified pages 250-1 of King's book as the source. The NZ History online website is also cited, although the article there gives next to no detail.
My concern is that none of the sources already cited in this Confiscation article refer to the government willingly returning land to Waikato iwi in the 1860s; in fact the authors cited give every indication that the government was in no mood to make any concession to Maori, let alone opt to hand back valuable land it had seized. I'll try to locate King's book on Te Puea Herangi, but in the meantime, can the IP editor discuss here, on the talk page, what King wrote about the circumstances surrounding the return of the land in the 1860s so it can be better described in the article. It's certainly worth including, but needs to be better explained.
The IP editor might also like to create a Wikipedia account so his/her edits are more readily recognised and other editors can engage with them at their talk page. BlackCab ( talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
~~~~
) which automatically adds a signature and date. Thanks again.
BlackCab (
talk) 10:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)It is in the interest of balanced articles that when an article contains comments from a well known extremist who plays fast and loose with historical fact then that should be balanced out by less radical points of view if thy are available. Walker's book -even his revised 2004 edition, is full of gross inaccuracies not accepted by anyone apart from Walker. In 2004 he still thinks that Maori arrived in 800. Large sections of his book are fantasy and myth. What serious historian includes a full page photo of a naked women in a book about politics? Much of Walker's book flies in the face of actual facts. He seems to have a very loose grip on history and is happier writing about myths. It is a fact that confiscation was legal.It is a fact that rebel Maori had ample warning that their land would be confiscated unless they stopped fighting the government. It is fact that only a minority of Maori supported the rebellion.It is fact that King Tawhaio wanted total independence for Maori(that is what his petition to the British govt in 1884 asked for.)It is a fact that much of the land taken in 1863 (about 4%) was returned 6 months later( about half). Much of the remainder was never occupied.It is afact that Chiefs received large amounts of financial compensation in 1865. It is a fact that koha payments were made to Taranaki tribes. Waikato tribes had so much land given back that they were selling it at the rate of 85,000 acres a year in the early 1900s and in 1 year considered selling 600,000 acres. Many of the chiefs such as Rewi were given additional payments and large government pensions in the 1880s depression at a time when the average settler barely had enough to live on. What really stands out is that the huge majority of Maori land was sold at what the Maori seller accepted as the going rate. For long periods of time various Maori hapu and iwi were awash in cash and just spent it or invested it unwisely. Even before the Sim investigation, Waikato Maori were given large amounts of cash to use as they liked-in one case, about 1912, 50,000 pounds to the king which is probably equal to $million or more today. They lost the lot in a bad investment. Wishart in his 2012 book the Great Divide makes the point that some Taranaki land was sold by Maori 4 times. Let's have the different points of view and not those of just 1 extremist.More important lets have the facts about multiple payments and the selling off (not " alienation"!!) of land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 02:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Black cab.I doubt you have actually read R Walker's book mentioned as no literate person with an ounce of historical knowledge would believe that it is a reliable source. It is a very lop side tale and historically very inaccurate now that we have access to original sources . Walker is now very dated and his book no longer relevant-it verges on the absurd in some passages. In places it reads like he was still spinning yarns to primary school children that he taught in the 1960s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I am reverting a series of edits [4] by an IP editor who has once again injected personal opinion (" in contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi"), redundancy (" the legal framework "), unsupported conjecture ("as they had been advised a claim would fail") and irrelevance ("Despite loosing the 1863-64 war the Kingitanga movement established a government in the King Country which existed for about 20 years".) I will keep part of a section about the return of Maori land post-1863 but not material that is still unsourced. The editor cites " NZ Encyclopedia. Land Confiscations -Raupatu p4", which again is woefully inadequate as a citation, but in any case that source ( [5]) provides no support for much of the material the editor has written into the lead section. The IP editor has previously attempted to add material about return of lands (see earlier thread above); this would need to be covered in the main body of the article, but the editor still has failed to provide proper sourcing. BlackCab ( TALK) 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I had assumed that you would be familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi(?), as most Kiwis are.There is NO mention of Maori having the right to set up an Independent Govt (as they clearly did in the King country) -whole books have been written about it!)in fact the treaty expressly forbides that that.It is the law of NZ(and all nations I can think of!!!) -then and now!!Get real!!The word legal is important as the only authority for making critical decisions like this was the govt. Tainui were advised their claim would fail in the tribunal that is common knowledge in the Waikato.(Santa has a white beard but we dont define Santa like that as its common knowledge).This is why they were able to negotiate the "catch up " clause that has earned them far more than the original claim-the govt could do this(ie commit the tax payer to an "endless" round of catch up handouts) the Treaty tribunal could not.I will double check the ref for Nz encyclopedia as I was interrupted. The general thrust of the article is still quite wrong and misleading. I put the word "robbed" in quotation marks as clearly the action was legal and the govt cannot rob. I left the word in to show how some iwi saw their position. ie they saw an imbalance of power between the govt and frustrated rebel Maori. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently an Australian editor who has a limited knowledge of this topic reverted a section that was closely referenced. The refs were in response to a request by another editor to provide same. The reason he gave for reverting was "no refs" which is absurd! In the process of reverting, he removed all the refs -which I have now restored. The editor appears to favour one particular POV regardless of how well an alternative case is made, with refs to back it up. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Without discussion, a hyphen was inserted into the article name, as well as every reference in the text to land confiscations, in a couple of edits starting with this edit in 2019. It was done on the basis that "the word 'land' is not an adjective modifying 'confiscations', so the hyphen is necessary to more closely associate the final two nouns." The hyphen is actually not required at all because there is simply no ambiguity — the article deals with a series of confiscations of land in New Zealand, which any reader would immediately grasp. There's no stronger argument for inserting a hyphen in there than there is for inserting one in such article titles as Voter suppression, Behavior modification or Electricity generation. It's overly fussy and simply unnecessary. BlackCab ( TALK) 06:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Discussion moved from User talk:Kaiwhakahaere):
Hi Kaiwhakahaere, Thanks for your change at New Zealand land confiscations, but I've reverted to what I had. I struggled to find a one-sentence explanation of the policy, and settled on that one in the end because it more accurately presented its purported aim. The article explains the more likely intention of the legislation and its effect a little further on in the introduction.
I'm still working my way through the history ... the failure of the policy and government admissions of wrongdoing. I'd welcome any thoughts. Grimhim ( talk) 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The original article completely ignored the fact that enormous areas of land were ,by mid 1865ie a few months of the initial confiscations,returned to both loyal(kupapa) and rebel kingitanga without distinction. By 1873 half of all the land had been returned.The idea that Tainui or better Waikato weren't involved in the war in any aggresive way is nonsense.NZETC records the names of many Waikato who took part in the early fighting .It ignores the fact that Tamihana repeatedly threaten Grey ina series of letters .It is true that Waikato Tainui were then very bitter that Maniapoto had not had land confiscated (though this omission was later corrected when the government took land for a prison farm).This became a very sore point when the kingitanga started to try to exert their mana over Maniapoto while still acccepting the hospitalty of the people of that land.Relationships between W and M became strained to breaking point when Rewi decided he had been wrong all along and decided to sell land to the government for the railway.Rewi seems to have become very concerned at the level of drunkeness among the younger Maori sth of the Punui and this was was of the points he was most insistent on when meeting with ministers in Te Awamutu -there was no land sales unless alcohol sales were stopped -hence the King country becomming dry for so long.Even on the day of the signing this threatened to unravel months of talks.Rewi seem to have been right-once the law was passed and locals got well paid jobs on the railway, problems such as the murdering of surveyors stopped.Tainui-Waikato continued to feel miffed as they knew Maniapoto had asserted their mana as greater than the kingitanga.Worse for the kingitanga ,Rewi got back his whanau's land at Kihikihi and even got a new house .He became agreat friend of Grey and even wanted to be buried with him .Talk about rubbing their noses in it.Claudia Feb 2011
Te Whiti was by all accounts a very strange person. We have quite accurate accounts of his actions as he was visited by Maori speaking Europeans and Maori loyal to the crown. His regular speeches to his followers show the he was a racist and xenophobic. He constantly talked about some great violent event that would push the Pakeha into the sea. Clearly he did not support the treaty of Waitangi or the legitmate rights of settlers to live in peace in NZ. Perhaps what is ironic is that his village relied heavily of money from the government-his initial capital appears to have come from the sale of land by one his wives-he took the money despite her protests. His regular addresses appear to have used a kind of "speaking in tongues" which he used to convey emotion rather than reason-even fluent Maori speakers came away bemused by his message. Even further ironic is that far from being a Maori papakianga it was a near European style town, with streets ,a school, a church and the mass growing of European crops, as well as electric light at a later stage. Some like to portray him as a pacifist but this image is tarnished by his harbouring of a murderer who was wanted for the killing of a settler. Likewise it is strange that for a man of peace he should provide refuge for one of Nz's most notorious outlaws-a man who in today's terms would be called a terrorist. He would have continued to be a violent menace if he had not tried to rape a women and thereby loosing the trust of his rebel gang.
Finally there is the question of the hidden firearms. Why would a pacifist farmer need 200 muskets? It is interesting that intially these were not discovered so they must have been hidden. The muskets were mainly Tupara-2 barrelled -the weapon of choice for Maori during the land wars. It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if the police had not turned up armed. Would this have been the start of the great calamity to push Pakeha into the sea? Claudia April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.185.3 ( talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is the article should be improved by including information that balances the very lop sided, incorrect impression the article currently gives.I dont have the sources at the momentwill have to look up the relevant texts.Apart from the last sentence it is not my opinion.The last sentence is to link it back to the question that was asked above.Claudia April 2011
Re lop sided article-any article that calls the campaign in the Waikato an invasion is biased. As the Waikato was part of NZ-it was not a sovereign Maori territory-you cant invade your own land!In 1840 4 Maori chiefs signed the treaty. Note that Waikato Maori tried to kill settlers etc(Gorst)during a time of peace at the start of 1863. During this time of peace a string of threatening letters were sent to Grey from the Waikato which he rightly interpreted as trouble. Maori had aleady tried to attack Auckand once and would have suceeded but for the presence of a British warship and troops in Fort Britomart.There is also the stealing of several tones of gunpowder from Kawau Island.Note several tonnes. There was also the construction of a a large secret base in the Wairoa Hills which was only found by the Forest Rangers when they were searching for the killers of an unarmed farmer and his boy. A second point is the Waikato confiscations. If they had followed Maori tikanga they would have killed all the captured Maori and eaten a few. They had a legitimate reason or take for the campaign because of the attack by Maniapoto in Taranaki against a group of soldiers escorting a British prisoner.Also the threats against Grey alone were take enough because of his mana. The utu would have been the taking of the land and enslaving the people -but this didnt happen.If you read Hansard you find that about 6 months after the land was "confiscated" huge areas were returned. It is not the fault of the govt if the Kingitanga wished to stay in isolation south of the Punui River and not take up its land that was returned. Dont forget some members of Waikato -Tainui fought for the government and gave good servive and informtion to the troops which materially helped the campaign and bought about peace much sooner.They were rewarded with land which is correct tikanga.In tikanga you only hold manawhenua over the land if you stay and defend it-the Waikato-tainui rebels fled and refused to return even when land was returned and peace was restored. Dont forget that the kingitanga represented a minority of Maori-probably about 20-30%, if you are optimistic ie noone in the South Island or up North or the East Coast from Thames and even Taranaki had a pitiful contribution. In recent times this has been glossed over as has the major fall out betwen Maniapoto and the Kingitanga in the 1870s-all over land- and underpinned by drunken depression, and yes the basis of the arguement was who had the right to sell land to the goverment!!How the worm turns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.38.114 ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the lede states that:
The New Zealand land confiscations took place during the 1860s to punish the Kingitanga movement for attempting to set up an alternative, Māori, form of government that forbade the selling of land. The confiscation law targeted Kingitanga Māori against whom the government had waged war to restore the rule of British law.
That the Kingitanga Māori were targeted in the confiscations is not in dispute. But including it in the opening sentence is problematic, since the confiscations weren't limited to Kingitanga Māori, with kupapa and neutral Māori also having land taken (sources for all these groups are in the lede). I'm not saying that Kingitanga shouldn't be mentioned in the lede, but rather I think that the opening sentence should be more inclusive. And at the very least, the New Zealand wars should be mentioned somewhere in the lede. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have twice reverted [1] [2]edits that refer to the sale from 1900 to 1912 of Waikato land that was returned by the government in 1865, and also government compensation given following the 1927 Sim royal commission. The statements need much better sourcing than has been provided, and also require a better description of events, particularly timing and the extent of the sales. The IP editor 122.62.226.243, who has been adding this material, has referred to some of these events at the article on Te Puea Herangi, which is almost entirely drawn from Michael King's book. There he/she has identified pages 250-1 of King's book as the source. The NZ History online website is also cited, although the article there gives next to no detail.
My concern is that none of the sources already cited in this Confiscation article refer to the government willingly returning land to Waikato iwi in the 1860s; in fact the authors cited give every indication that the government was in no mood to make any concession to Maori, let alone opt to hand back valuable land it had seized. I'll try to locate King's book on Te Puea Herangi, but in the meantime, can the IP editor discuss here, on the talk page, what King wrote about the circumstances surrounding the return of the land in the 1860s so it can be better described in the article. It's certainly worth including, but needs to be better explained.
The IP editor might also like to create a Wikipedia account so his/her edits are more readily recognised and other editors can engage with them at their talk page. BlackCab ( talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
~~~~
) which automatically adds a signature and date. Thanks again.
BlackCab (
talk) 10:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)It is in the interest of balanced articles that when an article contains comments from a well known extremist who plays fast and loose with historical fact then that should be balanced out by less radical points of view if thy are available. Walker's book -even his revised 2004 edition, is full of gross inaccuracies not accepted by anyone apart from Walker. In 2004 he still thinks that Maori arrived in 800. Large sections of his book are fantasy and myth. What serious historian includes a full page photo of a naked women in a book about politics? Much of Walker's book flies in the face of actual facts. He seems to have a very loose grip on history and is happier writing about myths. It is a fact that confiscation was legal.It is a fact that rebel Maori had ample warning that their land would be confiscated unless they stopped fighting the government. It is fact that only a minority of Maori supported the rebellion.It is fact that King Tawhaio wanted total independence for Maori(that is what his petition to the British govt in 1884 asked for.)It is a fact that much of the land taken in 1863 (about 4%) was returned 6 months later( about half). Much of the remainder was never occupied.It is afact that Chiefs received large amounts of financial compensation in 1865. It is a fact that koha payments were made to Taranaki tribes. Waikato tribes had so much land given back that they were selling it at the rate of 85,000 acres a year in the early 1900s and in 1 year considered selling 600,000 acres. Many of the chiefs such as Rewi were given additional payments and large government pensions in the 1880s depression at a time when the average settler barely had enough to live on. What really stands out is that the huge majority of Maori land was sold at what the Maori seller accepted as the going rate. For long periods of time various Maori hapu and iwi were awash in cash and just spent it or invested it unwisely. Even before the Sim investigation, Waikato Maori were given large amounts of cash to use as they liked-in one case, about 1912, 50,000 pounds to the king which is probably equal to $million or more today. They lost the lot in a bad investment. Wishart in his 2012 book the Great Divide makes the point that some Taranaki land was sold by Maori 4 times. Let's have the different points of view and not those of just 1 extremist.More important lets have the facts about multiple payments and the selling off (not " alienation"!!) of land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 02:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Black cab.I doubt you have actually read R Walker's book mentioned as no literate person with an ounce of historical knowledge would believe that it is a reliable source. It is a very lop side tale and historically very inaccurate now that we have access to original sources . Walker is now very dated and his book no longer relevant-it verges on the absurd in some passages. In places it reads like he was still spinning yarns to primary school children that he taught in the 1960s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I am reverting a series of edits [4] by an IP editor who has once again injected personal opinion (" in contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi"), redundancy (" the legal framework "), unsupported conjecture ("as they had been advised a claim would fail") and irrelevance ("Despite loosing the 1863-64 war the Kingitanga movement established a government in the King Country which existed for about 20 years".) I will keep part of a section about the return of Maori land post-1863 but not material that is still unsourced. The editor cites " NZ Encyclopedia. Land Confiscations -Raupatu p4", which again is woefully inadequate as a citation, but in any case that source ( [5]) provides no support for much of the material the editor has written into the lead section. The IP editor has previously attempted to add material about return of lands (see earlier thread above); this would need to be covered in the main body of the article, but the editor still has failed to provide proper sourcing. BlackCab ( TALK) 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I had assumed that you would be familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi(?), as most Kiwis are.There is NO mention of Maori having the right to set up an Independent Govt (as they clearly did in the King country) -whole books have been written about it!)in fact the treaty expressly forbides that that.It is the law of NZ(and all nations I can think of!!!) -then and now!!Get real!!The word legal is important as the only authority for making critical decisions like this was the govt. Tainui were advised their claim would fail in the tribunal that is common knowledge in the Waikato.(Santa has a white beard but we dont define Santa like that as its common knowledge).This is why they were able to negotiate the "catch up " clause that has earned them far more than the original claim-the govt could do this(ie commit the tax payer to an "endless" round of catch up handouts) the Treaty tribunal could not.I will double check the ref for Nz encyclopedia as I was interrupted. The general thrust of the article is still quite wrong and misleading. I put the word "robbed" in quotation marks as clearly the action was legal and the govt cannot rob. I left the word in to show how some iwi saw their position. ie they saw an imbalance of power between the govt and frustrated rebel Maori. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently an Australian editor who has a limited knowledge of this topic reverted a section that was closely referenced. The refs were in response to a request by another editor to provide same. The reason he gave for reverting was "no refs" which is absurd! In the process of reverting, he removed all the refs -which I have now restored. The editor appears to favour one particular POV regardless of how well an alternative case is made, with refs to back it up. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Without discussion, a hyphen was inserted into the article name, as well as every reference in the text to land confiscations, in a couple of edits starting with this edit in 2019. It was done on the basis that "the word 'land' is not an adjective modifying 'confiscations', so the hyphen is necessary to more closely associate the final two nouns." The hyphen is actually not required at all because there is simply no ambiguity — the article deals with a series of confiscations of land in New Zealand, which any reader would immediately grasp. There's no stronger argument for inserting a hyphen in there than there is for inserting one in such article titles as Voter suppression, Behavior modification or Electricity generation. It's overly fussy and simply unnecessary. BlackCab ( TALK) 06:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)