Talk:Moriori

message: Claims that the Moriori were 'wiped out' by Maori are untrue.
:How does slaughtering, canabalising and enslaving a group does not count as wiping out? There is not one single full-blooded Moriori remaining as a consequence.
:: I agree with you, up to a point.  I do think the full-bloodedness (or the lack of it) argument is something of a red herring - where, for that matter, are the full blooded Angels, the full blooded Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, etc. that colonized England in ancient times?  Even without enslavement and genocide, intermarriage would have taken its course, as happens when any two cultures live in proximity for any length of time.  Having said that, I agree that what happened on the Chatham Islands was genocide.  David Cannon 12:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with David mostly. You seem confused. Although the Māori might have commited genocide in the modern definition, the Moriori still exist and so there is no way you can say they were wiped out by the Māori anymore then you can say the Aboriginal people were wiped out by the Australian European colonists or that the Māori were wiped out by the Pakeha colonists. Nil Einne 09:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiped out? 

message: From what I know, the Chatham didn't support many people (with the technology available to the Moriori).
Could you estimate how many Moriori lived there? Even roughly: hundreds? thousands?
*The Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal estimates around 2000 before the invasion with that figure falling by 90% by 1870. Alan 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: I've put this in the :Category:Maori, but it seems wrong there. Any suggestions? [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 09:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I shortened the convoluted sentence (partly my fault) about the origin and meaning of the word moriori. Kahuroa 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: origin of name

message: I've merged most of the content from Moriori of The Chatham Islands, a more recent article on the same subject. I'm not sure that what I've added is correct, or that I haven't missed something, so feel free to check. -- Avenue 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged article 

message: Would there be any value in changing "about 1500" to "between the ninth and sixteenth century"?
Matt (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrival

message: Do others think the Iwi template should be added? Not sure if its appropriate.
Matt (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems inappropriate to me. Doubtless the Moriori have their own internal tribal divisions, so that should go on first. Kahuroa (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Te Ara, Moriori have, or had, nine tribes of their own. I think it would be incorrect to consider the Moriori as an iwi. Aridd (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iwi table 

message: False. Many New Zealanders still believe this - trying not be racist - Maori have shut this hypothesis down, as they believe they were the first here. Of cause everything is down to belief and opinions - but what I'm trying to say is the hypothesis that Moriori exsisted is actually widely belived. CipherPixel (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections from getting rid of the statement? It is not really needed in the article CipherPixel (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should strengthen the statement to say "This story spread in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but was conclusively disproven from the 1960s." That some people still believe this is a good reason to explain that it's nonsense. It's also incorrect to suggest the Māori shut down the hypothesis - it was a Pakeha construct built over several Māori myths, and it is Pakeha historians who demonstrated that it is nonsense.-gadfium 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put gadfium. I agree it should be strengthened - I think some of edits over the last six months or so, probably well meaning, made things a bit ambiguous and even took out sources which were actually helpful. You're right that Pakeha historians shot it down, and lets not forget Pakeha, well Canadian, linguists like Ross Clark Kahuroa (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree CipherPixel (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This hypothesis is no longer widely accepted" 

message: I took this out: Māori may have developed as a variant of Moriori. Wrong, because Māori is the older word, which we know for sure because Māori as a word has cognates in other Polynesian languages and has been reconstructed to Proto-Polynesian as maqoli or maaqoli. Moriori does not which means it has to be the younger word.  Kahuroa (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Other Polynesian languages have maoli, maohi, and even maori (Cook Islands). The first Maori already had the word when they arrived. Aridd (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The Polynesian prefix faka- (Māori whaka-) appears in Moriori as hoko-, which indicates that a change in some cases of a > o is a feature of the Mōriori language. A change of *Māoriori to Mōriori is entirely consistent with this. Koro Neil (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Word origins

message: This article is dramatically biased.
The question of whether there were pre-Maori inhabitants of New Zealand is highly controversial current topic -- with the Maori-only camp periodically claiming the issue is completely settled in their favor, and anything to the contrary is debunked racism.
The question of the ethnic origins of the Moriori of the Chathams is also not settled -- they were clearly physically distinct from the Maori.
There are political and economic issues skewing the entire debate: the Maori base their moral claims on being "the" indigenous people of NZ, not one of several invading peoples; the present day Chatham Islanders who may be slightly of Moriori ancestry can claim coverage for the Chatham Islands under the Waitangi Treaty (with huge economic benefits) only if they are the "same people" as the Maori of mainland New Zealand with whom the treaty was negotiated.
Here's the giveaway: "It [the 'myth' of the Moriori] still appears sometimes in overseas publications, such as recent editions of Encarta". Clearly something appearing in a (non-political-activist-edited) encyclopedia is not "debunked" and needs to be discussed in a Wikipedia article neutrally and dispassionately.
:Sorry, but the evidence that Moriori are closely related to Māori is overwhelming. If you believe you have evidence that archaeologists have overlooked, please publish in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal, or cite such an article.-gadfium 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely Politically-Skewed Article 

message: Someone has added unsourced edits claiming that "They were systematically hunted and eaten by Maori on mainland New Zealand until they were wiped out there", and implying that such was the majority view of historians. I've reverted them, but this article may need to be patrolled from time to time to prevent unsourced opinions from being added in. Aridd (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confused. Nobody is saying the Moriori are "really Maori". They have developped a distinct culture, language and way of life, which is sufficient to make them a distinct people. (They have been seperate from the Maori for five centuries, longer than Pakeha of British descent have been seperate from the British; are you seriously suggesting that Pakeha are "really British", and hence that there is somehow no such thing as a New Zealander?) It has been established as fact that the ancestors of the Moriori were Maori who migrated to the Chathams. There was never any basis for the notion that the Moriori were pre-Maori inhabitants of New Zealand. Whether you think the Moriori's Maori ancestry "sucks" is utterly irrelevent. This isn't about my "point of view"; this is about fact. If somebody wants to "challenge" it, they'll need sources... which don't exist. Facts can't be altered just because they make people unhappy. Aridd (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on Arrid, especially re developing a distinct language. Moriori call the pigeon parea but  Kāi Tahu call it kererū. Hangon!   Ngā Puhi  call it kūkupa, so that would mean either Ngā Puhi or Kāi Tahu are not Māori , using 121.73.132.29's logic. (I don't do LOLs). Anyway, I whakapapa to Moriori but don't know any rellies who believe in the Moriori-wiped-out-by-Māori nonsense. Moriori (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There has certainly been debate amongst archaeologists about the time that Māori came to New Zealand. The current consensus seems to be around 1280 CE, but there is certainly a case to be made that there were earlier visits. What there is no credible evidence for is that there were a different people who inhabited New Zealand before Māori settlement. You are most welcome to provide such evidence. Any respectable peer reviewed journal would do, or any reasonable recent book by a reputable historian. If no one has published such material, perhaps you should be submitting your material to the journals. Come back when you have such reliable sources.-gadfium 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced edit 

message: So this is your first academic source, traditions are not always historically accurate, so no, you can’t validate a tradition if it describes something that didn’t actually happen. If the tradional belief is accurate then archaeology can be used to validate it.
Campbell, Matthew (2008), "The historical archaeology of New Zealand’s prehistory"
“Her specific concern was the expectations that the claimants may have had of archaeology, that it could be used to validate tradition. She concluded that generally archaeology and tradition refer to two very different understandings of the past, and neither can be used to validate the other, nor to disprove the other, though local tradition can provide a useful framework for interpreting archaeology.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortt (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  academic source 

message: Recent posting by 60.234.131.163 reverted, raised some concerns about the rejection of the hypothesis of a racially distinct pre-Maori Moriori people: 
:There is concern however that virtually all the evidence used to support that conclusion arises from Maori sources, and is therefore biased by the Maori cultural need to view themselves as the original inhabitants, and a possible deliberate obliteration of any competing claim. Although this may seem unlikely, the behaviour of the Maori when encountering the Moriori in the Chathams would exactly be a pattern of behaviour that would have, if not observed by others, have lead to a virtual extinction of any Moriori people on mainland New Zealand including removal of any evidence of such a population. All evidence used for the Moriori on the Chathams as being a relativel late Maori migration from New Zealand, such as the similarity of the language, can equally be read as the cultural fragments that Maori absorbed from the exterminated Moriori during a period of slavery and extinction of them on New Zealand. There also remain a few difficult questions, such as why the Maori developed so differently from their believed ancestors in a relatively short period between their arrival and the arrival of Europeans, unless there was an external element such as interaction with a different culture, and several Maori folk tales that relate to the existence on inhabitants on New Zealand at their arrival, the description of who is a surprisingly close match to what little is known of Moriori.
I reverted this as unsourced etc, but it might be worth a comment here. Snori (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be obvious OR with an overt bias to push. Doesn't reflect the known facts or consensus at all.121.74.228.150 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah, whatever. Wiki talk pages aren't the place to argue your theories. As you have been told endless number of times, Wiki articles rely on verifiable, reliable, published sources. Your own opinions are unimportant and irrelevant. Start a blog and spout away there. BlackCab (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: There are two points I would like clarified. 1. The invasion and genocide of the Moriori appears to have been British planned using local Maori to cop the blame, I say that as a person of British descent. 2. The race and origin of Moriori can be easily determined by dna testing, this article seems very short on facts and evidence, and long on speculation. 121.73.23.138
:You are welcome to produce evidence re British motivation, and re DNA testing, and add it to the article. You will need references, not opinion. Moriori (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no evidence or suggestion that the British planned the genocide of the Moriori. Given that the slaughtering of the Moriori by Ngati Mutunga happened in 1835, at a time when the British did not yet actually want to colonise New Zealand (the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand of 1835 was an attempt by the British to keep the French away without Britain having to annex New Zealand themselves), the notion you put forward is absurd. Aridd (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

text: You need evidence for such a claim yourself. The fact that you yourself are of British descent is not such evidence - for example, it is very far from unheard of for a certain trendy righteousness to be felt among some of British descent to claim the British are to blame for everything they possibly can. Perhaps you are not one of those: if you have actual evidence of this, you're welcome to include it. Harsimaja (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chathams genocide 

message: I can see no reason to include the fact that it has been novelised in the sections dealing with history. If somebody wants to include this fact, then they can create a section about this in popular culture. Until then it'll be deleted. Permanent Student (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah I tend to agree.  If it comes back it needs to be properly referenced too. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cloud Atlas

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moriori. 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/20160123025254/http://www.education-resources.co.nz/t-solomon.htm to http://www.education-resources.co.nz/t-solomon.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/reports/downloadpdf.asp?ReportID=%7BDC857EB5-2849-43AE-8F86-B804058D0899%7D
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) 22:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moriori. 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/20081219194517/http://www.library.otago.ac.nz/pdf/2008_Reference%20Missionary%20guide.pdf to http://www.library.otago.ac.nz/pdf/2008_Reference%20Missionary%20guide.pdf
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) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I got King, 2000 and Richards, 2018 (both called Moriori) out from the libaray and will be cleaning up a few things. I hope to add a bit more to the European contact section. Should not be anything controversial. Any problems let me know. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  King and Richards  

message: Thanks for the revert and explanation today by user:VeryRarelyStable. I ran a quick search on google scholar and got 789=maori "classical period" , and 508=maori "classic period". Thinking about it, to me classic period would fit better than classical period. The words do have different meanings so I am now assuming that the majority of authors in google scholar have confused the meanings or have copied 'classical' from another text without checking, which I did. The use of 'classical' for other periods' in history, eg Greek, adds to the confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  classic v classical