This is an archive of past discussions about Māori people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Archive 1: August 2002 to December 2006

Macron usage

Should macrons be used in the English language spellings of Maori words on English pages or only on truely Maori language pages?

The Maori Language Commission is rather vague on this issue.

Which is preferred usage?

Māori or
Maori.

Your thoughts are invited in Talk:Maori language. -- kiwiinapanic 12:56 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

I think "Maori" can easily be considered to be the standard English-language usage, and "Māori" to be (the sometimes) Maori-language and governmental usage. I don't think the English Wikipedia should be using the ā unless it is always policy to always use non English-language spellings for terminology over English-language ones, which would be undesirable. Crusadeonilliteracy 16:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is an interesting point you have made and I am not sure there is a correct answer for it. Certainly habit and usage over the last 150 years has established "Maori" as the customary usage. However this has led to a habitual mispronounciation of the word, it has distorted to something like "mauwri". In recent years many people have found this unsatisfactory or even offensive. The introduction of the macron "Māori" is an attempt to restore the correct pronounciation with three sylables including a long A. Increasingly in New Zealand English "Māori" is being used as the most acceptable spelling of the word. I don't know if one is more correct than the other but I am fairly sure that neither version is wrong. ping 09:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm wary of this increasing trend towards recognising English-language termology as being 'incorrect', and that it must be replaced with another language's usage. For example, China (or should that be Zhōnggúo?) has demanded that people when speaking European languages halt using the English name Mount Everest and instead use Qomolangma, their revision of the Tibetan-language name [1]. Obviously they would not care if in Swedish it was called Mount Tomtegubbar, but because of English's important international status, a double-standard is evolving and it is starting to be treated differently from other languages over such conventions. There are English-language words in the Maori language, and nobody considers it 'offensive' because they're not being said and written with the same accent, prounciation and spelling. I've heard Maori being pronounced by culturally-aware Maoris as Mhol-lee, Mau-lee, Mor-ree, Mah-ree, Mar-ree, Moa-ree, Moha-ree, etc, and now some are saying it should be replaced completely by Tangata Whenua because the word Maori is too European (?). Searching for new and designatedly 'correct' ways of pronouncing and spelling (all told, five different spelling varients) the word seems to be a part of left-wing and Maori cultural assertion and exploration, and expecting that Māori be used over Maori is a part of this, much like with Qomolangma. The ā character isn't even used in English. Crusadeonilliteracy 16:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Google - variants' popularity as of December 2003:

Maori 1,540,000
Mäori 30,700
Māori 23,600
Tangata Whenua 13,300
Maaori 2,290
Mãori 430

I believe options 2 and 6 have to do with people not being able to find the macron on their keyboard. Also we would need to add an option 7, Tāngata Whenua, which would recognize that without the macron the word tangata is singular and therefore inaccurate. If you agree with using macrons in the first place. Which I do. Mona-Lynn 11:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you are quite right and yet I find it difficult to agree with your conclusions. Is this aa example of where British English and New Zealand English diverge? Certainly in NZ both versions are acceptable, "Maori" is probably used more frequently while "Māori" is used more self consciously, being the PC version. There seems to be no reason why British English should not use "Maori" exclusively. But I doubt if any one version is more correct than another. One of the strengths of the English language is its ability to absorb and digest all the variants, phrases and neologisms, inflicted on it without being too judgemental about what is correct or incorrect,

Your example of Mt Everest is well chosen. Presumably the mountain had had local names for thousands of years before some Pom decided to rename it after the Surveyor General of India. Is that not the same as the people of Iraq deciding the Mt Snowdon in Wales should be renamed Mt Saddam Hussein?

Another example may be "Eskimo" and "Innuit" Which one of these is correct?

ping 07:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think using the name Mt Everest for ones own language is very different from expecting Tibetans to use the said name in their own language, like how some Maori accidemics are expecting Auckland to be renamed to Tamaki Makau Rau in the English language. The Maaori spelling appears to be have been used in New Zealand as an alternative to Maori before Mäori appeared, I think Māori was a continuation of this process. Maaori is not used in the UK though. It is comparable with if in Quebec the powers that be expected it to be spelled Québec in the English-language, which is not too hard to imagine considering how things are there. As for Eskimo and Inuit, I doubt large swaves of the world are going to stop referring to Europeans with variations of the word Faranj, which probably has far more implied negative connotations than Eskimo does, of which people outside of Canada have no knowledge of the raw food or any other negative association. Crusadeonilliteracy 09:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Both Auckland and Tamaki Makau Rau are preferable to Akarana which is a composite word. And yet "Ngati Akarana" would probably be acceptable for "Aucklanders" With respect to "Maori" and "Māori" I would still maintain that both versions are acceptable and neither one is more correct than the other. With global project like Wikipedia variant spellings are to be expected and are probably acceptable, particularly when there is very little likelyhood of misunderstandings. Personally I always use Maori because it is easier to type and that may in the end decide the issue.
I take your point with Quebec: perhaps we should insist that Montreal reverts to Mont Real

ping 07:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Akarana is not a composite word. A composite word combines two or more words to create a single one. The term you likely mean is "transliteration" (in this case, from English, of course). Also, The Montreal suggestion is a bit off base because no Montrealer, French or English speaking, refers to the city as Mont Real. That term is related to the one used by the French speakers to refer to the actual mountain within the city (Mont Royal). On the other hand, many English Canadians include the accents in Montréal and Québec as a sign of respect. As for Eskimo, Canadians no longer use the term at all, Inuit now being totally current. It is just a matter of time before the rest of the world adopts the word as well. Mona-Lynn 11:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also see more discussion in Talk:Maori language. --- kiwiinapanic 11:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I prefer "Maori," because the other form doesn't even come up properly on my browser. Funnyhat 01:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should use the macron, as it changes the suggested pronunciation of the word. While some foreign-language terms have become sufficiently well integrated with English that accents or other modifiers have been dropped (e.g. "Quebec"), most have not. The other point is that "Maori" is a formal noun -- it would seem more correct to leave the macron on that and other similar nominal terms, such as last names (e.g. "Gabriel García Márquez" is clearly preferrable to "Gabriel Garcia Marquez", IMHO). Neilc 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

genetics

this sentence Recent maternal DNA analysis indicates that the Polynesians, including Māori, are most closely related to the peoples of east Asia. I would like to change the word indicates to suggests as there is no definite relation yet. What do you think? Scottbeck

The analysis INDICATES relationship to Asia. It doesn't ESTABLISH it as fact, so indicate is ok. But, if suggests helps make the world go round, then that's ok too. Cheers. Moriori 03:29, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Maori Television's series "Hawaiki" was in no doubt about the origin being south-east Asia. Robin Patterson 22:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has certainly been completely accepted by the scientific community and in my opinion ambiguous statements on the subject ought to be removed. It should be pointed out, however, that the Polynesian cultural complex was developed in the Pacific. Mona-Lynn 11:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was that the one which said that the Maori people were descended from the indigenous Taiwanese and Papuans? [ælf?ks] 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if it was accurate it would have said that about the Austronesians including all the Polynesians, not just the Māori - I think you might be getting the reference to Papuans out of context, the Taiwanese I would agree with. Many Papuans are Austronesian too aren't they Kahuroa 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Winston Peters sems to be fairly certain. ping 09:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is that Dr W Peters, famous geneticist, biologist, anthropologist etc? Or W Peters, politician? ):- Moriori 21:07, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

New Zealanders and Wikipedia have no doubt who "Winston Peters" is - a Maori politician, former National Party MP, formed the New Zealand First party, promised never to sit in a Cabinet with certain National MPs, then did. Robin Patterson 22:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Robin. My sarky sense of humour got the better of me. Did you not see my ):- ? Cheers. Moriori 23:03, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again all: I feel that the general information about the settlement of the Pacific should eventually be moved to an article specifically on that topic. I looked around and couldn't find one. Does anyone know of one? Then the stuff about Maori coming from the eastern Pacific would be sufficient and we wouldn't need the rest of the detail about Polynesians being related to indigenous Taiwanese, Polynesian contacts with South America, etc. etc. What do people think? Mona-Lynn 00:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kia ora e hoa ma, I studied little bit of genetics and I came across a very interesting book; The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes, which discusses the South-East Asian origin of the Polynesians (including Māori) and argues that the old theory of South American origin is not as reliable. but you have to remember that the indigenous S.Americans are also Mongoloid people...(which means they're from Asia as well). but the interesting fact is that the most Māori have at least 43% Pakeha blood...[2] Luckyj 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed your link above to go to the article we have on the book. Another book you may find interesting is The Quest for Origins by K R Howe. The idea of a South American origin I think is pretty thoroughly discredited; Thor Heyerdahl may have brought it to the public's attention, but there's an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a SE Asian origin.-gadfium 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Do the Maori people have a flag or symbol they use to represent their cultural identity? Can somebody add it to Wikipedia?--Sonjaaa 04:10, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is one, the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. I don't know how to add graphics. Mona-Lynn 11:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Flag_of_New_Zealand. -- Christiaan 14:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article not well balanced?

I have encountered this article today for the first time and come away with the impression that a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to genetics and geographical origin as opposed to other aspects of Māori existence. Does anyone else have that impression? Mona-Lynn 11:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article not well balanced/ Genetics and Origins

- in regard to this suggestion by Mona-Lynn, I have decided to move the genetics/geographical origins material to the Polynesian culture article, since it relates not just to Maori but to all Polynesians. Hopefully this will improve the balance of both of these articles. Kahuroa 01:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mona

Thanks for the copyedits, I was a tad tired when I wrote that and didn't pay much attention to proper punctuation and usage :)

No problem! Copyedits are what I mostly do as a way of relaxing, and I'll look at hei matau sometime. Can you tell me why those words are capitalized? Also why don't you start a personal page? Click on your user name at the top of the screen and create a new page. You can introduce yourself, and people will be able to leave you messages on your personal page. Mona-Lynn 02:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's up

Got my personal page up if you want to check it out :)--Venerable Bede 02:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed blood reference

Beneath the subheading Revival it was stated that -- To be legally defined as Māori one need have only 1/16 Māori blood. This bugged me so I asked Te Puni Kōkiri Library and have been advised the following - The legal definition appears in the Interpretation section of Te Ture Whenua Act 1993: Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes a descendant of any such person. That's why I removed the ref to 1/16 minimum blood requirement. Moriori 22:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pre-maori civilisations

I would like to point people to a site called www.celticnz.co.nz

This site proves the findings of an american archaeoligist called MARTIN DOUTRÉ

His research has found many ancient stone carvings and formations that have megalithic qualities. Carvings that indicate a pre-celtic civilisation.

Some of the findings suggest that New Zealand has been inhabited by humans for the last 5000 years!

Yet someone has written that there is no credible evidence of civilisations before the maori? There is proof right beside the motorway heading south out of Auckland. -- http://www.celticnz.co.nz/AucklandAllignment1.htm

Excerpt from http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html: A little over 20 years ago there was a substantial landslip near the western shores of Lake Taupo. This occurrence was the result of incessant rains that had lashed the region for days on end. With the slippage of pumice ash, which had originally been dumped by the 186AD volcanic explosion of Taupo, a cavern mouth was exposed. Inside the cavern, officials and a volcanologist discovered the skeletal remains of people who had died as a result of the Taupo eruption. They had been living in the cave at the time, as artefacts and other evidence would suggest. But hold on a minute...there wasn't supposed to be anyone living in New Zealand in 186AD! Where is the archaeological report on this find, as well as the photographs and artefacts?

So can we change the part that says no credible proof of previous civilisations?

--Nzhamstar 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Doutre definitely doesn't count as credible. His work is scientifically questionable conspiracy theory, and skewed by his negative views on Maori culture. See Pseudoarchaeology. Tirana 08:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Age of Te Ara

Kahuroa reverted my deletion of the incorrect publication date of 1966 we have for Te Ara - The Encyclopedia of New Zealand (in the external links section), saying that it's "important to state that this encyclopedia is out of date". As explained here, Te Ara was begun in 2005 and is nowhere near finished yet. Their target completion date is 2012.

Te Ara does host a copy of an older work, An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand by A.H. McLintock, which was published in 1966. But this is distinct from Te Ara, and Te Ara displays a warning on every article from this older encyclopedia stating the source and its age. So not only is it incorrect to say that Te Ara was originally published in 1966, but even if we revised our statement to refer only to their hosting of the older encyclopedia, it would be redundant. -- Avenue 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I amended the link to make us both happy - removed the reference to the age of Te Ara, and to point instead towards the part of Te Ara most relevant to this article. Kahuroa 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up some vandalism. --Xiaou 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Maori"

The article states:

The word māori means "normal" or "ordinary" in the Māori language and denotes mortal beings as distinct from the gods.

That's not what I find in most sources. Notably, James Belich (Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders, ISBN 0-8248-2517-9) and Michael King (Being Pakeha Now, ISBN 0-14-028438-9; The Penguin History of New Zealand, ISBN 0-14-301867-1) both explain that Maori had no concept of themselves as one people before the Pakeha came, and that they began to call themselves "Maori" ("normal") by contrast with these strange, "abnormal" pale-skinned people. (Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone feel up to writing either a section or an article on Maoritanga?). Aridd 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Culture of the Maori meet your request?

ping 08:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article; thanks. Maybe the specific term "Maoritanga" would still need addressing, though, although from what I understand it's linked to many of the aspects in the article you've quoted. Aridd 13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For Aridd - Meaning of Māori - The basic meaning of 'māori' is normal, ordinary. So wai=water, wai māori= fresh (ordinary) water. In old stories, a character might be called 'he tangata māori' = an ordinary person, in constrast to other characters who were spirits of some kind. And we Māori really didn't have a name for ourselves as a whole before Europeans came - nor did we need one. The definition you quoted is correct (altho it probably needs some clarification), and James Belich is correct. They do not contradict. Kahuroa 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd already heard the expression "tangata māori", but I didn't realise it was also used to contrast people with spirits. Aridd 13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated material

There was a lot of material in this article that is duplicated elsewhere. The section on Tā moko was identical to the content of Tā moko. The material on Haka is better on the article Haka. A lot of this duplicate material also appeared on Māori culture. I have made a new article Māori religion onto which I will merge the religion sections from this article and from Māori culture Kahuroa 07:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NZ Wars/Parihaka

I've rewritten the section outlining the wars to reflect that Parihaka was one of the least violent incidences of the wars. The reason it has such historical resonance is that the people of Parihaka were non-violent, but arrested and dispersed anyway. It seemed like a useful place to discuss the variety of Maori responses to the wars.

I think there's an argument to rewrite it further - the King movement was considered by the settler govt to be rival, but Maori considered it as complementary. I'd do it myself but I don't have the sources on me.Tirana 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment that Waikato intended the Kingitanga to complement rather than compete. You might want to look at or consider editing the article New Zealand land wars - there is a link to that on this page. There's no need to go into too much detail here if (a) it is better included in that article, or (b) it duplicates what is there already. Kahuroa 05:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cultural notes…

No mention of Maori facial tattoos? How about mention of movies The Piano or The Whale Rider? --24.249.108.133 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See Tā moko. -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 09:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tribunal versus Court?

I have changed one of Kahuroa's edits on the question of Tribunals versus Courts. Tribunals are judicial bodies and therefore are indeed courts. The original tribunical courts from whom we inherit this tradition were held in Rome by the Plebian tribunes whose only power was to strike down legislation. It is therefore incorrect to draw a presumption that because a body is a Tribunal (or not a court as Kahuroa put it), that it therefore follows that such body, by definition, cannot make binding rulings. Many other tribunals in nz (e.g Human rights tribunal) do indeed make such rulings, although not neccessarily on the government. So the question is not that the body is a tribunal and therefore cannot make binding rulings, the question is that the Crown, as usual, takes all steps to ensure that it cannot be bound. And in this case it has done so by the manner in which Waitangi Tribunal was created. It could just as easily given it the power to make rulings, and it could still have remained named as the Waitangi Tribunal, it would not in that case have to be renamed as the Waitangi Court.Tashkop 01:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice distinction.Kahuroa 06:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

myth

Important to understand the nature of seeing the past as the future. For example Māori believe that one needs to understand the past to live in the present and plan for the future.219.88.13.115 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wānanga Ahu-Rewa Ngatira marae (1940)Te-Aokatoa 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)