Talk:Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories

This article needs ...

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 122.56.15.70 (talk • contribs) 14 June 2013

A summary of the actual theories advanced, when, and by whom. And an article on the New Zealand Archaeological Association would be nice too. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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 [1] putting them into perspective as being of the wackadoodle end of the opinion spectrum. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability concern

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

Unfortunately — as I feared — this coverage gives some credibility to these theories. Kleinzach 09:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Page rename?

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? 129.234.235.108 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Kleinzach 08:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

'White People' removal, no pun intended

I would like to remove the whole 'white people' section. There seems to be nothing there from reputable sources and counter evidence is not given. It is pseudoscience in Wikipedia voice without much-needed context. And even with context debunking every unpublished claim is not Wikipedia's place. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going to leave it overnight, but got carried away. If you think the removed material fits in Wikipedia please revert, but also come here for discussion. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ian Wishart

Ian Wishart's commentary on whether Māori were first or not having no bearing on Māori land rights is irrelevant to this page, so I removed it. He claims that "it doesn't matter that modern Maori probably were not the first inhabitants... Under international law, finders keepers and the rules of conquest, the first New Zealanders have long since been wiped out or intermarried or become slaves to the later Maori arrivals."

This section has no relevance to explaining pre-Māori conspiracy theories, and is WP:UNDUE. His entirely false claim that "in many of their Waitangi claims [Māori] actually admit the land was populated by someone else before them" is left unscrutinised, so I've removed that too.

This page concerns conspiracy theories but we must ensure that it is not a forum for disinformation. We can acknowledge Wishart as a proponent of conspiracy theories and myths, but we can omit the nuances of them, including his apologist rhetoric concerning "finders keepers" under what he cursorily describes as a pre-United Nations "international law", We also must point out that what has been quoted is blatant misinformation. Aubernas (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean because you don't like what the source says so you can remove it, without asking first? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know, Roger. Do you mean like how you remove my stuff without going to talk, or asking permission, because you don’t like what it says? Aubernas (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User: Aubernas

user:Aubernas - This article is about theories, that includes all theories, the good the bad and the ugly, right, wrong, maybe, unlikely. A wrong theory is not a myth, it is a theory that is wrong which you should disprove or question using sources. I notice you have recently changed the title to include 'myth'. I think that change should be reverted. The sources you have used are not good sources. Without checking in depth all of them, I noticed one is an MA thesis, which should not be used. I left a message on your talk page because your repeated edits amount, IMO, to obvious disruptive editing. There is a series of previous warnings. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you are saying exactly what I am saying. This article should be about the following three things -

1. The first theories of pre-Māori settlement, as proposed by Tregear, Best, and the Polynesian Society (which they did without any evidence). The article explains the initial theories, back when Māori origins were poorly understood by Europeans.
2. The modern-day use of conspiracy theories, with their origins in these theories, to discredit Māori. These myths, distinguished because they originated post the age of education on Māori origins, are primarily championed by the fringe Pākehā right.

Virtually the entirety of my contributions to this page existed on the page before I began editing it. That should defeat your argument solidly in one sentence. Despite your claims, the sources I have used are good sources. RNZ, Stuff, and the New Zealand Herald are all considered to publish articles of record. The Spinoff is politically progressive, yes, but often has high quality contributions from academics. And James Belich and Vincent O’Malley are two of the most respected and distinguished academics from New Zealand alive today. Your claim that a MA thesis is inappropriate something I have not heard before, but since I looked up the term again just now to refresh my memory and discovered that it is “to develop in a candidate skills needed to identify a significant topic, design and implement an extended piece of research” (University of Otago), I can see a lack of merit in your claim. Your argument that I am pushing poorly cited views with loaded language is undoubtedly specious. Look at my contributions. I mentioned the word “racist” once, with six citations next to it, and indicated in the strongest possible terms that it was the opinion of some people only. Academics and leaders of maatauranga Maaori, to be specific.

I am working on this article extensively because it is not the dominant theory, but a fact that Māori were the first humans to settle Aotearoa. Previously, the article included the theories as literally, in your words, “the good, the bad, and the ugly” - acting as if the fact that Polynesians arrived in New Zealand first was just as much as a theory as the idea that seven-foot Celts did. That is nonsense. And in the age of the internet, there is an unprecedented wealth of sources out there to back this up. Pages about similar racist conspiracies, such as the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, make it very clear from the get-go that it is a myth rooted in pseudohistory. Older revisions of this article do not do the same, Believe me, I have genuinely good faith in what I’m trying to do.

As editors of Wikipedia we must endeavour to make sure there can be no doubt as to what is true, what is proven, and what is the universal acceptance of all credible archeologists and anthropologists. Both references to the older theories of the 19th century and the controversial myths that exist today are, and will always be, a part of this article, and you have my assurance that I am not trying to disruptively remove these.

Oh- and as for your warning, don’t threaten me. You have no authority over me, we are of equal rank. Aubernas (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am astounded you cannot see what is so glaringly wrong with your thought process which makes all your edits inappropriate. A theory that today has little merit is according to you part of a conspiracy theory by far-right fringe racists determined to 'discredit' Maori. Moriori being original occupants before being expelled from mainland NZ by invading Maori is not a myth, it is an unlikely theory based on current research. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. This is actually incredible. An "unlikely theory" that Moriori were here first and "were eaten by all the Māori", but only according to "current research". The endorsing of these myths by Action Zealandia isn't enough for you to understand that the fringe right are involved. And all this is all "according to me", and not literally every credible New Zealand historian. You are a crackpot. Aubernas (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the stable consensus that existed prior to this edit war. You are edit warring Aubernas I take no position on whether you are right or wrong. But as wikipedians we should always strive to achieve a consensus on the talk page before putting our edits into the article. The article WP:BRD is constructive in this case and if you can't achieve a consensus seek WP:DR.

This is all meant as good advice, if you continue down the path you're going will ultimately result in a long term/permanent block for edit warring. This isn't a warning, it isn't a threat, its an observation that I've seen many editors on your path before and that's how it ends. WCM_email 13:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, thanks. What frustrates me so deeply is that I will often make a contribution, and this editor will come along and undo it without explaining. Then they will accuse me of being unwilling to taking it to talk, but I have done that in this case and several others. But why are you saying it’s me who is edit warring, and not this editor? Aubernas (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You just called another editor a crackpot for making an entirely reasonable point, responding with hyperbole and personal attacks. Were I an admin (and I choose not to be one) I'd probably be blocking you now for an egregious example of a personal attack. The BRD cycle is very simple, you make a bold edit, when its reverted, you discuss it on the talk page. I say you were edit warring because when you were reverted you reverted it back demanding the other editor engage in talk. That's not how it is supposed to work. You need to dial down the rhetoric, stop the name calling and respond in a calm rational manner. If you can't edit without expressing rancour or anger then wikipedia is perhaps not the place for you. WCM_email 14:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

First time I've ever made any comment like that before. I appreciate your efforts to keep this civil. Aubernas (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The tone is not very encyclopedic

I have no knowledge of whether the claim is true or false, but it would appear credible. The language in the lead sounds too politically correct. I want to see the actual evidence, for and against. I am surprised there is no archeological evidence. Tuntable (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of any archaeological evidence is a significant part of what makes the theories non-credible. If anything, this article is slightly too credulous of these comprehensively debunked notions. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tuntable I've no idea what you mean by politically correct. Are you saying the lead doesn't reflect accurately the content of the article? And that you want archaeological evidence proving something didn't happen? Are you doubting the geological evidence? Did you click on Kaimanawa Range#Kaimanawa_Wall to see what that says? I agree with User:Daveosaurus. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked again at the article. I think it would benefit from a thorough overhaul. It says numerous times that most of these theories aren't backed by evidence or academic scrutiny, but they don't need to be backed up if they are just theories. Perhaps it should be made explicitly clear that these theories are not credible or are not backed up by evidence. A separate matter is the clear dig at certain people, including Don Brash. Is that what you mean by politically correct, or non-encyclopedic? My third observation is what IMO is poor use of sources - not backing up what is written in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Article needs rewording

It’s very confusing and could be clearer, especially the first section. 2601:14D:8A00:5A20:8D86:97DD:11D7:4C74 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"theories" ?? Rename this article!

Didn't this quite literally go to court dozens of times? It is not a theory that pre-maori tribes exist. 124.169.128.250 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Somebody please help my find the Kiwi translation of "Waitaha vs the State" from the last 150 years

This is about old theories. It doesn't matter what the current consensus is. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)