Talk:Māori electorates

Possible source

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

Hauraki

According to its page, Hauraki was a general electorate. --Helenalex (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that's an omission. See the article's talk page. Schwede66 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed. Schwede66 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

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)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Māori seats → Māori electorates — 'Seats' is the colloquial name for 'electorates'. None of the other 300 or so electorates uses 'seat' for disambiguation where one is required. The main article is New Zealand electorates, the relevant category is Category:New Zealand electorates, the templates are called Template:Electorates of New Zealand and Template:Historic electorates of New Zealand. This one is the odd one out. Schwede66 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Sounds like something that needs to be sorted out. No objections here. Kahuroa (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Mattlore (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose.If we can't have Māori seats then who here will propose the deletion of Safe seat and Marginal seat? The real problem here is that Wiki does not define '"seat'" in the context we are talking about -- Legislative seat redirects to Legislature.Moriori (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment 'Safe seat', while colloquial, is the term used—you don't hear anyone say 'safe electorate', do you? 'Māori electorates' are the official name. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My word, that was a wondrous leading with chin question. No, I don't hear people say 'safe electorate', but nor do I ever hear anyone say 'Māori electorate' instead of 'Māori seat'. I would support this proposal if after it was renamed, someone changed "seat/s" to "electorate/s" throughout the entire article to be consistent with the new title. The word seat or seats is used on 66 occasions in the article. Yes, 66 times. Three of the displayed six links to the references specifically mention Māori seat/s. Another refers throughout to Māori seats, as does this one. It seems to me that sometimes we are becoming sticklers for PC but lose reality. Moriori (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to give the article a once-over when it's been moved. Schwede66 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support They are electorates not seats and yes, the term 'seat' in the article needs to be replaced throughout to the more encyclopedic and less colloquial term. Find and replace should be pretty easy, no? The difference between this and "safe seat" and "marginal seat" is that those terms are colloquial in their entirety. There is no formal entity known as a "marginal seat", electorates are described as marginal based on some set of variable criteria. A Māori electorate on the other hand is a formal, legally defined entity. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Surprising" Maori not on Maori role?

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)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Macrons

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)

Tamathapaul, 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)

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)

Tamathapaul, 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)

Sourcing

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)

@Sneeweed: 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)