Talk:Māori people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mulitiple Polynesian Colonizations?

How well accepted is this notion?Im not aware or any hard evidence ie that is not "myth"that suggests that there were many voyages.It can be inferred from population numbers estimated at 100K in 1800, that the founding polynesiam colonist population was greater than one waka load-if I recall correctly the agreed upon number was about 200.Of course that may be a wrong estimate as the 1800 figure could be wildly out .There is nothing to say (again, apart from myths)that they didnt all arrive at the same time.Again -the average age of a person at WB seems to be about 12-14(this was over a 20 year period)suggesting the population increase would have been virtually nil! and this was when there was a superabundance of kai relative to the number of colonists.I am aware of alleged NZ obsidian being found in Norfolk Island and I think the Chathams but that doesnt say a lot really.The latest gen seems to be that polynesians were very mobile in the Pacific over a wide area in a shortish time frame.Ive been waiting to see the public release of the recent"teeth study"at Wairau Bar (and other places??)which it is claimed can reveal the place the person originated from-my money is on the Cook Islands-a fairly safe beat I think?Claudia Feb 2011

I agree that the "multiple colonisations" are a little shaky. Primarily, they are in contrast to the discredited idea of a single "Great Fleet", and I don't think anyone is arguing for a single-waka origin. Atholl Anderson argues that the genetic variation amongst Māori with four distinct mitochondrial lineages and three distinct Y-chromosome lineages requires a founding population of several hundred, and that these must necessarily have come from several islands since no single population centre of the time could support such an exodus.(New Oxford History of New Zealand, 2009, p 25 - research based on C. Hilliard's 2007 MA thesis Island Stories: The Writing of New Zealand History 1920-1940). Michael King suggests a founding population of 100-200 people including 50 women. He also points out that kiore DNA analysis suggests multiple colonisations by rats. While Māori certainly came from East Polynesia, and most kiore traces point to similar origins (Society Islands and Cook Islands), there is also kiore DNA evidence of links with Fiji or West Polynesia which did not result in colonisation.(Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003, pp 49-50; the kiore origin attributed to Lisa Matisoo-Smith, but no publication attributed). K. R. Howe also refers to Matisoo-Smith's work with kiore DNA, but mentions only the Cook and Society Islands link.(The Quest for Origins, 2003, p 178).-gadfium 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): :To pick on one point: average age at death is not a good indicator of the population age distribution. Nowadays most NZ deaths happen at a fairly advanced age, but this does not mean the whole NZ population consists of senior citizens. At the Wairau Bar settlement, infant and child mortality rates would no doubt have been much higher. The population age distribution would have likely been a concave pyramid, with a large proportion of young people (if not as large as the remains would indicate). This is consistent with rapid population growth. --Avenue (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be a bit careful about drawing conclusions from the kiore DNA studies too, if they were published more than a couple of years ago. Kahuroa (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; 2003 is pretty old in DNA study terms. Does anyone have a more up to date link?-gadfium 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

PNAS 2008 AIRcorn (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info:-).Yes I'd noticed that DNA only seems to have become reliable in the last few years.Does anyone know the age distribution of the skeletons at WB?I see the oldest skeletons were about 30 so its quite possible it was one of the landing sites.The other candidate seems to be Tairua.If a waka held 30 people which seems reasonable, there must be around 6 landing sites then?Any ideas for location ?Shag River?From my hazy knowledge of neolithic population growth I recall that population increase was very slow for a variety of reasons including disease.I note that one common factor among the adult skeletons at WB was a distinct lack of teeth.Would this be from chewing fern root or?Studies of neolithic North American Indians show they had great teeth.And the skulls were all broken -were the elderly dispatched?Were they brain eaters?This was real common in North America -though the brains were bison.Any brain eaters in East Polynesia?Missionaries saw eye and brain eating in the 1830s though these were bodies parts from the vanquished.They seemed to target the heads of those with high status suggesting there was some tranfer of "energy"(mauri?).Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A recent article (Buckley, H., Tayles, N., Halcrow, S., Robb, K., & Fyfe, R. (2009). The People of Wairau Bar: a Re-examination, Journal Of Pacific Archaeology, 1(1), 1-20.) gives the distribution of estimated ages, and it is very different from that indicated in our Wairau Bar article (which will need fixing). In particular, around a third of the people are estimated to be over 50 (12 of the 35 adults with an age assigned), and there was only one child. Of the 21 skeletons with observable teeth, 71% showed developmental enamel defects on at least one of these teeth, indicating growth disruption was common in early childhood. Tooth decay was rare, however, especially among males. Wear on teeth was substantial, with older individuals having teeth worn down to the roots, but this did not seem to be due to regularly chewing bracken fern roots. --Avenue (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Change in carbon1450-1650.

I came across an interesting comment while reading about a nice cache of!4? Maori fish hooks found in Marlborough some years back.It stated that there was some difficulty accurately dating the hooks because of significant differences (increase?) in carbon 1450 to 1650.The dates caught my eye because the first date coincides with the start of the Classic period,ie the decline of population in the Sth Island ,the growth of Nth Island pop and the start of Pa building and the increased emphasis on defending Kumara gardens.The question is what was the souce of this extra carbon?Was the repeated burning of the bush (for which there is plenty of evidence )the cause?Perhaps eruption of several volcanoes?I am reluctant to align extra carbon with a cooler climate as the new evidence from Antarctica ice cores(2009) shows no corelation at all between Carbon highs and Temperature highs(on average the highs of carbon were 800 years after the Temp highs). The acception would have to be if the carbon was in a tephra blanket but that would not stay in the atmosphere for 200 years!Ideas?Facts?Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good discussion of this on the Radiocarbon dating page, which I don't really think we need to repeat here. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a source. Is this discussion in the article text or elsewhere?μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the "discussion" is of a very generalized nature .There is no mention of the recent Antarctica finds.Claudia Feb2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Musket war deaths and disruption-help needed

Can someone identify the book written by the lawyer working for the Treaty of Waitangi Commission about 6-8years ago in which he outlines in great detail the destruction of the various iwi and the total dislocation of Maori during the musket wars?I recall he identified 8 complete iwi who were virtually wiped out.He was firmly of the opinion that the MW's were the key element in population decline and it is hard to argue with his mountain of evidence.He relates that about 50,000 were killed but more importantly defeated iwi had all their land confiscated .Random survivors were enslaved or later eaten.Obviously health issues paid a role-measles etc.One suspects the main "heath" issue may have been starvation.Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be Ron Crosby's The musket wars : a history of inter-iwi conflict, published in 1999 and reissued in paperback in 2001 (ISBN 9780790007977). Crosby was involved in the Waitangi Tribunal Te Tau Ihu Inquiry.-gadfium 01:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -but I dont think that's the book as I recall some statement in the introduction that the book would not be popular with "conventional historians" or such like.I dont think he would have written that ?Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps then it is Angela Ballara's Taua: Musket Wars, Land Wars or tikanga? Warfare in Maori society in the early nineteenth century, published in 2003. She has been a member of the Waitangi Tribunal since 2004. Her book, and specifically her conclusion, has been criticised by Crosby. On the other hand, you do say a lawyer but Ballara is a historian, and you say "he" but... . Have you looked at the "further reading" section of the Musket Wars article. If the book isn't there, it probably should be.-gadfium 21:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -it may have been Crosby I'll check it out:-)Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.33.244 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Shag river/Waihemo

The Maori name for this river is Waihemo, and since this is a very early settlement site, it is important to use that name. Suma rongi (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah-great.Keep the Pakeha name as well so people can figure out where it is on a modern map.Claudia March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maori population, pre-European

There is need for a short table of the best estimates of pre-European populations. This could include reference to the commonly-used figure of 25 years as the length of a generation. Which I find too long, but am not an anthropologist. Suma rongi (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article refers to Ian Poole the Nz demographer guru ex Waikato University,now retired, for this data.So far no one comes close to his research.I dont know what figure they use for each generation length.The crowd at Wairau bar seemed a remarkably long lived and healthy lot.Lots of food and not many people-around 30-50? (about 1 waka load)despite the giant umu find a few years ago.(My theory is the umu had to be large to accomadate the large Moa legs).Ive read conflicting information about what age archaic Maori started mating.Some sources say 18ish but this seems too old and is inconsistent with neolithic mating ages in general.Archiac Maori had ready access to protein but carbohydrate may have been an issue? With plenty of food there would have been no obvious reason to delay mating,unless the migrants were still following some east Polynesian practice of delaying mating in order to control population growth. Maybe there was some data from the female skeletons at WB that indicated at what age they gave birth. If the data comes from Duff in the 1950s it may be quite inaccurate but if it is recent info from the 2009 study it could be lot more accurate.Claudia March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Ive looked up what Poole says-Maori life expectancy 28-30years and mean age 14 years.I note that evidence from WB says that the young (toddlers?) suffered considerable stress(as shown by sketeton analysis).My guess is they were still being breast fed so if the mother went hungry the child went without.In most neolithic communities there was a definite food chain with dominant males at the top so on down to babies.In classic Maori society babies were at times given away to be eaten under very extreme conditions.Claudia Mar 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

References

To the anonymous editor, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and learn how to make proper citations that can be checked. Kahuroa (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vital concepts missing.

To anyone trying to understand Maori , especially traditional Maori, there needs to be explanations of Utu,Mana,Take as these were core values underpinning Tikanga or Maori lore. Also there is no explantion of the different values given to people of status which was at the heart of what to modern day people of the western world, at least, find very strange behaviours. I am referring in particular to things such as baby and slave killing and the serious some times fatal repercussions for anyone offending a chief in any way. I will give it ago if no one can come up with something useful. Claudia. May 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.156.170 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to have a go, but please consider whether the material might be better off on the Māori culture page, since this one is getting pretty big Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Maori culture isn't really the place for stuff about the ancient culture of which precious little is actually known or deductible from the present culture. Claudia should look at starting an Ancient Māori culture page - though she would need to make it verifiable and NPOV. Kahuroa (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are comming from.It is interesting that that a new idea being tried in Nz is that of going back to pre Europen concepts in the belief they are a better fit for problems with Maori children and childcare issues to do with neglect,violence ,drug and alcohol taking.The programme revolves around positivity if I read it right.There have been Maori mental health approaches for many years so I guess this is the same kind of approach.Ditto in education the various Kuras seem to be making reasonable progress,though I dont recall any detailed evaluation.Claudia May 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.187.22 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism?

This page makes a fleeting reference to cannibalism but does not elaborate. It leaves the impression that cannibalism in Maori culture (pre-European contact) might fall anywhere between a common, culturally ingrained practice through to a single exceptional incident (as mentioned in the one reference), an incident that might itself be no more than heresay.

The reason I raise it is that I have been told by a (white) New Zealander that it is "well known" (in N.Z.) that cannibalism was common in Maori cultural. In the context of the conversation though, I got the impression that this might be one of those well known 'facts' that, though indeed well known, is not actually true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.150.142 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism was AFAIK a consistent part of Maori psychological warfare. Maori even cannibalized part of Cap'n Cook's crew; presumably the motivation was to instill terror, rather like mutilating the dead. Eating their words: cannibalism and the boundaries of cultural identity, which is partially viewable on Google Books, covers it in some depth. — kwami (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its interseting that according to nutritionists bone marrow and brains are the 2 most easily digestible foods in the neolithic cook book.In North America Indians ate these and fed musle to the dogs apparently.I note that in Nz little has been investigated along these lines.Is it a coincidense that every single skull found at the Wairau bar dig by Roger Duff had a large hole knocked in it? This is around 40-50 skulls.According to those who investigated ,this was in a society that had no weapons-at least none have been found-though they did make hundreds of heavy stone adze heads which are in the Canterbury museum.Were they brain eaters?Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.26 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the Maoris eat the Morioaoris? Sorry if I spelt the latter word incorrectly! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you're referring to the no longer believed Moriori-on-the-New-Zealand-mainland theory or the 19th Century Maori invasion of the Chatham Islands. See Moriori people for more information on both. Kahuroa (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kia ora tatau - as far as I'm aware there's a bit of ongoing controversy regarding the existence of Maori cannibalism and, if it did exist, how widespread it was (despite the work of Paul Moon). My good friend John Bevan-Smith has written extensively on the subject, and reviewed Moon's book in New Zealand Journal of History 44.2, p203-205. There's an article in Mana magazine too ("Making a Meal out of Mockery.", issue 95), with the controversy covered by the Listener here: http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/close-to-the-bones/ and Alex Calder's piece "Augustus Earle and the Secret of Cannibalism," in Landfall 206 (2003): 123-38. I don't, unfortunately, have time to collate and evaluate everything, but I do hope that someone will be able to do so. Nga mihi, Ross.Brighton (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical eras

In discussion with a Maori curator at Te Papa I have been told that the term Te Tipunga that was cited as being the early period was a term first used by Prof Mead at Te Papa, to describe an early period of Maori art history style rather than an historical period. The term was invented to descibe an early style of artifacts that was being toured around the world. According to the curator the time period was modified later when the show went to Japan to take into consideration evidence of later dates. I believe that recent more reliable Carbon Dating methods have pinpointed the "early period" far more accurately than what was available in 1990 to Prof Mead. The Wairau bar seems to be a good bet for an initial or at least early landing point with teeth being currently examinded (overseas?)from that site using the latest technology to determine if the people had a kiwi diet or an East Polynesian diet or both.This will give really clear evidence as to starting point for the early period which is still, and normally, refered to as the Moahunter period in most texts I have seen. Certainly the term Te Tipunga was misused and inappropriate in the context of a development period and should be reserved for an early art style as was intended. The curator said Mead was more interested in the Maori artifacts than in the precision of dates with is not a typical focus of Maori tikanga.I would agree with that 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the relevant sources don't mention anything outside of cultural artefacts (I assume you were referring to Sidney Moko Mead, who is indeed an art/anthropological history expert). Which leaves the question of what how we should demarcate the different pre-European stages of Māori history (Archaic/Moahunter, Classical, Traditional, etc) and their approximate timeframes (or even if such demarcation is necessary). On another note, does anyone else think that the current History section has become way too large for an introductory article? By itself, the section would make a decent-sized (and long overdue) Māori history article, which we could summarise here, in the same way that we did for the main New Zealand article. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ti Rakau

Is this at all a significant part of Maori culture? [1] this google book ref is a start. Ive added mention of this in the article on a childrens toy called Lummi sticks. I have no idea how the two are related, if at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Ti Rakau or the Maori stick game is a small part of Maori culture.There was a huge revival of this musical game in the 1950s when it was commonly taught to primary school age students in Nz.My elder sister and I practiced for hours on end in the hallway.The sticks we used were about 25mm dowel about 300mm long,unpainted .The standard song E papa has a nice rythme and part of the game is to use the sticks to give the beat by taping them on the ground alternatively tapping them together. Beating on the floor gives the drum like bass note and tapping together produces a sound like the Aboriginal tap sticks. Probably .5million kiwis know the words .It is a very good hand eye coordination exercise as well as being a lot of fun.It takes hours of practice to get it right without making mistakes. Originally alot of Maori games had serious, more utilitarian functions, such as making the men better at war with hand weapons.For women weaving was a key skill which required dexterous manipulation.The game was popular as it only needed simple sticks and a small patch of flat ground. Music was voice only. And besides in the 50s you just did what the teacher told you.It seemed to fall out of favour by the 1960s-you can probably blame Elvis and mass radio ,then TV for that.Like nearly all Maori culture there was a strong emphasis on getting it right as a group-if 1 person failed the performance fell apart.This was a critical lesson in the traditional early neolithic culture.Claudia March 2011 00:38, 14 March 2011 1User:22.58.186.243

THere are 2 You Tube videos -search- E Papa-The one showing the American's learning Ti Rakau is the same way Kiwis learnt it -a lot of laughs.Herbs is a Pacific Island group in Nz that has some Maori members.Claudia March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Herbs was a Maori Reggae group consisting of Maori people. You will find that they all are maori. Some members came and went which indeed were pacific islanders, pakeha and maori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.187.109 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on shipping

Someone reverted a small section on ship attacks -a much reduced version a section entered a few months back.The new section had deatials of other atatcks from Paul Moons new book.The regular attacks show an aspect of interaction between Maori and European that is not covered elsewhere. The attack on the Boyd is quite well known but the multitude of attacks on other ships is less well known. It was the major source or serious confrontion between Maori and Pakeha. About 300 Europeans were killed and many of them eaten. In addition to the 8 named ships -Maori prepared to attack other ships but the attacks were either driven off or friendly Maori warned the crew what was about to happen. It appears the main reason for the attacks was to gain muskets and other weapons or trade items. When European prisoners were taken they were sometimes exchanged for muskets and weapons. Cannibalism was a side issue from a Maori point of view.1%

I reverted the controversial material you added because you did not cite a reference for it. I suggest you go and look for references to these events in mainstream historical sources and cite references to them if you re-add them. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section added earlier because it was far too detailed, with one paragraph per shipwreck. As I said in my edit summary, we do not add a paragraph on every battle in the "Musket Wars", many of which had far higher death tolls, so why should we do so for early shipwrecks?

I have no objection to the several sentences added more recently, although a suitable source is required. If you wish to give greater detail on each incident, you are welcome to write an article on each individual ship, or more ambitiously, on Early contact between Māori and Western peoples or similar.-gadfium 21:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dave (again) I agreed with your original removal as it was far too long. My version was a synopsis. Clearly it is not a contraversial subject.The attacks on ships are all well documented (for early 19th C history). Professor Paul Moon is NZ's leading historian on that era in our history. He is the best authority by far.Savage Country is the 3rd book in a trilogy on the 1820s.It is his 21st book on NZ. The book has recently been praised for its depth of research-the bibliography is 14 pages long and there are 31 pages of notes. The information is very relevant to the Maori/settler relationship theme as it shows the warrior attitude of Maori in action over a 35ish year period.It high lights that Maori were truely driven the acquire muskets and other weapons during that period. I think you might be saying that no one has made that point before -you are right but that makes the section doubly important. This article is about Maori people and what they did in each time period.It would be misleading to leave out this newly researched info. I would like you to revert it please.I hope your definition of "mainstream" is not "books that agree with my point of view"??You cannot get more main stream than Prof Paul Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.189.177 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Māori in the United States

The article previously gave the numbers as approx 3,500, but following an anon edit Snori examined the source and changed it to 1,500. The source is the 2000 US Census figures for New Zealand born Americans. It gives a total of 20,895 people, the large majority of which are listed as "White". 1515 are listed as "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander", and this is the figure Snori is using. However, there are also 1980 people of "Two or more races", and while some of these will be Asian/European, I suggest that most will be Māori/European (or Māori/European/Asian). The 1515 plus 1980 add up to the original 3500 (approx) in the article. This is explained in our ref 4.

I suggest we note the figure as 1,500 - 3,500, since there is no data provided to narrow it down more closely.-gadfium 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the 1515 "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" respondents, how many of them would be NZ-born tāngata Pasifika? I'd guess that the vast majority would be Māori, but even taking into account the 1980 respondents of two or more races, a minimum figure of 1500 is still just a guess (certainly a reasonable one, though). Something like <3,500 would be more accurate, if imprecise and a bit awkward (okay, ≤3,505 would be more accurate) (CLEARLY I can't add). Honestly though, I wouldn't mind "1,500–3,500" either. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "< 3,500" is probably best, at least until the figures from this year's US census come out. I can't see any good reason for showing the 1500 figure, even as part of a range. --Avenue (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "< 3,500".-gadfium 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked for more recent US Census figures, but discovered that they didn't ask about the foreign-born in the 2010 Census.[2] They suggest using results from two large surveys instead, but they're no use to us, because they only report the foreign-born by region of birth, not country (at least outside Latin America). Oh well. Maybe they will ask about it again in 2020. --Avenue (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Maori

I added the pronunciation meɪˈɔriː (may-OR-ee) commonly used in American English (only pronunciation I have ever heard). It was removed. I think it should be given as an alternate to the already present MOW-ree pronunciation. OttomanJackson (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't yet seen the comment left on your talk page a couple of days ago, you could take a look. Basically it says "....Please note that when you changed the IPA pronounciation guide at Māori people, you changed it to a pronounciation which is not only incorrect, but also considered offensive in New Zealand English ...." Moriori (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that pronunciation? There are some sounds in the Māori language which are difficult for non-speakers to reproduce correctly. It may be that American English speakers have more trouble with these sounds than speakers of New Zealand English.-gadfium 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have heard this pronunciation from all Americans, including educated ones. I googled to see if it was offensive at could find no evidence that it was. Even if it is, that is irrelevant, as Wikipedia has a list of ethnic slurs. Wikipedia is not censored to remove profanities or offensive terms. Since there is no evidence that it is offensive, and since it is used by most, if not all Americans (the largest native Anglophone nation), it should be given as an alternate. It should not be marked as offensive unless a source can be found saying it is.

Thanks,

OttomanJackson (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, do you have a reference for that pronunciation? Your personal experience is not a reference.-gadfium 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Māori people → Maori people – By far the diacritic free version is more common in English so WP: UE OttomanJackson (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Also change all instances of Māori to Maori. Changed proposed title from Maori People to Maori people per WP:BOLD. Please revert if not warranted. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Past discussions about macron

• Talk:Māori_people/Archive_3#Macron_usage
• Talk:Māori_people/Archive_1#Macron_usage
• Talk:Māori_language/Archive_1#Macron_usage
• Talk:Māori_language/Archive_1#Macron_Revisted
• Talk:Māori_language/Archive_1#Requested_move

Discussion

• Oppose move. The macron is recommended by the Māori Language Commission, and is common in New Zealand English, which is the appropriate language for this article.-gadfium 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Māori" is the correct spelling; "Maori" is an incorrect spelling. There is already an automatic redirect in place for readers who are unwilling or unable to type the letter "ā". Daveosaurus (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Per MOS:TIES clause (strong national ties to a topic) of WP:ENGVAR, we should give considerable weight to New Zealand English usage. The proposer does not address this point. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

proves my point. http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Maori%2C+Maaori%2C+Māori&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 OttomanJackson (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all of those sources come from New Zealand, though, and as per P.T. Aufrette common usage is invalid in this instance. Plus, changing it would ignore the Māori pronunciation, as well as be yet another example of this — Zaldax (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Is the proposed capitalization of "People" a typo? If not, it's a problem. Jojalozzo 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the proposed title to reflect this concern. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as above plus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Several editors above have commented that this is an issue of WP:ENGVAR and that the macron usage is "common in New Zealand English". I don't see this in the article's sources. Any evidence for this? —  AjaxSmack  02:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

8,350 Google Scholar results - probably includes cataloguing distortion, but still plenty of evidence in NZ govt sources etc since 1960s. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's less than 1⁄10 of the Google scholar sources using "Maori". Hardly common. Are there major NZ sources (e.g., new outlets and the like) using the macron? I'm trying to get an idea of usage vis-à-vis say Ireland where the fada is widely used in English-language sources on relevant proper names. —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi AjaxSmack. No the Maori macron is nowhere near as commonly used in the North Island as the fada in Ireland. It is not liked, at all, by a large part of the British-descent Kiwi demographic (1). and presents software difficulties to universities like Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa (2). But the software difficulties have been squared away for printing (3). Majority isn't the issue here, but MOS:TIES. I'm not sure about whether WP:ENGVAR allows for Pakeha English and Maori English. In any case this is evidently a controversial move, not likely to encourage Maori editors to contribute to en.wp, I wouldn't have thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with MOS:TIES but, according to you, macron usage is both a small minority and is controversial within New Zealand. Wikipedia is not here to advocate a point or promote a particular point of view. —  AjaxSmack  15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well. What can I tell you. Māori people are only 15% of the population, I'm sure that in terms of population whites who resent and dislike Maori macrons would be more than 15% of the population. But the rule on road signs has been in place since 2007, even down in relatively Maori-less bottom of the South Island (road signs). and "Kaka St" In ictu oculi (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no sense in which the macronless version is more correct than the preferred version. It shows readers the preferred version without interfering with their ability to understand or find the article. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Preferred by whom? —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- If the NZ natives think the correct form has the diacritical, it should be there, but Maori people should exist as a redirect, as being convenient to the uninitiated and those without ready access to accented letters. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I have several friends that are from this tribe and they insist on using the correct form rather than the much easier way to spell it. ViriiK (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per PT Aufrette and IIO. EngVAR is relevant here. Feel free to create as many redirects as necessary to aid users.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support My dad (from NZ) saw Maori more frequently, plus macrons do not exist in English. As we do not have Cyrillic or Chinese characters in article titles, we should not have macrons. OttomanJackson posted an ngrams link that clearly favors Maori. I will repost it

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Maori%2C+Maaori%2C+Māori&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 
KaiserWilly (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

According to that ngram, the spelling Māori does not exist. That would appear to be a flaw in the ngram rather than an argument.-gadfium 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

comment Note, past discussions:

Comment Yes, this shows that regardless of official use, Maori is by far more common. Plus OED doesn't use the macron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.67.92 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cooper -Moa info

Cooper has just completed a detailed study of how Moa adapted to changes (pre human contact) in climate by studying Moa DNA. He found that they adapted by by following their food supply to the higher altitudes where is was growing as the climate warmed. He also found that Moa were by and large wiped out within 100 years of 1280AD. He talked about this point on National radio. He said it is possible that some small isolated groups lived on for a short time because they were too remote to be eaten but the groups were too small to be viable.Possibly the extinction ofsmaller moa was compounded by the introduction of rats,kura and the widespread parctice of burning in the drier south Island. So 100 years is a whole lot more accurate than 200 years.It is the best scientific estimate to use Coopers words.1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I accept your change.-gadfium 00:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tawhaio tour to England

The King's trip to England highlights nearly every important aspect of this period. It shows the king's concern for the loss of the land.It shows his understanding that the treaty was a direct contract between the Queen of England and the Maori chiefs.It shows how the king considered his position /mana compared to his citizens who owned the money. It shows he believed in the devine right of kings to exercise their authority above the laws of NZ . It shows how the ordinary Maori were mistaken in trusting Tawhaio's judgement. The secretiveness of the mission indicates that Tawhaio thought he could sneak out of the country without his mission being known-indicating his mistrust of the government and perhaps a wariness of the bank's depositors finding out he had taken all the cash before he left the country. When he stopped in Australia he tried to keep the very inquisitive press at bay. They tried to loosen his tongue with champagne but an advisor ( a pakeha) got him to stick to ginger ale. All this reveals his naivity. This is further reinforced by his reaction when he was taken to the British museum at his own request to see the Egyptian section.(Tawhaio had some believe in the story that Maori were a/the lost tribe of Israel).His Maori beliefs in superstition/evil spirits, were on full display-he freaked out when shown the mummies and ancient artifacts. It shows the huge gap between Maori and Pakeha beliefs at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.154.239 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Maori population 1850- 1930s .Factors influencing population.

While the census figures show a decline of Maori population and their was much talk about the dying Maori race it is now clear that throughout this period there was continued Maori population growth. There were several factors operating during this period. Firstly there was a separation of Maori and Pakeha with very few Maori living in towns or cities and very few Pakeha living is isolated rural communities. Where Pakeka did live in the country they lived separately from Maori and had little day to day contact. The most normal contact was when Maori sellers came to the door to sell food. Kingite Maori had separated themselves to the King Country until about 1885,although the numbers were quite small. They made it very clear by killing Pakeha who came into the rohe that they did not want contact. Because the government returned substancial amounts of land or provide huge amounts of money to chiefs who could prove they had remained loyal to the crown during the rebellion many kupapa tribes were very well off. In the south Auckland /north Waikato area several chiefs were paid as much as 1,000 pounds each. This was a magnet for wavering kingites especially as relationships between the king and Maniapoto became increasingly strained.

When the family benefit was paid the Maori population did not just suddenly increase by tens of thousands-the families just decided to register the births of children who had been born many years previously so they could get the money. It is clear that by the turn of the century some Pakeha/Maori were living in Pakeka settlements and were committed enough to the government to register as soldiers to fight in South Africa, even though "Maori" were banned from enlisting. Many of the Pakeha/Maori who enlisted either already had Pakeha names or adopted Pakeha names.

There is some evidence that the effects of disease on Maori was overstated. Once a population has been exposed to a disease and survives, the next generation has as much immunity as any other. As Maori communities were exposed to disease from the first contact, after 2 or 3 generations Maori had as much immunity as Pakeha. One missionary with a medical background noted that although Maori in the 1840s got sick, the rate of recovery of Maori adults was similar to Europeans, and Maori were not badly effected. When a new disease epidemic hit the country it effected Pakeha nearly as badly as Maori. The difference can be explained by better hygeine and a greater variety of food available to Pakeha. The Maori practice of immersing sick people in cold water would not have helped the survival rate of sufferers of TB or influenza. The survival rates of Maori children were always very low due to regular practice of infanticide that continued into the 1840s and the very casual attitude of Maori mothers towards child raising. More than one missionary was aghast at the lack of care for children. They were expected to care for themselves from about 8 or 9 and by 12 were more or less independent.

Government knowledge of South Island Maori was often very poor. As late as 1845 government officials were writing that up to 100,000 Maori lived in the South Island when the actual number was about 2,500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC) It is highly likely that female infanticide was being practiced as late as 1890. Well known demographer Ian Poole says at that time the female death rate for babies under 1 yr old was very high compared to males. Some of the isolationist Maori who wanted to live separately and kept alive some of the old practices. This is entirely in keeping with Maori culture which still practices many traditional rituals such as tohungaism (witch doctorism) and whangai(the giving away of babies) today.(Both are legal in NZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source for any of this material before adding it. For example, a source you have cited often lately, "Treaty to Treaty", is not a reliable source; it is apparently self-published (its 'publisher' just so happens to have the same initials as the author, and the first reference to it I could find in Google gives the publisher a mere three books to its credit, all by the same author [3]), and appears to promote the fringe theory that British colonisation of New Zealand was a grand conspiracy orchestrated against an unwilling Britain since 1494 (150 years before the first European ever sighted any part of New Zealand). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see( on line) nobody has ever challenged any of the material that Bennett had published as factually incorrect or wrong. All authors have to start somewhere! Ive noticed a tendency on the a part of some wiki editors to bag authors who have a different interpretation to their own or who deviate from a PC point of view. Bennett's research to support his(?) books is mighty extensive. Ive crossed checked much of the factual info and it all checks out there- are no errors I can find. I would say Bennett is a good deal more accurate in his writing than Belich, for example, who made lots of factual errors, never mind his misinterpretation and is quoted extensively in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If Bennett gives detailed sources for each significant statement in his books, then you can always quote those sources (preferably after checking their content yourself) WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS (Self published sources) are pretty clear that self-published books are not acceptable as references unless the author is an accepted expert on the topic. If this is PC or censorship, it isn't our censorship.-gadfium 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick google gives no reviews whatsoever of Bennett's book on-line, either positive or negative, so the lack of negative reviews is meaningless. Belich, on the other hand, has scholarships, professorships, mainstream publications and prestigious appointments to his name. If he's as sloppy as you imply, how do you explain those accolades? Daveosaurus (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That"s a really good question!!I guess some people are just impressed by titles and honours and have never actually studied his books! His writing is now quite dated and really naive say compared to Paul Moon,whose research is impeccable and right up to date. I guess that's why he's had 17 books published and Belich has a long dry spell.I notice Belich has now high tailed it to England to escape local scrutiny! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Were they really indigineous?

Why does this article describe the Maoris as the "indigineous Polynesian people of New Zealand"? Were there not some people called the Maori Aoris who were in New Zealand before they were? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Read Indigenous peoples, and Moriori. Moriori (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Percy Smith and eras

Did Smith really replace the term "Moa Hunters" with "Classical" Maori?? This doesnt make any sense and seems to be an error on the part of an editor. It is common knowledge (now anyway) that classical Maori period was some time after the so called moa hunter period . The moahunter period ended about 1400(or even earlier) when all, or nearly all, the Moa were killed. The term Classical Maori refers to the pa/kumara/warfare/waka based period that was almost exclusively in the North Island. Needs sorting out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eliminating bias, and copy-editing

I've created a to do list at the top of this talk page. I thought it would be a good place to start regarding a plan to resolve the problems with neutrality in the article. I have included a list of references I have access to. I have not added any websites to the list, but there are definitely some appropriate ones out there that could be added. I'm not going to be able to fix the article myself - as can be seen, I have a very limited number of good references. So I'd appreciate if there are any other editors out there that would be willing to contribute. - Shudde ^talk 11:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article – in particular, the History section – has been inundated with skewed, esoteric information, giving undue weight to fringe sources that don't reflect mainstream academic consensus on the topic. I realise this has been an ongoing problem here, and now is as good a time as any to deal with it.

I suggest reworking the information to reflect broad academic consensus before forking the main content into a new Māori history article, with a brief summary here like we did for the New Zealand article. This can be done boldy by any editor, and I'm happy to do it. But the reworking is likely to be controversial, so I'm seeking consensus first (I think I've actually asked this before, but I don't remember a consensus emerging). Comments would be appreciated. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree. The article is actually not very well written (I'm not just talking about the history section), and I think a lot of it would be quite confusing to readers unfamiliar with the subject - many would get the impression NZ is bi-cultural rather than multicultural from reading this for example. It does need some work, but the major thing to avoid is replacing one form of bias with another. I suggest having several editors contribute to the rewrite to help prevent this, and making reliable secondary sources a must. - Shudde ^talk 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article has had a history of biases both favourable and unfavourable to Māoritanga generally. So it'll be nice to have something more neutral ... and based entirely on reliable secondary sources. Not to mention having more people collaborating on this topic. Good point about biculturalism vs multiculturalism, too. You don't see much on race relations other than with comparisons with Pākehā. Hopefully there's some good info with a more multicultural perspective. Good to go? – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to go, and don't get too wound up in the process when the POV editors return. Schwede66 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure what this proposal is really about. To me the history section is clearly the best in terms of being up to date and giving the specific evidence for changes and development. There are no bias I can see-it is all basic sound, well proven history. I think the problem may be that it differs from the common perceptions that folks learnt at school 40 years ago.Can you be specific -give example of skewed information? Where are these biases? Im not sure what you are getting at when you say favourable/unfavourable to Maoritanga. What is important is that it is factual and correct -not whether Maori like it or not. That is verging on absurd and smacks of racism-ie you just remove all the information that reflects badly on your culture!! Hilter would really approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no-one wants to add factually incorrect information just to avoid hurting Māori feelings. The information we present here must reflect a consensus of mainstream academic sources on the topic, with appropriate weight and neutral tone. In the past, there have been issues where information was skewed to portray Māori in a more favourable light and Pākehā in a less favourable one, than is reflected in mainstream sources. More recently, the reverse has been true.

Presently, there is a lot of esoteric and inflammatory information that's attributed to fringe sources, such as Rex Bennett's Treaty to Treaty (which was self-published). While controversial topics that are factually accurate, such as cannibalism and infanticide, deserve to be included, in this article such topics have been expounded to the point of turning it into a virtual op-ed – of the NZCPR sort. Also, take this statement: "Until 1893,53 years after the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori did not contribute to the country's income by paying tax on land holdings at all." Without disputing the land holdings tax information at the end (from my own ignorance), the preceding description, as written, is misleading and inflammatory. A neutral tone needs to be preserved throughout ... not to mention correct punctuation and orthography. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would totally support that this article should be based entirely on reliable secondary sources (as Liveste puts it), and that any claims in this article should also be verified against the cited references by editors with access to the original works. The main problem seems to be one IP editor who appears to be trying in their own way to improve Wikipedia but appears unable to differentiate between reliable sources and the fringiest of the fringe (twice in recent weeks I have google searched for key phrases in two of the IP editor's more extreme claims and the only results seem to be based on articles on white-supremacist blogs). If it was just this article that was affected I would suggest getting an Administrator to semi-protect it, but the number and range of different articles affected (and that some of the edits do not on the face of it seem to have problems other than spelling, punctuation and reference formatting) would probably make this impractical. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears this article has already been semi-protected. I agree that the IP editor (or editors) is trying to improve our coverage of Māori topics in their own way. It was this that largely addressed the overly favourable view (IMO) of Māori perspectives in the article previously; now, the reverse is true. But yeah, having the entire article referenced to reliable, secondary, mainstream sources is something that's been a long time coming. Kinda exciting, in its way. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we can rid the article of self-published bias and fringe sources. Good to see this being addressed. Piwaiwaka (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding References and new Material

I would like to add references for the various "citation needed"inserts in the Decline and Revival section but am unable to do so-most of this is from Michael King . It appears that growth of this article has ground to a halt. I note there is very little in the article from Judith Binney's writings. She is one orthodox NZ historian who has a great understanding of many aspects of Maoritanga- many of which are not covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

"175 for males and 161 for females."

Should read "175cm for males and 161cm for females." or somthing similar. 162.119.64.110 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done-gadfium 05:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested editing of Decile and Revival

Re "Citation Needed" in this section. The Information about Te Puea all comes from Te Puea :A life. Michael King. Penguin NZ. 1977. The information re Maori soldiers in WW1 comes from James Cowan's 1926 book, The Maoris(sic) in the Great War. There are a number of errors in the current wiki text. Originally the Maori unit had not been trained or picked as an infantry unit. It was rushed into this roll with some brief extra training after the high casualty rates during the initial battles at Gallipoli. During an attack 3 Maori officers were seen to act poorly and were arrested, charged and dismissed. They were sent back to NZ for unsatisfactory performance according to NZ History Online ."Pioneer Battlation",despite arguments put forward by other officers to retain them. After this incident they no longer served as infantry but were made into a pioneers-initially spread around other NZ units but later in the war reunited as a pioneer battalion. Pioneers acted as labourers and construction workers mainly digging trenches in the Western Front and took no direct part in the fighting, although it was still dangerous work. Just after the end of the war there was a very nasty incident at Etables, a huge rest camp on the French coast, when a group of Maori soldiers went berserk. A Pakeha officer attempted to take a rifle off a soldier and was shot and killed. It is not known what caused the incident. Probably severe post traumatic stress . Cowan's book gives the number of Maori from each iwi. Ngati Porou and Arawa had large numbers of soldiers as did Ngapuhi. Surprisingly, since they were originally part of the Kingitanga, Ngati Maniapoto also had large numbers-enough to form most of a company in 1917. Very large numbers of Pacific Islander also volunteered to fight-the total was about 500 by the end of the war. Cook Islanders were prominent and were placed with the large Maniapoto contingent in 1917-18. According to Cowan, even though Waikato-mainly due to Te Puea's influence- had a ban on joining up, a few Waikato were present at the Western Front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

Under the Notes section line: became a member of the Māori rugby teamdespite should be: became a member of the Māori rugby team despite

with a space before despite 64.20.21.214 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Why in the entire article is there no mention of Maori cannibalism, or even the eating of dogs? Has it been sanitised for the easily offended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.125.16 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannibalism is mentioned three times in the historical section, and the article is also in Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism. It's also mentioned in the Māori culture article. I suggest the most appropriate place to mention the eating of dogs would be in the latter article, at Maori culture#Food. You are most welcome to add something there, and please include a reference.-gadfium 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also a section on Maori cuisine in the article on New Zealand cuisine, so items of the cuisine can be added there. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that for the early missionaries the discovery of the practice of eating people was extremely upsetting. They made it very clear to Maori that to the CMS cannibalism was totally unacceptable under any circumstances. Williams wrote often about this horror and personally went to great length to stamp it out -even going along with a war party in an attempt to intervene. A very brave and determined man! He realised of course that missionaries had a special privileged position in the minds of Maori chiefs so the direct threat to the missionaries was perhaps not so great.Maori on the other hand saw it as normal part of Maori culture -at times an everyday event which they introduced their children to at a young age.

It was tika-the normal acceptable thing to do in Maori culture. Most of what was written at the time about NZ (probably 90%) comes from missionaries and the rest from various visiting luminaries(invaribly christian) -sea captains ,adventurers, scientists etc but virtually nothing from Maori who in 1840 made up about 98% of the population. Strangely there is very little written about why Maori were cannibals. Certainly there was a severe shortage of land based mammals to hunt and eat but Maori seemed to thrive on a varied diet with a heavy focus on seafood.It is notable that the period of peak cannibalism coincides with the Musket Wars(1805-1843) when the various tribes and sub tribes tried to eliminate each other in battle and then by killing and eating survivors.

P. Moon probably has the most thorough study of Maori cannibalism that is easily accessible. He was roundly attacked in public through the media by one Maori academic extremist who adopted the notion that it was offensive to Maori to raise the subject as it made Maori look bad. There is a common line of thinking amongst some Maori that only Maori should write about Maori history or culture. Even Michael King, in his later years, considered this important that "Maori tell their own stories" and he regretted that very few Maori picked up the baton. It is quite common amongst Maori to object to Maori from other tribes telling stories (history /myths)that concern other tribes.Claudia

We know that human flesh and blood was eaten in folk medicine practices in medieval Europe. Why don't articles on European peoples mention this? Has it been sanitised for the easily offended? --86.164.55.135 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC) This article is not about medieval Europe. Among Maori it was common and historically very recent-especially between 1805 and 1842 and as late as the 1870 there were a few cases. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deaths from disease most likely over stated

Medical science has advanced to the point where we know once a population has been exposed to a disease and survived they gain immunity. ie You can only get measles once. Several medical commentators at the time (1830-1850) noted that Maori fell sick and recovered at about the same rate as Pakeha -clearly showing the influence of immunity. However Maori disease may have been far worse in tribes that were subjugated by other more powerful iwi and forced off their land or enslaved. They were suffering from malnutrition and in this weakened state could die quickly. This is never seen in NZ today but is still very common in 3rd world African states-most notably during or immediately after political upheaval and war.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Macrons

I suggest that the macrons be removed from the word 'Maori' and all the other English words in the article that have macrons. The reason is simple. This is the English-language version of Wikipedia, and the English language does not have macrons. I find the use of Maori-language words odd. DonutGuy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest not. This article is written in New Zealand English, which often uses macrons for loan-words from te reo Māori. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the elitist world of ivory tower academia certainly uses them "often". However, the mainstream media (and mainstream literature, for instance, King's and Belich's histories) and ordinary people in day-to-day communications do not. The most common usage in this country, that is, in New Zealand English, is undoubtedly the spelling without the macron. One wonders why Wikipedia, a mainstream source, should not reflect that fact. It is also spelt without the macron almost invariably outside New Zealand, and Wikipedia is, of course, an international site. DonutGuy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Typography does come into it, so just because macrons are not used in some websites/publications doesn't necessarily mean that they have omitted them for non-typographic reasons. The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand uses the macron -- http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/maori-new-zealanders -- which is always a good place to check first when wanting to investigate these types of things. Every discussion I can remember regarding macron use has concluded with a consensus to keep them – if you want to start an RfC on the issue then you're welcome, but it's probably a waste of time. I certainly don't think it's worth the effort. -- Shudde ^talk 08:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The current pronunciation "English /ˈmɑːʊəri/" is probably incorrect, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. From the OED Online (which includes Third Edition entries where available, such as "Maori"):

Brit. /ˈmaʊri/ , U.S. /ˈmaʊri/ , N.Z. /ˈmaori/ , /ˈmæuri/ , /ˈmari/ , /ˈmɒəri/

Template:IPAc-en doesn't seem to have an option for New Zealand English. Ardric47 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

hi Ardric47, good point. I've done the edits. — Womtelo (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Include recent historical findings that bring about questions of the New Zealand history

I believe the following paragraph here should be placed beneath the settlement dates assumed of the Maori people in New Zealand (the formatting will need to be corrected, also all unsourced statements are to be sourced to the web-address mentioned within the following paragraph).

It should be strongly noted, however, that pre-Maori artifacts are common in parts of New Zealand, such as the ruins of an entire stone city in Waipoua Forest. It has been suggested by some people in the New Zealand community that a conspiracy exists to hide the true history of the Maori people. The following is a quote from an article titled 'In Search of Our Tangata Whenua. Waipoua Whitewash' by Michael Botur (http://www.elocal.co.nz/View_Article~Id~485~title~In_Search_of_Our_Tangata_Whenua_Waipoua_Whitewash.html) "In 1999, a film crew making a documentary for TVNZ entitled Who Was Here First? was refused entry to a legendary logging road in the Waipoua Forest. The New Zealand Listener attempted to investigate in 2000 but was also denied entry. In the Northern Advocate in August 2011, Mr A Jessop reported that a kuia told him all research regarding Waipoua’s secrets had been destroyed by the local hapu. (...) The ruins of a stone city were discovered there three decades ago, but we’re still waiting for it to be acknowledged. Now, elocal publishes definitive proof that in this corner of western Northland, an old burial pit has pushed the first date of New Zealand settlement back 400 years before the recognised settlement date of 1350 AD."121.75.233.10 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

First you need to find a reliable source, not the Elocal which is, frankly, rubbish. Then you need to make the changes to an appropriate page - I suggest Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories (and in any case would recommend you read that article, as it puts to rest the notion that there is any basis in fact of stories such as that one). Daveosaurus (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You beat me to it. See also [4] which doesn't seem to have been used in Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)