Talk:History of New Zealand

message: I'm not trying to offend anyone on here but this article is terrible. This is supposed to be the history of New Zealand and it mentions things like Lord of the Rings production(wtf)?!? I know it was set there but come on, that's not history. 
Especially with the very last section with the earthquake. I know it is part of New Zealand history but its not big enough of an event to add to the mainstream history. Australia has had disasters MUCH bigger than that yet they haven't felt the need to add it to their mainstream history article. In fact, go look at the History of Australia article and notice the vast difference in quality. 
Another bit mentions the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. To be honest our role was so insignificant compared to other countries, there are only something like 100 men over there and only about 16-20 of them are actual soldiers to which they have done little.
Other parts of the article look nice but are not enough "inviting", they need more pictures, maps, captions, etc. Anything to brighten up the page and cut out all unwanted information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a few tweaks to address the recentism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is tnot what is included, it is what's missing. Making the article into a stub is not a useful solution. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you do a wholesale revert of my edit? Not only have you reintroduced the skew towards contemporary events but you also removed a range of other changes that I did to improve the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because erasing good information is a bad idea. The recent period is in fact too short. The problem is a severe shortage of information on the earlier period which I have been working on today to remedy. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Rjensen on this. I don't think too much information is really a problem. Especially stuff on post 2008 is missing I think... there is very little on the current National Government Ballofstring (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a barebones summary of events in recent years (taken from other articles in Wiki) with some new cites. More is needed. Rjensen (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible article

message: Hello everyone:
The style guide for wikipedia says: "Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English—Gestapo, samurai, vice versa—do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries."
What I'm wondering about, and would like other peoples views on this, is whether Maori words in common usage in NZ English (they would be in a NZ dictionary) should be italicised eg iwi/hapu/pakeha. My view is that they should not be, as they aren't in basically all NZ publications, and also in a lot of article on wikipedia about New Zealand. I guess it depends on who the audience is perceived to be. Any thoughts? Ballofstring (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to italicise Māori words, but we do need to make the meaning clear to readers not familiar with NZ English. Linking the words is good but not sufficient, as having to click through breaks the reader's concentration. Sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but often it is appropriate to add an explanation in brackets on first use, eg iwi (tribe). Coming up with a simple explanation acceptable to everyone might be tricky sometimes. Iwi might be better glossed as (confederation of tribes).-gadfium 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should italicize words which are not in major English-language dictionaries. Bear in mind that articles with strong ties to New Zealand should be written in New Zealand English and with reference to the major English-language dictionaries, as per MOS:TIES. This helps pretty much everywhere but Māori in Australia, which is still problematic... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicisation of Maori words 

message: My recent trim got reverted. Here's why I thought it was justified:
"A political scientist reports:"
:unnecessary and anonymous intro 
"This involved removing many of the favours and barriers that had long insulated the economy from world trends"
:favours? barriers? - just give the examples...
"was allowed to float and seek its natural level on the world market"
: said better, and simpler, earlier
"The shares exchange entered a bubble, which then burst, and there was little economic short-run gain for anyone."
:without refs for this "bubble", this sentence adds very little. It's also POV - and there certainly was a good deal of short-run gain for *some*....
Snori (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Belich has a lot of details on the favours and barriers. for example currency controls to help NZ businesses keep out foreign competition. subsidies for farmers p 410. The stock market bubble & crash is noted by many historians (Belich p 406 says the market plunged from $50 billion worth in 1987 to only $15 billion in 1991 -- that's quite a crash  -- "worst in world" says Belich p 407). it should read There was "little short run gain for the economy as a whole." [based on Belich p 423]  Rjensen (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: My trim

message: The first PERMANENT European settlement in New Zealand was extablished in 1840, yes Europeans may have visited and built things before 1840 but that doesn't mean SETTLEMENT!!!
Australia had Europeans building forts, etc in it since 1629!!! And they don't claim it as the first "Settlement".--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluff, 1824. Riverton, 1837. Karitane, 1837 (the original Waikouaiti). Kerikeri, 1822, with a building from the 1830s still surviving. You need to find a good reference for your claim that there were no European settlements before 1840 if you want it to be included. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: They were permanent - read the articles, and the Paihia article while you're at it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

text: What was the first permanent settlement that was established in 1840? It looks like you've just started from the date the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Even on that basis you've got it wrong. If you look at the debate that took place prior to the signing of the Treaty, it's clear the chiefs refer to existing European settlements. --LJ Holden 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First Permanent Settlement

message: The first European explorers were from Spain and not from Holland  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.83.89 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We do mention that there are claims of European explorers before Abel Tasman, but this is only speculation and there is no evidence.-gadfium 05:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First explorers 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/oceania/newzealand.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the offending link. Ballofstring (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: This was recently added to the article by an unknown IP address:
In 1982 Leon Searle, a mussel fisherman, found an old ship wreck in Kaipara Harbour. In 1983 Noel Hilliam dived on the wreck and retrieved timber. The wood has been identified as teak and another tropical hardwood Lagerstroemia. The ship was copper clad. In December 2013 the results of tree ring analysis and radio carbon dating showed the ship's timbers having a date of 1705 plus or minus 9 years. The ship was about 25-27m long by 6.5-7.5m wide. The author of the study, Dr.Jonathon Palmer, says this is possibly a Dutch ship. The wreck lies above water at Midge Bay under 11m of sand at the north end of the harbour. The study has been accepted by international Journal of Archaeological Science for publication. Cook's journals document Maori accounts of earlier contact with European ship wrecks and the survivors being killed and eaten. Hilliam believes the ship is older than the suggested date and is Portuguese.
User:SimonLyall then removed it, on the basis that "rv crypto-history . Noel Hilliam has a history of being "out there" (Google him) and the "International Journal of Archaeological Science" doesn't appear to exist." However, I think the information should remain. First of all, the news article references the international (small i) Journal of Archaeological Science, which SimonLyall says doesn't exist, but without a capital it does. Secondly, the principal author is not the "out there" Noel Hilliam, but rather an expert Dr Jonathan Palmer. Also I think it's fair to say the SSTs would have fact checked the article reasonably well. So I suggest that the text should be put back in (although it perhaps needs to be tidied up to read better!). Ballofstring (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait until the article is actually published or more sources can be found. The SST article is rather speculative.-gadfium 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay! Waiting is probably a good idea. Ballofstring (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Noel Hilliam has lots of theories about the first arrivals to NZ, including Greeks, Vikings, etc etc.  Maui was a Greek, he believes, and Vikings scratched runes onto rocks near Dargaville to boot. And it also seems from the SST article that what has been carbon dated is wood that Hilliam says came from a shipwreck, so it's meaningless until someone reputable carbon dates a piece that can be verified as coming from the wreck.  Waiting is good, support SimonLyall's decision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.205 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that we wait.
The paper that was submitted to the International Journal of Archaeological Science was titled "The discovery of New Zealand's oldest shipwreck - possible evidence of further Dutch exploration of the South Pacific" Authors were Jonathan Palmer, Chris Turney, Alan Hogg, Noel Hilliam, Erik van Sebille, Winston Cowie and Fiona Petchy  However it's more likely the wreck of the schooner Midge which was wrecked on 14 December 1871 in that approximate location (hence the name Midge Bay) her remains were washed up onto the shore by the tide.
Zoohistorian (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  shipwreck section 

message: While this man appears to have an interesting past  on what constitutes history and proof thereof,it seems that his present effort to research the (Dutch?) ship wreck in Midge Bay is of a different calibre. If editors can find references about this particular research to the contrary-please feel free to modify  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noel Hilliam 

message: I am about to remove a challenged section cited to a work by T Simpson published by Blythswood Press. From its home page "Blythswood Press is the newly minted personal publishing house of New Zealand historian Tony Simpson" which makes its productions unsuitable for contentious statements in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH for more info. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it's important to note that this is not an indictment of the author, since he appears to have reliable publications: http://www.randomhouse.co.nz/authors/tony-simpson.aspx http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/Writers/Profiles/Simpson,%20Tony http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10865799 HE may be notable, even, but I'm a little busy right now. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simpson seems to have credentials that make him worthy of inclusion here -- see this. "Claudia" originally inserted the comments about exaggerated complaints with inadequate citation; she has since marginally improved on that and I think the book could count as a RS despite being self-published. But Simpson's claim that the complaints were exaggerated seems to be a new one not, to my knowledge, previously raised by other historians. That being the case, I'd have no objection to the line being reinstated with the qualification that "the complaints were, according to historian Tony Simpson, exaggerated" ... or that the complaints were "possibly exaggerated". BlackCab (TALK) 09:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  I'd have been a bit less wary if this content had been added by a good faith editor. However it was added by Claudia, who has a bit of a history of bad editing (misinterpretation and, at times, outright falsification of sources) and an extreme anti-Māori POV - just see her latest edit at Talk:Waitara, New Zealand for an example. I'm very short of time so have been letting BlackCab take lead in fixing the messes Claudia makes, but sometimes I notice content that is so bad and biased it needs to be excised sooner rather than later. In shore: I have no faith that the source actually says what Claudia says it says, and am disappointed to see her reverting to the behaviour that earned her a one-year block that she has only recently finished serving. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, Peter Adams in his 1977 book Fatal Necessity: British Intervention in New Zealand, 1830-1847 says the Church Missionary Society did believe that irregular colonisation had increased crime and anarchy in New Zealand, but also suspected the New Zealand Association (later to morph into the New Zealand Company) had "exaggerated the picture to serve its own purposes" (chapter 4). It's therefore conceivable that Simpson draws a similar conclusion about the reports being made by both the New Zealand Association and the missionary groups themselves to the Colonial Office in their quest for British intervention. As stated above, a mention of the possible exaggeration would be appropriate if it's noted that it's Simpson's view. BlackCab (TALK) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a look at some of Simpson's work. It is certainly better than some other sources used here but I personally would not use it because he is a self-publishing amateur. If you read his work the lack of peer rewiew or a better structured editing stands out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published source 

message: The European migration section stated; 
Many Europeans bought land from Māori, but misunderstanding and different concepts of land ownership led to conflict and bitterness. In 1839, the New Zealand Company announced plans to buy large tracts of land and establish colonies in New Zealand. This alarmed the missionaries, who called for British control of European settlers in New Zealand.
This paragraph is very closely paraphrased. It is almost an exact copy of the main source; consider rewording.  Also the link to the article  "Estimating a population devastated by epidemics" cannot be found. Is this a credible source? Lansings (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the link for "Estimating a population...". The author, Peter Entwisle, is a reputable historian.-gadfium 21:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording above regarding European settlement cites no source, so it's unclear what it is supposedly plagiarising. The only result of a google search of the phrase is other websites that have lifted the Wikipedia article wording. BlackCab (TALK) 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Plagiarism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of New Zealand. 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/20070224105730/http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/Chinese/en to http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/Chinese/en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511134417/http://www.gurn.info/en/topics/global-trade-union-strategies-union-renewal/organizational-innovation-and-change/industrial-relations-and-labour-regulations-affecting-unions2019-structure/strategy-and-trade-union-effectiveness-in-a-neo-liberal-environment to http://www.gurn.info/en/topics/global-trade-union-strategies-union-renewal/organizational-innovation-and-change/industrial-relations-and-labour-regulations-affecting-unions2019-structure/strategy-and-trade-union-effectiveness-in-a-neo-liberal-environment
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) 20:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have added the word "Government" after "British" in the Treaty of Waitangi section of this article, because it refers to the British Government, but this is unclear with the previous wording. --HuttValley (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  British v British Government 

message: "Wakefield's vision" should not be given as much prominence as it currently is in this article. There should be a section on the New Zealand Company and Wakefield's part in it. At the moment the section reads mainly as a defence of Wakefield's plans.
The New Zealand Wars deserve much greater prominence in this article also. Given the chronological timeframe they occurred in, it would make more sense to break down the period like this:
:Treaty of Waitangi and colonial era (i.e. 1840 - 1890)
::Treaty of Waitangi
::New Zealand Wars
::Self-government etc
At the moment the two sections are actually overlapping, which is confusing. --LJ Holden 05:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wakefield's vision, New Zealand Wars 

message: At present the "21st Century" section has a full paragraph on the Christchurch mosque shootings, including six references and a picture. There are so many links in the paragraph that it's hard to find the main article. By contrast, the Christchurch earthquakes get a single sentence in the middle of a paragraph on the government of the time, with one reference and two links. The Kaikoura earthquake isn't mentioned at all. 
We don't need to give much detail on individual events because we link to the relevant articles. I suggest we trim the paragraph on the mosque shootings to something along the lines of , with a single ref for each sentence.-gadfium 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Snori's subsequent edits are certainly an improvement on what was there before.-gadfium 01:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christchurch attacks 

message: I have renamed this section as its name was Eurocentric. The South Island was not "predominant" in any sense during the New Zealand Wars, economically the Gold Rush (which oddly wasn't mentioned in the section title despite being a large part of the section's content) was far more important, but was just that, a rush. I've also removed an uncited sentence and a link to South Island nationalism, which appears to be there to push a particular POV --LJ Holden 21:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Island section 

message: I think it wrong to say the history of NZ dates back to 1300 - that is the start of human habitation. There is probably also a case for saying history started 1769, as being when written records started, a method used elsewhere. I think all that is needed is to change a few words though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree this approach IS used elsewhere, I believe it to a stupid and insulting approach. I cannot support it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What approach is stupid? I have amended the lead sentence. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the proposal you made in your first post here is stupid. Surely that's obvious. The amendment you made does not achieve what you proposed, so I am confused as to what you are trying to achieve. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a proposal. I just meant the start date for a country's beginning is random. The term 'pre-history' usually means before recorded time and using a script is sometimes used as a way of determining recorded time. In NZ's unique case that would not be appropriate I think because there is oral and archaeological history. However, the further back you go the less reliable those methods are. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History start date