Talk:Māori language

Short description

The previous short description was correct, as I discussed on my talk page:

• Polynesian language spoken in New Zealand

Other languages with previous versions are also correct:

• Hawaiian language – Polynesian language spoken in Hawaii
• Rapa Nui language – Polynesian language spoken in Easter Island

Absolutiva 00:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

See my edit summary. The word 'spoken' is one of those words that has different meanings in different situations and it is therefore difficult to create guidelines for its use. Although there are people who do speak the language as their main language this happens in isolated communities, not in public, where the speakers use English. Trying to point to media use of the language to show the language is naturally spoken in public is wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I hear the language spoken in public much more often than I hear it spoken in media. However the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". For reliable sourcing on the number of speakers of the language see census data.

Te reo Māori is an Eastern Polynesian language spoken in Aotearoa / New Zealand, to which it is indigenous. Instead of edit warring try to condense that sentence into a suitable style and then add it as the short description. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

How about Polynesian language in New Zealand? Absolutiva 05:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"Polynesian language of New Zealand" would be less ambiguous (many other Polynesian languages are spoken here). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

If this discussion is more about the short description of the maori language, I think it almost does not need a short description. However, if one is needed, because 'maori' does not (eg maoriland) describe a place, such as French or Welsh, and because even if it did the language could be spoken elsewhere, eg German in Austria, the that description must be very short and nowhere near as opinionated as the bolded description above. "A language indigenous to New Zealand" is sufficient. We don't need its language group, whether it is spoken naturally, whether it is extinct, moribund or dead, if it is spoken outside NZ or anything else. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not see that it is logically possible to compose a sentence about te reo Māori that does not sound "opinionated" to someone who finds the above, strictly factual and descriptive, sentence "opinionated".

I note the most recent edit summary on the article (I have never, I mean NEVER, heard maori [sic] spoken naturally in public in NZI). I would query how this editor discerns whether te reo is being spoken "naturally" or not? If one assumes, as an axiom, that it is never spoken "naturally", then upon hearing it spoken one will conclude that it is being spoken "unnaturally" – whatever that might mean. However, this assumption on one listener's part conveys no pertinent evidence about the facts.

I am baffled as to the relevance to this discussion of the fact that the word "Māori" does not refer to the (English) name of a place. If the early European settlers had adopted a name like "Neozelandese" for te reo – analogously to "Welsh" for Cymraeg or "German" for Deutsch – what fact of the language itself would have been pertinently changed?

—VeryRarelyStable 06:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess by "spoken naturally" he means that it's used everyday, widely in public across the country?

Also, speaking as a fellow kiwi, just relying on personal anecdotes for an edit like this is incredibly shaky ground. Not everyone in this country lives in the same way or speaks the same language, and none of us can speak in terms this broadly about spoken languages. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear what you, VRS, are saying, if indeed you are trying to say anything. There are plenty of examples where whole population groups are brainwashed into thinking something about the present based on misguided interpretations of the past. That is the situation in NZ now regarding Maori issues. Most, but not all, editors here are in that category: they cannot see the wood for the trees. They squirm when they hear that the quality of life now of the average Maori is vastly superior to what it was before European contact and they scurry around looking for reasons to counter that obvious fact, such as pointing to the 19th century Maori population decline due to Western diseases. Speaking Maori naturally means two people walking down the street or sitting in a cafe chatting between themselves in Maori, with no intention of addressing a wider audience. It does not mean somebody standing up on stage at the start of a conference and speaking for 30 seconds in Maori, fluent or not, while everyone sits politely waiting for him or her to sit down so the main business of the meeting can begin, in English. Tokenism is not natural. Not understanding what 'speaking naturally' means is just one example what happens to people subjected to social brainwashing. The debate on changing this blinkered view of reality has finally begun in the corridors of power and what course it will take only time will tell. However, we can play our part by not letting warped ideas of reality, backed by low quality sources, spread into Wikipedia. When we see agenda based tokenism appear, such as writing "..in Aotearo - New Zealand.." instead of "..in New Zealand...", we must challenge it! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What I'm confused about is if you're so against the word "spoken" based on your anecdotes, why have you re-added it to the short description? ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"When we see agenda based tokenism appear(...)we must challenge it!" This is an encyclopaedia, not a place to soapbox against the Maori language, "Maori living standards" (???) or the word "Aotearoa" (?????). You personally being annoyed at what you see as tokenism isn't the universal consensus. People casually chatting in Maori still happens all the time even if you don't personally see it (again, your anecdotes aren't evidence). Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You have not yet explained what part of the highlighted summary - which I constructed to be as comprehensive and concise as possible while sticking strictly to the facts - could possibly be considered "opinionated". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Absolutiva: I just followed that link back to the talk thread I started on your Talk page. I don't see any discussion of the matter; you just stated As I correct before [sic] with my previous revisions, so I decided to change back, with no explanation of why you concluded you were correct. —VeryRarelyStable 06:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Native Schools Act 1867

The text objected to is "The Native Schools Act 1867 established a schooling system for Māori children, in which the school was only funded if it taught in English whenever possible.". The Native Schools Act 1867 reads

No school shall receive any grant unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Colonial Secretary by the report of the inspector or otherwise as the Colonial Secretary shall think fit that the English language and the ordinary subjects of primary English education are taught by a competent teacher and that the instruction is carried on in the English language as far as practicable —Article 21.

That's pretty clear. Of course we would not consider an 1867 work to be a reliable source on a scientific topic; but it is long-established Wikipedia policy that a work is a reliable source as to its own contents, and that would include an Act of Parliament. It would be a different matter if this were a manuscript whose authorship or canonical version was in dispute; but it's not, it's a statute in the law books.

The edit summary of the edit to which I am responding adds "I suggest ignoring if possible everything about this so-called school banning of maori we see in the media and just look at the facts in quality RSSs." Something tells me that "quality RSSs" are defined as those which confirm this particular editor's point of view. We cannot wish away past injustices for present political convenience, and to attempt to do so is to breach WP:NPOV. I will restore the previous state of the article tomorrow if there is no cogent reason adduced for removing this content.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

First, this article is about the language, not 19thC. politics. Second, why have you added the second half of that sentence? It gives undue weight to the supply of money to Maori schools - that is only a small section in a much wider act setting up the schools. The final part 'whenever possible' is a two word summary of what the act says about the practicalities of getting English speaking teachers. There is nothing here dealing with the background to this act, such as the request by many Maori that their kids learned to speak English. I do not dispute that the act promoted the use of English but I do dispute its intention was to suppress, ban or exterminate the wider use of Maori, which is what this subsection and your wording is implying. So, you place one view on what the act means, and I place another view. Finally, the schools were not 'only funded if they taught in English' - the payment of a grant was simply a method of encouraging the use of English in the classroom which was the general intent but there were exceptions with governor discretion, as noted in the act. About forgetting everything you read or hear in the media - yes, look at sources, objectively. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd gone directly to the act because you objected to the previous version which more loosely mentioned the banning of Māori in schools and cited an opinion piece from RNZ. I thought that citing an official act of parliament would be a good enough source, and a compromise since it's not claiming that the language was banned, it's just explaining the context that the schools were operating in.

And Roger, the article is about the language, which includes the history of the language, which includes its being actively suppressed. That's not about politics.

I am going to restore my edit. Stop edit warring Roger.

TreeReader (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Look, you don't get it. You sound like a year 9 student - are you? Don't revert unsourced detail validly removed without supplying a RSS (which statute is not). You should know better. This is an encyclopedia in which content is added conservatively. That means preferring unconested fact over contested interpretation of that fact. The one presumably uncontested fact about this act is that it promoted the use of the English education system (which, not surprisingly, included instruction in English). That is all we should insert when we only have the act as a source. Anything else involves editorial opinion which we must avoid. Remember, Wikipedia is not a platform for ranting on about the latest alleged example of Maori misfortune. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I know that content is added conservatively and that we have strict rules about sources. That is why I accepted your reasoning that an article by our state broadcaster was not a good enough source since it was an opinion piece, so I provided the initial source - an Act of Parliament - instead. I offered no contestable interpretation of fact but did try to make my addition concise. Would you prefer that we just quote the whole paragraph from the Act instead of any rewording?

(and no, I'm not a year 9 student, but no personal attacks please). TreeReader (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No insult intended. IMO your sentence was better than before, but it did not solve the problem. When you write one sentence to summarise a whole act and to summarise all the social and political issues that were happening back then, you have to be very careful, because all we see is that one sentence, so what is says is everything. In other words, due weight is unlikely to be given. You should have a deeper and broader knowledge of what was happening and then carefully construct your one sentence to summarise it properly with correct weighting. However, IMO this is the wrong place for that because this article is about the language. This so-called problem with the schooling is only one part of the actual point that can be made here, namely the decline in Maori speakers after European contact. And that point, IMO warrants no more than three or four lines here. Why don't you spend time making this article more balanced by taking out large chunks of tangential text that has been added ad hoc over time. If you are not a linguist then leave the stuff about the actual language to somebody else who is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

An article about the language will also cover the history of it in some form, this shouldn't be a controversial statement. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for ranting on about the latest alleged example of Maori misfortune. If you're gonna (rightfully, for the record) not want agendas being pushed on this site, don't push your own views in ways like this, it makes other editors take you less seriously. If you're saying this kinda thing while also trying to remove historical details that would show the 19th century colonial NZ government in a negative way, assumptions by editors about you and your views will be made. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

If I have an agenda it is to remove others' agenda based edits. I might throw in some over dramatic language at times, and I accept your point that this might make some people less interested in reading further, but the underlying serious message is always there. You clearly have not read or understood my previous comments. You say - "...while also trying to remove historical details that would show the 19th century colonial NZ government in a negative way,..." This is where I sigh, if not despair. What evidence shows the then colonial govt in a negative way? Negative way means doing something intentionally wrong based on the values of the day, not based on today's values. What was the intent of what the then govt was doing that was intentionally wrong? What happened then happened, with unforeseen and unforeseeable future consequences. Just accept that and report it like that without reporting it with the world's current values in mind. What the evidence shows is that the colonial govt intentionally tried to educate Maori kids, to bring them out of their illiterate primitive existence. There are many, very many, people who would say the then colonial govt was far more enlightened in its treatment of its indigenous population than in other parts of the world, but that is often conveniently overlooked by many editors here who only consider what was on yesterday's TV news. Back to this article - Of course it should contain some general non-linguistic information. But, not more than a general overview - the detail about 19th century schools is better suited for other articles. Compare the English language article - it would and should mention Shakespeare, but it should not dwell in any depth at all on off topic detail about theatres in Elizabethan England. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You can talk all you want about "values of the day" but you can and should document what the colonial government actually did, and that's not "reporting it with the world's current values in mind".

Also, "illiterate primitive existence"? And "there are many, very many, people who would say the then colonial govt was far more enlightened in its treatment of its indigenous population than in other parts of the world"? Again the bias you're pushing here is so clearly historical whitewashing that I just can't take you seriously.

And I would say that Maori kids not being taught the Maori language in schools is very much relevant to the history of the language. No, it doesn't have to be super-detailed, but it should be mentioned since an entire generation not being taught it for the sake of colonial assimilation would be relevant to any language's history, including this one. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. —VeryRarelyStable 09:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. The problem is this article has gone off track and is full of non-relevant detail. In that sense it is not unlike many other articles that should be and occasionally are, heavily trimmed. In my view, much of that unnecessary detail loosely relates to information circulating in society about maori matters. Best, IMO, is simply to remove most of this unnecessary detail. What has happened is squabbling over specific detail in one sentence within this wider chunk of unnecessary detail, which is pointless. Look at the list of subsections at the start of the article. I suggest that list is restructured to give more prominence to the language itself. (So, for example, its official status is not the first thing readers encounter.) Is such a re-arrangement disputed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

About the sentence in question - editors are forgetting some basic rules. The 1867 act is a primary source. It should not be used as a secondary source which is what is happening. Either find a secondary source (a quality one, not the local rag) to put next to the primary source (which will then be a reference to the secondary source), or remove the primary source (my suggestion is to put it in external links). The sentence will then be without a source and can be removed. That is quite simple and cannot be disputed. My original change was to do half the job - I left in one pretty neutral sentence and left the act as a reference. Perhaps I should have simply removed it all? Remember, if you want any mention of that act, get a quality RSS, otherwise it disappears. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is this article has gone off track and is full of non-relevant detail.

What non-relevant detail? What is non-relevant about the history of the language and its status?

In my view, much of that unnecessary detail loosely relates to information circulating in society about maori [sic] matters.

This is difficult to decipher. What "information", how is it "circulating in society", how is it "about Māori matters", and how does the detail you are objecting to "loosely relate" to it? And why would information about "Māori matters" be irrelevant to an article on the Māori language?

The 1867 act is a primary source.

And primary sources are perfectly acceptable as sources for descriptions of their own content, which is what it is being used for here. If we were to add information about how the Act was enforced or what its direct impact was on the educational system, we would need secondary historical sources. We don't need that in order to simply state what the Act unambiguously said.

(a quality one, not the local rag)

Is this a reference to our official national broadcast service, from which we had a secondary source which you also removed on the basis that – what was it? – it was an opinion piece? You do know opinion pieces in news media are fact-checked like news articles, don't you?

Could you give an example of a source that you would accept as a reference for this information?

Remember, if you want any mention of that act, get a quality RSS, otherwise it disappears.

Remember, Wikipedia works by consensus.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus does not override wiki policy, so we cannot simply make up the rules as we go. Consensus is a way of ironing out different approaches to editing within the rules, specifically wiki policy.

The primary topic of this article is the language: its place in the language tree; its language group and sub-group, location where spoken; etc. There is room for non-language specific detail, but that should be kept to a minimum. Eg, the way the language started and the way its native speaker population declined. All that should be no more than a couple of subsections - with re-directs to the relevant articles that deal with it in more detail. If you don't understand that then so be it.

Primary sources should not be used, period, and certainly not to confirm anything that is even very slightly contested. The sentence in question is contested by me, and others, because it gives a misleading impression of what was intended and what happened. The missing information that helps elaborate on the act takes up too much room in this article and should be handled in a re-directed article. Read the policy about sources if you don't get it.

An opinion piece is a primary source, period. Being fact-checked has nothing to do with it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

This conservation is way longer than it needs to be. Roger 8 Roger, where is the source that says the sentence is wrong and yours is right? I know nothing about this topic, and quite frankly I don't care, so I don't have any opinion on "who is right", but I think it's quite hypocritical for you to go on these long rants about the reliability of sources without providing one yourself. Just look at the sources and this tremendous waste of time will be ended. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The sentence isn't technically wrong, it's misleading without further explanation, which isn't given. But, the act is primary so it should not be used as a RSS. I will see what I can find regarding a RSS. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Roger just added some text with this source (pp. 31–44) to back up the new sentence "Efforts to save the Maori race from extinction by integrating Maori into European society, began in the 19th century. This included policies to educate Maori based on the English school system. Steps were taken that increasingly promoted English as the sole language of use in schools. These policies received broad agreement from both Maori and non-Maori with little consideration for the effect on the Maori language." I've modified it a bit more since, but I'd like to hear your input. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, the source doesn't justify the claim of "broad agreement from both Māori and non-Māori"; it says that an individual Māori Member of Parliament (whom it doesn't name) called for legislation mandating the use of English, and that "the indigenous people" presented a petition to Parliament in 1877 to similar effect. What proportion of "the indigenous people" were represented by the petition is a question not answered in the text.

And the phrasing "Efforts to save the Māori race from extinction by integrating Māori into European society" badly misrepresents the source. Here's what it actually says:

The Native Representation Act was nothing but part of the assimilation policy which aimed to infuse the Māoris with the European sense of value. Barrington and Beaglehole (1974:102) argue that direct representation was a political bargain as a result of the heated debate in the House of Representatives over whether the knowledge of the English language should be made an indispensable requisite in all Native schools in receipt of Government aid. As an instance, they quote Henry Carleton, an inspector who thought "it was necessary either to exterminate the Natives or to civilize them." He coupled the Native Schools Act with the Native Representation Act [1867], affirming that "unless steps were taken to enable the Natives to obtain a knowledge of the English language, that Act [the Native Representation Act] was a farce" (ibid.).

The only sense in which this could be said to be about "saving the Māori people from extinction" is the sense of "Well, maybe if we can teach them English we won't have to kill them." Thinking about it from the point of view of the Māori of the time, probably aware of what the British Empire had done just across the Tasman only a few decades before, if those were the options being put on the table before me, then I might well consider assimilation the lesser of the two evils. But it would be straining the text beyond breaking point to call that "broad agreement".

The very next paragraph of the section begins with the sentence "In many cases these policies were accepted or even encouraged by parents who wanted their children to succeed in the Pākehā world around them" (referring to the entire period of suppression, not just the 1860s); I think that makes the point well enough without having to strongarm it into the first paragraph as well. Though on reflection perhaps we should make it "accepted or even encouraged by Māori parents", just to clear up any residual ambiguity.

—VeryRarelyStable 09:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read all this but we should not be citing a primary source here. A secondary source that makes the claim is required, and if it is true one should be easily able to be produced. Primary sources can only be used for simple uncontroversial claims and this is clearly controversial and subject to interpretation given this thread exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Henry and VRS, you fail to mention my edit tag - "something to work on". That is exactly what you are doing. It should be noted that it took five minutes to find this RSS, ten minutes to read it, and five minutes to add it and some brief text to this article. There are plenty of other sources around for those who care to look for them - and read them. Why, I muse, do so many editors here chose not to put any effort into finding sources but instead rely on primary sources or short, low quality secondary sources that are easy and quick to find and read, such as teAra or RNZ? (Rather play video games perhaps?) Anyway, at least you have made the effort to read this new source and (try to) understand what it is saying, even if you didn't find it yourselves. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the edit tag. Panamitsu already noted that you didn't mention any reliable secondary sources of your own in these discussions, and it seems strange to dunk on other editors for doing exactly what you did. And insulting the intelligence of other editors ("Rather play video games perhaps?") isn't helping your argument. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just repeating what you've put on your user page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and? I enjoy video games, what of it? Lots of editors play video games, and you can't assume what they're like just from a user page. These kinds of jabs aren't helping anyone. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, disparaging personal remarks about other editors are frowned upon, and Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs) has been warned about this before. —VeryRarelyStable 08:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There was no personal attack intended or made intended or personal attack made. I was only repeating what was on Henrys user page. If you dont like being connected with video games then don't say you like playing them. I think you are being over sensitive. My suggestion is to alter the section in question based mainly on the sourse I provided. You've already started doing that. Please use the source not what you think happened. It was written in 2000, before most of the current maori promotion material happened, making it more objective and neutral..helped too by the author being non-NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Why even bring up me playing video games in the context of my skills as an editor if no insult was intended?

Back onto the subject of sources, here at Wikipedia more recent sources are encouraged as earlier material is at risk of being out of date. Not wanting to use a more recent source because you fear that it's somehow tainted by "current maori promotion material" seems like an incredibly questionable reason at best. We're not gonna keep ourselves away from reliable sources because of your dubious claims. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." That's Wikipedia talk page policy. Why is what's on anyone's user page relevant to the discussion?

It would be one thing to replace faulty information with better information, but that's not what's been done here. Your reading of the book you cite is seriously out of step with what the book itself says. In the course of arguing for it you've also misrepresented Wikipedia's guidelines on using primary sources and opinion pieces. In neither case is the policy simply "Don't."

In light of which, and particularly given that the point about Māori seeking to have their children taught in English is already present in the very next paragraph, I don't see why we shouldn't simply revert to the way things were before.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you try to halve the size of this 'history' section and improve what it says at the same time? Use good sources, remove bad sources and try to make the text flow neatly without being a disjointed collection of sentences. I have removed a commercial blog being used as a source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the claim sourced to the actual piece of legislation. There clearly are secondary sources here (including academic ones, which should be prioritised) and we should default to them instead of including our own interpretative claim of a primary source. I have no objections to reinclusion based on a secondary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a Māori language Wikipedia site for pages only in Māori?

Is there a Māori language Wikipedia site for pages only in Māori? I ask because I noticed that on some English pages a lot of words are replaced with their Māori equivalents without explanation or translation offered in English of what it means. Perhaps instead of writing on the English language pages many foreign language words English speakers won’t know the meaning of, this should be on a dedicated Māori language Wikipedia site? Localcosmos (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Wikipedia in te reo Māori: https://mi.wikipedia.org

There is also a Wikipedia for English unsullied by loan-words from other languages: https://ang.wikipedia.org You may be happier there. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s not loan words but plain standard English replaced by foreign words without clarifying the meaning, making sentences incomprehensible. 77.205.18.92 (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading the English Wikipedia should be understandable. It should not require readers to check a foreign dictionary for every fifth word as with any Wikipedia language site. It should clear and understandable for a general audience of that particular language. This goes against the rules of Wikipedia. 77.205.18.92 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

A specific example would make things clearer. —VeryRarelyStable 11:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok just for example. Reading this without knowing the meaning of hapu or rangitara meant that I could not understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papakura#:~:text=Modern%2Dday%20iwi%20and,Papakura.%5B25%5D Localcosmos (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

These two words are words with no exact English equivalent and anyone who doesn't know their meaning can look them up at hapū and rangatira. They are also in frequent use in New Zealand English which is the language that Papakura is written in. See MOS:ENGVAR for more information. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I'd note that even without using our articles it's unlikely you'd need to check a "foreign dictionary" if unfamiliar with these words. Most of them will be in a decent English dictionary especially once oriented at NZ English. Hapū is in the online OED for example . Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Today's edit reversals - NZ English

New Zealand English is the name given to the form of English spoken in New Zealand. Some call in a dialect of English. It is not a language in itself. I don't think any person, anywhere, disputes that fact. I changed the wording in the article to make the distinction clearer. Two editors took umbrage and reverted my change. Said user:TreeReader: "Roger, there is literally a wikipedia page called New Zealand English. It exists and is notable enough for a page." Yes, what's your point? Said user:VeryRarelyStable: "New Zealand English is a long-recognised, well-studied dialect of the English language." Yes, and once again, what's your point? If you disagree and think New Zealand English is in fact a language, then say so, please, but don't come up with reasons for reverting non-existent changes. Can you please look at my changes again and try to see what it is you find so objectionable, and write it here. Wikipedia is no place for editors to make reversals based on personal opinion, or just for the hell of it, which you seem to be doing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

"A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" - Max Weinreich. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think what you're saying and what you're doing are two separate things. Here it looks like you're saying that NZ English is a dialect and not a language, which does not sound controversial to me. However in your edit you changed "Influence on New Zealand English" to "Influence on English" which doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I have never heard an American or a Englishman say "kia ora" or "kumara". ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think 'influence on English' and 'influence on NZ English' are both correct because these loan words will have first been used in NZ, but using just 'Emglish' is better because it covers the whole language and some words, eg Maori, Taupo, kakapo, are now widespread around all English forms. others are becoming better known -haka, kumara, hui, and others, of cource are still almost never used outside NZ. But, that does not mean these 'unknowm' words are not part of English. Google 'dictionary, collins, iwi', and you will find the word described as British English. The way this section was/is written, it says that NZ English is somehow isolated from the rest of the English speaking world, as if it is a separate language.

This entire article should IMO be re-structured and heavily culled. There is some good stuff in it, but there is a lot of off-topic clutter that repeats what is in other articles, where the clutter belongs. This article, for example, is not about Waitangi claims. Within the article is the ever present attempt to subtly use every oportunity to promote the 'Maori Cause', such as bring in the Waitangi Tribunal. We even have a section (soon to be removed) that tries to say that Maori "might have had a script" and "might have been able to write", before the arrival of Europeans. That sounds better that saying they were illiterate, which they indisputedly were. To claim otherwise is barely a fringe theory. My suggestion is to look at a similar article. Falkland Islands English, and copy that structure here. There will be more emphasis on some subsections, such as native language influence (ie Maori) but the structure is the same. Note the way the Spanish influence on FIE is treated compared to the way Maori influence on NZE is treated). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having an "Influences on English" section split into subsections "New Zealand English" and "Further diffusion", but the current section has only information pertinent to the former. I think the latter would end up being fairly sparse even if a lot of effort were put into it.

You're going to have to explain – and I do mean you will have to explain, if you want any of your proposed changes to last – what standard you're going to use to determine which aspects of (for example) the history of efforts to preserve the language, or its presence in the political arena, are to be deemed irrelevant. And having explained them, we are all going to have to come to a consensus on how to ensure they are applied in a WP:NPOV manner.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A language, especially one that's a product of British colonialism, cannot be entirely separated from that history. Of course it can go too far in the other direction, WP:NPOV must always be kept in mind, but your claims about the ever present attempt to subtly use every oportunity to promote the 'Maori Cause', such as bring in the Waitangi Tribunal still aren't helping your claims of neutrality. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Section 3 should be heavily culled. Sections 2, 10, 12 should all be removed and parts of them can be reinstated in one section about the language revitalisation efforts. The rest can also probably be reduced significantly by someone who knows about the actual language. The FIE should provide a structure to work on. As said before, this article is about the language itself. Other topics related to the language, such as its origin, revitalisation, getting an alphabet, should be included but only briefly, with links to the article that deals with them. It is always tempting for editors to fill up an article with off topic detail they think should be added. It's a shame that sort of addition isn't removed immediately, even if it does have references. Many articles have a natural size limit, which is often ignored, thereby also adding to excessive off-topic detail being pushed in and devaluing the article by making it less readable. I think we should agree that this article's maximum size should be 2/3 of its current size. That will mean that if it reaches that size, anything added must be balanced by removing something of a lesser quality. The article would then be constantly improving. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about your 2/3's of its current size proposal - a page on an entire language will by necessity be fairly long. But I do see that there are sections that have grown sufficiently to merit their own page, particularly the History section. This would be following similar pages such as Welsh language. Anyone keen to start History of the Māori language? (no redlink cos it currently redirects back here)

(And sorry, I don't know which level you're numbering the sections by so not sure which you're proposing to cull. Could you please name them? I don't think any merit complete culling regardless) TreeReader (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My numbers are the same as those on the contents list on the article. No 2, for example, is about the official status. There are lots of current articles dealing with the 'off-topic' detail. A link to one is provided in the history section "Māori language revival". What should happen in that subsection is that a brief summary of the topic is supplied, and readers who want to read more can go to the specific article using the link supplied. In this article we have a lengthy account written, not a brief summary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I think my wikipedia skin doesn't show the numbers.

Do you mean that 'official status' is off-topic? It seems relevant to me, and the section is much shorter than its equivalent on the Welsh language page (for example). TreeReader (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Official status is not about the language, it is about a piece of law that is part of the revitalisation effort. It desrves a couple of sentences in a subsection about the revitalisation. By making a subsection just for this, ie number 2, it gives the 'official status' a/ greater weight here than it warrants, b/ takes up unnecessary space in the contents list c/ invites editors to fill in the fairly empty subsection with more (unnecessary) detail. The Welsh article sufferes from the same problem of overfill. A significant difference however is that Welsh is a significant spoken L1 language in society with a long written history, unlike Maori. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So, for clarification for those who don't see the section numbers, the sections referred to are

• Section 2: Official status
• Section 3: History
• Section 10: Influence on New Zealand English
• Section 12: Online translators

Section 12 I think quite reasonably could be reduced to an "External links" ending section. The others, I have not seen sufficient justification for removing or culling, and I would also want to see what specific details are felt to be of sufficiently low relevance to be culled.

I remain puzzled as to why NZE's dialect status would bar us from discussing the influence of Māori on it. I am also puzzled as to why Welsh's "long written history" makes any difference as to the importance of its officiality.

I would remind participants in this discussion that the criterion for assessing WP:NPOV is not "I, personally, do not feel challenged by this," it is "all sides of a live debate are fairly represented". The status of Māori language and culture is at present a live political issue in New Zealand.

—VeryRarelyStable 07:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yet again, this article is about the language. Related topics, such as Maori revival have their own articles. That means, any mention here about those related topics should be kept to a minimum with relevant links to the main article supplied. This is not simply my opinion, it is standard WP practice, that many policies and guidelines will confirm. This article is not the place to repeat in detail what is in those other articles. I cannot help you more if you do not understand why a language having evidential history going back 1,400 years will not have more detail to use than one whose evidential history goes back 200 years, or if we accept oral evidence and cave wall scratches as evidence, 700 years. I don't understand what you mean by "I am also puzzled as to why Welsh's "long written history" makes any difference as to the importance of its officiality." If it helps, I think there should be a section on the languages history near the start, and another on the revival efforts near the end. Subsections of these two sections should be kept to a minimum, if used at all. The official status exists as part of the revival effort, not because half the population speaks only Maori. Mention of it should be two or three lines, not a subsection. Interested readers should be redirected by links to the main articles - about the maori renaissance, the maori language act, maori language revitalisation, etc. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The text here in the 'Revival efforts' sub-section of the history section is larger than the text in the whole of Māori language revival, the main article. Add to that the following section here about revival efforts since 2015, and the combined total in this article is even larger. Do you still not see a problem with the way this article is constructed? I would like to reduce those sub-section in this article considerably, before then looking at how best to combine what is left with other text that has been similarly pruned, into one section about the revival efforts. This new section would, I think, take up two or three paragraphs, and that is all. More in depth detail will be in other more specific articles. I would be prepared to do that, but I expect a lot of resistance and reversals, so I am hesitant even to start. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I cannot help you more if you do not understand why a language having evidential history going back 1,400 years will not have more detail to use than one whose evidential history goes back 200 years...

But the point on which the Welsh article was brought up was not about that language's written history; it was about its official status in the modern United Kingdom. That status has significant bearing on the present-day use of the written language, on road signs and so forth, but all the relevant information is modern.

If we were to extend this point to the History section, where the length of written history would be relevant, then it's worth pointing out that, although we only have written records of any Polynesian language from the 1800s on, due to the large number of surviving Polynesian languages we have better etymological data from which to reconstruct past pronunciations than we do for Old Welsh.

The Māori language revival page is in dire need of being updated; its only mention of anything in the twenty-first century is the final, two-sentence "Politics" section. I would have to see that it was properly filled out before I would countenance sending readers there from here, both with recent information and with a more complete explanation of why the language was in need of revival in the first place.

—VeryRarelyStable 06:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The point about more surviving polynesian languages helping with the etymological data is probably true compared to Celtic languages, but that is specific to the maori language, and so it should be here in this article, which I have never denied. I don't think Welsh is the best comparison language, despite similarities in its legal status. An enormous difference is that Welsh is a thriving first language spoken across half of Wales, with well over half a million L1 speakers (not "speakers" who can just about say what the weather is today in Welsh). You can visit very many towns in Wales where you won't hear English spoken at all. A better comparison might be Irish, which has a much smaller number of L1 speakers. Another difference, which might be going off topic, is the way the revival efforts of both languages are carried out. Hanging over the NZ approach is this idea of 'partnership' which has helped to mix the two languages together to try to create a sort of hybrid NZ language. You don't get that muddling together to anywhere near the same level in Wales. Welsh is promoted to run alongside English, not to be inserted into English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't seem to have statistics for L1 speakers for Māori, but 50,000 people said they could speak it "well or very well" ten years ago; that's more than just saying what the weather is today. I would suggest that data gathered from across the country is a better guide than one person's individual impressions (whether yours or mine); especially since those will be shaped by such things as what part of the country one lives in, and whether one's expressed attitude to Māori is such as to make its speakers feel safe using it in one's presence.

Hanging over the NZ approach is this idea of 'partnership' which has helped to mix the two languages together to try to create a sort of hybrid NZ language.

At the seeing I nothing have said you. ...is my best attempt at reconstructing what an actual "hybrid" language would look like, in this case Māori syntax imposed over English vocabulary. I see nothing of what you're saying. What is happening is:

1. New Zealand English continues to borrow words from Māori. We've been doing this for two centuries of course, but what's new is that we're starting to use Māori words in spheres like leadership and management; it's quite commonplace now to see words like whānau or kaitiaki in NZE organizational documents.
2. These new words are being borrowed with pronunciations much closer to the language of origin than older borrowings like whare or waka, which themselves are increasingly being pronounced as Māori words in NZE. This has not (in defiance of some concerns that I have seen raised) bled over into mispronouncing English words as if they were Māori.

None of which, as far as I can see, provides any argument for cutting or culling any section of the article.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In a broad sense, I agree with what you say about maori words becoming english loan words. My concern, which began years ago as an observation rather than a concern is and always has been very simple - that the recent use of more maori words in english is mainly due to it being forced into english by legislation. It's that simple. The adoption of the word kumara into mainstream english in nz, for example, happened naturally, not artificially. That difference between being natural and being imposed might not bother you, but it does bother many people. It should be noted that as young people get older and these artificially enforced maori words are all they have ever heard, those words begin to be used naturally, thereby removing the enforcement objection. That, of course, is the intention of the legislation. But this topic isn't the problem with this article, which is simply that it isn't structured properly, with lots of loosely related topics taking up so much space, such as the revitalisation efforts. From what you say, you seem to think that an article about a language can include lots of topics only loosely connected to that language. Why, for example, don't we have a large section in the english article about the Book of Common Prayer, which strengthened the importance of english in 16th century england? (because it is only very loosely related to english). WP rules try to limit this sort of veering off topic, but it often is allowed to happen unchecked. That, IMO, is what has happened with this article. (Many other articles are much worse though). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)