What's in a name?

The Geographic Board has ruled in favour of putting the "h" back in W(h)anganui. Michael Laws isn't happy - surprise, surprise. Laws stated that the changing of the name was "more than just about the letter h" and described the Geographic Board as an "uncaring and unthinking organisation which is attempting in one foul swoop to expunge Wanganui's history, heritage, mana and culture."

With every new development in the W(h)anganui saga, the Your Views topic Should it be 'Wanganui' or 'Whanganui'?, which was created back in May, has been reinvigorated with interest. The thread of comments features energetic debate, with polarised discussion amongst both fans of the "h" and the anti-"h" brigade (the members of which probably also belong to the anti-PC brigade).

Dan (Wellington City)
If it's a spelling mistake why not correct it? Or is this one of those things that is supposed to be "racially charged" or an example of "political correctness gone mad"?

Dan gets the prestige of having the first post on the ever-growing thread of responses and manages to be both critical and pithy in this comment. Many representatives of the "h"-team posting on the thread seem to employ the correct spelling argument, which no doubt motivated the Geographic Board in their decision to rule in favour of the name change.

Of course anything Michael Laws-related mobilises the ML defence force:

Carpe Diem (Half Moon Bay)
Leave it alone! Tell all the PC boot lickers to to take a hike! Good on you Michael.

But what is most interesting about this thread are the debates surrounding the representation of New Zealand and Maori history. The perpetuation of misinformation is rife, with users pertaining to speak as expert historians in order to reinforce their opinion.

Geebs (Queensland)
It is time NZers took a stand and dealt with real issues. Maori have no rights as they are not indigenous, never were and never will be. It is time for people to realise that Maori are conning everyone and the parliamentarians are allowing for this to occur. Historical facts show the Maori ate the first people and don't forget it. Stop them eating into your rights now.

Misinformed viewpoints are quite concerning. But what is more concerning is when the spread of misinformation is applauded and therefore reinforced by other users:

Maureen (Queensland)
Good on ya geebs of Queensland. Anyway aren't the Maori originally from Taiwan?

But then, like a knight in shining armour, Jay from Swanson arises with a challenge to these assumptions surrounding the interpretation of NZ and Maori history:

Jay (Swanson)
I see we have experts on the Maori and te Reo Maori from Queensland, Canada, you name it. Maureen of Queensland, if by opining that Maori are "not indigenous" to NZ you mean that they were not the first people here, you must have found out something that no-one else has. If you go and check the current research you will find that there is no evidence which even suggests that there were others here before eastern Polynesians. If by saying that Maori were not indigenous you mean that they did not occur naturally here then we have to say that no-one on the planet is indigenous to anywhere except perhaps Ethiopians whose antecedents (and yours) it is thought spontaneously emerged there.

Although Jay doesn't mention any specific writing on the subject, he manages to question the circulation of assumed (and yet false) facts in the debate. Discussion forums are widely perceived as spaces in which people are able to reaffirm and reinforce their beliefs amongst like-minded peers, deterring those holding differing opinions. The interaction of responses between these users shows that this isn't always necessarily the case, and that folks will speak up if they see assumptions and misinformation being circulated without question.