Talk:New Zealand European

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Flag New Zealand European is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] the people in the pictures

okay but seriously, the pictures of New Zealand Europeans are a bit weird. One, does Karl Urban call himself European? And for two, do you think the people reading this article never saw a white person before? Kripto 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This highlights the general problems with those kind of galleries - the idea that a few pictures of random people are representative of an entire population is ridiculous, and the idea that you can look at a supposedly representative NZ European (or Maori or North African or Peruvian or whatever) and thereby gain any understanding of that group is silly at best. --Helenalex 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff Kripto, I'll have a closer look and see what I can add in good time A.J.Chesswas 12:59, 30 January 2007 (NZT)

There are 2.6 million European-British P***** New Zealanders. I want a picture on the page. Or, I'm gonna take the pictures down, because they're pointless. Kripto 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europeans or New Zealand Europeans

This article currently seems to ignore the distinction between Europeans living in New Zealand, and New Zealand Europeans. There were 2,609,592 European usual residents counted in the 2006 census, of which only 2,381,076 were New Zealand Europeans.[1] Which should this article be about? There are also many people living outside NZ who would identify as New Zealand Europeans, who we have not mentioned. -- Avenue 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of feedback I will assume that the article's title is correct and we mean New Zealand Europeans, not Europeans living in New Zealand. -- Avenue 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Over half of this article isn't about the promised topic: over half of this article is about alternative things to call a European New Zealander. I wonder if we should chop out the British bit and the Pākehā bit, and incorporate them as two (and only two) sentences at the top of the page: the British bit is useful for perspective, but the two examples of British New Zealand-ism date frfom 1953 and 1974 respectively, and I don't think it needs super large elaboration; and there's a whole Pākehā article, so that's already taken care of. Kripto 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand British

This still seems to me to be OR. The quote by Holyoake does not include the term "New Zealand British" and neither does the listener one. It's all very unclear whether this is about being of British ancestry or calling oneself "New Zealand British" (the term). If it is about the term then isn't saying "I'm British" and saying "I'm New Zealand British" completely different? If it's about being of British ancestry then does this require it's own section? Why is it any different to being of German, French, Irish ancestry? The section is confusing and as it is now I don't know if it warrants it's own section. - Shudda talk 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And neither does the recently added quote from Don Brash. All it shows is that the former leader of the opposition thought that some societal values in New Zealand were derived from the British. That doesn't equate to being ethnically British; one could be Maori and hold British values dear (whatever they are) --Lholden 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Pakeha

Avenue, I see you have suggested a marge. This was previously discussed on the Pakeha talk page, with the following result:

   * merge European into Pakeha - 3 - (Shudda - Helenalex - Kripto)
   * keep NZ European - 1 - Brian
   * merge Pakeha into European - 2 - A.J.Chesswas - Arguss (changed vote)

"NZ European should talk about history, statistics and influence etc...Pakeha should discuss orgins of the word, acceptance etc."

These were the conclusions. If there was a merge, then I believe Pakeha should be redirected and merged as a section in New Zealand European, given that the latter is the term people use to describe themselves in the census. A.J.Chesswas 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Behemoth who suggested it, not me - see this diff. I wouldn't expect any greater consensus now than last time. -- Avenue 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it then that we won't me merging NZ European with Pakeha? Especially given that the Pakeha demographic stats are being pruned as we speak. A.J.Chesswas 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the pruning of stats from the Pākehā article as a quite separate issue. I don't currently have a strong view about whether the two articles should be merged. Unless someone argues for the merger in the next couple of days, I think the merge tags should be removed. -- Avenue 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. The two articles should not be merged, as they are not even the same. I am New Zealand European, and am not Pakeha at all. I take offence to being called Pakeha, and know many who are the same. Pakeha should be an article on its own, especially as its mere meaning is constantly debated. --Hayden5650 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be completely incorrect to merge the two, when the fundamental definition of the two terms differ. Taken straight from the Pakeha article is the following; '(pakeha) can also be used to refer to any non-Māori person'. That means if you merged the two articles, technically you could call anyone from a Nigerian to a Siamese a New Zealand European, when clearly that is not the intention. Keep the two articles seperate. --Hayden5650 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Slav ancestry vs German, Dutch, etc

The lead section describes the ancestral makeup of NZ Europeans. This is difficult to do precisely, since there appear to be no good statistics on the topic, and we have to infer it from information such as birthplace and ethnicity. In this recent edit, an anon claimed that there were fewer NZ Europeans with South Slav ancestry than German ancestry. I don't believe this, and it's certainly not clear from the Te Ara source cited. Yes, there are now almost twice as many usual residents of NZ born in Germany than in Yugoslavia or Croatia, due to recent German immigration. But how many of them consider themselves of NZ European ethnicity? We don't know, and I suspect a fair proportion do not. There would also be many NZ Europeans with Dalmatian ancestry who were not born there, given the group's long history in NZ. Anyway, I have removed that claim. -- Avenue 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words & macrons

I know we all get a bit heated over this topic, but I want to remind people of two things: please remember not to include sentences with "many New Zealanders", and "some New Zealanders of European descent", and the like. Because if you get slapped with a ref tag, you're gonna end up in the poo. If you can't ref it, don't add it. Just so you know. The other thing was a reminder that I don't know how often people go on macron patrol but macrons are important and a good example you're paying attention. And Pākehā has two. Kripto 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Europeans do not write with Macrons. Not in this article, the actual Pakeha article may --Hayden5650 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

we have segregated grammar now? crap. and here's me...damn. We write with macrons not because we are racially anything (though I disagree with you with compound interest). we write with macrons because this is an encyclopedia and we want to get things right. Encyclopedias write with macrons Kripto 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The word is pejorative. I feel the particular paragraph in question though shows fairly how Maori use Pākehā and white persons use Pakeha , if at all. I might dare to say that Pākehā is Maori and Pakeha is re-anglicised New Zealand English. I say re-anglicised as it was us who put the whole language into writing to begin with. --Hayden5650 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If the English language ever worked the way you describe, it does not now. It has tildes and cedillas and umlauts and macrons, and that's just the way things are. There are no dispensations. Your punctuation and grammar doesn't get a sick note on ethnic grounds. Kripto 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiwi

Shouldn't the term 'Kiwi' be mentioned in this page. I call myself a Kiwi and not a NZ European, especially on forms, as I object to the term identifying trying to identify me by my ancestry not my ethnic affiliations. I am Kiwi not European.Nengscoz416 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We do discuss "New Zealander" responses in the Census. This includes people who said they were Kiwis, although we didn't say so. I've now added a note to that effect. It would probably be worth discussing this further in the "Alternative terms" section. -- Avenue (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)