Jump to content

Talk:European settlers in New Zealand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 20 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English; as such, per MOS:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR, it is an appropriate title to use. An open line of discussion exists for a title such as "Pākehā settlement of New Zealand", which can be explored in another RM without prejudice.

As an aside, I would like to express my concern with a certain style of argument that was also raised at the RM at Talk:Ganges, and has come up at NZ-related (and some AU-related) RMs before; namely, I am concerned that we run the risk of creating tiers of national variants of English when it comes to the application of the "use English" policy. Such a practice would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hamper our efforts at countering systemic bias. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly allows and recommends, in cases where the local English name differs from the globally used one, that the local English common name should prevail. New Zealand English is notable for its assimilation of Māori vocabulary beyond other variants of English within the core Anglosphere. In such a context, that vocabulary, where local use in English speech is attested, are just as valid as the "Queen's English" for the purposes of Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia deliberately does not have a "preferred" variant of English. Sceptre (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pākehā settlers → European settlers in New Zealand – Per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:COMMONALITY, and WP:CONSISTENT. Use of "Pākehā settlers" is rare compared to "European settlers" in the context of "New Zealand"; in Google Scholar since 2021, there have been 47 articles using the former compared to 976 using the latter - note that not all of the 976 are relevant, but a partial review shows that almost all are. Further, WP:COMMONALITY requires us to use vocabulary common to all varieties of English where possible, which supports the globally WP:RECOGNIZABLE "European settlers in New Zealand" over "Pākehā settlers". Finally, WP:CONSISTENT appears to support this move, as European New Zealanders covers the ethnic group rather than Pākehā. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the current title is succinct and the word Pākehā is a common one in New Zealand English. There should certainly be a redirect from European settlers in New Zealand. The article should also be tagged with {{Use New Zealand English}}.-gadfium 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support also per global WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and per nominator showing the proposed name is by far more common than the current name. This is still in line with MOS:TIES because "European" is used more often than "Pakeha" is, even in a New Zealand context. Because "European" is the more commonly used name, it should be used in the article and the title. Furthermore, it can be ambiguous what "Pakeha" means depending on the context. --Spekkios (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per MOS:TIES we should be using NZ English for this article - in which the most frequently used term for this group is Pākehā. The proposed title is over double the length of the current one, requires extra disambiguation, is less precise, and is a far less natural way of phrasing this topic within NZ English. All of which is to say, the proposal fails WP:CRITERIA pretty clearly. Turnagra (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don’t believe MOS:TIES is relevant here. Both phrases are correct in NZ English. It’s not equivalent to something like Color of the New Zealand flag. We certainly don’t have any responsibility to use the more colloquial pākehā. — HTGS (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and MOS:TIES. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article topic is specially the earliest settlers from Europe who became known as Pākehā. This is the common name. --Hazhk (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: Was closed as no consensus, before being relisted after discussion BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with BilledMammal's statement from above, WP:CONSISTENT doesn't quite apply as this article isn't referring to European New Zealanders as they were, very crucially, people who were not yet defined as New Zealanders. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, the article should go off the New Zealand English term for the concept. Because we can't feasibly find that out from any type of google (or similar) search I'm aware of, I'm inclined to say we should go with the stated experiences of other editors as to what is commonly said in New Zealand. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Xurizuri: I would note that MOS:COMMONALITY is an exception to WP:TITLEVAR so long as the alternative is used in the local language, but there might be a way to determine which is the WP:COMMONNAME in New Zealand. Specifically, a google news search, limited to the past year and to New Zealand domains, for "Pākehā settlers" and for '"European settlers" New Zealand' - the addition of New Zealand will likely exclude some appropriate results, but we need to exclude results discussing settlers outside of New Zealand and this should exclude most of them. The first of these queries returns 17 results, while the second returns 74 results, which strongly suggests that the New Zealand English term for the concept is "European settlers", not "Pākehā". BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • WP:TITLEVAR doesn't say anything about having an exception for commonality. It states that a neutral term can be chosen to apply to multiple countries, but that isn't relevant here as this article deals exclusively with New Zealand. At any rate, the proposed title fails multiple criteria by being less precise, less concise, and de facto requiring disambiguation by needing to specify "in New Zealand". Turnagra (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • TITLEVAR refers editors to ENGVAR, which does include an exception for commonality, and explicitly states Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. The proposal title is equally precise - note the same settlers are covered by this article as are covered by European New Zealanders. Finally, while you are correct it is less concise, that is only one aspect of WP:CRITERIA, and on the remaining three the proposed title is preferred, both in New Zealand per the evidence I presented in response to Xurizuri, and globally in the evidence I presented in the nom. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for unambiguity. Other than the issue discussed above of whether non-New Zealanders will understand pākehā, the word is not strictly clear through history to mean foreigners of European origin, and our use here continues to push the narrative that ignores settlement by other ethnicities (eg Chinese). — HTGS (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Doesn't the proposed title even more explicitly push such a narrative? Turnagra (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don’t see how? The difference would be an article about European settlers that is called such, and an article about the same, but labelled pākehā. If you want to suggest that we expand the article’s scope to all non-Māori, then please do so, I really am curious whether that would be a good idea. I’m just not a historian, so I can’t really speak to that. — HTGS (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I think that's a conversation worth having if your issue with the current article is that it doesn't properly cover non-European immigrants, especially since this would be in scope within the definition of Pākehā at the time in question. Turnagra (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: should the page not be placed at European/Pākehā settlement of New Zealand [of the 19th century] or similar? The primary topic of the article is the event of NZ’s settlement, not the settlers themselves. — HTGS (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support "Pākehā settlement of New Zealand" as pākehā is the commonly used term for the settlers and the title corresponds to the scope of this article. Schwede66 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the various solid arguments against given above. I too would support "Pākehā settlement of New Zealand" if this proposal fails. Moriori (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (part 2): There is significant disagreement over “European” vs “pākehā”. However there is nothing about the article that needs to centre white people, or race at all. We could easily focus on the fact of NZ’s settlement in the 19th century by people who are non-Māori—we have already a good amount of agreement to remove focus from the people themselves. Obviously Europeans were not alone in settling the country (though of course they were the dominant majority), and adding another article(s) for non-Māori, non-white settlers could work well, but we might just as well have information that would fit into context with this article. (I’m not aware of any already existing article with such a focus, so please correct me if I’m wrong.)
With this in mind, I’m thinking a title like 19th century settlement of New Zealand… though I’m very open to less clunky formulations. I imagine that Pākehā settlement of New Zealand could work with this focus if we interpret pākehā without race, but the ambiguity problem goes both ways imo. — HTGS (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Settlement of New Zealand could work, as it is less clunky, and the article does briefly discuss 20th century settlement. However, I still think "European Settlement of New Zealand" is more appropriate until we change the scope of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
My only concern is that “Settlement of New Zealand” is likely to be confused for settlement by Māori, which would obviously be the primary topic. I may be in the minority, but for this type of minor shift I don’t believe the page scope has to change before the title. And, in fact, that sort of shift in scope is very difficult/impossible to make without the more subtle shift in the title. Though I do understand if that sort of change is too far from the point of the present RM. — HTGS (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Good point, although we need an article on Māori settlement of New Zealand - although I don't think either settlement would be primary, with Settlement of New Zealand being a disambiguation page when an article on the Māori settlement is created. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British

Pākehā settlers were overwhelmingly of British origin. It misrepresents history to talk about "European settlers". Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Britain is in Europe, and as was noted in the RM above, the term overwhelming used in scholarship (including by historians) is "European settlers". --Spekkios (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Initiating an RM immediately after a previous RM close and for an RM under current MOVE Review is problematic and counterproductive. Allow the previous RM to sort itself out first. Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Pākehā settlers → 19th century settlement of New Zealand – As was largely agreed above, the article's focus is, and should be, on the fact of the country's settlement, rather than on the particularities of the settlers themselves. With this focus on the country's (secondary) settlement, we should not exclude non-pākehā/European peoples who also play a vital part of the country's history (as Pākehā settlement of New Zealand would). This also has the warm side-effect of resolving any lingering dispute about the choice of wording between pākehā and European.

The primary objection will be in setting such a narrowed timeframe. My impression is that the qualitatively different nature of settlement since 1900 (well after the dissolution of the New Zealand Company, as well as the gold rushes) means that it has been covered quite separately by the histories. And of course it can be included as a sort of epilogue within this article, as it already is.

As initiator, I am open to alternative equivalent phrasings. For example, Settlement of New Zealand since 1839 offers the opportunity for a much more open-ended article that touches on immigration even into the 21st century. I would choose this option second though; as many of us know, Wikipedia articles can struggle under their own weight if they are left too open-ended, with a real risk of losing focus. If necessary, an article could be created in future, or a renaming and refocussing could be done if 20th century immigration burdens this article too heavily. — HTGS (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This feels like a different scoped article altogether - wouldn't your proposed article have quite a bit of scope overlap with Immigration to New Zealand? Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    My primary proposal is to keep fundamentally the same limited scope the article already has, but it would open the doors (so to speak) to Chinese, Pacific Island and other settlers. The secondary idea (in the third para) is only there if other editors prefer that sort of scope. As a Venn diagram the circle of this article is already completely encompassed by the Immigration to NZ article, and would remain so. Obviously this article would not cover any original settlement by Māori, nor (ideally) any post-war immigration. — HTGS (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the current title provides enough latitude for an article which is different enough to the immigration article to justify its existence (focusing on the people more than the immigration itself, if that makes sense). I'm more opposed to the open scope of the second one, but I think I'm still sufficiently not in favour of the actual proposal to vote Oppose on it. Turnagra (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_settlers_in_New_Zealand/Archive_1&oldid=1228266306"