Talk:Jafa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The following was printed on the 27th of January in The New Zealand Herald's Sideswipe section:

From a free online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, a Jaffa (insult) : "Jaffa is an acronym used to describe the inhabitants of greater Auckland, New Zealand, by Kiwis who do not live in the Auckland area (and by observant tourists who quickly pick up the local idiom). Auckland is a thriving, vibrant metropolis, and the word Jaffa conveys dislike for the success of Aucklanders who make up more than a quarter of the population of New Zealand.
Aucklanders say the word indicates frustration and envy in the users. Jaffa is an acronym for Just Another F...wit From Auckland. It is sometimes spelt Jafa -- Just Another F...ing Aucklander."

Ugh. Crusadeonilliteracy 02:20, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) Agreed. HTait 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] And thus the editing war begins...

And now the entry has been reduced to a mere stub? What exactly was wrong with that definition? It was, perhaps, a little patronising to people outside of Auckland... but then 'Jaffa' is deliberately insulting so who really cares.

I am astounded that someone could take such arbitrary action without even the courtesy of explanation. The article contained everything a wikipedia article should contain. It expained the What, Who, Where, When and Why. It was consise and NPOV, and it was accurate. Why was it chopped? Moriori 23:41, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
I'm astounded someone would think that subjective rubbish was a serious encrylopaedia entry. New Zealand's largest newspaper saw fit to publish it in their daily humour section because of how bad it was. Do dictionary definitions belong in Wikipedia anyway? Crusadeonilliteracy 00:07, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It seems that this article does not belong. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary TMC1221 02:54, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
What!? It's not a dictionary definition! The first line is a definition, the rest of it is an article. Don't be so anal. F...ing aucklanders! :-D T 04:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] other meanings

This is obviously a very local term should other insulting meanings be added? Jaffa meaning impotent (i.e. seedless) or is that already assumed about Aucklanders. ;) MeltBanana 16:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Propose change to article title

Google search for "jafa OR jafas aucklander OR aucklanders" - 386. For "jaffa OR jaffas aucklander OR aucklanders" - 227, a number of which are hits on copies of the wikipedia article. I propose title change from "Jaffa (insult)" to "Jafa". Nurg 07:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The term has always been Just another fucking Aucklander, the double F does not appear in everyday speech (not ever). Scottbeck 22:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also agree and I have moved the article to Jafa Tiles 09:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm moving this from the Category: Auckland, simply because this isn't really a geographical article, and all the articles there are geographical ones. If anyone feels it should be there, that's fine - it won't take much doing to put it back! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 06:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be there :)


[edit] remove/scale down Jafa from Auckland page=

Could someone reduce the prominence of Java from the Auckland page. There must be a hundred slag names for the different types of Aucklanders for the North, South, Eastt and West of Auckland. NONE of these are mentioned, and it makes the word jafa look lonely and just silly.

[edit] Problem Overstated, Sterotype Beyond Joke

I have never heard of any violence against Aucklanders because they said they were from Auckland - I am an Aucklander who has travelled everywhere in New Zealand, and the only time I have ever had a negative reaction was from an old man in a Queenstown bar and at a Christchurch hotel - we certainly were not assaulted, or even sworn at. Perhaps some citation from a respectable source is needed? Also the steriotype: "The road safety campaign has the statistic that 65% of accidents on SH2 involve Aucklanders. Aucklanders are notorious for having accidents on this highway while driving SUV's to and from their summer cottages in Coromandel." Now I have seen numerous Jafa joke books, Jafa test books and other Jafa books. That is the sort of comment that is meant to be funny and an overstatement in general. Personally, from having lived in Auckland for the past 15 years, I would say that that is untrue and doesn't belong in an encylopaedia. Consider:

  • If you have ever been to Auckland you will note that the concentration of SUVs as you refer to them is not noticably larger than anywhere else (or maybe I am just used to it :-))
  • The comment is made in a way that suggests that Aucklanders are bad drivers and therefore have lots of accidents. I would suggest that the 65% figure is resonable, considering that on a road coming from Auckland, the most populous area in New Zealand, most people will be from Auckland. (Maybe Transit hasn't thought of this)
  • It is also said in a way which suggests everyone in Auckland has a bach in the Coromandel. Perhaps it should be rephrased, or just left out, because while a few people do own bachs on the Coromandel, I certainly can't name anyone that does (which must say something).
  • Some citation needed, for the whole thing, really.
  • Have removed the SUV, Coromadel comment, perhaps it can be replaced, rewritten, slighly more accurately.

-To the author of the above, consider that to most 'jafa' is used with humour and the page not only detailed some of the stereotypes but did so in a way that has humour. Just because you've never heard of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, isn't true, or worth noting. I don't know how people learn through the exclusion of information.

Well, like I said above, content that is meant to be humourous doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article as fact. If certain pieces of 'information' are meant to be humour, they should be located in a section called, Jaffa Jokes, or something. In my opinion, exclusion of information is better that misinformation.--HTait 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? The stereotype JAFA was earned not handed out, JAFAs and SUVs are synonymous, deal with it, the wealthy American attitude of driving is what seperates Auckland and it's chaotic labyrinth of roading from the true New Zealand. Spend a long time on one side and then come back to the other quickly, the difference is phenominal and I live in supposedly SUV mad Havelock North. Second point, Yes, JAFAs may swarm the roads in the Waikato, Coramandel and Bay of Plenty regions during summer, but during the winter months the roads are still used, A common JAFA geographically challenged who doesn't realize there may be redisents who use the same roads too, but TRANSIT would have used a yearly total, either way it still says JAFAs have more than their fair share of road accents, it is the American-like attitude to driving (though personally having stayed in LA for many, lengthy periods and have not noticed such attitude may suggest it is an emphasis in Auckland and not as common in the US). Third Point, yes, everybody with a brain recognizes not every JAFA has a bach in the Coramandel, but no-one south of the Bombays does, I stayed up there last summer with my friends and they were JAFAs with an SUV. JAFAs earned their unfavorable reputation, it was never given out. Citikiwi 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

- Citikiwi, you sound on the verge of ranting. 'JAFAs and SUVs are synonymous' is just a silly thing to say and using your single Coromandel example to prove your statement merely demonstrates this. Auckland has suffered the misery of the SUV craze like any western-style city however I can assure you there are plenty of Aucklanders driving around in cars, utes, vans and wagons. As far as your comment about the common Auckland driving attitude goes.. yes, well I can't say I've heard it described as 'American-like' before but you are certainly right that it contributes to accidents. The prevailing behaviour is to drive as if one is the only user of the road, expend sometimes considerable effort to avoid cooperating with other motorists, and of course, resist all thought of indicating one's intentions until one's change of trajectory is well and truly underway. 203.89.162.186 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

-Citikiwi,Of course we don't get it.All Aucklanders LOVE the rest of New Zealand and very few slag any region off as we think its so cool and beautiful.You must understand however that at times we need cocaine and SUVs are the best way of going from one party to another.We're too busy sleeping with beautiful women than to worry about how you feel.I mean didn't you enjoy the porn when you were here.You need to relax get laid and it will all go away.I know some Eastern European women who will help you.

[edit] John Banks

John has been removed, seeing, while he was Mayor of Auckland, he was born in Wellington, grew up in the country, and lived in Whangarei whilst in parliament. His 'attitude' comes from being the son of a man going in and out of prison throughout his childhood and his mother running an illegal abortion clinc in their house, and not from being an Aucklander. Therefore, I think it is totaly irrelivant: it is like saying Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt is a Southlander. When he is in actual fact from Auckland.-HTait

Oh well, look likes noone else had a problem with John's departure. Sorry, John... :-) --HTait 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

If nobody has an objection I'm going to go through this article and remove weasel phrases in a few days time, in accordance with policy. I'm not going to attempt to refactor them, because they're unsourced and POV. Specifically I'm looking at 'Some people do not perceive Aucklanders to be real New Zealanders', 'This is view is held by some people in the capital', 'Some domestic travellers from Auckland stretch the truth regarding their home'. This is policy because these sentences don't allow the reader to decide if the source of the opinion is reliable, or even tell who the sentences are referring to! Who are these people? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance? ---Dom 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next on my list is the 'example' that isn't an example. This page is about the term JAFA, not about the general attitudes of New Zealanders to Auckland - it's a orthagonal issue that should be addressed elsewhere (Auckland anyone? - although I don't think this sort of thing would make it there because it's a better watched page) --Dom

[edit] Helengrad

May I ask why there is a "See Also" to Helengrad? The term refers to Wellington/NZ in general, not Auckland. Does it need to be here? If people want a big list of NZ unique words/slang etc then perhaps there is a page for that, rather than just sticking one example all by itself on the Jafa page.

Maybe you should do that then, I'll help if you need it, I think it's a great idea and I think the meaning of Helengrad actually means the restricting policies and theories devised by the labor party as opposed to an actual place, anybody south of the Bombays cannot deny the extravagance of wellington and there are very few who criticize it. Citikiwi 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This "See also" entry has nothing to do with lists of, or random New Zealand slang - it was included precisely because "Helengrad" is an example of a similiar disparaging term for New Zealand's *other* main city. In a non-personal sense, Jafa(land) refers to the over-bearing nature, and self-interest of Auckland and its culture, as percieved by self-identified mainstream Kiwis ... not entirely dissimilar to the self-interest and overbearing nature summed up in the political establishment otherwise known as "Helengrad". *Everyone* knows that both Helengrad and Jafaland are hell-bent on shafting the average Kiwi, albeit for different reasons and in different manners. Fanx 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

The unfortunate thing about this article is that it is very hard to cite references for comments except those such as tax take and roading etc. But I really don't think that New Zealanders believe that Aucklanders do not know of New Zealand south of the Bombay Hills. I am sure everyone has seen a map of New Zealand and possibly noticed that there is quite a sizable bulage underneath Auckland. "JAFAs supposedly do not know of New Zealand south of the Bombay Hills". Perhaps a more realistic comment is that Aucklanders have not heard of some smaller towns or can't pinpoint their locations on maps... --Taitey 08:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The point that this is supposed to make is "Aucklanders don't know the REAL New Zealand!". Which is a point easy to make and hard to refute, as many such jabs are. (Adding my name tag a bit belatedly MadMaxDog 10:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC))
The remark's point is that Aucklanders assume the rest of the country is just different geographic locations in which to live ignoring there were regional peliculauity or uniqueness.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/f/Talk%7EJafa_5188.html"