Jump to content

Talk:Māori people/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

British Treaty with the people of New Zealand

Not entirely sure, that the word handicapped is correctly use here. Unless you are suggesting that there was some mental disibality in play here on both sides? Seems that since there were Māori who were able to read and write both English and Māori at this time, I doubt anyone was of a limited mental capacity. "Challenged" might be better? The whole paragraph appears to be rushed and again written with emotive directive. The true art of any language translation, be it written or spoken, is to find similar meanings to words which do not exist.

TearoaFlonk (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be more emphasis on the colonisation of the Pacific by the people of Taiwan/China.

There needs to be more emphasis on the colonisation of the Pacific by the peoples of Taiwan/China.

As more work is completed on DNA and linguistics, science will show that the Pacific was colonised by people from China (Taiwan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to get a better understanding of the what the latest work implies. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It's already there. See Austronesian peoples, Austronesian languages#History, Polynesia#History of the Polynesian people. cheers, Womtelo (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC).

Prominent Maori section

Can someone please add Megan Gale to the Prominent Maori section? A perfect example of an attractive mixed-race Maori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.197.68 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be notable enough. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

English pronunciation

There used to be four New Zealand English pronunciations given in the introduction section: [ˈmaori], [ˈmæuri], [ˈmari] and [ˈmɒəri].

The source (the OED) presents a main pronunciation /ˈmaʊri/ and two addition transcriptions that it identifies as New Zealand pronunciations: /ˈmʌːori/ and /ˈmæuri/.

I've replaced all the variant English pronunciations with the one dictionaries agree on, /ˈmaʊri/, and put this pronunciation ahead of the Māori pronunciation. (I also used the template so there's now a mouse-over key.) My reasoning for this change is:

  • The additional pronunciations cluttered up the introduction.
  • Only one of the deleted variations was given in the source, [ˈmæuri].
  • The OED's first variation seems to be an Anglicised transcription of the Māori pronunciation, but the narrower Māori transcription in the article seems more accurate.
  • The OED's second variation seems to be a narrow transcription of the "standard" English pronunciation using a New Zealand accent. This article isn't about the New Zealand accent, so it seems unnecessary.
  • /ˈmɑːri/ or [ˈmari] is probably the most consistent alternative pronunciation of the word in English. This pronunciation is rarely heard these days; it's considered at best historical and at worst mildly derogatory.
  • Most other "English" pronunciations I'm familiar with are attempts to mimic the Māori pronunciation and generally contain the Māori tapped r, so they aren't really English pronunciations as such.

I moved the English pronunciation ahead of the Māori pronunciation, primarily because it saves space to not have to specify the language for the first pronunciation — but also because readers probably want to know how to say the word in English before they attempt it in a language they are unfamiliar with.

Sorry about the essay, but I know deletions and pronunciation issues can be controversial so I thought it prudent to spell out why I'd made the change.

Ben Arnold (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lacks detail of Maori genetics

In the last decade huge advances have been made in genetic identification which are not in the article. In particular we now know that the founding population of women was just 56 with a consequent very narrow genetic base. We also know that the genetic makeup of men and women was different -Maori men have a distinctive Melanesian genetic mix in their DNA that Maori women lack to this day.The migration bottleneck to Nz firmly fixed genetics until Europeans arrived and greatly expanded the gene pool. Before then Maori women in particular had an extremely narrow range of haplotypes (10) cf typically 100 for female European nzers. All this had and has significance for Maori and how they reacted to biological and environmental threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.196.246 (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have reputable citations for that content? That info sounds relevant, but would need verification.--Pakaraki (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Claudia. Just a reminder that you are community banned from editing Wikipedia, per [1] and [2]. This means you, the person behind the keyboard, are completely forbidden from editing anywhere in Wikipedia, even user pages and talk pages, no matter what IP or account name you edit under. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

I've added a sentence or two to the Etymology section explaining that the word Maori is normally spelled without the diacritic in English (see, for example, the New Zealand Herald, Christchurch Press and Sunday Star Times).

Given that this is an English-language article, I'm surprised to see the "Maori" spelled with a diacritic throughout. Is there any special reason for this? Wikipedia style is that diacritics can be used, but only when they are normally used in the English spelling.

This article is written in New Zealand English. New Zealand English uses the letters Ā, Ē, Ī, Ō, Ū, ā, ē, ī, ō and ū for loan-words sourced from the Māori language. See, for example, Australian / New Zealand standard 4819:2011, sections 3.5.6 and 4.7.7. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Population numbers concern

Recent investigations following a number of different threads throw some serious doubt on the accuracy of widely accepted Maori population figures in the early period. Of particular concern is the on going acceptance of Cook's figure of 100,000 Maori from his diary. Cook was a scientist and was using a method that he had used to estimate the population in Tahiti, just prior to his NZ visit. The method was to guestimate the population on the coast using a grid and then extrapolate this number for inland areas. We know now that his estimate of 200,000 was about 40,000 too high in Tahiti (20% to high). The same grid system was used in NZ so it is safe to assume that the "calculation" was also wrong by at least the same percentage, perhaps more, given that Cook had problems closing with the coast in the South Island so he was not able to distinguish islands from peninsulas and visa versa.The weather in NZ was far worse than in Tahiti, limiting visibility and accurate map making- for which Cook was known for his legendary skill and accuracy. It seems highly likely that his grid estimates were far from accurate yet they continue to be accepted as the basis for later "falls" in population.

A second area of concern is the number of deaths in the pre musket and musket wars eras. The traditional battle which took place near Ohaupo is said to have the largest death toll of any battle in NZ ever.This took place (most likely) outside the true musket war period which lasted from 1805 to about 1843. Estimates vary widely about the numbers of deaths- often influenced by the political position of the writer. We do have accurate accounts from reasonable and literate missionaries which tells us that at times the slaughter was widespread. Some writers are keen to place emphasis on a ritual battle scenario, implying few deaths and this did happen but it was increasingly rare as iwi fought for their very survival. Some writers claim -without much evidence, that victors routinely exaggerated the numbers they killed to enhance their mana.

Some writers have played up the number of Maori death due to disease. One suspects that leftist writer have adopted the standard anti colonial position so beloved by Marxists of all shades. When the accounts are studied closely we find that disease outbreaks were generally localized and short lived and that Maori survived at about the same rates as Europeans. Immunity is gained through contact and especially Maori in the north had been in constant contact with Europeans for 40 years.NB the 1918 -19 Influenza epidemic is very instructive: Maori from Arawa, Ngapuhi and Ngati Porou (all iwi who sent troops to fight in WW1) suffered flu casualties about the same rate as Europeans, whereas lower Waikato Maori had flu death rates 4 times higher. Waikato had been forbidden by their leader to go to war. Their predicament was probably made worse by the refusal of Te Puea to accept medical help. She persisted in used traditional Maori "cures" such as dunking sick people in cold water which probably made the flu death rate higher.

Another problem is that even European doctors did not accurately identify diseases in the 19th century, so we will never know what the diseases were. Studies from modern catastrophes in Africa tell us that people can often survive disease if they are well fed and have a degree of care such as shelter(quite apart from modern medicines). During the worst of the musket wars many thousands of Maori were forced from their normal fishing, hunting and gathering grounds not to mention their gardens . We do know that whole tribes disappeared. Missionary accounts give details of the slaughter of captive slaves on their return to the Bay of Islands in the 1830s.

A last factor is that although a Maori census was carried out mid century it was no more than an estimate in many cases and there were no directions about how to count part Maori. It is well known that Maori whanau and hapu chose to live apart from Europeans in many instances( and continued to do so unil the 1950s).The most well known "isolation" is the King Country Kingites in the late 1860s and 1870s who discouraged contact with Europeans -sometimes by murderous acts of violence. The people of the mists lived hidden away from civilization in the depths of the Ureweras. It is highly unlikely these people were counted accurately.Tony Simpson's book "Before Hobson " is instructive on many of these demo graphic matters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2016

You've expressed your views well, but they are not relevant as they count as Original Research. If you have quality sources backing up your assertions, then by all means feel free to edit the article. Unless, that is, you are a sock of the disruptive editor Claudia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 29 June 2016
Some Maori emigrated out of New Zealand due to European (British) colonization and contact, many went to Australia and sporadically throughout the South Pacific. There are small Maori communities in Great Britain, Canada (British commonwealth nation), even more live in the USA and from what I heard, South Africa had a small Maori presence. An all-Maori rugby team visited then-Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, where they were given "honorary white" status (also given to East Asians) by the South African government, even when it's obvious the Maori are of non-European racial origins. And the Maori who were in the New Zealand armed forces in two world wars in Europe, some married white European women ("war brides") and had mixed-race children. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The section "British Treaty with the people of New Zealand" could be improved by adding the following hyperlink to 'Pompallier' towards the end of the first paragraph. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Pompallier IanFrakes (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The Iberian connection

Hallo!: an Spanish newspaper, sorry, don't have reference at hand now, described an Spaniard arriving to the Maori lands in XIX century, who married several Maori women, now his descendants constituting an individual tribe within Maori, of around 15'000 members. Somebody to deepen in this issue? For sure, population genetics, specially Y Chromosome studies, may provide some clues. Thanks, regards, Salut †--Caula (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to supply a reliable source, probably a pretty good one, in order for something like that to be included. It's quite an incredible claim, which if true should be getting coverage in many many reliable sources. -- Shudde talk 08:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It's an interesting story - see Manuel José (trader). - Snori (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Map not too good

The map shown has island names placed far distant from the actual islands in the case of Tahiti and the Marquesas. Perhaps this could be corrected. The close rarotonga/tahiti connection and the fact the the Marquesas was the big stepping off for Rapa and Hawaii is better clarified once the name is next to the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.31.17 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Māori people. 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:

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. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

Change Poole to Pool because that is the correct spelling of his surname. 118.92.44.113 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done I found the book in the University of Auckland library catalog, and have made the change.-gadfium 23:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

Please change POOLE to POOL because it is the proper spelling of his name and he has asked for it to be corrected. The following is the text.

Sir Āpirana Ngata became instrumental in the revival of traditional arts such as kapa haka and carving. By the late 19th century a widespread belief existed amongst both Pākehā and Māori that the Māori population would cease to exist as a separate race or culture, and become assimilated into the European population.[61] In 1840, New Zealand had a Māori population of about 50,000 to 70,000 and only about 2,000 Europeans. By 1860 the Europeans had increased to 50,000. The Māori population had declined to 37,520 in the 1871 census, although Te Rangi Hīroa (Sir Peter Buck) believed this figure was too low.[62] The figure was 42,113 in the 1896 census, by which time Europeans numbered more than 700,000.[63] Professor Ian Poole noticed that as late as 1890, 40% of all female Māori children who were born died before the age of one, a much higher rate than for males.[64]

The decline of the Māori population did not continue, and levels gradually stabilized and began to recover. By 1936 the Māori figure was 82,326, although the sudden rise in the 1930s was probably due to the introduction of the family benefit − payable only when a birth was registered, according to Professor Poole. Despite a substantial level of intermarriage between the Māori and European populations, many ethnic Māori retained their cultural identity. A number of discourses developed as to the meaning of "Māori" and to who counted as Māori or not. 2404:138:4002:2004:FD5C:E277:DB22:6AE3 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK Discuss 02:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Change: Although New Zealand rates well very globally

To: Although New Zealand rates very well globally

Thelastauroch (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch Thelastauroch (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncontroversial. Done. Akld guy (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Image leaves a lot to be desired

Margaret en Maori A Study of a Māori lady in traditional dress by a western visitor written in 20 October 1863

This image in the article is a study of a wahine in traditional dress? More like a blonde, blue-eyed kewpie girl wearing a cloak with designs that couldn't appear less Maori if they tried. The drawing is by Frances Elizabeth Wynne and it could be an exemplary example of her "fantasy art" mentioned in her article. It might be an example of artistic licence from that period, but as a record of Maori dress from the period it's an abomination in my opinion, and should go. What do others think? Moriori (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate when used to represent a Maori woman. Blue eyes, and the nose is Anglo Saxon. It should go. Akld guy (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Does not improve the article. Remove. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree. Have removed - Snori (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph Māori people

"Horticulture flourished using plants they introduced; later, a prominent warrior culture emerged.[4]"

Some bad sentence structure and grammar there - semicolon for lists, and how is warrior culture related to horticulture. Topics are too wide for a single sentence. Should the 'introduced plants' be referenced as thats quite a topic on its own and very interesting books have been published.

The first paragraph seems to just want to rush into the next three, and very little about people and culture as an introduction rather straight into politics which are well covered elsewhere. In a 'third person', 'they' should not be used ie 'ethnic groups. They ' should be written as 'ethnic groups. Māori ' etc.

"The Māori language (known as te reo Māori) is still spoken to some extent by about a fifth of all Māori"

Why "still"? This is a fact.

And then, it goes on to talk about wider language uptake within the current country - which is not really about Māori people, rather the usage of the Māori language.

The entire four paragraphs don't flow and could do with writing to reflect their place as the introduction to the rest of the article. Tahitahi riwai (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tahitahi riwai: I have removed "still" because it's unnecessary and may even imply to readers from other countries that Maori still speak their language in defiance of efforts to stamp it out. I've also removed the irrelevant information about the loan words, because this article is about the people, not the language. As to your other concerns, I'm not sure that there's any problem, but you are welcome of course, to make edits yourself. Akld guy (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Why is Presbyterian and Morman listed? When majority of Maori Christian's are Anglican and catholic. According to the latest census. TokotoruTapu (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Find a reference saying that and add it to the article. Currently it's based on https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2007/90148.htm - if you can find any better or more recent stats, go for it. Might be an idea to wait a few months for the 2018 census stats to be published. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Total population in infobox

In this edit, I removed total population from the infobox for two reasons:

  • The word "population" implies a group residing in a country. It makes no sense to me to show a figure when the rest of the infobox consists of Maori dispersed in other countries.
  • The number is a synthesis formed by adding together the other entries in the infobox. Some of those figures are nearly 20 years old. It's well known that New Zealanders have returned to NZ in great numbers in the last few years, and Maori are certainly among them. Therefore, part of the increase in the main number to more than 734,000 (as I write this) would be attributable to those returning. We cannot simply add the old numbers to obtain a total population figure. Akld guy (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
----
I disagree that the word "population" implies a group residing within a single country. It is also common to use the word to mean the count of a group of people that is (as in this case) spread over several countries. Note that "population =" in the infobox source renders as "Total population", which implies that it's not referring to the population in just one country. Note that the page Samoans (redirected from Samoan people) includes a "Total population", but is given as an approximate range (using "c."). We can do the same for this page. I agree, though, that more up-to-date population counts for Maori living in other countries would be helpful. Ross Finlayson (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't realised some of the figures were so old, so I accept that the total figure I calculated is inappropriate. Thanks Akld guy.-gadfium 01:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Absurdity in the article?

Article says (without citation): "Atholl Anderson concluded from analysis of mtDNA (female) and Y chromosome (male) that the ancestors of Polynesian women came from Taiwan while those of Polynesian men came from New Guinea." Is Anderson sound of mind? How could the females and males have different ancestry? Every child, whether male or female, has both a mother & a father. If a man & a women produce male & female offspring, the males & females have exactly the same ancestry. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC))

More than likely the summary of Anderson's conclusion is incomplete/inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree the content is confusing. However, the DNA analysis for female and male ancestors are made using different parts of the DNA, and the result does not imply that the ancestors lived at the same time, or even close to it. You might get further insight from the articles Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, which is the same analysis used for the entire human species.-gadfium 20:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Atheism

This is a bit of a nuisance. It's easy to source, eg [3] took literally seconds to find. It needs to be added to the irreligion article. If no one does it tonight I'll do it tomorrow.@Akld guy: you really should do it as you removed it last and it's your country. Although User:Rsfinlayson might want to. Doug Weller talk 21:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Now wait just a minute there. I removed a link to Irreligion in New Zealand because there was no Maori content whatsoever in that article. The link was inappropriate. Now you're telling me that it was my responsibility to add content to that article in order to make your link valid? Gtfoh. You want to retain the link, you add the content, OK? Akld guy (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Doug Weller that adding the material to the irreligion article is a good solution, and he has kindly provided the reference for us. I agree with Akld guy that the people adding the link on this article have a greater degree of responsibility to do so rather than those removing it. However, we're all volunteers and no one is obliged to do anything. Ironically, I could probably have added to the irreligion article in the time I took to post here.-gadfium 23:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
All well and good, but I took exception to Doug Weller misusing this talk page to rebuke me. Without justification. I expected better conduct from an admin. Akld guy (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
While we are here, is Rātana a kind of Christianity, if so should that be made clearer maybe with brackets. Also how many Māori believe or self identify (even in part) as 'Māori religions' or similar I can't find numbers, they must be out there. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)).
@Akld guy and Gadfium: maybe it's because of the current Arbitration case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision, the last I'll be involved with as I decided 2 terms was enough. If you look at two of the proposed principles, they both suggest that trying to fix an issue rather than just revert it is the best way to go. I'm not sure how I'll vote there yet as I'm not sure the Committee should have those in the case, but I try to follow the spirit there when I'm editing, and when I see a revert of text that I can easily source, I fix it. Also, Akld guy, you may interpret my comment as a rebuke, but your rebuke saying "Gtfoh" is clearly a personal attack, unacceptable and something I would never do. I'll go fix it now. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "warrior culture"

User Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removed the reference to "warrior culture" without providing suitable justification. User Baiglie (talk · contribs), who coincidentally only began editing this article after Leavepucklegackle1998 was indeffed having not edited for several months, also removed this reference without explanation. Is there in fact any justification for removing this (appropriately referenced) description? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That should be Baiglie (talk · contribs). Leavepuckgackle was indeffed on 31 July, last edit on 1 August. Baiglie begins making multiple edits on 2 August after making none for 6 months (since February). Akld guy (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Too large

This article is now well above the maximum recommended article size of 100k (at 120k+). Either the sections which already have parent articles should be reduced to more of a summary and/or sections which are too large but don't have a separate article should have one split off from here and replaced with a summary. Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right. For starters, the History section could probably make a decent B-class article in itself with a proper lede. Might draft one up if no-one objects. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good idea, really doesn't belong here except in the briefest outline. - Snori (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I made a start on a Draft:Māori history article (a good 61 kB too), mostly copied from the History section in this article but with a new lede. It incorporates changes made here over the last couple of days, as well as some (very) minor cleanup and a few changes of my own. Feel free to make additional changes too. A new summary will need to be written for this article as well. Ngā mihi. – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
And the Māori history article is up now. Next up is to condense the History section here. Ngā mihi. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The History section has been condensed now. It could probably still use some work (to say nothing of the rest of the article), but I'm kinda worn out for now after all that trimming. Feel free to make further changes. Ngā mihi anō. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Otbi18

A useful addition, but poorly worded. Obviously intended some references but didn't get it right. Have contacted user through their page, and will encourage to submit an improved version. - Snori (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References and recent edits

I have done some editing on this article adding some information in my area of knowledge plus reducing verbage especially in areas where the references do not support the content. I have also stared to increase the references from both Māori authors and current authors. I intend to do more editing in this area and invite discussion about any areas editors feel need some work. I feel some parts have too much information that is a double up as it is expressed in the linked articles. Pakoire (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There's now a bit of repetition between the section on kapa haka and the section on sport, a little lower down. Seeing as this is your area, could you please smooth that out a bit?
Also, there is a separate page on Māori culture, where your expertise would be welcome; I'd like to see a more fleshed-out explanation of whare tapere and the traditional performing arts, but I think it would go better on that page than this one.
—VeryRarelyStable 01:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I will do some smoothing and look at the Māori culture article over the next wee while Pakoire (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Image change and focus of article

Now that there is more information about many aspects of Māori such as Māori culture, Māori history etc this article to me seems that it should be more of a representation of current times. I do not feel the focus in some sections on traditional serves the purpose well. I have edited the info box image with this in mind. I will edit the 'Culture' section with this in mind and other sections to as I get to it. I welcome discussion through this talk page. Pakoire (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Haka is perhaps the most iconic representation of Māori culture and people that you will find. However muck you might dislike it. This is how most of the world think of Māori people. Remember, Wikipedia articles need to present a neutral point of view, which, in this case will be a global viewpoint, not a New Zealand one. While I sympathise with your intentions, I think changing the image to just another talking head actually detracts from the article. A small number of people might know who that person is, but Wikipedia does not even have an article for a Dr. Lisa Te Morenga, yet. So I don't know how significant she is to or how iconic and representative she is of Māori people. At least write the article first, before you go changing it. Also, please remember that the Māori cultural revival and Māori academics do not represent the way the vast majority of Māori people and their culture have been repressed in New Zealand over the past couple of centuries. Dr. Lisa Te Morenga may be a wonderful person, however she has managed to rise above her disadvantages and achieve in a Pākehā academic world, not a Māori one. The fact you have given her the label of Māori Academic (Wikipedia doesn't have a definition) suggests there could be unconscious bias at work that you cannot see. In my eyes, the good Doctor is an award wining academic person who also happens to possess a Māori heritage. Put crudely, she is an Academic Māori, rather than a Māori Academic and while that may be outstanding, it is not representative. Being Māori is mostly a state of mind (that is culture), rather than a state of blood and heritage. By all means write about the Māori cultural revival, and about Māori rediscovering their culture, but I see this as an ongoing evolution from the tradition to the modern. Both Pākehā and Māori need to remember where we have come from before we can work out where we are going to. Try not to trample on the past while you attempt to stand on the shoulders of giants. Be constructive. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes good points about the image I used. Thanks for taking the time to discuss.Pakoire (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For future addition: Fonterra's application to trademark 12 Māori words

At present Fonterra is applying to trademark twelve words from te Reo Māori.[1] This is controversial and I think deserves a mention in the "Commerce" section. At present the case is ongoing; I intend to wait a while and see if anything changes before I add anything to the article. Also, I would imagine there are other editors who know more about it than me; if you want to step in I'll defer to your expert knowledge. —VeryRarelyStable 05:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knight, Kim (27 July 2021). "'Milking Māori': Fonterra's attempt to trademark te reo slammed". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2 August 2021.

social justice

This is a cancerous American ideology that is not endorsed or even known by Aotearoa as a whole. Māori have full rights in NZ and are THE MOST patriotic of all Kiwis. Don’t revert this article back into American speech. We Kiwis will not allow it. Stick to your own failed country and don’t export your neo-colonial victim mentality. 49.198.134.177

Speaking as a New Zealander who has heard many Māori academics lecture students on the subject of social justice: while "social equity" seems to be more favoured at the moment, "social justice" is unexceptionable. They would also be startled at the claim that Māori presently enjoy "full rights" (other than on paper, obviously), given the disparities between Māori and Pākehā in social status, economics, and health outcomes. —VeryRarelyStable 12:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
there's a lot of variance here - we're a bigger country than most realise, spatially. in my circles (SI, late genx/early y), anon is absolutely right and veryrarelystable would be met (by Maori, similar to myself) with eye rolls and ribbing. i get a lot of opportunities and invitations as a Maori which my totally pakeha partner does not. I enjoy greater social, economic and health status. are these "academics" right? of course they are!? I'm sure in Auckland slums there are thousands of Maori kids who don't have contact with their Iwi, don't leverage government assistance, and don't make good health choices. and yeah sure they'll be generational problems, the disadvantage of disenfranchised forbears. but it's not a universal problem. Maori literally do have the same rights as everyone else. i suppose that down here we're a bit behind, still as well adjusted as the Maori of the sixties, not falling into "me too" decadence under institutional propaganda vended by international elite to leverage stereotypes to create disruption and foster worship of the almighty dollar! who owns the entire greymouth CBD? think! it's not "pakeha". we're working on amending all these terrible historic mistakes and injustices, but for now Maori blood is not a handicap at all. it is an advantage and a source of great pride and fraternity. before Europeans had grown sea legs, we had already used our advanced technology to explore the whole Pacific Ocean! don't ever let anyone say that Maori are hard done by, weak animals. boi, we're too of the food chain 115.189.97.186 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's remind ourselves, for a start, what this is about: whether the article should put the words "social" and "justice" together in that order to describe the goal that some Māori activists are hoping to achieve. Contrary to OP's insinuation, "social justice" is a broad umbrella uniting (albeit somewhat unstably) a number of different causes with a vaguely similar flavour, so to speak. And it's certainly present in Aotearoa; has been since before I got involved in student politics in 1996. OP themself sticks a toe in it by using the word "neo-colonial" as a pejorative.
Let me assure you that I am aware, and somewhat in awe, of the achievements of the Polynesian explorers who reached South America centuries before Europeans got there, then settled all the way down here and became the ancestors of today's Māori, around when my ancestors were going through the Black Death. I should point out that this is not universally recognised, however. Have a look through the article's edit history from this morning if you've got time to put up with a bit of racist idiocy. There are fewer of those people than there used to be but they have not gone away yet.
I'm glad to hear that you're in a good position socially and economically. I'm afraid that doesn't erase the statistics on economic and health outcomes for Māori across the country. (As someone once said, statistics are human beings with the tears wiped away.) I hope it goes without saying that they're all autonomous agents who can make their own decisions; but because they're also intelligent agents whose decisions are no worse on average than other people's decisions, the disparity in outcomes cannot be reduced to "poor choices".
—VeryRarelyStable 04:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Rights and outcomes are two very different things, so it's not incorrect say that Maori enjoy full rights as citizens. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this page cover Cook Island and New Zealand Māori

Re: recent edits first sentence. I would suggest we cover just NZ Māori here or else we will need exceptions throughout the article. The peoples of the Cook Islands and NZ have lived very different lives over the last ~700 years. In saying that it should be a reference based argument, I have only read books that cover NZ Māori as one thing with historical connections to the Cook Island and Chatham Islands, however, all the books are NZ ones. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The article specifically states at the very top that it is about the Maori people of NZ and that there is a separate article for the Cook Islands. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. If we're going to include Cook Island Māori in the lede sentence then we must also include them throughout the rest of the article, which basically means merging this article with Cook Islanders. I see no justification for that. Apart from anything else, the Cook Islands people I've known have identified as "Rarotongan", not as Māori. And obviously you'd need reliable sources to see how widely used the two identifications were. —VeryRarelyStable 22:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Structural edit question 'Culture' vs 'Society'

There is a cross over between Culture and Society in this article with a bit of double up. Perhaps 'Culture' can be more highlighted as belief systems and application and 'Society' is group makeup and interactions. Thoughts? Pakoire (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

race relations

Why does this article have this section?
Perhaps a different title and moved into socioeconomic issues? Pakoire (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty vs governance

The article currently states that 'The Treaty gave Māori the rights of British subjects and guaranteed Māori property rights and tribal autonomy, in return for accepting British sovereignty and the annexation of New Zealand as a colony in the British Empire.' Referenced to Claudia Orange, 'Treaty of Waitangi - Interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. I would like to propose the word sovereignty is replaced by governance as this is the Maori language version that was signed and in international law where there is any ambiguity the indigenous language text takes preference. Pakoire (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest "governorship" as a translation of "kawanatanga" instead of "governance". "Governance" is one of those tricky words that means something dramatically different than it seems to. Daveosaurus (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Treaty is introduced in this paragraph from the British perspective, with the British Crown and William Hobson as its agents, and the British did intend a transfer of sovereignty. The following sentence goes on to note that "the Māori version did not cede sovereignty to the British crown". The paragraph could be rejigged to flow more smoothly (what paragraph in Wikipedia couldn't?), and I for one wouldn't complain if the rejigged version approached the Treaty first from the Māori side rather than the British one; but both sides' perspectives and intentions need to be included in the narrative, as both are necessary for understanding the subject.
—VeryRarelyStable 22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Image bloat

Might I suggest, in light of the fact that the article was already over the maximum recommended article size, that the recent additions are bordering on image bloat. If it continues would anyone find a {{Too many photos|date=February 2023}} tag inappropriate? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If this continues, I feel a level 1 disruptive editing warning might not be out of place either. —VeryRarelyStable 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous people

Per Merriam-Webster, "Indigenous, or less commonly indigenous: of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group". If anyone thinks that the Māori, the earliest known inhabitants of mainland New Zealand, are not Indigenous, please explain here instead of trying to edit-war. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We've had a number of accounts and IPs making this claim recently. I suspect it is all from one person, who is either confused and ignoring good faith attempts to educate them, or a disruptive editor.-gadfium 06:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :{{can of worms}} Technically speaking, the Māori are the descendants of the first settlers of New Zealand. At what point those descendants could be considered Māori rather than Polynesian is debatable. :) That of course does not invalidate the fact that Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand as per the quoted definition. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
At no point would they be considered Māori rather than Polynesian. Māori people are Polynesian. And indigenous. New Zealand is part of Polynesia.
Sorry, I meant "specifically Māori " as opposed to otherwise unspecified "Polynesian", their exact place of origin in Polynesia (i.e. immediately pre-settlement, without going all the way back to Taiwan) being so far undetermined. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The latest editor also seems confused about the term "mainland", which here refers to the main New Zealand archipelago (not just its two biggest islands) as distinct from the Chatham Islands. If this was a common confusion I would suggest alternative phrasings, but it doesn't seem to be.
—VeryRarelyStable 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This editor was an infrequent editor prior to this year, but the majority of this year's edits have been reverted, so I would assume they still don't understand such guidelines as WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Māori_people/Archive_5&oldid=1260196240"