Talk:Māori electorates

message: On the establishment of the seats: a parliamentary research paper. Kahuroa (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source

message: According to its page, Hauraki was a general electorate. --Helenalex (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like that's an omission. See the article's talk page. Schwede66 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. Schwede66 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hauraki 

message: It's a nice and detailed article, but it severely lacks referencing. I've been weighing up between reassessing it as Start or C class, and have settled on C class. I've made a start improving things by introducing inline references in areas that I'm working in. Schwede66 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Is it true that "Surprisingly, only 40% of the potential population registered on the Māori roll"? There should be no assumption Maori would chose one way or the other. The use of the word "surprising" is possibly POV. I recommend instead either deleting the word, or saying that "contrary to the expectations of many".
I doubt that many Maori chosing to join a general role "reduced the number of calls for the abolition of Māori electorates, as many presumed that Māori would eventually abandon the Māori electorates of their own accord". I do not recall any such debate at the time. In fact this would be a reason to abolish the seats, since the fewer the number of Maori voters, the greater in inequality of numbers - the number of Maori voters per seat was considerably less then for general seats. The number of Maori seats has now been increased, further increasing the inequality.125.237.105.102 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Surprising" Maori not on Maori role? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Māori electorates. 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/20070429093638/http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/maori-vote.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/maori-vote.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527022404/http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/resultsdata/elections-dates-turnout.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/resultsdata/elections-dates-turnout.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)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I've just reverted this edit. It is historically incorrect to show macrons where they were never in use, e.g. the 1867 Maori Representation Act and the four original Māori electorates (Eastern, Western, Southern, Northern). I do not think that it is appropriate to introduce macrons where they were historically never in use. There are some general electorates where macrons were introduced and from that point onwards, it is appropriate to make use of them. Of those, Ōhāriu is an interesting case in point. First formed in 1978, one macron was introduced years later and the second one came later again. Schwede66 03:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , your edits are controversial. I've now reverted you twice and you have again introduced macrons to historical electorates that never had macrons. Could you please come to the talk page and engage in discussion? Schwede66 03:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair call. Does it undo the other changes I made? For exmaple to the MP's names that were spelt incorrectly? Tamathapaul (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , thanks for engaging in discussion. When an edit is "undone" by clicking a button, it undoes the whole edit. It would thus be best for you to go back and edit the electorate names but keep the name changes in place. If those names are indeed incorrect, we should also go through a process of fixing the title of the relevant articles. Again, that's not uncontroversial and the process to follow is Wikipedia:Requested moves. Let me know if you want a hand with that. For example, you could write the rationale and I could put forward the move request (if it all looks a bit daunting). Happy to give you a hand. Schwede66 04:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macrons 

message: I have noticed that in one of the longest section of the article, "Calls for abolition", there are only 10 sources cited in total. The information being presented is just being stated, without any ability for readers or editors to fact-check. There are clear dates and information stated, but where are they coming from?
- Sneeweed (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Open the article, click on the tab "View history" and click on one of the older versions (the first link of each line). Go forwards or backwards until you find the editor who added the content. Check the editor's contributions to see whether they are still active. If they are still active, ask them via their talk page (or this page; in that case use a ping) for their sources. Schwede66 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing