Talk:Taniwharau

message: Not sure what is being proposed here, but I don't know that this article has much validity anyway. There is nothing in the Māori dictionaries under taniwharau. The word Taniwharau seems to be a combination of two words taniwha + rau as found in the Waikato proverb Waikato taniwha rau (Waikato of the hundred taniwha), and seems to have something to do with a school which uses the combined word on its logo and with some sports organisations in the Waikato which use the word with the combined spelling. I don't think there was ever a kind of taniwha called a taniwharau - or it would be mentioned in a dictionary Kahuroa 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, so its a kind of post-modernism creation of the early part of last century, or something along those lines? the article probably needs fixing to only leave the valid components, but what about the 2004 foreshore address, how does that fit into the scheme? whatever, it exists in its own right, I went to that school as did my three sisters, and is clearly something quite different to taniwha in many ways, but having some common features. I trust you can fix it in all the appropriate ways.moza 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re User:Keenan_Pepper, I hadnt looked at the article so i didnt know what was up last comment. further, this is another case of trying to do something that isnt that important; have a look around guys, there are HEAPS of articles needing help, why pick on this one?  how come there was zero discussion prior to stamping a proposal? thats a bit of boldness i hear you say... Lets see what happens, there is such a little amount of material on the web, you will be hard pressed to enable your proposal methinks. Still it does need help, so go for it. moza 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post modern creation? Well you said it. Nanaia Mahuta is associated with a kapa haka group called Taniwharau, and spells taniwha rau taniwharau - so what? What significance does a spelling difference have? hundred taniwha : hundredtaniwha ???? kapa haka: kapahaka. And its unsupportable to say that it has anything to do with mosasaurs. Extinct for how long - or are you really saying they survived long enough in NZ to be spotted by the East Polynesian arrivals in the year 1200? Mosasaurs were marine creatures anyway, the Waikato river is fresh water Kahuroa 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm finding this conversation hard to follow, because the indentation doesn't make sense and I can't tell what the pronouns refer to, but I understand that taniwharau isn't a real word. In that case, should this be put up for deletion? —Keenan Pepper 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kahuroa, lets find the core info that may or may not be saved here. youre clearly the best wikipedian so far to understand this, and deal to it. Please disregard the mozasaur stuff, it was a bit tongue in cheek from my early  days here, and yes, unsupportable. Much of nz was inundated by the sea at various times and there was much exposed land now covered as well, but the era's dont co-relate, I'll take it off. For the rest I simply reported what I found, and thats referenced. I dont quite understand your spelling discussion, are you saying that it should be presented as a two word phrase when referring to the two headed sea monster concept? I would likely accept that. There is still the issue that the single word phrase has been in use for nearly a hundred years and has a life of its own now, when refering to the high school motto and emblem, and apparently other groups have  used that spelling, possibly as a result of that school experience?  I dont agree thats it not a real word though, Its been in use for a significant period as a word, has several internet references to it, and I dont think a dictionary is necessarily the only source of info to be used, the dictionaries often take time to catch up. I have some big old ones though, and some little ones about our languages, but havent looked at them as they are in storage. What would you see as the best line of action here?moza 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: we have to agree to disagree then, I see it as a clearly separate concept and resultant usage issues, but i also see the problem is that there is insufficient interested and qualified parties to debate in depth. You cant substitute the two words for one in all the articles occurences, and have anything like the same meaning. Its maybe a bit like the wh usage as opposed to just w, the sound is differnt, the original sound produced is different, our forebears simply wrote it down inadequately and then it metamorphed to lots of other usages, often incorrect and inappropriate but now existing in their own right. I dont like it, I am happy to change it back where appropriate and agreed, but it should be lead by example, not forced by pushing. For the record, i think that is was extremely arrogant to wander into another civilisation and start naming the geographical features by some persons name unknown to the majority of the then inhabitants. I will never use Stewart Island for instance, its Rakiura to me. Somes-Matiu is difficult though, if you dont say the whole Somes-Matiu Island hardly anyone knows where you mean. And how about the longest place name, the 75 characters has set the field size for the entire 55,000 place name database, and while its no longer of any consequence, just a few years back it was quite a hurdle for lots of computers to handle. Are you suggesting that it might need breaking up into its components? Please dont get me wrong, i'm able to adapt if i see that its better to go and smash a current practice, even if its been going for a century or more. If Keenen goes and meeses with some Hopi wikipedia pages i think he will gain more understanding of this very sensitive and often complicated situation, so i regarded the pushing as a bit ill advised. There are only 3 of us, hardly valid for the purpose intended. I could almost bet a 4th party will step in and side against me any second though.. look, we want the same or similiar outcome, do you want this material in the Taniwha article? Does someone need to create articles for all the other usages? whether or not such usage turns out to be correct or incorrect, agreed or disagreed? Or does the combo word need to be added to a dictionary before you will accept it how it is currently used by many? Can Maori be allowed to change and adjust along the lines of other languages? are you suggesting we go back to using Shakespeares version of English as that was agreed at the time? This is turning into a learning opportunity about linguistics and language. The bottom line is whose authority will be acceptable for wikipedia's purpose? I referenced a huge number of published sites that use the current form, and in my opinion that complies with wikipedia's policies, even if you and i agree later its something else.moza 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Having said what i did, i actually went and looked!! yes there is a huge body of evidence on the web, from respected sources, but now there is an edit conflict and I will wait until the other edits stop and repost the difference between before this and the following:
The Taniwharau is depicted as a two headed water monster said to inhabit the waters of New Zealand. The evidence of usage suggests that Taniwharau refers to many chiefs or many leaders. 
(removed text from here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I put it here as storage for later, and to make available the results of several hours activity to all interested parties.moza 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nolonger needed, so removed article text from here.moza 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huge body of evidence for use on the internet

message: M=Maori E=English
*M-kōpūrau	
*E māhanga ana te kaiwhakapati i te wawau ma nga whakamihi kōpūrau.
*E-insincere	The flatterer snares the foolish with insincere compliments.
*M-rūpahu, kōpūngahuru, kōpūrau	He tere te tauira ki te mau ki te rūpahu a o rātau kaiako.
*E-insincerity	Students are quick to detect insincerity in their teachers.
*M-kōpūrau	He kōpūrau ana whakaaro.
*E-two-faced	He is two-faced about his intentions.
:Questions. given the existence of a taniwha image with two heads with two faces, was Sir Apirana Ngata referring to the plethora of Chiefs along the Waikato as some kind of indication of divisive attitude, or higher risk?  You can look at the image and read the text in the picture from back then. Was the flattery to Mahuta the thing that the heading alludes to? Was it the reference to "but Waikato is reluctant to co-operate again" a nice way of saying they are two faced?
:Looking at räua [1] < raaua, raua > [Pronoun] they (two people); them (two); (when two people only are named and linked in a list, räua ko is used where English would use and.) is there some error creep that confused the original usage? We can all clearly see the TWO heads and faces on the image thats at least 50 years old, from a school document from back then, and verified by todays FHS website. moza 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some new ideas from looking at available material

message: Taniwha is a word. Rau is a word. Taniwha rau means 'hundred taniwha'. Taniwharau is a non-standard spelling of 'taniwha rau'. It has the same meaning as taniwha rau.  You can tell it is a non-standard spelling because it appears in no dictionary - including the ones you have added to the article. "Sorry, neither the Word "taniwharau" or any of its alternative spellings are in the database" It doesn't matter how many people spell it one way or the other, there is no difference in meaning. Here are some examples:  
Here is the entry from Hirini Moko Mead, Neil Grove, Ngā Pēpeha a ngā Tīpuna, The Sayings of the Ancestors (Victoria University Press: Wellington) , 2001., p421:
2636 Waikato taniwha rau.
Kāretu 1974:61, Kōhere 1951:48; Nahe 1894:72
'Waikato of the many chiefs.' This well-known tribal pepehā depends on the double meaning of taniwha, as 'monster' or 'chief'. Sometimes a phrase is added to the saying: he piko, he taniwha, he piko, he taniwha, 'at every bend a taniwha'.
You also mentioned Te Ao Hou. See this quote from Te Ao Hou in which the above proverb appears with the spelling 'taniwha rau': page 49 : - also look at this graphic image of page 49 itself . 
And here on the prestigious Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand the same spelling taniwha rau is used 
You also mentioned Te Puni Kōkiri. Here is a publication of TPK in which the spelling taniwha rau is used on page 1 of this pdf in an article about the Māori Queen: 
I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear.
Kahuroa 05:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok so heres a picture of the 1957 article with both the heading and content spelt in the disputed manner.  I dont see the point of re-stating the case, we need to look for new ground. This is an encyclopedia as opposed to being a dictionary. Its one thing to believe something and another to say that anything different to that belief is incorrect. I really dont mind if there never was a taniwha called taniwharau or if there was or wasnt one with two or more heads (many cultures have multi-headed monsters, dragons, snakes, eels, Hydra for instance),   What counts is what exists, ok so the history is wrong where they mis-spelt it, thats all it is; wrong. Theres a new situation now, encyclopeadic, of organisations using a perfectly valid mutation of old words to create an identity. They have also created a graphic, and used it for more than 50 verifiable years. The page is already a kind of disambiguation device, and the only clarification required is that it should state that there is no historical information greater than a century to indicate that a taniwharau was ever a proper word. I'm sure you want more than that, but i simply want the truth and the evidence, and Ive gone to some length to deliver. I spent 4 years of my adolescence excelling under that motto and image, and I'm not about to let that go. Is the rest of our cultural history documentation full of such error? thats cause for concern isnt it? Isnt there any room at all for alternative interpretations using the value of hindsight? what are the rules for mutating language, how many people do you know that say youse guys, (ewes / use)  and have no idea thats there is anything wrong with it. I know lots. Personally i hate it, but its not my place to dictate any other way. Should we fight those kind of changes as well? funny i am the kind of guy that would if i believed i should. I DO want to try and learn more about this, but not at any price. We need a bunch of opinions here, but can you see that happening?moza 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, yeah its a strange situation. lets sit it out for a bit, and then if the çonsensus is for it, it can stay, and vice versa. I am much more interested in getting what i can from this though, judging by the interest of others, theres fairly low importance in the wiki article. so while i get a bit excited about it, I can still learn. I'm serious about what i ask, i want to understand more about what actually happened in the last hundred or so years, and share that knowledge. I will think on it for a while, and see how it can be considered like you do, as a separate thing.moza 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Point

message: Hi, I've been asked to have a look at the article and offer another opinion. In general, I completely agree with Kahuroa's comment above (beginning "I think at the most all this deserves is"); for all the sources cited, not one of them seems to say "Taniwharau = two headed water monster", so the premise in the intro is inherently unsourced. Therefore, the whole premise for the article is unverifiable and everything else is actually a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.
The language conversion section is OR and totally unencyclopedic. The Pane-iraira and Earthquakes sections don't actually refer to Taniwharau at all, so shouldn't be in the article. All the other sections demonstrate that the term is used, but none of them actually tell us anything about the word or the concept behind it, so they're also irrelevant to the topic. It's just a grab-bag of uses of the term (mostly, as Kahuroa points out above, stemming from the term Waikato Taniwharau) with no coherent way to link them. There could be made an argument for this being okay (with some cleanup) if the central premise of the article were to be properly verified, but there's nothing like that here now.
I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion immediately, but I'd like to see if anything can be made of the article, either by making it a disambig or otherwise. Perhaps someone could put a version of what a potential disambig may look like here on the talk page? Ziggurat 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eep, sorry about that! First time I've forgotten to sign in ... ever, I think! Done now. Ziggurat 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion 

message: ok I am stating at the outset that I will be happy to observe whatever happens with less objection than previously, but how about you considering taking a different approach? There is scant evidence, true, but the term is used and is more widespread than the internet, so perhaps the original document I have is the verification, and if I can dig it out I will publish it with my sisters' permission. (Its a certificate of hers issued at Hamilton Technical College.) I would very much like to see research into this term, but I am busy this week with something infinitely more important, saving a piece of pristine headland from development. I met with the Rangatira of Tapu Te Ranga Marae yesterday, Bruce Stewart and I didnt have time to ask him about it, but i will. He is presenting their case on friday at 9:30am with my power point.  I also have access to the representative of Ngati Toa, who is presenting their case to the hearing on Friday, and I will rely on his advice absolutely. So please, if its not a taniwha I can understand that, and accept it, but then its not up for disambiguation. If its NOT a taniwha as you say, then how can it be disambiguated. It seems to me that its a westernisation of a well known (now) concept, the taniwha, and deserves its own article, but without all the obfuscation. It IS in fact on the Fraser High School website, but it predates the creation of that school by 30 to 50 years or even perhaps 70 years, and has stood the test of time. It IS depicted as a two headed water monster, that is undeniable. It IS the name of the school motto used for 80 years so maybe it will be named Taniwarau Motto although I dont see the point of fighting over such detail. Please be careful cleaning out the article though, and thanks for the opportunity of discussion, thats a great step in the right direction for wikipedians to take.moza 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: further thought, if its what is needed, then I offer to build websites for the groups with tangential references, so that they are no longer sub references, although I personally dont accept the difference, if it would make the difference to wikipedia then it would be easier creating than fighting.moza 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please take extra special care here

message: Curious how some editors use the concept of verification: " info on their own website is not suitable, as its POV, (and conflict of interest) whereas appearing on a well known news media site is preferable" to damn when they need, and at other times  a reputable NEWS site is damned as tangential.. I need a bit of help to understand that. I think that the following IS reputable and acceptable:
:: Rugby League in New Zealand  >News
	
:: :: NEWS ::
Taniwharau hook Sharks
Sun Apr 21, 3:56pm (NZ)
Written by: Langdon Rawson
Played April 20
Huntly's Taniwharau and the Tauranga City Sharks went head to head in Round 7 of the Waicoa Bay Premiership yesterday in Tauranga... etc etc
That is a reputable site making a useful statement, easily verified, and maybe that indicates an email to the editor is required but maybe its easier to say its not useful, now I'm a bit confused and I'll probably PHONE those people to get faster response and ask THEM to verify that what they say is TRUE, in writing, or something.. www.nz.rleague.commoza 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phoning people up and asking if what they published is true is not a useful activity for Wikipedia. Read the example story at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth. —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its so hard to have a discussion in this place thats meaningful. I dont need anywhere else to look. I know whats useful already. I suggested 'phone' as a rapid method of requesting 'HARD verification' (in writing or something). So if they gave me some new reference to something already published would that be acceptable, I cant see anything wrong with the already published material clearly referenced but others seem to.  The article simply needs to metamorph away from the two headed water monster as the theme, to a variety of verified and applied uses for the word, that includes a motto depicted simultaneously with a two headed water monster. Funnily, that requires much more effort than we have expended discussing it, but I'm very appreciative that we have, it generally adds to the understanding of wiki process and editors thinking. I am still quite surprised, even after a whole year of exposure to the archetypal behaviour, that editors frequently want to pick holes and discuss the 'bits' and exclude the meat in the sandwich. I asked about the validity of the Rugby web site verifications, that were said to be 'tangential' in this case. Why isnt that site considered good enough? Whats different about that site compared with the millions of others used in similiar ways? I dont see any.moza 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: References are references; mentions on a website are not. Anyway I have rewritten the article and taken out the irrelevancies and the non-encyclopedic stuff, but still think it is largely an article about nothing at all. Kahuroa 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tangential references vs News Media publications for verifiabilty purposes

message: etc etc etc
::so anyway, on re-reading the discussions above its clear that disambiguation was in fact a red herring, and now the question is that faced with a vast body of reliable information who will step forward and write it into the article in a way that wont be torn to shreds and only the barest of bones left. I still dont understand the depth of the surgical process in this article, when i see so many others that have almost no references or sources quoted, no verification at all in many cases, and this one is a subject that is starting to grow out of control and become many subjects with the SAME label whether its a word or not by any definition doesnt seem to me to be important any more.125.238.229.83 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am coming back to my earlier gut feeling that there is much more hidden meaning and attributes to this 'word' than anyone so far has been willing to admit to, and that the information will find its way here in due course, as I have seen in many articles in the few years that I have been here. The ease of publishing anything at al on the web has changed the dynamic; now people dont need wikipedia for their own agendas, a huge range of other sites with varying advantages are available, and a new wave of social engineering is taking place; shock, horror,  wikipedia is suddenly less relevant.. 125.238.229.83 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion immediately," what is THAT!!!  that is simply saying that no one is ever gonna fix it, so throw it away? thats the exact behaviour in this space that reduces the need for this space. what ever happened to positivity and fixing stuff that is erroneous, which it was 12 months ago, but no one could be bothered re-writing it, it had to be slammed for what it was.. and reduced to almost nothing at all, which it wasnt, and forgetting that this is a collaboration, and takes time. wikipedia was clearly behind the times in this subect back then.125.238.229.83 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I read a real book today that talked about the Taniwha off Terawhiti Headland  and thats sea water; also, Joan Wiffen , in a real book, talks about the razor sharp teeth of the mosasaur embedded in the freshwater stream beds of the inland Hawkes Bay  mountains, cutting the feet of all who happened to walk on them, for hundreds of years, and that they were known to the earlier inhabitants of this land as monsters, or some such,its a few months since i read that... its all too tedious, but i will continue to watch over the proceedings infrequently...125.238.229.83 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: wikipedia lost the session data, it was all by me..125.238.229.83 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: again, 125.238.229.83 is me, Paul Moss 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good enough yet, enough reputable sources?? 

message: I have made this into a redirect to Taniwha, because there was no content, not even enough for a redirect. I can't follow the logic of the reasons given for its existence. I have made a note of this at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board which might be a good place to discuss this if anyone wishes to give their reasons why they feel that it should remain as a separate article. Kahuroa 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Its so that discussions can take place here... x  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.231.225 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page is CALLED a DISCUSSION Page for good reason 

message: This has been going on for how long??? Even if 'Taniwharau' is a word, that doesn't mean it is worthy of a page. --Helenalex 15:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: exactly. It should have been nominated for speedy deletion long ago, guess I was trying to be kind to Mozasaur/Paul Moss since he seemed to have some intense personal identification with the subject, but really its just crazy/increase the dosage material. Kahuroa 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality of the behaviour exhibited here is plain for all to see, and emo stuff could be avoided in a climate of respect and broad consultation, which hasnt happened here to any significant degree. So much for consensus, its a bit mythical for some editors in some areas, but seems to work in others. On wandering around, I'm still struck by the screaming need of attention for so many zillions of articles, as opposed to the need for some primal dominance and conquest of others. There seems little point in defending content unless you are part of a large team that can dominate and rule.. not my idea of a suitable space to work in at all. Ive been around long enough to be able to sit out the hares and be the tortoise, its the longer term outcome I'm really interested in, so enjoy your moment, its a blink in the eye of reality. ~~
Paul Moss 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Lord 

message: well i gave up on it for the moment, but I'm very glad indeed at least someone out there saw fit to restore it to something. They say its not over until the fat lady sings..  well she hasnt sung yet..Paul Moss (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  its back