Talk:Pākehā/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Macrons

I'm surprised that there isn't any discussion of the macrons here. Pākehā would be correct for the Maori Wikipedia, but it is now a word of (New Zealand) English and 'pakeha' is the English spelling; you'll seldom find it spelled any other way in books, newspapers etc. Perhaps this is an issue that has been discussed elsewhere on other pages for words borrowed from other languages. - Conniption (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is Pākehā and there is Pakeha, and European New Zealanders can be labelled as - or self-identify as either (or neither). The difference is similar to that of big "C" or small "c" Conservative/conservative, it is a matter of degree on how closely one defines their Pakeha/Pākehā-ness. If it were applied to a Kiwi (another parallel term :rolleyes:) that felt it meant jandals/marmite/AllBlacks/L&P/an'aBach@theBeach then it is the macron-free version. If, on the other hand, it were applied to a non-Māori speaker of Te Reo who believed that New Zealand culture runs from Pōwhiri to Tangi by way of Kapa Haka then the macronised Pākehā is appropriate. Then there's everyone in between. Fanx (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More on macrons

There is also the issue of style. European languages use all sorts of macrons, marks, apostrophes and squiggly things with their roman letters. But when those European words are written in English, the macrons and stuff disappear. When Pakeha is being written in the Maori Wikipedia, it should have Macrons. When it is being written in the English Wikipedia, it should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some kind of consensus on this? Personally, I think the macrons should be removed because this is English wikipedia and not Maori wikipedia. I will leave the issue for a month or two and await replies before removing the macrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about English removing the macrons. Quite a few influential New Zealand sites written in English use macrons. Here is a link to Te Ara - The Encyclopedia of New Zealand - a reputable website written in English and like Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, so its example is relevant. Another page here and a random page from the National Library of New Zealand with macrons on Māori and Pākehā. Kahuroa (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of loan-words into English retain their accents, diaereses etc., in common usage. The most obvious example is every other small-town tea-rooms which calls itself the something-or-other Café. The macrons should stay. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not sure what you mean about English removing the macrons..." Actually, the examples you give are all from NZ government departments and a national museum. Maori is recognised as an official language by those institutions. Therefore, words of Maori origin used by those institutions are written IN MAORI (read: with macrons) on their websites. On the other hand, English-language newspapers in NZ do not use macrons, because they are written exclusively in English and treat words of Maori origin as English loan words (ie: a word that has become so integrated with the English language as to be a legitimate English word in its own right, in the same way that "kindergarten" is an English word despite its German origins). This applies to every single daily and weekly newspaper of note. For example, this HZ Herald article uses "pakeha" without macrons: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644913. Likewise, this story from stuff.co.nz, which represents 50 per cent of newspapers in NZ: http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/415752. Just to state my credentials on this matter, I have a Masters degree in Applied Linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice degree, but there are plenty of people with better ones around here. And I don't accept your attempt to redefine what's English. Ha. Kahuroa (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakeha or New Zealanders?

Just noticed the bit "... famous Pākehā are usually referred to simply as 'New Zealanders'". Doesn't this undermine the entire nature of this article? If Pakeha are called New Zealanders then shouldn't the page be for them or a least there be a page for them rather than Pakeha?118.208.121.198 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I AGF here so simply say read the entire sentence -- '"However while famous Māori and Polynesian New Zealanders are usually identified by ethnic group as well as nationality, famous Pākehā are usually referred to simply as 'New Zealanders'." -- to keep it in context. 222.152.170.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

A couple of points. If you're talked about aren't you famous? Also I read some international cataloguing rules (DDC?) that said to use ethnicity NOT nationality as the definining distinction thus Pakeha would be New Zealanders and Maori & Polynesians would be Maori/Polynesians. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cataloguing prioritises ethnicity (Maori etc) where it exists over nationality (New Zealander/Kiwi). Most Kiwi's of course don't have an ethnic background and so would be classified as generic/mainstream Kiwi's. 118.208.145.121 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please define "ethnic background". Moriori (talk)

Ethnic - as per The Free Dictionary "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." So anyone other than the mainstream population with identifiable characteristics - Greek ancestry, Italian ancestry, Islamic, Asian etc. It can be broadened or narrowed as relevant e.g. Asian V Chinese or Japanese. Not sure what happens if a Kiwi goes overseas. It'd be Maori in Australia not New Zealanders in Australia but would (White) Kiwi's be distinguished from the mainstream British\American\Canadian\Australian population? White Africans are one instance where it gets complicated. I read of a case where a White African whose family moved to America, thereby making him a 1st generation White African-American, getting in trouble when he tried to claim to being African American. Perhaps he should have gone back to Africa? 203.25.1.208 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the definition you have supplied implies that a mainstream population does not in fact have its own ethnicity. The ethnicity of mainstream New Zealanders is often simplified to "Pakeha" or "New Zealand European". Within this group each and every New Zealander belongs to one or more of its sub-groups: English, Scottish, Irish, etc. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

As this page is getting a bit messy and out of chronological order because people keep adding comments to old (2007) discussions, anyone mind if I set up automatic archiving via a bot? I'd get this page into time order as much as poss first. For archive page 1 I'd use the 2005-2006 entries from the page history, etc etc, then set the bot up with a default config and have auto generated links to the archive pages.Kahuroa (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea... go for it. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay done, I've set up the bot to archive discussions older than 60 days, which will gradually clean up the mess that's been caused by adding to old entries. I will monitor the page so no one adds to old discussions. Kahuroa (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "Papa'a"?

I followed at link to this article from Papa'a, but the term isn't mentioned. What does it mean and why does it redirect here? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's the equivalent term in Cook Islands Māori. I've added a brief note about it to the lead section. --Avenue (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

More on Pakeha versus New Zealanders

Just back to visit ... Pakeha's not really an ethnic group, more an everyone else ethnic group. It's used for not Maori (Maori meaning normal people and used as the name for the pre-British\European colonists). It usually refers to Whites, and may not be offensive but it's all maybe\maybe not.

As an aside it recently struck me that Pakeha could be used to imply someone is abnormal - maori: normal person, pakeha: not maori (a normal person). I'm White, of British\European extract but while I absolutely categorically reject Pakeha status and am obviously not Maori perhaps like most Americans\Chinese\Indians\Humans I'm maori :) 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were you trying to express a thought about how the article could be improved, I missed it among the rambling opinions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please see our Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for advice on how to contribute constructively here. --Avenue (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a belated response to Dave above but it got shifted to a new section. It is a mite rambly I guess given it tacks on a word logic idea to the ethnic discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to your claim "Most Kiwi's of course don't have an ethnic background". All New Zealanders (and this includes all New Zealanders who either self-identify or are categorised by others as Pākehā) have an ethnic background. For example, my ethnic background is largely Scottish plus some input from the English periphery. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Racism

The article doesn't have a much in the way of the fact that a large number of people see the term as racist. The racism may, or may not, have any basis in truth but there is a definite perception and I think that this should be mentioned explicitely somewhere. I personally hate the term - I see it as akin to nigger, wog etc - as a descriptor I am a New Zealander. I was born here, my parents were born here and their parents were born here. 146.171.254.97 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To be included in the article, content needs references. If you can include reliable references, pretty much any relevant content can go in. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Use of Pakeha on Wikipedia?

I've noticed the term Pakeha has been used on a number of pages here in Wikipedia. Given it's one of those words that may give offense i.e. akin to gaijin, nigger etc, is that really appropriate? Similarly if it's not an English word, by which I mean adopted into the English language should it be used on the English site? As an example I vaguely recall there was a debate about whether Pakeha should be spelt with the ~ symbols over certain letter. Given that's ~ is not an English character that implies to me Pakeha's still a Maori word.

I accept some people whole heartedly embrace the term but, like those I've mentioned previously, others passionately reject it. It certainly deserves this page to discuss the difficult topic but given it's contentiousness I would have thought an alternative term should be used more generally, Kiwi's, British New Zealanders, European New Zealanders, Whites etc. Given I've just read an article about using skin colour to reject ethnic identity constitutes racial vilification I'd guess the last term's out and I would have presume the first to be overly inclusive. For myself I'm fairly open to what I'm called pretty much as long as it's anything but Pakeha. Anyone else able to suggest an English language term for 'mainstream' ethnic Kiwi's? 118.208.186.126 (talk)

It seems incontrovertible that some people do take offense at the term. However, generally no offense is intended - and certainly not anywhere here on Wikipedia. Usage here mirror usage in New Zealand government, and media. It's useful, and if you give it any thought you'll see that any alternatives you might come up with have their own problems. Snori (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same with nigger etc though? It may not be intended offensively but it's considered inappropriate to use as some people consider it offensive. Of course so's Black and negro if I recall correctly. Afro-American is the current acceptable term, which includes White Afro-Americans in theory. Using the 'some might take offence' view, isn't it dangerous? There was a court case here recently with a judge taking the view that as some people might take offence at their ethnicity being questioned racial vilification had occurred. Maybe I'm just being sensitive? And yes I'm aware the if the NZ Govt uses it that complicates the issue, comparable to official use in past decades of nigger. 118.208.117.28 (talk)

@118.208.117.28 Yes you are being "sensitive" about the term pakeha, I'd suggest you harden up. It's not an offensive term. Yes some European New Zealanders people find it offensive, but it isn't how the majority of intelligent educated people see it. I believe its "offensiveness" is overplayed in this article. Also you state "'mainstream' ethnic Kiwi's"? Please, think before you write (also check your use of apostrophe it's incorrect). Who are this "mainstream"? You? Who are the "ethnic kiwis"? Maori? Pakeha? European New Zealanders? I'm a 7th generation Pakeha by the way, you're probably just ignorant child of some bunch of whingeing Poms who came over to NZ in the 1950's!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.154.131 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2012

Please be civil and assume good faith in this discussion.-gadfium 05:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pakeha is a Maori word

it is not for Pakeha to redefine it to suit themselves. If you really respected Maori culture then you would respect the Maori meaning of Maori words.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.227.195 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is certainly a Māori language word, it is also in common use in New Zealand English, and the concept is part on New Zealand culture. It is therefore entirely appropriate for English-language Wikipedia to have an article on the subject.-gadfium 20:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the IP user's frustration - while can be annoying to have speakers of another language tell you what they think a word in your language really means, the reality is that the word is controversial for just that reason, and the Wikipedia article is only reflecting that, however imperfectly. Kahuroa (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there scope for a hat note clarifying this, and maybe linking to mi:Pākehā ? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an extra link to mi:Pākehā, besides the existing interlanguage link on the left border, is likely to help many readers. It only gives a brief one-sentence definition for the word, in Maori of course. The lead section does seem a bit misleading, in that it doesn't mention that the word is used in NZ English as well as in Maori. --Avenue (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pakeha is a New Zealand word, not specifically a Maori word. What it means is simply customary - unless parliament legislates a meaning. The original meaning would seem to be any foreigner. I suppose it is fair to say the meaning now is any non-Maori New Zealander, rather than just those of British origin.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Suggested new lead: Pākehā is a New Zealand English loanword from the Māori language for those not of Māori descent or who self-identify as non-Māori. There is longstanding debate over the history of the word. ---- unsigned post by Stuartyeates.

That doesn't quite hit the target imho. The controversy is really about the meaning in Maori - the idea that it is derogatory in Maori. There is no history per se - more like a lack of history, which leaves room for off the wall ideas to develop.  Kahuroa (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggested new lead (2): Pākehā is a New Zealand English loanword from the Māori language for those not of Māori descent or who self-identify as non-Māori. There is debate over the etymology of the word. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggested new lead (3):  Pākehā is the Māori language word from which the New Zealand English loanword Pakeha originated to describe people not of Māori descent or who self-identify as non-Māori. Moriori (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. I certainly use macrons when writing Māori loan words in New Zealand Egnlish. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Suggested new lead (4): Pākehā (or Pakeha) is a Māori language word for people of non-Māori descent or affiliation.  Borrowed into New Zealand English as a loanword in the early 19th Century, it is often used as a synonym for "of European" on official forms.  There is ongoing debate over the origins and etymology of the word. Kahuroa (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer, but: (a) origins are etymology, so origins and etymology is redundant; (b) I prefer the word affiliation over descent since descent doesn't cover whāngai, which seems important in this context. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

fair enough, delete origins.  But can we keep descent - -- I think it's needed for simple clarity.  How about changing the first instance to "descent or affiliation" as above? Italics only to show I have edited 4. Kahuroa (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally like version (4) too. I'm not so sure about the second sentence though; it seems to put undue emphasis on official forms. The "of European" bit seems odd too; "New Zealand European" is the probably the right synonym in an official context, although "European New Zealanders" seems more natural. --Avenue (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid the term New Zealander and similar because 100 years ago New Zealander meant Māori and people who access historical sources are likely to get very confused by this. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops I meant to say "of European descent".  For "official forms" one example is the  Census forms of 1996. Could say something like ... its use in the 1996 Census provoked controversy ... 

Also on refection I think the definition we are using above is dubious when it says it means in Māori "a person of non-Māori descent".  The official dictionary of the Maori Language Commission defines it as "he tangata kiritea i tae mai no nga kawai o Uropi" = a white person who came/comes from the descent lines of Europe. I think that is the core meaning in Māori. 

• Suggested beginning for a  new lead (5): Pākehā (or Pakeha) is a Māori language word for people of European descent.  Borrowed into New Zealand English as a loanword in the early 19th Century, there is ongoing debate over its  etymology, and the use of "NZ European or Pakeha" as a choice in the ethnicity section of the 1996 Census provoked an adverse reaction.

Kahuroa (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) I feel that mentioning the 1996 Census is recentism, it also gives the impression that this is a modern debate, when the history of the debate (as reflected in the rest of the article) suggests otherwise. (b) I'd really like to imply somehow that the word can mean different things in the two languages (which is very common in loanwords) but can't think of a good way to word that. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) I partly agree about 1996, but prefacing that bit with "for example" might be enough to avoid it being too recentist. 

(b) The Maori definition given here (but not the cited source) seems more inclusive than the NZ English meaning, which I think now generally carries the connotation of King's "indigenous Pakeha".[1] --Avenue (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) let's not get bogged down on the Census quote. I put it in because I think it gives a sense of the word's [former] status within NZ and gives some feel for the sort of reaons behind its controversial nature. Adding 'for example' is fine.  What say we leave it there for the moment and move on and develop some more sentences for the lede. (b) definition needs to match the source, and a quote from King is a good idea. Kahuroa (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pakeha now the norm for non Maori person?

Since about 2000 there has been a gradual change in the use of Pakeha to mean any New Zealander who is not a Maori, apart from Pasifica people so it seems that it is the colour of the skin that is critical, rather than strictly the ethnic origins. I have seen Asians lumped in with Europeans as "Pakeha" although it is still most commonly used as meaning any kiwi who is white skinned. Media use the term in at least 3 different ways, although since about 2005 they normally use a capital P. It is a bit confusing when kiwis who are "officially" Maori are whiter than Pakeha with a bit of Yugoslav,Greek, Italian etc in their DNA. I guess this could be called the Christian Cullum syndrome. Not being fluent in te reo myself,it would be interesting to have comments from Maori speakers about how Maori media now use the term or rather what they mean by the term when it is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The English language 2013 census forms use "New Zealand European" and the bilingual forms use "Pākehā" and "New Zealand European" See http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/about-2013-census/2013-census-forms-guidenotes.aspx Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stuart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-identifying Pakeha

In the last paragraph of the history section, it mentions a list of people who are Pakeha. Of these, how many self-identify with the term? It seems mildly inappropriate, perhaps, to bundle people into it based on outside observation if they are not on record as identifying specifically with Pakeka themselves over, say, kiwi, or New Zealander. This is especially so in a section which immediately before was talking about people who proudly identified with the term. At present there is no clear indication whether the last paragraph is a continuation of what had come before, and hence if it is saying these are all people who were part of the rise in developing a cultural identity based on the term Pakeha. Given that the term appears controversial to some, it seems wiser to be cautious about ascribing Pakeha identity to anyone who does not happily choose that word for themselves. Knowing nothing on the subject save what is written in the article itself, I am left confused, so there is perhaps a need for clarification here, or a removal of names who aren't known to personally subscribe to the term. Otherwise we are left simply with a list of prominent New Zealanders, bar those of one ethnic group, a list that would be better elsewhere perhaps. Walker Slake (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should remove these people from the list unless we have a source showing they self-identify as Pakeha. Likewise for Mansfield and Rutherford further up. --Avenue (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some searching for references that include quotes of the people in the list referring to themselves as Pakeha. So far this is what I've got:

• Peter Jackson: nothing.
• Richard Hadlee: nothing so far.
• Mark Todd: nothing so far.
• Susan Devoy: one interview where she describes herself as growing up in an area that was "half maori, half pakeha" [1] All other references for her that I can find she uses the word New Zealander to refer to non-maori nationals, and she does not seem to refer to herself as pakeha in any other context I can find so far.
• Colin Mead: nothing so far. In all his articles for the NZ Herald he only ever refers to "New Zealanders" as a whole, never maori and other ethnicities separately.
• Sean Fitzpatrick: only interview I can find that covers nationality is this one where he says he's "proud to be a New Zealander" [2]but in this context it was referring to the island as a whole not white-New Zealanders specifically.
• Janet Frame: nothing obvious, but someone who knows her writing might know something better. Searching for her did bring up the person who wrote her biography, Michael King, who also wrote a book called "Being Pakeha Now" and an interview with him, so he might be a suitable candidate for self-identifying Pakeha. [3]
• Lloyd Jones: difficult to ascertain whether he does or does not, but searching for 'Lloyd jones'+pakeha' produced an article on 4 authors including Glenn Colquhoun who wrote Jumping Ship, who identifies himself as Pakeha-maori: "For me to be Pakeha now is to be in part Maori,"[4] another candidate perhaps?
• Billy Apple: I thought we had one there, as his NZ flag was described as "percentage maori, percentage pakeha" in the press, but in the interview about it he describes it as "percentage maori, percentage other" [5]so...no definite answer there. In any case it doesn't say that he references himself that way.

Obviously there'll be more to find, and perhaps someone else can unearth interviews or works in their own words which reference themselves as Pakeha. I feel I'm stabbing in the dark somewhat as I doubtless don't know as much about NZ as you. But it's a start. Walker Slake (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

John Key is a high profile example of someone who often self identifies as Pakeha. A survey by University of Auckland finds that the term isn't pejorative or negative. It is interesting to note that according to the same survey, New Zealanders of European descent would choose to identify themselves as New Zealander (53%), New Zealand European (25%), Kiwi (17%) with just 12% identifying as Pakeha. The use of the word Pakeha was only slightly higher overall at 14%. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a paragraph which reads: A survey in 2013 found no evidence that the word was used in a derogatory sense.

This statement references an article in Stuff which quotes a press release from Auckland University talking about the results of their survey. Another finding of the survey (also widely reported) is that only 12% of New Zealanders of European descent and 14% of respondents over all would identify themselves as "pakeha". I wanted to include this in the article by adding the statement "only 14% of the overall respondents chose the term Pākehā with the remainder preferring New Zealander, New Zealand European or simply Kiwi." I have attempted to provide a strong reference for this but it as twice been reverted by user User_talk:Stuartyeates, most recently because "Credits Provided by University of Auckland so not actually a secondary source."

I must admit that I'm a novice editor and puzzled about what a secondary source is. Can a secondary source credit it's primary source and still be a secondary source? I need some advice here about how to reference the source correctly. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a good discussion of primary, secondary and tertiary sources at WP:SECONDARY. Alternatively you can talk to a librarian, they're really big on these. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read the guidelines but I am no closer to understanding why the link was twice rejected for being a primary source. There is nothing in the guidelines to say that a source which credits it's primary source is also a primary source. To my understanding the raw data collected by the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study is the primary source and the reference I gave was to a tabulation of the data from the study which makes it a secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps I have misunderstood the meanings of primary and secondary sources so could you (or someone else) please give me an example of a reference to this survey which could reliably be cited as a secondary source? 101.98.220.113 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've found another reference. Is this one OK? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863639 101.98.220.113 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Y Yep. That's exactly the kind of source we're after. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposed change to the lead of the article

To quote MOS:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." As it stands, the lead to this article is rather confused and leaves the reader none the wiser about people being indifferent, offended or embracing the word Pakeha. I propose that we modify the lead of this article to clarify with strong references that 1. Pakeha is not a derogatory term and 2. Only 14% of people surveyed would identify using this term.

Opinions of the term vary amongst New Zealanders. Some find it highly offensive, others are indifferent, some find it inaccurate and archaic, while some happily use the term and find the main alternatives such as "New Zealand European" inappropriate. In 2013, the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study carried out by The University of Auckland found no evidence that the word was derogatory, although only 14% of the overall respondents chose the term Pākehā with the remainder preferring New Zealander, New Zealand European or simply Kiwi.

Any thoughts? 101.98.220.113 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(a) For a term that's been in use for 150 years, so much focus on a single recent study is WP:RECENTISM, particularly since I'm not seeing a peer-review version of this research in google scholar which is what I expect from a university research output. (b) I'm a little concerned that you are focusing on a single issue here; do you have an undeclared conflict of interest? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(a) The usage and acceptance of words changes over time, I don't think it's recentism to point out the currently accepted attitudes to the term in the lead especially when there is evidence going back over 20 years (eg the 1996 census ethnicity question) that attitudes to the use of the term are changing. The citations I give are from a peer reviewed study published by academics at a respected university and referenced by a national news paper. I honestly don't know why the results were not published in google scholar but I don't think this reflects badly on the quality of the study or the reputation of the academics who carried out the study. (It later transpires that the paper IS in google scholar).

(b) I am puzzled to understand why you suggest there could be conflict of interest. I'm not being paid to do this, I am simply a wikipedia reader who has tried to improve the article by clarifying it. Do I have a point of view? Of course I do but so do you. If we were both indifferent then we wouldn't be discussing the article here would we? :-) 101.98.220.113 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(a) none of the three references you use mention peer review, do you have evidence of this? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it wasn't hard to find that it was published in the respected and peer reviewed journal Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy as Ethnic Group Labels and Intergroup Attitudes in New Zealand: Naming Preferences Predict Distinct Ingroup and Outgroup Biases, it is also indexed by Google scholar. My understanding is that this journal is probably a primary source so it's better to keep the references as is, don't you think? I can't help but wonder why you are demanding a high standard of referencing and sourcing for this though. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK so the correct reference to use is Sibley, C. G., Houkamau, C. A. and Hoverd, W. J. (2011), Ethnic Group Labels and Intergroup Attitudes in New Zealand: Naming Preferences Predict Distinct Ingroup and Outgroup Biases. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11: 201–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01244.x Which can be used for pretty much everything you seem to want. The problem with the previous Stuartyeates (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for bearing with me as an inexperienced editor because I want to get it right. I am confused that you appear to suggest that we should cite a primary source which is what we were trying to avoid. Or is this acceptable because it's stating a simple finding of fact from the research so it passes the test of being a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts" as permitted by WP:Primary ? 101.98.220.113 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources touched on are primary, but the peer-review one is an order of magnitude more reliable than the others. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Question for IP:101.98.220.113. Is your proposal to insert your material to replace the last sentence in the intro, namely Opinions of the term vary amongst those it describes. Some find it highly offensive, others are indifferent, some find it inaccurate and archaic, while some happily use the term and find the main alternatives such as "New Zealand European" inappropriate.? Moriori (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moriori, I am proposing to replace the text you quoted with the text I quoted in the discussion at the beginning of this section. We are trying to establish how to reference it and we seem to have gone in a rather circular discussion about Primary/Secondary referencing and i am rather confused over the differences between the two types. Perhaps you can help us out here.

Stuartyeates, I am puzzled by your statement that All of the sources touched on are primary in particular the New Zealand Herald source appears to be a secondary source as far as I can tell. Can you please explain what you mean. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any further clarification, I've gone ahead and made the edit. Can we please discuss it here if I've done something wrong. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Pakeha References in Literature & Culture

Just a thought, is it worthwhile noting cultural or literary usage of pakeha outside NZ census forms etc? I'm thinking particularly of an alternate history story I read where Japan reached New Zealand before Britain and a scene where a Maori Cheftain invited the Samurai leader to die saying something along the lines of was the Pakeha dog ready to dance. I'd have to track down the novel for the exact reference - it's been quite a few years. There are probably other examples to be found but it's the only international example I can recall. It also demonstrates the use of Pakeha as an offensive not-Maori term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.117.28 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if the author was Māori (which can hardly be assumed), this would not be sufficient to establish offensive use of the term. In fact, the offensiveness is more likely to come from the "dog". Similarly, in "white pig", the offensive quality clearly does not come from the ethnonym. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted a big section of the article

This article is about the word, the article about the people is European New Zealanders so I deleted the section discussing history of the people and cultural identity which didn't make sense and are covered in the other article. 101.98.248.252 (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It will be reverted, because the sections you deleted were about the history of the concept rather than the history of the people. -- haminoon (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)