Talk:Hone Harawira

Lineage and alleged birth name

Since this edit a week or so ago, it seems a minor edit war has broken out. I think the main points in contention are:

1. Should our coverage of Hone Harawira's lineage include his descent in part from Pakeha? If so, how and where?
2. Should we cover his name at birth, or what others have claimed it was? If so, how and where?

This diff shows how the two most recent versions by conflicting editors compare. (No doubt I'm partly to blame here too.) It seems to me that there is a lot of common ground, but there's still some disagreement about the details of lineage presentation and how to describe Rankin. Anyway, I think that discussing the issues here should be more productive than arguing through edit summaries and on various user talk pages. What does everyone think the article should say (or omit)? --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If his ancestry is being included we can, and should, include the information about his pakeha descent. I don't see why it needs to be attributed to him though, surely if someone says the are descended from Pakeha that is good enough. Are others disputing this? Don't care where it is mentioned either, but the wording in the right hand column of the diff provided is awkward. However, I don't really see the value of adding his birth name, especially if the only source is to someone questionable and it has to be attributed to them. AIRcorn (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the wording about his Pakeha lineage in the diff above (and in the current article version) is awkward, and we seem to belabour the fact that he is (partly) of Pakeha descent. The lineage part starts "His mother descends from the Ngāti Hau, Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Hine tribes, his father from Te Aupōuri, Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Whātua". Adding Pakeha into one of those lists would seem more neutral to me. I assume from the surname issue that it was his paternal grandfather who was Pakeha, but I haven't seen a source that directly assigns his Paheka ancestry to his father's side (or to his mother's).

According to the cited sources he just said part-Pakeha. It might be best to just add "and he is part Pākehā" (don't like the non-Maori addition, it is linked if anyone needs to know more, plus it could also mean non-Polynesian) at the end of the sentence until a source narrows it down more. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I think we should omit his birth name unless we can find a reliable independent source linking it to his public activities. From what I gather, the main concern that's been expressed about the source is their conflict of interest, not their knowledge of the situation. --Avenue (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's happened in the past is that there has been an introduction of the claims by David Rankin (of HH being part-Pakeha and of him having the birthname Hatfield), only for that to be deleted. Several times. So, yes, AIRcon, even his part-Pakeha heritage is contentious. When I was editing and adding a lot of information a week ago, I stumbled across the statement by HH in one of his apologies that he is part-Pakeha. In view of the previous deletions I made it very clear in the paragraph which lists his lineage that HH himself says that he is part-Pakeha, to avoid a further deletion. If Wiki lists his Maori lineage, then to exclude his Pakeha heritage from that area would - IMO fairly obviously - be misleading.

My view on the Rankin claim about his birthname is this: Rankin is a cousin of HH and is leader of the Hapu of which HH is a member. Maori place great importance upon extended family and knowledge of family histories. As an elder, Rankin is likely to have all this knowledge. He is also fairly well-known. Something like a birthname, that is a checkable fact, is it not? Birth certificate? There would also be public records of changes of names of his parents, I imagine. [We are stating that he was born to John Puriri Harawira and Titewhai Harawira. This may be untrue! If Rankin's claim is incorrect, then he will most likely have been born to John Puriri Hatfield and Titewhai Hatfield, who later changed their names.] So in view of all of the above - and it's a lot - would Rankin *really* put his reputation on the line about such a claim? One that could fairly easily be refuted (birth cert.) if wrong? It hasn't been. So I can't see that it should be excluded. Bear in mind also the sentence about it makes it clear that it is what Rankin has said.

Why should such a claim be in? HH's raison-d'etre is Maori advancement. Various statements he's made, the "racist email" and the statement about feeling uncomfortable if one of his daughters brought home a Pakeha, these all indicate a particular POV (the naming of which is contentious.) But with that in mind, to leave out the claim that he was born with a Pakeha name (on top of his having Pakeha heritage) would not IMO give a balanced view of the man as a whole. Boscaswell (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Pakeha descent was unsourced or poorly sourced then an editor had every right to remove it. Now that that there is a source ascribing it to him it should in my opinion be fine to just tack it on the end of his ancestry sentence without any extra fuss. I am not convinced as to the value of adding Hatfield though. Names are changed all the time and his parents names are Harawira so if there was a name change it was likely initiated by them. If a more reliable source is found then a simple (born Hone Hatfield 6 January 1955) beside his bolded name would suffice. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, names are changed all the time. But there is a special significance to this one. We are talking about someone who - like his mother - is all for Maori, and not at all for Pakeha, yet who it is said was born with a Pakeha name, which name was changed. Changed for reasons we know not, but one major effect is to remove a Pakeha connection from the public eye. Some would suggest that this indicates denial. Certainly, the Pakeha heritage is not mentioned on HH's official website. Boscaswell (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful about what gets added to a Biography of a living person. A name change in itself is not notable and we can not use our own original research to make it notable. If it becomes a big deal then there will be more independent reliable sources reporting it and maybe a stronger case to add something (either as a short note or a sentence or two). As it stands I don't feel it has reached that point. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But this name change is notable. We don't need to do any research of any kind to make it so - it already is. I see your point about being careful. But: Editing Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. We have passed this threshold. In addition, for the myriad of reasons which I've already set out above, I believe that the Rankin claim is highly likely to be correct. It is simply too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that the leader of HH's own hapu, who would know all about his cousin's family history, would be wrong on this. Boscaswell (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have much stronger requirements for biographies of living people (BLPs) than simply verifiability. One strand of our BLP policy is to avoid gossip: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." My reading of the sources we have for the birth name is that while some seem reliable (e.g. NBR), none seem to present it as being the truth; instead they simply report Rankin making this claim. None of them seem to have checked the claim (e.g. through a birth certificate or records of name changes), and it's not our place to do so. It doesn't matter whether you or I believe Rankin's claim. Unless neutral sources can be found that confirm the alleged name change, we should leave it out - at least from the "Early years" section, which is mostly about matters of fact. I'll remove it now, along with Rankin's claim that Harawira had a Pakeha grandfather. Perhaps Rankin's claims could be mentioned later, in the paragraph dealing with Harawira's statement that he would be uncomfortable with his children having a Pakeha partner, without requiring the same sort of sources. --Avenue (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very much saddened by all that has happened. Despite the undoubted strength of my arguments, which no-one has done anything to counter, the statement by Rankin just gets deleted. I had thought that this discussion was to be concluded before any change was made. Anyway, getting back to Avenue's latest para., in particular the tests:

1. Was it gossip? - No

2. Is the source reliable? - Yes. I've set out argument after argument that Rankin IS reliable on this. No-one in this discussion has argued against this! In view of Rankin's position in HH's hapu, the fact that he is a political rival does *not* discount these arguments greatly.

3. Is it being presented as true? - Yes it is - by Rankin, who is reputable and etc etc.

4. Is it relevant? - Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely. Again, I've set out argument after argument that it is.

As to obtaining a birth certificate - I have checked the online birth records, but they are hopeless. They have no record of anyone with the surname of either Hatfield or Harawira born on any date in the 1950's. HH was born in 1955. I imagine that various mainstream and other media have already done the same.

So in summary, we simply aren't going to get a source other than Rankin on this. But he is HH's cousin and is leader of HH's own Hapu! That does actually count for something! Such people *know* these things - it is one of the many reasons why they are highly-regarded and become leader. There is no way that Rankin would make such a statement if it were not true.

So to just summarily delete it, mid-way through this discussion, well... Boscaswell (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

One other point, if I may. You put what follows on your talk page the other day, Avenue. I hope you don't mind me quoting it here and that I haven't overstepped Wiki conventions by doing so: "I don't see anything wrong with covering Rankin's statement about Harawira. The problem before was that our article stated it as fact (in the lead sentence no less), rather than reporting the statement and letting our readers make up their own minds."

But reporting the statement is no longer acceptable?Boscaswell (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In deleting it yesterday, I was following our policy on biographies of living people (BLPs), in particular the part that says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [emphasis in original] I think a consensus has emerged here (which I accept you disagree with) that there are not sufficient independent reliable sources for us to present the alleged birth name as a matter of fact. I believe reporting Rankin's claims in the "Early life" section, even though they are reported there only as being his claims, still gave them too much an air of fact. On that last point, I have changed my mind since writing the passage you quote from my talk page. I'm certainly not infallible, and I'd be happy to be overruled if a consensus develops here that the "Early life" section is an appropriate place for the text I deleted. It may also be more suitable elsewhere in the article, e.g. where we report the reaction to Harawira's statement that he'd be uncomfortable with his children dating Pakeha, although it might need rewriting first. But we do need to be very careful not to include anything inappropriate in a BLP.

On test (2), I think you are failing to understand what is meant here by "reliable sources". Briefly, it means "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Rankin has clearly been in conflict with Harawira, so does not fulfil the independent "third-party" requirement. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" either, but the fact that he is not an independent source is more critical.

On (3), we do have reliable sources (e.g. NBR) for what Rankin has said, but they have not confirmed the truth of what he has said.

On (4), I don't have a strong opinion about the general relevance of the birth name. A reliable source indicating its relevance would be much more useful than your or my arguments about it. I do think there would be a stronger case for the relevance of Rankin's claims if we reported them in the context of Harawira's statement on his kids dating Pakeha than if they're reported in the "Early life" section.

--Avenue (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is a major factor in what should be included in an article and how it should be presented. However consensus can change and may do so if other editors come across this page or new evidence is presented that convinces enough of the opposing editors to change their mind. As there are only a few of us commenting on the name issue you may wish to request some comments from other editors or leave a note at the New Zealand Wikiproject. That will hopefully attract more editors, some who have no preconceived ideas about Harawira and some that are interested in the subject, and lead to a stronger consensus one way or the other. There is also the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, although I think this is general content dispute and better dealt with by requesting comments. AIRcorn (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Avenue on this one. Schwede66 04:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does everyone on here seem to think that Rankin is not a reliable source when he is Hone's cousin? Come on guys, get a grip, it's a well known fact that is last name was Hatfield... User:luke96241 11:21, 20 May 2011 (NZST)

If his birth name is John Hatfield then I think it should most definitely be included. Same with Peter Sharples and Stephen O'Reagan. Why do these Maori leaders disown there white heritage?120.20.2.164 (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) me

This argument has been done to death here - please read below. It is in the article. You have to look at the last paragraph before the 'split with Maori Party' section to see it.Boscaswell (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel that him formerly being called 'Hone Hatfield' is particularly important given Hone's background. User:luke96241 00:05, 21 May 2011 (NZST)

I don't have an issue with mentioning his Pakeha ancestry, but noting the name "Hatfield" must be mentioned in a more reliable source. If we had access to legal documents, or Hone discusses his previous name, then we would have reliable sources to back this up. Rankin alleged that his surname was Hatfield. It may be sensible to note somewhere "Rankin said on CL that his name was once Hatfield" (forgive me for the clumsy sentence, I'm tired), but we should definitely not keep the old revision where the opening sentence had "previously Hatfield". Adabow (talk · contribs) 12:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alleged? Rankin is related to him... You'd think he would know his relatives former last name..... User:luke96241 01:14, 21 May 2011 (NZST)

I agree with luke96241 about its importance, tho not with where it should go, and I also agree strongly that, if anyone outside of the Harawira family knows, it will be Rankin. A few comments ago, Avenue (who finally deleted it from the lineage section) said that there might be a stronger case if were to go in the para about him being uncomfortable if a daughter of his dated a Pakeha, and from memory it was at that time that Rankin made his statement. Adabow seems to go along with this, saying "it may be sensible to note somewhere..." (see a few lines above this.)

luke (and everyone else), I'd like to make this suggestion. I'm almost as adamant as you that it should go in somewhere, but I want it to be something that has consensus, coz that's the only way that it'll stay in. Could you leave it to me, please, and I'll put in something along the lines of "Rankin said on xxx that...", as mooted by Adabow. But not right now, as it's Saturday morning and I'm busy. So this slight delay will also give others on this discussion time to weigh in. Hopefully a consensus is being reached now? Fingers crossed... Boscaswell (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, everyone, it's now in the "dating Pakeha" paragraph. I added a direct quote from Rankin, which was in one of the referenced sources, as it explains the reason why this is such an important issue for some and is far from being a mere name change. I also put in more words than others might have about who Rankin is (as I had before) so that it can be seen that he is likely to know. Both the claim and the quote are highly relevant to the subject of this particular paragraph, so my fingers are crossed that the consensus gives it the OK this time. Boscaswell (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that paragraph might well be a suitable place to mention Rankin's claim. I do think the current version could be improved. For one thing, it seems to be trying too hard to mention the "Hone Hatfield" name, rather than letting it emerge naturally. Editors have also have expressed concern about what they perceive as Rankin's conflict of interest, but the paragraph currently gives no hint of this, instead citing Rankin's expertise and seniority. I will try to improve the flow and incorporate something on Rankin's previous conflict with Harawira. --Avenue (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also added Pita Sharples' comments supporting Harawira's, as some counterbalance to all the criticism we've reported. --Avenue (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about Rankin and conflict of interest. And I note your improvement to the flow...I think I may have improved on that. :-) Anyway, I'm glad it's still there. I've also added another quote from HH in the Maori Party complaint paragraph, again for more balance. All the best to you! Boscaswell (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It may have taken a while, but the way it is presented now is much better. The article is quote heavy, but this is probably necessary given the controversial nature. Some seem to take the uncensored nature to far, but it seems wrong to have *** in a quote (unless they were actually in the email like that). It could be spelled out or reworded so not to need the quote. AIRcorn (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah! :-) Boscaswell (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hone Harawira's statements about Osama bin Laden. To be described as tributes?

HH's statements were described by another editor as paying tribute. Three times this has been changed to "Harawira was perceived to have paid tribute to OBL..." and three times I've removed "perceived", saying that it's a statement of fact that he did pay tribute. Today, Aircorn has replaced "paid tribute" with "said", saying "Just say what he said." I contend that no-one has been making up "paid tribute", that we are only reflecting what has already been reported, many times, and therefore that it should go back in.

There are two online articles linked to this. (1) the 1st was the first one put in, from Geo TV Network, which is in Pakistan (where OBL was killed). In it is stated "An outspoken New Zealand Maori politician has praised slain al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden". The word "praise" is key in this argument. (2) the 2nd was a link I put in, from Te Karere Ipurangi - Maori News Online. Stating "Mr Harawira twice paid tribute to bin Laden in te reo..." The words "paid tribute" are theirs.

There are many other online articles with a similar slant. Eg. (3) the NZ Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10723505 In this we find: "In tributes on Maori-language television". "Tributes" again - in the plural.

So I contend that the phrase "paid tribute" should be reinstated. HH's comments about OBL have been reported as such, many times. Boscaswell (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Aircorn on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Member of Parliament section

Moriori has added, to the first paragraph, after "a student complained about Harawira...after an incident where Harawira swore..." "He explained that the political science student, Steve Baron, was a racist who "lumped Māori in with other minorities like homosexuals and Asians.....He tried it on and he got his comeuppance." Moriori said that this addition gives "more balance". LOL. IMO, if anything it makes him look a whole lot worse. Boscaswell (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidesplitting eh! And relevant. And referenced. Tumeke. Moriori (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted change to the intro

I have reverted the change made to the intro yesterday by User:Luke96241.

• He added a supposed former surname, Hatfield, (and incidentally, he gave the very misleading edit summary "add hone", not "add hatfield".
• The intro starts with "Hone Pani Tamati Waka Nene Harawira is a New Zealand.....". The second paragraph starts with "Harawira was born to John Puriri Harawira and Titewhai Harawira.....". Right. So how come Hatfield suddenly gets plonked into the lead, but the text of the article does not have a bit saying he became Hatfield for a while? The who, when, where, why etc!
• The only source given is a report of the opinion of activist David Rankin, a political foe who got 202 votes in the 2008 election to Harawira's 12,019.
• This article is subject to WP:BLP, especially where it says poorly sourced info should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• There are no independent reliable sources for justifiying us saying he was formerly known as Hatfield. There is one man's opinion.
• There are no statements anywhere made by reputable media itself that he used a former name.
• Even if Harawira had used that name for a time it would be WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP to record such an insignificant claim in the intro. Moriori (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This content is perfect for the end of the Early years section. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, he is not known as Hatfield at all. This name does not belong in the lede.-gadfium 03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

* Uninvolved editor comment. Much discussion of the name issue is also above↑ in the "Talk:Hone Harawira#Lineage and alleged birth name" section from May 2011." - 220 of ^Borg 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Merry Christmas :-)

This has indeed all been done to death, in the first section of this talk page. Tho in case anyone missed it, altho clearly HH and Rankin do not get along, it should perhaps be noted that Rankin is not an insignificant person in the world of the Harawiras, because, he is - apparently - head of or close to being head of their hapu. This makes it rather unlikely that he is wrong on this. However, there is no proof. HH denies it. It is of course possible that when HH was born, both parents were - legally - Hatfields. Because in NZ there is no publicly-searchable *comprehensive* birth record, should there have been any air-brushing of lineage, the public would have a hard time proving that this had occurred. If it had occurred. Boscaswell (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hone Harawira. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/hone-harawira-s-email-in-full-3116285
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/hone-s-buddy-not-expecting-call-3127532

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Corona Virus

Hone Harawira set up roadblocks to control movement with the stated aim of preventing the spread of disease. Although they were completely illegal, local politicians and police authorities did not condemn them but nevertheless they did not support them either. Instead they made mealy mouthed comments about all parts of the community needing to work together. I have removed a comment that John Carter, the local mayor, supported the road blocks. John Carter could seek legal redress for the suggestion that he supports illegal vigilantes.

The roadblocks were criticised for stopping local people going about their lawful business. Because they were incompetent the vigilantes put their victims at risk. (I will find suitable references and try to work out a polite way of stating this.) This is another reason why we should be very careful indeed before implicating John Carter.OrewaTel (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)