Talk:Pā (Māori)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image

An image would be a good addition to this stub to start turning it into something worthwhile if someone has or can find one with which can be freely used. -Isthatyou

I have added an interim image of a good model shown in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Sadly, it is not good from a quality point of view (Camera wasn't up to the lighting). If someone visiting there could make a better one... the model is in the section of the museum on the ground floor to the left of the main doors, if I remember right. MadMaxDog 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruatoruwha

I removed the following, as I could not find evidence online, and the editor did not provide references. As it sounds rather too involved to be vandalism, I copied it here, until someone can provide references.MadMaxDog 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

START

• Some of the most famous pas are situated just south of Whakatane, at Ruatoruwha. It was there in 1857 that four impressive pas were built by the local Tuhoe tribe in order to protect themselves from an impending British attack. The pas were simply named 'One', 'Two', 'Three' and 'Four' (Tahi, Rua, Toru and Wha in Māori). After three days of brutal fighting, the British forces were finally able to capture Tahi. Several more days fighting, ensued but the British failed to make further inroads and surrendered eight days after fighting began. The area was named after the three pas that were not captured, Ruatoruwha.

END

[edit] Dodgy claim

I've removed the following uncited section:

*The old pā remains found on One Tree Hill, New Zealand are thought to be some of the most extensive earth fortifications of history.

as it verges on the frankly ridiculous. One Tree Hill ain't that big. Go take a look at Maiden Castle, Dorset. I'd like to know who claims this and where. Ont thing I can tell you - it won't have been an archaeologist. 81.159.88.164 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that you are at least partly mistaken. See references. Ingolfson (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure a the reference (Council webpage) is exactly neutral or authoritative. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets just simply become suspicious of EVERYONE. How about adding newspapers, government sources and scientists to the dubious sources to be avoided on Wikipedia? Ingolfson (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rant over - honestly, what do you want, Simon? If you disagree as well, then provide counterreferences. Until then, I will stand on the point that Council refs are orders of magnitude better than either removing a statement alltogether or keeping (any) statement without refs. Ingolfson (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is more a case that the council ref doesn't give figures on actual area (which we can compare it with the alternatives) and that the coucil website is more likely to be talking up the local attractions than providing an authoritative ref as to sizes of pre-historic earthworks of the world. Which wouldn't worry me as much if the competition wasn't hundreds of kilometres long vs a couple of hills in a central city park. Extraordinary claims require stonger references perhaps. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The ARC site does mention 170 terraces, with three separate pas. Auckland City mentions a 5,000-strong population, pretty substantial for any pre-industrial city. You should also remember that we are not talking about the central hill only, and that even that has been strongly reduced by early quarrying. This website from Cornwall park gives the actual pa sizes as 45 hectares (for the pa forts alone, mind you). Would these be acceptable as refs, or do you doubt their neutrality/accuracy? Ingolfson (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)