This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
European settlers in New Zealand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Page moved. – Through multiple relistings, arguments have remained focused on the same conflicting interpretations of certain specific article titling criteria. I was content to let this go, but relisted again due to popular demand. Again I see another big-screen filling, mind-numbing wall of WP:SHORTCUT-infested text, from editors who already !voted in previous rounds, which is either too long to read, or incomprehensible. I might have given more weight to the opinion of the article's authors, but note that neither of the two authors responsible for about 80% of the content have participated in the discussion. However, since the latest relist eleven more opinions have come in, which are running 73% in favor of the move, raising the overall support rate to 66% – into the "supermajority" zone (mind you, there's no magic number for this) where we sometimes reluctantly declare a consensus. Consensus is not a majority vote, and every opinion counts; I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount. Common ground here should still prominently include the term "Pākehā settlers" in boldface in the lead sentence, and allow liberal use in the article body as well. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
First, elsewhere on Wikipedia we don't use Pākehā to refer to Europeans New Zealanders, we use European New Zealanders. As such, the proposed title is more consistent with our usage elsewhere.
Second, readers from outside New Zealand will not recognize Pākehā; in accordance with WP:COMMONALITY and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and with the general principle of making Wikipedia accessible to all readers, we should use a term that is widely used in New Zealand, and is recognizable to the broader body of readers; European settlers in New Zealand, rather than Pākehā settlers.
Third, the proposed title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. This can be seen by reviewing Scholarly results since 2021:
Not all results are relevant, but a manual review tells us that enough are to make the COMMONNAME obvious.Finally, MOS:TIES is overridden here by MOS:COMMONALITY, as "European settlers" is widely used in New Zealand English, as can be seen by these Google News results from the past year limited to New Zealand domains:
Of the results for "Pākehā settlers", most are relevant, although some also use "European settlers".Of the results for "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand most are also relevant; a lower ratio than for "Pākehā settlers", but enough to establish the common name. Some true positives are excluded by the requirement that they must mention "New Zealand", which was included to limit the number of false positives, such as New Zealand sources discussing European settlers in Australia. Results that also use "Pākehā settlers" were excluded.
This can be further seen by Google Trends, which shows that New Zealanders prefer to use "European settlers", and almost never use "Pākehā settlers".
This doesn't only establish that the conditions for MOS:COMMONALITY to apply are met, but that the conditions for MOS:TIES to apply are not met; in New Zealand English, the most common way of referring to these people is "European settlers", not "Pākehā settlers". BilledMammal ( talk) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
in [New Zealand English] the most frequently used term for this group is Pākehā?
the current title is far better at meeting all of the WP:CRITERIABilledMammal ( talk) 02:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
proves nothing more than New Zealand was part of a European empire at some point. Where is your evidence for this?
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealand? My review suggests the only one that isn't is this article, which somehow turned up in the results without actually mentioning "settlers" of any kind. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The reality is that it's impossible to do any quantitative assessment as you'll always have a massive range of false positives or sources with WP:NPOV issues.
Māori chiefs, Pākehā colonists and European settlers. No matter how loudly and persistently you argue, your evidence holds no water, and you shouldn't be bludgeoning your way to your desired outcome. Turnagra ( talk) 09:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
the use of the term "Pakeha" was low overall at 14 per cent, compared with "New Zealander" which was used by 50 per cent of [the New Zealanders of European descent] surveyed.
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealandeither; WP:NCET is relevant to this, which tells us
How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealand, but that is evidence against the current title, not evidence for it. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
can at least take comfort in the knowledge that people in authority are finally waking up to the indoctrinating nonsense in New Zealand that has been going on for several years now and they are starting to reverse the damage that has been done before it goes any further, demonstrates pretty clearly that the title of this article - and repeated attempts to move it - is an aspect of a Culture War dispute; namely it is part of a resistance effort against a trend over the last generation to include Maori words and concepts in New Zealand English. The idea that New Zealand-specific concepts ought to be communicated using other varieties of English, or using pre-1990 New Zealand English vocabulary, seems to me like an attempt to use MOS:COMMONALITY to fight a rear guard action against linguistic change that has already happened. Doing so is not aligned with WP policy nor with the goals of an encyclopaedia, as I understand them. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence to the contrary.Did you read my proposal?
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealandboth in general and in New Zealand; the sources I’ve provided in the links in the proposal, to you, and to Turnagra are generally relevant to that. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed") and the principle of making NZ topics in Wikipedia readily accessible to the global readership. I support it also for consistency with the article title European New Zealanders. With regard to MOS:TIES, the (frustratingly) very generalised wording of "
use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation" lends itself to widely varying interpretations, some of which conflict with the more specific wording of COMMONALITY. Those who cite TIES to oppose this request are generally following an interpretation that I have seen before but with which I disagree. Finally, my support is just for this article title change and some corresponding editing of the article, most particularly the opening paragraph. It is not to be taken as support for generally changing the word 'Pākehā' to 'European' in other articles that contain it. Nurg ( talk) 05:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." Note that the COMMONNAME policy is specifically about article titles, and the COMMONALITY guideline specifies "especially in titles". I do not have a problem with the word "Pakeha" being used (appropriately) in article text. Nurg ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
a core academic group who have been inculcated with theoretical dogma. If anything needs evidence here, it's that. Turnagra ( talk) 07:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
determined that Pākehā (with macrons, per NZ English) is the most precise term to properly encapsulate the scope of the article?
"new zealand" "european|british settlers|colonists" .nz -pakeha
vs 256 for "pakeha settlers|colonists" .nz
. That's a 6:1 bias for "European" in recent scholarship hosted on NZ websites, and that's not even counting any sources that use both "European" and "pakeha" on the same page (all of those sources would, however, be counted in the "pakeha" hits). When you don't restrict the sources to NZ domains the disparity is over 20:1.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)That's because there isn't much else to write about that affects NZ- what do you mean by that, exactly? Newimpartial ( talk) 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"New Zealand" "European settlers|colonists" -pakeha
returns 26,300 results on Google Scholar. "Pakeha settlers|colonists"
returns 1,280 results. Limiting to 2020-on, we get 4,980 for the former and 254 for the latter. There is a clear COMMONNAME here among scholarly sources, most of which seem to be in New Zealand journals or by New Zealand researchers. Further restricting these search terms with site:.nz
to return only results from NZ websites yields 429 hits for "European" and 100 for "pakeha". Note that these searches are excluding from the "European" count any page that contains "pakeha", even if it's not actually the dominant term (e.g. mentioned once in passing) or is only used in irrelevant contexts.
JoelleJay (
talk)
01:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)"pākehā colonists|settlers" -European
. This reduces down to 3 if I also eliminate mentions of "British" (compare this to 527 for the European version). In fact, I only get 33 scholarly hits across all time and all ccTLDs with the -european -british
restriction (compare to 25,400, or 33,500 if using "European|British"). So, this considerable asymmetry in formal discourse, together with the facts that English speakers will universally recognize what "European settler" means and can connect that to their understanding of European colonization elsewhere (and we helpfully have a series of articles on these topics in that general title format); that TIES is primarily concerned with spelling rather than vocabulary; that we have a very comparable MOS example that favors globally-recognized English; that our topic is people who would certainly have characterized themselves as Europeans (and "New Zealand European" even seems to be the preferred self-descriptor among modern pākehā); and (less important) that Maori vocab regularization is apparently a controversial topic among New Zealanders themselves, making our use of "pākehā" here even less representative of standard NZ English, especially in the absence of consistent loan word usage in similar articles, more likely to be seen as non-NPOV; I end up weighing TIES much lower than COMMONALITY.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Encyclopedias are supposed to be informative and educational, not just tell people things they already know” is—on its face—directly oppositional to article title policy ( WP:AT). If there is a title that will allow the majority of readers to understand what the article is about, we should be using that (ceteris paribus). — HTGS ( talk) 04:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. It is hard for me to believe that someone familiar with this topic would not recognize the term Pakeha (with or without macrons), even if there is some fuzziness around the boundaries of the term (a fuzziness which, as with terms surrounding settler colonialism in other contexts, may actually be constructive). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Previous closure
|
---|
result: |
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 15 February 2024. The result of the move review was no consensus – relist. |
This is to register my objection to a second relist; however, to relist after finding no consensus at MRV is in accord with WP:MRV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisting analysis
The Pakeha settlers article was created on 24 May 2005 by 218.101.80.106, an IP with a history of only two edits.
At 12:24, 27 June 2017 Hazhk moved Pakeha settlers to Pākehā settlers, with (correct spelling) as their reason. The move simply added diacritics. That's been, to date, the only move in the page's history.
When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. No consensus in this discussion preserves Pākehā settlers.
Remember that the criteria for deciding on an article title should be seen as goals, not as rules.
Four shortcuts were given as rationales in support of moving.
The first two, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, target the first of the five article titles policy criteria, Recognizability (use commonly recognizable names). I believe that Pākehā settlers is a term which someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, New Zealand will recognize. However this is also a term that someone unfamiliar with New Zealand probably won't recognize.
Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used in sources, and Google links are provided showing that "European settlers" appears substantially more often than "Pākehā settlers" in articles relating to New Zealand. However, ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, and non-neutral but common names may also be avoided.
WP:COMMONALITY targets the Manual of Style guideline, which says using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences – but "Pākehā settlers" may be glossed to prevent confusion.
Finally, WP:CONSISTENT targets the fifth of the five article titles policy criteria: the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. European New Zealanders was cited as the title to be consistent with. However, a search for titles with "Pākehā" finds Pākehā Māori, another title to be consistent with. European Māori is a redirect which has yet to be created.
MOS:TIES, targeting the Manual of Style guideline, was cited in support of keeping the "Pākehā settlers" title. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. I'm not clear on the relevance of this point. Sure, "Pākehā settlers" is clearly a "New Zealand English" term, but, isn't "European settlers in New Zealand" also?
Now I'll review the other three article titles policy criteria.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. This seems like a title that some readers may search for. Putting "Pākehā" in the search box, I find that the drop-down list gives me Pākehā settlers, Pākehā Māori, and Pakeha (spider). I also found a Category:Pākehā Māori.
"What links here" shows me ~80 articles linking to Pākehā settlers. Template:Culture of New Zealand and Template:History of New Zealand have links which account for many of these. Looking for natural article links from outside these templates, I find:
That's a sample I found by working through the first 17 articles on the list, so there are likely many more natural uses of the term in New Zealand-related topics.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. This criterion seems to be satisfied. Pakeha (spider) is the only title requiring disambiguation, and page views for the spider are much lower. I see unlikely confusion with the concept of spiders settling into new territories.
Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. There was a consensus that Pākehā settlers is more concise than European settlers in New Zealand. Fortunately this is not one of those all too common discussions I see where editors are pushing to make a title so concise that it bumps into precision issues, and then the title needs to claim "primary topic" status to bail it out of its precision conflicts.
The current title seems to be doing OK on most of the criteria. The main issues I'm seeing those supporting the move raise are recognizability on a global basis (a higher standard than the policy prescribes), and usage.
On the global recognizability issue, a look at the page views of related articles finds that most readers from around the world are likely to arrive in this neighborhood by landing at European New Zealanders, a term they should recognize. There, in § Alternative terms, they are introduced to the term "Pākehā", albeit not until after they have already been guided to the subtopic Pākehā settlers from a hatnote in § History. This issue could be rectified by moving § Alternative terms up to make it the first section below the lead section.
Finally, I'll take a deeper look into the thorniest issue, (common) usage.
The naming policy (over)emphasizes searching the Internet for usage everywhere, over simply looking at usage in the article itself. The Pākehā settlers article uses the word "Pākehā" about twice as many times as it uses the word "European". In its references section, I see "European" just once, while I see "Pākehā" five times. Perhaps "Pākehā settlers" is the more commonly-used term, in the sources cited by the article.
"Most commonly used name" assumes that the set of names used to find the most common among them are equivalent names, i.e. synonyms. I'm not convinced that "Pākehā settlers" and "European settlers in New Zealand" are completely synonymous terms, although they have very similar meanings. "Pākehā settlers" may be the more appropriate term to use when describing facts from a Māori point-of-view.
The 1996 census used the wording "New Zealand European (Pākehā)" in the ethnicity question, however the word Pākehā was subsequently removed after what Statistics New Zealand called a "significant adverse reaction" to its use to identify ethnicity. In 2013, the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study carried out by The University of Auckland found no evidence that the word was derogatory, 14% of the overall respondents to the survey chose the option Pākehā to describe themselves with the remainder preferring New Zealander, New Zealand European or simply Kiwi.
In Pākehā:
Opinions of the term vary amongst European New Zealanders. A survey of 6,507 New Zealanders in 2009 showed no support for the claim that the term Pākehā is associated with a negative evaluation; however, some reject it on the ground that they claim it is offensive, or they object to being named in a language other than their own. In 2013 the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study carried out by the University of Auckland found no evidence that the word was widely considered to be derogatory; however, only 12 per cent of New Zealanders of European descent actively chose to be identified by the term, with the remainder preferring 'New Zealander' (53 per cent), 'New Zealand European' (25 per cent) and/or 'Kiwi' (17 per cent) which is another Māori word.
Pākehā is not a legal concept and has no definition under New Zealand law. Most inclusively the term can apply to any non-Māori New Zealander. Historically, before the arrival of other ethnic groups, the word Māori was not an ethnonym as it meant 'ordinary' or 'normal'. The arrival of Europeans led to the formation of a new term to distinguish the self-regarded 'ordinary' or 'normal' Māori from the new arrivals.
The term is commonly used by a range of journalists and columnists from The New Zealand Herald, the country's largest-circulation daily newspaper. — wbm1058 ( talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
a light-skinned non-Polynesian New Zealander, esp. one of British birth or ancestry as distinct from a Maori; a European or white person.
a native or inhabitant of Europe
a continent of the northern hemisphere("Continental Europe" means
Europe excluding Britain)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English).This explicitly refers to the relationship between WP:COMMONALITY and WP:TIES in situations where there's overlapping terminology and therefore it should control. "European settlers" is commonly understood in both regions where "Pākehā" isn't. Loki ( talk) 01:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles ( British English) and eyeglasses ( American English); ten million is preferable to one crore ( Indian English).As BilledMammal said, the article on "crore" is about the term and is equivalent to our article on the term "pakeha". What COMMONALITY is explicitly discouraging is the use of local vocabulary when an international option is available, especially in titles. There isn't an international version of the term "pakeha" or the term "crore", so we have articles on those terms, but both do have a global alternative when it comes to their use as words. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. What I will point out instead is that the COMMONALITY-type argument is presented in WP:TITLE as applying only when a topic does not have strong ties to a particular national context and, therfore, a specific variety of English; therefore COMMONALITY is not strictly relevant in a situation, like this one, with strong ties.
that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize- the latter threshold being undisputedly met in this case, as far as I can recall. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.However, this must be read in the fuller context of the section Use commonly recognizable names. It would tell us that
... [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.It gives no preference to the origin of sources but would draw on a global corpus. It also states:
For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below[ie WP:TITLEVAR].
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense).It continues:
Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names.It is making a clear distinction between spelling and vocabulary and a clear preference for vocabulary that is commonly recognisable.
... the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état or coup d'état.The example is an important part of the context. Coup d'état is a loan word that has been universally assimilated into English globally. It is quit unlike the term Pākehā settlers, which is quite particular to NZ. An argument to retain Pākehā settlers on the basis of WP:ENGLISHTITLE is clearly not consistent with the spirit and intent of what is being expressed and evidenced by the particular example given.
parochial termimplies that terms specific to national varieties of English should not be used on Wikipedia, but our policies and guidelines do not support this where the term is specific to the variety of English most tied to the topic.
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. Nowhere do our P&Gs restrict this to spelling, and all the examples cited in favor of universal COMMONALITY come from vocabulary choice in contexts that do not have strong ties to a specific variety of English.
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English, omits the parenthetic examples given as a part of the sentence in full and which serve to clarify the spirit and intent of that sentence (see at point five where I quote the sentence in full). Quoting part of the sentence out of the fuller sentence (an act of omission) is a misrepresentation that falls to WP:PETTIFOGGING:
Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions- though any of the other five points given there would also reasonably apply. Claiming that my analysis is
novel and inaccurateis based on a misrepresentation by omission and is a strawman argument. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
variety of English most tied to the topicclearly prefers "European settlers", as established by both HQ NZ sources and other English sources (which the European subjects of this article undoubtedly have "strong ties to" just as much or more than they do to NZ English). And you are incorrect about
all the examples cited in favor of universal COMMONALITY come from vocabulary choice in contexts that do not have strong ties to a specific variety of English.The guidance to use "10,000,000" instead of "crore" is directly analogous to this situation, and in fact there would be a much better argument for using "crore" than "pakeha" considering there are hundreds of millions more English-speakers using the former than the latter. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
strong tiesto South Asian English? I am not aware of any, and certainly the guideline you cite here doesn't discuss such a scenario. As far as I can tell, my statement above is entirely correct - no example of this kind has been presented, where a term is correct to an ENGVAR strongly tied to an article's topic (according to HQRS) but the term should not be used in articles. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Wind and water: Environmental learning in early colonial New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
In the 19th century, pamphlets and handbooks written for intending settlers often depicted New Zealand as environmentally benign. Upon arrival, however, the newcomers experienced episodes of stormy weather and flooding. They also found greater variations across the country, between the seasons, and from year to year, than they had been led to expect. Primarily by experience, but in part guided by Māori informants, rural people learned to recognize the signs of impending storms and flooding in lowland rivers. They also came to appreciate the less predictable features of eastern South Island weather systems, and found ways to reduce their economic and environmental impact. |
Radical Title of the Crown and Aboriginal Title: North America 1763, New South Wales 1788, and New Zealand 1840, intro paragraph
|
---|
‘Radical title’, the underlying or ultimate title of the Crown to all lands within Commonwealth realms, is said to be a feature of English Common law, derived from Anglo-Norman feudal doctrines, that was transplanted to most British colonies. The focus of this chapter is the history of this doctrine and how that impacted on the recognition or otherwise of the sovereignty, laws, titles and rights of indigenous peoples. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are three modern nation states (the former two having federal constitutions) that emerged from a number of colonies in the British Empire. In all of these colonies, from a very early point in colonial rule, European settlers came to dominate all aspects of political, social, cultural and economic life. In the laws of the colonies, indigenous peoples – variously known as Natives, Indians, Eskimos, Aborigines, Maori (and sometimes as savages, primitive barbarians and a range of other racist descriptions) – were explicitly marginalised by legal dispensations put in place. They were subject to a range of policies labelled as amalgamation, assimilation, adaptation or integration, with a view to ‘civilising’ those who did not perish during the drastic population decline that followed the arrival of European settlers. |
Living and dying on the edge of the Empire: a bioarchaeological examination of Otago’s early European settlers, abstract
|
---|
During the nineteenth century, New Zealand was promoted as aland of plenty, promising a‘better life’, to encourage families tosettle and develop the growing colony. This paper characterisesthe life-course of early settlers to New Zealand through historicalepidemiological and osteological analyses of the St John’s burialground in Milton, Otago. These people represent some of thefirstEuropean colonists to Aotearoa, and their children. The analysesprovided glimpses into the past of strenuous manual labour,repeated risk of injury, and oral and skeletal infections. Mortalityof infants was very high in the skeletal sample and the deathcertificates outlined the varied risks of infection and accidentsthey faced. Osteobiographies of seven well-preserved adultsdemonstrated the detailed narratives that can be gleaned fromcareful consideration of individuals. The skeletal record indicateschildhood stress affecting growth and risk of injury prior tomigration. However, the historical record suggests thatoccupational risks of death to the working class were similar inthe new colony as at home. The snapshot of this Victorian-erapopulation provided by these data suggests that the colonialsociety transported their biosocial landscape upon immigrationand little changed for these initial colonists. |
Fashioning a future, abstract
|
---|
This article, split into 2 parts that will be published over 2 journal issues, examines environmental attitudes and actions amongst the first generation of settlers in Otago, New Zealand, between 1840 and 1860. Based on extensive analysis of diaries, letters, artworks and official documents, it argues for the need to recognise the complexity of European environmental responses and actions, including highlighting extensive official attempts at forest conservation from the late 1840s. Part I of this article examines the complexity of settler views by demonstrating the importance of the concept of improvement as a means by which colonists sought to Europeanise Otago through introductions of familiar plants and animals, and the establishment of farms. Part II is in 2 sections: Section 1 considers the impact of Romanticism on settler interpretations of Otago's environment, including the manner in which they framed and depicted its harbours and mountains in writing and art. Section 2 examines concerns over resource depletion and details official measures to protect forests, including through reservation, licensing of timber extraction and the appointment of forest guards. |
Land loss, confiscation, arability and colonisation: the experience of iwi in Aotearoa New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
This article examines the history of land alienation experienced by Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand across different iwi (tribes), exploring the connection between land loss and arability. The analysis uses geospatial data of Māori landholdings through time and explores the relationship that they have with Land Use Capability, a summary measure of the land’s economic potential. Two related factors are found to determine the variation of land alienation between iwi: (a) the arable profile of Māori land within the rohe (traditional land boundaries or territories) of an iwi and (b) the experience that iwi had with land confiscation. Iwi who held a large proportion of arable land and those that experienced land confiscations were more likely to experience land alienation. These findings reaffirm the historical narrative that Māori land suitable for arable use was targeted for alienation and illustrates the role of colonisation in perpetuating the historic trauma caused by these events. |
Pioneer Settlers Recognizing and Responding to the Climatic Challenges of Southern New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
In the minds of many Europeans, the islands of the South Pacific, including New Zealand, were an earthly paradise, as evident in the description of Tahiti in 1769 by Joseph Banks, who sailed with Captain James Cook on the Endeavour.1 Yet Tahiti was a landscape assembled largely from plant and animal species brought in by people from elsewhere in the tropics. Even in paradise, however, there were limits to how many residents, let alone visitors, the food-producing systems of a Pacific island could support, as crew members of the Endeavour discovered when they tried to obtain supplies outside the harvest period. Much the same was true of New Zealand. |
intitle:
search for "settlers in" turns up just
ten pages. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)academics, lost youth and activists indoctrinated by misinformation and a reckless education system. These sort of motivations understandably lead to persistence and heated tension in the discussions, both things which shouldn't have a place on wikipedia. But I have no doubt that supporters of the move will protest any closure that doesn't lead to a move, as they have done so many times before, and I'm sure that those discussions would see the same sort of bludgeoning which has marred this and lead it to be still going on after two and a half arduous months. Turnagra ( talk) 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
European settlers in New Zealand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Page moved. – Through multiple relistings, arguments have remained focused on the same conflicting interpretations of certain specific article titling criteria. I was content to let this go, but relisted again due to popular demand. Again I see another big-screen filling, mind-numbing wall of WP:SHORTCUT-infested text, from editors who already !voted in previous rounds, which is either too long to read, or incomprehensible. I might have given more weight to the opinion of the article's authors, but note that neither of the two authors responsible for about 80% of the content have participated in the discussion. However, since the latest relist eleven more opinions have come in, which are running 73% in favor of the move, raising the overall support rate to 66% – into the "supermajority" zone (mind you, there's no magic number for this) where we sometimes reluctantly declare a consensus. Consensus is not a majority vote, and every opinion counts; I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount. Common ground here should still prominently include the term "Pākehā settlers" in boldface in the lead sentence, and allow liberal use in the article body as well. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
First, elsewhere on Wikipedia we don't use Pākehā to refer to Europeans New Zealanders, we use European New Zealanders. As such, the proposed title is more consistent with our usage elsewhere.
Second, readers from outside New Zealand will not recognize Pākehā; in accordance with WP:COMMONALITY and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and with the general principle of making Wikipedia accessible to all readers, we should use a term that is widely used in New Zealand, and is recognizable to the broader body of readers; European settlers in New Zealand, rather than Pākehā settlers.
Third, the proposed title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. This can be seen by reviewing Scholarly results since 2021:
Not all results are relevant, but a manual review tells us that enough are to make the COMMONNAME obvious.Finally, MOS:TIES is overridden here by MOS:COMMONALITY, as "European settlers" is widely used in New Zealand English, as can be seen by these Google News results from the past year limited to New Zealand domains:
Of the results for "Pākehā settlers", most are relevant, although some also use "European settlers".Of the results for "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand most are also relevant; a lower ratio than for "Pākehā settlers", but enough to establish the common name. Some true positives are excluded by the requirement that they must mention "New Zealand", which was included to limit the number of false positives, such as New Zealand sources discussing European settlers in Australia. Results that also use "Pākehā settlers" were excluded.
This can be further seen by Google Trends, which shows that New Zealanders prefer to use "European settlers", and almost never use "Pākehā settlers".
This doesn't only establish that the conditions for MOS:COMMONALITY to apply are met, but that the conditions for MOS:TIES to apply are not met; in New Zealand English, the most common way of referring to these people is "European settlers", not "Pākehā settlers". BilledMammal ( talk) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
in [New Zealand English] the most frequently used term for this group is Pākehā?
the current title is far better at meeting all of the WP:CRITERIABilledMammal ( talk) 02:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
proves nothing more than New Zealand was part of a European empire at some point. Where is your evidence for this?
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealand? My review suggests the only one that isn't is this article, which somehow turned up in the results without actually mentioning "settlers" of any kind. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The reality is that it's impossible to do any quantitative assessment as you'll always have a massive range of false positives or sources with WP:NPOV issues.
Māori chiefs, Pākehā colonists and European settlers. No matter how loudly and persistently you argue, your evidence holds no water, and you shouldn't be bludgeoning your way to your desired outcome. Turnagra ( talk) 09:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
the use of the term "Pakeha" was low overall at 14 per cent, compared with "New Zealander" which was used by 50 per cent of [the New Zealanders of European descent] surveyed.
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealandeither; WP:NCET is relevant to this, which tells us
How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealand, but that is evidence against the current title, not evidence for it. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
can at least take comfort in the knowledge that people in authority are finally waking up to the indoctrinating nonsense in New Zealand that has been going on for several years now and they are starting to reverse the damage that has been done before it goes any further, demonstrates pretty clearly that the title of this article - and repeated attempts to move it - is an aspect of a Culture War dispute; namely it is part of a resistance effort against a trend over the last generation to include Maori words and concepts in New Zealand English. The idea that New Zealand-specific concepts ought to be communicated using other varieties of English, or using pre-1990 New Zealand English vocabulary, seems to me like an attempt to use MOS:COMMONALITY to fight a rear guard action against linguistic change that has already happened. Doing so is not aligned with WP policy nor with the goals of an encyclopaedia, as I understand them. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence to the contrary.Did you read my proposal?
European emigrants who journeyed to New Zealandboth in general and in New Zealand; the sources I’ve provided in the links in the proposal, to you, and to Turnagra are generally relevant to that. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed") and the principle of making NZ topics in Wikipedia readily accessible to the global readership. I support it also for consistency with the article title European New Zealanders. With regard to MOS:TIES, the (frustratingly) very generalised wording of "
use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation" lends itself to widely varying interpretations, some of which conflict with the more specific wording of COMMONALITY. Those who cite TIES to oppose this request are generally following an interpretation that I have seen before but with which I disagree. Finally, my support is just for this article title change and some corresponding editing of the article, most particularly the opening paragraph. It is not to be taken as support for generally changing the word 'Pākehā' to 'European' in other articles that contain it. Nurg ( talk) 05:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." Note that the COMMONNAME policy is specifically about article titles, and the COMMONALITY guideline specifies "especially in titles". I do not have a problem with the word "Pakeha" being used (appropriately) in article text. Nurg ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
a core academic group who have been inculcated with theoretical dogma. If anything needs evidence here, it's that. Turnagra ( talk) 07:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
determined that Pākehā (with macrons, per NZ English) is the most precise term to properly encapsulate the scope of the article?
"new zealand" "european|british settlers|colonists" .nz -pakeha
vs 256 for "pakeha settlers|colonists" .nz
. That's a 6:1 bias for "European" in recent scholarship hosted on NZ websites, and that's not even counting any sources that use both "European" and "pakeha" on the same page (all of those sources would, however, be counted in the "pakeha" hits). When you don't restrict the sources to NZ domains the disparity is over 20:1.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)That's because there isn't much else to write about that affects NZ- what do you mean by that, exactly? Newimpartial ( talk) 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"New Zealand" "European settlers|colonists" -pakeha
returns 26,300 results on Google Scholar. "Pakeha settlers|colonists"
returns 1,280 results. Limiting to 2020-on, we get 4,980 for the former and 254 for the latter. There is a clear COMMONNAME here among scholarly sources, most of which seem to be in New Zealand journals or by New Zealand researchers. Further restricting these search terms with site:.nz
to return only results from NZ websites yields 429 hits for "European" and 100 for "pakeha". Note that these searches are excluding from the "European" count any page that contains "pakeha", even if it's not actually the dominant term (e.g. mentioned once in passing) or is only used in irrelevant contexts.
JoelleJay (
talk)
01:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)"pākehā colonists|settlers" -European
. This reduces down to 3 if I also eliminate mentions of "British" (compare this to 527 for the European version). In fact, I only get 33 scholarly hits across all time and all ccTLDs with the -european -british
restriction (compare to 25,400, or 33,500 if using "European|British"). So, this considerable asymmetry in formal discourse, together with the facts that English speakers will universally recognize what "European settler" means and can connect that to their understanding of European colonization elsewhere (and we helpfully have a series of articles on these topics in that general title format); that TIES is primarily concerned with spelling rather than vocabulary; that we have a very comparable MOS example that favors globally-recognized English; that our topic is people who would certainly have characterized themselves as Europeans (and "New Zealand European" even seems to be the preferred self-descriptor among modern pākehā); and (less important) that Maori vocab regularization is apparently a controversial topic among New Zealanders themselves, making our use of "pākehā" here even less representative of standard NZ English, especially in the absence of consistent loan word usage in similar articles, more likely to be seen as non-NPOV; I end up weighing TIES much lower than COMMONALITY.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Encyclopedias are supposed to be informative and educational, not just tell people things they already know” is—on its face—directly oppositional to article title policy ( WP:AT). If there is a title that will allow the majority of readers to understand what the article is about, we should be using that (ceteris paribus). — HTGS ( talk) 04:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. It is hard for me to believe that someone familiar with this topic would not recognize the term Pakeha (with or without macrons), even if there is some fuzziness around the boundaries of the term (a fuzziness which, as with terms surrounding settler colonialism in other contexts, may actually be constructive). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Previous closure
|
---|
result: |
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 15 February 2024. The result of the move review was no consensus – relist. |
This is to register my objection to a second relist; however, to relist after finding no consensus at MRV is in accord with WP:MRV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisting analysis
The Pakeha settlers article was created on 24 May 2005 by 218.101.80.106, an IP with a history of only two edits.
At 12:24, 27 June 2017 Hazhk moved Pakeha settlers to Pākehā settlers, with (correct spelling) as their reason. The move simply added diacritics. That's been, to date, the only move in the page's history.
When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title. No consensus in this discussion preserves Pākehā settlers.
Remember that the criteria for deciding on an article title should be seen as goals, not as rules.
Four shortcuts were given as rationales in support of moving.
The first two, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, target the first of the five article titles policy criteria, Recognizability (use commonly recognizable names). I believe that Pākehā settlers is a term which someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, New Zealand will recognize. However this is also a term that someone unfamiliar with New Zealand probably won't recognize.
Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used in sources, and Google links are provided showing that "European settlers" appears substantially more often than "Pākehā settlers" in articles relating to New Zealand. However, ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, and non-neutral but common names may also be avoided.
WP:COMMONALITY targets the Manual of Style guideline, which says using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences – but "Pākehā settlers" may be glossed to prevent confusion.
Finally, WP:CONSISTENT targets the fifth of the five article titles policy criteria: the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. European New Zealanders was cited as the title to be consistent with. However, a search for titles with "Pākehā" finds Pākehā Māori, another title to be consistent with. European Māori is a redirect which has yet to be created.
MOS:TIES, targeting the Manual of Style guideline, was cited in support of keeping the "Pākehā settlers" title. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. I'm not clear on the relevance of this point. Sure, "Pākehā settlers" is clearly a "New Zealand English" term, but, isn't "European settlers in New Zealand" also?
Now I'll review the other three article titles policy criteria.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. This seems like a title that some readers may search for. Putting "Pākehā" in the search box, I find that the drop-down list gives me Pākehā settlers, Pākehā Māori, and Pakeha (spider). I also found a Category:Pākehā Māori.
"What links here" shows me ~80 articles linking to Pākehā settlers. Template:Culture of New Zealand and Template:History of New Zealand have links which account for many of these. Looking for natural article links from outside these templates, I find:
That's a sample I found by working through the first 17 articles on the list, so there are likely many more natural uses of the term in New Zealand-related topics.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. This criterion seems to be satisfied. Pakeha (spider) is the only title requiring disambiguation, and page views for the spider are much lower. I see unlikely confusion with the concept of spiders settling into new territories.
Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. There was a consensus that Pākehā settlers is more concise than European settlers in New Zealand. Fortunately this is not one of those all too common discussions I see where editors are pushing to make a title so concise that it bumps into precision issues, and then the title needs to claim "primary topic" status to bail it out of its precision conflicts.
The current title seems to be doing OK on most of the criteria. The main issues I'm seeing those supporting the move raise are recognizability on a global basis (a higher standard than the policy prescribes), and usage.
On the global recognizability issue, a look at the page views of related articles finds that most readers from around the world are likely to arrive in this neighborhood by landing at European New Zealanders, a term they should recognize. There, in § Alternative terms, they are introduced to the term "Pākehā", albeit not until after they have already been guided to the subtopic Pākehā settlers from a hatnote in § History. This issue could be rectified by moving § Alternative terms up to make it the first section below the lead section.
Finally, I'll take a deeper look into the thorniest issue, (common) usage.
The naming policy (over)emphasizes searching the Internet for usage everywhere, over simply looking at usage in the article itself. The Pākehā settlers article uses the word "Pākehā" about twice as many times as it uses the word "European". In its references section, I see "European" just once, while I see "Pākehā" five times. Perhaps "Pākehā settlers" is the more commonly-used term, in the sources cited by the article.
"Most commonly used name" assumes that the set of names used to find the most common among them are equivalent names, i.e. synonyms. I'm not convinced that "Pākehā settlers" and "European settlers in New Zealand" are completely synonymous terms, although they have very similar meanings. "Pākehā settlers" may be the more appropriate term to use when describing facts from a Māori point-of-view.
The 1996 census used the wording "New Zealand European (Pākehā)" in the ethnicity question, however the word Pākehā was subsequently removed after what Statistics New Zealand called a "significant adverse reaction" to its use to identify ethnicity. In 2013, the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study carried out by The University of Auckland found no evidence that the word was derogatory, 14% of the overall respondents to the survey chose the option Pākehā to describe themselves with the remainder preferring New Zealander, New Zealand European or simply Kiwi.
In Pākehā:
Opinions of the term vary amongst European New Zealanders. A survey of 6,507 New Zealanders in 2009 showed no support for the claim that the term Pākehā is associated with a negative evaluation; however, some reject it on the ground that they claim it is offensive, or they object to being named in a language other than their own. In 2013 the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study carried out by the University of Auckland found no evidence that the word was widely considered to be derogatory; however, only 12 per cent of New Zealanders of European descent actively chose to be identified by the term, with the remainder preferring 'New Zealander' (53 per cent), 'New Zealand European' (25 per cent) and/or 'Kiwi' (17 per cent) which is another Māori word.
Pākehā is not a legal concept and has no definition under New Zealand law. Most inclusively the term can apply to any non-Māori New Zealander. Historically, before the arrival of other ethnic groups, the word Māori was not an ethnonym as it meant 'ordinary' or 'normal'. The arrival of Europeans led to the formation of a new term to distinguish the self-regarded 'ordinary' or 'normal' Māori from the new arrivals.
The term is commonly used by a range of journalists and columnists from The New Zealand Herald, the country's largest-circulation daily newspaper. — wbm1058 ( talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
a light-skinned non-Polynesian New Zealander, esp. one of British birth or ancestry as distinct from a Maori; a European or white person.
a native or inhabitant of Europe
a continent of the northern hemisphere("Continental Europe" means
Europe excluding Britain)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English).This explicitly refers to the relationship between WP:COMMONALITY and WP:TIES in situations where there's overlapping terminology and therefore it should control. "European settlers" is commonly understood in both regions where "Pākehā" isn't. Loki ( talk) 01:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles ( British English) and eyeglasses ( American English); ten million is preferable to one crore ( Indian English).As BilledMammal said, the article on "crore" is about the term and is equivalent to our article on the term "pakeha". What COMMONALITY is explicitly discouraging is the use of local vocabulary when an international option is available, especially in titles. There isn't an international version of the term "pakeha" or the term "crore", so we have articles on those terms, but both do have a global alternative when it comes to their use as words. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. What I will point out instead is that the COMMONALITY-type argument is presented in WP:TITLE as applying only when a topic does not have strong ties to a particular national context and, therfore, a specific variety of English; therefore COMMONALITY is not strictly relevant in a situation, like this one, with strong ties.
that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize- the latter threshold being undisputedly met in this case, as far as I can recall. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.However, this must be read in the fuller context of the section Use commonly recognizable names. It would tell us that
... [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.It gives no preference to the origin of sources but would draw on a global corpus. It also states:
For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below[ie WP:TITLEVAR].
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense).It continues:
Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names.It is making a clear distinction between spelling and vocabulary and a clear preference for vocabulary that is commonly recognisable.
... the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état or coup d'état.The example is an important part of the context. Coup d'état is a loan word that has been universally assimilated into English globally. It is quit unlike the term Pākehā settlers, which is quite particular to NZ. An argument to retain Pākehā settlers on the basis of WP:ENGLISHTITLE is clearly not consistent with the spirit and intent of what is being expressed and evidenced by the particular example given.
parochial termimplies that terms specific to national varieties of English should not be used on Wikipedia, but our policies and guidelines do not support this where the term is specific to the variety of English most tied to the topic.
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. Nowhere do our P&Gs restrict this to spelling, and all the examples cited in favor of universal COMMONALITY come from vocabulary choice in contexts that do not have strong ties to a specific variety of English.
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English, omits the parenthetic examples given as a part of the sentence in full and which serve to clarify the spirit and intent of that sentence (see at point five where I quote the sentence in full). Quoting part of the sentence out of the fuller sentence (an act of omission) is a misrepresentation that falls to WP:PETTIFOGGING:
Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions- though any of the other five points given there would also reasonably apply. Claiming that my analysis is
novel and inaccurateis based on a misrepresentation by omission and is a strawman argument. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
variety of English most tied to the topicclearly prefers "European settlers", as established by both HQ NZ sources and other English sources (which the European subjects of this article undoubtedly have "strong ties to" just as much or more than they do to NZ English). And you are incorrect about
all the examples cited in favor of universal COMMONALITY come from vocabulary choice in contexts that do not have strong ties to a specific variety of English.The guidance to use "10,000,000" instead of "crore" is directly analogous to this situation, and in fact there would be a much better argument for using "crore" than "pakeha" considering there are hundreds of millions more English-speakers using the former than the latter. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
strong tiesto South Asian English? I am not aware of any, and certainly the guideline you cite here doesn't discuss such a scenario. As far as I can tell, my statement above is entirely correct - no example of this kind has been presented, where a term is correct to an ENGVAR strongly tied to an article's topic (according to HQRS) but the term should not be used in articles. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Wind and water: Environmental learning in early colonial New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
In the 19th century, pamphlets and handbooks written for intending settlers often depicted New Zealand as environmentally benign. Upon arrival, however, the newcomers experienced episodes of stormy weather and flooding. They also found greater variations across the country, between the seasons, and from year to year, than they had been led to expect. Primarily by experience, but in part guided by Māori informants, rural people learned to recognize the signs of impending storms and flooding in lowland rivers. They also came to appreciate the less predictable features of eastern South Island weather systems, and found ways to reduce their economic and environmental impact. |
Radical Title of the Crown and Aboriginal Title: North America 1763, New South Wales 1788, and New Zealand 1840, intro paragraph
|
---|
‘Radical title’, the underlying or ultimate title of the Crown to all lands within Commonwealth realms, is said to be a feature of English Common law, derived from Anglo-Norman feudal doctrines, that was transplanted to most British colonies. The focus of this chapter is the history of this doctrine and how that impacted on the recognition or otherwise of the sovereignty, laws, titles and rights of indigenous peoples. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are three modern nation states (the former two having federal constitutions) that emerged from a number of colonies in the British Empire. In all of these colonies, from a very early point in colonial rule, European settlers came to dominate all aspects of political, social, cultural and economic life. In the laws of the colonies, indigenous peoples – variously known as Natives, Indians, Eskimos, Aborigines, Maori (and sometimes as savages, primitive barbarians and a range of other racist descriptions) – were explicitly marginalised by legal dispensations put in place. They were subject to a range of policies labelled as amalgamation, assimilation, adaptation or integration, with a view to ‘civilising’ those who did not perish during the drastic population decline that followed the arrival of European settlers. |
Living and dying on the edge of the Empire: a bioarchaeological examination of Otago’s early European settlers, abstract
|
---|
During the nineteenth century, New Zealand was promoted as aland of plenty, promising a‘better life’, to encourage families tosettle and develop the growing colony. This paper characterisesthe life-course of early settlers to New Zealand through historicalepidemiological and osteological analyses of the St John’s burialground in Milton, Otago. These people represent some of thefirstEuropean colonists to Aotearoa, and their children. The analysesprovided glimpses into the past of strenuous manual labour,repeated risk of injury, and oral and skeletal infections. Mortalityof infants was very high in the skeletal sample and the deathcertificates outlined the varied risks of infection and accidentsthey faced. Osteobiographies of seven well-preserved adultsdemonstrated the detailed narratives that can be gleaned fromcareful consideration of individuals. The skeletal record indicateschildhood stress affecting growth and risk of injury prior tomigration. However, the historical record suggests thatoccupational risks of death to the working class were similar inthe new colony as at home. The snapshot of this Victorian-erapopulation provided by these data suggests that the colonialsociety transported their biosocial landscape upon immigrationand little changed for these initial colonists. |
Fashioning a future, abstract
|
---|
This article, split into 2 parts that will be published over 2 journal issues, examines environmental attitudes and actions amongst the first generation of settlers in Otago, New Zealand, between 1840 and 1860. Based on extensive analysis of diaries, letters, artworks and official documents, it argues for the need to recognise the complexity of European environmental responses and actions, including highlighting extensive official attempts at forest conservation from the late 1840s. Part I of this article examines the complexity of settler views by demonstrating the importance of the concept of improvement as a means by which colonists sought to Europeanise Otago through introductions of familiar plants and animals, and the establishment of farms. Part II is in 2 sections: Section 1 considers the impact of Romanticism on settler interpretations of Otago's environment, including the manner in which they framed and depicted its harbours and mountains in writing and art. Section 2 examines concerns over resource depletion and details official measures to protect forests, including through reservation, licensing of timber extraction and the appointment of forest guards. |
Land loss, confiscation, arability and colonisation: the experience of iwi in Aotearoa New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
This article examines the history of land alienation experienced by Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand across different iwi (tribes), exploring the connection between land loss and arability. The analysis uses geospatial data of Māori landholdings through time and explores the relationship that they have with Land Use Capability, a summary measure of the land’s economic potential. Two related factors are found to determine the variation of land alienation between iwi: (a) the arable profile of Māori land within the rohe (traditional land boundaries or territories) of an iwi and (b) the experience that iwi had with land confiscation. Iwi who held a large proportion of arable land and those that experienced land confiscations were more likely to experience land alienation. These findings reaffirm the historical narrative that Māori land suitable for arable use was targeted for alienation and illustrates the role of colonisation in perpetuating the historic trauma caused by these events. |
Pioneer Settlers Recognizing and Responding to the Climatic Challenges of Southern New Zealand, abstract
|
---|
In the minds of many Europeans, the islands of the South Pacific, including New Zealand, were an earthly paradise, as evident in the description of Tahiti in 1769 by Joseph Banks, who sailed with Captain James Cook on the Endeavour.1 Yet Tahiti was a landscape assembled largely from plant and animal species brought in by people from elsewhere in the tropics. Even in paradise, however, there were limits to how many residents, let alone visitors, the food-producing systems of a Pacific island could support, as crew members of the Endeavour discovered when they tried to obtain supplies outside the harvest period. Much the same was true of New Zealand. |
intitle:
search for "settlers in" turns up just
ten pages. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)academics, lost youth and activists indoctrinated by misinformation and a reckless education system. These sort of motivations understandably lead to persistence and heated tension in the discussions, both things which shouldn't have a place on wikipedia. But I have no doubt that supporters of the move will protest any closure that doesn't lead to a move, as they have done so many times before, and I'm sure that those discussions would see the same sort of bludgeoning which has marred this and lead it to be still going on after two and a half arduous months. Turnagra ( talk) 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)