Talk:Rātana

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

New Zealand: Politics / Māori High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance). Religion Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Hard to find much and I had a few misconceptions when I started. May add some more later.

Herne nz 07:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed (by Beeswaxcandle) that Te Haahi Ratana (Ratana as religion) be merged into the main (secular) Ratana article.

Vote:Leave with a clear separation of the two (religious and secular) wings.

Currently the Te Haahi Ratana article is in need of wikification. Although The Ratana movement was both religious and political and Ratana politicians were also Ratana ministers, I suggest keeping the article about the nature of the Ratana faith separate from the secular article that deals mainly with the establishment of the movement and its political involvement. Fanx (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote:Leave separation of political and religious concerns is important, even when considering a group who advocated a union of religion and politics.

Vote:Leave and I agree the articles differences could be strengthened. Pakoire (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Helenalex suggested in 2008 that Christian Maramatanga Society be merged into this article.

I think it is appropriate for the articles to remain separate, since the founder of the Maramatanga Society is sufficiently notable to have her own entry in the New Zealand Dictionary of National Biography. However, merging to this article would be preferable to deletion of the content entirely.-gadfium 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In both the parliaments of 1946–1948 and of 1957–1960, the formation of a Labour Government depended on the votes of the Rātana Movement members. Not all Labour Party Māori MPs have been members of the Rātana Church, but the alliance with Rātana allowed Labour to hold on to all four Māori electorates from the 1940s until 1996.

"Under John Key, this has continued, with the notable exception being in 2015, where he was overseas and unable to attend. This invited some controversy, although Bill English attended in his place.[6]"

- This is absolute rubbish. What's John Key's being overseas got to do with Labour holding the Maori seats? David Cannon (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rātana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908095259/http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/people/maorileaders1900.php to http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/people/maorileaders1900.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to copy over poor writing from out sources, unless we are using a direct quotation, which we are not doing here:

"On 31 May 1925, Te Haahi Rātana (The Rātana Church) was formally established as a separate church which was formally registered on 21 July 1925."

Using "formally" twice in one sentence is the first sign that the writing is poor.

Then there is the question of whether something can be "informally registered". I don't think it can -- registration is by its nature a formal act.

And then there is the question of what the distinction is between being "formally established" and "informally established". Was it informally established as a separate church before it was formally established as a separate church? Not according to the article adms it is written now. It tells us that until 1924, Ratana was preaching to lots of Maoris, but there is no suggestion that he had informally established a separate church.

"On 31 May 1925, Te Haahi Rātana (The Rātana Church) was established as a separate church which was registered on 21 July 1925" tells the reader the same thing.

And replacing "Initially" with "At first" is just a way of making our writing livelier, which is always a good thing.

We don't have to use someone else's poor writing, and we shouldn't. We should strive for something better. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of comment on the Churches own website covering 'registration' . The primary purpose for one sort of registration is to be able to conduct marriages and for that formal registration under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registrar is required. Another registration seems to be for its 'banking' activities. maybe further detail on the previous registering, unregistering and then re- registering again from http://www.theratanachurch.org.nz/history.html could help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okerefalls (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the page you linked, the word "registration" is used 4 times, and "register" is used 11 times (including variations). There is not a single instance of "formal registration" or "formally registered".

The article says "On July the 15th, 1925, the Ratana Established Church of New Zealand was registered with the Registrar General of Marriages, Births and Deaths in Wellington...." There is no modifier attached to "registered" here, and there should be none in Wikipedia.

You've proved my point. Now, can we restored my edit? Thank you.Ground Zero | t 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I havent proved your point. The original source used was different and did say 'formal registration'. The idea of the new source with deeper discussion was so that perhaps you would be inclined to expand on the previous material, not have a fetish about undoing stuff that doesnt please you.Okerefalls (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to improve the writing style and therefore the readability of the article by removing redundancies. And it was you who undid my edit, as the history shows. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing to address the lack of citations, to expand with new sources and to make this about the movement and different to the article about the church Te Haahi Ratana. Some of the language at this stage is a bit clunky and needs a copy edit. Other improvements are to check for copyright violations with relevant Te Ara articles and more citations are needed for big sections still. I welcome any discussion about any approaches I have been taking. This is not a subject well-known to me. Pakoire (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge because the Te Haahi Rātana article is far too detailed. I've added a Template:Overly detailed because it contains a really excessive amount of intricate detail about the practice of the religion. I suspect that once the excessive information is removed, the remaining article will be so small it could be merged into the spirituality section of this article. Keeping them separate does not make sense to me, given the close ties of the religious and political components of the movement. If I was a person wanting to read more about Rātana as a church, I'd expect all of it to be in the Rātana article somewhere. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, since the Te Haahi Ratana is an article specifically about the church and its organisation, while this article is about the movement as a whole. I don't think the secular vs religious distinction above is quite right, rather we're dealing with a main article (about the secular, religious, and political aspects) and a sub-article (about the religious aspect alone). While I think that the sub-article needs wikification (there is too much direct quotation and no sources), this is a sensible way of dividing up the topic and I don't think