Talk:Māori language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Revival and Dover Samuels

This follows a reversal of my change earlier today. I won't edit war. Reads awkward? Yes I agree. I think the whole paragraph should be redone rather than just the one sentence I changed. Not a good reflection of what he said? I also agree. The problem is the wiki section is about the decline in speakers which means the relevant part of the source is the reason for not letting Maori be spoken in schools, not the punishment inflicted, which was normal then. That is why we need the source, not to know that he was caned. The source is not ideal anyway, it plays to its audience, making it not much better than a tabloid. And, it is not a secondary source anyway. Most of it just quotes Samuels, making it primary, his opinion. I had thought of removing it and the sentence it references but that would be unreasonable I think. Better is to re-write that section and be more careful about how sources are used. The other source used is better but not ideal either. We do not have a lot of choice though so we will have to use it, and other govt source that are not fully independent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

the wiki section is about the decline in speakers which means the relevant part of the source is the reason for not letting Maori be spoken in schools, not the punishment inflicted

I disagree. The section is about the decline in the number of Māori speakers, yes; which means the relevant information in the source is what caused people to stop speaking Māori. What caused people to stop speaking Māori was that they were being physically punished for it. Samuels' speculation on the punishers' motives is generous in the circumstances, but it is less relevant to the decline in Māori speakers than the punishers' actions – and speculative rather than strictly factual to boot.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That is your unsupported opinion. In terms of the rapid decline in speakers, if you think the reason Maori stopped speaking te reo was because they were beaten at school where is your source? To claim that is speculative opinion. What about all the other kids given a whack as punishment for other misdemeanors, Maori and Pakeha? That was normal then. And where is your source to show why Maori was not allowed to be spoken in school? Samuels gives a reason which you are trying to play down ('generous in the circumstances'?? - according to whom?) Can we please stick to verifiable facts and not delve into juicy snippets of guesswork? That article from RNZ is one man saying that Maori kids were made to speak English in school so they would be better equipped to fit into the outside Pakeha society when they left - urbanisation, which is what Maori were doing then. The consequences of that practice in schools was to accelerate the decline in speakers. Samuels getting a sore bum is not relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Roger, you probably shouldn't be editing this article at all if you can't place your well-documented antipathy to te reo Māori to one side while doing so. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My antipathy, if it exists, is against editors making unsupported statements, with original research going into articles. Your comment borders on a personal attack - address the issue, not the person. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

And less than 12 hours after replying, you reiterated, immediately below, your belief that the Census data (which, if anything, undercounted speakers of te reo) was somehow unreliable for Reasons. Up to you. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If you mean: The Guardian is usually reliable - the article is a mix of primary and secondary. It says the 2018 census showed that 4% of us speak fluent Maori. The census question was 'In which language(s) can you hold a conversation about a lot of everyday things, I gave my belief that The Guardian is usually reliable, that's all. If you mean the second half about the census, I gave no opinion, I just stated bare facts for others to draw their own conclusion if they want to. If you think I implied an opinion, possibly yes I did. That was that The Guardian statement is not an accurate reflection of the census data, and as such should not be used, at least not without clarification. I'm not sure where you are going with this - do you mean that census data is a reliable secondary source? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added two additional sources for beatings in school. E James Bowman (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Another claim that "government" sources are not "independent" enough for Wikipedia. That conspiracy theory has no place here. Somej (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you E James Bowman for your additions. You might be interested in reading wp:RSTS if you haven't already. This part at the start caught my eye: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." There are secondary sources online. Published academic articles and books are probably best. The Guardian is usually reliable - the article is a mix of primary and secondary. It says the 2018 census showed that 4% of us speak fluent Maori. The census question was 'In which language(s) can you hold a conversation about a lot of everyday things. [1] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me quote the relevant passage:

It was the sadness of a generation that was subject to what I would say was a cruel treatment as a result of the policies of the education department of that time, specifically targeted to Māori children... I think these people thought they were doing me a favour – that they were doing the honourable thing in regard to securing some sort of future for me outside of my traditional and customary environment.

I think these people thought they were doing me a favour: this is speculation, phrased as speculation.

...that they were... securing some sort of future for me...: as an extension of this speculation, a suggestion of the motives of the people doing the punishing.

What Samuels does not say, what the article does not say, what no unbiased reader could possibly read the article as saying, regardless of whether they themselves might believe it, is that children stopped speaking Māori so as to secure a future for themselves. What the article says is that they were punished for speaking Māori. The idea that this was in their interests was an idea in the minds of the people punishing them.

We've both read it, but to correct the impression given by the use of dismissive phrases such as "given a whack" and "getting a sore bum", let me put it on record that the title of the article is "I was beaten until I bled".

I may add that, after wrongdoing has occurred, if one's concern is to demonstrate the good intentions of the wrongdoers, the only way to do that is to participate in rectifying the wrong that they did. Without that, insisting that they meant it all for the best is only digging the hole deeper.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have amended the sentence in question. Roger, despite making unhelpful changes, did have a point—none of the personal accounts are adequate to justify the claim that beatings were a significant cause for the downturn of te reo through the same period. Yes, that claim seems almost self-evident, but we don’t have to make that claim. The connection is so self-evident that readers can infer the same without our saying it. (Beware, I am being delicate with WP:SYNTH here, but I believe it is reasonable context, especially as it should be expanded out to relate to the attitude of the time.)
In the end though, we currently have no solid sourcing for this aspect of history. We can’t say when this policy was put in place, when it ended, what level it was enforced from, and we don’t have great sources for why (they said) they did it. (Samuels speculates, and he’s probably right, but we need better than that.) I’ve said Māori was forbidden at many schools, but it would be good to change that “many” to something more specific, whether it’s “most schools”, “all schools”, “state schools”, “urban schools” or what. Currently our best sources are tertiary ([2], [3], [4]), and while there’s a bit more to draw out of them, they don’t have a lot of detail. — HTGS (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)