Talk:Hobson's Pledge

Neutral POV?

This is a sensitive topic about race relations, with the potential to start an impassioned edit war. Great care needs to be taken to ensure that this article about a political lobby group reflects a Neutral Point of View, according to Wikipedia best practice. As of Feb 2017, this stub article implies the political claims of the Hobson's Pledge group are self-evidence facts, and fails to include reference to the significant criticism of their position by both Māori and non-Māori (see 'Background' info below). Danylstrype (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Background

Indigenous perspective on the political arrangements of Aotearoa/ New Zealand

Māori, which means "ordinary" in the native language (as opposed to "tauiwi" or foreigners), are the indigenous people of Aotearoa, who in 1835 signed a declaration of independence, and in 1840 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a treaty with the English colony set up there under the name "New Zealand". Some Māori people, then and now, understand themselves as members of "iwi", the largest political unit in pre-colonial Aotearoa, and that iwi have a right to self-government or "tino rangatiratanga", as guaranteed in the native language version of the treaty; Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Note: in international law, where there is a conflict between two translations of a treaty between a colonizing group and the indigenous people, the version written in the indigenous language is considered to take precedence. https://mi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiriti_o_Waitangi. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi See: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga http://news.tangatawhenua.com/2013/03/tino-rangatiratanga-o-te-iwi-maori-maori-sovereignty-in-the-21st-century/ Danylstrype (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Neo-colonial perspective on the political arrangements of Aotearoa/ New Zealand

The Hobson's Pledge group speak from another perspective on this history. That Māori leaders voluntarily and fully surrendered their sovereignty to the British Crown in The Treaty of Waitangi, and granted the British the full rights to govern them as British citizens along with their own colonists. The British government have in turn delegated the practice of governing Māori to the New Zealand state, and New Zealanders with Māori heritage are simply individual citizens like those of any other ethnicity. Any recognition of Tino Rangatiratanga in New Zealand's governmental arrangements results in unacceptable "race-based privilege", and practices such as Māori language schools, or health care based on Māori healing philosophy are examples of "separatism" or "apartheid". Danylstrype (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Contested meaning of "He iwi tahi tātou"

This phrase is used as the slogan of the Hobson's Pledge group, and translated to mean "we are now one people." It has been suggested that this was a figure of speech, which actually means "we are in consensus". It's not clear from what we know about the treaty signing exactly what Governor Hobson meant by his use of this phrase, or what the chiefs who signed would have understood by it. https://treatypeople.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/colonial-myths-he-iwi-kotahi-tatou/ Danylstrype (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Prominent public advocates for the Hobson's Pledge group

Many of the people listed on the "Who We Are" page of the Hobson's Pledge have a long history of arguing and publicly campaigning for the neo-colonial Treaty of Waitangi interpretation. For example, Don Brash gave an infamous 'One Law for All' speech during his time as leader of the National Party. This background is important, as it undermines the implied claims on the Hobson's Pledge website they are simply a group of concerned citizens. http://www.hobsonspledge.nz/who_we_are Danylstrype (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

“Special rights” in lead

Aubernas, per my previous edit summary: The phrase “special rights” is useful here, because it is a fairly neutral phrase that represents well the particular stance of the organisation. As far as I can tell, the group is not specifically opposed to what most people call “affirmative action” (see Affirmative action) in the form of (say) helping underprivileged Māori gain access to education, or special healthcare programs that would aid rural Māori. They are opposed to the special political seats and electoral rolls that we have in place for Māori in an effort to honour the treaty. Special rights is also useful in that there is a page addressing the idea in right wing politics.

As an aside, whether White New Zealanders have more rights isn’t really relevant, as we aren’t here to adjudicate whether Hobson’s Pledge is right or wrong, but if there are reliable sources addressing that topic please do introduce them. — HTGS (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The coalition government, led on this issue by the ACT party, has just abolished Te Aka Whai Ora/the Māori Health Authority, a "special healthcare program[me] that would aid (rural) Māori". --Hugh7 (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

CATV

@Cloventt @Muaza Husni I know why it was added too, that is irrelevant; it only matter if it is verifiable, which it currently does not appear to be. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the first sources in the article describe this outfit as "racist propaganda". Professor Stephen May described the group in a publication as "a racist and militantly anti-Māori group", though the article was later retracted. Carwyn Jones described a newspaper ad by the group as "designed to whip up anti-Māori sentiment", with the Advertising Standards Authority describing it as "socially irresponisble".

I think that comfortably verifies this article as being highly relevant to the topic of Anti-Māori sentiment., and it should go in that category.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't, per WP:HEADLINES and the quotes surrounding it.

>Professor Stephen May described the group in a publication as "a racist and militantly anti-Māori group"

An opinion piece, which the university apologised over.

And from CATV: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article

Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles.

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to

So this doesn't seem to be a term that is used consistently by reliable sources which would go against NPOV and DEFCAT. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we disagree, I'll wait for a stronger consensus before adding it back. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References