Talk:Michael King (historian)

message: Good work, there, contributors.
Query this line (where I suspect "The" should instead be "Tihei"):
*The mauri ora: Aspects of Maoritanga (1978)
:robinp 05:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the stub message. --gadfium 20:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Its a great shame that Micheal died so young as Im sure he would be now rewriting his history of NZ. Before 2000 historians like King tended to be the  guardians or gate keepers of historical information. Since then the net and Wikipedia have exploded the barriers to source material and we can see that many historians had significant blind spots. King was one of them. During his time in the Waikato he got very close to many Maori and came under their influence to a very large extent.It is interesting to see what aspects of NZ history King looked into in detail and those he basically ignored.
Maori cannibalism was a huge part of Maori tikanga that King essentially looked the other way. From memory he devotes about 1 sentence to it in an offhand way. King also gives quite inaccurate impression of the early contact between European explorers  and Maori. In King's history the Europeans are often portrayed as  the aggressors, whereas if you read the logs of Cook and his literate crew you can can see that the opposite is the case-ie Cook's men were simply defending themselves or responding to Maori aggression.Cook was very circumspect in using muskets as weapons. He fully realised the gap between his advanced culture and that of the Maori.
King also has a problem,to be charitable , in translating French. His version of the massacre of Marion du Fresne is a dog's breakfast and bares little resemblance to what actually happened at the time. These are just 2 examples of King's "Maori" weakness.It is no coincidence that they are both examples of the rewriting of actual events which show Maori  as stone age people with a very  violent culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not a forum for your views on Michael King. See WP:NOTFORUM. BlackCab (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael King's blind spots 

message: It is highly suspect that an IP user who has previously ranted about King's "blind spots" about Maori (see thread above) and claimed he ignored certain aspects of Maori culture has now added an extensive paragraph highlighting some criticism of Maori contained in his book. Is this a fair and balanced treatment of King's view toward a people he spent decades researching and writing about? I doubt it. The additional material appears to add undue weight and be a coatrack. BlackCab (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the book then eat your words. King wasn't attacking Maori he was attacking the romanticized view that SOME have  of their past culture. One important point I havent added is that SOME Maori saw a "conspiracy"to dilute the importance of iwi vs Maori as a whole - according to King they claimed that Maoritanga was a Pakeha invention designed to discredit iwi and destroy the focus on tribalism. King wrote that most Maori laughed at the idea of the spiritual and pure, romanticized Maori.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a long history of cherrypicking your quotes to promote your own agenda. I seriously doubt this accurately portrays King's complete view. I will read the book and I'm sure I'll catch you out as a liar as I've done before. You have zero credibility. BlackCab (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it must seem unreasonable to you when people try to put a brake on your agenda-pushing and cherry-picking and insist on appropriate sources for statements that diverge from orthodox historical documentation. Learn to work within Wikipedia's policies, particularly relating to WP:NPOV and WP:V. BlackCab (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: In the late 1900s the North Taranaki iwi, Ngati Mutanga, took a claim to the Waitangi treaty tribunal. It claimed nearly all of the Chatham islands as their own land. Michael King's research and arguments  on Moriori were instrumental in the  near total destruction of the  Ngati Mutunga case. The tribunal found that there was no Maori tikanga foundation for the invasion of the Chathams,the wide spread murdering of its inhabitants and the rape, torture and enslavement of the Moriori. Ngati Mutanga had argued that all of these things were normal tikanga in Maori society and culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you raising this here? This is not a forum for your opinions. BlackCab (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taranaki Iwi v King on Moriori 

message: I have no idea how to do this - I hope this is correct. I am Michael King's literary executor and I am deeply concerned about the factual inaccuracies on this page and the weight given to one part of a balanced chapter from one book that has been paraphrased and taken out of context. I tried to edit the page to revert back to an older version that didn't have mistakes and gave a more general overview of MK's career, but was given a warning that I had done something wrong and may be blocked. Please help me. I'm not sure who it is who has written this latest version, but considering the above comments, I am concerend that they may have an agenda they are trying to push through this page. I just would like it to go back to the old, factualy accurate version that was on Wikipedia before this person came along. Can anybody help me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.115.228 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised this issue back in January when the material was added, concerned that it had been taken out of context and that excessive emphasis was being placed on it. See Talk:Michael King#Undue weight. The editor who has added it has very strong views about some NZ historians and has a long history of agenda-pushing and I have spent an inordinate amount of time tracking down the sources he/she uses to support claims; some are accurate, some inaccurate, some are utterly wrong and mischievous. What are the factual inaccuracies you are concerned about? Are they in fact drawn from the book? BlackCab (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Can you also please conclude your comments with four tildes ((~~~~) which will automatically insert your signature and date? BlackCab (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The signature worked fine. Please continue to use those tildes at the end of your comments. You may also note at WP:TALK it is common practice here for the sake of clarity to indent your additional comments in a thread with the use of an increasing number of colons before your comment. I have removed the material you say is wrong plus additional material that seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia policies on original research. If King did make the comments about romanticising Maori history (as cited) it would seem relevant to the subject. But I'm open to discussion. BlackCab (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Could you also please remove the incorrect statement that he was living in a commmune in 1984 and the subsequent comment about his wife. Sorry this is all new to me! 121.73.115.228 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Also, he did make some comments about Maori history but I believe here they have been taken out of context of a whole book that examined a range of issues, and this paraphrasing does not faithfully represent the tone of the book. Undue weight, as you have identified. 121.73.115.228 (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Sorry - to clarify - I have an issue with the way it was before - your alterations are more accurate. Thank you.121.73.115.228 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it up to you to continue. Be wary of doing anything that looks like censorship or airbrushing history, particularly as you've declared a close interest in King's work. You should read WP:COI and make a careful assessment of whether this applies to you. You presumably have better sources than I do (please ensure they also comply with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources) so you may be in a good position to flesh out the article, adding material that would balance those rather intriguing comments about King and Maori rather than removing them. Also strongly consider creating an account, which will make your edits and comments rather more transparent. The last link provides further information on this. And welcome to Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If King has a Maori ancestor, which he himself claims in his writing (in some detail), then this must make him part Maori. Some of his relatives tried to hide the truth of this from King for many years and King had to do considerable digging to discover the truth. It was only a trip to England that gave him opportunity to find the relevant document. The information comes from the book written by his own daughter. Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the year, and rephrased the wording of the marriage break-up so it matches the source cited. There seems to be a history of factually inaccurate and negative edits to this article by anonymous editor(s), which is not on. Please cite sources for all statements, people, and make sure all coverage is fair and balanced. This page needs plenty of work, given King's stature as a writer and historian in New Zealand; it's High importance but only Start class. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please help?