Talk:Māori culture

Critique of article
This article contains spelling errors, inaccuracies, but most seriously is very limited in scope.
 * Most of the spelling mistakes are gone. The inaccuracies are those of emphasis rather than fact. It is limited in scope because it is a huge subject, megabytes. "English Culture" is described in Wikipedia under many different articles and Maori Culture, and I don't mean singing and concerts, is fully as complex.  Concepts such as Wairua, Muru, Utu, Whakama, Whakapapa, Tangata Whenua, Tapu and many others all need explanation.  A very difficult article to write properly. Meanwhile this is a good start. ping 08:16, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Duplication of articles
There is a quite a lot of duplicated content between this article and the Māori article (which also has similar problems of tone and content etc.) There are also some other more specifically titled articles/stubs, eg, the one about Haka - (a topic mentioned here and in the Māori article).

I'm thinking that the Māori article - with its non-specific title - should be something like a disambiguation page that contains links to specific articles like Māori culture, Māori language, Haka, Māori music, Religion. This article here seems to have fallen asleep - it isn't as easy to find, whereas the Māori article is.

Anyone object if I gradually move stuff out of Māori into the more specific articles? Kahuroa 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you suggest seems very sensible to me. Bucketsofg 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Violence
I know I am probably walking on land-mine ground here, but shouldn't this article include a discussion about the high rates of violence/domestic violence in Maori society, and the theories behind? Surely, while a balancing act, a NPOV section could be written on that. MadMaxDog 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maori Culture

I get what your trying to say here MadMaxDog Im a Maori Myself and yet this is certainly not an attractive subject to be talking about, But it is something that needs to be discussed off the Maori culture page and on the violence/domestic violence in Maori society Wikipedia.They are certainly to separate topics. Maori today are trying to develop healther lifestyles and moving forward with the positives, It is people like you that only dwell on the bad! Mow your own back lawns before you start mowing ours.And remember Violence happens in every culture and we are a small group of that. Move on Koretake. Aotearoa Kia Kaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.169.186.10 (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive been waiting for an editor to add in a section on this topic as its perhaps the critical part of modern Maori culture. After waiting 4 years Ive added a summary from a variety of sources. The stats are almost all from a 2007 study by the NZ Justice Dept but they used stats from 2004.I dont think the stats will have got much better though there was a 7% drop in all reported crime in 2010 -2011. I dont think there is any getting away from the fact that Maori suffer froma lot of violence within our culture and this is not a new thing-I note that wiki descibes Maori as having a well deveolped warrior culture after about 1500. A few years back a scientist said he had found Maori had a genetic predisposition to violence.I think he was referring to the high risk taking gene which is a real thing,not fantasy.To my certain knowledge young Maori are exceptionally high in the risk taking stakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2011‎ (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask at the discussion page of the Māori task force if you want to discuss Māori content with other editors. This is certainly a topic that needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but the Māori culture article isn't the best place for it. The present situation is more a socioeconomic phenomenon, with origins in the mass urban migrations of the 20th century. A better place to mention it would be in a Māori society article. I'm happy to start one up if need be. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 07:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the(multiple) research both in Nz and overseas, says you are wrong-the key factors in Maori child abuse crime are the abuse of alcohol and drugs. The next most important factor is the extreme youth of many Maori mothers and the very poor judgement they show in living with casual partners who are not the father of their children. Maori culture is exactly the right place for the information to be as it is such a dominating factor in how many Maori choose to live their lives.It is not an attractive part of the culture  but it is very  real for the abused children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you've outlined are the major underlying causes of crime and violence, and these are certainly not in dispute (you can add lower incomes and educational underachievement to them, as well). Many of these problems (and their underlying causes) became pronounced among Māori after urbanisation, and the resulting failure of large numbers of (usually young) Māori to adjust socially. More importantly though, in any context crime, drug/alcohol abuse and parental neglect are social issues, not cultural ones. Culture and society certainly influence each other, but they shouldn't be confused. The information belongs in a Māori society article. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read Maori history you will find countless examples or arbitrary Maori violence described by early settlers, whalers,Pakeha/Maori and other who could write.Later Maori historians descibe the same in detail. Extreme and sudden violence,including murder, was accepted as a quite normal part of culture, usually dished out by alpha males ,often to the lower status noa class and slaves and in a domestic setting, to women.This pattern is still going on with most Maori violence being directed at neighborhood Maori or even whanau. In the early period this was happening in areas where there were no drugs alcohol,education (as it is now understood)or money. It seems to have been a natural cultural action among Maori to maintain the status quo of hapu ie being lead by alpha males ready to defend their rohe against outsiders. Stealing could be explained as an "accepted" cultural norm following the muru or plunder tradition, whereby neighbours tried to square squabbles by taking/stealing goods. Sometimes cultural practices last for hundreds of years -well after they are formally or legally banned. The caste system in India is a good example. Its been illegal for 60 years but is still common in rural areas. Also society is just a subset of culture. Culture gives the big picture. Low income is not a real factor, otherwise Asians, who have the lowest incomes for any group would expect to have a high crime rate c-in fact their rate is low,about the same as pakeha.In other words, just being poor is not an excuse or reason to commit crime. Low educational achievement is an outcome of disfunctional whanau where the key problems are drugs, alcohol and crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read any country's history, you will find countless examples of arbitrary – and systematic – violence. And stealing. Even in modern Māori society, criminal violence isn't considered normal, since most Māori neither suffer it nor condone it. Please don't mistake me here: unacceptably high numbers of Māori suffer from violence, and to a higher degree than other ethnic groups in New Zealand do. But to consider violence as a "normal" part of Māori society is a gross misinterpretation of statistics. Even in history, there is no consensus among historians to indicate that violence was more prevalent in traditional Māori society than the maintenance of peaceful relations with other people and tribal groups (which was also the responsibility of hapū leaders). Keep in mind that there are countless examples of non-violence in Māori history, society and culture.


 * And however you conceptualise the relationship between society and culture, "society" is a distinct concept: equating social issues with culture is uselessly imprecise. Saying that one influences the other is a different story, although the connections between cultural heritage and modern social issues as they pertain to Māori (or indeed anyone) must also be outlined and referenced in a way that reflects the consensus of mainstream academic opinion, particularly when it comes to causal mechanisms. The statistics you've provided in the article are generally regarded as social issues rather than cultural ones, and your abovementioned examples do not change the fact that the information you've provided is most relevant in a Māori society article. I've already started drafting one: once it's published, your input would be appreciated. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to say that I've been following this and I agree with the above opinion, that of user Liveste. I agree that a Māori society article, so long as it was actively maintained by users to filter out nonsensical or unencyclopedic comments, would work as a way to distinguish between the differences in Māori Culture and Māori Society. It might be worth considering how these two concepts have been separated and defined (by Wikipedia) in other native societies throughout the world, so as to make Wikipedia more structured in this area. I also believe that the article would have to remain objective and factual, choosing fact over opinion or expression; references to NZ statistical sites etc. would have to be considered. I also question the depth and actual value such an article would have, considering the strong potential for bias that will usually come from something so controversial. Wikipedia is not the place for us and them articles and this would have to, again, be considered in the drafting. That said, I do believe it is both feasible and potentially problem solving. Look forward to reading the published article. On a side note, there is quite an extensive piece on Māori society within Māori People -- I think this needs to be evaluated for content and adjusted accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retropheonix (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kowhaiwhai Patterns
Just a note that I've put a bunch of high-quality svg images of Kowhaiwhai patterns on Wiki Commons (e.g. ) in commons:Category:Maori art. They're from Hamilton's 1896 Maori Art and since he's been dead since 1913 they're free of copyright. I'm a mathematician, interested in symmetry patterns and plan to use these as examples, but I thought someone who knows a little about Maori culture might want to use them somewhere on this page/on a new page.Bryanclair (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-traditional culture
This article could do with more references to non-traditional culture related to the Maori, e.g. Maori hip hop, the Maori sports teams and so on.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose to merge the source page Ancient Māori culture into this destination page Māori culture.
 * 1) The source page has no evidence (verifiable, NPOV, or otherwise).
 * 2) The source page contains information, which relates to this page.  For example, both pages discuss pre-European history.
 * 3) The primary difference between the source and destination pages is the adjective 'ancient'.  The use on the source page may be intended to be similar to ancient, but evidence is not provided to indicate whether this is so or not.  If the intention is per ancient, there is no indication of why this is important. --Te Karere (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: There isn't much information in AMC, and nothing that can't be mentioned here. – Liveste (talk • edits) 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

--Te Karere (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Early cultural patterns-world trends reflected in Maori behaviour
Recent academic evidence is that Maori followed a fairly standard pattern of cultural behaviour in their transition from hunter gatherers to a more settled agricultural based society. Normally there is more violence in this stage as farmers come to terms with the variability of weather and soil conditions. During famine inter group violence was normal in most primitive societies. It was normal for about 10% of the population to die violently. The main underpinning for violence was hunger and starvation. Successful settled communities gave rise to leaders who could grow crops and defeat enemies. Religious rites become more common /obvious in the form of Kumara protection icons. Evidence is clear that starvation gives rise to cannabalism. Power became focussed in the hands of the tribal chief/tohunga who protects the tribe and is the source of all accumulated knowledge -mystical and otherwise. This explains the rise in the key ideas of mana and the critical importance of family relationships and intermarriage into other groups. Both these mechanisms gave protection to the less able within a group. These gave rise to the critical importance of oral knowledge for practical everyday purposes and to protect the political integrity of the whanau, hapu or iwi. In Maori culture story telling reinforced the prestige/mana of the group. Historical accuracy was neither possible(for want of written records) or in some cases culturally desireable. It was easy for past blunders,mistakes or stupidity to be "forgotten out"of Maori history. Especially as ideas of morality changed with the arrival of western civilization Maori went to great lengths to hide cultural practices they knew were abhorent to the new arrivals. One of the challenges for historians is to recognise when Maori are indulging in the ancient practice of historical distortion to protect reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Daveosaurus (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Checkout Bruce Trigger A History of Archeological Thought.The BBC incorporated some of his ideas in a recent (2012? programme). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

When?
I feel sure that most casual visitors to this page would expect it to have: (a) Detail on the pre-European culture(s) of the Māori, and (b) Current culture information. How one became the other is also relevant of course - but recent additions by 122.62.226.243 are swamping the revelant under a deluge of historical detail that is just not required. It needs a severe trim. Snori (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * agree this page is becoming a real mess - much of what is being added does not add to the description of Māori culture. I am having trouble even deciding how to tidy it.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm going to be bold - The latest edit that goes into some esoteric detail on kumera may be useful but I personally can see no relevance to Maori Culture. Next will be Moa, and then.....  I,m going to undo.

122.62.226.243 please discuss this here so we can come to a consensus about what is sensible to add on a page specifically about Culture.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. The Kumara section should be best be under a heading food which is of course one of the most important parts of culture. Regards the comment on Moa. It appears that it was the dying out of the Moa during the early Moahunter ,colonization cultural period before the Classic period. What I am attempting to do over time is to give a conventional 4 part structure to this wiki page ie there are 4 distinct but over lapping periods of Maori culture. The page originally had various bits of random cultural information mostly accurate but with no organizational framework. The culture of a people is a huge topic. To my mind it trivializes Maori culture to say "what most casual visitors would expect is...".It seems to suggest a very antiquated and quite wrong idea that Maori culture didnt change before the comming of Europeans ie That from C 1280 to C 1780 nothing happened! That's a crazy idea and no way reflects the reality. Since about 2000 there have been breakthroughs in understanding early Maori culture using new methods. To put kumara into a cultural perspective,learning to grow them successfuly in NZ was as significant to classic Maori as learning to control carbon,heat and oxygen levels in iron making to create steel in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Typical editing behaviour of 122.62.226.243 — essays based on original research with a token and purposefully vague citation tossed in from time to time. A very firm hand is needed here to retake control of the page. BlackCab (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Culture Changes over time
Culture is not a fixture,it changes - sometimes dramatically over time. Important causes of change are contact with people from a new culture, a major disaster or the introduction of new food and technology. This is what the article is about. Culture is not just what is practiced now. That is why the article is divided into commonly recognized time periods because each period was caused by significant change ie the arrival of the first polynesians,then the gradual forced change is food source through over use and increasing population and probably climate change,then the arrival of Europeans with their culture. Editors who are knowledgeable are welcome to add additional new information provided they include references. If the concepts are still current and widely used they should be in the latter part of the article.If they were mainly practiced in the past ie they are historical they should be included in the appropriate time period and section. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * dear ip 122.62.226.243 nobody is suggesting that Culture is static,  Most of what you are putting in this page does not relate to culture in any way other than "everything relates to culture to some degree".  Most of what is currently in this page needs to be deleted as it is usually covered much better and accurately elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Can we come to some consensus about what the scope of this page is.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andrew.Culture has many definitions. Its basically what people do and how they behave, that is distinctive. Some definitions limit culture to what I would call high art, but this is a rather diffrent, perhaps outmoded use of the term. When people commonly talk about culture they are talking about how a people make use of a landscape and its resources to create a way of life that is distinctive to somewhere else. A key part is customs or the normal way of doing things in that society. Customs relates to growing or hunting food, tools, technology, transport, building etc. There is no single article that brings these things together in wiki for Maori. Feel free to add anything-it could do with say more information on language and change. I always assumed that Maori was Maori but apparently this is not so-Ive seen references to Maori in 1820s? explaining that Te Reo elsewhere was quite different in other rohe. I read recently where a Maori women from Tuhoe who married into a Maniapoto hapu about 1870 complained she could not understand the local people. I know from people in that trade that there was a great deal of grief when modern Maori was introduced with different iwi struggling to give up their particular language nuances let alone struggling to keep up with matching Maori words to equivalent new English words. I was a meeting a while back where most were fluent Te Reo speakers but after a while they started speaking in English -when I said dont switch on my account (I could follow the gist of the conversation only) they said -No- its easier even for us, to talk in English about complicated matter. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maori culture isn't so broad that you need to include paragraphs on why missionaries and other settlers wanted to buy land off Maori, though. Land use and trading is economic history, not culture. And why tell it from the point of view of missionaries and settlers, when they so often have a distinct agenda in modifying that culture and acquiring that land? Tirana (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Tena Koe Tirana. Culture is VERY broad  and attitudes to land are especially so for Maori. Concepts around land are pretty much at the core of the culture. Therefore anything that modifies or influences a core concept must be examined in some detail. One of the key elements to understanding Maori culture is the different cultural concepts that Maori held compared to Europeans and how these were modified by cultural interactions.ie Maori culture say in 1870 was very different to Maori culture in 1770. I hope to add a bit about this to the article soon. Ka kite .Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're writing original research by describing all these interactions and drawing conclusions from them. You're obviously committed to writing about this topic - why don't you try reading some Maori sources on concepts of Maori culture and outlining what they say, rather than setting out your own conclusions, or those of a very selective bunch of sources.  What I'd expect, from a knowledgeable and neutral POV, is less "according to missionaries, they were arrogant cannibals" and more about whenua and placenta burial, about Papatuanuku, things like that - something that doesn't implicitly write off the Maori point of view as biased without recognising that the Pakeha point of view is as well.  In any case, unless Vincent O'Malley used the phrase "advanced culture", it doesn't belong in this article. Tirana (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

POV Tag
There's a lot of stuff throughout this article that's laden with both POV language (eg "arrogant", "contempt", "advanced culture"), and POV weighting of certain points of view, particularly the treatment of children section. There's a genuine controversy over the latter, with a number of contemporary and modern sources claiming very kind treatment of children, but that's not even remotely reflected. We can't just leave it to one editor and a couple of contentious sources (eg Moon) to fairly cover the issue. The scope of the article privileges European interaction with Maori rather than Maori culture itself. It needs a total rework and a bit of ongoing supervision. Tirana (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tena koe Tirana. In the section you tagged there are 5 quotes to support the section.Are you say ask Maori sources ? Two of the quotes are from leading Tainui authors who in their day were experts on Tikanga and would not right anything that was not tika. What you need to do is find other sources that reference your different claim about the kind treatment of children . Please add all the modern sources that claim this. I would like to read them myself when I have time. I presume you are referring to past times not now.
 * As for Mr Moon, this point has been raised before but only by one fairly extreme critic. Prof Moon has refuted them in the media-claiming that they are attempting to censor him. He is THE leading current New Zealand expert on early colonial history and has published 23??  books on our history with frequent mention of tikanga. I understand he is head of the Maori Studies dept at one of our leading tertiary institutions. I don't think he would hold that position very long if he wrote kutukutu ahi! That section refers to historical treatment of children and does not refer to today as clearly we are in a different cultural period now. Ka kite . Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've indented your comment so it's clear when your writing starts. I wouldn't describe AUT as one of NZ's leading tertiary institutions.  It's certainly a tertiary institution. Moon's a professor of history, not Maori studies.  And a historian prepared to appear as a guest commentator at the NZCPR is by definition controversial. By all means include him, but given proper weighting and context.  Your sources are either very dated (Vikings of the Sunrise would have been a better addition than the bits about actual vikings, if that's your thing), or among those cherry-picked by conservative commentators convinced that modern NZ historians are part of a conspiracy to hide the truth. Treatment of children is addressed by the sources cited on page 36 of this paper: http://www.whakawhetu.co.nz/assets/files/TraditionalMaoriParenting.pdf.  Tirana (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've updated the Treatment of Children section with contemporary and modern sources, including Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand, which has a pretty comprehensive section on the subject. I've also improved the citation style of the Moon reference and fixed some of the original punctuation errors. The rest of the article is still all over the place, though, and should be trimmed to cover culture, not every bit of history that might affect culture. Tirana (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure
Claudia suggested on my talk page that we put the info re whangai and modern /contemporary data on children in a separate section at the end after Marae, as all the other subsections refer to cultural practice in the 1800s. "The article really needs a major heading such as "Contemporary Maori culture" of something similar(Post WW2 Maori culture"? or "Cultural Renaissance"?)as all that last section is current cultural concepts and practice." No, I don't think it's useful to separate it out by time in that way.  I think all the sections should be about each cultural practice as it has been and is now.  Some things have fallen by the wayside, some have flourished, eg, Kingitanga, some have a continuous thread.  If I want to know about moko, or haka, or powhiri, I'd rather see the whole picture over time than jump from the 1820s (which is arguably a very atypical period) to the 2000s. It feels artificial and makes for a badly structured article that risks dismissing contemporary Maori culture as a shadow of its former self rather than adapting to its influences like all cultures do. Tirana (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Tena koe Tirana , Moon is head of the faculty of Maori Development within the History Dept. Im not sure what that really means!Im not debating the status of his place of work but clearly he is a highly respected, reliable, authoritative and very well published  source. He has written at last 2 books that cover a wide range of Maori demographic information in regard to children in the 1800s. If you read the books- he has drawn extensively on the work of Nz's foremost demographer, Ian Poole, as well as looking at the original data from early census papers and the Governments blue books which give some insight, as well as examining the extensive literature of many missionaries.

Re layout of the article. I know that in Maori culture the TIME component is not seen as so critical to comprehension of the information but probably for most people it enhances understanding of the context or social setting in which cultural acts occur. That's why I said its not a good idea to have data about contemporary children in the same section as  detailed information about children in the 1800s.I think its a good idea to have a separate section as it exists now for concepts that are still widely practiced now-the Marae section is a good start but could do with expanding.

Just thinking about haka for a moment. The context now is very different to say 1820-1830s. Think about of you were writing about horses as transport-the cultural context now is very different to 200 years ago. Im not sure where your specific interests lie but I thought it would be good to have a section near the end about how Maori culture has influenced contemporary Pakeha cultural practices. Im thinking about tangihanga and maybe aspects of education-kura?You might know of others. Maybe the running of organizations? This is a bit outside my normal range of interests .Kia ora ko Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Paul Moon isn't the only one writing on the subject, and this is about culture so anthropology is more pertinent than history and demographics. Anne Salmond has written in-depth on the subject for years and doesn't have Moon's reputation for contentiousness.  I don't mean that the time element should be ignored altogether, just that it shouldn't dominate the structure.  Tirana (talk 00:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC) •

Cleanup
I am having a quick run through several sections to remove irrelevant material, as well as editors' personal conclusions. I have also inserted paragraphs, which for the first time makes some of this stuff actually readable. I am not wedded to any of what remains: there needs to be more discussion about what is and is not relevant to a discussion of Maori culture, and particularly the depth of historical material. What stands out immediately is the inadequacy of most of the citations. Editors should use the citation templates provided at Citation templates in the interest of uniformity and quality. Please note also the discussion of Wikipedia policy at WP:ONUS. Some of the key points are:


 * Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.
 * Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step (this has already been done).
 * When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content.
 * If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. BlackCab (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed the Voyage to Aotearoa section but I think it could do with more Moa Hunter stuff. Early artefacts, eg the Tairua fishing lure, evidence of specialisation eg stonecutters and so on. Maybe I'll have time in the weekend.Tirana (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Maori kingship
The badly written section on kingship contradicts the Māori King Movement article, which nowhere makes the suggestion that either Hongi Hika or Te Rauparaha were the first or second Maori kings, or that Te Kooti later laid claim to the role of king. The King movement seems to have begun with Te Wherowhero as its first king. What is the source of these claims about Hongi Hika and Te Rauparaha? Do other historians support Binney's claim (if it's accurately represented here with this one vague citation) about Te Kooti? BlackCab (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Moon and Wright(see article) also refer to the power of the other "kings". Moon is very well known for bringing forward ideas that other have "overlooked". The "Kingitanga Movement" is something else and clearly started in the 1850s. None of the other authors claimed that the other "kings" were part of the kingitanga line although clearly Te Kooti was challenging the authority or mana of the king. Te Kooti's attempt to challenge the Maori King is well known and documented. Binney is the authority on Te Kooti. She devoted at least a chapter on the contest/stand off between the 2 men with a huge amount of detail. Gilbert Mair also seems to have been aware of the same situation. I often  seen Te Rauparaha referred to in contemporary accounts as the" Napoleon of NZ". I guess that would make him as " emperor"? Looking at the history of the Kingitanga and understanding Maori culture, especially Tainui culture it is easy to see why there are no kingitanga sources for other contenders. Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing you say in your response allays my concern that this is original research. The section starts by referring to the factors that led to the Kingitanga movement. It then refers to Hongi Hika and Te Rauparaha, who were both well dead by that time. The phrase "After his (Hongi Hika's) death attention turned to Te Rauparaha ..." suggests some line of succession, when there was clearly none. Which historian has ever called Te Wherowhero the "third Maori king"? Does Moon explicitly call either chief a king -- if he does, the article needs to state that it is Moon's opinion. And did Te Kooti make an actual challenge to Tawhiao? Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2014.
 * If Blackcab knew his history he would know that one of the first things TK did on his arrival back in Nz was to make a declaration of his intension to become king by replacing Tawhaio. As I said before Binney who was the world's leading expert on TK devoted a whole chapter to TK's ongoing challenge. We know all the detail as TK had his scribe write everything down longhand. Most of the challenging was psychological but distinctly menacing. It was only the presence of the old warrior Rewi that enabled Tawhiao to see off the challenge. The king and Rewi did for a while consider using TK as a weapon against the government but Rewi was unconvinced by TKs bluff and bravado and the king was, by the standards of the day, a pacifist. Certainly he was no great warrior. The 2 early Maori kings(yes, they were dead!) were totally unconnected with the Kingitanga movement. If they proclaimed themselves kings(which they did) or were considered as such(they were)then clearly TE W was the 3rd king. Note : not in line -just the 3rd Maori king that existed. Its that simple really. In reference to Moon. I cant recall now exactly what he wrote but Im willing to put good money on him having good sources being such an experienced and high quality historian. Unlike Belich, Moon did not set out to rewrite history -just to write history. Even universities are starting to have 2nd thoughts about Belich. I attended a seminar recently where the presenter pointed out that Belich started out with a very strong anti British viewpoint and this coloured his writing to the point where his early writing is now treated with caution. It is common knowledge amongst historians that Hongi Hika considered himself a king. Contempary Europeans often refer to Te Rauparaha, not just as a king, but as Emperor.Newspapers refer to TE R as "Napolean of the South". Claudia
 * Thanks for the explanation. Your comments confirm that the thrust of the section is what Wikipedia calls "synthesis of published material that advances a position". You might like to read WP:SYNTH in terms of your listing of who were the first, second and third Maori kings. Additionally, Wikipedia has an article called List of people claimed to be Jesus. Everyone on that list, of course, was wrong. Similarly, Te Kooti may have decided he was a more worthwhile king than Tawhiao, but he still wasn't king, so I'm not sure he deserves the coverage this article gives him in that section. Unless any reliable published sources provide significant information that suggests either Hongi Hika or Te Rauparaha were regarded as kings (as opposed to chiefs, no matter how powerful), the article should restrict itself to the Kingitanga movement. BlackCab (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

cultural changes in the 19th and 20th century -gold mining
Maori took part in the gold mining in many different ways that changed aspects of their culture-this is what this section is about. It changed the way they saw land and their ownership of the land ,it showed that they could profit materially from the land,it showed that the governor was willing to talk with Maori about potential conflicts of interest. It showed they could work with and alongside Europeans in new ways for their own benefit. Maori became very aware of the value and importance of gold. Maori miners got the vote because of their involvement in the industry -this was revolutionary at the time. Rua Kenana tried to sell his own Maori gold mining licences in the Ureweras to raise money for himself and his movement. Gold mining became as much part of the Maori culture as European culture. So this section stays .More to be added when I have time. What you think of the topic is irrelevant. Claudia 	 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)


 * What I — and all other Wikipedia editors — think of the topic is very relevant. The poorly-written and inadequately sourced material you have added barely touches any aspect of "the way they saw land and their ownership of the land". So far it seems to cover some commercial endeavours in which some Maori took part. It has no place in an encyclopedia on Maori culture. BlackCab (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Restoring Hope(Lihaas (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)).

Importance of state education in cultural change
Not only has the government set up a separate schooling system-Te Kura Kaupapa, which is defined by it teaching in Maori and the active use of Maori kawa (cultural rules) in everyday life but the teaching of Maori culture is now actively encouraged in normal state schools in social studies (which is compulsory) and history (an option ). It is "separate" in that it has its own sets of rules but the system is not totally different ie the students follow the same curriculum more or less. Each Kura for example is allowed to select its own students. Some will take students from a local tribe or exclude students without the right attitude to learning. Normal state schools must take every student in their zone-good, bad or indifferent. In practice the secondary school kura are obliged to teach heavily in English because they cannot employ enough Maori speaking teachers. Usually management are all Maori, as are the BOT. Learning English helps the student transition into the mainstream NZ culture and is critical if students wishing to go onto tertiary education. Most kura students can only speak casual English at 15 but are fluent in Te Reo. It is not uncommon for year 9 students to sit and pass NCEA level 1 Maori.

Selling of Land by Maori
Maori sold land freely before the "Land" Wars and recommenced leasing and selling land shortly after the war finished. One previously ardent kingite- Wiremu Tamihana,who had surrendered his mere to General Cameron after the decisive Government victory at Rangiriri, was leasing land to his previous enemy within 20 months of the end of the war. Tamihana was on excellent terms with Firth who reciprocated these feelings. After Tamihana's death Firth had a large statue raised in Tamihana's honour. The same tribe took part in comprehensive land dealings with Morrin a Scottish engineer regarding the outright sale of land before the Native land Court heard the case. It is important to remember that only 4% of Maori land was confiscated during the brief war. Some of this was returned to Maori with the change of government 6 months after the war's end. In the Waikato the main seller was the Maori King ,especially from 1892- to 1914. At the turn of the century Maori still owned far more land per capita than European New Zealanders.

Land is at the heart of Maori culture
Anyone who knows anything about Tangata Maori knows that whenua is the basis of the culture. The land provided all the resources needed for life. Traditionally the chief's mana was based on the rohe he could hold and how he used its resources. The section in the article shows how over time Maori became influenced by a range of European practices. Gradually Maori accepted most(but not all) European practices around land. They had to, as the kingites had lost the 1863/64 war which partly centred around land isues. From 1854 a major runanga in Taranaki had agreed to establish an anti British (not my words) "land league". Their first action was to kill other Taranaki Maori who were selling land to the government around New Plymouth. This was really the beginning of the end for the kingites. The government had been content before this to let Maori iwi sort out land issues their own way but they drew the line at widespread murder -especially when the upheaval was taking place on land already sold to settlers. The data about Maori land sales after 1864 shows the extent to which chiefs and iwi had dropped Maori practice and adopted European ones. The idea of a land league was well and truly gone and it was ex kingites who set the pace.
 * Not as presented it didn't. You'd need a secondary source that says it and ties it to Māori culture, whcih is the subject of this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Infanticide
The "Treatment of children" section notes: "Set against this are reports by missionaries of infanticide, particularly female infanticide, and involvement of young people in warfare and the sex trade during the 1820s." The statement cites Moon's "A Savage Country" as a source, but on the pages cited, he makes no mention of infanticide. He does talk about child prostitution, which supports that statement, but a better source should be found about infanticide, or it should it be removed. BlackCab ( TALK ) 05:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've flagged that statement as needing a citation (and fixed some other sloppiness while I was at it). Ideally a citation should be from a better source than Paul Moon - his history works receive rather mixed reviews: glowing praise from his publisher and employer, but from independent reviewers comments such as "In choosing the title A Savage Country, Moon is continuing the ‘frequency of fake information’ thesis along a historically loaded line (...) in implying that Māori society was somehow lesser and more barbarous than the Europeans who have civilized the rest of the ‘known world’. " and "Moon’s prejudices have been often noted (...) by other historians" ; and of his other works: "an atrocious example of how not to write history", "Time and again, Moon dips his pen in an inkwell of spite, snide adjectives and vicious asides", "an alarmingly twisted view of the 20th century" and "He prefers gently viewing the "national memory" through his own peculiarly distorted vision" ; and "This is bad history, but not nearly as objectionable as Moon's treatment of Chinese and Pasifika migrants" and "Let us hope for a better, more balanced book by another hand." . Daveosaurus (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first external link above can be seen at landfallreview.com.- gadfium 09:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I've read something along these lines in a thesis. I shall try and locate said thesis. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul Moon has gathered further honours as New Zealand's most respected current historian in the last few years. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society. The only person who has "attacked" his reputation is a Maori academic with no published work of her own ,who tried to censor Moon's freedom as an academic to write Maori history. Moon is widely recognised for his balanced accounts of our early history. Moon often quotes writers from the 18th century along with his own comments as to the status of these comments. Readers often mistake the quoted section as Moon's own opinions. He is the most popular and successful academic writer of New Zealand history ever, with over 25 published works.

As regards Maori female infanticide. Every early census of Maori up until about 1900 showed a marked male /female imbalance that could not have occurred naturally. Look at the census figures. The natural distribution of gender is about 51% male and 49% female in ANY human population. The early Maori census showed a consistent and long lasting trend for far lower numbers of Maori girls. The percentage varied but it was always around 35% female. Of course the early census were not absolutely accurate (they are not 100% accurate even today) but the gender numbers and percentages are so consistently different for Maori male and female children it is improbable they are wrong. In one of his books Moon quotes a missionary who was told by Maori that "Yes, Maori do kill infant girls by crushing their heads when they are born by either hitting their head with stone or using their fingers." They went on to say that because Maori girls were not warriors the family or hapu could not afford to keep them. Yes ,Maori culture back then could be pretty gruesome judged by today's standards. Although thinking about some of the court cases of Maori child abuse in the last 2 decades perhaps there are lingering cultural echos?

Infanticade is a very ancient and well established practice in the homeland of the Maori. In the Society islands infanticide was a regular feature of the culture of aristocrats(the blacklegs) even in the 18th century. The Society Islands have been shown to have very strong cultural and artifact links to New Zealand Maori and is almost certainly the homeland of Maori before about 1280. So the evidence is overwhelming that Maori did kill Maori female babies and that this practice was not confined to the north. All districts where census data was collected showed the same overall pattern. From about 1840 Maori learnt to hide cultural practices that they knew were either criminal or offensive to Europeans. For close to a century after 1840 Maori continued, by and large, to live separately from Europeans,so they could continue such offensive practices without Europeans seeing the gruesome acts. Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Moon as a source, though I'll be guided by NZ editors on wehther it ought to be noted in the article's text that he is the source. Apart from this though, the paragraph needs to be written in a way that very clearly identifies a very reliable source. As it was, it cited Moon as the source of a statement he did not make. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The general impression I get from independent reviews of Moon's works is that they are useful where he writes on subjects which are not well covered, but otherwise his works are found wanting when compared against works by more authoritative writers such as King or Belich. His works should be cited with caution, and I sincerely doubt that an editor whose work is as sloppy as Claudia's would take the necessary care. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I notice that in today's edits the claim is made that Moon recounts tales of men withdrawing their daughters from schools in the 1820s - before there were any schools in New Zealand. I can't believe that Moon would be so sloppy as to make such a statement, but don't have his book handy at the moment to check, so if anyone else can check, that material needs fixed (or, better still, deleted entirely). Daveosaurus (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Moon refers specifically to Maori students snatched by members of their community from "the mission school at Paihia" and taken on board to be exchanged for muskets, powder and oil. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ive added the most detailed account I could find re infanticide in a few brief minutes, which come from Moon's 2008 account of cannibalism among Maori"This Horrid Practice". Moon would be aware that there is a well orchestrated effort in Nz to sanitize aspects of Maori culture that do not sit well in today's society. Ive read several documents lately(since 2012) -all written by Maori women, that claim there was no violence in Maori society towards children prior to the arrival of missionaries!! This of course is complete nonsense but it is all tied into $$$. Various Maori women's organizations are running courses to try and stop violence in Maori families using govt money. The last National government was in office with the support of the Maori Party and was obliged to put $$ millions into Maori organizations such as Whanau Ora to maintain their support. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles, not claims of political conspiracy. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 07:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I realise being an Australian you dont have access to all the sources in Nz other wise you would not be writing the above. Common knowledge in Nz.

I reverted your edit as it changed Moon's account from something he wrote to something he didnt write. You then compounded your mistake by removing the details of infanticide that had been specifically requested "as proof" by another editor. When I added the detail, as requested, you then removed it! Very unhelpful. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maori land "selling"
Maori in precontact times had no concept of freehold land or of having title to land, nor was land thought of a commodity to be bought and sold. Early Maori, especially in Northland allowed Europeans to acquire what the Europeans saw as "ownership" yet at the same time they were under the thumb of the local chief who could and did extract largesse from the settlers in return for "protection". In many cases the protection was really needed as the settlers arrived during the musket wars -a lawless time of massacre and counter massacre and in theory could be attacked by outsiders as well as disgruntled locals. During this early period much land was sold directly to settlers in exchange for goods rather than money. The Native Land Court records show that most land was sold by hapu (subtribe) which was the normal operating unit for Maori. Very little land was sold by iwi(tribes). In the early period iwi leaders had little or no say in the disposal of hapu land. The example in Whanganui is typical of the wider Taranaki sales -as is the attempt by well meaning missionaries to preempt sales to the NZ company. The missionaries were suspicious of the motives of the land buyers. They had the advantage of speaking fluent Maori and a greater understanding of Maori protocols, plus by 1839, they were well off and generally trusted by Maori. It is clear from my edit that Maori welcomed these land buyers and were keen to sell land. The fact that many of the leaders had never heard of William's "purchase" suggests either it didnt happen or quite possibly the dominant chief sold the land and kept all the goods /money for himself, or ,the Maori were trying to sell the land gain. Williams did say he had purchased the land in trust for the Whanganui. Probably the "in trust " part went over their heads. This reselling of already "sold" land was quite common in Taranaki. Part of the confusion in Taranaki was that many hapu/iwi had left the area to live near Wellington because of the continual threat of invasion from the Waikato. Sometimes a few straggler stayed behind but they could not be said to have mana over the land as they were old, isolated and defenceless. Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

cultural components
Often when we think of culture we immediately think of the technology or material of that culture -which are important. Eg the introduction of new food and tools/equipment by Europeans. Less attention is paid to the less obvious part such as beliefs and attitudes. The edit Ive just reverted shows how in the very early days, Maori were keen land sellers and welcomed land buyers such as the Wakefields with open arms. The Wakefields and NZ company as a whole are portrayed or interpreted, in many conventional histories,especially recent ones, in mainly negative terms. The edit also shows that European cultural attitudes were varied -eg Missionaries cf land buying capitalists: ie there was not one consistent attitude that Maori had to deal with. It also shows many old Maori cultural traits- exploiting a situation for your advantage,possible trickery (which was a very highly regarded Maori cultural skill). Confusion over European concepts: "held in trust" that were probably totally alien to Maori and difficulty with comprehending written documents.

Many of the European v Maori issues boil down to each side holding a very wide range of cultural attitudes that were foreign to the other. This is hardly surprising given that Maori were still very much a neolithic culture in transition in the period 1800-1890. The British, and especially the English, were from the most advanced culture in the world. It is interesting that often Scots or Irish had a greater understanding of Maori viewpoints than the English because they had some experience of English political power and technology. It is interesting reading the dairies of Maori soldiers(especially officers) returning home from WW1. The thing that stuck most in their minds was not death, or guns,or glory but the incredibly efficient British machine that delivered hot food, uniforms and medical care to the front lines in an endless stream, for millions of soldiers for 5 years. Claudia
 * where is the secondary source the uses thiis example in this way? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean precisely by "thiis(sic) example". All the points above are very common in any general book about Maori history or Maori culture. Tainui's Pei te Hurinui Jones was especially insightful into traits in older Maori culture. He was writing before "political correctness" became a key force in history writing, so he told it as it was. He was part Pakeha (and Jewish)as well as a trusted confidant of Princess Te Puea and the kingites in her later years, so was comfortable in both worlds. He spoke fluent, educated Maori. You will note that in the edit just the BALD facts are presented -there is no interpretation. I have only given this explanation/information (above), because you appeared not to understand its importance or significance in the context of Maori culture. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that using random historical examples is banned WP:SYNTH, unless reliable sources have used this example in a similar way and you cite those sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting stupid! The reliable source IS Paul Moon- New Zealand's most well known and distinguished historian since the 1990s, who has a string of 23? best selling history books all about early Nz. He is commonly called upon by all media in New Zealand to give comment on a wide range of historical events that sometimes have echos into todays world. The extract is from The Voyagers- Moon's latest (2014) book. Moon would probably say you are trying to censor him-this has been tried before by an extremist Maori academic. It didnt work either. The original primary source is Wakefield's own account. Moon is the secondary source. There is no one in NZ (or the world for that matter!)better informed about that time in our history than Professor Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in no way doubting the authority of the sources. I'm doubting the way in which you're using them. Sprinkling selected examples from a history books into an article about culture completely distorts the view of culture. Using any sources prior to the 1970s should be avoided, since the prevailing view of Māori culture and history has changed since then. BTW: the words are spelt Māori and Pākehā. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the best and most authoritative,detailed work on Maori culture comes from a century ago. You are correct in saying that later sources have changed. They are very influenced by current contemporary beliefs which often push a revisionist viewpoint. Belich is the most obvious example. His writing is riddled with quite extreme POV as well as factual errors. Subsequently to his NZ History 1st ed. he admitted to a lack of judgement in his history writing in relation to this bias. You cant get more distorted than that! Belich has put his hand up the his strong anti British views colouring his writing. Subsequently he has corrected some of the misinformation but of course his 1st edition was a best seller -helped by the populist Tv show being on at the same time. There are still readers and at least one active editor who take it as gospel. Any modern historian looking at that show now would cringe in embarrassment. Other well known and often referred to history books were written by one of NZ's most well known communists. His avowed intention was to destroy our political system of government! Thank goodness history writing has moved on since. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What is culture?
Culture is the totality of how a distinct group of people live. It is the ideas,the technology,the customs ,the normal social behaviours of that culture ,especially those that make them different or similar to others. This is not to be confused with what is sometimes called "high culture" -high arts associated with painting, sculpture, classical music, ballet etc. Culture is not fixed but changes through time-especially when an isolated group is exposed to a new ideas that  are quite different. The Roman invasion of Britain changed the native culture for 400 years. Clearly tobacco use by Maori is part of their culture. Indeed as the figures show it has become deeply ingrained. The information for this comes from Te Ara,The ENCYCLOPEDIA of NZ. Some editors need to stop and think instead of making silly knee jerk reverts. Editors should not revert without an explanation in Talk. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We've tried repeatedly engaging with you on various talk pages, including your own. Your talk page contains a litany of messages trying to engage with you on the same issues, across dozens of articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave made no effort, what so ever, to contact me, either on Talk or on my page -you are being obstructive and obtuse. He has a very long track record of this kind of knee jerk, over reaction and has been formerly warned. He has even admitted (if you care to look) that he has a short fuse and "lashes out". Unlike some people, I work long hours at a demanding job, so may not get back to a "discussion"for a while. Some "discussions" are anything but really. It is hard to discuss a topic with a person who is uneducated or who has very limited understanding of a topic or has read 3 history books. On the other hand and I read about 100 books per year on the general topic- for 20 years, as well as looking at multiple academic papers. I am currently working on improving my French so I can read some of the "Catholic Papers" that are at Waikato University. A life time of intense study and research does produce a high level of understanding. This is only tangentially related to my work so I have to budget my hours carefully.Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your repeated accusations that other editors have no intelligence, and that you have so much, underline your inability to work collaboratively with others. Your contributions are generally sloppy and you can't be bothered with Wikipedia style or basic courtesies such as signing your posts. Sorry, but you are basically just a pest, creating work for others to tidy up behind you, and for no real benefit to this encyclopedia. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 00:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:BlackCab on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no word from Invercargill? Well I must be right again! Petulant responses dont reflect well on you Blackcab .Stick to driving.You have gone off topic once again! Some blinkered, binary thinking in Wellington too. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I guess you're right. It must be everyone else in the world that's the problem. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 09:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Any administrator browsing this page and wondering what the frog is going on is welcome to browse to this example of there being "no effort, what so ever"(sic) to contact this IP on her talk page. It doesn't read to me as being an example of a 'short fuse' or 'lashing out', either, but I'd welcome suggestions on how I could have worded it more diplomatically. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mischievious reverts
Once again the man from the deep south has made a snap judgement to revert without following the rules of Wiki -despite being warned he has again reverted a well researched and referenced section without any attempt to discuss the matter at all. His brief edit comment is transparently wrong! He simply pushed the delete button ! Seems to suffer anger issues. Has been advised previously not to edit when in a bad mood. Claudia
 * Are you referring to this edit? I can't speak to how well researched it was. What I can see is that all of the referneces (which are all to on-line souces) lack URLs; none of the proper nouns has been wikilinked; all of the examples are from a single POV which borders on racist; no analysis of how Māori grievances were linked resentment about the Treaty of Waitangi issues in general and how contemporary thinking has upheld many of these grievances; etc, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Paying taxes-a core cultural practice.
The idea if taxation was originally closely tied to the need for a centralized power - royalty for instance- to raise money to support a war.The Doomsday book was written so the Normans could tax Britain -at first they had to gather intelligence about who owned what. The idea that a central power had the right to raise taxes was slow to develop and was minimal compared to what citizens accept today as the norm. By the time of the treaty of Waitangi the idea of tax paying was at the very heart of British culture. Taxes powered the central power ie the Government who ran the country. Without taxes and their acceptance there was no government. Maori traditionally had no tax systems.It would have been difficult for people divided into multiple small groups, all of whom  were illiterate and lacked any sophisticated numeracy skills, to run a tax system. Ive never heard of any neolithic society that ran such a system.

Hone Heke seems to have been one of the first Maori leaders,if not the first, to recognize the implication of taxes or rather the fact that tax went to the government and not to him after 1840 -this fact had not been spelt out in the treaty although it was strongly implied. In my edit I tried to show how over time the culture of Maori changed to accommodate, what was to them, an innovation. At first Maori paid no tax. There were good pragmatic reasons why this happened(as explained in edit).There was a gradual slow cultural shift by Maori to accept taxes as fair and reasonable but in the minds of some Maori (and it seems to be those liked to Maori with independent political aspirations )that tax was not fair. Toia who lead the armed revolt against the dog tax showed his limited perception when he said " If we pay a dog tax -what next -they will want to tax people". He was unaware that some kiwis had been paying tax since the 1840s. The edit also shows the influence of Maori MPs as peace makers - avoiding bloodshed and making pragmatic laws that allowed Maori some control over their own villages. It also shows that the government was prepared to recognize the practical difficulties of Maori organizations and to this day recognizes the special position of marae in the culture of Maori by granting them a special tax status.

Various editors have inferred a whole lot of different things that are NOT stated in the edit. I cant be responsible for what other editors think but some seem to be out on some sort of witch hunt-finding boogie men that aren't there!The entire edit is accurate,balanced, factual and well referenced and shows a slow moving change in the culture of Maori to accommodate what was a challenging concept (as it was in Europe hundreds of years before). Note that the edit is  under the heading "Culture Change by Contact with Europeans".It is interesting that as late as 2 years ago questions were raised in Parliament by the right wing ACT party questioning Maori tax paying. After a good deal of investigation the Minister of Maori affairs Pita Sharples announced that Maori did pay tax -roughly equal to the amount they got back from the government in benefits etc. I didnt put all this in the edit as I imagined that most editors would be familiar with at least some of these facts and the edit would be far too long.Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate some other viewpoints on this issue. Is taxation a cultural issue? Was the 2012 challenge made on cultural grounds or legal grounds? I've read the Culture article and a definition at Livescience, which limits it to "the characteristics of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts". How does this include taxation? If there is no agreement here I'll see a third opinion or open a request for comment.
 * The IP user claims his/her extensive addition is "accurate,balanced, factual and well referenced." The edit contains errors in spelling and punctuation (which can be fixed by other editors, since this seems beyond the abilities of the person who wrote it) but the referencing is again vastly inadequate. Among the citations are "Te Ara. Story: Taxes", "Hughston and Associates", "Inland Revenue. Maori Organization. April 2003" and "Stuff.Nz.Tainui taxes set for review. June 2011." Several are simply unverifiable. On that basis alone most of the edit should be removed. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It has long been my view that much on this culture page needs to go, and no, Claudia, it is not because I only recognize "high culture" or Haka as culture it is because much of it does not deal with any real cultural aspects of these topics. Now taxation - yes you could spend a life time making a cultural argument about tax, but I suspect Claudia is the only person who has ever attempted it and as such appears to me to be original research - her references when decipherable point to evidence to support her OR and POV, not evidence that someone has dealt with a topic under the umbrella of culture or society and wikipedia is reflecting this scholarship.  There needs to have been people before who have written on this subject with a cultural argument and published it.  It is possible there is an article out there somewhere that this info would be appropriate for but it is not this one. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is clear from responses many editors are unfamiliar with modern approaches to examining history. Not only must you be able to zoom in and examine events closely you must be able to back off the zoom to get a wider perspective or context. Good historians can do both -see Simon Winchester for a very good exponent of this. Re: "is it a cultural or legal challenge?" is misleading, as of course the law is another key part of culture, so a legal challenge is not only about the law but about culture. I think it is fair to say the shearing contractor just didn't want to pay his taxes and was grasping at straws. If he had bothered to run his novel idea past a lawyer first he would have saved himself some bother. Better still if he had a good accountant he would, it seems (from the judges suggestion),have been able to restructure his business to avoid such a hefty tax bill. Suggest Andrew reads up on virtually any book about Normans, Doomsday etc to find any number of cases of how taxes became a core part of culture. Many years ago I spent a whole year learning about English monarchs devoting their lives to fleecing citizens of more tax to pay for their political adventures. And of course this was the same system, further developed of course, that came to Nz. Read the wiki page on "Culture" -it is good and describes well how the term is commonly used today. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about history. It's about culture, like it says in the title. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed ANY of the many points I have made above and neither have the other 2 editors. Clearly writing about the past is history -whether it is about culture or technology or anything else.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A properly referenced section (which this so far is NOT) on the history of Maori taxation could be included in an article on New Zealand economy. But "Maori culture"? I just don't see it. Andrewgprout's request for an external published source that discusses taxation as an aspect of Maori culture sounds an entirely reasonable prerequisite for the inclusion of this material in this article. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 04:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So far three editors have opposed the inclusion of a section on taxation, only one supports it. A request for a third opinion now seems a bit redundant, but the option of a request for comment still remains. The best noticeboard would be Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture, but there seems to be little response there anyway. I'll give it a few more days and see if anyone else ventures an opinion. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The material in question is irrelevant to an article on Māori culture. It may be of some peripheral interest as background material to the Dog Tax War article, but even there it would be very borderline. Claudia: History is not the same thing as culture. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's four editors in agreement, and no support for Claudia's specious argument. Out it goes. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 05:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of land dealings section
Hi all, just recently stumbled across this article. I'm slightly concerned about the impression the land dealing section gives. From my reading, it makes it sound like land dealings weren't that bad for Maori after all. There's lots of talk of Māori extorting Pakeha, and very little of Pakeha extorting Māori. Hence from my understanding it's not accurate/balanced. Would be interested in knowing what others think. Cheers — Ballofstring (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The first three paragraphs provide reasonable coverage of the issue of land sales. I have deleted the last couple of paragraphs, which are of little value. There certainly is more that can be written on the subject, based on reliable sources. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is fair to say that both "exploited" each other. In the period up to 1860 Maori were in the majority. Particularly in the period up to 1840 Maori population vastly outnumbered Europeans. Maori culture prevailed up to 1835-1840. Violence or the threat of violence ensured that Maori tikanga prevailed. Whether this is extortion or not is hard to say as the term has many connotations. Violence was a standard or normal part of Maori culture up to say 1835 and it was definitely used as a "stand over " tactic by Maori. Missionary accounts of that period make numerous referrals to the threats of violence and the need to get "protection " from a friendly Maori chief who in turn expected (generally) to be paid in some way for his protection. Maori were very keen to have Europeans in the vicinity for the range of skills and range of non Maori goods they could supply. The deleted section refers just to Wairarapa. In the South Island the numbers were more balanced with probably about 2000 Maori and around 800 Europeans living mainly in small coastal whaling and sealing settlements between modern Invercargill and Picton in the 1820 to 1835 period. Historians have noted that they rubbed along pretty well with European men taking Maori wives in fairly stable relationships to the extent that European men were the preferred partners. These Europeans had little interest in land outside their immediate surroundings. They supplemented their often meagre diet with food from Maori.

After 1840 when NZ became a British colony, British culture gradually prevailed. Maori eventually came to accept that buying and selling of land was a normal everyday thing. Even kingitanga tribes, post 1864, took full advantage of the "new ways" to sell land surplus to their requirements. Ngati Haua voluntarily sold swamp land to Auckland entrepreneurs for huge sums. It must be remembered that in the period 1850 onwards the Maori population was about half what it had been in 1800, plus they could buy or trade for some goods like sugar, rum and tobacco, so the need for land as a source of food was reduced. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 10 January 2016

Hybrid?
"Both the term and the people are a hybrid of various Polynesian cultures." - really? Snori (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have now reverted to some older wording. Snori (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Māori culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124030625/http://www.maoritelevision.com/latestnews/maori_television_launch_second_channel.htm to http://www.maoritelevision.com/latestnews/maori_television_launch_second_channel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Māori culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716084848/http://www.maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=nw&id=1116&p=hon-tariana-turia-weekly-beehive-chat-stars-are-set-for-a-happy-maori-new-year.html to http://www.maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=nw&id=1116&p=hon-tariana-turia-weekly-beehive-chat-stars-are-set-for-a-happy-maori-new-year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Does this page make Māori look like a living culture?
Is everyone happy with the chronological (not subject by subject) ordering of the page, I feel it leads to repetition. I think this is a byproduct of the merge between Māori cuture and Ancient Māori culture. I could not find one culture page that is set out like 'Māori culture'. See:Culture of Scotland, Tibetan culture and Native American cultures in the United States, for examples of cultures in historical danger of being assimilated. I am not planning anything major, I just want to get an idea of peoples thoughts so I can help. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)).


 * Some of the way it is is because of the edits of a well meaning but ultimately disruptive editor active some years ago, from which the page never recovered totally. I’m sure you are correct and the page can be made much better. Feel free to make edits or discuss ideas. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just an update on my thoughts, there is very little difference between the 'Māori people' page and the 'Māori culture' page. There is also very little difference between 'Māori people' and 'Māori culture'. To make things better some hard calls will have to be made on what to expand and what to move. I have not been around long enough for this. I will keep working on the small things. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pleiades large.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pleiades large.jpg

Misleading new additions re cannibalism, infanticide
Bringing this to Talk rather than starting an edit war: I believe that the recent additions to the article are inappropriate, being (depending on one's reading) either irrelevant or misleading. Let me explain the issues.

First of all, the sources cited do not support cannibalism being "wide spread" (sic) in England in the 19th century. The only one that appears to make that claim is the Daily Mail, which is not just unreliable but deprecated. There is an actual Wikipedia rule prohibiting the use of the Daily Mail as a source.

Infanticide is a different story; it was indeed tragically common throughout Europe. But let's look at the claim being made here:
 * CMS missionaries insisted Māori abandon cannibalism and child infanticide before they could be baptised, despite both practices being wide spread in England at the time.

The problem is with that word despite. The sentence seems to imply that the missionaries were applying a double standard – that, whilst deploring Māori cannibalism and infanticide, they accepted English cannibalism and infanticide. This, to put it mildly, was not the case. The churches that sent out missionaries to the colonies also deplored the death of infants in English poverty (usually, of course, blaming it on their mothers for conceiving them in the first place). If, on the other hand, we don't read that implication into the sentence, then the mention of the English practices is irrelevant.

(By way of analogy: "I disapprove of oil drilling in New Zealand despite it being widespread in North America" makes it sound like I'm fine with oil drilling in North America, which I can assure you I'm not.)

—VeryRarelyStable 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * (and then just as I post that, Gadfium comes along and says it much more succinctly in an edit summary. —VeryRarelyStable 04:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC))


 * It is fine to remove the daily mail as a source however cannibalism was widely practiced in Europe at the time including by members of clergy. "Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires: The History of Corpse Medicine" from the Renaissance to the Victorians clearly demonstrates this so a double standard was being applied.
 * further in regards to infanticide the change is not to reflect that a double standard is being applied but rather that the practice was common across the whole world and not unique to Maori which the article as written currently implies. Thatstheoneguy (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * further in regards to infanticide the change is not to reflect that a double standard is being applied but rather that the practice was common across the whole world and not unique to Maori which the article as written currently implies. Thatstheoneguy (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, I see you have repeatedly reverted other people's deletions of your edits. You appear to be fairly new to Wikipedia, so to let you know: this is called "edit warring", and it's the sort of behaviour that gets you blocked from editing. We've seen your edits, we disagree with them, now you need to make a case on this Talk page and convince us before putting them back again.
 * Second, as has been pointed out in an edit summary, your edit constitutes an inappropriate synthesis – that is, putting together information from different sources and drawing conclusions that the sources themselves don't. There is a rule about this too, at WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Thirdly, while I haven't seen Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires, I'm going to guess from the word mummies in the title that the "cannibalism" referred to is the use of powdered mummy as a medicine. Technically, yes, this is the ingestion of human remains, and therefore fits the strict definition of cannibalism. However, given that the remains in question were thousands of years old at the time of ingestion, it's very different from what most people think of when they hear the word "cannibalism". It didn't involve hunting living people down and killing them for the purpose, which is a rather critical difference in practice, at least from the point of view of the potential ingestees.
 * Finally, Wikipedia is not a place for moralizing or soapboxing or denouncing, even of subjects who richly deserve it. That would include asides drawing the reader's attention to the hypocrisy of some particular religious judgement. Wikipedia is a place for stating facts in plain language. The moral interpretation must be left to the reader.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 09:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Female slaves should not be described as "partners"
The section on slavery says: "Generally, only female slaves were kept as they were considered to be less of a threat and more useful as potato-farmers and as partners." It is grossly inappropriate to describe captive women who were raped as "partners". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.98.109 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Māori culture and Māori people and Māori history articles
There is quite a lot of crossover between the articles Māori culture and Māori people and Māori history. I am going to slowly do some edits to this article. I will edit for brevity including some uncited statements. I will edit to include more Māori authors and citations. I will edit to support more of a Māori world-view (in my Pākehā understanding) from academic and published references. I am also going to propose a restructure of the arts and entertainment section to support the Māori cultural perspective where art is holistic and intertwined with knowledge systems, including things such as health, food production and shelter. I will use this talk page before any major structural edits. Any thoughts by other editors on the crossover between the Māori culture and Māori people and Māori history articles? Pakoire (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Any guidance / discussion on length and what could be cut? Pakoire (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently the article is - Prose: Characters 80,270, Words 12,917, Sections 51 (from xtools). WP:CANYOUREADTHIS suggests 10,000 words takes 30 - 40 mins to read and sections could be moved to other articles. This article is a lot made up of information that is covered more specifically in other articles. I am going to trim for brevity with lots of saves so people can revert or discuss if there are differing onions, and over a week or so to allow response as this is a critical article with lots of traffic. From Wikipedia: Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the collective social behavior, institutions, and norms found in human societies, which includes the collective knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups. Pakoire (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Other traditional buildings / Architecture
Would 'Other traditional buildings' be better titled 'Architecture' and maybe go under 'Arts' (or be its own heading?)? Pakoire (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)