This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Māori High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance). Military history: South Pacific This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

"Women and girls were raped leading to an outbreak of syphilis in the community."

There needs to be a source for this statement or I'm going to remove it (I have no idea if it is true or not). I've checked all five of the external links. Syphilis isn't mentioned at all. Rape is mentioned only once, in the PDF "Parihaka and the Gift of Non Violent Resistance". That document says, "THE INVASION WAS MARKED BY RAPES", but it is not qualified and no evidence is mentioned. --Cbotman 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Almost removed Military History tag as article is just barely within scope of project. More expansion to the article and the "invasion" would bring this article much more in line with the scope of the Military History project. --dashiellx (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In adding the chronology of the Parihaka settlement through the late 1800s, it's become apparent that a section under the heading "History" may not be appropriate. Most of the article is actually going to be history, which means that apart from a small section about redress, it's all going to fall under the one section heading, with way too many sub-headings. A better way, I think, is to treat the article as mostly an historical examination, so after the lead section, it will then go into section headings covering the initial establishment of the settlement, the growing tensions over land, the arrests and the invasion, etc. The information on redress and the peace festival can thus appear as their own sections towards the end. I'm still working my way through the chronology, approaching the invasion, so I'll make these changes when I go into it next if there are no objections. The article so far relies mostly on two sources, but I'll expand my search for more sources as I proceed. Grimhim (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a split of the article. There are two topics: the town and the resistance by Maori to the European settlers. The latter topic is a notable part of NZ history and as such it deserves its own article. The info about the "conflict" also overshadows the article about the town. I have suggested the "conflict" qualifier on the new article title. It is not particularly accurate since it suggests actual fighting on both sides. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in a split. This article is almost entirely about the 19th century history, with a little bit about modern redress and remembrance. The only material relating to the current locality is the infobox and first sentence. We would not normally have an article on such a locality, which has no amenities (such as a primary school) that I am aware of, and about which there is probably very little to say other than relating to its history. It may be appropriate to replace the infobox with one such as {{Infobox Military Conflict}}, and move the information in the current infobox into the article.-gadfium 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any value either. I ask you to please be very careful, I dont think it's appropriate to refer to this community as a 'town' either. I've been there several times, shot about 100 hours of HD video footage. The best plan would be to ask the local people how they would like to be represented here in wikipedia and take that into account. I do see that the Parihaka International Peace Festival deserves an article of its own, and I'm waiting for an era of solidarity in our kiwi contributors to create such a thing. The festival is a very important part of our summer music history, and is even more important as an annual sharing and source of alternative lifestyle and philosophy ideas and support.Paul Moss (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium's comments are right on the button. Absolutely no value in splitting this. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't write themselves. If you think the peace festival warrants an article, write it. As the author of the bulk of the history section within the article, I strongly support leaving it as it is without a split. Parihaka's notability is primarily due to the struggle that took place at that locality over land ownership and sovereignty, and most users reading this article would arrive there because they want to know more about that struggle and conflict. The suggestion that the people of Parihaka be consulted about how this article should be written is a curious one. Wikipedia articles are written by Wikipedia editors based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It's of no relevance how the subject of the article wishes to be portrayed. Grimhim (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent history reasearch shows that Te Whiti knew he was illegally on land owned by the government.Te Whiti never came up with a coherent reason why he though he could just take over government land. He gave 3 different and conflicting justifications for his reoccupation. It is clear that from early on Te Whiti was hoping to force the governmnet into giving him title to the Parihaka land .It is clear he was thinking in terms of the Maori concept of ahi kaa-ie if Maori didnt occupy the land and use it then it was up for grabs. He chose not to ignore the fact that no such thing exists in NZ law. While the vast majority of South Taranaki Maori were content to take Takoha ( an equivalent of a modern "no fault"payment to settle a dispute.)from the government, Te Whiti was determined to bring about a confrontation. The government had drawn up plans for giving native reserve to the tangatawhenua near Parihakabut but they knew that many of the Parihaka people were not locals -they had come from many other hapu. The government had every legal right to build a road under the public works act.Te Whiti had no legal right to block the road. When the government refused to be provoked TE Whiti then ordered his people onto private farms(most had been owned by settlers for 20 years) and told them to take down farmers fences allowing stock to wander and destroy the pasture by ploughing it up. The law then is vitually identical to what it is now-you cant just block aroad or wander onto farms and start using them for yourself. It was a lawless act then and it would be lawless act now. At first site the use of an army seems a bit heavy handed, but ,not withstanding Te Whiti's message of peace, amongst his people were known criminals( at least one murderer) and Maori who had previously taken part in violent, warlike acts against settlers and the government in preceeding years. All of the people who were arrested were given ample opportunity to leave peacefully but chose to ignore the law. The arrests and trials were all according to law that had been passed by parliament -a parliament that had 4 Maori MPs. It is interesting that we have detailed information about the events in Parihaka from 3 neutral sources who had secreted themselves in the vilage despite the warnings of the military. Given the tension of the situation and the normal standards of behaviour of those days the removal of very determined squatters was done in a very fair and businesslike way. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone was raped-this is just another Maori myth.

What "most recent history research"? References, references, references. It is somewhat ironic that you are claiming that there is "absolutely no evidence" for something you call a "Maori myth" when you are either unwilling or unable to cite references yourself. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of the opening, "arms against the settlers and killed Maori who wished to land part of their land. Recognising that he could never win a war against the government, Te Whiti and Tohu declared they would use spiritual powers" has two grammar mistakes first is to land part of their land and I cannot understand what it means. Next is "Recognising that he could... declared they would use" that is related to both Te Whiti and Tohu, appropriately they' not he.

Later, in First Resistence this: while MP Major Harry Atkinson encouraged farms to enrol as specials and begin drilling? Encouraged farms to.. begin drilling? This grammar and spelling makes it very difficult for translators to work with your text and correctly reporduce it in other languages.

I didn't go any further but It seems to me that you need a good editor with reasonable authority to clean-up your writing and make it readable. 124.171.197.138 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Minor adjustments made to help translation,although despite errors I think the meaning, in English anyway, was clear.FYI there is no such word as "reporduce" in English.I think you mean reproduce?Cheers 1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.159.198 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit of an IP user who has added a quote from Moses Wharepouri about "chinks, niggers wogs", and also a statement about a pair of defendants from the 2007 Urewera police raids being sentenced to home detention at Parihaka. There is probably a need for a new section on modern Parihaka, but that edit is not the way to do it.

For starters, I have renamed that last section of the Parihaka article "References in popular culture" per WP:POPCULTURE. The statements the IP editor has added are not relevant to that section.

Secondly, the statement from Wharepouri, added without context, makes the intent of the edit rather questionable. Of all material that has been written about Parihaka and its importance to Taranaki Maori, it is odd that the editor has chosen a single sentence from one book that uses words that are usually used as terms of racial denigration. Who is Moses Wharepouri? A Google search turns up just one reference -- on one page of Michael King's book. I'm guessing this is part of what seem to be a long pattern of cherrypicking edits at Wikipedia by that editor designed to show Maori in their worst possible light. Removal of the Wharepouri statement is not censorship; it is an act of prudence to avoid unnecessary offence. I don't doubt that other reference works exist that refer to Parihaka being a welcoming place for all peaceful people, but without using those terms; it's those statements that should be preferred for inclusion.

The apparently close connection between Urs Signer and Emily Bailey and Parihaka, and a court's subsequent decision to sentence them to home detention at the settlement, is probably worth including in the article, but within a new section on modern Parihaka. Both defendants moved to Parihaka after being charged with offences; members of that community clearly embraced them and were critical of charges being laid (see here and here). There are probably good sources that can be used to explain the mood and ideology of modern-day Parihaka, particularly if (and I'm only assuming here) it remains a rallying point for political or Maori activism. Without that section, however, the fact that two people have been sentenced to home detention there has only a tenuous connection with the community in an encyclopedia article. BlackCab (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the statement about the government drawing up plans to take the land by force, an editor has added the following: "The key to understanding this action was that local government was ready to establish a large reserve for locals but most of the squatters at Parihaka were not local. Many were from the Taranki iwi Ngati Mutanga who had ochestrated the invasion of the Chatham Islands in 1835." This is sourced to Michael King's Moriori book, but the index to that book provides no reference to Parihaka. Can we have a page number from Moriori for that statement please? If none is provided, the material will be removed. BlackCab (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor who added this has responded at his/her talk page, [1], explaining: "I believe it was in the chapter about Ngati Mutanga's recent aggressive attitude towards the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal where they claimed the right to invade other lands ,kill and eat people, enslave the survivors and take over their economy."

The Moriori book does refer briefly on pages 108 and 133-134 to the support of some members of Ngati Mutunga for Te Whiti and that "many Taranaki Maori" were being drawn to Parihaka. King says the Ngati Mutunga "resumed residence in their former homes" after leaving the Chathams; on page 71 he says they had formerly lived at Port Nicholson, and before that, north of the Waitara River in Taranaki. Presumably they went to one of those places. I can't find any statement by Michael King about Ngati Mutunga squatting at Parihaka, or that this had any contribution to the government's repeated failure to grant its promised reserves in the Parihaka area for Taranaki Maori whose land it had confiscated and now wished to sell to colonists.

If there are better sources to support the claim (which would still need to be clarified) please provide them. In the meantime I will remove the statement, which seems to be wrong. BlackCab (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really thought this through.ie Why did the government take such forceful action against people who on the surface at least seemed peaceful? Govt agents regularly visited Parihaka and gave detailed feed back to the government about what was going on and who was present. They knew from the Hau hau fiasco that what had superficially started out as a peaceful religion could quickly degenerated into a blood bath.Te Whiti in particular regularly gave long rambling speeches to his followers which were recorded by fluent Maori speakers. Te Whiti was simply repeating the Hau hau message ie Some great upheaval would cause the Europeans to suddenly leave and all the land would revert back to Maori owners. Even the medium was the same -including classic Maori tikanga references and speaking in tongues. Given the extremely violent, not to say barbaric nature of the many of the squatters(including sheltering a murderer, a violent guerilla leader and maybe several hundred of the Ngati Mutunga invaders from the Chatham islands). To say nothing of the hundreds of guns that were so well hidden they were not found till days later. Join the dots!This is what the government did in taking firm action !You didnt read King on Moriori very well -it says quite clearly that all (or nearly all ) of Ngati Mutanga left the islands to return to NZ.That would be quite a few hundred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add only material that is taken from authoritative sources. Cite page numbers so this can be verified. BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best analysis of the history of Parihaka is Dick Scott's book and he explains (as does the Wikipedia article) that the invasion was precipitated by government frustration over the ongoing interference by Maori of attempts to survey and sell their land. There seems to be no support in any reliable sources for your theories. This is why I have removed your edits, which appear to be your own speculation -- and your statements such as "It has been suggested that... and "It is hard to prove or disprove this idea as ..." are dead giveaways of this. Wikipedia must rely on facts, not speculation. King does not say what you have attributed to him. I have corrected the book title you are supposedly citing, so why do you change it back to an incorrect title? BlackCab (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! I have just come across this little revelation which explains a lot about your mind set and lack of critical academic awareness. Dick Scott,a self confessed communist, is perhaps the best known Marxist Socialist journalist in NZ. Ask that Mountain 1975 was a rehash of his bitter The Parihaka Story 1954 written at the height of Marxist fervour world wide. Scott was a dedicated anti capitalist and for him any colonialism was a bete noir. He dedicated his life to trying to undermine democratic "colonial" government. This book is the most criticized book written about Nz history ever. There is no doubt it was effective though as better people than you think it is actually an accurate account! Not surprisingly it is now studied in some Nz universities as an exercise in socialist,anti colonial propaganda. Scott knew few facts about Parihaka in 1954 but this not stop him writing a seriously distorted account of what was a very minor incident in our history. By 1975 a bit more was known but this does not excuse his deliberate distortions. The kind of "insights" you are parroting are the result of the effectiveness his campaign of misinformation. No historian today who is worthy of the name, considers his version of Parihaka as anything more than a deliberate historical distortion by a dedicated but clever extreme left wing writer.It is ironic that the only person who suffered an injury at Parihaka-a little boy who had his foot trodden on by a horse-later became Sir Maui Pomare, one of the dedicated Young Maori Party who did so much to work with the government to improve the lot of Maori people in NZ. Also ironic is that Dick Scott Became very rich in the capitalist society he hated-so much so that he could afford to sell one of his Don Binney paintings for $.3million for the earthquake victims in Christchurch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

Hi, I don't think your response to BlackCab is consistent with Wikipedia's policies on civility. Please comment on the article and the facts. The point of these discussions is to arrive at a neutral point of view for the article, not to lay waste to other editors who have contrary perspectives. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that King says only that Ngati Mutanga returned to their "former homes". You have claimed they squatted at Parihaka and that this somehow prompted the government decision to seize the land by force. You have not provided any source for this, which is why I have removed it. In addition, the extra, unsourced, conjectural and quite irrelevant material you have shoehorned into the lead section has completely overwhelmed what should be a brief summary of the article. Please see WP:LEAD; even if the material you have added was true, it needs to be in the body of the article, not the lead. BlackCab (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King knew very well that Ngati Mutanga land was under the mana of Te Whero Whero and had been sold to the government many years before-this is why the joined with Te Rauparaha's invasion of the Wellington area. He probably just meant that N Mutanga had returned to the general Taranaki area although we know today that 37? of the 200 arrested were Ngati Mutanga from Treaty of Waitangi tribunal sources. If you want to read about real harm done to native people read about Sand Creek, Colorado 1864.Then think about Parihaka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

The anonymous and ill-mannered IP editor's "little revelation" about Dick Scott's Ask that Mountain comes from a couple of paragraphs of Michael Belgrave's Historical Frictions, in which Belgrave notes that Scott was a socialist who saw Te Whiti as a "suitable hero" and that the book "remains the most accessible, if most criticised, account of the Parihaka community". Though Belgrave claims the modern depiction of Te Whiti owes much to Scott's portrait of him, he doesn't say his account is wrong; nor does he specify who has since criticised the book or on what grounds. He certainly doesn't resort to the florid denunciations of the book that the IP editor does. WH Oliver's The Story of New Zealand contains a brief summary of the events at Parihaka which are broadly in line with Scott's account; ditto the series of New Zealand History Online articles about Parihaka and its leaders, the Puke Ariki website and the Waitangi Tribunal's report.

Hazel Riseborough's Days of Darkness (revised 2002) also focuses on Parihaka and it would be worthwhile if this article also drew on that book as a source. Yet to date there have been no serious challenges to the accuracy of this article, and still nothing to support the IP editor's unsourced speculation that it was the presence of 37 displaced Ngati Mutanga at Parihaka that triggered the invasion by an armed force of 2500, the reading of the Riot Act, the arrest of hundreds, the eviction of 1500, the ransacking and burning of homes, the rape of women, the indefinite imprisonment of community leaders and the ongoing control of residents with passes in what he says was "a very minor incident".

The Sand Creek massacre has its own article and I'm not sure what relevance that incident has to the events at Parihaka. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with BlackCab on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott is well known in academic circles for his extreme socialist POV which coloured all his writings. Other have picked up on the tone of his outpourings and there is no doubt that his writings have seriously influenced people's understanding of Parihaka. You for example echo most of Scott's emotions on Parihaka exactly!You repeat the myth that women were raped. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. The Sand Creek reference was to put Parihaka in context on a world scale of colonial "acrocities".ie Parihaka was a minor incident. Even the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal used highly inaccurate, inflamatory language in the 1990s to describe events around Parihaka so you are in good company!. I dont buy into that kind of emotive history which is clearly a form of propaganda. It is interesting that Sir Maui Pomare's Ngati Mutanga father who was at Parihaka during the police arrests, strongly encouraged his son to turn his back on Maori tikanga and embrace the modern civilized Pakeha world. This Pomare junior did very effectively, contributing to both Maori and Pakeha society by helping wipe out traditional "medical" practices that killed many Maori. The part of the story that is most over looked is that settlers who lived in Taranaki genuinely feared Maori violence based on previous experience in the area. They had an absolute right to develop their farms in peace without squatters destroying fences and letting stock escape.The government had an absolute duty to protect them. The law then was little different to what it is now. Criminal activity is illegal and is punished by the law of the land. The Parihaka people had plenty of warning that what they were doing was illegal. The government that had their fingers burnt too many times before when dealing with Maori renegades not to approach them without overwhelming force. Exactly the same applies today -think of the police approach to the terrorist training camps in the Ureweras. Overwhelming force stops potential violence in its tracks. The discovery of the huge hoard of firearms hidden at Parihaka clearly indicates that some at least at Parihaka had violence on their minds. Not surprising given that there were many,including Ngati Mutanga, with extremely violent backgrounds at Parihaka. It is great to see that Parihaka is a thriving rural community today with its hippy music festival etc and no one even thinks of going out and cutting down fences of disrupting farmers lives.Or do they?It is really disturbing to find that one of the Urewera terrorists comes from Parihaka and is named after its leader. I wonder why she was training with assault rifles and mototov cocktail bombs? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me! Of course they missed out on the far larger reserve that the government had set aside for local Taranaki iwi because so many of their followers did not belong to the people of the land. From memory I think it was about 10,000 square miles of land between the maunga and the coast. All's well that ends well. I see the Socialists Unity (Communist ) party got 7 votes nation wide in the last election. Good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are to discuss improvements to the article, not to vent our perspectives on history. Perhaps you can start a blog somewhere. BlackCab (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this person is not willing to put their name to their comments speaks volumes. The story of Parihaka, like the story of the 2007 Operation 8 raids (in Urewera and elsewhere), is certainly going to be characterized differently by different people, depending on their underlying political and philosophical views. The point of an encyclopedia article is to correct against these biases, by including only referenced facts, not conspiracy theory and character assassination. The anonymous ranter needs to provide credible references for their claims, or accept the fact that their rants on the talk page will be ignored, and their ideologically motivated edits reverted. --Danylstrype (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that there was in the 1870's "a series of arrests under martial law". I do not believe that martial law was in force at the time.101.98.140.129 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I think you may be correct. I am unable to find any reference to martial law being applied at that time. I'll remove the reference. BlackCab (TALK) 09:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parihaka/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 07:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is such a sad to read. The bias towards the Europeans and the LACK of any hint of what evil things they did. It makes the situation seem very light. Not only that but Pārihaka is spelt Pārihaka. Not Parihaka. Pārihaka was there before the Europeans came.

I listened to elders tell stories on Pārihaka from when their elders told them and so on. I was disheartened when I learnt of how the rest of the world knew Pārihaka and what was done.

I don’t know how to work Wikipedia very well so I don’t want to try and edit and mess with things. But if someone could at least change the spelling so it’s correct that would be great. VenusianTee (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusianTee: In regard to the spelling of Parihaka, I have always heard the initial vowel in Parihaka to be short as indicated in the article spelling, I have checked the sources I would expect a macron to be included if necessary and none, including the online māori dictionary [2] do. On the subject of bias I suspect you are reading more into Wikipedia's encyclopaedic tone than is actually there. If you can point out any specifics that would be good. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]