Misplaced Pages

Talk:Māori people: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:55, 8 November 2012 editDaveosaurus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,603 edits →Maori population 1850- 1930s .Factors influencing population.: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 23:51, 8 November 2012 edit undo122.62.226.243 (talk) →Maori population 1850- 1930s .Factors influencing population.: NZ AuthorsNext edit →
Line 148: Line 148:


: 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? ] (]) 00:55, 8 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? ] (]) 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!

Revision as of 23:51, 8 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Māori people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Māori people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew Zealand: Māori Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolynesia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.


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. 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)

Ti Rakau

Is this at all a significant part of Maori culture? 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)
  • 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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.

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 Misplaced Pages has a list of ethnic slurs. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 ), 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!

Categories:
Talk:Māori people: Difference between revisions Add topic