Talk:Māori protest movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] the name of the article

...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)

[edit] Suggestion

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.

ColorlessGreenIdeasSleepFuriously 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, any imput can but improve the overall article as you did to my initial contribution. Mombas 08:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Awatere's record

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)

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)

[edit] Unclear

Three points about the start of this article:

  1. Why does the first sentence have "Maori" rather than "Māori"?
  2. "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.
  3. "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)
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)