Talk:Elizabeth Rata

Mātauranga Māori

The final paragraph in the career section, which is about the letter written to the Listener by Rata and six others, appears to be undue weight. Apart from the first sentence, the paragraph is about the debate ignited by the letter and does not mention Rata specifically. Substantially the same paragraph appears in the articles of five of the other people who wrote the letter. Only the article on Michael Corballis has a more appropriate two-sentence summary of the letter and reaction to it.

I suggest this paragraph be removed from the six articles, and placed eleswhere, probably in a new section within Mātauranga Māori#Politicization and critique of mātauranga, and replaced in these six biographies by the two sentences (adapted for each article) from Michael Corballis.-gadfium 19:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the Corballis article, I amend this to suggest we put the following into each biographical article:

In July 2021, in the context of a review of the NCEA (New Zealand's National Curriculum), Rata, along with six other University of Auckland Professors and Emeritus Professors published a letter "In Defence of Science" in the New Zealand Listener, which claimed indigenous knowledge (or Mātauranga Māori) "falls far short of what can be defined as science itself." The letter generated substantial debate about free speech and the value of Māori knowledge in the education curriculum, with those defending and criticising the letter-writers' position.

replacing "Rata" with the article subjects' name in the first sentence in the other articles.-gadfium 20:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Support this. It is clearly undue at the moment. Aircorn (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually going to implement this as it is a BLP. Aircorn (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done here. Will see what happens before going to the other articles. The Mātauranga Māori article needs a bit of work too. Aircorn (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Whilst I wasn't opposed to the spirit of changes that original user was proposing, I thought that they were doing an overreach in removing all of the material. Have given the page another little clean up. :) Nauseous Man (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

forgot to sign off Nauseous Man (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus above that the material on the Listener letter science controversy is best placed elsewhere, though it may be linked to here and other biographical pages. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, it's been trimmed by at least two-thirds, I don't think it needs to be trimmed further. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What we have now is alright (not sure about the last sentence as only one of the sources actually mentions Rata by name and it is only in passing). What we need is more info on other aspects of her career. Aircorn (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing with secondary sources

I've tagged some sentences as needing sources and/or needing secondary rather than primary sources. I intend to remove these sentences unless appropriate sourcing is found. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have already thinned down the most questionable POV a week or so ago from the same set of edits you are questioning, however there is clearly more to go. No problem with your proposal here. I am interested in the the line of what is original research when we are simply making a summary of an academics research. Can we say someone wrote a book about X without someone else saying it first, a non fiction plot summary if you will? Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed most. Primary sources are alright if used carefully, especially in the absence of secondary ones. You can say she wrote an artiucle, but not really make any detailed analysis of it or its effects. Aircorn (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

'a longstanding animosity'

In a recent edit summary User:Doctor_Alice said "One sentence in the wrong place. The comment by Pihama is libelous and the result of a longstanding animosity between these two researchers which can be documented." I'm interested in seeing this putative documentation of 'a longstanding animosity.' If there are secondary sources, it should 100% be in this article, and possibly Leonie Pihama's as well. If there no secondary sources, it cannot have any influence here. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been asked by the subject of this page to remove the quote from Leonie Pihama in paragraph 4.

I can see that the quote has been removed once before and reinstated. However I do not believe the correct Wikipedia rules were applied. The Wikipedia editing rules state:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Administrators have posted at the head of this page this advice for editors: "Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject"

The quote from Leonie Pihama in paragraph 4 on the Elizabeth Rata page comes from a press statement released by the International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education (IRI) i.e. a primary source (I understand that Pihama was the director of IRI at the time of the press release). It is therefore "poorly sourced" as it is taken from a self-published primary source expressing opinion.

The quotation also includes an innuendo which is not verified by any facts. This insinuation introduces a biased point of view into the page. It presents neither the substance of Rata's alleged "attack" nor any evidence to support the claim that the alleged "attack" "highlights a disturbing trend ..." The quote therefore does not qualify as a "criticism" of Rata's work and it was published only by Pihama herself.

I believe that this quotation is a clear case of contravention of the strict rule on contentious material about living persons. I think it also contravenes the rule on insinuation, and the rules on the use of primary and reliable sources.

It would be good to hear other editors' views on this. However, following the rule on contentious material about living persons, I have removed the quotation without waiting for discussion. Popinade (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For some reason my edit summary did not get included when I published the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popinade (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The removal of Pihama's quote leaves the paragraph with "[Rata's] recent criticisms ... have prompted some highly critical responses" but no indication of what those responses consisted of. Is there another response which would be suitable to add here, or at least a reference for such responses?-gadfium 22:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a number of such references which I can add. The first paragraph has the same problem. Popinade (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good to follow up the reference to Rata's early work on kura kaupapa Māori with mention of her recent work with kura.

Some suggestions:

A collaboration between Elizabeth Rata and Tauwehe Sophie Tamati on methods for teachers of bilingual learners and immersion education, based on Tamati's intervention study in two kura kaupapa Māori schools (kura), combined Tamati's TransAcquisition Pedagogy (TAP) method (2016) with Rata's Curriculum Design Coherence Model (CDC model) (Rata, 2019, 2021a, 2021b; Rata & McPhail, 2020). Tamati and Rata argued that the study within the kura supports their "biliterate, interdependence language approach to the teaching of academic knowledge to bilingual students." They used a "kahikatea metaphor" to elucidate their four principles of linguistic fluidity, relational transfer, metashuttling, and conceptual progression.

See p.3, Rata, Elizabeth, and Tauwehe Sophie Tamati. Academic Achievement in Bilingual and Immersion Education: TransAcquisition Pedagogy and Curriculum Design. Routledge, 2021. DOI: 10.4324/9781003156444

According to Tamati and Rata " – an uncertainty about how to include teaching about English and instruction in English in a Māori total immersion school" created difficulties in the kura kaupapa Māori project from its inception. Their combined TAP and CDC model is presented as a means of overcoming this challenge. They propose ".. to strengthen the Māori language in its primary role as the group's 'means of communication' and to use it with academic knowledge according to TAP methods" (Rata & Tamati, 2021, p.110).

Rata stated in a 1989 PPTA Journal article that "Kura Kaupapa Maori is not simply another type of schooling option. It is the only schooling option that can guarantee the survival of the Maori language. This characteristic places Kura Kaupapa Maori in a category all of its own and in a unique relationship with the State." Elizabeth Rata, (1989). 'Kura Kaupapa Maori'. PPTA Journal, 30-32. quoted in Dale, Roger. ‘The Limits and Possibilities of Education’. Access 9, no. 1 (1990): 4–17.

Tamati, S. T. (2016) TransAcquisition pedagogy in bilingual education: A study in kura kaupapa Māori. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Tamati's TAP builds on the work of Cummins, Williams and others on multilingualism, language acquisition, and indigenous language immersion. (Rata & Tamati, p.29)

Rata, E. (2021a). The curriculum design coherence model in the knowledge-rich school project. Review of Education, DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3254.

Rata, E. (2021b). Context and implications document for the curriculum design coherence model in the knowledge-rich schoool project. Review of Education, DOI: 10.1002/ rev3.3253.

Rata, E. & McPhail, G. (2020). Teacher professional development, the knowledge-rich school project and the curriculum design coherence model, in: J. Fox, C. Alexander & T. Aspland (Eds.), Teacher education in globalised times (pp. 311–330). Singapore: Springer.

Popinade (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

'criticism from academics'

There is a reason this page gets more attention from editors than Dr Smith's great work on Patagonian Bush Weevils, it is because of controversy. I feel this should be included in the introduction somehow. I am cool with 'criticism from academics' however, what academic doesn't, I dislike 'controversial' as it is a weasel word, but I can live with it. Any thoughts? Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism from academics is most apt in this situation, I think, but Rata's views have also been controversial. It would be great to get consensus on this, however. Nauseous Man (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Doctor_Alice are these Pings working? it would be good for you to develop your thoughts here. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "some academics" is more accurate. I think the current sentence is alright so what about Her research has included Māori education and the place of indigenous knowledge in the New Zealand education system. It has attracted criticism from some academics. Would be good to add praise as well and a bit more about her achievements, but the body of the article mainly highlights the criticism (which is unfortunately how these things work) and I have not found many other sources. WP:BLPBALANCE probably applies to counter this somewhat. Aircorn (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've applied semi-protection to this article. Content dispute should be settled on the talk page rather than through disruptive editing of the article itself. Schwede66 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Her views and research on Māori education and the place of indigenous knowledge in the New Zealand education system have received criticism from other academics. is really bad wording. Instead, the sentence should say what her views are. That others disagree with them is secondary. Also, trivial. If all academics agreed with them, they would not be "her views", they would be the consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Referencing

This article has a strange style of referencing. Consider, for example, what is currently ref #14; it's almost as long as some Wikipedia articles. Can I suggest that this be cleaned up, with relevant discussion from within the references transferred into the prose, and each reference dealing with one source only? Schwede66 22:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I wrote this rather unwieldy footnote. I will reword the section as you suggest and delete the reference to Boshier which, following closer reading, I believe is inaccurate.~popinade Popinade (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)