Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2

message: Just a question, is it really neccessary to include this paragraph in the introduction of this article.  Its just that I dont see why just having this information in a "People" section of the article would not be sufficient.
Is this really needed when introducing a country?  For comparison, neither Australia nor the USA include such information there.DannyMan 05:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicities in introduction 

message: I view the comments recently added by Kiwimhm regarding the market crash leading to low economic growth as entirely spurious at worst, debateable at best. Actually, that entire economy section is politicised and non-neutral. This needs to be fixed to discuss only widely accepted views of the New Zealand economy, not blatantly anti-reform sentiment.--Voicey 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New 'economy' comments

message: IMHO, the South African tours controversys needs brief mention in several articles, perhaps the sports in NZ article and the history of NZ article. The 1981 Springbok Tour provides a ood summary and the brief mention should link there. However I also feel Springbok Tour article needs to be worked to include a bit more on the background and perhaps renamed to something like "NZ Rugby Union apartheid controversy" (this is not a very good name I admit, but hopefully someone will come up with a better idea) with an appropriate redirect for 1982 Sprinbok Tour  Nil Einne 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more general article on the New Zealand anti-apartheid movement would be good, which would cover the numerous rugby contacts (or proposed rugby contacts) which were a significant focus of the movement. There were other aspects to the movement besides opposition to rugby tours. While HART (Halt All Racist Tours) was the best known organisation, CARE (Citizen's Association for Racial Equality) was active in both anti-apartheid and domestic racism issues, and the NAAC (National Anti-Apartheid Committee) played a more educational, less protest-oriented role until it merged with HART just before the 1981 tour. There were also a number of local organisations. During 1981, umbrella groups were set up in each city - MOST in Auckland, COST in Wellington. At least a paragraph is needed for those sportspeople who declined to tour South Africa, especially in the 1960s, because Maori players were not allowed there, although those sportspeople were not part of any organised anti-apartheid movement.-gadfium 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: Thought I should raise the matter here as it is likely to be contentious, but i feel the term Land Wars is inappropriate; land was not a universal motivation in all the wars or amongst all the combatants.   Comment? WW
:I have no problem with calling them New Zealand land wars or New Zealand wars. I do object to the title they had up until mid-2005, Maori wars. If you move the article, please fix any double redirects created. There's also the category of the same name to be changed.-gadfium 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Gadfium said. New Zealand land wars is the title of the article in question, and they've had a discussion about the name on Talk:New Zealand land wars, they've covered a number of the issues there. Darobsta 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Wars c.f. New Zealand Wars or alternatives 

message: FYI:  There is voting going on in Talk:Māori language whether to move Māori language to Maori language.  (My position is neutral on this, but I wanted to make sure everybody knew about it.)--Endroit 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving [[Māori language]] to [[Maori language]] 

message: Moriori and I are in disagreement about which is the correct way to write measurements in an article.  Moriori believes this is the correct way: ... by the Tasman Sea, some 2,000 km (1,242 mi) across. I believe that this is the way it should be written:...by the Tasman Sea, some 2,000 kilometres (1,242 mi) across.  The kilometres should be spelled out not abbreviated and miles should be abbreviated to mi.  If miles were the value in the text then the opposite would be true; miles spelled out and the kilometres abbreviated to km.  I believe Moriori is 100% wrong on this, but here is what the Wikipedia Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has to say from its section on measurements.  Let the other editors be the judge.
As copied from WP:MOSNUM Measurements
Units-
Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate.
•Conversions should generally not be removed.
•If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
•Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
•Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".
•Use standard abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (not " or ″), foot is ft (not ' or ′).
•Do not append an s for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example, kg, in, yd, lb not kgs, ins, yds, lbs.
•Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, U.S. gallon or imperial gallon rather than just gallon. Similarly, use nautical mile or statute mile rather than just mile in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
•The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Use   for the space (25 kg) to ensure that it does not break lines.
Therefore I'm reverting again.  Have a nice day!  MJCdetroit 14:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I see nothing wrong with using "km" rather than "kilometres". It's shorter and quicker to read, and not at all ambiguous. I have more of a problem with miles being abbreviated, since "mi" means nothing to me without context. The idea of using standard abbreviations for non-standard units is rather amusing. At any rate, this is not worth having an edit war over.-gadfium 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth? But 240,000 milli-inches is only 20 feet! Grutness...wha? 11:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements per [[WP:MOSNUM]] Formating  

message: MJCdetroit and Moriori have both made multiple revisions regarding source units in the text.  The Manual of Style clearly indicates that such units should be spelt out, and in disputes such as this, it seems logical to let the manual of style prevail (no-one should take offense at the Wikipedia guidelines being followed).  An argument presented against this is that such a change would not be consistent with the rest of the article.  However, virtually all other units (i.e., those in the Geography section) adhere to the manual of style.  So, essentially, the issue seems to be: does anyone have reasons why the manual of style should not apply in this case? Elpoca 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: What does this mean? Is it a formal motto or not?Glennh70 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's formerly "Onward", not formally "Onward". In other words, there used to be a motto, and that motto was "Onward". Now there is no motto (well, technically, the motto could be considered to be "New Zealand", since that's what's written on the scroll, but that's just nit-picking). It was changed when the arms were modified slightly in the 1950s (when my granny-in-law was removed as a supporter, FWIW). Grutness...wha? 11:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto: None. Formerly "Onward"?? 

message: Please do not remove Sindarin as an official language of New Zealand.  New Zealand is Arda after the arrival of Peter Jackson, and Sindarin has been adopted as an official language of the country.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.9.99.42 (talk • contribs) .
:Umm… since when?  I’ve removed it until I see some proof.  Barefootguru 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Zealand is the official name in English. Aotearoa is the most common name in  Māori , which is also an official language of the country, so deserves to have a place in the introductory paragraph. Adding Arda is just someone's idea of a joke.-gadfium 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If user 82.35.171.53 has a NZ passport he might like to check out his mugshot page which he will see has the heading "New Zealand * Aotearoa". Seems official to me. Moriori 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sindarin

message: There appears to be a big overlap between these two templates. Oceania appears to be the most popular. I suggest that Polynesia be removed since it is almost a subset. Possible they Polynesia can be merged into Oceania - SimonLyall 11:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Oceania]] and [[Template:Polynesia]] 

message: How about a list of famous kiwis such as Ernest Rutherford. Seems to be a common item in country articles.
: List of New Zealanders perhaps? - SimonLyall 09:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous kiwis? 

message: I think the Portal link should be higher up the page, almost at the top.  Is there a reason it is so low down?  What do other people think?  --Midnighttonight 09:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Although the majority of portal links remain at the top of articles, they should be and are being moved to "See also" sections where they are least likely to clash with other formatting - especially in articles about countries where the space at an article's top is occupied by Template:Infobox Country.--cj | talk 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal link 

message: I deleted the section about NZ living standards being below the average of other developed economies. I don't know which clown wrote that, or if they've lived in any other countries, but it's patently ridiculous. As a small country at the bottom of the South Pacific, NZ undoubtedly has some structural economic problems, but living standards are identical, if not higher, than that enjoyed in most advanced industrialised countries.Newc0253 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living standards 

message: Hi am British from Newcastle England am off to move with my family to new zealand this July just want to ask are you guys nice? lol just in Australia i found that the guys did not like us lol its ashame.
Yes the New Zealanders like the British a lot more than the Australians. I used to live there and then moved to Australia, and there is a big difference.
i'm from melbourne, and i have never noticed even the slightest animosity to the british... the closest thing i can think of would be the competitive nature of the cricket fans here... don't know what you guys are on about... 203.214.25.139 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is that traditional Aussie expression "whingeing pommie".  It doesn't mean that all English people are like that, but it must have had some basis.  JackofOz 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in Dunedin and evryone I know likes British pplz. British accents ROCK!!! HyperSushi21 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Been British off to New Zealnd

message: Has anyone actually looked at the To-Do list recently.
There is a pic of the Beehive here, and others certainly have been done. --Midnighttonight 04:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: I was looking at the article, and realised that the sections don't really make a great deal of sense in their order.  I am proposing a bit of a move around to:
1 Intro
2 History
3 Government and Politics
:3.1 Central
:3.2 Local
:3.3 International relations
::3.3.1 Foreign territories
::3.3.2 Foreign relations
::3.3.3 Military
4 Economy
:4.1 International rankings
5 Culture
:5.1 Demographics
:5.2 Sports
:5.3 Public Holidays
6 Natural environment
:6.1 Geography
:6.2 Flora and Fauna
7 See also
8 Notes
9 External Links
What do people think? --Midnighttonight 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, however I don't now if Military should be a sub of International relations Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set up a version at /proposal which should make it easier for people to comment on --Midnighttonight 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrange 

message: Should we say NZ's largest city is Manukau City or the Auckland metropolitan area? Manukau is correct in a technical sense, in that it is the local authority with the largest population. 222.154.42.110 has made a couple of recent edits to the infobox based on this interpretation of "city". But this could be misleading, as I suspect that wouldn't be the meaning that most readers would expect. What do you think? -- Avenue 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No contest. Auckland City says 420,700. Manukau City says 360,200. Moriori 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Auckland City is the local authority with the highest population, although I think that misses the point. The question is whether to give the largest local authority or the largest urban area. And FWIW, these population figures are wrong, or at least misleadingly labelled. The usually resident populations from the 2001 Census were 367,737 and 283,200 respectively, and the most recent population estimates on Statistics NZ's website (30 June 2005, provisional) are 425,400 and 332,900. The Auckland City figure is the provisional population estimate as at 30 June 2004 (the final estimate of 420,800 was slightly higher), and is not the 2001 Census figure as was stated in our article. Manukau City is projected to reach 360,000 sometime around 2010 (under medium growth assumptions). -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: um I have heard  before that Manukau  is the city with the most population Brian | (Talk) 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on Auckland City and then Manukau City. Moriori 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmm, it appers Manukau is New Zealand's third largest city, thats intresting, as I know a lot of people who are sure its the largest pop wise. Brian | (Talk) 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I was one of them. It seems this is very out of date (1989); see Manukau#Population. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Auckland metropolitan area is probably the best one to say with 1.2 million people. Bringing it down to the council level really doesn't produce a logical result. - SimonLyall 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would prefer to use the largest metropolitan area. However I have noticed that U.S. states do not do this; e.g. Florida lists Jacksonville as its largest city, not the larger metropolitan areas centred around Miami or Tampa. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have now is completely wrong. We have Auckland which points to the Metropolitan Area when we mean the territorial authority and we list the population as 367,734 when the Auckland City page has 425,400 listed. If people are really hung up about territorial authorities instead of urban areas I suggest we do what Japan does and list Auckland ( 1,241,800) with a note at the bottom of the infobox with Largest urban area. Auckland City is the largest incorporated city . Personally I suspect 99% of people are only going to care about the urban area figure. - SimonLyall 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll assume silence means assent, and go ahead with Simon's last suggestion above. (I notice that in the meantime, someone has added one million to the Auckland population figure, giving 1,367,734. Chinese whispers anyone? :) -- Avenue 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!  I dissent!  Auckland is the largest city but the population of the City of Auckland should be given.  If you want to list the population of the Auckland metropolitan area, then that should be lead into with that title.  Or at least give Auckland City's population and then in brack say 'of total urban population ***'.Enzedbrit 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can't agree with you. Have a look at Sydney which says "Sydney (pronounced [ˈsɪd.ni]) is the most populous city in Australia with a metropolitan area population of over four million people". Then click on City of Sydney to see it "comprises the Sydney central business district and the surrounding inner west and inner city suburbs of the greater metropolitan area of Sydney" and has a population of 122,211. Works for the Aussies. Works for me. .Moriori 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems pretty obvious to me that the Greater Auckland city is the one that should be listed, as per SimonLyall and Moriori above.-gadfium 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should list the metropolitan area. Although there are overseas precedents both ways (e.g. Florida and Australia), I believe most Kiwis would think of the broader definition of city in this context. And we have a note below the infobox explaining that Auckland City is the largest incorporated city, for anyone who wants to follow the stricter definition. -- Avenue 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by the semantics.  If you are going to list Auckland as the largest city, then you should give the population of the City of Auckland.  If you are going to give the population of either 1/ the urban area, or 2/ the Auckland region, then that should be listed.  If not, it's being misleading.  I don't see why both the city population and the urban population cannot be listed.  We could look at other examples, but to follow in the vain of doing something we know isn't right, doesn't make it right still. Enzedbrit 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point about the population. I haven't found another country's article that include this either, and I'd be happy to see it go. I still think we should list Auckland, not Auckland City. -- Avenue 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be reasonable: to list Auckland as the largest city but not give the population. I checked Brazil, Australia and the United States as three countries where the largest city is not the capital, and none of them list the population of the largest city.-gadfium 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest city 

message: the history section is quite long, but only one paragraph is dedicated to post-1900 New Zealand.  No mention of the world wars even.  I think we should rejig the history section, it is meant to be a brief summary of NZ history really. --Midnighttonight 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool... does that mean we can change the Australian constitution part? --Lholden 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Is it appropriate to have a picture of the Queen in the article? Should the presence of the picture be related to the percentage of monarchists or the influence on the Queen on New Zealand society and politics?  Alan Liefting 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UK has the queen, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda ,Belize and Saint Kitts and Nevis do not.  You might be right that she should go from the page based on cross-article consensus.  Although my inclination would to be to add the pic to the other pages as the Head of State. --Midnighttonight 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most countries that have gone on to be featured don't have a picture of the head of state (Queen, PM, President ect.) at all.--Peta 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo should remain IMO, otherwise the PM photo will have to go as well, It is not hurting anyone been there. Brian | (Talk) 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to the picture appearing, but it shouldn't be the first picture in the article. At the very least, it should appear below that of Helen Clark. I'm not arguing the overall merits of these two people, but Clark has more say on New Zealand at the present time than the Queen does. I also wonder if the Governor-General's picture might be more appropriate than the Queen's.-gadfium 02:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Queen is our Head of State, If her photo is to appear it should be above that of Helen Clark’s, perhaps we should change the photo to one where HM is wearing her New Zealand Orders, as opposed to her Canadian orders Brian | (Talk) 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a sensible idea no matter what happens for all the NZ articles with a pic of the Queen. Can you use your pro-monarchist links to get one?  I agree that Clark has more power, but the current picture is terrible - it comes from the 1999 campaign I think.  In terms of order, I would go Queen (de jure head of state), Gov-Gen (de facto head of state), PM (head of government) as per the New Zealand order of precedence. --Midnighttonight 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at :Image:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg, it was her official photo for the 2002 royal visit. HM has the ONZ, the Order of Merit and the QSO on Brian | (Talk) 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copped version: :Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Brian | (Talk) 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This republican has no problem with a picture of the Queen appearing - she is our Head of state. --Lholden 07:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Queen 

message: ......as we were, something that has occurred to me is that it might be a good idea to change our Politics subheading to Government,  a la the Canadian page which you can see here.  I'm quite ambivalent about it, but thought it worth mentioning. Moriori 07:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Brian's already changed it. I'll just say I'm strongly in favour of the new heading, because the section covers our (largely ceremonial) head of state and the court system, along with politics. -- Avenue 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I thought it was a good idea, I also added a couple more See also's to go with the new heading Brian | (Talk) 11:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of the Queen.......

message: Note, the new section is all on Wikipedia already.  The old section is here, for those that people want to reinclude.
* Environmental Performance Index, January 2006: 1st out of 100; followed by Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom; Yale and Columbia Universities; Rankings (pdf)
*UN Human Development Index (HDI), 2005: 19th out of 177 behind Norway; United Nations Development Programme (pdf)   
*Quality of Life Index, 2005: 15th out of 111 behind Canada; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf)  
*Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005: 14th (out of 146) behind Finland; Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy & Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (pdf)  
*Index of Economic Freedom, 2005: 5th= (out of 155) behind Hong Kong; Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal 
*GDP per person at PPP, 2005: 25th out of 111 behind Spain; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf) 
*Transparency International 2005: 2nd= (out of 159) behind Iceland on its list of least corrupt countries in the world. 
*Broadband Ranking June 2005: 22nd (out of 30) 
*Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index 2005: 2.00 (Tied for 12th with Hungary, Sweden, Trinidad & Tobago) For comparison, the U.K. is 5.17 at #24, and the U.S. is 9.50 at #44.  Lower numbers indicate greater freedom of the press.  
Hope it works better --Midnighttonight 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a little bit confusing, because it isn't always clear whether a high ranking or a low ranking is desirable. We're 2nd in the world for corruption - that's good. We're 149th for HIV - that sounds terrible. I can click through to understand whether the figure is good or bad, but it would be preferable if I didn't have to.-gadfium 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gadmium,  I agree. Stats without explanation - almost useless. Would you like me to add a comment to each?  Maybe in Talk first? GrahamBould 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Does it make more sense now? --Midnighttonight 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's grand now.-gadfium 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Freedom House gives a ranking of 1 (free) to 7 (non-free) on both political rights and civil liberties, and does not rank countries against each other per se.  Have a look at Freedom in the World 2006 and Freedom House#Reports for how they rank the countries. --Midnight tonight 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining that. I've reworded it to make it a bit clearer, along with the subsection headings. -- Avenue 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just revamped the international ranking section 

message: The picture of Helen Clark should not be used. Another one should replace it. The current picture was used by the Labour Party on their election camapign. Her teeth are FAKE IN THAT PCITURE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purdonkurt (talk • contribs) .
:Then provide a public domain accurate picture. --Midnighttonight 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helen Clark 

message: I decided to remove this phrase down to the fact that the only nuclear danger presented by the Cold War to New Zealand came from the Soviet Union, not United States, which had ICBM pointed towards the south pacific and Soviet Naval Forces armed with SLBM's on stand by.--James Bond 07:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that phrase that was pretty vague. I have added disagreements over New Zealand's nuclear-free policy to the list instead. -- Avenue 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the nuclear danger presented by the Cold War" 

message: I can't figure out how to create a link in the info box.  Essentially, "census" should link to New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings.  But, I can't figure out how to do it as it is part of an info box.  Any thoughts on how to do it? --Midnighttonight 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible in the main body of the infobox. You could link in the footnotes.-gadfium 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help on linking in info box

message: While it is fair to say that the term Pākehā is widely used, I don't think it should be used in the context "Contemporary Pākehā New Zealand has a diverse contemporary culture". There are a significant number of non-Maori cultures in NZ and to give them the blanket term "Pākehā" (a term applied to the European Settlers by the Maori) does not correctly represent the multiculturalism of the country. Furthermore, the word is meaningless to a large proportion of the readers having no direct translation into English. I suggest that we remove Pākehā and replace it with "non-Maori" or leave the word out altogether.
:: good idea, its not necessary, can be taken out - i will. Kahuroa 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also lose the second use of that horrible word "contemporary". Contemporary NZ has a contemporary culture indeed - and that's without the pedant in me asking "cotemporary to what?". Grutness...wha? 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late, Moriori axed it a few minutes before you posted this. Moriori 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Great minds think alike" ;) Grutness...wha? 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word Pākehā 

message: Not wanting to re-litigate the whole date of NZ's independence, but perhaps we should have a single article explaining why it is difficult to determine the actual date of our independence? There is also some debate (as part of the wider republic debate as to whether we are totally independent --Lholden 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good; add in about how in 1947 we stopped using the term “dominion” etc. And as for that republic debate :)  Brian | (Talk) 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, to the joe average foreigner there is no 'one' date of independence --Lholden 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand independence - article? 

message: The introduction doesn't mention the alternative name Aotearoa, I think it should because Te Reo Māori is an official language.  For example the first line: New Zealand (also in Te Reo Māori: Aotearoa) is a country in the south-western.... --Konstable 11:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name Aotearoa is mentioned prominently in the introduction, being the focus of the second sentence. -- Avenue 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro mention of "Aotearoa"? 

message: British includes English and Scottish.  Scottish people are British people as are English people.  The majority of New Zealand's European and Pakeha heritage comes from Britain and Ireland.  To say British and Scottish just looks silly.
JackofOz states: British is a relatively recent geopolitical term - the Scots and the English have always been ethnically distinct.  Well, Scotland is also pretty recent, as is England.  Both terms when applied encompassed many disparate tribes into new national and (in modern times with our new view on the world) ethnic groupings.  What are the differences in ethnicity between English and Scottish are differences because of geopolitical classification and regional cultural elements within these areas that have been applied to both countries in entirety (such as tartan and morris dancing, which both transcend the border too).  Also, British and Britain have been in usage since Roman times.
If one wishes to state English and Scottish peoples as making up NZ's demographic fabric, or even worse, British and Scottish, then there is nationalist fervour behind it. Enzedbrit 08:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's silly to say British and Scottish, but I think mentioning both English and Scottish is perfectly reasonable. Try telling people in Dunedin that there's no real difference between English and Scottish culture. -- Avenue 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately many people in Dunedin have grown up with an idea of what it means to be Scottish several generations after their ancestors left Scotland, and these same people will have no doubt as much heritage that originates south of the border than north of it - the truth is, one doesn't know every aspect of ones heritage for hundreds of years, and if they do then they're exceedingly lucky!  It is reasonable to list English and Scottish, and the reason why I would be against this is because British is an all encompassing term and perfectly valid. Enzedbrit 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between stating the groups making up the demographic make up of New Zealand today and the groups that came to New Zealand years ago. If we followed the former, we'd all have to work out what percentage of us are English, Scottish or Welsh to tell how 'British' we are. Personally I think for Pakeha New Zealanders to keep calling themselves 'British' is something of a strange denial of our geopolitical reality; I make the distinction between Pakeha and British being something temporal. Don't ask me how long. And I'm sure that when our great-great grandparents immigrated, they saw themselves as English or Scottish or Irish, not British. The Union wasn't that old during the great waves of immigration in the 1860s / 1870s anyway. Today most immigrants to NZ from the UK wouldn't make such a distinction. Oh, and on the issue we're actually discussing: Yes, it is silly to say that Scottish is not part of British. --Lholden 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scottish is not British" is a red herring, not the real issue here. JackofOz's version referred to English and Scottish ancestry, and Enzedbrit changed this to British. That's what we're choosing between here. -- Avenue 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the difference between Pakeha and British is temporal.  I wasn't born in this country and identify as British because I still retain that link.  For me, were I Pakeha, it would be because I have European ancestors but identify with New Zealand as the country that is my home and hadn't that link to Britain or to Europe.  I agree too that those that moved here from Britain probably did identify with their home country, or further still, with their home region in those countries, and the same would have been true of people from other old world nations as well who identified with regions and provinces rather than with nation states.  Yet, the union was over 150 years old during the great waves from the UK (and there had been a common monarch for over 250 years) so about half way into the life of the union compared with the age of it today. Enzedbrit 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland was likewise part of the United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland at the time, and the throne of Ireland had been occupied by the reigning King of England since 1542. But our article still mentions Irish ancestry separately. I think this is desirable, along with mentioning both English and Scottish ancestry, because the differences between these groups had repercussions in NZ history that are still visible today. It also links nicely with the later discussion of pipebands in this article. -- Avenue 03:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, pipebands are not a peculiar Scottish tradition, anymore than brassbands are English. Enzedbrit 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: According to this government document New Zealand does have three official languages. Ziggurat 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally happy with this usage of "official language", but our article on the topic has a stricter definition which only counts legally privileged languages. It does not include languages that are merely "official by convention dating back many hundreds of years". Perhaps we should put the words "de facto" next to English in the infobox, to make its status even clearer. (See United States and United Kingdom for example.) -- Avenue 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do!, the footnode says "4 English is an official language de facto, while the other two languages have de jure official status.", it seems silly to say the same think twice. Brian | (Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote is quite sufficient - sorry, I should have clarified who my original statement was intended for. This diff removed English from the list, and I was replacing it and responding to their edit-summary reason here. Ziggurat 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official languages 

message: Does anyone think a good name for this article would be Kiwipedia? Preacherdoc 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--cj | talk 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh? This is an article about New Zealand. --Lholden 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you may actually have to be from New Zealand to appreciate this... frankly, I think it's a brilliant idea. --203.211.79.92 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I am from New Zealand. This is an article about New Zealand. It should be called New Zealand. --Lholden 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps your dictionary needs a little action; perhaps your sense of humour. It was, after all, a whimsical suggestion. Preacherdoc 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whimsical name change? 

message: Dame Silvia stands down today; however note that Judge Anand Satyanand becomes the Governor-General-designate, until he is sworn in on the 23 August. (The Chief Justice acts as Administrator of the Government in the interregnum.) Brian | (Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, you beat me to it! --Lholden 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Dame Silvia is still Governor-General until midnight, so we should hold fire until then. -- Avenue 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I was planning.. :) Brian | (Talk) 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor-General 

message: As with Pakeha the word iwi is in common use in New Zealand, but it is confusing to the rest of the English speaking world and I don't think it fits in well with this article. For example "In addition to the various wars between iwi, and between the British settlers and iwi" doesn't sound right unless you know what an iwi is. I think we should consider replacing the word "iwi" with tribe, tribes or Maori tribes throughout the article which is much clearer. Mike Kiwi
:Although I'm not totally adverse to such a change, iwi is the more precise wording (tribe can apply to a wide range of different societal structures), and is both explained and wikilinked in the History section for those who want or need to know more. Ziggurat 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that the first time the term is used in the article, it should be written as "iwi (Maori tribes)", then the term iwi can be used thereafter. The term is explained, linked, and is still able to be used. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already written as "iwi ('nation' or  'tribe')" on its first mention. I think this is better than the latest suggestion; it conveys the earlier "nation" connotation, and it's clear from the context that it refers to Māori. -- Avenue 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word iwi 

message: What about "kiwi"?
kiwi_%28disambiguation%29;
kiwi_%28people%29;
kiwifruit [That's the only sort of "kiwi" that I recall having eaten.  Colloquially, & in grocerystores, in North America, it's merely "kiwi", not "kiwifruit", although it is known that it is a fruit.].
iwi.
Hopiakuta 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: &, what about "[[kiwi]]"?

message: Could this be a basis for a separate disambiguation page?
Particularly the Zealand etymology in the second paragraph????:
New Zealand is one of the most recently settled major land masses. Polynesian settlers arrived in their waka some time between the 13th century and the 15th century to establish the indigenous Māori culture. New Zealand's Māori name, Aotearoa, is usually translated as "Land of the long white cloud", reputedly referring to the cloud the explorers saw on the horizon as they approached. Settlement of the Chatham Islands to the east of the mainland produced the Moriori people, but it is disputed whether they moved there from New Zealand or elsewhere in Polynesia. Most of New Zealand was divided into tribal territories called rohe, resources within which were controlled by an iwi ('nation' or  'tribe'). Māori adapted to eating the local marine resources, flora and fauna for food, hunting the giant flightless moa (which soon became extinct), and ate the Polynesian Rat and kumara (sweet potato), which they introduced to the country. 
The first Europeans known to have reached New Zealand were led by Abel Janszoon Tasman, who sailed up the west coasts of the South and North Islands in 1642. He named it Staten Landt, believing it to be part of the land Jacob Le Maire had seen in 1616 off the coast of Chile. Staten Landt appeared on Tasman's first maps of New Zealand, but this was changed by Dutch cartographers to Nova Zeelandia, after the Dutch province of Zeeland, some time after Hendrik Brouwer proved the supposedly South American land to be an island in 1643. The Latin Nova Zeelandia became Nieuw Zeeland in Dutch. Captain James Cook subsequently called the archipelago New Zealand (a slight corruption, as Zealand is not an alternative spelling of Zeeland, a province in the Netherlands, but of Sjælland, the island in Denmark that includes Copenhagen), although the Māori names he recorded for the North and South Islands (as Aehei No Mouwe and Tovy Poenammu respectivelyThe modern spelling for these names - still in use by Māori - are Te Ika a Maui and Te Wai Pounamu.) were rejected, and the main three islands became known as North, Middle and South, with the Middle Island being later called the South Island, and the earlier South Island becoming Stewart Island. Cook began extensive surveys of the islands in 1769, leading to European whaling expeditions and eventually significant European colonisation. From as early as the 1780s, Māori had encounters with European sealers and whalers. Acquisition of muskets by those iwi in close contact with European visitors destabilised the existing balance of power between Māori tribes and there was a temporary but intense period of bloody inter-tribal warfare, known as the Musket Wars, which ceased only when all iwi were so armed.
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?Moriori 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it would be needed. If someone was looking for "New Zealand" they would't just search on the word "Zeeland" or "Zealand" (or "Sjælland"), just as someone looking for "New York" wouldn't just search on "York". (Is that what you're asking?) -- Mako 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus, you have to wonder how credible it is for a Dutch explorer to name something after Sjaelland in Scandinavia rather than Zeeland in the Netherlands. Kahuroa 06:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could this be a basis for a separate [[disambiguation]] page?:

message: 'Land of the Long White Cloud' is not really a translation of the Māori, since there is no 'Land of' in the Māori. Ao=cloud, tea=white, roa=long. So I called it a paraphrase. Its not necessarily the only translation anyway. Kahuroa 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aotearoa - translation

message: We could add the NZ motto somewhere. Anyone agree?
And is our motto still "She'll be right"? rossnixon 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The motto use to be "Onward", but we no longer have a national motto.  I suggest "She'll be right" be placed into the culture section if you want to add it to the article as an unofficial motto. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto

message: Quote from the Demographics section "At present, immigrants from the United Kingdom constitute the largest single group (30%) but immigrants are drawn from many nations, and increasingly from East Asia.". Several news reports have indicated that in recent years the number of Asian immigrants has declined since 2001 both in proportion of total immigrants and in absolute numbers. Whether this trend continues in future remains to be seen. Bjddavies2006 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be an increase in immigrants from other areas, but they make up a small proportion of the immigrants overall. There is no intention of providing a list of every area from which immigrants to New Zealand originate.-gadfium 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who deleted Greeks of the list for? Surely the Italians and South Slavs are the largest white ethnic groups in NZ, but the Dutch are on the list. There was waves of Germans and Scandinavians came to NZ after WW2, but wasn't mentioned. If you live on NZ coast ports, you'll meet a few fishermen from Portugal and Malta spend the busy season under labour contracts. I noticed Americans and Australians are quite a large group in the country, but except for their accents, aren't told apart from other Zedlanders. The drop in Asian racial immigration is a result of economic opportunity in those countries, be it Indian, Chinese or Indochina for that matter. The number of Filipinos, Malaysians and Indonesians has grown in NZ before it tapered off in the early 2000s. 207.200.116.204 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Groups

message: I don't think this article has any Maori articles, it is too biased towards the white man.
65.97.14.167 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should look at the article history. You don't have to go back very far to see some Maori names.-gadfium 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't even have to do that - have a look at the first comment on this talk page! Grutness...wha? 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please expand on your comment that the article is biased? I don't think simply not having "Maori articles" equates to bias in itself. --Lholden 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like a troll, that (US based) IP asked similar questions in other articles. See Special:Contributions/65.97.14.167 - SimonLyall 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Maori editors of this article? 

message: The infobox says "New Zealand Aotearoa (Maori) New Zealand", is there any need for the second "New Zealand"? Brian | (Talk) 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None that I can see, so I've removed it.-gadfium 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Zealand Aotearoa (Maori) New Zealand" 

message: New Zealand is a country heavily dependent on trade, particularly in agricultural products, as almost 20% of the country's output is exported (by comparison it is 21% for the United Kingdom, 49% for Finland and 83% for Belgium). This leaves New Zealand particularly vulnerable to slumps in commodity prices and global economic slowdowns.                 
Is this correct ? It sounds contradictory?? 
User 210.246.24.30 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The output figure seems far too low to me - although it does make sense in that our exports are based on a narrow range (i.e. smaller than many other countries) thus we are more vulnerable. --Lholden 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main article: Economy of New Zealand" 

message: The FA on Australia begins "Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia ...". I'd like to know what New Zealand's analogous "official" title is. Thank you. Saravask 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name's New Zealand.  The Aussies had a constitutional convention at the end of the 19th century and decided on the name "Commonwealth of Australia".  If you want to quibble about a long form of NZ's name, you could go for the Realm of New Zealand, as NZ is a monarchy and can be styled a "Realm".  However, the Acts of Parliament that make up NZ's constitution refer to the country as "New Zealand". AJD 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not interested in quibbling -- I was just wondering. Since, as you state, "Realm of New Zealand" is not constitutionally enshrined, my concoction of a long form would seemingly violate WP:NOR. Thanks for the clarification. Saravask 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: User 203.97.169.134 removed Islam from the list of religions in NZ, saying it was not considered a significant minority. The page Demographics of New Zealand lists it as one of the largest non christan religions according to the 2001 census.
: The article's demographic list had an advisory: Please do not add your ethnic group (and your religion) here. How pathetic for someone to do that like they actually can block or ban any of us, even if the entries are backed or correct. Islam is regarded one of the largest non-Christian religions in the Statistics New Zealand population report. According to demographers who studied the rise of Islam in the western world (Europe, North America and Australasia), Islam is 1.5% of New Zealand's population and the majority composed of immigrants from South Asia (India or Indonesia) or Middle East countries. 63.3.14.1 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are ethnic and religious groups in New Zealand. But to list them all is not going to add anything to the article - listing the top one or two is all that is needed in a general article like this. If you wish to add information about more of New Zealand's religious groups, an appropriate place would be a separate article on New Zealand ethnicity, already linked above as Demographics of New Zealand. Compare similar articles for other countries - these usually do not list religious affiliations if fewer than about 3 - 5% of the population belong to specific doctrines. Grutness...wha? 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  2006 cencus will be released in the next few days. We can hopefully update some numbers then. - SimonLyall 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: but about sports of different types. why???? Who has deleted the information?
There are: Kiri Te Kanawa, Dame Malvina Major, but the others I cannot remember now. Austerlitz 88.72.20.196 13:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because having a section of famous people who live in each country is ridiculous - you can create a list, but seriously, how many people, looking up New Zealand, expect a list of famous people in the article? imagine the page for the U.S.; half the bloody page would be celebrities --Danlibbo 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is nothing about the world famous singers