Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Maori Civilisations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Maori Civilisations

This article is nonsense. All archaeological evidence is against any European settlement of New Zealand prior to Polynesian settlement 1000-800 years ago. See any peer-reviewed literature. My source is K. R. Howe, The Quest for Origins, and I've attended a meeting of NZ Society of Archaeology discussing this question. There are people who put forward this theory, but it is completely discredited. Delete. -gadfium 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is blatant censorship. My source is M. Doutré, Ancient Celtic New Zealand. People who put foward this question are completely discredited and then attacked personally (as you can see below) because this does not align up with the already agreed history and people are worried they will have to rewrite the history books because it is all wrong. What is the difference between your source, and mine? --Nzhamstar 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Archeologists don't take your source seriously. What makes something serious is that it's published in peer-reviewed journals. In answer to your suggestion below that the government is suppressing these theories, such journals are not controlled by the New Zealand government.-gadfium 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Incredible claims require credible references. Similarly poor grammar in article and the balls-to-the-wall-insane website it links to suggests same individual behind both. Sources also demonstrate ignorance of archaeological method on the part of the author(s). adamsan 10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • comment: There have long been speculations and rumours that there may have been a pre-Maori colonisation of New Zealand, but the evidence ranks close to the Von Däniken levels for believability. An article on these theories should probably exist, as long as it is made clear that it is a theory viewed with extreme scepticism by the scientific community. I don't believe this article, as it currently stands, could easily be turned into an article that would fulfl that requirement. As it currently stands, it is heavily POV, and deals with just one of the people who has raised this theory (and not one of the main ones). I'd suggest deleting this one, and hopefully someone more in the know could write something better at a later date. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm… there’s already a paragraph at Moriori#The_debunked_myth_of_Moriori_in_New_Zealand Barefootguru 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but that's about the Moriori, surely - not about early Indo-European explorers. The theories mentioned on this page are unconnected with the Moriori (or the Waitaha, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete I considered nominating this for speedy deletion on the grounds of patent nonsense, looking into this further I don't think it's quite that bad, but it does look like extremely dubious pseudoarchaeology. He baldly uses terms like Indo-European and Celtic to describe the alleged pre-Maori inhabitants, as these are linguistic terms we could not jump to this conclusion even if there was significant archaelogical evidence of pre-Maori inhabitants in New Zealand. PatGallacher 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete or possibly heavily edit to remove POV. This theory has been debunked though still persists as an urban legend (along the lines of ‘What are Maori complaining about, they wiped out the Moriori’.) Barefootguru 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can find a credible reference and completely rewrite the article to remove the anti-Maori POV. Rhion 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Edit This article is not anti-Maori, it is simply trying to inform people of the previous history of New Zealand before the Maori arrived. It is unfair to suppress NZ's Pre-Maori history, labeling it racism. The New Zealand government has banned carbon dating on any artefacts found, and I thought that wikipedia would be a safe haven away from any cover ups or embargo's for all to find the truth. Although I am not the author of the site, I have contacted the author for help editing the wiki - though have had no reply. I agree that my grammar and wording is not so good - I should have planned it better, and will re-write asap, although I am not sure which parts are POV. Is there any external archaeologists that could comment on this? IE, scientists that have not studied the history of NZ? Because half the problem is that the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision and simple cannot accept any different theories. The other half is probly that all the Maori activism in NZ's history may become void or hypocritical. --Nzhamstar 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have now edited it and believe it is now NPOV. Please check it to see if I am right. Also does anyone have a suggestion for the name, I don't think Pre-Maori Civilisations is quite right. --Nzhamstar 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Even with the improved rewrite, this is non verified speculation and original research. Obina 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Non Verfied? I have references at the bottom of the page with photographic proof.. ??? --Nzhamstar 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't vote twice. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This article consists of original research. It is still NPOV, although less so than before. The article itself notes that it is NPOV and contains unverified information. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean POV… Barefootguru 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedia articles should represent some kind of scholarly consensus, which is not the same thing as "tunnel vision." The claims here are deeply implausible on their face, and would need extraordinarily strong support to be encyclopedic. rodii 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsensical woo woo-ism at its finest. Don't you just love Nzhamstar's claim that "the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision"! Note that I have combined Nzhamstar's comments above to delete his second vote. Moriori 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as random POV, and implausible. Stifle 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete , Claims on the page are not backed by any evidence apart from a couple of websites. Also problems with the actual name of the page (should have a Macro in Maori etc). I don't think it can really be saved - SimonLyall 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • How come, after I left an incorrect piece of information on an automotive article for a while, no one complained at all. Suddenly when article that could imply racism everyone is all over it. I don't think this is very fair. Other articles have websites as their proof, why can't this one? There is hard evidence of pre-maori civilisation why are you trying to hide this from society? What is realy going on here? I believe the reason this article is being kept down because if it gets into mainstream, it will make the Maori activists, and stereotypically the race look hypocritical. However this is not fair, and should not even be a factor in keeping this down if we get to know more about the history of New Zealand. --Nzhamstar 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Nzhamstar, I visited the celticnz website and couldn't find any convincing evidence for its claims. Martin Doutré has found some stones and thinks that they represented pre-Maori activity but he didn't have any finds or scientific dates from excavations to tell us about. How does he know these sites aren't from the post-Maori era? Some of them look natural rather than manmade, has he carried out excavation work to demonstrate his ideas? The saga of the embargoed documents from the Waipoua Forest which don't seem to actually contain any useful information and are freely-available for inspection anyway don't help his case nor do quotations from speculative nineteenth century antiquarians who had a lot of ideas about mass population movements that are now discounted. Mr Doutré appears to looking for evidence that supports his theory and ignoring other explanations- this technique is the hallmark of pseudoarchaeology and it is why the article being criticised. adamsan 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I see. But what of the carvings that surely do not look Maori or European? And why has the government banned carbon dating on the artefacts?--Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not fair to suppress this information. The only reason it hasn't been proved true is because reknowned scientists and archaeologists ignore the evidence because they are too busy believing in the fact that there is no Pre-Maori history, and/or are too scared (or complacent) for being labeled culturally insensitive or racist for studying such things. It hasn't been proved wrong. Why is the government banning open archaeological investigation and carbon dating on these artefacts? --Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And what of this: "and supporting the Maori tradition that this island was inhabited before their arrival here" from here[1]??? --Nzhamstar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly some evidence that there was human contact with New Zealand before the permanent settlement by Maori. The kiore (rat) appears to have been here longer than permanant settlement, and could only have arrived with humans. This indicates that Polynesians arrived at New Zealand earlier than the accepted dates for Maori settlement, but did not stay (or did not survive). This is a very different hypothesis from suggesting Celtic peoples settled New Zealand.
By the way, you fail to quote any evidence of said "Maori tradition". You need to quote peer reviewed journals, not wild speculation. You say that scientists suppress the evidence, but scientists have no motive to suppress such items, and every motive to publish any evidence that would show such a radically different version of prehistory. If you could provide proof, you'd win the archeological equivalent of the Nobel Prize. In practice, archeologists don't pursue such theories for the same reasons as physicists don't pursue perpetual motion machines.-gadfium 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Governments suppress the findings - not scientists! Scientists and archaeologists want these restricted sites out in the open, rather than censored because of Maori superstition. The only way this can happen is to inform the public of what they are missing out on. And the way to do that is Wikipedia which is supposed to be a "big open encyclopedia" for everyone to access and add stuff to and now I'm being kicked to the curb for offering proof and evidence of an alternative, censored history of New Zealand. This is absolute BS, you people are the bullies of wikipedia! --Nzhamstar 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, original research. Lukas 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.[2] --Nzhamstar 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I think you've made your point and everyone here knows where you stand. Simply reiterating it over and over again does not make you any more persuasive. rodii 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to quote... "Although stories were published in a few periodicals, this article does not have a source of them." This rediculous article would be more at home on a conspiracy theory website then an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell the "evidence" consists of a stump, which may or may not exist, which doesn't confirm anything as it isn't carbon dated; and some bones, in a cave... Conspiracy Cruft, delete. Dragoonmac 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources from other Authors.

What do you closed minded people say to that?

I see that Gary Cook has an honorary doctorate from Open International University of Complementary Medicine. I understand the going price for such a doctorate is US$850.-gadfium 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What was I saying about personal attacks?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.