Talk:Te Kooti

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pic found on Commons, was miscategorised

File:Page 310 - Te Kooti's House.jpg - a bit of research needed on this to find out the name of the house etc. Kahuroa (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - the name of this house is Te Tokanga-nui-a-noho and is located in Te Kuiti. It still stands today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.59.20 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ron Crosby -new research

In his 2004 book Crosby looks critically at work by Judith Binney and finds that she made a number of errors and mistakes in examing Te Kooti. He finds that she was too willing to forgive Te Kooti for his many extreme act of violence which harked back to the savagery of the musket era. Binney's book sanitizes some of the horror of Te Kooti's campaign. Crosby also benefits from a mass of new information that came to light during his time with the Treaty tribunal,of which Binney was unaware as it was previously unrecorded. There is little doubt Te Kooti was a clever guerilla but he was also vicious,treacherous and blood thirsty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.164 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Held without trial-misleading POV?

In New Zealand in the mid 19th century it was common for the government to declare martial law to provide a legal framework for the various militia,armed constabulary,kupapa Maori and other military units to operate. This law was in place when the Hau hau rebels went on the rampage in the North Island."no trial" suggests that the state did something wrong. In fact the status of the prisoners was more like a modern POW. Of course this happened before the modern rules for POWs were made but by any standards the Hau hau rebels(and Te Kooti) were well treated fed and looked after. The Chatham island prison was as far as can be judged fairly open and tolerant. Earlier experience had shown that Maori prisoners reacted very badly to being confined in a small space, so this practice was avoided. It is interesting that within a short time many of the Hau hau leaders,who were chiefs ,were released from the island. It was only after their departure that Te Kooti was able to have a leadership position and was able to influence the minds of the remaining Hau hau. Of course Hau hau did not take prisoners -they killed them,often with extreme brutality, so the actions of the government were very humane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Portrait

I've just removed the "Gudgeon portrait" that's been on this article for a long time. It's clearly not of Te Kooti, given that he is universally described as having no facial moko. Further info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TeKootiGudgeon.jpg Snori (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Judith Binney On Te Kooti.

I think it fair to say that Judith Binney's book on Te Kooti-Redemption Songs, is by far the best account of his life. Its been around for about 20 years so is nothing new or controversial. 666 pages of well researched history.71 pages of Notes and References.14 pages of sources. While some of her interpretations of Te Kooti's actions may seem a bit too gentle -and this aspect has been commented on by a raft of our current historians far better qualified than myself to judge this,the book is very detailed and gives a very full factual account of his life from birth to death and beyond. I have stuck to the basic details of his life to just fill in some of the missing parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see we have a different opinion on what constitutes "basic details" and unencyclopedic trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Judith Binney's work was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where "her interpretations of events need to be interpreted critically" seems to have been the consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to overlook that Binney researched and wrote Redemption Songs(the book I used as a reference) many years before she was representing Tuhoe at the Waitangi tribunal so that kills that argument. The fact that the Government accepted the Tribunal's findings (probably largely based on Binney's research) suggests that she was fairly accurate. NB Michael King's book Moriori was also used by Moriori to defend themselves at the Tribunal against claims by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutanga. The Morori were very successful. Does that make King's book suspect? A bit different I know as King wasnt directly working for the Moriori but the final effect was the same. Binney was not stupid. She knew that Tuhoe had a particular point of view. She knew very well not to rely solely on Maori oral history as it had a very different purpose to modern western history and has said so in her writings. The only problem with the Tuhoe question and "solution" was that the tribunal did not look at mana whenua in the Ureweras before about 1850 otherwise they would have had a big surprise(perhaps they did look and decided to leave well enough alone). Michael Belgraves has made some very telling comments about that. None of this impinges on the quality of what Binney wrote about Te Kooti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Belgrave, on P.35 of his Historical Frictions book, refers specifically to Binney's book on Te Kooti and Rua Kenena as "Tuhoe-centered studies". "While these histories do not discard the critical conventions of historical scholarship, they accept that there are different forms of truth and do not try overly hard to resolve the tensions and contradictions between their subject's take on the past and that of others. These histories do not ignore the universal post-colonial narrative; rather, they present it through the eyes of one particular indigenous community." BlackCab (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure which book you are referring too above -not "Redemption Songs" I think(?) which is what this discussion is generally about. Yes,Belgraves statement is a fair enough and accurate statement about how Binney wrote. In other words she put the Maori case in a way they would have seen it back then but she was doing it for a western educated modern literate audience. You have to understand the "conventional" history before you can see where Binney deviated. One point that just occurred to me was that in Redemption Songs (and elsewhere??)Binney presses the point about Te Kooti not being changed with a crime. However she ignores the fact that no one else was changed either! Nor was there a real reason to lay charges either as the government had declared martial law after the Taranaki Hau hau uprisings.ie he was nominally what we would call today a POW. Te Kooti would have been one of the few articulate and very literate Maori leaders. Still, Binney is very even handed how she dealt with the conflicting evidence re his expulsion to the Chathams. She makes it obvious that there were a range of reasons(such as his antagonistic( erratic boozing/ stealing/ womanizing) behaviour to his own people, as well as settlers, for many years prior to the war. She makes it clear, with evidence, that there was good reason to suspect that he had divided loyalties and may well have aided the Hau hau enemy, which included his brother. I dont think this last point is a particularly strong one, as it is clear that Te Kooti didn't care a great deal for whanua-after all, it was they who kicked him out. Also, he had no problems with having his uncle(who had helped him through difficult patches when he was younger) thrown overboard and killed from the Riflemen later on. Getting back to Belgraves -having been an insider for some time on the tribunal -he knows how they like to operate with equity being the key word. It is just incidental that their decisions "change" history. I guess you could call it colateral damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk • contribs)

I'm about to revert a whole lot of changes you're made. As covered above, Binney can't be used to support emotive claims. Binney can't be used to say he was "forced out"; maybe that he "left" but not "forced out". Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stuart."left "(his hapu) would be very inaccurate indeed!!!After all his misbehaviour his own hapu went to war against him!Read the books -Binney goes into a lot of detail. Binney's main source for all this info was Te Kooti himself, who dictated a good deal about his life experiences,mostly written later in his life, when he was in the King Country. He had a secretary who he dictated his personal history too over many years. Te Kooti was no doubt trying to show that even though he was seriously bad when younger, he had reformed and become a peaceful holy man in his old age. That makes complete sense. Reading between the lines it wouldnt surprise me if Te Kooti suffered from serious mental issues. Perhaps it ran in the family? We dont really know why his father tried to kill him by burying him alive,but its certainly not normal behaviour even in those days! His behaviour as a youth was undoubtedly heavily influenced by alcohol as well.I have not bothered to put in all the other references to his drinking etc but from memory there were at least 5 or 6 separate ones. Given that even the Maori sources say he was really wild I think its reasonable to say he was! Having it off with the wife of a hapu elder is really pushing your luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Hello Stuart. Im not sure why you immediately removed the information on the article without any discussion or elaboration at all? Binney as I have pointed out is a reliable source. Te Kooti himself is a key source. I cant see what your problem is as you have not responded in any meaningful way apart from making threats on my talk page. Not very helpful. I would like to see a reasoned arguement from you-not "as covered above"which is very vague to say the least! I wont revert to the more factual,detailed and sourced account of his life until other editors have hopefully had a look at the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

IP editor, can I firstly ask you why you do not sign your posts? You seek co-operation and communication from others, yet you steadfastly refuse to act in a manner that demonstrates basic courtesy. You have been shown many times how to sign your posts, but instead choose to make your comments without identifying yourself. It indicates a lack of good faith and an unwillingness to be a constructive member of the Wikipedia community.

Looking at the information you have uploaded, I see little in itself that is a concern about its accuracy or reliability. If Binney noted his social delinquency as a youth, and his religious affiliation, that may be worth brief mention. The problems from here are:

(a) There is no encyclopedic value in much of what you are adding: "Te Kooti's behaviour appears to have been quite maladjusted" reads as if it's your judgment (which is unacceptable here). "Te Kooti was apparently a very troublesome boy to his father, who tried to kill him" may have some merit in a 300-page book, but not in a brief encyclopedia article about a Maori leader. The use of the word "apparently" again seems to be your judgment. "Te Kooti was taught to read the bible by Margaret U'ren and family for whom he worked. They included him in the family prayers" is utter trivia.

(b) Claims about his youthful delinquency that would have a bearing on his later life -- and any other contentious material -- needs to be clearly attributed to Binney in the article's text. There has already been discussion about the caution with which her work needs to be treated.

(c) Your writing style continues to be abysmal. You are utterly careless about punctuation, spacing and paragraphs, and unconcerned with very clear Wikipedia styles on citations. You have been told many times that you greatly frustrate other Wikipedia editors who try to lift the standard of these articles.

(d) You need to listen to, and communicate better with, other editors rather than simply reverting others' changes. The fact that so many editors have concerns with your work should tell you there is a problem that is best resolved through discussion; your continued resistance to deal with this in a mature manner does not help at all. BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for a month (three previous). Moriori (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph Too Short

The article has the 'Too short' template and to be fair the lead paragraph is very short. But it does cover the main points of the article. The only thing left out was that the young Te Kooti was a bit of a rotter. However that statement is neither encyclopedic nor neutral. Also the article is silent as to how Te Kooti morphed from being a brigand to fighting for the Crown. I suggest that this template be removed. OrewaTel (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Portrait: again.

A decade ago another editor removed the portraits on the grounds that they aren't him. It looks like they're back, so if no one objects, I'll get rid of them again. The main picture seems to be a redrawing of this photo of Te Kanawa Haerehuka, and the second picture is just some newspaper exoticism that looks fifty years out of date. The two plausibly real portraits agree with the written descriptions of him being untattooed, and bearded (and in European clothes) [1],[2]. Misleading pictures are worse than no pictures imo. 2404:4408:9611:CF00:85C7:C689:2C6F:D12F (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)