Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ethnicities in introduction

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)

questions

• Should anyone mention the renaming of the national Badminton team as the Black Cocks? Some may see it as inappropriate but its probably the most original name in international sport. I do know its not official yet but alot of people are already saying things at matches like go the black cocks. It could be mentioned as a footnote or an interesting spin on the part about the naming convention for the national teams.
• just a question to you knowledgable new zealanders, the article here was a little brief on why new zealand "lost interest in joining Australia in a federation" and also, the relationship between the two countries. i don't know about you but most people in Australia didn't know new zealand was almost an Australian state. I had put the question to a new zealender "would you like New Zealand to become a state of Australia" they we're quite adament that it remain independant, almost like such an event would mean the end of the world.
• i also read (from another source) that new zealanders think Australians are "loud and opinionated" is this the general consensus in New Zealand? are you all (like my friend) adament that you be as distinct from Australia as possible?

Opinions vary on whether NZ should be closer to Australia. I think the clear majority quite strongly dislike the thought. It's most likely because Australia is so much more populous than NZ, and we'd lose our identity if we became a state.

I've looked for online opinion polls but could only find Australian ones, eg 1964 1968 1979. There was a three-part documentary series on TVNZ in 2003 entitled "2050 What If", dealing with different futures for NZ; one was effective merger with Australia, with the spectre of our children learning about aboriginal history rather than Maori culture in schools. The other scenarios were a Maori dominated NZ, and a Green dominated one.

These might be useful to you: States of Mind: Australia and New Zealand or Australia and New Zealand: Turning Shared Pasts into a shared history, or google for "Why New Zealanders are not Australians", a paper by Keith Sinclair which doesn't appear to be online, but is quoted by anything which is relevant.-gadfium 22:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There's also a website entitled simply Why New Zealand did not become an Australian state. -- Vardion 23:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

reply: amazingly concise and well researched response to a fairly unworthy question :) i thank you. by i have to say, we don't learn about aboriginal history in schools, the odd book by an aboriginal has been studied, but were not as focused on aboriginals as New Zealand seem to be about the maori. I have to say, that a 'merger' would probably be pretty controversial in Australia too, i can see many economic benifits in being the one country, but perhaps CER will be enough.

• one of the articles, that you linked me to, mentioned: "contemplation of, and public support for a new common currency" between Australia and New Zealand, this is the first i've heard of such a thing.

A related question, which someone here may be able to answer - I believe that when Australia federated, it wasn't just New Zealand that wasn't 100% behind the move. I've heard various sources claim that (1) WA only joined the confederation by a very slim majority, and (2) there was serious consideration given in Tasmania to joining with New Zealand. Anyone know whether there's any truth in either of these claims? Grutness...wha? 12:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Since time escapes me, I'll make this short and sweet (that's the saying right?). Yes, New Zealand was not alone in its hesitation. All the small colonies (that is, all bar NSW and VIC) at some point or another voiced serious concern of the potential dominance of NSW and VIC; this is the reason, in large part, we have a Senate (yes, this is a simplistic example and forgets the fact the Senate isn't a States' House, but it's extremely common). Firstly, let's clarify, Australia isn't a confederation - it is a federation. Both WA and QLD were very cautious and both were very late in holding referendums. In WA the referendum on federation was finally (and successfully) held nearly a month after the Constitution Act had been passed in the Imperial Parliament. I can't recall by what margin the referendum passed, but I believe it was wide enough to aviod being called narrow or slim. Many remained recalitrant in the West, however, and in 1933 a referendum of succession was even held there in which 68% voted in favour (it was the Great Depression, people were peeved!). This was ultimately pointless given the federation is indissoluble (and Britain told them off). The TAS/NZ federation thing is complete hogswash. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re common currency: See this interview with the NZ Prime Minister in 2000 [1], and her views in 2004 [2]. This might represent the Australian Government's view: [3]. This is an opinion survey from 2004 on what NZers think of political union, a common currency, and various other measures: [4]-gadfium 02:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

One thing which always surprised me when this debate crops up is that the inevitable suggestion for merger is with Australia. Seems a bit like Te Kuiti deciding it want's to be part of a big smoke city and joining Te Awamutu. Why doesn't anyone ever suggest becoming a State of America (well, presumably there'd be another civil war, but) or revert back to being a dominion of the UK (which could leave us with tariff free access to the EU, while keeping our own parliamantlike Scotland - all we'd need to give up is foreign policy and defence...okay Tony Blair and Iraq, um, but we would have HELPED not vote for him, um okay, look is it that much worse than Winnie the Pooh as foreign minister? Speaking of censorship in history, (which you were way up the top somewhere, no really, the bit about Aussies and "Abos"), it's interesting to see some of the things we aren't taught in New Zealand...did you know that from January 1840, (when the Queen annexed us, whoops, sorry about that treaty in Feb) till 1841 we were in the law of the Empire part of New South Wales, (the governor of which had asserted authority over New Zealand as "minor off shore islands" as early as 1814). At which point you'll say yes I did know that, and deflate my balloon. Okay, just shhh, & don't tell Mr Peters. yours Winnie the other User:winstonwolfe

FYI: some links for you: http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an14282068 - the board that kept the official stats of Australian Federation Referendum http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/state/factSheet18.htm?section=state&content=factSh - stats on Commonwealth referendums by W Australia.

I also heard that the reason why WA was so late with its referendum was because it was so far away and they just couldn't get the documents there is in time. I'm now pretty annoyed that I sold a text book that I had at uni which had all the referendum stats from each state :( . I can't really recall if a simple majority was required to get over the line for federation or it was an extraordinary vote (ie over 75% like what is required by each state in today's referendums as per the Aust Constitution).Frances76 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/federation/slides/slideshow/ss40.htm Frances76 06:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

i think a union between the two countries would be nice, people forget how much we have in common and focus on the differences...

Judicary

So does New Zealand have a High Court, or is the current Supreme Court the highest court in New Zealand? The article is not clear.--nixie 01:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, above the Court of Appeal which is in turn above the High Court. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See Supreme Court of New Zealand. Xtra 01:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but nixie makes a good point, because the paragraph he refers to is ambiguous.Moriori 02:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the pargraph with info from the Ministry of Justice. An article on court heirachy in New Zealand would be good.--nixie 02:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The 'Supreme Court of New Zealand' is nothing more than a quango imposed on the people of New Zealand without their consent.If it had been put to a referendum,a majority would have voted 'No'.As I am a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys (& a fierce Royalist!),I am strongly in favour of doing away with the Zimbabwe-style banana 'Supreme Court' & replacing it with a powerful Constitutional Court that is organised on the same lines as the Constitutional Court of South Africa.Of course,I am also a fierce advocate of restoring the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.We need an independent judicial tribunal that will take into account our unique situation here in New Zealand. (Aidan Work 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

That's nice to know, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Furthermore, it is not a quango, it is a court, just as the Privy Council was (for New Zealand). --LeftyG 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lefty, in case you are not aware, Mr Work has been blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. Moriori 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we could definately add more to the courts discussion. There is a lot to be said about the position of the various courts in the constitutional hierarchy, for example IIRC the High COurt traditionally has been of higher status than the Court of Appeal. As evidence for this the Chief Justice of New Zealand (who fills in for the Governor General when she is out of the country) was based in the High Court, not the Court of Appeal, pre Supreme Court. This is related to the point that most courts, like the District Court/Court of Appeal/SC are creatures of statute law not the traditional Anglo Saxon system. By this measurement the High Court predates and sits above these courts. I'd need to refresh my memory on this and do some research before I add anything here though. Juan Incognito 2/3/06

Juan, The reason that the Chief Justice was chosen from the High Court was that the Court of Appeal was originally a bench of the High Court (alongside several other specialist benches); Appeals Bench Judges were just High Court Judges sitting on the appeals bench. Although the Court of Appeal emerged as a court in it's own right, a number of functions were never tranferred to it (eg lawyers were acredited to the HC, not the CoA, but were recognised in all NZ courts). Personally I agree with Aidan: I would prefer to see our highest court placed well beyond control or interference by the government of the day, and believe that a court made up of international judges (including New Zealanders) would better protect individual freedoms. 220.233.181.140 12:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)KenNR

That is because the New Zealand High Court is our 'court of general jurisdiction'; that is, it is constituted to deal with all matters arising; whereas there are certain limits as to what can be taken to the District Court, and cases can only appear before the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on appeal, and in the latter case when leave has been granted.

As for the Privy Council / Supreme Court debate, I would have thought that the recent antagonism between the current government (who ironically set up the court after decades of having it as a policy) and the Supreme Court actually goes to show that the fear of parliamentary intervention with the judiciary is largely unfounded - Judges tend to like their independence, as MPs do. That said, I do feel that we need to look at the way in which we appoint our Judges (i.e. take that power out of the hands of the Prime Minister and vest it in an independent body) to remove any question of political bias, the problem is that neither of the two major parties would support such a body as they would lose the power to influence the courts... --Lholden 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New 'economy' comments

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)

I have done my best to resolve some of these problems (which I, myself, found very bias). DannyMan 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Population

At the beginning of the page it says the population is 4.092 million but then lower in the article it's 4.2 million. What's it gonna be then people? 4 or 4.2 ?

Here's NZ's population 4.15 million (which could be rounded to 4.2 million) - from Statistics New Zealand which has a population clock top right of their homepage http://www.stats.govt.nz/default.htm

i don't know how you guys count in NZ, but where i'm from that population clock read 4.100593M not 4.15 M (therefore it cannot be rendered 4.2, although even if you could render it as such, would you want to?) -shrewd-

Map scale is wrong

Unfortunately the map scale in the NZ map from the CIA World Factbook is wrong. Please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Zealand_map.PNG and a further note at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:New_Zealand_map.PNG

I have put a brief note in its caption. Until this is resolved I think it is wrong to display a map which is giving a wrong impression of the country's size.

Becase this affects more than one article I respectfully suggest that discussion about the map is best kept together at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:New_Zealand_map.PNG

Thank you.

I think I've managed to fix it. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think so too - thanks, see the commons image talk for more. (from anonymous, grouchy old git)

New comer here, i think that you should visit http://www.eske-style.co.nz and press the buttom named "Explore New Zealand" to view their map of the North Island and South Island of New Zealand. This will give you the appropriate location of the towns. From zZParagonZz

That's a nice pair of maps, and if I understand correctly they're free to download and use so long as a reference back to Linz is included. We could certainly consider having these on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They certainly deserve to be linked from this article. I could have done with these when I was making all the NZ town location maps! Grutness...wha? 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New comer again, I should have stated previously that we altered the maps to accommodate for our website design. The http://www.eske-style.co.nz site is under construction feel free to browse, you may find useful tidbits, but then I am biased, lol. Thank you 4 taking the time to read this, zZParagonZz P.S Yes LINZ map free with acknowledgement

South Africa

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)

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)

Coat of Arms copyright?

I found this on the Ministry of Culture and Heritage website:

Use of the Coat of Arms 

The use of the New Zealand Coat of Arms is restricted to Government. It may not be used by private individuals
or organisations. 

Private persons and organisations may display the Arms as a decorative feature on particular national
occasions, for example Royal Visits, and Jubilee celebrations provided the display is not a permanent feature. 
Use of the Arms may be permitted on permanent souvenirs of a particular event, for example a Royal Anniversary 
or Visit. Advice of permission to use the Arms in this manner is published in the New Zealand Gazette. 
publishers of encyclopaedia, educational and heraldry books may be granted permission to reproduce the Arms in  
certain circumstances.

Since NZ doesn't have any fair use copyright provisions that I have heard off, doesn't this mean we need to obtain permission to use the Coat of Arms? (The image Image:New_zealand_coa.png is used in quite a lot of NZ-related pages).--Konstable 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my specious reasoning to get around this.

1. I am a New Zealand citizen.
2. The New Zealand government is my government.
3. I'm a reasonable person and representative of New Zealand the country.
4. I say it's okay to use the Coat of Arms.
5. Therefore it's okay.

And more specious reasoning:

1. Wikipedia is a very popular and prominent web site, freely available and widely used in New Zealand.
2. The New Zealand Coat of Arms has been used in Wikipedia for a number of years.
3. No representative of the New Zealand government has ever raised an objection to this.
4. Therefore it's okay.

Yeah, I know it doesn't hold water with Wikipedia's technically legalistic structure, but this is one of these occasions when technicalities do not and are so unlikely ever to matter as to be virtually non-existent. As a last resort, we New Zealanders can claim that American cultural hegemony in the form of litigation-minded legalistic pedantry (and specifically the litigation-minded legalistic pedantry incorporated into the structure of the American-founded Wikipedia) is oppressing our native laid-back, easy-going culture :-)

Plus if a representative of Wikipedia actually went to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and asked "Hey mate, we got your coat of arms on this website, 'scalled Wikipedia. Izziss cool?", I anticipate they would reply along the lines of "Sweet as bro." Darobsta 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is entitled to use the image in the article on Coat of arms of New Zealand under the fair use provisions of United States law. For any other use, permission should be sought. I would expect that the response of the Ministry would be a little more guarded than "Sweet as". They would probably give us permission to display the image on Wikipedia articles, but they would not release it under a free licence, and that would not be acceptable to us. Would someone with more New Zealand legal expertise like to comment?-gadfium 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. Does anyone know if other encyclopedia's use it? Also, none of the articles are claiming to be representatives of the government. I would say it is fine, as heaps of company logos are used on their pages (such as Sony. --GeLuxe 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias may be granted permission to reproduce the Arms in certain circumstances. In other words, we have to apply, and while we'll probably get permission, that will be permission to reproduce the images on Wikipedia only. We need the image released under GFDL or CC, and I think that's not going to happen.

Even without permission, we can use it on the article dealing with it under US fair use law, because Wikipedia is published in the US and is not subject to NZ laws. We can probably also use it on the New Zealand article. With company logos, fair use allows the use of the logo on the article for that company, but probably not on the article of the CEO of that company.-gadfium 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree it's quite unlikely we would get permission. You have to consider the reasons it's protected. It seems obvious that the clear intention is to prevented mis-use of the coat of arms in such a way that would be misleading or cast a bad light on the NZ government. If it's released under the CC or something of that sort, anyone can arguable use it for any purposes within the license conditions. They could still be charged with fraud or some such of course, but it's probably seen as simply easier to protect the logo itself rather then get involved in that mess Nil Einne 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Land Wars c.f. New Zealand Wars or alternatives

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)

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)

Moving Māori language to Maori language

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)

Opening Paragraph

Maori name seems superfluous for the opening paragraph explaining the location and name of New Zealand, as it is not an official name but a colloquiallism. I wouldn't hesitate to add that the whole article is poorly written, especially in terms of grammar. The aim of this site should be to have articles that would be acceptable for a publisher. Whilst some "interest" articles are never going to be, major ones such as this should be aiming at that level.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Superfluous? Check out Aotearoa. It is the Māori name for New Zealand, and Māori language is an official language of New Zealand. Incidentally, there is nothing stopping YOU from trying to improve the grammar. Also, when you post to talk pages it is helpful if you leave your signature by typing four tildes, ~~~~ . Moriori 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict so I have indented.) I know what Aotearoa means. Maori is an official language but Aotearoa is not an official name of the country, whether you like it or not.

I like it fine as it is thanks - recognition of a centuries old name for our country (yours and mine).

Māori is an official language of New Zealand, so I would say that makes Aotearoa the official name of NZ in Māori. It’s also a common alternative name in English. If anything I think the opening paragraph should mention ‘Aotearoa’ isn’t limited to Māori speakers. Barefootguru 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We should also stop referring to "pakeha." As a white person, I find that term offensive.

There are several so-called definitions of pakeha. The original and prevailing meaning to Māori is non Maori. You can choose to interpret it as meaning white if you like (but is puzzles me why a white person could be offended by being called white).

We don't refer to Maori as "Natives" anymore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Tangata whenua suits just fine. Do you think we should revert to calling Māori by the term used by the early European settlers? Do you actually know what it was? Moriori 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; they called them "Kai hopi" we definitely don't want use that; it's very rude. ping 07:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that ):-. Actually, the settlers called them New Zealanders. Moriori 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Aotearoa is an important secondary name. It is not an offical name, and no where does it state that. I'm also a pakeha, and I prefer to be called that, rather than, say, "European" or "whitey". --GeLuxe 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it uncofortable to be called a "pakeha" because of its meaning in Māori - "white pig". Though I take no offense from it. (Though I'm a Eurpoean from outside NZ, so I'm not a pakeha anyway). And since its commonly used by everyone, including the government I see no reason on why reference to it should be removed. Also I think Aotearoa is a very important name, and it is used very often here. So I say it very rightfully deserves to have stay as it is in the opening paragraph.--Konstable 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on the word Pākehā, it is dubious that it means "white pig". "Poaka is pig in Māori, and common Māori words for white include mā and tea, making this a very unlikely translation or point of origin." Evil Monkey - Hello 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, urban legend to make us ‘pākeha’ feel righteous! The Reed Māori dictionary defines it as ‘non-Māori, European, Caucasianʻ. It’s how I identify myself, with no qualms. Barefootguru 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment any more about this article; I have voiced my opinion but clearly this public article is defended by people who see their idea of what is official and what is not as the way to go about issues. The opening two paragraphs mention geography, ethicity, language and politics with no clarity or direction. I feel the Aotearoa explaination should be moved further down - it's nothing to do with geography and it is not an official name. On the pakeha issue - it's interesting because unlike most countries we were not born out of nationalism or a sense of brotherhood, thus the white descendents don't have an ethnic identity, like Estonians for example. 69% of kiwis are "white," and because our historical links to Britian and Ireland are becoming less important, I think the word "pakeha" will take its place, though I will never call myself pakeha. I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive; I just wanted to see change in the article, but I know now that this will not be forthcoming. It's supposed to be an official guide but some people have become sentimental towards it. -Stop badgering me to sign off; I don't have to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Also, for a guy who said "I'm not going to comment any more about this article" you sure left a screed of comment ):-. Moriori 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand your (User:82.35.171.53) arguments. You start by saying ‘defended by people who see their idea of what is official and what is not as the way to go about issues’ but then defend your own stance with ‘it is not an official name’; which by the way, I think it is (as explained above). I also don’t understand your ‘ethnic identify’ statement—I think NZ has a strong one, and other countries also have both indigenous people (Canada, Australia, America…) and an ethnic identify. Barefootguru 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope it isn't a bad idea to resurrect this dead discussion but I personally think all this talk about official is rather silly. It doesn't matter whether it's official or not (and I personally think it is). All that matters is, how relevant and common is it? The fact of the matter is, whether anyone likes it or not, Aotearoa is a very commonly used both by the government and other parties (I'm sure anyone who has selected New Zealand in various internet forms has seen Aoteroa in brackets often enough). It is commonly mentioned on our tourists brocherues. Therefore, it is a very common alternative name and should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Nil Einne 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Measurements per WP:MOSNUM Formating

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)

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)

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)

Mediation

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)

Motto: None. Formerly "Onward"??

What does this mean? Is it a formal motto or not?Glennh70 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Glen, you're an idiot. Heres a good t-shirt for you [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Sindarin

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)

New Zealand is the only official name of this country. Aotearoa and Arda are false names, and should be stamped out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

Template:Oceania and Template:Polynesia

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)

Famous kiwis?

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)

Portal link

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)

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)

Living standards

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)

Official language box should say "New Zealand Sign Language", not just "Sign Language"

There are literally hundreds of different sign languages used around the world. List of sign languages gives some of the major ones. In general, different sign languages are not mutually intelligible, and many of them developed completely independently of each other.

The new official language of New Zealand is New Zealand Sign Language. It is not American Sign Language, nor French Sign Language, nor Chinese Sign Language, nor Japanese Sign Language, none of which a New Zealand Sign Language user would be able to understand or use -- no more than an English-speaker of New Zealand could be expected to know French, Chinese, or Japanese.

As such, it makes no more sense to give the new third official language of New Zealand as just "Sign Language" than it would to give the existing two official languages of New Zealand as just "Spoken Language".

-- ran (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, English links to New Zealand English Maori links to Māori language so Sign Language should link to New Zealand Sign Language, it does not need to say NZ Sign Language. New Zealaland uses 'New Zealand English not British, or Australian or US english. If we say NZ NZ Sign Language, we will have to also say NZ english, and NZ maori, as there is other maori out there (eg Cook Island Maori).

This should be fixed ASAP Brian | (Talk) 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Sign Language, but I understand that New Zealand Sign Language is much more different from American Sign Language, say, than NZ English is from American English, and that the differences are big enough for them to be described as different languages, not dialects of the same language. So I think Brian's argument misses the point.

From [6]:

"New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) has been "spoken" for over a hundred years. It developed out of British Sign Language (BSL), brought here by Dorcas Mitchell, tutor to a family of Deaf children in Charteris Bay in the 1870s. BSL can be traced back another 300 years and probably has an unrecorded history as long as that of English. American Sign Language (ASL or Ameslan) is a completely different language."

I don't really know enough about differences between the Māori languages to comment on that part. -- Avenue 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, there are hundreds of different sign languages in the world. Most of them are not mutually intelligible and many of them developed independently from each other. The diversity of Sign Languages worldwide is not comparable at all to the English varieties of the UK, US, Australia, NZ, etc; it is more comparable to the variety of all the spoken languages of the world: English, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, etc.

(According to the article BANZSL, BANZSL (which includes New Zealand Sign Language) has a lexical similarity of just 44% with American Sign Language. In contrast, English has a lexical similarity of 60% with German.)

Brian New Zealand's version, which gives "Sign Language" as one of the official languages of New Zealand, would be like giving "Spoken languages" as the other two official languages, without bothering to distinguish between the spoken languages of the world. If you feel that the spoken languages of the world are different enough for us to specify "English" and "Maori" (rather than just "Spoken languages"), why would you not do the same for New Zealand Sign Language as well?

-- ran (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, my IP was blocked :) You have convinced me, all I was trying to do was make it shorter in the info box. And correct as I saw it. I apologise for the misunderstanding Brian | (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries =) -- ran (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate over Casualties in WWI

Here's the quote from the article:

In addition to the various wars between iwi, and between the British settlers and iwi, New Zealand has fought in the Second Boer War, World War I, (sustaining the highest casualties per head of population of any combatant nation)

I believe that Newfoundland (which held the same status of "Dominion" at the time) actually may be the appropriate holder of this dubious honour. At the same time, I'm not certain - so I'd suggest that either the section in brackets be removed or a reference be provided. AshleyMorton 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find figures for the population of Newfoundland during the war but couldn't find any, so I decided set some bounds on the population. According to World War I casualties, Newfoundland had total dead of 1,251. NZ population from the 1916 census was ~1.2 million and the number of NZers killed was 18,166, meaning Newfoundland would need a population less than 83,000 to have a higher death rate in the war. If we look at total casualities (dead and wounded from the table), Newfoundland would have needed a population of less than 72,000 people. Of course this doesn't show whether NZ or Newfoundland had a higher rate, but my gut feeling is that ~80,000 people seems rather low for a Dominion. 203.173.151.217 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The main Newfoundland page says: "The First World War had a powerful and lasting effect on the society. From a population of about a quarter of a million, 5,482 men went overseas. Nearly 1,500 were killed and 2,300 wounded " - SimonLyall 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the World War I casualties page I would guess that Serbia, France, Romania and perhaps even Bulgaria or Russia are ahead of NZ though. depedning on their exact populations at the time. - SimonLyall 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Demographics of France, it had a population of around 40,000,000 during WWI, and military deaths of 1375800. This would mean 3.44% of its population were killed just in the military, compared to 1.51% for New Zealand. If we look at total deaths and wounded, France had a rate of 14.20% compared to NZ's 6.39%. Even if we ignore civilian deaths, France only drops to 14.10%, so it definitely has a higher rate. As such, I think the comment should be removed from articles that it is found in. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Just to add to this, Austria-Hungary has a death rate of 2.34% for military deaths. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, based on population figures from [7] for some countries, [8] for New Zealand, we find that:

New Zealand had a death rate of 1.51% and casuality rate (civilian and military) of 6.39%

France, 2.55%, and 10.53%

Austria-Hungary, 2.34% and 9.38%

Germany, 2.53% and 8.56%

Romania, 3.73% and 5.06%

Italy, 1.86% and 4.56%

Bulgaria, 1.59% and 4.36%

Evil Monkey - Hello 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you check NZ against other Commonwealth counties? Brian | (Talk) 23:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia was 1.19% and 4.37% and Canada, 0.83% and 3.00%. As for the other Commonwealth countries, South Africa had less deaths and casualities than NZ and India had only slightly more, making it unlikely they would have a higher rate. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the Maori TV ANZAC day covage today and I'm sure they said NZ had the higest casualites per capita in WWI, (out of the Commonwealth) Brian | (Talk) 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If we look instead at the miliary casualty rates as a proportion of those mobilised, New Zealand had a casualty rate of 66% (73,000 casualties out of 110,000 mobilised). It comes third in this list, after the French Empire and Austria-Hungary, and highest in the Commonwealth. However Newfoundland is not listed. -- Avenue 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Been British off to New Zealnd

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)

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)

I live in Dunedin and evryone I know likes British pplz. British accents ROCK!!! HyperSushi21 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To do list

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)

Rearrange

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)

Looks good, however I don't now if Military should be a sub of International relations Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Anything that strays to far from that suggested by Wikiproject:Countries, or the layout of other featured countries is going to have to be revised if anyone wants to try and get this article featured. I would suggest staying away from sub-sections of any type, and applying some good copyediting - many of the sections (sport, foreign relations, goverment) are overly long.--Peta 11:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Constitution

I removed from the history section the comment that "...though the Australian Constitution still includes provision for New Zealand to be included." This statement is not correct, as New Zealand is only mentioned in Section 6 under the definition of 'states', but this does not mean that there is provision for us to be included, anymore so than for Papua New Guinea (for example).

One could argue that Section 121 of the Constitution does allow for New Zealand to become a part of Australia, however, that does not apply simply to New Zealand, and would probably require ratification in Australia (i.e. a referendum). --Lholden 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the next clause does define original states as those who have ratified by time of proclamation. You may have a point. Xtra 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, although that clause was meant for Western Australia, who like us didn't want to join the Aussie Commonwealth --Lholden 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

new zealand worried that being so far away from the mainland they wouldn't have adequate protection from any would be invaders, and that any military force would not be able to get there in time... i think western Australian's (of which at the time were a very small number) weren't interested in becoming independant from england who still had a powerful empire at the time. Redgardless, it is indeed true that the Australian constitution still includes provisions to allow new zealand to join as a state (4 million people would put new zealand up there with victoria and new south wales who i think have roughly 5 and 6 million people respectively...) although both Australian and New Zealand interest in this is quite low, new zealand because of some strange attitude towards Australia and Australia because of the economic cost involved in adopting New zealand as a state.

Nonsense: Go and actually read the provisions of the Constitution of Australia I've referred to. You will see that no such provision(s) exist for New Zealand to simply become an Australian state other than by the process of adding new states; which applies for any territory (Papua New Guinea or Fiji could become a State of Australia on this basis), not New Zealand specifically.

Western Australia, like New Zealand, didn't want to join the Commonwealth of Australia because out of its own self-interest, indeed they actually voted in 1933 [9] to leave the Australian Commonwealth. --Lholden 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute balderdash, my friend. They indeed had a referendum, but they voted against seceding. And if the people of WA had not wanted to join the Commonwealth in 1901, they would have voted against it - but they voted for it. JackofOz 11:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr JackofOz, I think you are talking "Absolute Balderdash" yourself - in the 1933 Western Australia referendum 68% voted to secede. How you could get your facts so wrong escapes me. GrahamBould 11:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How very odd, that's the first time I've ever been wrong. I retract that part of my statement and plead temporary insanity. :--) JackofOz 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry i must have been thinking of this: Section 6 of the Preamble declares that:

The States’ shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for 

the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called ‘a State.

Yes, that is what the Preamble says. If you read the next section, you'll see that in order for the above to apply, New Zealand had to have ratified the Constitution by the time of the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia. This, of course, was not the case and this section cannot apply. Moreover, as I've said above, the section relating to the admission of new states [10] doesn't give New Zealand special rights either. --Lholden 10:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the history section which reads "though the Australian Constitution still includes provision for New Zealand to be included." should be deleted. --Lholden 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Largest city

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)

No contest. Auckland City says 420,700. Manukau City says 360,200. Moriori 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

um I have heard before that Manukau is the city with the most population Brian | (Talk) 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Click on Auckland City and then Manukau City. Moriori 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another option would be Dunedin City. :) This is the largest "city" in New Zealand, based on land area (which seems the most literal interpretation someone might put on "largest city"). -- Avenue 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Actually, do we even need to list the population at all? Other countries don't seem to (haven't look at 'every' country but still ...)Enzedbrit 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Aotearoa

I'm not sure it was a good idea to remove the bit about long lenticular clouds suggesting the name Aotearoa, Land Of The Long White Cloud. It was precisely because migrating Maori had not seen such clouds before that they thought them remarkable, and named the land accordingly. Comments? Moriori 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have three concerns about the lenticular clouds bit. First, it seemed like excessive detail for the preamble (which should just be summarising the article text below, and there is no further mention of Aotearoa in the article). Second, it's unclear to me whether it was the nature of the cloud or its length (reflecting the vast size of the NZ landmass relative to the Pacific islands) that the name was meant to capture. A third issue is that our Aotearoa article gives three possible explanations for the name; lenticular clouds feature in only one of them.

But perhaps I was a bit hasty in deleting it. The first of these issues could be dealt with by shifting it to a relevant section of the article, and the others seem to require some expansion of the comment to at least acknowledge other explanations. I wouldn't object to an expanded version going the History section, for instance. -- Avenue 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be in History, alongside why New Zealand was named as such. --Midnighttonight 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Aotearoa is already linked, so yes, bung it in history. Moriori 07:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

history

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)

Cool... does that mean we can change the Australian constitution part? --Lholden 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Queen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.

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)

Copped version: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Brian | (Talk) 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is standard to place a picture of a head of state in state articles. The head of state of New Zealand is Queen Elizabeth II so of course she goes in automatically. The Governor-General is number 2 in the constitutional pecking order so if included automatically goes in below the Queen, and the PM below the GG. That is the standard format that corresponds with the constitutional order of status. Head of state. Her representative. Her Prime Minister. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)}

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)

Speaking of the Queen.......

......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)

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)

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)

I just revamped the international ranking section

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) [11]
• Quality of Life Index, 2005: 15th out of 111 behind Canada; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf) [12]
• 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) [13]
• Index of Economic Freedom, 2005: 5th= (out of 155) behind Hong Kong; Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal [14]
• GDP per person at PPP, 2005: 25th out of 111 behind Spain; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf) [15]
• Transparency International 2005: 2nd= (out of 159) behind Iceland on its list of least corrupt countries in the world. [16]
• Broadband Ranking June 2005: 22nd (out of 30) [17]
• 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. [18]

Hope it works better --Midnighttonight 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Does it make more sense now? --Midnighttonight 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's grand now.-gadfium 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something. What does the first line mean? i.e. "Freedom - Free (political rights - 1) (civil liberties - 1)" -- Avenue 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Europe

Someone yelled at me for changing "European Free Market" to the European Community. I thought it would be better to have the correct term, but change it back to your fictional name if you must. This is such a rage-filled community; a lot of you think you own the place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Helen Clark

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)

"the nuclear danger presented by the Cold War"

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)

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)

Help on linking in info box

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)

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)

Use of the word Pākehā

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)

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)

Too late, Moriori axed it a few minutes before you posted this. Moriori 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Great minds think alike" ;) Grutness...wha? 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand independence - article?

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)

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)

Yeah, to the joe average foreigner there is no 'one' date of independence --Lholden 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated home page - added Independence of New Zealand article --Lholden 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Non-political"?

The 2nd para states that "Elizabeth II is the Queen of New Zealand and is represented by a non-political Governor-General". The use of "non-political" certainly doesn't fit within the dictionary definition of "political":

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

The Governor-General certainly is part of the structure of government.

2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians

A more appropriate term would be "non-partisan", which is defined as:

"A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."

This is a much better description of the office than "non-political". Any thoughts? --Lholden 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

agree. change to "non-partisan". --Midnighttonight 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

apolitical then Brian | (Talk) 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ll make that comment unambiguous :) I don’t mind if apolitical, or non-partisan is used. However apolitical is a commonly used term. Brian | (Talk) 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think apolitical is correct either. Many former Governors-General have clearly been political appointments (Tizard, Holyoake, Reeves, Blundell) --Lholden 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC}

Okay, go with non-partisan Brian | (Talk) 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-partisan is the correct term.-gadfium 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro mention of "Aotearoa"?

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)

The name Aotearoa is mentioned prominently in the introduction, being the focus of the second sentence. -- Avenue 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Remember, pipebands are not a peculiar Scottish tradition, anymore than brassbands are English. Enzedbrit 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Official languages

According to this government document New Zealand does have three official languages. Ziggurat 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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"[19]. 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)

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)

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)

Whimsical name change?

Does anyone think a good name for this article would be Kiwipedia? Preacherdoc 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No.--cj | talk 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh? This is an article about New Zealand. --Lholden 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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)Lauren

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)

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)

Governor-General

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)

Damn, you beat me to it! --Lholden 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But Dame Silvia is still Governor-General until midnight, so we should hold fire until then.[20] -- Avenue 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I was planning.. :) Brian | (Talk) 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word iwi

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)

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)

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)

&, what about "kiwi"?

What about "kiwi"?

kiwi_(disambiguation);

kiwi_(people);

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)

Could this be a basis for a separate disambiguation page?:

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 respectively) 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)

Why?Moriori 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Aotearoa - translation

'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)

Northland - subtropical?

Why? Doesn't meet the geographical requirements, except maybe a few k's of the very far north which are in the less than 35 deg S zone, and temperature wise, not even. Or are we using the British definition of subtropical? If you go by the Wikipedia article subtropical Northland would be marginal = almost, at best, in terms of latitude and and even more marginal in terms of temperature - subtropical places are significantly warmer. They had quite a few frosts this winter by the way, even in the Bay of Islands. I think almost subtropical is more accurate than subtropical. Kahuroa 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, its colder that tropical, so its subtropical, ok. Don't panic!!!! I'm just jivin'. Yes, Northland is indeed marginal. And yes, the Bay of Islands did have frosts this winter. We had one last week in Kerikeri in fact. Moriori 08:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, I wasn't panicking really. I guess I like to challenge common assumptions sometimes. Maybe we should call Dunedin subpolar? Good for tourism? Ha ha. Cheers Kahuroa 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in New Zealand is sub-tropical apart from Raoul Island in the Kemerdecs!

Motto

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)

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)

Ethnic Groups

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)

What about immigrants from South Asia? the Middle East? and other European or North American countries? There was an increase of US or American citizens purchased second homes in New Zealand in recent years. The increased travel route from New Zealand and/or Australia with Chile and Argentina of South America has provided a new cultural exchange and some migration between the two regions of the Southern hemisphere. Of course, the high porportion of Polynesians in the country's population reminds us the country is closely tied to the Pacific islands, than one thinks of New Zealand (or Australia) are (but not) purely "British". + 207.200.116.204 07:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Where are the Maori editors of this article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"New Zealand Aotearoa (Maori) New Zealand"

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)

None that I can see, so I've removed it.-gadfium 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Main article: Economy of New Zealand"

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) John New Zealand

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)

Date of Polynesian settlement

This article states that Polynesians first reached NZ between the 13th and 15th centuries; the articles History of New Zealand and Timeline of New Zealand history both say between the 11th and 13th. I've read many books on the history of NZ, and the date of first settlement remains a much debated question. James Belich suggests the mid-eleventh century, but admits it's only a hypothesis; other historians suggest it could have been as early as the 10th century, while others say it probably wasn't before the 13th. (I've never found anyone saying it could have been after the 13th, though, so I'd be curious to see a source for that.) In any case, I don't think Wikipedia can make categorial assertions. For now, I'm simply changing "Polynesian settlers arrived in their waka some time between the 13th century and the 15th century" to "Polynesian settlers arrived in their waka some time between the 9th century and the 15th century". Unless a source can be produced for the 15th century claim, though, that should probably be "some time between the 9th century and the 13th century". Aridd 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree our articles should be consistent. One of the problems is that archaeologists' ideas of the date of first settlement have changed over the decades. Accordingly, reputable books will give different dates depending on when they were written, but the older ones are no longer considered reliable. My source is H R Lowe Howe, The Quest for Origins, ISBN 0-14-301857-4, 2003. He's Professor of History at Massey University in Albany, and he's presenting the mainstream archeological view, as far as I can tell. I've heard almost exactly the same story as he gives at a conference of the NZ Archaeology Society. (I'm not an archaeologist, but I have enough of an interest in the matter to have gone to a public session of their conference about ten years ago.)

On pages 176-177 of Howe's book, he points out that from the 1960s to 1980s it was thought that Maori arrived and settled in 1000 AD or even earlier. The current thinking is that the 13th century is more likely, based on radiocarbon datings and direct archaeological evidence. Also, the eruption of the volcano Kahuroa covered much of the North Island with ash between 1300 and 1390, and there have been no human artefacts found beneath that ash layer. Artefacts can be found beneath ash from eruptions in the 1400 to 1450 period.

There is also the contradictory evidence comes from the dating of some kiore (Rattus exulans) bones to 2000 years ago, and the genetics show the rats came from eastern Polynesia. There is no known way for rats to have come to NZ without humans. It is possible that humans came at that point but didn't stay or didn't survive, but it seems very unlikely, since eastern Polynesia was only being first inhabited at the time. The dating has been challenged. A source more recent than 2003 may clear this up.

I suggest you make all dates consistent, but go with the mainstream figures of say 12th to 14th centuries. That covers the period from 1101 to 1400, and I think you wouldn't get much opposition from reputable archaeologists. Alternatively, you could say ""Polynesian settlers arrived in their waka in about the 13th century". If you have access to a University library, take a look at Archaeology in New Zealand, Dec 2002; v.45 n.4:p.289-292, which has the following abstract "Canvasses archaeologists attending the 2002 Russell conference for their estimates of the date of first settlement of NZ, comparing the responses to those from similar surveys taken in 1994 and 1988, and noting the trend over the years toward the acceptance of a more recent date. Graphs the answers to a second question regarding the century of first settlement of Pacific rats, or kiore." I can get a copy of this but I don't have time to go into the library for it for another couple of weeks.

Nobody has yet changed what I think I wrote in Cabbage tree (New Zealand) based on the (oldish, revived) documentary that said radiocarbon suggested 1000 AD was a likely time. Robin Patterson 05:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm suspicious that the documentary was based on Frankhauser's thesis of 1986. I'm not sure if more evidence has come to light since then, or radiocarbon dating techniques have improved (probably both), but archaeologists have changed their opinions.-gadfium 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should in the longer term expand History of New Zealand to include a full section on the first settlement date, with at least as much detail as I've provided above. This could be a separate article, which could then also briefly address the many alternative theories of human settlement in New Zealand (most of them of no scientific credibility, e.g ancient celtic settlements). I'm happy to help, but not until my exams are over in a couple of weeks.-gadfium 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

/boggles at the impressive source material/ - cool, a short version for the main page, and extended detail as above for the History page. Happy to help, I know some good sources for the ancient Celtic stuff. Good luck with the exams. --Tirana 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Boggles even further. What "good sources" for ancient Celtic stuff do you mean? Moriori 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Howe is a good source refuting such notions. I hope that's the sort of thing Tirana has too.-gadfium 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Doutré is the main architect of the Celtic claims, which are helpfully online and easily accessible to cite as an example of the "theory", which from the context draws a lot from his opinion of Maori culture generally. He links to the One New Zealand Foundation, and they return the favour. I found an astronomer from Auckland once, or maybe the Skeptics' Society, that ripped into the supposedly significant stone circles business quite well. Most serious academics don't touch it with a bargepole, but this Howe (or is it Lowe?) guy sounds like he's recent enough to at least have heard the conspiracy version, whether or not he wants to directly address it. --Tirana 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Howe. I've fixed the name above. His book is mainly about the fringe theories, but gives Doutre only one paragraph.-gadfium 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also there are some funny late 19th century musings from Edward Tregear, who thought that Maori were a lost tribe of Jews I think. Throw in the Kon Tiki business, and we could have a whole section on unsubstantiated theories. The Tamil Bell deserves a mention somewhere, too. --Tirana 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Query

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)

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)

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)

About New Zealand's Economy. . . .

1. How the hell is New Zealand's official unemployment rate between 3-4% and it's unofficial unemployment rate at 20%?! Are there still pockets of Maori who live with autonomy within the island who comprise this "20%?" If so, recall that they would NOT be counted toward any measure of unemployment, as only those who SEEK employment and cannot find it shall be considered unemployed for the purposes of economic discussion.

2. We're doing a group presentation on New Zealand for my Geography class, and I chose to focus on economics. I would direct you to the CIA World Factbook page on New Zealand for my next question (link on main page here). Note that oil consumption per day equals almost exactly production and imports (152k=32k+120k), which works out rather nicely actually. However I don't understand then why they also export roughly 30,000 barrels of oil a day, where otherwise they would be at product-income equillibrium (my term). Thus, somewhere along the line, they're being forced to tap into their reserves of 89.62 million barrels, (2002 estimate) no? My hypothesis is that this is nearly a consequence of a capitalist-enabled economy, and that individual firms undertake these decisions, and the exporting firms of the country do not contract with the importing firms because they figure they can yield higher profits by selling to some third-party with a greater demand. But would someone like to clarify the situation for me? I couldn't find anything on the internet. Actually, let me simplify the question to a more general one----

---

Why do some countries import/export the same commodity? It's because of individual firms attempting to maximize profits right?

---

MondoManDevout 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the unemployment figures you got but when I worked for the govt a few years ago and looking at stats I noticed that the decrease in unemployment claimants was almost exactly mirrored by an increase in people claiming sickness benefit.

Regarding importing and exporting the same product, this can happen. In NZ high grade steel making coal is exported to Japan while low grade steam coal (i.e. for use in power stations) is imported. They may be included in the stats as just 'coal'. Similarly, fruit may be produced in the Southern summer and exported but imported during the Southern winter.128.153.221.145 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Where have all the citations in this article gone? Atlantis Hawk 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Were there ever more citations than at present? To some extent, this article doesn't have citations because it's a summary of the more detailed articles, eg History of New Zealand. It does need to be referenced much more thoroughly, and indeed the more detailed articles need more referencing too.

What are you looking for with the "specify" tag? The History of New Zealand article quotes the New South Wales Judicature Act 1823 as the justification for the statement that NZ was administered in a limited manner as part of NSW. Do you think we should include that footnote in the main NZ article as well? I might be misunderstanding you here, because of all the unreferenced (but mostly unchallenged) facts, you seem to be querying one that is adequately dealt with in the subarticle.-gadfium 07:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam

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)

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)

According to [21] 2006 cencus will be released in the next few days. We can hopefully update some numbers then. - SimonLyall 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the last census (2006) islamic people make up less than 1% of religion so there maybe some truth in that. The actual figure is about 0.8% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.15.14 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing about the world famous singers

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)

Don't forget - Crowded house, Split Enz - Unsigned comment by Kiwi.piranha 05:31, 22 November 2006

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)

yeah there is also Bic Runga, Zed...the list goes on and on. I don't think it's necessary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.174.160 (talk • contribs)