Talk:Tiki

External link

The linked page on Aloha Hawaii.com is very poor quality - muddled information, but better than nothing??? Kahuroa 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

tiki vs. tiki

Is there any reason why this Tiki should be about the carvings and not the "first man" usage? Is it that much more prevalent? And what's your objection to having a mention to both in one article? - DavidWBrooks 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the disambiguation page already covers it. And yes, Tiki as the first man is much much more restricted - to a few tribes even within New Zealand. There is a Tahitian version, cognate: Ti'i. In the Cook Islands, Tiki is a woman, the first to die a natural death, not necessarily even the first human at all. I'm pretty keen to keep them separate as there is a tendency to overgeneralise in Polynesian articles generally on this wiki, where a minor ancestor in a tribe on an offshore island in New Zealand or the Society Islands gets described as 'Polynesian' or even as a 'Polynesian god' giving (or reinforcing) false impressions on many levels. Kahuroa 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you know what you're talking about! - DavidWBrooks 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This article has gotten considerably shorter since January. Is the information that has been removed incorrect? -- Beland 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, some material duplicated in the Tiki disambiguation page, and/or covered in other articles, was removed - this was only a couple of sentences anyway. I have added a 'see also' section which will give clearer links to that material. Kahuroa 04:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

tiki vs hei-tiki (New Zealand Māori Usage)

I don't think that it is correct to say that tiki is incorrect for hei-tiki. The latter means hanging tiki as in a tiki that you can hang around your neck. The Māori speakers I know use both tiki and hei-tiki. Also, the Māori speakers I know would say that the man in Whakarewarewa was carving a poupou or carved post. I have never heard anyone refer to that as a tiki. Is this regional usage? 118.90.21.76 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

importance

I got a bit bold and changed the WPNZ importance to low - hard to see why it had been given a high importance rating Kahuroa (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think tiki is a pretty important subject for New Zealand. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Really - an archaic Maori term for a carved post is important? You don't mean Heitiki do you? Kahuroa (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your facts, but according to Dictionary.com Tiki is:

"Tiki Mythology 1) A male figure in Polynesian myth, sometimes identified as the first man.

2) A wooden or stone image of a Polynesian god.

3) A Maori figurine representing an ancestor, often intricately carved from greenstone and worn about the neck as a talisman."

Given the influence on art and architectural design, yes, I would say it's a very important topic." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to point out is that Heitiki is the correct term for what you seem to be referring to - the neck pendant - and as a previous contributor has pointed out in terms of modern usage within New Zealand, tiki is not the preferred term nowadays for the large humanoid images. Parts 1 and 2 of your answer do not relate to New Zealand specifically, except in a very limited sense relating to the first man - the first man legend is a restricted to a few tribes here, and cannot be considered one of the most important parts of the mythology since it derives from only a few isolated traditional stories - very minor when compared to the great masses of material that relates to say Maui or Tawhaki and the like - and is not found throughout the country. And Heitiki is a much better developed article than this one in any case, which is as it should be. Kahuroa (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing the explanation above that heitiki means hanging tiki? Also, you make a bunch of other arguments, but haven't provided any sources to support them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heitiki the word is analysable as pendant tiki certainly, where hei is a general word for pendants worn around the neck - but that doesn't throw any light on the meaning of 'tiki' or the importance of this article. Your only source is an online dictionary is it not - not a reliable source from which to rewrite the Maori dictionary! My main source for the meanings of these words is POLLEX - the Polynesian lexicon by Bruce Biggs et al. Plus graduate studies in Maori and Polynesian linguistics and material culture - and fluency in Maori... and your experience of Maori and Polynesian studies is what exactly? Kahuroa (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. So your argument is that pendant tiki should have a lot of coverage, but tiki shouldn't. By your logic a lamp isn't a big subject compared to a desk lamp. And having failed to produce a single source indicating that tiki isn't a substantial subject or that neck tikis are, you're now accusing me of rewriting the Maori dictionary. Here are books related to tiki [1]. It's best to stick to verifiable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Why does it say "It has been suggested that Tiki culture be merged into this article or section?" Who suggested this and why? Seems like a bad idea to me. Rees11 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it. I think Tiki (mythology) should definitely be merged here. I'm less confident about the other merge, but it seems to me that tiki culture is part of the tiki story and should be included as a section. Why are you opposed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of merging Tiki (mythology) here. But Tiki culture seems to have little to do with Tiki other than the obvious influence. The connection is "loose and stylistic" to quote the article. Rees11 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a loose and stylisic connection is still a connection. And as you point out the article makes clear (and so would the section) that it is a derivative style that was imported. Cultural influences often work in this way. I think it's part of the Tiki story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - they are sufficiently distinct concepts that they deserve their own articles, as long as the interconnection is mentioned in each article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a connection, that doesn't mean they should be merged. See, for example, Polka and Polka in the United States of America, which are far more closely related than Tiki and Tiki culture. Rees11 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. And Polka in the United states should be in the other article, but I suspect people complaine dthe section was too long. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - The connection is too tenuous - its like merging Hamburg and McDonalds because they both have something to do with Hamburger. But I think a merge of this article (Tiki) with Tiki (mythology) makes a lot of sense. As long as the provenances of the traditions are maintained - ie, things don't get lumped as 'Polynesian' when they derive from specific cultures within Polynesia or as 'Maori" when they have specific tribal and geographical origins within New Zealand Kahuroa (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to everyone for their input. I will remove the merge tags from tiki culture and we'll proceed with the merge for the mythology article as soon as I get a chance or if someone gets there first have at it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done! Feel free to tweak and improve of course. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, having talked you out of merging Tiki culture, maybe we do need to mention Tiki culture at the end with a link and a sentence or two rather than the just the "See also" link. Rees11 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's just the problem and kind of what I was trying to get at. I don't think tiki culture is alegitimate search term and that subject is major and well established also. There is no such thing as "Tiki culture" it's called tiki. Tiki lamps, tiki decorations, tiki bars etc. I understand it's a loose stylistic derivative of observed artifacts in the South Pacific, but that doesn't make it any less real. I have though about putting it in the lead somewhere, but people seem to be very touchy about mixing the two. Unless we have a disambiguation page though, I think a prominent direction to the OTHER tiki is warranted. What about putting in one of those pointers at the top of the article? For the arts and style known as Tiki or something. And what about calling it Tiki style instead of culture? Isn't it a bit much to call it culture? Or we could I suppose disambiguate and have tiki (religion) and tiki (style). What do y'all think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason people (ie Polynesians like me) are touchy about mixing articles on mythology and material culture with things like Tiki culture/style is from experience = the more 'serious' and 'minority interest' parts get overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material being added on the 'popular' subject. Better to keep them apart because a mixed article can't do justice to either topic really. I guess a disambiguation banner would be ok - and why not a disambiguation page as well? So Rees, which are article are you suggesting the TC link/sentence should go in? The merged Tiki (mythology)/Tiki page I guess? So what will we end up with - Tiki as the disambig page, with links to Tiki style/culture and Tiki (mythology) and Hei-tiki?? "Tiki culture" and "Tiki style" both get lots of hits on Google - they are synonyms so either as a title is ok with me, maybe Tiki style is more accurate as CoM suggests. I'd kinda like to keep Tiki (mythology) as the title of the merged page because the mythology has the most info and I don't see much being added for a while on the carved wooden human-shaped objects Kahuroa (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a disambiguation link at the top of the article page is probably enough. If you put a wikilink in the text then a see also is discouraged, so it gets sort of self defeating. Also, I'm okay with giving the real Tiki the main stage. I just get frustrated because I think naming conventions and such can make articles hard to find. For example I abhor the "list of" article style because how do you wikilink to a list of article from another article? Anyway, thanks all for good faith contribs. Maybe routing the Tiki style culturalists through the "real" Tiki will do some good. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have chosen some name other than "Tiki culture," maybe "Polynesian pop." I do think it's notable that Tiki culture was inspired by Tiki carvings and mythology, that's why I would give it more than a disambiguation page or a "see also." In my mind Tiki culture derives in part from Tiki carvings/mythology, so I would end the Tiki mythology article with a couple sentences and a link to Tiki culture, and begin the Tiki culture article with a couple sentences and a link back to Tiki mythology. But maybe that's overly simplistic.

Kahuroa brings up a good point that you don't want the Tiki mythology article cluttered with everyone's favorite mai-tai recipe, although I don't know if this has actually been a problem in the past. Rees11 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if everyone goes through a disambig. page, then I guess they would at least have to see what articles are there. So maybe that's not a bad idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Did something happen to this article??

I wanted to know more about the actual wooden Tiki statutes. The disam page directs to this page, saying this Tiki page "refers to large wood and stone carvings of humanoid forms in Central Eastern Polynesian cultures of the Pacific Ocean." Nothing about the first man or mythology. I come here, and the lede ends with: "In the Māori language, the word 'tiki' was the name given to large wooden carvings in roughly human shape, although this is a somewhat archaic usage. The carvings often serve to mark the boundaries of sacred or significant sites."

Then, in the body of the article, the whole thing is about the mythology of the first man in various parts of the Pacific, and never gets into the figures other than a minor dispute between authorities over where the stone heads started. What were the purposes of the wood-carved men? What woods were they made of? How were they made? How did their meaning/usage vary between the mentioned cultures?

It feels like somebody just took out half (or more) of the article then left the lede and the disam page unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.122.239 (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

South American Origin?

I have seen an article that claims the tiki - in its form as heitiki or good luck charm - came from South America. It is probable that Marquesan voyagers got to Chile and brought back the kumara and gave them the chicken. If they also brought back the tiki concept it might explain why Tiki is not mentioned in Rapanui or the western pacific as this voyage to Chile took place after the Society islander peoples left the western pacific and after voyagers went further to Rapanui. It would also give a timing to the Chilean visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.56.227 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)