Talk:Pukekohe

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. 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.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Bartholomew

@Andykatib Bartholomew's book is self-published. It is entirely inappropriate to use a self-published source for these serious and contentious claims. I have removed all content cited to him from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Would that affect media articles from 1 News, RNZ and Stuff citing Robert Bartholomew's book and the TVNZ documentary based on it? These would be regarded as reputable mainstream media sources. Bartholomew's book may be self-published but he has academic credentials. He would be different from the likes of Ian Wishart. Andykatib (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/02/27/no-maori-allowed-new-book-explores-pukekohes-history-of-racial-segregation/ this is just an interview which quotes him, it does not present his statements as facts. The RNZ one didn't verify the specific claims given. The Stuff interview is a synopsis of the documentary itself. I don't know whether documentaries are considered a reliable source and I cannot find any policy or guideline in regards to documentaries. So the documentary itself may be a reliable source but I am unsure. Bartholomew doesn't meet WP:SPS criteria for New Zealand history (or history in general) his academic work is in other subjects. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read WP:SPS, I understand the situation better. Bartholomew is a university-trained medical sociologist and his background is evident in the book No Maori Allowed. However, him choosing to get it self-published after disagreements with his publishers does create problems even though the book is grounded in academic research. There wouldn't have been issues had he gotten the book published via a reputable academic publisher like Auckland University Press or general publisher like Penguin New Zealand. Should we raise the matter at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board? It's difficult for me since I put a lot of effort into writing that article's history section but will comply with Wikipedia policy. Andykatib (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can raise the matter if you want, although WP:RSN would be a better venue I feel as the reliability of a documentary (if you want to rely on that) could be discussed. Some of the stuff is covered in other sources like this Council report which mentions educational segregation: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do that. Andykatib (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just linking this chat to the convervation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I found some references to Pukekohe in two books: Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow's Changing Times: New Zealand Since 1945 and Malcolm McKinnon's The Broken Decade. Both books are published by academic publishers Auckland and Otago University respectively. Pg 36 of Carlyon and Morrow (2013) talks about the Māori Women's Welfare League undertaking a survey of living conditions of Māori in central Auckland and Pukekohe, where Māori worked on the market gardens and lived in substandard shacks provided by their employeers. "A report chronicling this suation was presented to the Auckland City Council, the Department of Māori Affairs and the State Advances Corporation. Despite obvious need and constant League pressure on government, change was slow with Māori continuing to live in crowded, substandard conditions in the inner cities and having to wait inordinately long times for state rental homes." Pg 113 mentions that Pukekohe along with Auckland, Wellington and Warkworth hosted US military personnel between 1942 and 1944. Templeton (2016) talks about the majority of Waikato Māori being farm labourers, including on the Pukekohe gardens. Templeton then goes on to talk about an unsuccessful attempt by Pukekohe locals in 1932 to petition Parliament to repatriate local Chinese and Indians, who were seen as taking jobs off Pakeha and Māori. Parliament dismissed the petition two years later on the grounds that the "allegations set out in the petition... have not been proven." These two books touch upon some of the issues upon Bartholomew's book. I'm no expert on Pukekohe's history but I suspect that it may be the first seminal work to focus on the history of Māori in Pukekohe. Would it be safe for me to add content from these two books into the Pukekohe article? Andykatib (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search. Besides Bartholomew's book and the TVNZ documentary made on it, I came across this E-Tangata article by Dale Husband and this Newsroom article by Aaron Smale. Dale Husband's article consists of an interview with Māori woman Phyllis Bhana who lived in Pukekohe during the 1950s. It talks about her experiences with discrimination and racism. Smale's Newsroom article doesn't focus primarily on Pukekohe but rather on the Māori rural-to-urban drift. The Urbanisation section briefly talks about efforts to improve Māori housing conditions in Pukekohe during the 1940s and 1950s, and Māori experiencing discrimination and abuse when accessing services and businesses in the town. The section mainly focuses on discrimination faced by Māori moving into then-predominantly European urban areas following World War II. Andykatib (talk) 2:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Traumnovelle:, @Gadfium:, @SamuelRiv: and @CambrianCrab:. Would it be possible to include some content from Robert Bartholomew's book No Maori Allowed but balance it with other reputable sources such as media articles, books, documentaries and reputable websites? It could help patch up some sections in the "European settlement" and "New Zealand Wars" sections which currently lack inline references. I think the Pukekohe article currently lacks adequate information about the town's Māori history. It's a pity that the book's empirical research and contributions are hamstrung by its self-published status. Another idea would be for me to create an article on the TVNZ documentary No Māori Allowed that would cover the topics covered in the book. The documentary has received coverage from several NZ media and commentators including Stuff, RNZ,The Platform and Chris Trotter. Would the documentary and the media articles be enough to establish the book's reliability? I currently have a backlog of projects on Wikipedia and Wookieepedia and dread the prospect of having to rewrite the article's history section from scratch. Andykatib 12:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be acceptable to use Bartholomew for non-controversial history, and to use him for controversial history only when there are other non-self published sources to back up the basic facts.-Gadfium (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the non-controversial things, just removed the reference and tagged. If he really is seen as a subject-matter for New Zealand history, which I don't really see as this is his only book relating to New Zealand history to my knowledge. For the controversial claims I can't see a self-published source being appropriate, serious claims should have good sourcing given he alleges things no one else has seemed to claimed before that. I don't know if the documentary qualifies as a reliable source and that's what I suggested be discussed on RS/N, I can't find anything that addresses if documentaries are typically considered reliable or not. I don't think those sources are good to establish reliability of a book because they're not subject matter experts discussing it, and the reporting is more just reporting what the book states without delving into whether it is or isn't correct. The Chris Trotter source is self-published (substack) and I have no real idea what The Platform exactly. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for your feedback. I support @Gadfium: that No Maori Allowed could be used for the non-controversial information in the article. Having studied history at university, I have to agree with @Traumnovelle: that controversial claims need corroboration from other reputable sources particularly scholarly ones in this case. Will see if I can get hold of the book again to see what sources Bartholomew cites particularly scholarly ones. I agree that we need more clarity on the reliability of documentaries. Some are good but others are bad and unreliable. The Platform source is basically Sean Plunket interviewing one of the producers of the No Maori Allowed documentary. He usually takes a right wing view on Maori issues but he liked the documentary and praised the filmmaker's work as good quality content unlike TVNZ's F-Boy reality show. Do you think the TVNZ documentary warrants an article of its own? Andykatib (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the documentary is notable. Do you mean another discussion of it's own? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Traumnovelle:. I was thinking about creating a Wiki article for the TVNZ documentary No Māori Allowed. But will focus on my other Wiki and Wookieepedia projects first. Have gotten a backlog. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Traumnovelle:, @Gadfium:, @SamuelRiv: and @CambrianCrab:. I did a search for more sources related to Pukekohe:

Moon, Paul (2023). Auckland: The Twentieth-Century Story. Oratio Books. The book mainly deals with Auckland but is peppered with references to Pukekohe. It also briefly talks about the substandard housing and discrimination faced by local Māori. Have incorporated material from the book into the Pukekohe article.
Ausubel, D.P. "Race relations in New Zealand: Maori and Pakeha: an American view," Landfall 12 (1958): 233-246. Pg 239 mentions that Pukekohe is the only district in the North Island where school segregation is practiced. A footnote explains "that the Department of Education had established a special Maori school at Pukekohe in 1952. The district already had a primary school taking children from both races. This was contrary to all settled policy, but the Department while deploying the matter felt unable to resist strong local pressure." Have incorporated this into the article.
Williams, B. (2023). 'This Is Not Us?': African Youth Experiences of Racism in New Zealand. In A. McCarthy (ed.), Narratives of Migrant and Refugee Discrimination in New Zealand (pp 93-112). Routledge. Briefly cites Bartholomew (2020): "Bartholomew's work details the history of racial segregation in Pukekohe, in which Pakeha instilled engines similar in practice to apartheid South Africa, limiting access for Maori in the rental market, ultimately leading many to die in slum like dwellings."
Adele N. Norris & Gauri Nandedkar (2022) Ethnicity, racism and housing: discourse analysis of New Zealand housing research, Housing Studies, 37:8, 1331-1349, DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2020.1844159. This article is primary a literature review of the academic literature on New Zealand housing. Pp 1334-1335 devotes a paragraph to Bartholomew's book. The authors write that Bartholomew "draws on a collection of interviews, newspaper articles, and government archives to reveal that discriminatory practices in Pukekohe were akin to South Africa's Apartheid regime and the U.S. Jim Crow era." They write that Bartholomew argues that NZ racial segregation was not codified but was accepted. He argues that its lack of codification has reinforced omission and denial.
I haven't been able to access Parsons, Meg. (2022)."Maāori planning rights and wrongs in Aotearoa. In D. Pojani, Alternative Planning History and Theory. Routledge. University of Otago doesn't have this book and I can't interloan it through them since I am not a current student or staff member. Will see if I can interloan this book through the Dunedin Public Libraries.

Paul Moon and Ausubel can be used for the Pukekohe articles. Williams (2023), Norris and Nandedkar (2022) and Parsons (2022) may be more appropriate for the Robert Bartholomew article, which has a section briefly discussing his book No Māori Allowed. I don't think it will be appropriate yet to create an article on the book since it is not widely cited or has a high-enough public profile. The documentary may be more viable. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Andykatib 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add, but good work. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, @Traumnovelle:. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]