Talk:Anti-Māori sentiment

New article

Kia ora Fellow Wikipedians

I have started work on this article because of how, despite Wikipedia detailing discrimination and racism towards Māori in various forms, and the term "anti-Māori sentiment" being widespread, there was not an article on this topic. I've been modelling it off other racism articles. Obviously it needs a lot of work, and seeing how incredibly controversial discussing co-governance has been, it needs to be approached diligently and using the best quality sources (ideally academic ones). I also think that "anti-Treatyism" should have its own article, since it is both well-established as an academic topic in its own right and because it is separate to anti-Māori sentiment, with both Māori and Pākehā advocates. Dhantegge (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also can we bump this up to mid importance? thanks Dhantegge (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What wikipedia does detail in this or any other article, is not relevant to your intended work. If the term 'anti-Maori sentiment' is widespread then you can start an article about its widespread use, but only if the term is discussed in independent reliable secondary sources. What the term alludes to is another topic. You are confusing the two. What has 'anti-Maori sentiment' got to do with 'co-governance'? Again, you are confused. Yes, academic sources are preferable in most cases. However, pseudo-academic sources are not, and in any case, the editor must first understand and be able to use properly those academic sources and that, alas, is often not done and is the cause of so much misinformation in Wikipedia. "Anti-treatyism"? Please, carry on, don't let me stop you, I'm fascinated to learn more. Finally, on the subject of -ism's, your post is dripping with non-neutralism. 'inredibly controvertial'... Yes, there is information in Wikipedia detailing discrimination and racism towards Maori. You will find it useful to look more closely at that information and how it is written, sourced, and used on Wikipedia, and then to undo much of it step by step. You will find this to be of more value than just adding more personal opinion to Wikipedia. From my recent edits to the sub-section about Pukekoe you'll be surprised at how rewarding it can be changing a supposedly well sourced vitriollic attack on all things non-Maori, into nothing more than a dozen lines of unsourced personal opinion. Finally, on a positive note, please consider first reading secondary sources and understanding what they are saying; then, secondly, form an opinion on how best to use those sources on Wikipedia. You are unfortunately working backwards - you are trying to find sources to back your opinions. And, worse still, please don't fall into the trap so many other editors fall into with a similar approach: they can't find proper sources so they use third rate sources, misrepresent sources, or sometimes just don't bother with sources at all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-neutral

I commend your efforts to start a new article and stated aim to use only quality secondary sources. However, a brief read of what you have added makes it quite clear that beneath your cloak of neutrality lies an anger based agenda of division and misinformation. The language alone that you use is an attempt to stear readers in your chosen direction. You recent efforts on other articles lay bare your agenda. I will assume good faith and say you may not realise you have an agenda. I suggest you carefully unravel this article to make it as objective as possible. I agree that academic sources are best, but some are better than others with many writers having a similarly ill informed intent.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

However, a brief read of what you have added makes it quite clear that beneath your cloak of neutrality lies an anger based agenda of division and misinformation. The language alone that you use is an attempt to steer readers in your chosen direction. You recent efforts on other articles lay bare your agenda. Dhantegge (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, @Roger 8 Roger you can’t just say this kind of thing and then excuse yourself by saying you’re assuming good faith. Please do better. — HTGS (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example sentence, that I have removed: "Arguably the first anti-Māori policies were enacted by the colonial government (hereafter 'the Crown') to prevent the realisation of tino rangatiratanga (absolute sovereignty) and Māori law, the "complex system of customary laws" upon which Māori society operated. "Arguably" appears to mean you are excusing yourself for inserting your own opinion into the sentence (and not adding any alternative views on the subject). What 'anti-Maori policies'? The source mentions several 19th century laws that involved Maori. They could equally be described as pro-Maori, certainly in the context of the time they were enacted. The term to use is 'the Crown', not the 'colonial government', unless you are trying to focus our minds on the implied supression of Maori by an overbearing dictatorial authority. 'Tino rangatiratanga' does not mean absolute sovereignty. Maori had no concept of sovereignty in 1840 which created a major problem for the British at the time. Please do not use current interpretations of words and concepts to determine what happened 200 years ago. Similarly, do not try to judge one group by the values and practices of another group when they are so diametrically opposite to each other. That was, again, a major problem for the British in the 1830s. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Maori had no concept of sovereignty in 1840". Oh, so how could they have ceded it then, Roger?

Also, macrons, please. And read He Whakaputanga - the declaration of sovereignty five years before, in your eyes, the British told Māori about the concept for the first time. Dhantegge (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your question is illogical. Some people might say they didn't cede sovereignty (to the North Island). Now, I invite you to say what the result of that failure to cede sovereignty is. (There could be two results). Macrons? I hear there is space for some fresh blood in the macronauts station staff room. Some friendly advice is to consider joining the macronaut team [1] to learn the ropes with some simple edits first before leaping straight into the coldran with all sorts of policy and guideline breaches. Remember, never assume anything is true or false, just use an open mind to read quality secondary sources before adding any factual detail. Remember please: Read sources-consider sources- write, not: think-write-look for sources. We can discuss 1835 later. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@user:Dhantegge Okay, I'll try to do better. Some people would agree that Maori din't cede sovereignty in 1840. However, the reason is not, as you and many others here seem to think, due to the wording on the Maori version of the treaty: it's because Maori never had sovereignty in the first place. They could not hand over something they never had. Please remember, sovereignty is a Western concept that had no meaning or relevance to Maori. That was a problem for the British at the time who wanted to possession, of the North Island, on the grounds of cession (a means of obtaining sovereignty). The treaty with a multitude of signings by chiefs was the best way to try to do it, clumsy and artificial though it was. (Nobody possessed all of NZ). One reason for the 1835 declaration was an early attempt to create a central Maori authority. It was written by Busby remember for the benefit of chiefs who were illiterate with no understanding of the underlying reasoning for it beyond getting British help to stop themselves from massacring each other - musket wars). But none of this has much bearing on many people today, including editors here, who take the easy option of judging what happened 200 years ago as if it happened yesterday, and in so doing use current values to judge something that cannot properly be judged, because it was 200 years ago. IMO, your efforts telling everyone how poorly Maori have been treated since 1800 is not neutral - it omits much of the reality of what happened as it was seen at the time. No serious mention by you, for example, that many Maori wanted their kids to learn English or that it was, and still is, normal in societyto make generalised stereotypes of ethnic and racial groups, somethings meant with malice, sometimes in humour, sometimes with paternal concern: "the French are all good cooks". You are, IMO, trying to weld together a whole host of different subjects and complaints into one unified subject. IMO, what you are writing fits better into existing articles, such as co-governance, the Treaty of Waitangi, and so on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"It was written by Busby remember for the benefit of chiefs who were illiterate with no understanding of the underlying reasoning for it beyond getting British help to stop themselves from massacring each other - musket wars). " Jesus Christ. You have a problem, mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhantegge (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger, I have to say this, that despite your efforts here - some of which have been in good faith - you are behaving like a problematic editor. You have a pathological dislike of using macrons (this has been raised repeatedly against you), and I feel as if you throw dead cats on the table whenever you see anything even acknowledging the history of white supremacy in New Zealand. There's this pattern in which under your guise of being sensible, there ends up being more drama created and nothing getting done. You've raised concerns with me and others on things being "uncited" or not reflecting sources - when you're right about this, I don't try and step in your way. You called me out above for using the word "arguably" for example - while I reinstated this briefly you do make a convincing poing and you gained consensus for it. I would gladly accept pointers like these from you. But this doesn't mean you can respond in the way you do when it comes to Māori topics. There have been occassions in which you'll produce word salad out of nowhere on talk pages ("It could easily be argued that the policies then were enlightened and liberal and an effort not to be anti-Maori"; something about the French being "good cooks"? What does that have to do with anything?) with a overtone I find a patronising. And then there are the blatant falsehoods ("please remember, sovereignty is a Western concept that had no meaning or relevance to Maori") and wording which quite frankly makes me and others uncomfortable "[He Whakaputanga] was written by Busby remember for the benefit of chiefs who were illiterate with no understanding of the underlying reasoning for it beyond getting British help to stop themselves from massacring each other - musket wars". You've referred to Māori as having 'once been illiterate' on multiple occasions now. The term "iliteracy" is just not something anyone really says when referring to an oral culture. It has these negative connotations of being uneducated, despite written language simply being a technology that did not yet exist in Te Ao Māori - would you chastise the English of the 19th century for being unable to drive?

And then, of course, you'll say something like this -

"However, the reason is not, as you and many others here seem to think, due to the wording on the Maori version of the treaty: it's because Maori never had sovereignty in the first place"

What are you talking about. You are denying about a century of academic research, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the New Zealand Government, lest of all Māori themselves. I don't want to be uncivil, but this is just weird, mate. Dhantegge (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dhantegge. I'll be brief. 1/ My issue with macrons isn't with macrons themselves, it is with the arificial abuse of English for a purpose, which is the promotion of Maori culture. I have no issue with promoting Maori culture, I encourage it, but I do have an issue with the way it is sometimes done. Changing English words for Maori words, and thereby using macrons, is an example of this. IMO, promote te reo but keep it seperate from English, like what happens in many other countries where an endangered language is being promoted. To be clear again on macrons - the town by the lake in English is called Taupo, in te reo it is called Taupō. The only reason to use the te reo name when writing English is to try to promote te reo, which is justified and made official through GBNZ. The problem is that most people don't see this and say things like Taupo is the wrong spelling in English, it should be spelled Taupō. My reply is no, in English it is spelled Taupo and on wikipedia we use English. Wikipedia is not part of the orchestrated promotion of te reo, so we shouldn't use the te reo word, Taupō. Second, yes, I accept that today the word 'illiterate' does have a sometimes negative tone beyond its simple meaning of not being able to read or write. Nevertheless, I'm not sure how else to say it. 3/ Our interpretation of history differs and the best I can do is ask for properly used independent reliable secondary sources to be used, which is often not done. Therefore, you shouldn't be arguing with me but with the sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Words borrowed from other languages frequently maintain accents in English; Façade, Résumé, Über or Señor. I don't see why macrons cannot also be in English. Peetel (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right. They can, and I feel there is pretty good consensus they should on Wikipedia articles in New Zealand English when writing words NZ English has borrowed or adopted from te reo Māori.

In case you are unaware, there was an enormous debate about macrons a few years ago that concluded with macrons being included for Māori-origin place names on Wikipedia. Some users still have a bee in their bonnet about it. Funny really that the discussion is happening - again - on an article literally about Anti-Māori Sentiment, but here we are.

I feel the most productive approach is to not bother arguing any more, and for the sensible among us to instead just go on using New Zealand English in the way that New Zealand English is now commonly used by New Zealanders: with macrons proudly atop words we learned from Māori. When certain editors forget to use New Zealand English correctly, the rest of us can come along behind them and clean up their mistakes. This approach works because, for the most part, those editors only ever bother editing talk pages for the sake of arguing, and they comparatively rarely contribute productively to the article itself. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Diacritics used on other words in English, like Résumé, Über is not the point, it is false reasoning. There are reasons for using diacritics that varies in each case. Über is not an English word. It is foreign and has not been assimilated. Therefore it is written as a foreign word with the umlaut. But, if we are talking about the taxi business then yes, the word has entered English. However, it is a business/marketing name, written how the business owners choose. Résumé has accents to avoid confusion with the other English word Resume which has a different meaning. In all these examples where a foreign word has become assimilated into English, use of a diacritic is optional anyway. Now, with macrons, their use is only to promote te reo by making them stand out as different from English. All these English words (mainly place names) of Maori origin, have long ago been assimilated. Taupo is Taupo in English, irrespective of any macron that might be there in the te reo version. So, when we write Taupō in an English sentence we are not correcting the spelling of the English word, we are changing the English word to the te reo word. The authorities in NZ choose to do that (to promote te reo), but we on WP do not have to. Place names are a ghastly muddle anyway, because in some cases the difference between the English and Maori version is not a simple macron, such as Christchurch and x$t!s:d*? (I can't remember what it is in Maori). In those cases nobody says they are correcting the English spelling, they say they are using the Maori word. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

URLs in Te Ara citations

The article contains six citations of Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand that include URLs starting with "http://www.TeAra.govt.nz" and "accessed 1 June 2024". I believe that Te Ara URLs have not started with that string for years. The URLs do redirect fine to URLs starting with "https://teara.govt.nz/", so there is no problem in that regard, although it is peculiar to have URLs that are deliberately unlinked, as these are. I am wondering why long-outdated URLs have been included in an article created recently. Nurg (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. When I wrote the article and cited from Te Ara I copied and pasted the ready-made citation from the bottom of the pages. Dhantegge (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dhantegge. You've illuminated it perfectly well. I have now checked the bottom of one of the Te Ara pages and it does indeed have the old URL in the citation. I also now understand that you did a copy-and-paste of their citation, which is why the URLs are unlinked. Thanks for that explanation. Nurg (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora, I know someone who is a software engineer tasked with maintaing Te Ara, I will let them know about this discrepancy. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thompson source

As noted in an edit summary, the Thompson source is missing adequate detail. I am guessing it might be Christina Thompson, but I’m not about to go digging to confirm that, sorry. Please fill in if possible, @Dhantegge. — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to find the origin of the quote. I've found it attributed to Samuel Marsden in Orientalism and Race Aryanism in the British Empire by Tony Ballantyne (pg. 59). Ballantyne acknowledges that Marsden never took the theory seriously and was likely joking. Seems implausible that Marsden and Williams would make the same quote, and as there is no resolution to the Thompson mystery I will remove the section from the article. Peetel (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about this. It's a book I own. Dhantegge (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If you could please provide the name of the book we can restore the section. Peetel (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thenile.co.nz/books/christina-thompson/sea-people/9780008339050?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI16HdgNqjiAMVpOwWBR2ByhJyEAQYASABEgJHdvD_BwE Dhantegge (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This book to says the quote came from Marsden not Williams. Peetel (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Widespread misuse of sources?

source 25 says; "From 1865 the Native Land Court introduced a new system of land title based on individual ownership. It failed to recognise tribal ownership of land, and tribal control of economic interests was undermined." This, and other sources, is used to support: "One of the Māori laws which the Crown sought to undermine and replace was the principle of collective ownership of land." There is no connection - the source does not say or imply what is written by an editor. I don't have time to wade through this article but what is written is clearly from an anti-Crown position. There are huge problems in trying to equate current views about race and racial bias with views as they were 200 years ago. It could easily be argued that the policies then were enlightened and liberal and an effort not to be anti-Maori. The better sources used are neutral and objective but it seems to me that often the tone and intent of those better sources changes when it reaches the wp editor's keyboard. Some of these sources used here are not reliable and independent and should be used, or used with care, such as the Waitangi Tribunal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is your problem here the use of "sought to", or the subject of the sentence being "the Crown", or something else? The source says that the new system replaced tribal, collective ownership and this undermined tribal economic interests. What new text would you propose based on this source? Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite this so as not to convey intent of the crown that the sources do not support. I think it is now more neutral and clear.

(Side: due to another change I made removing a duplicate source and text what was source 25 is now source 24). Peetel (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the change Peetel and yes, Newimpartial, that is my problem with this. By saying the Crown sought to do ABC we are inventing something we don't know ever existed - the intent of the Crown at the time. If there are clear actions that indicate an unambiguous intent, written in RSSs, then that is fine, but I don't think RSSs actually say that. I think that once a certain style is used it is easily continued by editors, and that is what I meant by anti-Crown rhetoric. Incidentally, I'm not saying the Crown was without fault, I'm just commenting on what I see as excessive and at times unjustified criticism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)