This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
...is a tad normative, yeah? ...and it kinda implies agreement or organisational capacity over and above a broad commonality of desire or at worst just commonality of ethnicity? Perhaps it should be renamed Māori protest movements, so as not to give the impression that we have some sort of cognitive bias?Kripto 02:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just edited the first sentence of the article. Perhaps the entire first section could be clarified to be easier to understand? This is not a content issue, it would simply take someone to think about organization.
I noticed a reference to Donna Awatere's book, in an authoritative manner. Even though it links to her page, shouldn't we mention on this article that she is a convicted fraudster before taking anything she says seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.42.1 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that that's relevant, since the fraud happened twenty years or so after the book, and by that time she'd changed her mind about what she says in it. The page doesn't make any judgement as to the validity of the book's claims, it just gives the book as an example of a particular argument. --Helenalex 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the first sentence have "Maori" rather than "Māori"?
"Although New Zealand today is widely regarded internationally as having fair relations with its indigenous Maori peoples compared to its immediate neighbours" - read literally, this compares NZ Māori peoples with NZ's neighbours Māori peoples. If a comparison between indigenous peoples (not all Māori) of NZ and its neighbours is meant, then the word『Māori』does not actually belong here.
"Fair relations" is unhelpful, since "fair" can mean either "the opposite of unfair", or "average"; depending on which way the reader takes it, the sentence can take on two different complexions. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've made those changes, and also got rid of the 'immediate neighbours' reference. It clearly meant 'Australia' and should have said so, but the US is a good comparison too, so I've changed it to 'settler societies'. In future, feel free to make changes yourself. --Helenalex (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Maori TV count toward the developing trend of Maori Establishing things that have been a direct result of Maori Protest Movements? Or if not Maori Protest at least Maori recognition. If so is it mentioned here cause I couldn't see much and may add a section if its appropriate. Savre (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reassessed the article as Start class. The first half of the article is entirely unreferenced. If that could be addressed, it would assess higher than Start class quite easily. Schwede66 00:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of rambling about warrior culture and the musket wars and then straight into trying to have a separate Māori political system?
No mention of the Treaty??? - come on, we can do better than this. - Snori (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There was a lot of Māori protest using whatever means available. Agreeing to the treaty itself maybe was a form of protest? As a way of getting the English to govern themselves since they were causing problems. (Plus the Declaration of Independence). Post 1840 there are good court and letter records of Māori petitioning to have wrongs addressed. I will try to allocate some time to editing from some of my sources. Pakoire (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've nowedited to create what I believe is a better framing of the topic. In the process I've removed a couple of "true-but-not-really-relevant-here" items. - Snori (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the treaty was about *stopping* English colonisation (which at this point was being done by the NZ Company) - a month after signing Hobson set a military unit down to wellington to try to stamp a company settlement out; then a couple of years later Te Rauparaha gunned down Arthur Wakefield over NZ Company surveying - which action was *fully supported* by Gov Fitzroy as an explicit recognition of Māori domestic government under article 2.
Unfortunately colonists the Company had managed to settler her were close to rebellion; Edward Wakefield got Fitzroy recalled, and Company policy replaced Crown restrain.
and the rest, as they say, is white zealand... Jameskjx (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are peoples thoughts about expanding the article to include recent Toi Tū Te Tiriti activisms? Would the title better be pluralized as suggested a few years ago on this talk page? "Māori protest movements". Pakoire (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to how you see the scope of the page. Is it a clear, defined movement, of which the latest protests are a continuation, evolution or subset? Or is it just a descriptor for protests movements that are concerned with Māori interests? Personally, I read it as the former, and I do see the latest movement as part of that continued tradition. So I would extend the article, but I wouldn’t retitle it.
But I am going by my own impressions, and I don’t have sources to back that up. — HTGS (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
