Talk:Māori King Movement

message: "It is a hereditary role, the succession occurs through the primogeniture mechanism. The current Māori Queen, Te Atairangi Kaahu, is of the line of the first Māori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero and was elected in 1966."->Being a hereditary role, how can there be an election?  It is an assumption of power. --Midnighttonight 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is not hereditary. Tawhiao was chosen from several contenders including his sister and Kerei and Wiremu Tamihana. When Te Rata died, a choice was made between Koroki and his 2nd cousin Te Puea (see http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/M/MaoriKingElectionAndCoronation/MaoriKingElectionAndCoronation/en). And I believe Piki (Te Atairangi Kaahu) was not an automatic choice. I'll contact the editor who added that sentence to the article. Nurg 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies, the source which I cited that from said that it was through such a mechanism; albeit, I wrote that in the article a long time ago now and I cannot relocate that source. The clear contradiction must mean that the Hereditary statement should be removed. -- Greaser 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is arguable that this is an elective monarchy so I have changed the wording to reflect the potential for disagreement on that point.  Other elective monarchies it is clear who the candidates are, and how the nomination process would work.  The vatican for example, draws its candidates from the college of cardinals.  It appears that the tribal leaders in this system draw their candidates from a royal family, and there has not been a monarch from outside that family.  It also seems likely that there is an ethnic requirement that the candidate must be, racially, a maori.  The argument that the monarchy has hereditary aspects should not be squelched or this tends towards a one-way POV towards an elective monarchy.  Sandwich Eater 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hereditary/Election????

message: I don't suppose anyone knows which "Lord Derby" the text refers to? I've made a guess but since there is not exact date there is at least one other possibility. - SimonLyall 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems correct, as Edward Stanley was Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time of the petition.--Lholden 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Derby 

message: This article makes use of several non-English terms. These ought either to be defined or else English language equivalents used. --Aaron Walden  12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which  terms do you refer to? --Lholden 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English Language 

message: I guess the article be updated to include the suggestions that have appeared in the NZ Herald that the other iwi are largely just 'rubber-stamping' the selection by Tainui Nil Einne 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I haven't heard anything to that effect and it doesn't sound very plausible. I think I'd leave that out, especially if it's just suggestion. Mona-Lynn 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of other iwi 

message: Somebody had labelled every monarch herein as "NAME I, Māori King."   However, it is incorrect to do so.  A monarch can only become NAME I after there has been a NAME II.  For example: Queen Elizabeth I of England was known simply as "Queen Elizabeth" until HM Queen Elizabeth II became Queen.  William I, Henry I, Edward I (who should've strictly been Edward III), Richard I, George I all had "I" added after there has been a William II, Henry II, Edward II, etc.  Hence why King Stephen, King John and Queen Victoria are styled without an "I" numeral, because there is only one of each.
This system of retrospective "I" enumeration is not just a British system, but is the system around the world and would thus, if used correctly, apply to the Māori kings.  There can not be a Koroki I if there has been no Koroki II.
--unsigned comment by 84.71.12.146  (talk)  at 01:55, 18 October 2007
:Ever heard of Juan Carlos I of Spain, Michael I of Romania, Paul I of Russia or Louis Philippe I, King of the French? None of them has had a successor of the same given name, yet each uses a regnal number. This is determined by each monarchy: there is no generic principle or rule which settles the matter for each realm or each dynasty. Maoris get to decide for themselves how they style their monarchs. FactStraight (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Monarch" numerals

message: Currently the lead states:
:The position of Māori monarch was constituted in 1858 by chiefs (rangatira) from all the tribes throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.
My understanding was that not all iwi actually participated in the formation of the Kingitanga, in fact a lot of the southern rangatira were opposed to it (see NZ History). Ngaphui and Ngati Pourou never joined.
:Kingi Tuheitia is the internal Sovereign Partner to the External Sovereign Partner Māori Trustee Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. 
This is a highly dubious claim. Firstly, the Kingitanga is a non-constitutional role. There was never any claim to being a "internal Sovereign partner" to the Monarch. In fact the position of Maori King was meant to compliment the British Monarch. (see NZ History & ).
:It is a role invested with a high degree of prestige (mana) that symbolises a bridge between Māori and the western world.
Again, this is highly dubious. Perhaps this was the case in the 1850s, but simply isn't true today.
:Since the 1850s the role has been vested in the Tainui tribe (iwi) who agreed to guard the position when it was created.
More dubious claims - ref statements by other North Island iwi at the NZ Herald.
:The Kīngitanga movement and its influence has expanded since its establishment and it is widely recognised and respected by Māori in many parts of New Zealand today.
Again, this claim is dubious although probably accurate. It needs to be cited. --Lholden (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the silliest ones out. There may well be some grain of truth to the election bit tho, I am sure you'd find something accurate on Te Ara. The Herald I wouldn't trust at all. Kahuroa (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. By election do you mean Tainui's guardianship of the Kingitanga? I agree that does make sense. --Lholden (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No I meant the selection of successor. The Kauhanganui (Tainui parliament) meets after the death of the incumbent and elects the successor. The guardianship/founding of the Kingitanga should be easy enough to research I would have thought. (BTW it would not be a simple matter for another iwi to take the role - Tainui has a lot of dedicated supporters for the role from its people and has the infrastructure too) Here are a few general sources in the meantime te ara old, te ara, NZDB, last four paragraphs Kahuroa (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Guardianship doesn't seem correct in this context. --Lholden (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As your cite tag indicates, we need a reliable source for "who agreed to guard the position when it was created". I wouldn't rule it out, it could well have been stated at the time Potatau Te Wherowhero accepted the kingship, and in effect Tainui are the guardians of the position. But a source is needed.  Kahuroa (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More sources - longer, older: Gorst, in particular this appendix, Buddle, Cowan, on the choosing of the first King, Harrop Kahuroa (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. I'll read through those sources and figure out some text that's verifiable and accurate. --Lholden (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

message: Excellent, exactly what was needed.Kahuroa (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Well done on additions

message: Attention has been drawn to an anomally in the tile of Maori King. According to 1 editor it is "well known" that he is not the Maori king but this would be news to many kiwis .Mr Rankin is highlighting an important issue to do with tribal independence and that the Kingitanga is only held in respect as long as the monarch behaves themselves.There have been various issues raised in the media about the king's actions,his demeanor,his spending ,his friends and  his son,which do not sit well with many conservative Maori.One person is saying what many are feeling.To call The king the "King of Huntly" is insulting and that is not included in the article for that reason but Rankin has raised an important constitional issue that deserves a bit of space.Claudia june 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.170 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede does say "The Māori King Movement or Kīngitanga is a movement that arose among some of the Māori tribes of New Zealand" (emphasis added). The actions of the current King, or his family, do not really belong in this article, but some elaboration about where the movement does and doesn't have support would be useful to add. It may be well known among Māori, but we need to write for a more general audience.-gadfium 06:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is long-established as Maori King, but the fact that he doesn't stand for every iwi is also long-established (and could perhaps be better covered in the article). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I find it highly improbable that 50% of all the Māori in the world are Ngāpuhi (of part of Northland) and find it even more so that anything similar could be said of Ngāti Porou (of the extremities of the Gisborne area). As for the Ngai Tapu, I can assure you that I have never heard of them; they do not even have an entry in Wikipedia. I would recommend you click on the red-link above and start creating an article on them, starting with explaining where their rohe is (as I live in the Kaitahu/Kati Mamoe/Waitaha end of the country, doings at the other end of the country may not make the news). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ngai Tapu is probably a typo, not to be confused with a taipo. Kahuroa (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the king of Maori ? 

message: I am wondering if there should be a new article created for the state or confederacy ruled over by the Maori monarchs and allied chiefs. It seems like from the time the confederacy was formed in around 1858 until 1881, when the Kingitanga Movement finally left its isolation and finally made peace with and opened up to the settler government, the Kingitanga functioned as an independent state.
From what I understand, the Kingitanga held power over a substantial portion of North Island, originally centered in the Waikato Region. Then the settler government under Governor Grey interpreted their existence as a threat to British sovereignty and justified attacking them and initiating the Land Wars in the Waikato based on a claim that Ngati Maniapoto warriors helping other tribes fighting settlers in Taranaki Region were Kingitanga agents. After brutal fighting, the Kingitanga government occupied Ngati Maniapoto territory and became a neutral player throughout the rest of the Land Wars although remained independent from and at war with the Colonial Government until they opened up the King Country in 1881. Afterwards, they progressively integrated with the rest of New Zealand over several decades, beginning with rail projects several years after peace was established although the Tainui chiefs and Maori king directly ruled the territory and didn't suffer land confiscations like other regions which allowed for a higher-than-average Maori population to exist there even to the present day. Based on this background, do you think it is reasonable to create a new article for a state with this information included or that it should be included only here in the Maori King Movement article or both or neither?Nanib (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article for Political Entity? 

message: SymonLyall has made this revert  on the grounds that reference to "an expression of Māori unity" is "a little fluffy". I'm open to guidance here and welcome discussion on this, but I think that unless the Kingitanga movement is essentially an historic phenomenon, the emphasis in the opening sentence should be on the present, not the past. The wording I inserted is drawn from NZHistory Online and I think encapsulates what it is; that initial statement is preferable to an immediate explanation of why it arose. My understanding, from what I've read, is also that the Maori King is essentially a Tainui institution; if that's the case, is it not important to identify that fact immediately as well? (SimonLyall also removed that from the opening statement).
I'm slowly working my way through this article to improve what was pretty shabby and vague coverage. All suggestions are welcome, but as someone living in Australia and thus slightly removed from whatever routine coverage there is of the Maori King (despite my strong interest in colonial-era NZ history), it seems to me that the article in its newly amended form clouds rather than sharpens understanding of what the function of the King is.
This may, in large part, come back to the issue of the title of the article, "Maori King Movement", which tends to place an emphasis on the past (as in the establishment of the "movement") rather than the present. That in itself may need addressing, with the article possibly better renamed "Maori King" and clearly explaining who and what the King is and then the origin of the institution. Any comments and response would be very welcome. BlackCab (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My main problem with your wording was that the first sentence or two should be a description of what the article is about in an almost stand-alone way. The equivilent might be 1st sentence of Australian Labor Party being The Australian Labor party is an expression of the late 19th century Australian workers movement, possibly true but not really what it actually is. So more or less what you have said above but with a bit more detail to people who hear "Maori King" and assume they are actually part of the government. We need to get the basic introduction out first. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of intro 

message: A few details have been included as there is such a huge public interest in NZ in this topic. The issue is ongoing and has been featured in the main stream media for over a week. It highlights certain aspects of the Kingites. On line polls show huge and continuing interest. Information has been supported by refs. Information has been gathered by the media from face book and video before going public. Maori in particular are outraged at the special treatment being given to the son because the connection to his father. As it is now a crisis for the king it is doubly important to have information that can easily be accessed. Clearly this is the most important event that has happened to the king in a long time. Stuff Nz had so many comments they had to close down the comments server before it crashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 
:See WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Notability#Events: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage ... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." This event may be embarrassing to the king, but it has no lasting impact on the Maori King Movement. BlackCab (TALK) 09:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As the anon (Claudia) and BlackCab are aware, there has been a discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Korotangi Paki about this. I started the discussion there as this affects more than one article. To date, the consensus has been against including the news stories about the King's son in Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blackcab and gadfium are  representing a consensus of editors on this point.  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

text: Have added it now. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-read User_talk:122.62.226.243 and I've been having second thoughts about our collective approach to some of these issues. Depressingly the main issues, lack of sourcing and edit warring, just don't seem to be improving. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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