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)

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 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 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)

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)