Talk:History of the Otago Region

'Tribe' vs 'iwi'

I'm copy-editing this page at the moment, and am unsure about how to best refer to the groupings in early Māori history. I'm erring on the side of changing 'tribe' to 'iwi' but unsure about whether the tribes mentioned can be defined as iwi or fall under hapu. Is there a MoS-type document referring to the best practices for this? Dudsud (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Over representation of Maori period

I think that this article, along with many New Zealand articles are grossly over-representing the maori culture and influence, especially when all important and relevant history in south island provinces and towns has been created by white settlers, and of the million people in the south island over 90% are white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has only recently been started, and the editor doing most of the work on it is working forward chronologically. Understandably, that means that the Maori history of the region is currently over-represented, but this will change as the page is further edited to include more recent history. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Aotearoa" is an old Maori name for Great Barrier Island in the Hauraki Gulf and occasionally, an alternative name for the North Island to "Te Ika a Maui". It is a European misunderstanding that Aotearoa was ever a Maori name for the whole of New Zealand. In fact there was no traditional name for the whole archipelago. For that reason I am removing "Aotearoa" from the text. Peter Entwisle (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Peter Entwisle

I'm putting these comments here because I don't know where else to put them. I don't agree with the person who thinks this is an over-representation of Otago's Maori history. On the contrary - it lasted from c1100-1770 while the European period is only 1770-2008. It is much the largest part of the region's whole history. I do have issues though with what has been written. I've removed the neologism "Aotearoa" which is out of place here because it suggests it was in use as a name for New Zealand in pre-European times. I've made some other corrections such as removing the reference to the "fleet" of c.1350, a long-discredited European construction out of Maori tradition, now sadly taken as historical fact by many Maori. But much of what remains is still heavily tinged with the 19thC European re-creation of Maori tradition. In the South Island it is of little relevance what Kupe did long after our own first Polynesian navigators arrived here. Similarly the view that the South Island was populated by losers in North Island conflicts is - a North Island view unsupported by the Archaeological record. I will leave this for the time being but it needs revision. Peter Entwisle (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Peter Entwisle

Many of the problems relating to "over-representation" are simply related to the current coverage of the page. As it stands, the article is incomplete, inasmuch as the pre-European and pre-Colonial period has been thoroughly covered but little has yet been written on the period since 1848. If that is extended in the same depth, then there woll be no apparent over-representation. As it stands, what is here is good material, and any solution to a perceived imbalance to the page is better addressed by expanding the shorter sections than by reducing the longer ones. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just revisited this article and made some improvements. It's a brave attempt but has a lot of problems.

It was seriously out of date in its view of Maori prehistory.

It has several significant errors of chronology in telling Maori events of the contact period which completely undermine somr of its explanations.

It misses out the whole of the Euroopean events on the East coast from 1823 to 1840, while these are some of the most important in NZ history at the time.

It fails to cover European events in the Foveaux Strait, Fiordland and the subantarctic from about 1800 forward, although these were important too.

I have tried remedy a few defects. When I have time I'll try to remedy a few more but what it is attempting is very large and the author or authors only know about a few little bits of it and that imperfectly.

There also needs to be an introduction explaining what the implied "Otago" is of which it is offering a history.

I guess it's good that someone is trying but as it stands it is a fairly gross misrepresentation of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Entwisle (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on the 2018-2019 rewrite

I have been making some additions, please be bold Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC).

Copyright note

Some of the material recently added by User:Realitylink may have been moved from Erik Olssen. -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Any material from the Olssen page is totally my

own work. No copyright has been breached. Realitylink (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)