This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 25 February 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
This article need to have the title conspiracy theories or the Wikipedia of New Zealand may as well be the a blatant lie as it considers these conspiracy’s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2013
It could well be expanded. However, I do not think "Conspiracy theories" should be part of the title, as not all alternative accounts of settlement suggest that there is a conspiracy to cover up the evidence. For example, oral Māori traditions are not conspiracy theories.-gadfium 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
New article published recently mentions these theories  putting them into perspective as being of the wackadoodle end of the opinion spectrum. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Several editors have put some effort into improving this article. When we started out it was very poor indeed, now it is better. However I still have doubts about whether the subject is sufficiently notable to justify the article's existence. Articles about self-published amateur musicians, poets, novelists, astronomers (or whatever !) are regularly deleted on WP. Why should amateur self-published archaeologists get privileged treatment? --Kleinzach 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on this article. I'm hoping someone with a decent amount of knowledge in this area pitches in to help - there is a lot of source material about these theories but most of it is pre-Internet. There has been a long tradition of such theories ranging from Percy Smith's fabrications of Moriori settlement on mainland New Zealand (not to be confused with the genuine historical Moriori of the Chatham Islands) to Barry Brailsford's fabrications of a pre-Māori settlement of Waitaha (again, not to be confused with the genuine historical Waitaha). There's also a bit of puffery which could be pruned from the article - the people promoting these fictions don't seem to be averse to exaggerating their own status either. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles about self-published amateur musicians, poets, novelists, astronomers are also regularly kept in deletion discussions. And articles about professional, published by reliable publishers on musicians, poets, novelists, astronomers are regularly deleted (indeed, as a professional astronomer, I can say that an article about my work would (and should) be deleted - it hasn't attracted media attention, nor been substantially discussed in subsequent academic publications). Whether someone is self-published, or an amateur, is not a consideration. The only real consideration is whether other, reliable sources have found them notable enough to comment on. If they have, than we can write a neutral summary of the matters to serve as a handy reference for readers; If they haven't, it's a hopeless cause. I suspect you're mistakenly thinking of having a Wikipedia article about you as an honour (otherwise I'm not sure how to make sense of thinking of this as a privileged treatment), which isn't the case. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is only to serve as a reference to people who're interested in having such a reference. Where we can provide them with this service, we endevour to do so (and where we can't, it's unfortunate, but it's how it is). Using whether other, reliable sources have found them notable to comment on is also the closest we can come to an neutral/expert inclusion criterion - the judgement of professional archaeologists on whether this is a notable subject is reflected in that, while our own biases in this regard are much more suspect. For what it's worth, I don't it's beneficial to the promoters of these theories to have us aggregate the opinions of experts that they're a bunch of cranks; it'd probably be easier to promote these theories if one had to do a lot of legwork to establish that for themselves, rather than piggyback on our legwork.
tl;dr - We have an article because experts think it's worth commenting on, and we follow their lead. WilyD 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In view of the DYK, which naively lends a bit of credibility to these theories — "Hey, what do you know? Egyptians may have got to NZ first! Gee, how interesting!!!" — I've added a new introduction to put the theories into some kind of historical perspective. --Kleinzach 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand theories
In order to reflect other usage on Wikipedia, including the page at Māori, shouldn't the title of this page be changed to Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories, with the macron? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)