Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconNew Zealand: Māori Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Māori task force.

New taskforce[edit]

Ok, I suggest we move the discussion on setting up this task force to this new project talk page. What needs doing?

  • Define the scope of the project.
    • Initial scope done
  • Put some headings onto the project page. Other WPNZ project pages will give you an idea what could be listed there.
  • Organise that articles can be categorised as belonging to this project through the WPNZ banner. That's a topic in itself with numerous steps to go through. At the end of the day, you end up with a table of projects by importance and class, which is a good management tool.
    •  Done
  • Sort a membership process. I'll work on a membership banner.
    •  Done
  • Define some tasks that volunteers can work on.

The above list is a start. It's by no means comprehensive. Schwede66 07:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WPNZ template[edit]

1784 Māori Chief

The way to categorise articles is through the Template:WikiProject New Zealand. You can see on that template that music and politics have their own task force tags. On its talk page, you'll see that it's reasonably straightforward to request the Māori task force to be added to this. The one thing that needs to be sorted before we do so is the graphic that the template uses. In the userbox, I've used the 1784 Māori Chief. Please let me know whether there's a better picture / graphic to use. When that decision is made, it's all go from there. Schwede66 08:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image looks fine – can't think of a better one off the top of my head. If there are no objections to the image, then I'll volunteer to request the addition to the WPNZ template tomorrow. Liveste (talkedits) 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carving in Rotorua

Another option might be something like the carving at right. Either would be fine with me. --Avenue (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of File:Poumatua2.jpg as well – it's a really nice photo, even at 60px. They'd all do fine, but let's go with Schwede's original image. Time to get this project up and running :) Liveste (talkedits) 11:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick question: are we categorising these articles under, for example, Category:Māori articles by quality or Category:New Zealand Māori articles by quality? We need to know the category names before the template can be updated. The other two task forces in the template have "New Zealand" at the front, but by necessity. Does this task force need it as well? Liveste (talkedits) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd leave the New Zealand bit out. Schwede66 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Next up, bot-tagging and working out an importance scale. Liveste (talkedits) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot tagging[edit]

Once the WPNZ template is sorted, bot tagging of the relevant WPNZ articles can be done. XLerate did this for us in the past - here's the discussion. Schwede66 08:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a quick look at the categories, and pretty much everything under Category:Māori can be tagged, except for Category:Cook Island Māori people. We might want to double-check Category:Māori people though to make sure that we want all of these people in the task force's scope. Thoughts? Liveste (talkedits) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've looked quickly through the people categories, and I think most would be within the scope you advocated below. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Category:Moriori (I'm not even sure why it's a subcat; am I missing something)?
We appear to have agreed below to include the main Moriori article in the scope of this task force, since they're basically an offshoot of the Māori. Personally, I think we can include the other articles as well. Liveste (talkedits) 08:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. With much thanks to XLerate. Liveste (talkedits) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kia ora everyone,

One of the first things I think we should do here is define the scope of the task force, i.e. what do we want to cover? Some projects define their scope in great detail, but many have just a brief definition, which might be enough here too. I've drafted one below:

  • This task force covers all subjects closely related to the indigenous Māori people of New Zealand, including their language, culture, history, politics, relationship with the land, and many other topics.

If we do want a more detailed scope declaration, I think there are a lot of grey areas to sort out, including populated places, organisations, and people. Regarding people, for instance, some people should clearly be included (e.g. Tariana Turia), but do we want to cover people of Māori ethnicity or descent who are notable for something unrelated (e.g. Kiri Te Kanawa) and who might even not identify as Māori (e.g. Russell Crowe)? What about non-Māori with varying degrees of relevance, e.g. Henry Williams (missionary), Gottfried Lindauer, Don Brash, Tanoai Reed? It might be easier to deal with borderline cases as they come up, rather than try to establish it all now.

Any thoughts? --Avenue (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't answer any of those questions, but have an additional one: Do you want to include Moriori in the scope? Not strictly Māori, but certainly indigenous to New Zealand. Schwede66 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I think Moriori would fit naturally within the scope, because while distinct, I understand they branched off from Māori roots (and also because of their conquest by Māori). In contrast, I think Cook Islands Maori would be too far removed to be a good fit. What do you think? --Avenue (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind either a summary scope or a detailed one. If we get stuck on defining the scope, we could use a brief one for now and decide whether or not to expand it at a later date. History, culture, language, society and politics are all fairly uncontroversial inclusions. I have no problem including Moriori, but wouldn't include Cook Island Māori. Geography is a more difficult problem. Most geographical features throughout the country will have some association or other with local Māori. Thus, either we include in the scope a large number of geographical landmarks nationwide, decide which associations are notable enough, or not include any at all. Cities and towns pose the same problem – and not just those with Māori names. I'm undecided at the moment, but if I had to choose now then I'd exclude them all, just to make things easier. Thoughts?
I'm a little uneasy about the inclusion of Moriori, I'd rather they had a separate task force rather than subsume them under Māori, but I realise that most of their articles will be of relevance to both peoples, so ok in the meantime anyway. Cook Islands Māori are a totally separate people - I separated out the categories the other day because some well meaning editor had included both people under Category: Māori people. Kahuroa (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're bot-tagging articles, then I think we can include all articles in Category:Māori and its subcategories, excluding Category:Cook Island Māori people. Articles could be tagged en masse and any extraneous ones removed in a subsequent assessment drive; others can be added individually. Which people should be included should probably wait until we sort out the scope: for mine, I'd specify people who are notably Māori (essentially, people who are well known to be Māori, not just those who are well known for being Māori), and those who are notably associated with Māori. This pretty much includes everyone in Category:Māori people (excl. CI Māori): borderline cases can be decided individually. I'd also apply this reasoning to Māori organisations. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming of historic Māori electorates[edit]

The four historic Māori electorates that were abolished in 1996 all use a macron in the article name, but macrons were added to Māori electorates only a few years ago. There's a proposal to move those historic electorates at Talk:Western Māori. Can you please contribute there? Schwede66 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

checkY sorted - thanks. Schwede66 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging a bunch of pages[edit]

I've tagged a couple of dozen pages, using textual search (to increase my chances of catching pages not in the categories that a bot will get):

  1. At least two pages weren't even in Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand, we need to be adding this as we go along right?
  2. Quite a few of the culturally oriented pages were in Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia, if we don't already have someone who understands what they're up to does someone want to reach out to them?
  3. I was adding things quick-and-dirty, if anyone disagrees with any of my assessments, I'm not going to argue.
  4. I added more assessments nearer the end, once I'd got a better feel for the articles.

I'll probably do another tranche in a week or two, after any feedback and/or bot action. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it. The bot will be just as quick-and-dirty, but it'll be limited to Category:Māori and its subcats. Your textual search sounds pretty good. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 10:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm a very inactive member of WP:POLYNESIA. Kahuroa apparently hasn't joined it, but I've seen him doing a fair amount lately on non-Maori Polynesian topics, and from his edits I'd say he has a much better understanding of the cultural aspects than I do. I'd be happy to notify the project that this task force is being set up, anyway. --Avenue (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've mentioned this task force on their talk page. --Avenue (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just joined WP;Polynesia, tho unofficially I have always done a fair bit on Polynesia. Kahuroa (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other issues to examine[edit]

There are a couple of issues I'd like to see the group examine, in particular:

  1. Macronisation: I'd like to see us defer to Te Ara for macronisation, particularly for words where there isn't a universal consensus (such as Rātana). The deference to Te Ara is because (a) they're official; (b) they have broadly similar aims to wikipedia; and (c) they have certified te reo Māori translators working for them.
  2. Iwi and hapu links on people pages: often people are listed with affiliations to iwi and hapu which aren't referenced and which we don't have pages for. There is some serious work to clarify and disambiguate some of these.
  3. Better links with the te reo Māori wikipedia
  4. Better referencing: we need to be putting {{references}} into a lot of pages

Those are my ideas, what are everyone elses'? retrospectively signed: Stuartyeates (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They sound good. We'll probably need to spell out orthographic conventions across a wide range of areas. Te Ara is a pretty good source to follow – goodness knows I've relied on them more than I should. But the primary authority is the Māori Language Commission. This publication outlines their orthographic conventions: it's a collection of best-practice guidelines, similar to our MoS. The introduction lists a few other publications for more specific topics, including Te Ara. We'll probably need to reference them all to some degree. Thoughts? Liveste (talkedits) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points. I was working through the list of Western Māori MPs the other day and this revealed my ignorance. Quite a few names are of the format xxx Te yyy, and sometimes 'Te' was capitalised, sometimes it wasn't - what is right? Or does it depend? And is 'Te' part of the surname? That wasn't consistent either. Ratana as a religion has a macron, whereas the various people with Ratana as a surname don't have a macron. Is that correct? And lastly, if we are supposed to use names and labels in their historic setting, then the article name itself is not right, as 'Western Maori' has never had a macron during its existence. I'd be glad to receive some guidance. And maybe we need a section 'All things Māori 101' as part of the task force page! Schwede66 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Te" links with the name that follows it, so in your example it's part of the surname. It can also appear in first names and in middle names. Generally the "T" is capitalised, but I imagine some people prefer not to do this for their own names. If in doubt, Wikipedia generally follows common usage: what is used elsewhere (in reliable sources) is what we use here. Macrons don't appear in a lot of personal names so normally you can leave them out, but if you do see them in a person's name it's usually for a reason. Again, common usage prevails. This is similar to Māori placenames: "Whakatane" is more common than "Whakatāne" (Te Ara is a notable exception), so we use the former here.
"Western Māori/Maori" is a bit harder. Stuartyeates is correct in pointing out that there has been a lot of retroactive orthographic correcting of late. But in some cases we leave the orthography uncorrected – e.g., when quoting a reference work that omits macrons. Not sure where best to draw the line here. You're right about a Māori 101 section: it'd be nice to have all our Māori-related conventions accessible in one place. I recommend consulting the Māori Language Commission's orthographic conventions for starters (they have guidelines that are relevant to some of your questions, too), along with our MoS. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] is another good authoritative source: official source known to employ professional licensed translators. Tends to switch macronisation for modern stuff while leaving older stuff in the original form, c.f. Koro Wētere Stuartyeates (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone with a bit of knowledge in this area should start drafting something that can eventually go onto the main page. It's good to have links to external sources, but there needs to be a write up on the project page for those people who come by and want to read the most important things without having to delve into the background. Schwede66 01:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comments above about macrons confuse me. On one hand, people suggest following Te Ara or another government source. On the other hand, an example is given above (Whakatane) where common usage prevails. Indeed, the latter comment seems to imply that common usage usually should prevail. My first instinct would be to agree. However, my feeling is that Te Ara is often a long way away from common usage in New Zealand English regarding macrons (e.g. they almost always write tūī,[1] but most non-governmental websites seem to write tui[2]). So these two criteria seem to clash. Which one should prevail? Should we use the same criteria for article titles and article text? --Avenue (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that we need to be following the lead of Māori Language Commission (Te Ara, Ministry of Education, etc also follow the MLC). The MLC has an agenda, which can be broadly summarised as moving Māori towards being a nationally-uniform purely phonetic language, but I'd like to think we can acknowledge that and move on. This is not to say that alternative spellings and pronouncations can't be redirected and discussed in the articles as appropriate. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Avenue, I think that the naming guidelines are partly applicable here: Whakatane is the name of the town in English. A LINZ search confirms this. Whakatāne is its name in Māori. In the English Wikipedia, we use English names except where there is specific context, e.g. when stating the Māori name of a place or in a direct quotation. An edge case might be a biography of a Māori participant in the New Zealand wars - It would be appropriate to say that "he travelled to Whakatāne" since that was his name for it and translation is unnecessary. (Not the greatest example, given that if the subject could write, he may well have used "Whakataane" and would not have used a macron.) As yet there are very few "english" versions of names which include macrons. Māori itself is the most significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramatic (talkcontribs) 23:16, 12 December 2010
  1. Indeed the Māori Language Commission should be the authority for spelling and orthography. That is its role after all. I have their latest dictionary (big) and all in te reo which should be able to elucidate any spellings we're unsure of. Te Ara and other government websites etc generally follow the MLC conventions. I don't really agree with the comment about the MLC trying to create a uniform purely phonetic language. It doesn't mind people using dialect forms AFAIK, and Māori is almost totally phonemically based already.
  2. Re tribal names: The National library has produced a major database of tribal and subtribal names which is the basis for the article names on the Māori wikipedia. I think there are something like 1100 articles on tribes and subtribes on mi based on the Nat Library list which is a expandable (pretty much precategorised for our purposes) tree Iwi hapu list. Seems quite accurate and certainly usable as a standard to avoid disputes or at least serve as a basis for positive discussion. Maybe we could use the Māori wiki cats (starting from mi:Category:Iwi hapū or mi:Category:Waka o ngā iwi) to generate and correct stubs in this wiki at some future date. Te Ara has quite a lot of stuff on iwi and hapū.
  3. This is a pretty good online dictionary as you probably already know Māori Dictionary Online Kahuroa (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you seriously think that the Iwi/hapu list is likely to be a useful categorisation, it's downloadable in MARC, and that's a format I speak, Maybe I can have a crack at automatically generating something to use as a seed? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I do, I mean its divided up into waka, iwi, hapū - it was me who did all those articles on mi from it. It was done as a research project for the Nat Lib by Robert Sullivan. Have a look at it anyway. Kahuroa (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, so far I think I see people saying that we should follow:
  1. Te Ara
  2. the MLC
  3. LINZ; and
  4. common English usage.
These do not always agree. In particular, Te Ara does not seem to always follow the MLC, as was stated above. For instance, Hawera lacks a macron on LINZ maps such as NZTopo50 BK30, while Te Ara and the MLC go for Hāwera[3] and Te Hāwera[4] respectively. I think common usage here agrees with LINZ, but there are at least a few cases where I believe common usage does not agree with LINZ: e.g. Lake Ōkataina and Ōkārito. So we cannot follow all these authorities at once.
I'd see MLC as the authority for spelling and orthography of Māori words as used in Māori, but this is often different from common usage in English. As Dramatic notes, we have an existing guideline for article titles, at least: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Māori words. This says macrons should usually be used. For geographic places, it gives priority to dual names published by LINZ where these exist, but rules out using macrons for single names like Whakatane. I'm not sure of the reason for this inconsistency in macron usage between places and other topics. For article text, I do take the point that orthography there can and should be sensitive to the context, but some guidelines could still be useful. I don't really mind what approach we take, but I'd prefer if it was reasonably consistent and well documented. --Avenue (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even within an article, we may need English use vs Māori use for various details. We probably need to to look at individual cases. I would always put the MLC ahead of Te Ara for establishing Māori use; LINZ for English geographical names - remembering that LINZ doesn't set Māori use, but English use, so MLC trumps that if it's the Māori use we need for a particular detail on an article. Kahuroa (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment guidelines[edit]

I'm probably going to come across a fair few bot-tagged articles while on the main assessment project, and currently I'm thinking thus:

  • People who are notable for something (e.g. sports) and who happen to be Māori should get low priority.
  • People who are notable for being Māori or in Māori culture should be medium - high. (e.g. kaumatua, activists, politicians).
  • If the article for a river, etc. mentions that it was an important Māori trail, then the article deserves a tag, as does any article which discusses the Māori history of a settlement or area, e.g. History of the Canterbury Region. dramatic (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good on all counts. #3 is a nice solution to the problem I mentioned earlier regarding geography. We could apply it other areas as well, such as flora and fauna. Liveste (talkedits) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through some of the people pages that have been included, there seem to be a great many sports players who have played for the respective Māori international teams (this makes them automatically notable in wikipedia terms and their automatic inclusion in sports annuals makes it easy to create stub pages for them) but for whom there is no material relating to their Māoriness (no iwi and hapu, no Māori school affiliation, etc). I'd like to mark these as low priority, but more than happy for that to be upgraded if evidence of their notable for being Māori is added to their pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've assessed a bunch of articles for class where maori-importance had already been assessed. I have a gut feeling that importance was often assessed as higher than what it might be. I say feeling because many of the topics I was entirely unfamiliar with, but some of it sounded rather unimportant to me. Somebody once gave the advice to me that project-wide, you should end up with about three quarters of your articles as low importance. Would others like to comment whether this is appropriate for this task force, too? Schwede66 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My rule of thumb is: Top - 2 - 5%, High: 5 - 10%, Mid: 25-30%, Low: 60%. dramatic (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


New research on South Island deforestation: Early Settlers Rapidly Transformed New Zealand Forests With Fire Kahuroa (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuther version Hungry Maoris burned forests to grow food

"New Zealand Māori" teams include other non-white ethnicities[edit]

I've been seen a few articles which have been tagged for this wikiproject apparently because the person played for a "New Zealand Māori" sports team, even though they were not themselves Māori. If I understand correctly, during the Apartheid era, everyone who didn't meet the South African criteria for 'white' was considered a candidate for a Māori team. This included pacific islanders and african americans. I've got no real opinion as to whether these people rightly fall under the scope of this wikiproject. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An exmample is Fred Ah Kuoi Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a simple error to me - they shouldn't be tagged if they were only invited in to make up the numbers. The teams they played for, fine. I have taken the tag off Mr Ah Kuoi Kahuroa (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe it was a case of making up the numbers (certainly, there was no shortage of Māori rugby players in national competition at the time who could have represented their country). I believe it was a case of the word Māori being used in a more flexible manner than it is currently. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't really get what you mean - maybe it can be discussed on a case by case basis. Kahuroa (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Te versus te in surnames[edit]

Putting this here so it doesn't get lost above. Te is always capitalised in people's names. There is only one solitary exception that I am aware of: the te Heuheu family of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who prefer lower case te in their surname. For politicians other than te Heuheu, I would be changing any lower case te. Also for 19th century people, it's general practice to put macrons in their names - I think that's what the MLC recommends. Kahuroa (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and in fact they recommend this for people from pre-1950 "as a general rule" (Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori: Guidelines for Māori Language Orthography, p.13).
Cool. Kahuroa (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable pages[edit]

I've been working through some fo the unclassified pages and have turned up and few I'm uncertain of:

  1. Kaitangata: seems to be mingling a disambiguation page and an encyclopedia page
  2. Kakahi: another disambiguation page
  3. Māori Muslims: maybe merge with Māori religion?
  4. Kiwi Black: are foreign appropriations of Māori culture included?
  5. Tasesa Lavea: a Samoan, but has played for the Māoris
Kaitangata had a linkless dictionary definition - with a bad translation to boot - which aren't allowed on disambig pages so I removed it. I took the nzwiki proj tag off too - do we normally tag disambigs??? Kakahi is a simple disambig - should we detag??? Kiwi Black seems to be a fictional Māori character, so I guess he fits that category; and if Lavea has played on a Māori rugby team he matches the category. As for Māori Muslims, you could bring it up on the main NZ project page, but personally I'd rather let it lie because it could be contentious. Kahuroa (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have included: Toi (name): a sort of disambiguation page

That looks like a definite candidate for deletion. Kahuroa (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is a Category:Disambig-Class New Zealand articles available that is populated by WPNZ articles when you set 'class=disambig' (leave off importance). Have a look at what's in it. Some dab pages clearly belong there, as all of the uses (or the vast majority) themselves belong to WPNZ. Schwede66 16:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I have tagged Talk:Kaitangata and Talk:Kakahi using {{WikiProject New Zealand|class=disambig|maori=yes}}. Is that right? Kahuroa (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's how I would have done it, too. And I've turned Kaitangata into a proper dab page, with a lead, no pipes for dab items, and one blue link per line. See this diff. Schwede66 02:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. I've added one or two people previously not included, such as Bruce Biggs.
  2. I've gone through pretty much all of the Unassessed / ??? pages (i.e. those without a class or importance rating). There were ~150 several days ago there should now only be a handful left, ones that I was doubtful of or I skipped over accidentally. The table takes a couple of days to update. Some of these were done without logging in, so edits appear as an IP address.

Things to do (which I won't get to until after Xmas):

  1. Go through more of the ??? column in the table and access their importance
  2. Find pages that have been left behind, either by textual searching or by trolling through pages that link to core pages (such as iwi and hapu pages)
  3. Pick some work-areas to focus on (I suggest Māori academics, Māori featured in or something land-wars related)

Have a good break everyone Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table has been updated and it's looking great. I've done some more work:
  1. I've demoted List of Māori iwi from top to high and promoted iwi to top (from unclassified). List of Māori iwi will never be an ideal encyclopedia article because it doesn't give a new-comer a well-rounded introduction to the topic, whereas iwi can and does.
  2. I've started on the hundreds of unclassified stub articles. Yet again I'm finding lots of sports player stubs which don't mention their Māoriness except in passing.
  3. I've created the New Zealand section of 2011 New Year Honours, because I noticed that quite a few Māori were honoured, but I've not had time to link and disambiguate them yet (someone else is more than welcome to jump in).

Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing bio[edit]

We've got at least a stub for every NZ MP, but I found a couple of names that were missing. One of them is a Maori MP. More detail can be found following this link if you feel like creating a bio. Note that MPs are automatically notable. Schwede66 03:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Liveste, for sorting this one. Yes, we are a freaky bunch, aren't we? Schwede66 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Settlement of East Polynesia[edit]

This isn't really new news, but may be handy for a source:

Wikipedia and Māori[edit]

Found this article at Nothing particularly new, but a good read nonetheless. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. The lack of other Māori editors is a problem, and I am not expecting that to change anytime soon. Some of our articles attract input whenever there is a controversy over Māori issues, but we manage to balance much of it out. In general the NZ editors are a great bunch. And I think we are better off than the Hawaiians who have a much harder time and even fewer editors positively disposed to their issues. Kahuroa (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I posted a comment to the article mentioning I think the comment may need to be approved before it will appear.-gadfium 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article seems to have a few misconceptions about Wikipedia (you couldn't call the typical editor a peer reviewer for a start - certainly I'd never call myself that!) but overall it looks very positive for the project. I'm also very pleased to see the tone of the article is more "join up and explain Māori issues" than. I'm nowhere near qualified to write on Māori issues - stomping on obvious vandalism on a handful of pages I watch is all I really do here - so I'd very much like to see more qualified editors join up. I agree that mentioning the Māori Wikipedia would be a good idea - perhaps show the newsletter . Daveosaurus (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One good thing about our NZ group is that we can have knowledgable non-Māori editors contribute in tandem with Māori editors (few as we are) to aim for a balanced perspective on Māori topics. It's great to see. The article mentions 280 Māori organisations: I think they're referring to Category:Māori stubs. We have almost 1,100 articles within the scope of this taskforce (more than I would have thought we'd have). Liveste (talkedits) 07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1,100 articles in the scope of this project is hugely bolstered by the number of sports-person bio-stubs which mention the player played for a New Zealand Māori side. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stopping assessment[edit]

In the last month or so I've done 400-600 article assessments for the project but I've stopped, because I don't seem to be getting much feedback and I'm not really confident enough to really continue without it, now that I've got beyond the relatively low-hanging fruit. Coming to a consensus about the assessments needs the active participation of multiple people. I'll continue to do assessments of appropriate articles working through Wikipedia:New_articles_(New_Zealand), of course. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a lot of work and a great effort. Kia ora koe. Kahuroa (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if we should define the importance scale using a few examples, to help with some of the more difficult importance assessments. Most projects use a general description of importance, like the one at WP:NZA#Importance scale. On the other hand, a few examples or a more specific description might help to reduce the number of unassessed articles more quickly, and might help with future assessments. Thoughts? Liveste (talkedits) 06:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concrete examples would certainly be a huge help. I'll rustle some up. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's my list: Stacey Jones, Russell Crowe, Brian Tamaki, Elsdon Best, Hutt Valley Campaign, Tahitic languages, Tipua, Makutu, Tāne and Ao (mythology) Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the last four, Tane is a major god up there with Rangi and Papa, Tangaroa and Tumatauenga; Makutu is quite an important cultural concept, Tipua and Ao are hard to classify but maybe we could look at them as aspects/details of the former belief system. Elsdon Best is misclassified, he wrote about Maori people but was not Maori himself. He's an important ethnologist of the early 20th century, somewhat controversial from our perspective now. Tahitic, nuclear P, Polynesian are fairly important with regard to te reo and its history. Hutt V C fairly important history. The first three are influential people, nationally known. Is that any help?? Kahuroa (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really what I need to know is which of the four importance ranks (top, high, middle, low) each article falls into, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Assessment#Importance_scale (or alternatively, whether the article shouldn't be covered by the project). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I am a complete noob at assessing articles, but here goes. Stacey Jones=mid, Russell Crowe=low or none?? (he's practically an Aussie), Brian Tamaki=mid, Elsdon Best, Hutt Valley Campaign=mid, Tahitic languages=low, Tipua=low, Makutu=mid, Tāne=mid and Ao (mythology)=low Kahuroa (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Pretty much agree with all those assessments. I'd prefer to remove Russell Crowe from our scope, since his relation to anything Māori is about as prominent as his Norwegian ancestry. I would include Elsdon Best though because of his contribution to Māori history research. Considering the influence of his work, I'd rate his article as mid-importance (but I'm biased, given his work with Tūhoe). Liveste (talkedits) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, I mist **cough** agree. Kahuroa (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm ... you should probably get that cough of yours checked out, e hoa. Or at least get out in the sun a bit more. I'd hate to see it affect your editing :p Liveste (talkedits) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To summarise what I think you're saying. (I'm not being deliberately stupid, just trying build a set of clear rules that we can agree on): (a) For people to be covered by this project, it is not enough for them to be identified as of Māori descent (or qualifying for a Māori representative sports team), their article must say they identify as being Māori or they must have made very significant contributions to Māori (mainly from the early contact period). (b) Most land wars and Māori-related NZ history pages as mid. (c) Most mythology and cultural topics in mid. (d) Topics which are more Polynesian than Māori mainly low. Does that sound about nearly right? I've also been exaggerating the tendency to rate living people lower than the dead, does that seem reasonable? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that sounds fair enough I think. I will let someone else comment on the last question you raise tho, I havent done much in the way of people articles. By the way Cordyline australis and other important pre-contact food plants/resources should be mid - I largely wrote that so I will let someone else add it to the project. :) Kahuroa (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applying the principles I've been using in NZ-project assessments, I would rank thus:

  • Stacey Jones=low - the article doesn't even identify him as Māori, let alone describe any significance in Māori society.,
  • Russell Crowe= remove tag,
  • Brian Tamaki=mid,
  • Elsdon Best = high: right or wrong, much of our academic understanding of Māori society was based on his work.
  • Hutt Valley Campaign=high (equal with the other main campaigns of the New Zealand wars - individual battles would be mid.),
  • Tahitic languages=low,
  • Tipua= high, Makutu= high - cultural concepts are more significant than people, and are things which people are highly likely to turn to Wikipedia for information on, thus it is important that we have good articles on them.
  • Tāne=mid, possibly high (I would definitely put Ranginui and Papatuanuku at high)
  • Ao (mythology)=mid

dramatic (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Māori move proposal[edit]

Just in case you haven't got Māori on your watchlist (I for one didn't), a proposal to move that article to Māori people is being discussed on the Māori talk page. If this were a game of soccer, you could say it's the Kiwis playing the United Nations. It's one nil for the Kiwis at the moment. I suggest you go and spectate; maybe even put on a black jersey and join in. Schwede66 06:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be careful about advertising such discussions. Kwamikagami has threatened to block me, apparently because I disagreed with them.-gadfium 08:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politically POV edits at United Tribes of New Zealand[edit]

Tena koutou - hoping someone here who knows more about the historical/legal matters brought up by a recent edit at United Tribes of New Zealand can have a look at it - I've left a comment on the talk page which explains a bit more, but the POV problems with the page should be reasonably clear without much explanation. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just come across another problem anon. There's a lot of material inserted that's extremely one-sided. I've reverted recent edits done to George Grey and New Zealand land wars, but it might pay for someone to go through the whole edit history. I'm going away for the weekend and haven't even had time yet to drop a note on the IP talk page. Could somebody please look into this? Schwede66 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor is Claudia, who has been editing as an anon for at least 18 months. She is recognisable by her distinctive formatting. Claudia has problems with formatting and referencing (although she has improved significantly on the latter), and sometimes with POV, but I do not doubt that her edits are well-meaning and accurately represent her sources. She is widely read on pre-20th century New Zealand history. Feel free to revert edits you find problematic, but I suggest you try a dialog on the talk page as well.-gadfium 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am reducing my involvement with Wikipedia and Claudia has a lot to do with it. She is well-meaning I am sure, but POV and I don't have the energy to revert, correct, explain any more. Real life family sicknesses are also a factor. I don't intend this as permanent but who knows. Kahuroa (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had a quick look at a sample of that editor's contributions over the past few days and think this may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Of the two references I noticed given, one was to a WP:FRINGE work (Paul Moon's "This Horrid Practice") and the other only to a name which is unfindable in English on Google (Bohan Ein). I don't have the time, patience or experience to fix Claudia's contributions so my only choices would be to ignore them and let the bad edits stand, or revert back to a prior reliably sourced version - neither of which would be ideal as I'd prefer to see Claudia improve rather than leave. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yikes, I had no idea how much editing she had gotten up to (lol @ "Ad Claudiam"). Sigh ... that'll teach me for not watchlisting more historical articles. I'm currently working through a (rather surprising) GAN for Netball, but if no-one else volunteers I'll review her edits in a few days. Overall, I'm less inclined to simply remove her added information than to make it conform to Wikipedia's NPOV standards. She may be a POV-pusher but she's also knowledgeable, and quite useful in a kick-up-the-bum-for-being-complacent kind of way. Has anyone invited her to set up an account? It might be easier to get her to improve her contributions that way. Hope everything's well in RL, e hoa. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article alerts[edit]

I've worked out how to make a category-based article alerts subscription for the politics task force of WPNZ. If you'd like a subscription for this taskforce, please let me know here and I'll repeat the steps for you. Schwede66 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and done it. See the project page. If you'd like to keep a close watch of these alerts without keeping an eye on the project page itself (bot updates don't result in a watchlist notification of the project page), you can watchlist the the notification page itself. Schwede66 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all. I would like to request some help with the above article. The Maori name section is solely sourced to in the 1966 edition of the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. The trouble I am having is that the source mearly states the names of the features and settlements, but does not provide much detail about their location. This means I have boarded (or possible crossed into) original research when it comes to wikilinking. For example the source says Tawhiti was named for Tahiti, but not which Tawhiti (I assumed it was the Poor Knights Island, but there is apparently a region in Taranaki near Hawera known as Tawhiti too). Other examples include Rukumoana, Petane and Hamaria. I think I have most of them correct, but it would be good if someone with more knowledge or access to better resources can double check them. Advice on which Toi to link and how to structure his article would be awesome too. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ngā Hau e Whā[edit]

I'm surprised that there isn't an article about Ngā Hau e Whā National Marae. Going by this write up, it appears to be unique in New Zealand. I took some photos earlier today; is anybody interested in putting an article together? Schwede66 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concept of a national marae goes against everything I know about marae. There is a similar one in Wellington (which was ironically was used as a transit point for people moving north after the chch earthquake). My guess is that these are the 1970s precursors to urban marae. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term "national marae" can be a bit misleading. It doesn't denote seniority, as in "one marae to rule them all". As I understand it, they're more like non-tribal or pan-tribal marae, without affiliation to any particular iwi, school or church (unlike most marae, which are usually controlled by one hapū). Broadly speaking, they serve as a base for the promotion of Māori culture generally; they're often used for non-Māori events as well.
Ngā Hau e Whā (the one in Christchurch – a number of marae have the same name) is apparently the largest national marae in New Zealand, and is currently being used for sittings of the Christchurch District Court. Others include the New Zealand Army marae in Waiouru, and formerly Orakei Marae in Auckland (now there's a tragic story) before it was handed over to Ngāti Whātua. Tūrangawaewae Marae in Ngāruawāhia is what you might call a "nationally important" marae, although it's still very much a Tainui marae.
We could write an article on Ngā Hau e Whā – it's certainly more notable than most of those listed in Category:Marae in New Zealand (many of which should probably be deleted). But I wouldn't consider it a particularly important topic. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since someone has breached the issue of deletion / notability, here are a couple of good sources for marae Te Kāhui Māngai (Directory of Iwi and Māori Organisations) from TPK and Naumaiplace Ltd. I also notice that Scoop is now supporting press releases with macrons, which is excellent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're great sites (so is the new Māori Maps site), but I wouldn't use them for much more than basic info. TKM and Naumai are online listings of marae (among other things). They sometimes have basic info like iwi/hapū, location, building names, etc. Some marae have naumai pages, but these are written by members of the marae themselves. I wouldn't use either site to establish notability. Good to hear about Scoop, though. I remember being amazed that Wikipedia had adopted macrons for Māori so quickly. Liveste (talkedits) 13:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, isn't the meeting house/marae at Waitangi Treaty Grounds the National Marae? Btw it's also a tad ironic that The Four Winds (Ngā Hau e Whā) is ultimately a European concept lol Kahuroa (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you read the article that I linked above, it becomes clear that they don't claim to be 'the' national marae, but 'a' national marae. And it is explained what they mean by that, which is different from what you might expect. Schwede66 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've heard Waitangi Marae called both "the" and "a" national marae. This doesn't stop other places from being called "national marae", such as Ngā Hau e Whā, Rātana Pā, the marae at Te Papa, and even Kopinga Marae in the Chatham Islands. Personally I'm not convinced that there is any place that can be uncontroversially called "the" national marae. I agree that the name "Ngā Hau e Whā" is somewhat ironic, but then so is much of cultural syncretism ;) . At least they didn't call it "Aotearoa Marae". Liveste (talkedits) 13:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maori musical instruments[edit]

I was fortunate to attend one of Richard Nunns' concerts and sat right in the front, so could take lots of good photos. I've done up his bio (what a great person he is) and uploaded the photos to Commons, but the instruments could certainly do with naming and further categorisation if deemed appropriate. If anybody knows something about the instruments, have a look at the category. Schwede66 22:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that would have been great to attend. I've added descriptions of the musical instruments to each of the uploaded Commons files, and to the thumbnail gallery on the Richard Nunns article. The only instrument I wasn't sure of was the bone carved flute shown in RN24, RN25 and RN30. It resembles a long kōauau or a pōrutu (from the English word "flute", I think), but could also be a whio. If anyone knows which one it is, please amend the file descriptions. Macrons are as per the Māori Online Dictionary. I don't think further categorisation is particularly needed, although you could make one for pūtōrino if you wanted (9 files). Don't suppose you managed to get an image of him playing a pūkaea (the long trumpets that were used in the RWC opening ceremony), did you? No worries if not. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no expert, but the good folks at Te Papa have some excellent photos you can use for comparison, i.e. and Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Liveste, I've just uploaded the five photos that I took on my other camera. Three of them show instruments (Instr04, Instr05, Instr06) and two show him holding some kind of trumpet (RN97, RN98). Not sure what that is. And you won't me see watching rugby anytime soon. But Richard was saying that none of the playing at the opening ceremony was for real; it was all pre-recorded by him and some helpers. Schwede66 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You took two cameras to his concert, eh? RN97 and RN98 would be pūkaea, although I've never seen a double-ended one before. Quite a nice set of taonga pūoro he has; you should add some of your images to that article. I had a look at the Te Papa files (thanks Stuart), and the bone carved flute I mentioned earlier is unlikely to be a kōauau, even a long one; possibly a whio, but I'd guess a pōrutu. No surprises about pre-recorded music at the RWC, but it's nice that Nunns seems happy to give information so readily. As for your not being a rugby fan ... Liveste (talkedits) 21:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the situation in post-EQ Christchurch is that I've got my little Sony permanently in my trouser pocket. There's always something to take photos of! And when you check my Commons contributions, you'll find that I spend a lot more time uploading photos than editing WP. But going to the concert, I thought that it's worthwhile to (also) take the big camera, so that I could take shots using the big lens, and that thought was certainly a good one. Hence two cameras. Schwede66 06:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


UN Forum
Ngati Ranana

The image MaoriChief1784.jpg is marked "out of copyright" on Wikimedia Commons, but (1) the image was copied from a shrunk image at [5], not the full version at [6] and (2) the full version only allows private usage and, even in this case, requires citation. As it appears on every banner on every Talk page associated with the Māori task force, it may be worth considering adjusting the image. There are risks attached with using Goldie-type images that are not present with contemporary photographs (e.g. receiving a reaction similar to that of the Partington sales). If a carving (or similar) is considered, it may be worth labelling its source and seeking permission from the place that the carving belongs to. In the meantime, how about (if you want a little traditional costuming) NZ delegation UN Forum on Indigenous Issues.jpg, or (if you want alot) NgatiRananaChristmas.jpg? There are loads more options (some may think these both a bit naff). I wanted to recommend E Maoris in North Africa July 1941.jpg but there might be some problems with that file too. --Te Karere (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you need a replacement at short notice the threepenny stamp of 1935 (as shown on this page [7]) could possibly be of use. As I understand it, any NZ stamps issued before 1945 are out of copyright (this one went off sale in 1941 I think). Not sure if I can find an unused one at short notice but will have a hunt around if nobody else can find a decent scan of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed the licence on Commons to {{PD-NZ}}, which is probably more appropriate for files sourced from the National Library. They can write on their page whatever they want; the fact is that the file is out of copyright, and has been for a very long time. There's thus no need to do anything. Schwede66 18:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A number of CC-NZ licensed images can be found by search at [8]. I have a conflict of interest there, so I'm not going to do it myself. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article on Māori society?[edit]

Kia ora tātou katoa. As a response to this discussion, I was thinking of starting up a Māori society article. My proposed article would include topics such as traditional roles (rangatira, slaves, kaumātua), social organisation (iwi, hapū, marae), family (whānau, whāngai, gender roles, marriage), changes after European contact, as well as modern social issues (socioeconomic problems, race relations, politics, etc). I was trying to find society articles about other cultures and indigenous peoples for inspiration, but for the life of me I couldn't find one. What does everyone think: is it worth having a separate article? If not, I'm wondering if there's a better place for the section on violence and socioeconomic problems currently in the Māori culture article. Or should it be left where it is? Thoughts? Liveste (talkedits) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article on the Kingitanga State?[edit]

I am wondering if there should be a new article created for the state or confederacy ruled over by the Maori monarchs of the Kingitanga and allied chiefs. It seems like from the time the confederacy was formed in around 1858 until 1881, when the Kingitanga Movement began leaving aside isolation and finally made peace with and opened up to the settler government, the Kingitanga functioned as an independent state.

From what I understand, the Kingitanga held power over a substantial portion of North Island, originally centered in the Waikato Region. Then the settler government under Governor Grey interpreted their existence as a threat to British sovereignty and justified attacking them and initiating the Land Wars in the Waikato based on a claim that Ngati Maniapoto warriors helping other tribes fighting settlers in Taranaki Region were Kingitanga agents. After brutal fighting, the Kingitanga government occupied Ngati Maniapoto territory and became a neutral player throughout the rest of the Land Wars although remained independent from and at war with the Colonial Government until they opened what had by then been regarded as "King Country" in 1881. Afterwards, they progressively integrated with the rest of New Zealand over several decades, beginning with rail projects several years after peace was established although the Tainui chiefs and Maori king directly ruled the territory and didn't suffer land confiscations and settlement quite on par with other regions which allowed for a higher-than-average Maori population to exist there even to the present day. Unfortunately, not all of this is in the Kingitanga Movement article, and I'm not sure if it would be best for some parts of this to be applied there or if the Kingitanga should actually have its own state article for the period between 1858 and at least 1881 or 1894 (the year when the second Maori King, Tāwhiao, died) in addition to the existing article on the Maori King Movement.

Based on this background, do you think it is reasonable to create a new article for a state with this information included or that it should be included only here in the Maori King Movement article or both or neither?Nanib (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following are relevant articles on, a New Zealand government history resource (that you likely already know of) that is a wealth of information for New Zealand and even other Polynesian histories, which I believe would be helpful to consider:

Probably the place to start is by expanding Kingitanga#History by a factor of 10-25. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That the Kingitanga held power over a substantial portion of the island is not sufficient in my opinion to make them a state, any more than the various iwi or perhaps hapu should have been called states. I would say it was not a Sovereign state according to the definition in the first sentence of that article, although it may have been a State (polity). I'm not particularly well-informed in this area however. I think Stuartyeates' suggestion above is the best way to proceed, and this can be split into a separate article if it grows sufficiently. I don't think using {{infobox former country}} (as in the now-deleted article Kīngitanga (state)) is appropriate.-gadfium 04:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont think an article on a K state is warranted .The king had declared a territory (rohe) he never declared a state ,although in his mind the 2 may have been the same. Certainly the KC functioned independently for a long time and had many of the features of a state and probably in the king's mind it was sovereign. However he never split officially or otherwise from NZ.The govt always kept informal links with him .The NZ govt made a conscious decision to just officially ignore the KC and let it fade away.The strategy worked,eventually. The KC folded due to 1. Conflict between the hosts and the K mvt people from Waikato over the Q of mana and land (what else!).The govt was very tolerant even when a number of its citizens were murdered.2.There was always going to be problems between the king who was passive and a thinker and the active young warriors who were attracted to Rewi's more aggressive approach.3.The king also had challengers for his title of spiritual leader -Te Kooti had visions of claiming this title. The king saw Te Kooti for what he was-a trouble maker- and never wanted him in the rohe at all.It is intersting that when TK passed thru the KC not only did the army find out very quickly where he was, but the King actually allowed soldiers ( but only Maori ones) through his territiry to chase TK-they didnt catch him. It was Rewi who actually went looking for TK when he was on the run. TK always had a problem with rum(as well as woman)(Titokawarau wasnt the only one!).The one thing that the king was adamant about during his talks with Grey was no booze to be sold in the KC and he wanted jobs on the railway for his boys to keep them out of trouble .Grey had this in mind already -it had been sugested to him as a practical solution by some of the old hands and in particular by a land court judge who had lived many years with Maori in the north ,spoke fluent Te Reo and understood Maori as well as anyone. At that time there was a lively correspondence going on between the ministers in govt and a number of experienced wise old heads that the King would have been totally unaware of. As Rewi got old he lost his mojo-perhaps he realised that society had changed-The king certainly did.he was happy to accept the govt amnesty , abit of land and his govt pension.The king people have given big hints in modern accounts that all was not well between Rewi and the King.The king actually left the KC at one stage and headed for Taranaki only to have 2nd thoughts and return. He was a different kettle of fish to Rewi altogether. Because he was not keen on violence, once he saw for himself that Maori and Pakeha were happily living alongside each other in the Waikato he changed his mind about the KC especially when the govt offered him some land back. Its interesting that Grey got this idea from USA where he saw the US govt making reservations for Indians to end conflict. There is no 1 source for any of this -the k people know all- but wont tell.I have picked up little bits here and there from probably 50? different sources over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are all probably right. It seems like it would be best to add to the history first and then consider whether or not an article for the state should exist later. If Maori King Movement article is comprehensive enough then it maybe won't be necessary to have one at all. It is a strange case, with most of the movement's history actually has been more of a pan-Maori rights political and social movement with a Tainui base rather than an independent state/polity. Even as a de facto independent nation, the Kingitanga didn't exactly claim that status maybe for the purpose of not to earning the ire of the colonial government and because of their initial hope that they could actually use the Kingitanga arrangement to receive greater recognition of their rights from the Crown, instead of actually trying to become independent from it more than they had been already.Nanib (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ngati Pukeko[edit]

Does anyone know about Ngati Pukeko? If so, please refer to this talk page. Schwede66 04:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealand Māori rugby union team[edit]

What is the Māori language name for the "New Zealand Māori rugby union team"? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HELP rescue Tapu Te Ranga Marae Article[edit]

Kia ora, I'm sure Bruce Stewart gave permission but i need a third party to verify to ensure that this page is maintained here on wikipedia. The previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing): (Duplication Detector report) mozasaur (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avon River[edit]

I've seen two different versions where macrons go into the Māori form of the Avon River (Canterbury). Can somebody please look up the correct form and add a reference to the article? Schwede66 23:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does nobody in this group have a reference book? Schwede66 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have access to the library of a university that teaches te reo; without knowing which reference book this is likely to be in, I can't look it up. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italics question[edit]

See Talk:History of New Zealand#Italicisation of Maori words. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a crack at updating the main table in this to include the respective acts of parliament. There's assumption that acts of parliament are notable, but rather than create all the pages for the acts, I've redirected them to the iwi/hapu pages as best I can. There are a couple of groups that have ToW settlements but don't yet have wikipedia pages. such as Pouakani. I suggest creating wikipedia articles for them: If they're well known enough to have acts of parilament, they're well known enough to be notable. I thought I'd ask about this first, since there may be a subtly that I'm missing. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

There's Hoani Nahe and Hoani Nahi; could somebody from this taskgroup please advise which name it should be? Otherwise, I'll choose (from a background of utter ignorance). Schwede66 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DNZB is the best contemporary gudie to spelling. Merged. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah well, I wouldn't have been that ignorant then (I intended to follow DNZB, too). Thanks for sorting. Schwede66 06:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Māori people and POV edits[edit]

Kia ora anō. If editors could please see the discussion at Talk:Māori people#Neutrality, I'd appreciate further input. It's regarding an ongoing issue of POV edits, and hopefully we can finally get it resolved. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 12:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements[edit]

Not sure if I'm equipped to do this but the Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements page needs some serious updating. Haminoon (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auckland cone names[edit]

FYI: I've proposed name changes for the following pages, to bring them up to date with the Tāmaki Makaurau Collective settlement:

Haminoon (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there anybody interested in expanding the article Kurī? I have compiled a list of sources on the subject on the further reading section that can be used to expand the article but don't think I am up to working on it myself. I feel like it can get a DYK nomination with a fivefold expansion which given the current size won't be much. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.

Ana Recio Harvey.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Te' in article names[edit]

Kia ora, comrades. I got an answer from the Anglican Church in Aotearoa that the Māori bishoprics' names should be rendered 'Te Pīhopatanga o Te...' (and the bishops' 'Te Pīhopa o Te...'), so I'm preparing to implement that advice on this 'pedia. However, I am not a te reo speaker, so I wonder if I could ask your advice: we (generally) don't include the word 'the' at the start of English-language article names (Diocese of Polynesia not The Diocese of Polynesia) — but should we for Māori-language titles? Te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu or Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu? DBD 08:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no "Te" in article titles, on en-WP at least. — Hugh (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure about that, unless we remove "the" from The Hague or The Beatles. Moriori (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue "The Hague" and "The Beatles" are special cases. Where "Te" is important to leave in (as in Liveste's example of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa), leave it on, otherwise, if it is a "Te" which would normally be lowercased in running text (see WP:THE), as would appear to be the case with the Diocese name, leave it off. — Hugh (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would include "Te". Firstly, it's similar to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which is an example given at WP:THE. Secondly, I would capitalise it in running text, e.g. "Wallace is the bishop of Te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu", rather than "Wallace is the bishop of te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu". Nurg (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a general rule, I'd include a "Te" in article titles if it is commonly written that way in English-language sources. "The" and "Te" have essentially the same meaning but are used differently in proper nouns. For example, compare University of Waikato (no "the") and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (with "Te"), or South Island and Te Waipounamu. If you can't decide which is more common (in this case, with or without the capitalised "te"), just stick with the official name. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 22:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest leaving it in. Omitting the definite article is a now unnecessary technique that dates back to the days of card index searching. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not; if that were true, Diocese of Polynesia would be at The Diocese of Polynesia. — Hugh (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Aotearoa" recorded pronunciation guide[edit]

Kia ora. In 2005, someone generously recorded a pronunciation guide for "Aotearoa". However, the second syllable is incorrectly pronounced. I've removed the file from the two articles it appeared on (Aotearoa & New Zealand), as well as the the Wiktionary entry.

Would anyone like to replace this with a better pronunciation? Better yet, does anyone have contacts at the Te Aka Online Māori Dictionary? Their pronunciation guides would be a fantastic resource on WP, if they would be willing and able to release them. — Hugh (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hapū labelled as iwi[edit]

I've been doing some editing on Anakiwa, New Zealand, and was hoping to bring a bit more of a sense of its Māori history since it currently makes no mention of anything non-European. I WL'd to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu as occupants of the area prior to the Beauchamp family setting up there, then realised that Ngāti Rāhiri were described as an iwi whereas Te Ātiawa's website (and various other sources) says they're a hapū.

I imagine this is probably not the only case on WP where a hapū is labelled iwi. Should these be altered as I find them, or are there subtleties/difficulties I'm not aware of in the use of those words? The infobox:iwi template doesn't seem to have a way to make it say "hapū" either, which complicates matters. Basie (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a quick Google search there appear to be two different groups with similar names:
Very similar, but the iwi appears to have a macronned 'a' where the hapū doesn't. A hatnote can be placed at the top of the iwi article disambiguating it from the Te Ātiawa hapū, if no-one objects. Nice work on the Anakiwa, New Zealand article, too. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blimey, that one flew right by me! Nice catch. I wonder if the two are in some way related, or just happened to share similar names? Basie (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Ātiawa group should also be Ngāti Rāhiri, with a macron. Some sources seem to omit the macron by mistake. Example sources with the macron: National Library Iwi Hapū Names List, Te Ara, Māori Maps. There does not appear to be a word rahiri, but there is a word rāhiri. Nurg (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I presume both groups are named after the same ancestor, although I'm hardly an authority on the subject! Will fix. If Te Ara is to be believed, Ngāpuhi also has a founding ancestor of that name, though one of Liveste's sources suggested they weren't the same person (one older, one younger). Basie (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well look at that. Well spotted, Nurg. I'm not sure how to confirm one spelling as correct over the other, since there are references to the hapū as "Ngāti Rahiri" (one macron) or "Ngāti Rāhiri" (two macrons) in publications that generally use macrons consistently. The hapū doesn't have an article, so it's not likely to matter too much. And yeah, there might be some relation between the Te Āti Awa and Hauraki groups, especially since they both claim descent from the older Northland descendants of Ngāti Awa. Liveste (talkedits) 04:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tōtaranui uses[edit]

Continuing my macron-infused Marlborough saga... I'm a bit puzzled as to what to do about Totaranui, which I'd eventually like to flesh out into a better article. However, the naming is confusing me and I could use some advice.

As of 2014, Queen Charlotte Sound is now also Tōtaranui. On maps (sourced from Land Information New Zealand, see this search for example), Tōtaranui to the north-west (beautiful beach, campground, bay, etc) is spelled with a macron too. I'm pākehā and whenever I've heard people talk about "going to Totaranui" it's always been the beach or the campground or the DoC station. So there's definitely potential for confusion. What I'm tempted to do is this:

The other option would be to move Totaranui to Tōtaranui Bay, I suppose, but that's hardly a name in common use. Help? Basie (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also really, really don't want to get dragged into the Paekākāriki debate! Basie (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My suggestions to you:
  • Leave Queen Charlotte Sound (New Zealand) as it is. For a similar case of English/Māori placenames, review the naming history & talk page for Stewart Island/Rakiura.
  • No hatnote at Queen Charlotte Sound (New Zealand). No-one is likely to go to an article with that name when looking for the Tasman Bay place.
  • There is already a hatnote at Totaranui and it should stay because someone might go to Totaranui when looking for Queen Charlotte Sound / Tōtaranui.
  • Do not move Totaranui to Tōtaranui, at least not at this time. There may be changes coming to Naming conventions (New Zealand) as a result of the Paekākāriki debate. Even if you are inclined to move Totaranui to Tōtaranui, there is no hurry, and in the meantime you can do the more important work of improving the article.
  • Don't move Totaranui to Tōtaranui Bay. I think Totaranui (or maybe Tōtaranui at a future time) is better. But even if you wanted a change of that nature, Tōtaranui Beach is the name on the topo map and in the Gazetteer, not Tōtaranui Bay.
  • Mention in the text of the article that Tōtaranui is the orthographically correct form of the name, citing the New Zealand Gazetteer, or another source if there's a better one. I'm not sure how to link to the item in the Gazetteer. I'd be interested to know. Nurg (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be possible if you go through this interface instead of the other little search box.
Yeah, I feel a bit sad about not being able to use the official names for article titles because of WP:COMMONNAME, but so long as it appears in the lede I guess it's practical. The topo map I looked at had "Tōtaranui", "Tōtaranui Beach" and "Tōtaranui Bay" within about a square centimetre so! 13+ years of discussion back and forth on that Stewart Island talk page convince me it's not worth getting wrapped up in all that at the expense of content. For the rest, I'll wait until the Paekākāriki dust settles. Thanks for the input! Basie (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that link to the Gazetteer item works. Thanks for that. Nurg (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to find a better source, but there's a suggestion that Ngāti Tumatakokiri, when they had to leave QSC / Tōtaranui, brought the name with them (although they mostly ended up to the north in Golden Bay). Basie (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Maori Indians[edit]

Would someone be able to review the Draft:Maori Indians page?

Regards. AmericanHistorian (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added the sentance about the Bhana whanau from Te Arawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talkcontribs) 22:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mana Motuhake[edit]

Kia Ora my name is Hemopereki Simon and I am a researcher affliated with University of Wollongong and Charles Sturt University in Australia but I live in Taupo. Anei aku mihi ki a koutou katoa.

Have began a page on Mana Motuhake (Maori Sovereignty) It is at the moment largely based on my work I am looking to lengthen it.

Since I am fairly new to this the page needs to be a topic to itself not a disambiguation

Nga mihi


Hemopereki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tēnā koe Hemopereki. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. We use sentence case for article titles (see WP:TITLEFORMAT) so I have moved the page to Mana motuhake. Nurg (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maori Academics[edit]

I have added a list of Kaupapa Maori academics that are/have contributed the Maori renaissance There is a huge lack of information about all of these people. I have filled in Ngapare Hopa, Poia Rewi, Tawhanga Nopera, and wrote a page about myself which someone needs to verify

The problem we have as a collective is that there are now over 500 Maori with a PhD and the majority of them are contributing to Maori development. Adding to that the second generation of Kaupapa Maori academics, like myself are starting to come through and it is hard to keep track of them and what they are up too. Hemopereki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora. The best way to keep track of Māori academics that we have articles for is through Category:New Zealand Māori academics, and similarly for other professions, e.g., Category:New Zealand Māori lawyers. Nurg (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've written one or two biographies of Māori academics and always try to add Category:New Zealand Māori academics as well as iwi categories. There is certainly room for a List of Māori academics (which would only include those with articles or likely to be notable) and maybe a History of Māori in academia detailing examples, trends, milestones and so forth. Draft:Hemopereki_Simon I'm less confident of, since I'm not seeing independent secondary sources with in-depth coverage or widely-cited papers. Probably a question of WP:TOOSOON, sorry. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing a Wikipedia page about yourself is generally considered to be a bad idea; see WP:PROUD Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Te Paparahi o Te Raki (WAI1040)[edit]

I have created a page on the Te Paparahi o Te Raki (WAI1040)

Hemopereki (talk)

That looks great, Hemopereki. I've added some categories. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treaty of Waitangi Page[edit]

Kia Ora,

This is me complaining.

The Treaty of Waitangi page is out of date and it needs to be updated to come into line with modern academic thinking. Most worrying the current references being used exclude Maori writers and academics. I just managed to get Ani Mikaere on there and these days she is considered standard. They deleted Margaret Mutu and myself. I know they perceive my work to be a conflict of interest but it is the most up to date Maori viewpoint on the Treaty. Technically they are whitewashing the Maori viewpoint about the Treaty. This is sad and morally because the most dynamic writers and understandings about the treaty come from Maori.

There are huge holes in the article, thinks that are first taught in any treaty class.

Lastly in terms of my work all academic work on the treaty focuses on providing for rights via the treaty notion of rangatiratanga. My work ignores that completely and opts for didn't sign anything still maintain mana motuhake Crown sovereignty does no exist. My work is the radical departure that is why it is called the new discourse on the Treaty. The vast majority of iwi did not sign in the North Island - Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa, Tainui, Tauranga Moana Iwi etc. The Treaty only applies on a hapu by hapu basis too. Hell the treaty itself only applies to hapu north of Auckland with a few sporadic pockets here and there. [1] This is just a start heaps more stuff I can bring up. Most of all it should not be considered the founding document. See journal article

The problem is that what I am bringing up does not conform with the viewpoint of whoever is administering the page. The page as it stands conforms to the government-led conversation that we are all treaty people - reality - we are not. I know this can be confronting for people but it is the truth - the Te Paparahi o Te Raki claim proved that. It is not my problem that what people have been taught is wrong. Nor is it my place to teach them. There is a Maori reality here that is being excluded.

Citing as used here on Wikipedia should not apply to Maori academics. The reality is that our work is never considered global enough to get into the top tier journals to be cited in the first place. Just thought I would point that out.

Nga Mihi, H Hemopereki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several issues here. The first is that you're a partisan on this issue. The second is that you're trying to do too many things at once (try making a small change and engaging with other editors about what might or might not be right/wrong with it). The third is that the sources you're adding are primary sources not secondary sources and we need secondary sources. The fourth is that you're adding references to your own work. Having said that, User:Te Karere, User:Te Karere and/or User:Insertcleverphrasehere should have engaged with you on the talk page where you correctly posted comments; maybe they will engage with you here (they'll get notified that I've mentioned them by name). I'm sure that at least some of the changes look good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hemopereki:, @Stuartyeates:, I have limited time at the moment as I am currently in an airport waiting to board a transatlantic flight, but the main issue is that the sources and views being add are very partisan, and not representative of mainstream academic thought as far as I am aware. When you say "Most worrying the current references being used exclude Maori writers and academics." -this is incorrect, when researching for the good article review on this topic I was careful to read and cite both mainstream respected Pākehā authors (e.g. Claudia Orange), as well as widely respected Māori authors (e.g. Ranginui Walker), as well as a range of reference summary works such as the Te Ara Encyclopedia. Together these were used to set the tone of the various sections. Perhaps some comment of more fringe views might be warranted, but adding prominent prose referenced to relatively unknown authors with viewpoints which seem to stray significantly from the mainstream does not seem the right way to construct an encyclopedic article when such a wealth of reference works are available. The section on 'differences' seems to already cover this adequately, and clearly states that the two translations are significantly different in meaning from each other, but I'd be interested in discussing more focused changes on the talk page if you are keen. I do apologise that I haven't had as much opportunity to discuss on the talk page as I otherwise would have liked (I have been on an extended road trip for the last 3 weeks and in the process of moving halfway around the world to another country). I should be more available to chat in the coming days and weeks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stuartyeates: @Insertcleverphrasehere:

Kia Ora,

Every court case up until the 80's held the 'mainstream' view - your words that Maori gave sovereignty away to the 'white possesive state' -my words New Zealand Maori Council asserts the Maori lived experience and history bam - you get treaty principles Government - still have sovereignty. Te Paparahi o te Raki confirms iwi who signed the Treaty maintained mana motuhake. You getting my point yet?

When you use words like mainstream or fringe you are being racist. I accept that this is most probably unintentional.

So let me give you an example you will understand. Wikipedia page on haka said before I corrected it that haka is a 'war dance' - this term is acknowledged as being racist because it is the interpretation that started with the observations of Joseph Banks and Cook etc. I read the article someone had quoted Timoti Karetu which said haka has been "erroneously defined by generations of uninformed as ‘war dances’" So I changed the introduction around to a Maori understanding of haka as the dance that celebrates life. Quoted my journal article from 2016, the latest PhD on art/haka (Tawhanga Nopera) I also put "It is frequently mislabeled as a war dance" quoting myself and timoti karetu. The article was also reviewed by Matiu Dickson - found this out afterwards. Someone - non-Maori turns around and says - to not call it a 'war dance' goes against "perceived wisdom" saying that Encyclopedia Britannica knows more then me - a Maori who has been doing haka since a baby and is a research expert on the topic. 4 Maori experts agree that haka is not a war dance - it can't be. However because the non-Maori grew up with haka and the cultural appropriation of the All Blacks and has a possesive stake in it -seem to think I'm going to debate with him.

What you and the guy from the example above are saying is Maori knowledge is irrelevant unless it has been verified by a white person. What you are saying is that if you hold knowledge and are Maori you are irrelevant. What you are saying is Maori knowledge is irrelevant. Being Maori and having lived experience of that history and the korero of your people is irrelevant. What your saying is being Maori is "fringe" and not required here in the social construction of the "New Zealand" state and the project of Wikipedia.

Thanks the editors of the "Maori task force" for Wikipedia for making me experience colonisation all over again. I can now with confidence say that Wikipedia is highly racist because it does not recognise the aims of Kaupapa Maori researchers which is not about getting cited which would mean acceptance in the mainstream. please see chapter by Linda Tuhiwai Smith Lets start with the fact that a lot of what the Wikipedia article is built on is based on the Waitangi tribunal. Fact the Tribunal is renowned for hiring mainly two Pakeha historians to do iwi history. I learnt this at Waikato University in my level 5 class on Indigenous Research Methodology where the Professor was Ngahuia Te Awekotuku.

It is now about 20 years since Kaupapa Maori Research has been around. My work and my expertise is accepted by academia come to Wikipedia it is questioned because it is consensus based and doesn't conform with the mainstream. I can write anything here on a Maori topic and it is fine. However, if there is a topic intersection with Non-Maori there is hell to pay if I assert fact as being correct and validating Maori knowledge. Why: because I challenge their possessive notions. The reason why Ranginui Walker is acceptable to the mainstream is because in his work particularly "Ka whawhai tonu matou" is because he does not assert Maori knowledge refer to:

The "mainstream" - your words - is what brought colonisation and racism here in the first place re: Doctrine of Discovery - another topic the "mainstream" ignores or the related topic terra nullius which is not mentioned in the treaty article. Terra Nullius is not mentioned much by the "mainstream" because it destroys the myth that Maori signed the treaty and it highlights British greed. You have have missed heaps in the construction of the treaty article. The stuff I am bringing up is taught as standard in a treaty class at undergrad level - obviously something you never took.

As for the differences in text comment no it is not.

Based on these differences some Māori academics argue that each language version of the Treaty are distinctly different documents known as "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" and "The Treaty of Waitangi", respectively. Someone changed the text and put some - Look I do not have all day to go through a University Library and pull every Maori text off the shelf, type it out to have it validated by you. It is not some it is all because we are taught it in the treaty classes. It is standard. So when I put Margaret Mutu in with:

"treaties entered into by the British with Indigenous peoples and the reason and context for Māori wishing to enter into an international agreement with the Queen of England. It also provides an overview of previous translations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into English. Examination of the two documents finds they are totally different in their approach and intent. The Māori language treaty is one of peace and friendship. This was the treaty agreed to and signed at Waitangi. The English document is curious, obscure and odd. It is a treaty of cession of sovereignty."

If I was not being mainstream I would have quoted me and added: "The English version clarifies the wants and desires of the British to control and possess natural resources."

I'm not complaining about Claudia Orange. I think it is good that respected Pakeha authors are there. I complaining that you have totally deleted Maori knowledge about the topic. You are maintaining the government-led conversation. To be a Kaupapa Maori Researcher is to be "partisan" - your words. The whole basis of Kaupapa Maori research is to have the entire culture taken for granted and validated. Because the game of research is rigged. I understand you used Te Ara as a basis too. That is Government owned. Of course you are not going to see the viewpoint of a Kaupapa Maori researcher on there.

I quoted Margaret Mutu a respected professor and treaty expert and you deleted her off. Her work is standard. Ani Mikaere's book He Rukuruku Whakaro (Maori Title) is a collection of writings it proves she has been around for donkey's years. Mine is new and that is because I am an early career researcher I write for the uri whakatupu (those yet to come behind me) it is about passing down knowledge like it has been passed down to me. However, that journal article was partially vetted by A/Prof Evan Poata-Smith It was seen by Prof Whatarangi Winiata and Annette Sykes (who called it "the new discourse on the Treaty" - it is as it takes academia in a whole new direction and works well with the Te Paparahi o Te Raki report findings. The editor of the journal is Prof Paul Moon - treaty expert - who called it "fascinating." and was reviewed by two treaty experts. Was also written by me - treaty policy expert. So seven (including me) experts in the treaty tell you the work is valid. Of course my work is not mainstream enough most of the topics in it I'm the first person to cover them. It is one of the problems you get with Kaupapa Maori researchers. If I don't put it into Wikipedia - how will the conversation on our nationhood ever change? Why does everything need to be vetted by the courts, Tribunal, Wikipedia editors (all very white institutions) to be acceptable to Non-Maori and Non-Maori institution?

This is how bad it is your article quotes Ruth Ross an author whose work the Alternate Right uses to justify their claims. It is too old.

Lastly, you fail to recognise that your argument about being mainstreaming is irrelevant because the racist white possessive state up until my generation where excluded from participating tertiary education because the white possesive state though Maori to be too dumb so for generations funneled us into professions like carpentry. Very few Maori ever got a University education until about the latish 80s.

Wikipedia - your project is racist as it seeks to only validate white knowledge and possessiveness. Secondly, if you are going to be an editor on a Maori topic you have to at least know in-depth about Kaupapa Maori Research. I would even go as far to say that all pages that have indigenous content should only be validated by an informed indigenous cohort - You need to implement a Kaupapa Maori approach to content creation and verification. The present framework does not work for indigenous people and is racially and culturally alienating.

To quote Kevin Rudd (because it applies here)on black armbands:

Time to leave behind us the polarisation that began to infect our every discussion of our nation's past. To go beyond the so-called "black arm" view that refused to confront some hard truths about our past, as if our forebears were all men and women of absolute nobility, without spot or blemish. But time, too, to go beyond the view that we should only celebrate the reformers, the renegades and revolutionaries, thus neglecting or even deriding the great stories of our explorers, of our pioneers, and of our entrepreneurs. Any truthful reflection of our nation's past is that these are all part of the rich fabric of our remarkable story

If we are going to have a conversation on any indigenous topic you must come to understand indigeneity first and where we come from. You must allow for all viewpoints particularly the treaty partner's to be heard. Your committing epistemological violence. We must come to some understands or maramatanga. By saying "mainstream" you too are being partisan - you just don't know it #endgovernmentledconversationnow

Nga Mihi, H

BTW have same problem with treaty settlement page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talkcontribs)

First of all: calling other users racist is not a good way to get people on your side, nor is it acceptable (see WP:CIVIL). I've made some compromise edits: Changing 'version' to 'text' wherever it refers to the different language translations of the Treaty and re-adding some information from Margaret Mutu (paraphrased rather than quoted) as well as some information on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the texts differently. Please discuss additional changes you would like at the talk page of the article, and please drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, as it just gets in the way of building the best article we can build. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hemopereki: Yes, wikipedia content is racially biased, because the secondary sources (principally the professional news media but also academic and governmental outputs) on which is built is deeply biased. All we can do is try to minimise this bias. Various editors who are here on this page are here with the stated aim of reducing that bias. Kaupapa Maori approaches will always be in tension with wikipedia because wikipedia's model is built on the primary-secondary-tertiary sources model of western literary culture which ignores both the value of oral sources and oral traditions which are held in high regard by most Kaupapa Maori approaches and the lived experience of indigeneity. If that tension is not something you can navigate, editing wikipedia is likely to be a hard road for you. Having said that some of us have spent more than a decade fighting the bias, doing our best to write Māori bask into history. Are we perfect? No. But please don't attack us out of hand. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Simon, H. (2011). He Mahi Whakamanakore: Indigenous Heritage Site Destruction at Otuparae. A Case Study of the Otuparae Headland Development. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Philosophy in Resource and Environmental Planning, Massey University, School of People, Environment, and Planning


Have added a section to Ngātoro-i-rangi I added a you tube clip with iwi members singing the moteatea He Waiata Aroha mo Te Toko or "Ka Eke ki Wairaka" The you tube clip needs to be coded don't know how to do that - sorry

I have added to the list at the end 3 references, one being my journal article.

I also quoted myself. Put the text from part of the moteatea in but did not translate it.

Lastly, I object to the deeds of my tupuna being labeled by the racist term "mythology" it is Maori hisotry. Get it right Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talkcontribs) 09:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not "racist" (FWIW, the deeds of my (Irish) ancestors are similarly labelled). It's just that history which has largely been handed down by word of mouth becomes apocryphal very quickly, like a form of Chinese whispers, and as such where absolute truth ends and "family legend" begins is hard to pinpoint. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ngāti Tuwharetoa[edit]

Have added section from Ngātoro-i-rangi to Ngati Tuwharetoa page.

I've rearranged the page a bit.

Having read Ngati Tuwharetoa page it needs a huge clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talkcontribs) 09:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Genealogy[edit]

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Our current collaboration is Genealogy, an article which needs a lot more international perspective. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Māori Naming Customs was recently created and the author indicated that they'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable could add information (it's only a stub at the moment). Seemed like a fairly important article so I wanted to note it here on the task force's page. -- (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio - rewrite?[edit]

I've just had to tag Ngatuere Tawhirimatea Tawhao as a clear copyvio, but there's enough info in what was there (from Te Ara) that a rewrite is possible for anyone who knows a bit of Māori history. Any takers? Thanks - Grutness...wha? 07:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a go at rewriting the article here. It's a basic article, but hopefully it places his life in a clearer context. Please add any thoughts about the rewrite to this section at the article's discussion page. Ngā mihi. Liveste (talkedits) 04:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora - I've made a small start on an article on kāinga, but it's very stubby. If there's anyone here who feels like expanding it (and correcting any mistakes), I'd be very thankful! Grutness...wha? 06:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was looking for a suitable category for tribal leaders but couldn’t find one. Would Category:Rangatira be appropriate to fix that? Schwede66 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usual format for tribal leaders is "Category:Xyz chiefs", as seen in the subcategories to Category:Tribal chiefs. Other Polynesian categories, for example, are Category:Samoan chiefs (not Category:Matai) and Category:Tongan chiefs. Following this pattern would give us Category:Māori chiefs. I'm unsure which of the options "Category:Māori chiefs" or "Category:Rangatira" is better. I like to see Māori content made as comprehensible as possible for non-NZ readers who are not familiar with Māori terms, which leads me towards "Category:Māori chiefs". That name would also side-step any issues in deciding whether someone was a rangatira or an ariki, although that might not be a significant issue. On the other hand, we do use "rangatira" for the name of an article. Nurg (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Not a straightforward issue and not my area of expertise. Thanks for your thoughts. Schwede66 06:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you envisage including modern-day tribal leaders in such a category? Nurg (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was going to be my question too ... Category:Māori tribal leaders is more inclusive than any of the suggestions above. Paora (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don’t know. Good question. Schwede66 09:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schwede66, Nurg, and Paora: Coincidentally I was looking for a (non-existent) Category:Kaumatua yesterday, but that might be too inclusive a name! Grutness...wha? 01:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall we go with Category:Māori tribal leaders? Schwede66 02:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schwede66: Sounds good to me! It captures tribal leaders, without being too inclusive like Category:Kaumātua, or too debatable as to who it includes like Category:Rangatira. Paora (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. See what you think. It needs populating... Schwede66 03:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Te Haahi Ratana[edit]

Kia ora - I see we have two separate pages, Te Haahi Ratana and Rātana. They seem to overlap significantly, and Te Haahi Ratana is a bit ungainly in its style (it's mainly lists of different aspects of the church). Could someone who knows more about the movement and religion than I do have a look at the articles to see whether they can be either untangled or merged please? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grutness: I'd support merging into Rātana. Paora (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on macrons[edit]

Just in case there are editors watching this page who don't also watch the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. If the topic is of interest to you, you may wish to respond to this request for comment.

Should the New Zealand naming conventions be amended to allow the use of macrons for articles written in New Zealand English?

Details at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Schwede66 00:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Focus and double up content articles Māori Culture and Māori People[edit]

I have started to assess the articles Māori culture and Māori People and find that there is: 1. a double up of content, 2. a confusion about being historical or contemporary, 3. a lot of words (both very long), 4. and an opportunity to reference / cite more Māori authors. This entry is intended to start a discussion in response to my assessment. What do other editors think about these four areas? Pakoire (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey on proposed 2021 Wikimedia Aotearoa conference[edit]

Kia ora koutou, please see below for a link to a survey to gather interest in a planned Wikimedia Aotearoa conference to be held on the beautiful West Coast of the South Island, in early 2021. The survey is open until 18 November. MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NZ Law[edit]

I just noticed that the article on New Zealand Law could do with an expert's eye for the section on Pre-European law. I've just changed the single-sentence-section to make sure it isn't wildly reaching, but it could use expansion from an expert on Tikanga or pre-European tribal government etc. — HTGS (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Indigenous placenames RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the [page]. Thank you. Poketama (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have shared this as I believe this WikiProject may have insight into this matter across the sea. Poketama (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently a user moved Tino rangatiratanga to Tino rangatiratanga (phrase) to create a disambiguation page. I have started a conversation over at talk:Tino rangatiratanga (phrase) to gauge whether this is appropriate. Feel free to add your thoughts to it. Nauseous Man (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any guidance / discussion on length and what could be cut from this article? The talk page sections and my analysis plus the Wikipedia guidelines on length lend me to state it is currently too long. (Prose: Characters 80,270, Words 12,917, Sections 51 (from xtools). The article has a lot of information that is covered more specifically in other articles including Māori history and Māori people. I have made a few comments on the talk page to this end. I am planning to trim for brevity. Can someone else ping people who might be interested? @VeryRarelyStable: you often edit so you are notified :) Thoughts and discussion on the article talk page would be great. Pakoire (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macrons on words vs. consistency with sources[edit]

If one looks at the Te Wiki o te Reo Māori article, the 2004 slogan is called "Give it a go − kôrero Mâori" (with carets replacing the macrons). Looking at the source for the slogan[15], it uses carets too, whereas convention would dictate macrons. I guess the question I am asking is do we have a responsibility to correct it when transcribing, should we report as-is with no change or justification, or should we add a "[sic]" marker? MrSeabody (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case I'd be inclined to use macrons instead of carets. There are no circumstances where a vowel with a caret is correct in the Māori language, so it's practically certain that what was meant were vowels with macrons, but due to technical inadequacy of the original word processor or the content management system, the vowels with macrons were replaced by vowels with carets, either when the document was originally published, or at some point when the CMS system was updated (the page being almost 20 years old).
There are three intentional ways of treating long vowels - not differentiating them at all (fairly much obsolete), typing a double vowel (acceptable if a system cannot handle extended characters, and preferred in certain parts of the North Island), and use of vowels with macrons (generally preferred).
I'd only use a style without macrons if I was naming a title or quoting text in that style. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrSeabody, what Daveosaurus says is correct and the relevant guidance is given by MOS:SIC: insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected. Schwede66 00:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both -- I had a look through the MOS but clearly must've skipped that! Have gone ahead and fixed the article in question, will keep this in mind going forward MrSeabody (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on usage of First Nations placenames on Wikipedia[edit]

There is an ongoing request for discussion concerning whether First Nations placenames can be used in the infobox on Wikipedia. Please provide your feedback here. Poketama (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]