Talk:European New Zealanders

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


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

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

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

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


 * Okay, in the absence of feedback I will assume that the article's title is correct and we mean New Zealand Europeans, not Europeans living in New Zealand. -- Avenue 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * 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)

：：：I second all of that, @Zhulien. Pākehā is a very common term now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreeReader (talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand British
This still seems to me to be OR. The quote by Holyoake does not include the term "New Zealand British" and neither does the listener one. It's all very unclear whether this is about being of British ancestry or calling oneself "New Zealand British" (the term). If it is about the term then isn't saying "I'm British" and saying "I'm New Zealand British" completely different? If it's about being of British ancestry then does this require it's own section? Why is it any different to being of German, French, Irish ancestry? The section is confusing and as it is now I don't know if it warrants it's own section. - Shudda   talk  02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And neither does the recently added quote from Don Brash. All it shows is that the former leader of the opposition thought that some societal values in New Zealand were derived from the British. That doesn't equate to being ethnically British; one could be Maori and hold British values dear (whatever they are) --Lholden 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Merge with Pakeha
Avenue, I see you have suggested a marge. This was previously discussed on the Pakeha talk page, with the following result: * merge European into Pakeha - 3 - (Shudda - Helenalex - Kripto) * keep NZ European - 1 - Brian * merge Pakeha into European - 2 - A.J.Chesswas - Arguss (changed vote) "NZ European should talk about history, statistics and influence etc...Pakeha should discuss orgins of the word, acceptance etc."

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


 * It was Behemoth who suggested it, not me - see this diff. I wouldn't expect any greater consensus now than last time. -- Avenue 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it then that we won't me merging NZ European with Pakeha? Especially given that the Pakeha demographic stats are being pruned as we speak. A.J.Chesswas 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the pruning of stats from the Pākehā article as a quite separate issue. I don't currently have a strong view about whether the two articles should be merged. Unless someone argues for the merger in the next couple of days, I think the merge tags should be removed. -- Avenue 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * 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)


 * 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)

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


 * 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)

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

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


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

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


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


 * 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)


 * 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)

By way of example, no New Zealand newspapers use macrons with "Pakeha". Eg: this NZ Herald article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644913 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * 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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.141.11 (talk)

New Zealand British
The section on New Zealand British wikilinked to British Isles but stated "British". Since the British Isles also includes Ireland, this is incorrect - I've changed the wikilink to point to "United Kingdom" and also dug out the census figures for each area. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom is incorrect. There are descendants of people from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as well as from Ireland. I've included some Irish stats in here, but the paragraph might need a some more alterations. I'll see what I can do. WizOfOz (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The stats don't show that any are descendants of Isle of Man and Channel Islands, so this is why UK is better than British Isles. Your changes to the article to include the Irish stats are good, and I've added to clarify why Irish origins could still lead to being British.  --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't agree about the UK. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are known as Crown Dependencies and are not part of the UK. Further, there are in New Zealand descendants of people who emigated from the Isle of Man. See "A Quota of Qualtroughs" by Elizabeth A Barlow and Joy McDougall, which relates the story of settlers from the Isle of Man. Also see "Channel Islanders New Zealand Bound" by Olwyn Whitehouse. The stats are another matter. The question was not asked about Isle of Man or Channel Islands ethnicity in the New Zealand censuses, so people whose ancestors came from these areas almost certainly classified themselves as being of English ancestry. WizOfOz (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Wiz, I am sure that there are people with origins from IoM and CI, and you have referred to some books which I assume do just that. Stepping back, the section in the article is trying to show that the vast majority of European NZ are British, using the 2006 census for the figures.  You are correct that no figures been collected from IoM and CI, although there is a figure for "British" which probably is the box ticked by people with origins from IoM and CI.  The article relies on the 2006 census, and based on the census figures alone, making an assumption about CoI and IoM would be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  This can be avoided by not refering to UK or British Isles, but by piping to "British people" or even "British islands".
 * It's much the same argument against TharkunColl's assertion that citizens with Irish origins before 1921 are British, therefore the Irish stats should be counted. Without a breakdown of stats to show how many are ticking the box based on pre-1920 Irish origins, this is also WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH.  What's to say that they didn't just select British and that all of the people who selected Irish were post-1921?  Same argument again for "Celtic" origins - that could also include French celts.
 * I was OK with Wiz's modification to the article, based on "British and Irish" origins, as this was the most inclusive and accurate. But Tharky's modification cannot be verified and is therefore unencyclopedic and inaccurate.  I propose rewriting this section to explain why Celtic and Irish origins may not be totally British but may include people with British origins.  What do you think?  --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By far the simplest solution to the "problem" is to state British Isles, as this includes all Irish pre- and post-1921, and IoM and CI as well. ðarkun coll 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You would then have a situation whereby you are referring to the "British Isles" as being "British". This is wrong for a number of reasons, the biggest reason being that Ireland is not British.  Also the consensus on WIkipedia is to use the term "British Isles" in a non-political way (i.e. geographical) and this usage would breach this policy (again, as you know).  It is also incorrect because you are WP:SYNTH the 2006 stats to WP:POINT without anything to support your argument.  The *simplest* solution is one I've already proposed, and one which is in keeping with what is known (and not assumed), which is to link to UK and only include the British, English, Scottish and Welsh stats (and which still supports the assertion that the British make up the largest proportion of Europeans).  Anything else just seems to try to plump up the volumes.  --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if there was any such consensus, demographics comes under human geography in any case, so it's perfectly okay to use. ðarkun coll 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tharky, if you wish to test for a different consensus (or deny a consensus exists which is a new one even by your standards), feel free to take the discussion to Talk:British Isles. In addition, "human geography", whatever that is, is more than likely to be geopolitical and is excluded (as you know). --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be OK or not, but its not informative. The Irish and Scottish immigration to new Zealand is distinct (and the cultural heritage continues) so it is more appropriate, and more factual to provide more detailed breakdown.-- Snowded   TALK  17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I believe this website is very good at explaining the British link to New Zealand. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Religions in the infobox need attention
I did a little edit to Pākehā and followed my nose to this article, and can't make head nor tail of the religion stats in the infobox. Christianity is 60 per cent of what? Anglicanism-Catholicism-Presbyterianism (combined) are 46.2 per cent of what? Also, I changed the "No religion" stat to 37.7 percent in line with this. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call on the "No religion" figure. The rest still seemed wrong; I've corrected them, added a source, and included some calculations in comments as examples. As with the "No religion" percentage, they are based on all NZ Europeans who gave a valid response to the religion question. ("Object to answering" is counted as a valid response.)
 * Giving one decimal place also seems a bit over the top; any objection to getting rid of that? -- Avenue (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scottish heritage
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)

lede text
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Irish New Zealanders are not a smaller percentage of the ancestry of European New Zealanders! they are a major percentage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.106.48 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed
The following has been removed from the article (end of Pākehā section) and brought here. It has had a Citation needed 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)

Duplicate Hillary in Infobox
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ No working captures for dead link. Marked for 'cbignore'. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in European New Zealanders
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)

Misleading "Ancestry" section
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)

Lack of references
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)

"Pākehā"
The Māori term "Pākehā" is used by some as a synonym for European New Zealander. However, a minority reject the term, considering it inappropriate and offensive in origin.

@Hopalong121: what do you think of the proposed wording above? I think this is supported by reliable sources. Ideally, the paragraph should be no longer than two sentences. If a reader wants to learn more about use of the term then they can either read the relevant section further down in the article (have you read this section?) or click the link to Pākehā. --Hazhk (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Hazhk I agree that two sentences are the optimal length, and that a link is better than a long paragraph on what is not the primary focus of the page. I like the first use of the word "some", but I do not like the words "a minority".  Why?  Because there is no source that I'm aware of that tells us whether it is a minority or majority, or equally split for that matter.  Point me to some source on that and I would agree.  The Auckland University study is inconclusive on actual rejection of the term, but the data from it, if anything, points towards rejection from a majority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopalong121 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Māori term "Pākehā" is used by some as a synonym for European New Zealander. However, many reject the term, considering it inappropriate or offensive in origin.
 * I've adjusted the wording slightly. Sources do not indicate that not all who reject the term do so because they find inherently offensive. --Hazhk (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)