Talk:Māori people

Maori spelling in lead sentence

My (seemingly harmless) addition of the spelling "or Maori" in the lead sentence was repeatedly removed, and I would like to know why. According to WP:OTHERNAMES, various names commonly used for the topic in question are to be mentioned in the lead sentence, or if that would make that sentence too long, in a separate section. That also applies to spelling variants – the article on behavior mentions that it might also be spelled behaviour, organization gives organisation as alternative name, etc.

The same clearly applies to the word Māori/Maori, which has two common spellings in modern English (with or without the macron). Both are widely used, both are listed in dictionaries, and which one any specific publication or author uses is very much a "house style" issue. So why not acknowledge that both spellings exist in the lead sentence, and then move on and use the spelling Māori throughout the rest of the article (as is already the case)? As I understand it, this is something we must do – OTHERNAMES is part of a policy, it's not something that can be ignored for any given article because a few editors decide that they don't like the alternative spelling. Gawaon (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a second correct spelling: Maaori, and the incorrect spelling Maori, which is rarely seen in formal writing in New Zealand, is used at least in the United States, so I suggest putting these two spellings in a footnote rather than inline.-Gadfium (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the spelling Maaori listed in English dictionaries? Maori certainly is, for example in Merriam-Webster. So it's not "incorrect" in any meaningful sense of the word. Gawaon (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an article on a New Zealand-centred topic and hence uses New Zealand English. In New Zealand English, the present standard is to use macrons for Māori words.

Māori language and its use is a political issue in New Zealand right now, witness the incoming Government's removal of the Māori names from government organizations; which means there are potential WP:NPOV issues. And WP:NPOV trumps matters of style or "common usage".

—VeryRarelyStable 21:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I already mentioned, OTHERNAMES comprises all varieties of English, not just the one in which the specific article is written. So even if all dictionaries of NZ English agreed that Māori is the only correct spelling (do they?? I somehow doubt that – but I'm certainly no expert), that wouldn't matter, since other spellings are used, at the very least, in other English-speaking countries, and those matter too. The article behavior happens to be written in American English, but it must still mention the alternative spelling (incorrect from the American viewpoint) in its lead sentence. And so must we. As for POV, it seems to rather veer into POV territory to pretend that only one of the several widespread spellings is the "correct" one – without even being able to explain what should be "incorrect" about the other. Gawaon (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is specific to New Zealand, and is written in New Zealand English, in which there are two correct spellings of the word: "Māori", and "Maaori". "Maori" is an incorrect spelling. I have quickly checked another article specific to another nation, and written in that national variety of English in which the normal English spelling of the word is considered incorrect, Pearl Harbor, and nowhere on that page does the international English spelling of the word, "Harbour", appear. We should try to be at least vaguely consistent in our treatment of words of which the spelling differs in other varieties of English in articles specific to that variety. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So the Maori Language Act 1987 has a typo? —Panamitsu (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's just obsolete. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So the government has changed its usage, but how does that make the other spelling "incorrect"? The government doesn't determine "correct" English in any English-speaking country I know of, and neither does English have an "Academy" that could determine what's right or wrong. Dictionaries are important indicators of language usage, but ultimately they just document it – they follow usage and thereby also help shaping it, but they too can't just arbitrarily decide. So what's the source of your claim that Māori and Maaori are "correct" NZ English, while Maori is now "incorrect", when it clearly wasn't a few decades ago? Aren't you just in "I don't like it" territory here? Gawaon (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So how to proceed from here? Nobody has yet made a convincing argument why WP:OTHERNAMES should be ignored for this article, and frankly I doubt that such an argument could be made. So what do to? I'd say: As long as we know only of two spellings that are widely used in contemporary English and listed in dictionaries (Māori and Maori), let's simply give them both the lead sentence. So I'll readd "or Maori" in a few days, unless somebody comes up with a better suggestion. It's just two words more and certainly not something that should give anyone sleepless nights.

If there were three or more spellings sufficiently frequent to deserve mention, then I would agree with Gadfium that an explanatory note would probably be the better place for the alternative spellings, so as not to clutter the lead sentence. But the spelling Maaori seems very much a minority variant, used by a few institutions, but generally very rare and not listed in any major dictionaries, as far as I could determine. So, unless somebody knows otherwise, that leaves us with the simple "Māori or Maori" solution suggested above. Gawaon (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you would have to add "or Maori in the United States" (with your dictionary reference), but I think it is not necessary unless the macron causes confusion to Americans.-Gadfium (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

To repeat: WP:NPOV is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and trumps lesser policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES. Māori usage, including macrons, is a political issue at present. (Some time soon someone needs to add the recent Parliamentary changes to Māori language; I can do it if no-one else wants to, but it's not high on my priority list and my energy is a limited resource just now.) Because of WP:NPOV, Wikipedia must not be seen to support the "drop the macrons" side of the question. Since there is little risk of confusion, and since "Maori people" redirects to this article, I'm not seeing the urgency for change. —VeryRarelyStable 02:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV means that we must not support any side, if sides there are, and so show all the spellings that are currently in use. If we use just one spelling, even if arguing "well you can guess that the other one exists", we are taking sides, and we shouldn't. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Common usage does not, by itself, make an error not an error. Mischievious, alot, and their for they are are all errors in English despite their frequency. The political question is whether Māori standards apply to Māori words in English; whether such words are (so to speak) borrowed or stolen; who decides what counts as correct usage. To offer a spelling which is an error in Māori, without acknowledgement that it is an error, is to come down on the side of the question that answers those questions, respectively, as "no", "stolen", and "Pākehā do." A NPOV stance would be to give the spelling while acknowledging that it is an error: "(commonly misspelled as Maori)" or some such phrasing.

—VeryRarelyStable 08:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

But that's nonsense, and I think you know it. English and Maori are two different languages, each with its own vocabulary, grammar, and spellings rules. Is it an error to use "Portuguese" instead of português, "Indonesian" instead of (Bahasa) Indonesia, "Turkish" instead of Türkçe? Are Maori wrong when they talk about reo Ingarihi instead of "English"? No, of course not! Words usually change their spelling and pronunciation when migrating from one language into another. If you argue "because it's incorrect in Maori, it must be incorrect in English too", you are postulating that English and Maori shouldn't be two different languages at all, but just a single language. But wouldn't that be terribly boring? If you want to argue "that's incorrect in Maori", you must argue on the basis of Maori grammar, dictionaries, and spelling rules – English grammar and spelling rules are simply irrelevant here. And the same, only reversed, is true if you want to argue "that's incorrect in English". Gawaon (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, it's te reo Pākehā, not te reo Ingarihi.

Second, the question is not whether this is a correct stance to take, but whether it is a politically neutral stance to take. The answer is no.

There certainly do exist examples of Māori words being borrowed into English and changing in the normal way; examples include taboo (from tapu), matagouri (from tūmatakouri), biddybid (from piripiri), and cockabully (from kokopū). This is a very different situation from, say, kaimoana, waka, or for that matter tapu, which have entered the English language not as new English words but as Māori words, specifically referring to Māori cultural items.

The phrase je ne sais quoi has entered the English language, but it is still a French phrase, and the correct pronunciation is the French pronunciation. The phrase Homo sapiens has entered the English language, but it is still a Latin phrase, and it is incorrect to mis-singularize it to "Homo sapien". In these cases, the rules of the language of origin still apply.

With Māori words, including Māori, there is the added complication of the politics of decolonization, which, regardless of what position you or I may take on it, is a live political issue on which Wikipedia needs to remain neutral.

—VeryRarelyStable 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, which also means we should remain neutral regarding the question of whether or not to add those macrons. Let's just check and document what the major (English-language) dictionaries say. Regarding te reo Pākehā and te reo Ingarihi – well, the Maori Wikipedia lists both, and they should know, shouldn't they? Gawaon (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to remain neutral as to correct usage. You will find the word bicep in the Cambridge Dictionary, but it doesn't appear in the Wikipedia page for Biceps, because it's an error: a superfluous singular for an already singular Latin word misread as an English plural.

What we need to remain neutral to, and acknowledge both sides of, is live political disputes. One such dispute is over the correct usage of Māori words in English; the most common arena is the pronunciation of place-names, but the use of macrons in print is close behind. This is part of the larger debate over the status of Māoritanga in the modern world.

One side of this dispute has a habit of seeing itself as the default, neutral position, and their opponents as making a big fuss over nothing. There are many other political disputes of which this is true, and they are all still political disputes. Actually maintaining NPOV in such cases does not mean siding with the ones who think of themselves as neutral.

Ko te kupu Pākehā te ingoa Māori mō mātou ko ngā tāngata tauiwi nō Ūropi kua whakataiwhenua Aotearoa, me ō mātou reo hoki. Ko ngā Ingarihi ngā Pākehā kua noho kei muri, kei Ingarangi.

—VeryRarelyStable 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon: I would suggest avoiding this argument as it has been thoroughly discussed before, and consensus was that the macrons are part of New Zealand English.

The real issue here is that it is sometimes spelt without a macron, and that is usually by foreigners (Google for example), but also within New Zealand, which is on a decline, so I don't think it really matters. As mentioned before, I think "Maori" could be explained with a footnote, just like how we do with "Gaol" in Jail, despite "Gaol" being a considerably rare spelling. I do think mentioning a decline in the macronless name is of encyclopaedic value, as in 100 years time, people might not realise that it was more common to omit the macron. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, all right. I'll add the explanatory footnote. Gawaon (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would in general advocate for omitting alternate spellings that are just "drop all the diacritics", since they're so obvious that readers are unlikely to be confused/enlightened based on their exclusion/inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is also an issue of WP:NOTDICT. Māori and Maori aren't going to be confused like how Māui and Maui may be, where Māui is also spelt Maui, but Maui is also the island in Hawaii.

Using the spelling Māori appears to have only become widespread in the past decade, which I think is a strong point for inclusion, but I'm neutral on the matter. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Pākehā vs Europeans

15 instances of "Pākehā" including two where the term is defined, and 13 instances of "Europeans". Can we try for consistency with some sort of rationale as to which term is used and in what contexts? Currently it seems somewhat random.----Pontificalibus 08:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The randomness is intended, I think. The idea is not to rely on just one, as both are synonyms (but the former more usual in NZ English, the latter elsewhere). Gawaon (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Some say the Maori were the first to discover antarctica"

this seems like an outlandish claim. Is this based on any credible evidence, or is it a pseudohistorical claim that should not be given undue weight in this article? 100.16.156.64 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This statement is openly avowed to be speculation and is supported by four references. —VeryRarelyStable 23:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

troubling (potentially racist) ethnonationalistic gatekeeping.

Māori are intermixed, that's obvious even to the most ethnonationalists. so why does it trouble certain nudists that's it's mentioned in the article about Māori? Potentially, nearly half of Māori ancestors are non Māori. erasing them is more than problematic. ```` 2A02:2F0C:C217:8100:B9E8:E32D:1311:4BFD (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

First of all, personal attacks will get you nothing but an editing block.

Secondly, describing Māori as "mixed" presumes that there is such a thing as "unmixed" or "pure" Māori-ness, as if one's ethnicity were watered down by having ancestors of different origins. This concept was abandoned by anthropologists in the mid-20th century. I am not the less a New Zealander for the fact that one of my parents is from the United Kingdom.

Muddying the water somewhat, it is true that sometimes population geneticists, as a shorthand, will refer to (for example) "Gaelic DNA" or "Viking DNA", rather than spell out, time and time again, the fact that some genetic markers are more frequent in one population than another. That doesn't mean that having "Gaelic DNA" is what makes one Gaelic. Gaelic-ness, like Māoritanga, is inherited through culture, not DNA. DNA just comes along for the ride. This scientific consensus is, again, at least half a century old.

It is true that DNA from disparate populations has been mingled more in recent years than formerly, thanks to the increasing ease of international travel. It is not true that one can extrapolate that trend back into the past and reach a time – ever – when the rate of admixture was zero or anywhere near it. People have always travelled and met people from other places.

It is therefore meaningless to remark that one particular population is, at present, of "mixed" ancestry. Every human population on Earth has always had mixed ancestry.

Now I did check, and I don't see any sign of anyone recently making similar edits about the "mixed" ancestry of European New Zealanders. Singling out an indigenous population to describe as "mixed", while making no mention of the "mixed"-ness of the colonial population, smacks of blood quantum regardless of whether it is dressed up in quasi-genetic pseudoscience.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

that's you opinion. as it is highlighted in the article Under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, a Māori is defined as "a person of the Māori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person", replacing an earlier legal application based on an arbitrarily defined "degree of Maori [sic] blood

Viking is an occupation. and articles like Icelanders do highlight the fact that their population is mixed. It's literally in the lead. so there is wiki precedence.

so? the more relevant to highlight diverse backgrounds becomes.

it's not meaningless. just ask the cape coloreds, in south africa or blacks in america. peoples heritages do influence their lives. the fact that their connected through DNA doesnt negate that fact.

that's because anyone with Māori ancestry is counted as Māori. which i did come across is some articles

And nudist doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Blood quantum is no longer taken seriously. If you're concerned about breeding go and edit articles about racehorses. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

heritage is important. you trying to minimize it to horse breeding shows how bigoted and racist you are.

Cut out the insults and cut out the edit warring. You've already made at least four revert edits today because nobody else thinks your point is worth making - the next time you revert the first administrator who notices it could well decide to block your IP from contributing. Try to make a coherent case for adding blood quantum to the article and, if nobody else agrees with you, you just have to live with it not being included and go and find another article to edit. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

blood quantum has nothing to do with New Zealand. it's an american issue

also added to the article Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, a Māori is defined as "a person of the Māori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person"