Talk:God Defend New Zealand

message: So why don't some of you patriotic Kiwis add the lyrics?  Presumably they're not copyright --Robert Merkel
As far as I know, copyright on the lyrics is held by the New Zealand government.  I will try to contact someone to get the details. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if some other countries' national anthems are covered by copyright, too. --Carey Evans
If it was written in 1876, copyright has already expired long time ago --Taw
The lyrics are available at http://www.cultureandheritage.govt.nz/anthem/index.htm .
The copyright on the lyrics may have expired in the United States (as has everything else first published on or before December 31, 1922), but distributing things online requires worldwide rights,
and governments outside the United States are not inhibited by the "limited times" clause of U.S. Const. 1.8.8 and can enact a perpetual copyright on a given work, such as what the UK government did to the Peter Pan cycle.
Even then, don't count on anything else expiring in your lifetime.
Thanks - I couldn't have said it better myself.  Should something like this go on a more general page on Wikipedia copyrights? --Carey Evans
However, the unaltered lyrics of a national anthem, even in their entirety, would almost certainly be fair use, wouldn't they? --Robert Merkel
I don't know about New Zealand, by the lyrics to Canada's national anthem are in the public domain. I always assumed that it was same worldwide, but someone should surely check it out. -- Stephen Gilbert
I got an email today (2001-10-10) from Haydee Wilton at the Ministy for Culture and Heritage, regarding the copyright. Copyright on the English lyrics expired in 1948. She hasn't found out anything about the Maori lyrics yet, though, so I'll have to be patient until the relevant documentation can be tracked down. --Carey Evans
More info from Ailsa Caid at MCH: the Maori lyrics are covered by Crown copyright, which doesn't expire until 2079. --Carey Evans
If you need to email someone for copyright info, email the Ministry for Culture and Heritage at mailto:info@mch.govt.nz - User:Z.Spy 
The copyright purchased by the government was 50 years from the author's death and expired at the END of the year ie from 1 January 1949 not 1948 (ie not on the anniversary of Bracken's birthday which was 16 February); have corrected article Hugo999 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics - copyright

message: What does your anthem mean when it says "Guard Pacific's triple star"?  As an Aussie I have no idea what this means.
-- Grahame Gould (religiousnut@yahoo.com.au)
:I don't know either, despite being a New Zealander. It might have something to do with the three colors on the flag (blue, red, and white.)
::The meaning behind "guard pacific's triple star" was never confirmed by the original author of the poem, Thomas Bracken. There are three main thoughts: referring to Te Kooti's flag and shows his support for Māori; referring to the three main islands of NZ; or the third star of Alpha Centauri, which has been discounted as the third star was discovered 49 years after the poem was written. Andrew
Sorry, haven't made an account yet, but I'm from NZ. I believe the anthem is referring to the three main islands of NZ with the "triple star" line. "Guard Pacific's triple star" specifically refers to the Pacific Ocean, and it would have to be referring to something physical to guard, rather than three colours I think. -- Mark.
http://www.rfcadet.org.nz/News/general/Flag%20Data.html - ah, don't worry.  This answers it to the extent that my curiosity extended.  And I'm now a member.  -- Grahame
It's a reference to Speights' beer. 103.52.206.154 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacific's triple star

message: I have replaced the MIDI Link that was there:
http://www.copsrus.com/anthems/newzeal.mid MIDI File
as it currently seems broken. 
However I am not wildly happy about my replacement and if anyone finds one of better quality I suggest they use it. It's nice to have the sheet music but it's not a professional typeset of it (with the greatest of respect to the person who did it) and has a couple of (not too significant) errors. Nevilley 09:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIDI link was broken but ... 

message: According to the edit history of the article, I removed the Maori lyrics. Looking at the edit I do not think it was my work at all and I would not have intentionally removed them; I think the history is messed up. Apologies for any confusion, and I am glad to see the article put right again. Nevilley 18:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Template:NZCrownCopyright.--Jusjih 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori lyrics 

message: Has anyone taken a look at http://www.cultureandheritage.govt.nz/copy-right.html ? It has the copyright information from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Jusjih 06:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Template:NZCrownCopyright.--Jusjih 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright information from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage 

message: How can this article say that God save the queen is of equal status????? Most people don't know all the words to God Defend nz let alone God Save the queen, I don't even know what that song sounds like.
:Because they are both legally NZ's national anthems: "On Monday, 21 November 1977, then Minister of Internal Affairs Hon D A Highet, announced in the New Zealand Gazette 'that the National Anthems of New Zealand shall be the traditional anthem 'God Save The Queen' and the poem 'God Defend New Zealand', written by Thomas Bracken, as set to music by John Joseph Woods, both being of equal status as national anthems appropriate to the occasion'. This action was given with the consent of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II."   Ignorantia juris non excusat, nor is ignorance of the words and tune excusable: if you don't know, learn them.  You never know what trouble it may bring you.  By way of example, see this footage of John Redwood, the then Secretary of State for Wales, making a fool of himself at a Welsh conference. .  (PS: please sign comments with four tildes (~).) Alan Davidson 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that at our local ANZAC Day celebration, the RSA seems to favour God Save The Queen, and as many people seem to know the words to that as know the Maori version of GDNZ. As an aside, there is a theory that only foreign spies ever know all the verses to a national anthem. Egmason (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that makes me a foreign spy then... lol. Foreign, yes; spy? Some courier guy freaked out after delivering me a huge envelope from Singapore marked CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, when I jokingly told him not to tell anyone about it. It was homework from the GEP in a recycled envelope. So funny. SS✞(Kay) 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the anthem/country surely. Some old ones in particular like God Defend New Zealand and God Save The Queen seem to have many little used verses so that it's probably not that surprising. There also seems to be resistance to singing the anthem in schools in some countries. Compare to Negaraku which AFAIK doesn't have any extra little uses verses and is only sung in one language (doesn't even have any official translations) and is nearly always sung at schools so many know it. Similarly with Singlish speaker above, Majulah Singapura does't have any little used verses AFAIK and is only properly sung in Malay (although it does have official translations) and is sung in schools so many Singaporeans must know it. Of course I also distinctly remember watching the Australian Who Wants To Be A Millionaire where one of the questions was about one of the commonly sung lines in Advance Australia Fair and the (Australian) contestant didn't know much to Eddie McGuire's chagrin and when he asked the audience their response was surprisingly uncertain (I think it was in a plurality but can't remember if it was over 50% although the audience in the Australian edition always seemed a bit dumb anyway). Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always interesting how these old threads are revived :-D. I guess the point about the spies is that their knowledge of the country tends to be rote-learned, whereas it's fairly well known in New Zealand that God Defend New Zealand is our primary anthem. When I was at primary and high school that was the anthem that we learnt to sing, both languages, but never God Save the Queen. I don't know of any school that actually teaches it. --LJ Holden 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  God save the Queen??? 

message: I have always seen the Maori version sung first - in my understanding, it is standard at formal events, sports games and in schools. The likely reason for this is to be politically correct, but I won't go into Wikipedia:OR territory here. I don't believe a citation is needed for the claim that it is common to sing Maori, then English, which is why I removed the tag. 
Since it seems some people still disagree, discuss? 
125.237.26.48 (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: How to sing the song 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:God Defend New Zealand manuscript cropped.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:God Defend New Zealand manuscript cropped.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on God Defend 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/20150517051241/http://exislepublishing.co.nz:80/Hear_Our_Voices-_We_Entreat.html to http://exislepublishing.co.nz/Hear_Our_Voices-_We_Entreat.html
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) 15:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On my reading of the second sentence of the Criticism section,  the text being quoted there is that of the anthem itself and not that of Nancy Swarbrick's article about it.   While the latter is being cited to support the statement that the quoted textual items have been criticised for being "old-fashioned or obscure", it is the textual items themselves that are being criticised, and are therefore being referred to by the words in quotation marks, and this means the ones which actually appear in the anthem.  Thus, not only is there no need to reproduce any misspellings of those items by Ms Swarbrick, I consider it an error for the article to do so.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well made, but I can also see User:Roger 8 Roger's point in insisting that quoted material should remain as written in the source – after all, those words are in quotation marks, which of course could also (wrongly) mark WP:WORDSASWORDS. Maybe the two positions can be reconciled if we follow the MoS and use italics for those words and then silently correct Swarbrick's spelling. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No! The article says very clearly "the lyrics ... have been criticised". The lyrics say correctly say "nations' van" and that is what should be quoted. Okay, there is a citation to Nancy Swarbrick's article but her misspellings are irrelevant. It is obvious that the lyrics are being quoted and not some article that is referenced via a footnote. Either the article should say, "'nations' van' is criticised" or "the lyrics have been criticised by someone who couldn't be bothered to get them right." My feeling is that the article is about perceived deficiencies in the lyrics and not about the deficiencies of one person criticising them. I strongly suspect that the edit was made by someone who was looking for an excuse to use the tag "[sic]" and didn't care that it made the article less readable. Anyway if nobody comes up with a reason not to, I shall edit the article into understandable plain English and get rid of that pretentious Latin tag.OrewaTel (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I also agree that the correct lyrics anthem should be quoted. It is the anthem itself that is being critiqued; Swarbrick is imply incorrectly quoting the anthem. --Hazhk (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nation's" vs "Nations'" 

message: One category has been changed from 'Multilingual Song' to 'Macaronic Song'. This was in response to a consensus that 'Multilingual' should be replaced by 'Macaronic'. The trouble is that God Defend New Zealand is not macaronic. 'Macaronic' essentially means that two languages are mixed together. God Defend New Zealand, on the other hand, has two versions ― one Māori, one English ― which are sung in turn and they are never mixed together. You can make an argument that these are two versions of a monolingual song rather than being a single bilingual song. So since we are not allowed to use Category:Multilingual songs then I would like to simply remove the incorrect Category:Macaronic songs. Having been warned about this edit once, I need to seek other opinions before going ahead. OrewaTel (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy for you to remove :Category:Macaronic songs, but it should not be replaced with :Category:Multilingual songs as that's a redirect. I think the discussion which supported the redirect did not sufficiently consider how to categorise songs which have multiple language versions.-gadfium 06:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with . Perhaps it would be useful to ask a clarifying CfD or RfC about this overlooked case? I don't think that asking for clarification of consensus given a case that was not considered would fly in the face of WP:CCC's clause about , so long as the original parties to the CfD are pinged. That could separate the two with, perhaps, a note in both referring to the other and noting the difference, but then could also run into the issue of having a category that falls into WP:SMALLCAT unless there are several that could be added (just throwing ideas out there). What do you think, gadfium? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for clarifying. :Category:Multilingual songs cannot be used because it isn't a real category ― it simply redirects to :Category:Macaronic songs. This category designator has only recently been added to God Defend New Zealand and it seems to be a mistake. I shall remove it.OrewaTel (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macaronic Song 

message: A recent edit put this anthem in the Multilingual category and a subsequent edit corrected to Macaronic. Actually this anthem is a single language song but like any song it can be translated into other languages. God Defend New Zealand is unusual in that there is an official translation from English to Te Reo (Māori). Māori is a verbose language that requires more syllables than English to say the same thing and in consequence a direct translation that fits the tune is impossible. Nevertheless the anthem is always sung in just one language – we don't mix the languages. (cx National anthem of South Africa which is a mixture of 5 languages.) Normally the anthem is sung twice, first in Te Reo then in English, but each verse is sung in its entirety in a single language. OrewaTel (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multilingual or Macromic 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There are English language and Te Reo versions of this song. They differ for two reasons. The first reason is that Māori is a verbose language and and you cannot shoehorn it into a terse English tune. To show this we have a direct translation. This works quite well. For example, "Hear our voices, we entreat,\ God defend our free land." (12 syllables) is represented in Te Reo by, "Āta whakarangona; \ Me aroha noa" (13 syllables). The direct back translation is accurate. "Listen to us, \ Cherish us" (7 syllables)
The problem comes from the second reason for the difference. Te Reo does not map directly onto English. Even when words are nominally the same, the nuances are different. This causes problems with any legal document written in both languages. What this means is that even when we are making a direct word for word translation, we must be very careful to choose the correct words. Very often there isn't one word and we need to use a whole phrase. Māori works its words very hard.
Consider the phrase 'Ihowā atua in the first line.
The word 'Ihowā' is a transliteration of 'Jehovah' but it isn't a direct translation. Te Reo doesn't have a word for 'God' (and strictly speaking does not have a word for 'gods'). The nearest is 'atua' which invokes the spirit of potent ancestors. To represent 'God', you can use 'te atua' (the God) but better is 'Ihowā atua'. 'Ihowā atua' could be translated as the 'the essential supernatural spirit that has been called Jehovah'. Since this is a Christian poem that was translated by a Christian missionary, 'Lord God' seems a good translation. OrewaTel (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ihowā = Jehovah