Jump to content

Talk:Chatham Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.67.145.164 (talk) at 00:18, 4 November 2015 (→‎More stuff needed anent Chatham's geography: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Order of names

Hi, noticed User:203.144.32.165's reordering of names in this article and Chatham Island/Rekohu. I know this is a contentious issue amongst the inhabitants. The original was in order of when the names were bestowed - 1500s or so for Rekohu, 1791 for Chatham Island and 1835 for Wharekauri. Is there a better principle to apply to this? --Tirana 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour Rekohu -> Chatham -> Wharekauri. Moriori 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name

The history section states,

The name "Chatham Islands" comes from the ship HMS Chatham, whose captain William R. Broughton landed on November 29, 1791, claimed possession for Great Britain and named the islands after the political head of the Royal Navy (coincidentally also named Chatham).

If it's only a coincidence that the ship and the RN head had the same name, is it still correct to say that the name of the islands derives from both the ship and the RN head? If Broughton intended to name it after both then the sentence should be reworded to sound less self-contradictory, if not then which is correct? Vaughan Pratt 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the "political head of the Royal Navy"? There's no such title. If you mean "First Lord of the Admiralty" (a political position), then you should give the correct title first and then say whether it was a political or a service appointment. JimInRoses (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced that text with just "First Lord of the Admiralty". I don't think it matters much here how he was appointed. --Avenue (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maori invasion and genocide

Is it possible to mention that the Maori not only enslaved the Moriori, but they ate them? This is not disputed. 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Ethnicity statistics

It seems highly misleading to offhandly state the percentage of residents who are Maori, as we currently do: "The population of 609 individuals have European, Māori (64.2%) and Moriori origins." The biggest problem here is that Moriori are classed as Maori by Statistics NZ, but our article seems to suggest that the 64.2% figure does not include Moriori. The omission of a corresponding figure for Europeans (65.6%, not even counting the 9% who said "New Zealander") and the conflation of descent/origin with ethnicity are also problematic. I will try to fix this up. -- Avenue (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 1 2011 edits

I changed the claim that the report entitled Rekohu . . . contained an extensive description of Maori fishing rights claims. What this report is extensive about is the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands.

I also want to elaborate on my displeasure with casual citation. I've seen this before in Wikipedia: when a source is found on the Web, the editor omits either the title, the author, or even both. Instead, they use the name of the Web site, which may not have anything in common with the name of the source. A different kind of offense is truncated names, as with Rekohu.

There has been a failure to use Rekohu as a source. It's a lengthy report of a permanent political settlement which contains a mass of history. It's lazy to use only Jared Diamond's bestseller on social anthropology as the source for the Maori invasion. I think it's a good idea to keep that because the book is widely available and also because it addresses a topic not addressed in Rekohu. But as for the specifics of the invasion, of course Diamond only had the same few sources as the did the commission that wrote Rekohu. Hurmata (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and inaccuracies

What is "British mercenary ship" supposed to mean? Apart from being an unusual way to refer to a hired merchant vessel, it sounds very POV to me.

The doubt that the Moriori were the "primordial population". They were not there since the beginning of time. Indigenous is the normal term.

How can Moriori be recognized to be "former Maori". They are either Maori or they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing myth that "Moriori society was a peaceful society". It was no more peaceful than any tribal society. What was absent - but only after a period of devasting wars - was inter-tribal warfare. But that was mostly because with only 2,000 or so survivors left, on several islands, the remaining groups had little stomach left for a fight, or reason for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Media and communications" Please

Could someone please add a "Media and communications" section patterned on the one for Pitcairn Islands? thanks Shannock9 (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waitangi marked in wrong place on the map

Waitangi, the largest settlement in the islands, is marked on the map in the wrong place! Admittedly it is only a mile away from where it should be, but as the entire settlement is only about a quarter of a mile long in that direction (NNE/SSW), this is a big enough discrepancy to matter. Now the author of this map, the guy who put it up, did a fine job generally drawing it; and I do not know the Wikipedia etiquette for anybody else (like me) to download the map, alter it and put it back again so I will not attempt to fix this. But the place marked as the township by the black circle labelled "Waitangi" is on one of the bays facing more or less WNW, at the point where the road (at a gentle bend in it) is nearest to the shore. Just north of that on the road is a group of buildings marked on the Google maps satellite photo as Chatham Islands Marine Radio. Waitangi itself is further north again along that road, on the shoreline on the eastern side of the promontory, where the shoreline curves most tightly, at the southernmost end of the main sweep of Petre Bay. That place is named Waitangi Bay and the shoreline road is named Waitangi Wharf.

Also, on the opposite side of the island, the only other settlement of any size or with a name, Owenga, is marked on Alexander Karnstedt's map by another small black circle about 1km to the south of where it should be shown, which is (again) on the north-facing shoreline close to where the letter "O" of the name "Owenga" almost touches the shoreline on the map. Instead of that, you will see the circle is almost at the centre (in the N-S direction) of the promontory there, which that ends to the east at Manukau Point.

I base these statements on looking carefully at the satellite photos of these places on Google maps. it is quite clear where the buildings making up these settlements are, and they are marked with names/captions also. There is also the local website [1] which has its own map whowing as a street plan the Waitangi area complete with names of the few streets/roads the island has — which are mostly in this small area. Iph (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Territory

@Andrewgprout: I added the following definition to the intro:

is a special territory and region of New Zealand, consisting of an archipelago...

but this was reverted to just "is an archipelago...".

Chatham Islands Territory redirects here and describes the same subject. If you look at Template:Administrative divisions of New Zealand, it shows Chatham Islands as both a region and territory, which is confirmed by Chatham Islands#Local_government, though there the term is "district" instead of territory. My intent was to clearly indicate to the reader in the intro that the Chatham Islands are a top-level administrative division of New Zealand. Given the revert, I'm not sure if there is disagreement over that, or just how it should be expressed? -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - thought I might need to explain myself here :-). There is not a political division in NZ called a "territory" - true the term territorial council is used but the territorial council does not have control over a territory it would normally be a city or a district or historically a county or borough. The word territory has in NZ a connotation of somewhere not intrinsically part of NZ but somewhere controlled by the country, currently Tokelau is a territory (i'm sure its not officially called that though) maybe Ross Dependency and historically Samoa, Niue etc. Thus saying the Chatham Islands are a territory is like saying they are not an integral part of the country - which is sort of rude.
It is also true that the Chatham's council is slightly different in that when it was set up as a single authority in the late 1980's reform, other councils are now similarly configured in what is now termed a unitary authority (Auckland Nelson, Tasman?). This almost certainly was because two councils for 600 people would have been bizarre. However this does not make the islands a region or even a Region. In reality it makes it the opposite.
I applaud you for trying to explain all this in a couple of words but in my view it is probably better left unsaid, at least in the lead of the article. If there is consensus that it is important I'm sure rewording with some more local lingo will make me happy. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout: So, how do local people refer to the Chatham Islands as administrative division? Template:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand does use the term "Territory"; is that wrong, and if so, how should it be fixed? -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I hadn't seen that template - I think Chatham's needs to be moved under the districts section but not within the North or South Island lists - I would also mark it as a unitary authority. It simply does not belong along with Tokelau and Ross Dependency.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chatham Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff needed anent Chatham's geography

Further ibfo on the lagoon - how shallow is it? who lives in it? and so forth. Also, how about some up to date photos, panaramas, and of the Chatham's inland bits too. "ibfo" is a miskey for "info" but gonna leave it in coz it kinda looks like an Nigerian Yoruba placename. So there you go.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chatham_Islands&oldid=688944623"