Talk:Chatham Islands

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Polynesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ecoregions Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.EcoregionsWikipedia:WikiProject EcoregionsTemplate:WikiProject EcoregionsEcoregions articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand: Māori High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance). Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Hi, noticed User:203.144.32.165's reordering of names in this article and Chatham Island/Rekohu. I know this is a contentious issue amongst the inhabitants. The original was in order of when the names were bestowed - 1500s or so for Rekohu, 1791 for Chatham Island and 1835 for Wharekauri. Is there a better principle to apply to this? --Tirana 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour Rekohu -> Chatham -> Wharekauri. Moriori 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not even make sense to move the article to Rēkohu? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history section states,

The name "Chatham Islands" comes from the ship HMS Chatham, whose captain William R. Broughton landed on November 29, 1791, claimed possession for Great Britain and named the islands after the political head of the Royal Navy (coincidentally also named Chatham).

If it's only a coincidence that the ship and the RN head had the same name, is it still correct to say that the name of the islands derives from both the ship and the RN head? If Broughton intended to name it after both then the sentence should be reworded to sound less self-contradictory, if not then which is correct? Vaughan Pratt 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the "political head of the Royal Navy"? There's no such title. If you mean "First Lord of the Admiralty" (a political position), then you should give the correct title first and then say whether it was a political or a service appointment. JimInRoses (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced that text with just "First Lord of the Admiralty". I don't think it matters much here how he was appointed. --Avenue (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the name came from the First Sea Lord, not the ship. It was commoner to do that I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do sources say? Firstly we have the words of the man who did it (in Vancouver's book, though he wasn't there himself, he reproduces Broughton's own narrative) on p.142 of the archived version: "I named Chatham Island in honour of the Earl of Chatham". Unless there are contrary narratives that say "oh no he didn't", or later scholarly sources that present cogent arguments for an alternative, then I see no reason to doubt Broughton's claim. I hope that there is some academic sourcing to be found, whatever the outcome, so that we can dispense with confusing little para by the NZ Ministry for Culture and Heritage - it first expresses doubt over whether it was the ship or William Pitt, and then suggests the latter is supported by the naming of Pitt Island. Firstly, why the 1st Earl, when the 2nd was Boughton's political boss; secondly Pitt Island wasn't named until 1807, so could have been either of the earls, or the decently-deceased prime minister. Fundamentally, some better sourcing is needed to supplement Broughton's statememt, probably more familar to editors of Vancouver Expedition, so I've added a note in Talk there. Davidships (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships I'm glad I've found this discussion again - I mentioned the wrong assumtion elsewhere in another article but couldn't find the log of Broughton, or Vancouver's version, which will be the definitive source, primary though it is. One further point of confusion is that Pitt the Elder was dead (?1789??), ie the first earl. Pitt the Younger was still too young to be PM and was not the second earl, which was his older brother, John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham. Big brother was in 1791 the First sea lord, so I think he is the earl of Chatham being refered to. Confusing because he is less well known than his father and younger brother, Pitts the Elder and Younger. Now, that beggars the question, who was Pitt's Island named after? Another interesting point is that this 'fact' that the island was named after HMS Chatham is a classic example of a mistake circulating in sources unchecked. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We share the same conclusion, but still lack a quality ref for that.- Davidships (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to mention that the Maori not only enslaved the Moriori, but they ate them? This is not disputed. 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

It seems highly misleading to offhandly state the percentage of residents who are Maori, as we currently do: "The population of 609 individuals have European, Māori (64.2%) and Moriori origins." The biggest problem here is that Moriori are classed as Maori by Statistics NZ, but our article seems to suggest that the 64.2% figure does not include Moriori. The omission of a corresponding figure for Europeans (65.6%, not even counting the 9% who said "New Zealander") and the conflation of descent/origin with ethnicity are also problematic. I will try to fix this up. -- Avenue (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the claim that the report entitled Rekohu . . . contained an extensive description of Maori fishing rights claims. What this report is extensive about is the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands.

I also want to elaborate on my displeasure with casual citation. I've seen this before in Wikipedia: when a source is found on the Web, the editor omits either the title, the author, or even both. Instead, they use the name of the Web site, which may not have anything in common with the name of the source. A different kind of offense is truncated names, as with Rekohu.

There has been a failure to use Rekohu as a source. It's a lengthy report of a permanent political settlement which contains a mass of history. It's lazy to use only Jared Diamond's bestseller on social anthropology as the source for the Maori invasion. I think it's a good idea to keep that because the book is widely available and also because it addresses a topic not addressed in Rekohu. But as for the specifics of the invasion, of course Diamond only had the same few sources as the did the commission that wrote Rekohu. Hurmata (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "British mercenary ship" supposed to mean? Apart from being an unusual way to refer to a hired merchant vessel, it sounds very POV to me.

The doubt that the Moriori were the "primordial population". They were not there since the beginning of time. Indigenous is the normal term.

How can Moriori be recognized to be "former Maori". They are either Maori or they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long-standing myth that "Moriori society was a peaceful society". It was no more peaceful than any tribal society. What was absent - but only after a period of devasting wars - was inter-tribal warfare. But that was mostly because with only 2,000 or so survivors left, on several islands, the remaining groups had little stomach left for a fight, or reason for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add a "Media and communications" section patterned on the one for Pitcairn Islands? thanks Shannock9 (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waitangi, the largest settlement in the islands, is marked on the map in the wrong place! Admittedly it is only a mile away from where it should be, but as the entire settlement is only about a quarter of a mile long in that direction (NNE/SSW), this is a big enough discrepancy to matter. Now the author of this map, the guy who put it up, did a fine job generally drawing it; and I do not know the Wikipedia etiquette for anybody else (like me) to download the map, alter it and put it back again so I will not attempt to fix this. But the place marked as the township by the black circle labelled "Waitangi" is on one of the bays facing more or less WNW, at the point where the road (at a gentle bend in it) is nearest to the shore. Just north of that on the road is a group of buildings marked on the Google maps satellite photo as Chatham Islands Marine Radio. Waitangi itself is further north again along that road, on the shoreline on the eastern side of the promontory, where the shoreline curves most tightly, at the southernmost end of the main sweep of Petre Bay. That place is named Waitangi Bay and the shoreline road is named Waitangi Wharf.

Also, on the opposite side of the island, the only other settlement of any size or with a name, Owenga, is marked on Alexander Karnstedt's map by another small black circle about 1km to the south of where it should be shown, which is (again) on the north-facing shoreline close to where the letter "O" of the name "Owenga" almost touches the shoreline on the map. Instead of that, you will see the circle is almost at the centre (in the N-S direction) of the promontory there, which that ends to the east at Manukau Point.

I base these statements on looking carefully at the satellite photos of these places on Google maps. it is quite clear where the buildings making up these settlements are, and they are marked with names/captions also. There is also the local website [1] which has its own map whowing as a street plan the Waitangi area complete with names of the few streets/roads the island has — which are mostly in this small area. Iph (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: I added the following definition to the intro:

is a special territory and region of New Zealand, consisting of an archipelago...

but this was reverted to just "is an archipelago...".

Chatham Islands Territory redirects here and describes the same subject. If you look at Template:Administrative divisions of New Zealand, it shows Chatham Islands as both a region and territory, which is confirmed by Chatham Islands#Local_government, though there the term is "district" instead of territory. My intent was to clearly indicate to the reader in the intro that the Chatham Islands are a top-level administrative division of New Zealand. Given the revert, I'm not sure if there is disagreement over that, or just how it should be expressed? -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - thought I might need to explain myself here :-). There is not a political division in NZ called a "territory" - true the term territorial council is used but the territorial council does not have control over a territory it would normally be a city or a district or historically a county or borough. The word territory has in NZ a connotation of somewhere not intrinsically part of NZ but somewhere controlled by the country, currently Tokelau is a territory (i'm sure its not officially called that though) maybe Ross Dependency and historically Samoa, Niue etc. Thus saying the Chatham Islands are a territory is like saying they are not an integral part of the country - which is sort of rude.

It is also true that the Chatham's council is slightly different in that when it was set up as a single authority in the late 1980's reform, other councils are now similarly configured in what is now termed a unitary authority (Auckland Nelson, Tasman?). This almost certainly was because two councils for 600 people would have been bizarre. However this does not make the islands a region or even a Region. In reality it makes it the opposite.

I applaud you for trying to explain all this in a couple of words but in my view it is probably better left unsaid, at least in the lead of the article. If there is consensus that it is important I'm sure rewording with some more local lingo will make me happy. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: So, how do local people refer to the Chatham Islands as administrative division? Template:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand does use the term "Territory"; is that wrong, and if so, how should it be fixed? -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I hadn't seen that template - I think Chatham's needs to be moved under the districts section but not within the North or South Island lists - I would also mark it as a unitary authority. It simply does not belong along with Tokelau and Ross Dependency.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further ibfo on the lagoon - how shallow is it? who lives in it? and so forth. Also, how about some up to date photos, panaramas, and of the Chatham's inland bits too. "ibfo" is a miskey for "info" but gonna leave it in coz it kinda looks like an Nigerian Yoruba placename. So there you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.145.164 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having them there always struck me as a little obscure. Shevonsilva what are your thoughts on this and the page you made expanding them Rangitihi Survey District? C.C. Andrewgprout. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

There are literally thousands and thousands of survey districts (probably overlapping over time or by map type) in New Zealand - documenting these one by one is not what Wikipedia is for.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to support deletion Andrewgprout and have added a "subst:proposed deletion". Shevonsilva please explain the page on its talk page, I will be very susceptible to correction. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I have to dig into this more, I will reply when I am back. Thanks for the interest. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham Islands Council is more like a cross over of 1st and 2nd level administrative divisions, effectively resulting survey districts to a bit more importancy with either 2nd or 3rd level administrative divisions. I have created a category too to organise future important survey districts If someone creates those further in future. Thanks 18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a local exception, thanks. I will spend some time building up the page. I am still leaning towards delete, but want it done right. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangitihi Survey District. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

You people spent much time on building parent article. No problem, I will leave it up to you to decide. Thanks for improving the article too. Administrative divisions of overseas territories are very flaky sometimes and are not defined well too sometimes.  :)

Shevonsilva (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the Chatham Islands are not an overseas territory as indicated in the above discussion. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request that Te Rauparaha be named as the leader of the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama iwi massacre of Moriori in 1832. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Rauparaha — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHart500 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewHart500: Present properly-sourced, reliable evidence that he was, and it'll happen. —VeryRarelyStable 09:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewHart500: I repeat: present properly-sourced, reliable evidence. —VeryRarelyStable 11:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Te Rauparaha was Ngati Toa chief - not Ngāti Mutunga nor Ngāti Tama. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I retract my comment I did some more research; Te Rauparaha never went to the Chathams, found this on Internet as more background to the invasion "In 1835 some displaced Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama people, Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand, but living in Wellington, invaded the Chathams. On 19 November 1835, the brig Lord Rodney, a hijacked European ship, arrived carrying 500 Māori armed with guns, clubs and axes, and loaded with 78 tonnes of seed potatoes, followed by another ship with 400 more Māori on 5 December 1835. While the second shipment of invaders were waiting, the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts. They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. "Parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHart500 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else on see a blank space where there should be a topographic map? I can see the outlines with lat and long and the inset showing the positions of the islands relative to Australia, New Zealand etc, but the rest of the map is a bland white area. The joy of all things (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this a month ago at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Chatham Islands pushpin map is broken, and an editor had some idea of what was going wrong. I've asked them to upload a fixed version.-Gadfium (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed.-Gadfium (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above (2) contains correct detail of the name of the islands. There is a widespread misconception they were named after the ship, HMS Chatham, but the main island alone was named after the First Sea Lord in 1791, the second earl of Chatham. I am assuming the group 'the Chatham Islands' was named after the main island. I understand HMS Chatham did not see Pitt Island during its visit, so I am not sure at the moment after whom that island was named. I assume it was 'discovered' shortly after 1791. The second earl was John Pitt, and his younger brother, William Pitt the Younger, was prime minister from 1783 to 1801. Pitt the Elder, their father, had been a notable prime minister too but had died in 1789, so the name 'Pitt' was a well-established one of notability. My guess is that Pitt's Island, as it was then called, also got its name from John Pitt but confirmation of that, or otherwise, needs to follow. The main point here though, is that many otherwise reliable sources say the islands were named after the ship HMS Chatham, and I have also seen a claim they were named after the First Earl of Chatham, Pitt the Elder. I have started changing the origin of the name here and in other articles when HMS Chatham is used, but that is contrary to what the sources say. I think we should now always ignore the HMS Chatham story in favour of John Pitt, but I'm not sure how best to do that. It may be that a lengthy note should be used explaning why reliable sources are wrong, the victim of a myth. Is there a simpler way? Does an explanation always have to be inserted? Or, should we rigidly follow the rules and keep to what the sources say, while knowing them to be wrong? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this. We can just ignore minor incorrrect claims if we know them to be wrong. There is no need to mechanically include the HMS chatham name story even if it's wrong.

"My guess is that Pitt's Island, as it was then called, also got its name from John Pitt but confirmation of that, or otherwise, needs to follow"

When I removed the HMS chatham name story from this article, I found one (primary) source saying that the Chatham Islands were named after the "earl of Chatham" and found another source identifying said earl of chatham as William Pitt. ("There is doubt whether Broughton named the islands after his vessel or after William Pitt, the earl of Chatham. Both may be true, but the fact that the smaller of the islands was named Pitt supports the latter supposition.") I see no source to identify said earl of Chatham as John Pitt, so I would prefer William Pitt be reinstated in this article as the origin of the islands' name. Koopinator (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Chatham left England on 1 April 1789. William Pitt the Elder died on 1 May 1778 and left office as PM in 1768, so I think we can exclude him. William Pitt the Younger had just turned 20 when the Chatham left England and was not then in any public office and was also not the Earl of Chatham. John Pitt was, from May 1788 to December 1794, First Lord of the Admiralty, and was Earl Chatham. That evidence alone points strongly to John Pitt being the origin of the name if it is not the ship itself. I have based my conclusion that it was not named after the ship from a log entry by Vancouver during the Vancouver Expedition/voyage, made I think after the Discovery and Chatham re-connected later. That quote is made in section 2 on this talk page. Yes, it is primary, but if it is a correct quote, it cannot realistically be questioned. The only doubt might be 'which Earl of Chatham'. About Pitt Island, I'm not sure of its name's origin. I think it might be useful to learnt when it was first seen by Euripeans, because Pitt the Younger became PM in 1794. However, from what I know, the name of newly 'discovered' islands was often from high ranking Royal Navy figures or expedition sponsors rather than a prime minister, which also points more the John Pitt not William Pitt the Younger. Are you Rhys Richards, the author of the te ara source? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "HMS Chatham left England on 1 April 1789. William Pitt the Elder died on 1 May 1778 and left office as PM in 1768, so I think we can exclude him."

Why? You can name an island after a dead person. I think William Pitt is the best candidate based on the te ara source in combination with the vancouver log.

• "I have based my conclusion that it was not named after the ship from a log entry by Vancouver during the Vancouver Expedition/voyage, made I think after the Discovery and Chatham re-connected later. That quote is made in section 2 on this talk page. Yes, it is primary, but if it is a correct quote, it cannot realistically be questioned."

I fully agree that the story about the Chathams being named after the HMS Chatham is bogus. That's why I edited the article in 2022.

• "Are you Rhys Richards, the author of the te ara source?"

Nope. Koopinator (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just discovered that the Chatham Islands Museum identifies said Earl of Chatham with John Pitt: "He claimed possession for Great Britain and named the islands after the First Lord of the Admiralty, John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham. We hold archives relating to the visit." In light of this it seems acceptable to identify the the earl with John Pitt without WP:OR. Koopinator (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not the te ara writer - I misunderstood your earlier post (before I had checked your user page which makes it obvious you're not Rhys Richards.) About the name, yes I know places are named after dead people, but on this occasion I think it is unlikely - there is no obvious reason for naming it after Pitt the Elder, unlike the pretty clear reason for John Pitt. The log entry of Vancouver just says the Earl of Chatham, which would mean by default the Earl at the time which was John Pitt. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) (edits have crossed}[reply]

Ok, thanks for your post about the Chatham Islands museum. Unless anyone objects I'll just change any reference to the ship being the name as and when I see it without a drawn out explanation.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]