Talk:European New Zealanders

message: okay but seriously, the pictures of New Zealand Europeans are a bit weird. One, does Karl Urban call himself European? And for two, do you think the people reading this article never saw a white person before? Kripto 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This highlights the general problems with those kind of galleries - the idea that a few pictures of random people are representative of an entire population is ridiculous, and the idea that you can look at a supposedly representative NZ European (or Maori or North African or Peruvian or whatever) and thereby gain any understanding of that group is silly at best. --Helenalex 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the people in the pictures

message: This article currently seems to ignore the distinction between Europeans living in New Zealand, and New Zealand Europeans. There were 2,609,592 European usual residents counted in the 2006 census, of which only 2,381,076 were New Zealand Europeans. Which should this article be about? There are also many people living outside NZ who would identify as New Zealand Europeans, who we have not mentioned. -- Avenue 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in the absence of feedback I will assume that the article's title is correct and we mean New Zealand Europeans, not Europeans living in New Zealand. -- Avenue 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Over half of this article isn't about the promised topic: over half of this article is about alternative things to call a European New Zealander. I wonder if we should chop out the British bit and the Pākehā bit, and incorporate them as two (and only two) sentences at the top of the page: the British bit is useful for perspective, but the two examples of British New Zealand-ism date frfom 1953 and 1974 respectively, and I don't think it needs super large elaboration; and there's a whole Pākehā article, so that's already taken care of. Kripto 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a Kiwi, A New Zealand European would be a person of New Zealand descent born in Europe?  Both a New Zealand European and a European New Zealander cannot be the same thing...  In any case, I still don't identify myself at all with European - I'm not.  I'm a New Zealander or a Kiwi or a Pakeha or a Maori if you like - That is what we are taught from primary school.  There is nothing wrong to be called Pakeha.  But... What is a Maori and what is a Pakeha and what is a Kiwi?  I mean... what % of Maori are we before we become Maori?  1%? 51%?  What % of Pakeha ar we before we become Pakeha?  1%? 51%?  Are there any 'Kiwis' who are not of mixed blood?  I know I am, but I don't call myself Maori nor Pakeha - I am a Kiwi.  Perhaps this article needs to put clarification that the terms New Zealander nor Kiwi are not equivalent to anything with the word European in it.  Whatever a census want's to offer as choices doesn't really mean anything if they don't give you the choice you want. ZhuLien 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europeans or New Zealand Europeans 

message: This still seems to me to be OR. The quote by Holyoake does not include the term "New Zealand British" and neither does the listener one. It's all very unclear whether this is about being of British ancestry or calling oneself "New Zealand British" (the term). If it is about the term then isn't saying "I'm British" and saying "I'm New Zealand British" completely different? If it's about being of British ancestry then does this require it's own section? Why is it any different to being of German, French, Irish ancestry? The section is confusing and as it is now I don't know if it warrants it's own section. - Shudda talk 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And neither does the recently added quote from Don Brash. All it shows is that the former leader of the opposition thought that some societal values in New Zealand were derived from the British. That doesn't equate to being ethnically British; one could be Maori and hold British values dear (whatever they are) --Lholden 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the Don Brash quote seems, at best, irrelevant here... it has the potential to irritate and offend without adding value.  I would remove it completely, but I hesitate as I am new here.  Maybe some balancing text would help.  --Januarian (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand British 

message: Avenue, I see you have suggested a marge.  This was previously discussed on the Pakeha talk page, with the following result:
    * merge European into Pakeha - 3 - (Shudda - Helenalex - Kripto)
    * keep NZ European - 1 - Brian
    * merge Pakeha into European - 2 - A.J.Chesswas - Arguss (changed vote)
"NZ European should talk about history, statistics and influence etc...Pakeha should discuss orgins of the word, acceptance etc."
These were the conclusions.  If there was a merge, then I believe Pakeha should be redirected and merged as a section in New Zealand European, given that the latter is the term people use to describe themselves in the census. A.J.Chesswas 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Behemoth who suggested it, not me - see this diff. I wouldn't expect any greater consensus now than last time. -- Avenue 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it then that we won't me merging NZ European with Pakeha?  Especially given that the Pakeha demographic stats are being pruned as we speak. A.J.Chesswas 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the pruning of stats from the Pākehā article as a quite separate issue. I don't currently have a strong view about whether the two articles should be merged. Unless someone argues for the merger in the next couple of days, I think the merge tags should be removed. -- Avenue 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's all highly contentious.  Given that this article is rated top importance, and has many issues that need clearing up, one way forward I would suggest is to look at the analysis/commentary that Statistics New Zealand provides on its website (I may be able to fit this in at some point).  StatsNZ has carried out extensive public consultation over many years, so we may be able to cut through a lot of the difficulty by seeing what they've done.  The issues are also the subject of much scholarly debate in most if not all humanities/social sciences departments of NZ universities.  There could be some concise and acceptable words in some of the more well-known histories of NZ, such as those written by Keith Sinclair or Michael King.  --Januarian (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Hayden5650, I also object to the two terms being merged. I'm a Pakeha, but object to being called a European or New Zealand European.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Pakeha

message: The lead section describes the ancestral makeup of NZ Europeans. This is difficult to do precisely, since there appear to be no good statistics on the topic, and we have to infer it from information such as birthplace and ethnicity. In this recent edit, an anon claimed that there were fewer NZ Europeans with South Slav ancestry than German ancestry. I don't believe this, and it's certainly not clear from the Te Ara source cited. Yes, there are now almost twice as many usual residents of NZ born in Germany than in Yugoslavia or Croatia, due to recent German immigration. But how many of them consider themselves of NZ European ethnicity? We don't know, and I suspect a fair proportion do not. There would also be many NZ Europeans with Dalmatian ancestry who were not born there, given the group's long history in NZ. Anyway, I have removed that claim. -- Avenue 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Croats, as well Serbs, Greeks and Italians immigrated to NZ. There is no article yet on the Italian community in New Zealand. An estimated 10 to 15,000 Italian New Zealanders were reported, but there will be something to find on the issue on Google. The Dalmatian and Istrian peoples form a large portion of the Italic, other than the NZ Slavic community. 71.102.1.101 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Slav ancestry vs German, Dutch, etc 

message: I know we all get a bit heated over this topic, but I want to remind people of two things: please remember not to include sentences with "many New Zealanders", and "some New Zealanders of European descent", and the like. Because if you get slapped with a ref tag, you're gonna end up in the poo. If you can't ref it, don't add it. Just so you know. The other thing was a reminder that I don't know how often people go on macron patrol but macrons are important and a good example you're paying attention. And Pākehā has two. Kripto 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have segregated grammar now? crap. and here's me...damn. We write with macrons not because we are racially anything (though I disagree with you with compound interest). we write with macrons because this is an encyclopedia and we want to get things right. Encyclopedias write with macrons Kripto 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If the English language ever worked the way you describe, it does not now. It has tildes and cedillas and umlauts and macrons, and that's just the way things are. There are no dispensations. Your punctuation and grammar doesn't get a sick note on ethnic grounds.  Kripto 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I must be a "white person" (as if that's not a pejorative term in itself), but yeah, I identify as Pākehā... when I use Māori language words I try to use macrons correctly, or not at all, as recommended by the Māori Language Commission.  But I guess that makes me a dangerous punctuation and grammar freak.  Oh dear.  --Januarian (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's wrong to say that macrons are commonly used in English. Macrons are extremely rare. Although "Pakeha" might have macrons when used as part of a Maori sentence, it does not when used as part of an English-language sentence. Pakeha is a legitimate word in English now (what the linguists call a "loan word". Eg: "Kindergarten" is an English word loaned from German).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words & macrons 

message: Shouldn't the term 'Kiwi' be mentioned in this page.  I call myself a Kiwi and not a NZ European, especially on forms, as I object to the term identifying trying to identify me by my ancestry not my ethnic affiliations.  I am Kiwi not European.Nengscoz416 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do discuss "New Zealander" responses in the Census. This includes people who said they were Kiwis, although we didn't say so. I've now added a note to that effect. It would probably be worth discussing this further in the "Alternative terms" section. -- Avenue (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Kiwi too, Kiwi and New Zealander are not alternatives to European New Zealander, they have nothing to do with European in any way.   -- ZhuLien (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Kiwi

message: Reference to Scottish heritage within this article seems to pass "under the radar" somewhat, and I can't help but wonder if a lot of the issues debated on this discussion page (and reflected by subsequent edits to the article) are preventing the article from actually being very representative of NZ European heritage at all.  I see there is virtually no content on the history and origins of NZ European culture, for instance.  The statistics cited in the article show persons identifying Scottish origins (15,039) to be more numerous than those citing Irish origins (12,651), but due to emphasis on drawing distinction between English, British and Irish (etc) the lack of comment of Scottish heritage within NZ European culture seems disproportionate.  I've not edited it, given the lively debate around the aforesaid "British" issues, but I was hopeful of opening some fruitful discussion on developing a "bigger picture" within the article, i.e. one that extends beyond what word people like to apply to themselves.  --Te Irirangi (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish heritage

message: The current wording is clumsy, with a long list of the "home" nations.   However removing one is not an accurate summary of the main body.   Howe about we use the section heading there "British and Irish" which would be a better summary than a full list?  Alternatively the distinctive scottish settlement of South Island might be worthy of highlighting?--Snowded TALK  09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article actually read "British and Irish ancestry" until an edit earlier today. I've just reverted the article back to that original phrasing. Is this any clearer? Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I didn't spot that.  Current one is fine.  Apologies for that, policing games around the use of British Isles is a nightmare at times and one tends to develop a hair trigger!--Snowded TALK  10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede text 

message: The following has been removed from the article (end of Pākehā section) and brought here.  It has had a  template since 9/08: 
:"Others dislike the word Pākehā and believe it to be racist and pejorative."
If and when a reliable source is found and cited, the above can be returned to the article.  To return the above sentence to this article without a reliable reference may possibly damage this article. – Paine (Climax!)  06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Edmund Hillary was great and all, but he probably shouldn't appear in the infobox grid twice. Does someone more familiar with the subject have another person to replace the duplicate with?--ERAGON (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Hillary in Infobox

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on European New Zealanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609215048/http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/media-releases/corporate-communications/feedback-sought-on-ethnicity-statistics-mr.htm to http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/media-releases/corporate-communications/feedback-sought-on-ethnicity-statistics-mr.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No working captures for dead link. Marked for 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :European New Zealanders's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cryer":
From God Defend New Zealand: 
From God Save the Queen: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:European New Zealanders]] 

message: The (rather paltry) figures in this table are not figures relating to ancestry, but to either place of birth or identity as indicated on census forms. I seriously doubt that there are fewer than 40,000 New Zealanders of English ancestry, for example. This table either needs to go or to be thoroughly revamped. Grutness...wha? 10:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading "Ancestry" section 

message: I've tagged the article for more references, but that's really just a polite way of saying that there are a number of unsourced sections that read as WP:OR (the 'Culture' and 'Language' sections being not the least of them). The article is in serious need of being reliably sourced, but my inclination is towards removing much of the speculative detail. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on European New Zealanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117025633/http://ecan.govt.nz/about-us/population/Pages/culture-identity.aspx to http://ecan.govt.nz/about-us/population/Pages/culture-identity.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified