Talk:Māori history

"History" section at "Māori people"
This is worth a look. It began as a complete copy of this, and most of the subsequent work has been in trimming it down, but there have been some useful additions and wording changes that might well be incorporated here. - Snori (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Treaty with the British Crown (1840)
"The Treaty of Waitangi" is a collective noun describing the 1840 document, it isn't a treaty in its usual meaning. Therefore, the sub-heading is misleading, if not wrong, in calling it a treaty out of context. When it is called a treaty in NZ society, which is extremely often, it is always in context as meaning "The treaty (of Waitangi)". I suggest that context is not there in this subsection title, hence it could easily be taken as meaning a treaty with the usual meaning. I suggest changing it to "Formal Agreement with the British Crown in 1840". Or, just add "...of Waitangi". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m not certain the current section head—Treaty of Waitangi with the British Crown (1840)—really solves the problem you are getting at. Do you think just Treaty of Waitangi (1840) would work? By that point in the article the context of “with whom” should be quite evident for many readers, and those who haven’t followed the foreshadowing will quickly figure it out in reading that section. (Of course we also don’t need to worry about the large number of readers who already know what the Treaty of Waitangi is.) — HTGS (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with your suggested change. Thinking about it again, the word 'treaty' does mean 'agreement' and was probably used with that looser meaning in 1840 that nowadays is a bit old fashioned (where we would now use it to mean a more formal contract). I suppose we don't really need to clarify it unless the context would otherwise be confusing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Historic sections
A time period is usually broken into subsections based on a significant turning point. Using Tasman's visit is misleading if not wrong. As far as I know it made no relevant difference, to Maori or to Europeans. Cook's visit in 1769 is quite different. I've tweaked the other dates too. There might have to be some minor adjustment to the overall text as a result of the changed dates. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree with you, I'm not sure that this is something that we should be deciding by ourselves. What do reliable sources have to say about this? PatricKiwi (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)