Talk:Pākehā

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New Zealand / Māori  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Māori task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Pakeha References in Literature & Culture[edit]

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)

Pakeha now the norm for non Maori person?[edit]

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[edit]

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%. [1] 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.[2]
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)
YesY Yep. That's exactly the kind of source we're after. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to the lead of the article[edit]

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.[3] 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.[4][5]

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)

Deleted a big section of the article[edit]

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)

Pakeha as Offensive?[edit]

This article notes that pakeha is considered highly offensive by some, but is there any research into quantifying this? The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study reported that they found no evidence the term was derogatory and yet their own article Ethnic Group Labels and Intergroup Attitudes in New Zealand: Naming Preferences Predict Distinct Ingroup and Outgroup Biases lists a letter to the editor asking why it is acceptable for Maori to call the writer or his non-Maori associates Pakeha when for him to call Maori [text omitted] would cause outrage. According to the study it would appear that the warmer a New Zealander is towards Maori the more like they are to favour the term Pakeha, and vice versa. Similarly, ethnic identity is slightly more important to those identifying as New Zealand European than those identifying as Pakeha. (Kiwi and straight New Zealander are even less ethnically significant). Whilst interesting neither fact reveals much of significance about those deeming Pakeha offensive. 118.208.1.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/news-events-and-notices/news/news-2013/2013/02/05/Research-busts-myth-that-Pkeh-is-a-derogatory-term.html
  2. ^ Pakeha Label Ka Pai For Most, Survey Reveals, Stuff.co.nz, 2013-02-06, retrieved May 2013  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference census38 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/news-events-and-notices/news/news-2013/2013/02/05/Research-busts-myth-that-Pkeh-is-a-derogatory-term.html, retrieved June 2015  Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863639, retrieved June 2015  Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)