Talk:New Zealand/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Corruption

Should NZs 2nd lowest corruption index be in the politics section?

Such statistics go in the article International rankings of New Zealand, which is linked to from the "See also" section of this article. I don't think there's much value in duplicating them here, and the downside is that the two articles will get out of sync.-gadfium 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyright

Does NZ have a similar governmental-works-are-public-domain provision as a number of other nations? I ask because I'd like to replace the image of the passport over at the NZ passport page with a better one off the internet, but since I am not sure of the copyright status I can't. If anyone clarified whether the passport cover falls under the public domain per some law (it may anyway, given the simplicity of all elements bar the coat of arms which is already public domain) I'd be grateful. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand government works are under different provisions of copyright to private ones, but the provisions are stricter and certainly not public domain. See Crown copyright#New Zealand.-gadfium

Ah, shame. Could I replace the current image there with the new one and claim fair use? I find the assertion that the image currently on the page is Creative Commons-licensed highly dubious. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.-gadfium 05:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aoetera

How can there be no reference at all to Aoetera, what Maori call their New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.23.14 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See the second sentence of the article, and also the first paragraph of the "Etymology" section. We also have an article Aotearoa.-gadfium 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sand flies

Sand flies are widespread and can negatively impact the hiking and camping experiences.125.237.143.155 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Widespread? Don't know about that. Some parts of South Island maybe? Whatever, I'd prefer slopping on a bit of lotion to deter sandflies any day to constantly watching out for snakes, deadly poisonous spiders, bull ants and other bities, crocodiles, sharks, blue ring octopus, deadly jellyfish etc that our neighbours over the ditch have to avoid, plus their darling hordes of blowies that swarm around no matter where you are on a tramp. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New Plymouth named one of best places in the world to live.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/media/press-releases/2008/11/tourismnews_newplymouthtopsliveablecommunities_pressrelease.cfm

I really only registered to bring this to someones attention, and I didn't want to edit the original article as I'm not exactly experienced when it comes to that.

So basically, I'm hoping someone will add that to the New Zealand article at some point.

Vanilla Sky3267 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the New Plymouth article. It wouldn't really fit in here, which is about the whole country, and is already rather long.-gadfium 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

History

I find it surprising that no mention is made of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand in 1835. In my opinion, it deserves a mention. Any thoughts? Jtravers (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned at History of New Zealand, and in more specialised articles such as Independence of New Zealand. The History section of this article is reduced in length and detail because this article is an overview of the whole country. The section should be a summary of the History of New Zealand article. It covers the whole of New Zealand history in seven paragraphs, and three of these deal with the 19th century, which I think is adequate treatment.-gadfium 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Maori reached the Chatham Islands on November 19, 1835. Shortly after that, they massacred the indigenous hunter-gatherers, the Moriori people. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, Chapter 2 (Vintage 1998)210.196.89.206 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Population Density

Sidebar says 204th, list it links to says 201st. Might want to update that. 88.144.10.150 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Moriori?

It says the Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, but isn't it true that the Moriori were on at least the south island maybe at the same time, if not earlier before being driven towards Chatham Islands?

It's not like i'm trying to refute Maori history, i've lived here off and on in the last ten years and wanted to clarify if this was something that should or alreay has been in the article.XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That theory has been discredited for lack of evidence. Moriori are now beleived to have arrived directly, or to be descended from Ngai Tahu with whose dialect their language has similarities. - [1]. dramatic (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i'll look into that, that would be very helpful in learning about that. Thank you for pointing that out. --XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic freedom in intro

The Heritage Foundation is a notoriously pro-US/pro-capitalist slanted think tank. IMO the link should go, or at least be introduced with "The Hertiage Foundation asserts that..." Because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" groups are the best unbiased sources of information about abortion, am I right? 118.90.41.39 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really needs to be in the lede, but the New Zealand economy is unusual because it has such an emphasis on free trade, and is relatively open to foreign investment. We could also or instead cite the World Bank, which said in 2005 that NZ was the most business-friendly country in the world, and in 2008 the second-most business-friendly country (taken from Economy of New Zealand, but I haven't actually checked the refs). It's not appropriate for the lede to go into whether these are good or bad policies. Would you like to suggest an alternative single-sentence plus ref to sum up the economy for the lede?-gadfium 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it down to the Economy section for now. It might be better to use the World Bank ranking, as gadfium suggests, even down there. We do need a brief summary of the economy in the lead section, but that sentence just presented one viewpoint, and a fairly controversial one at that, so I saw no reason to wait for a replacement. -- Avenue (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously none of us have anything against mentioning the economy in principle, I was just referring to the authors of the source. World Bank sounds good. Making it more general, like "New Zealand is considered to be economically free by [source]" (how it is now) is ok. If appropriate sources can be found, mentioning moves towards the free market (agriculture reform, privatizations, etc) may still have a place at the top of the article. 118.90.41.39 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

John Key

Does anybody else agree on changing the picture of John Key? I believe he looks really really high in this one. . .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.155.125 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the picture isn't very good, but it's the best picture we have under a free license. If you have a better picture, which you took yourself, please upload it under a suitable license, preferably at Wikimedia Commons. You'll need to create an account there.-gadfium 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

liveable

In the first paragraph the article menrtions New Zealand as liveable, after looking the word up on dictionary.com I figured out that the word is livable. But since the article is semi-protected I can not edit the mistake, just thought I'd tell anyone who can fix it.99.240.95.124 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling liveable is New Zealand English, as a quick google search shows a few news articles from New Zealand and only New Zealand containing the spelling "liveable" in the title. If i'm wrong, someone else will see this and change it anyway :) Thanks for your help. Matty (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a quick google and confirm Matty's findings. Note that this article is written in New Zealand English; and that even Merriam Webster give liveable as an alternative spelling.Daveosaurus (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Liveable is standard in NZ as far as I'm aware, too. FWIW, worldwide ghits for livable outnumber those for liveable by 4:1... from NZ websites the ratio's 3:1 the other way (that is, 75% of NZ sites tend to use liveable). Grutness...wha? 11:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Zealand?

Where did that name come from?, recently i found Zealand is a region of denmark, any connection?--88.212.96.96 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See New_Zealand#Etymology. There's no connection to the region of Denmark.-gadfium 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be "Zeeland", a province of the Netherlands. Besides, wasn't Abel Tasman Dutch? I see a little connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.88.39 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a New Zealander so I SHOULD know an deffinate answer on this - however I don't know the full details, but I know for sure that.. whatever European person (may have been Abel Tasman) that discovered New Zealand (in a European sense) that it reminded them of somewhere in the world called "Zealand". It was most likely Denmark, but I forget. It's quite funny, I live in a place called Thames, named after the River Thames. (Oh, but yeah, that's of course why it's called "NEW Zealand"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.217 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was after Zeeland in the Netherlands, after one of that country's main seafaring provinces. tasman had named it Staten landt, thinking it was a larger landmass of that name which already existed. When it became clear that it wasn't, the Dutch renamed it Nieuw Zeeland. The current name is the anglicised form (Zeeland having at one time been spelt Zealand in English). Grutness...wha? 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Demography

The percentages for which religion people are affiliated with do not add up. I have looked exact at the census data, and calculated that about 6.2% did not respond. I think this should be included because then it can also be seen there is an overlap between people associated with "other" religions and Cristian religions. Smithspa (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The current ethnicity percentages are incorrect, it says 69.8% European (British), 7.9% Maori, 5.7% Asian, 4.4% Pacific Isdr, 0.5% other, 7.8% Multiracial, 3.8% unspecified. According to the last census its more like 73% European, 14% Maori & 7% Asian (the others are correct). However there is no multiracial category. (12/11/08)

The ethnic figures that were in the infobox seem to be the CIA's attempt to shoehorn 2001 census figures into a racial classification (hence the multiracial bit). That's dubious in itself, and equating European with British is even more unusual. I've replaced them with figures from the Demography section. -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

in the ethnic groups thing in the big box on the left at the top of the page the the ethnic groups percentages add up to 108.7 that doesn't seem right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.74.196 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The percentages add to more than 100% because many people identify with more than one ethnic group. I thought we had a note to that effect, but we didn't, so I've added it. -- Avenue (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The bit "New Zealanders of European descent are collectively known as Pākehā" needs correcting. Obviously someone never bothered to read the page before making the claim. It is considered offensive by many New Zealanders of British and European descent and so is verifiably false.

Could you cite a reliable source which says many find it offensive? I think only a very small minority do so.-gadfium 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Many means a large number eg 1,000, 5,000, 1,000,000. It does not have to be a majority. This being the case the statement should be qualified similar to the Wiki Pakeha page.203.190.201.15 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Auckland Council

Some updating may be required in the "Local government and external territories" section of the New Zealand article, and related articles that fall into the category of "Administrative divisions of New Zealand", with the changes that shall be undergone regarding the governance structure of the Auckland Region.

Michaelwang1 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Australasia

I've started work on Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) as quite amazingly an article about Australasia in its most common meaning of Australia and NZ was missing. There is already a page devoted to the bilateral relationship - Australia-New Zealand relations, but none which discusses our part of the world as a cultural/political/social/economic region, which clearly it is. Help on this would be greatly appreciated - maybe pages for continents or the EU could be used as a model for different sections. --110.32.143.237 (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This new article is very clearly a point-of-view fork, since the entirety of its content can be dealt with (if not already) in the parent article 'Australasia' or in articles noted above; as such, I have redirected it to that article. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Australasia - as far as many New Zealanders are concerned - is often thought of as Australia and Papua New Guinea. Most New Zealanders would consider themselves primarily part of Oceania, not Australasia. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

NZ$ would be better than US$

Wikipedia is regrettably committed to reporting key national income account data in US$. I agree with this practice for PPP-adjusted GDP. But otherwise, such daata should be reported in domestic currency, in this case the New Zealand dollar. The 2008 per capita GDP of New Zealand, in current prices, was $42,052 []. The Big Mac index says the New Zealand dollar is worth about 2/3 of a US$, suggesting that the US$ equivalent is just about US$28K.132.181.160.42 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. The figures would be more stable, especially considering the large changes in the NZ/US exchange rate over relatively short time periods. ^ross ^nixon 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

About currencies. I'm an American who has been working on NZ articles from time to time and I'm wondering whether there's some way, when including money numbers in articles, to let Wikipedia readers automatically choose what currencies they want the data in. Like, there are "wikitable sort" buttons to align columns of data = very convenient. But wondering about currency conversions. Suppose NZ GDP is $42,052 (NZ$). And we put this in an article. Is there some way we could do it so that a user could click on a button next to the amount to switch the currency to a different one? Like, click, and it's $28K USD. Or, click, it's $42K NZD. Or, click some other currency? I don't know if Wikipedia has this feature yet but it would be really cool to have. And it shouldn't be too hard to do. Like, it would have to go to some other Wikipedia page, retrieve the proper up-to-date (or current) currency (sorry I had to go for this pun) rate, and automatically do this. Does anybody know if this exists or how to do it?Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

This should be proposed at the technical sectionof Wikipedia:Village pump. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SqueakBox, I'll try to post it there; that means you're fairly sure this capability doesn't exist yet, right? Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Never seen anything like that. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted the currency-converter idea on Village pump. Somebody suggested there was a template in the archives, but I couldn't find it after googling through the archives. But I think somebody fairly competent technically should be able to pull together a "currency converter template" so click -- NZ$, click -- US$. Wouldn't that be cool. Then, the number would stay up-to-date, and be understandable no matter what currency people think in terms of. In the meantime, I came across a policy that suggests articles about a country should generally use their own currencies, so money amounts should be in NZ$, not US$, so if I put in US$ by mistake, whoops, I'll try to fix. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I think that the dynamic nature of currencies might make this more trouble than its worth (although I'd be very pleased if there was an easy way around it). For example, areas are easy to convert because an acre is always approximately 0.404686 hectares. The same can't be said for currencies; the New Zealand dollar has fluctuated between about US $0.40 and US $0.80 just in the last ten years (and, in historic times, was generally worth about five shillings). Daveosaurus (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. It might require four pieces of information. Suppose a fact about money was added on date X. But today it's date Y. So, the pieces of information needed would be: money amount in NZ$ on date X; conversion rate to US$ on date X; inflation (or deflation) of US currency between date X and date Y; lastly, date Y. A template could pull those pieces of information and give an up-to-date money amount with a click of the button. I bet somebody technical could write such a template. But, perhaps it would be too difficult for most editors to learn how to use; I don't know. Still, this information is out there, and a template possibly could fetch it and do it, don't you think? And I think it would be really cool. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Or, make it simpler -- assume there's no inflation and the thing gets much easier (but less accurate of course). A simple template that translates NZ$ to US$ or vice versa based on today's exchange rate, and ignores inflation considerations or the passage of time; that still, I think, would be an improvement of what we've got. And. if you're in NZ, does water really spin the opposite way?Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Hey a great editor Ohconfucius found a currency converter template. Check this out. It does conversions. Look at the code. It works! It converts $42K NZD to $25K USD. Trying to see if this works as hoped: User:7/Template:fx

Read this code to actually see the template. User:Ohconfucius found it. So cool! Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

I put the template in two places in the section about the economy. Check the revision history. Wondering what others think? Is it worthwhile? It converts NZD to USD, not the other way around. Sooner or later I'll find the reverse template too. I don't think there's any inflation effects in the template -- just a simple converter. Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Before using such a template, I'd like to see two things:

The template should be in the template namespace, not a user namespace. No article should depend on anything in user space. A copy of Wikipedia has to be fully functional when the article, template and file namespaces only are copied. I can't quote you policy on this without doing some research, however.
There should be some discussion at a wider forum about the template, with general acceptance of it. The discussion at WP:VPT#Automatic currency converter buttons is a start, but doesn't actually mention this template. There may be valid reasons not to use such a template, and these reasons are much more likely to be brought up at the Village pump than on an individual article talk page.

Sorry to be a downer on this. It's a good idea, but we shouldn't rush into it.-gadfium 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree we shouldn't rush on it. I think it would be a really cool thing once it gets approved and official and people are comfortable with it. I'll post the converter thingie here so perhaps editors can see if it works and is consistently right. In the meantime I think we should bug Village Pump people to get it more official. I have no idea how these processes work. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Here's the template thingie -- is the conversion right, up-to-date? Today's rate ==> As of this week (data updated weekly), the exchange rate between the New Zealand and United States dollars is User:7/Template:fx.

Also, I notice not all the bugs are worked out -- there's some kind of problem in that it can't have a space after the second closing bracket. But I'm wondering -- is the conversion accurate? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

The template User:7/Template:fx was last updated in May, so the exchange rates are not particularly accurate. This is not an argument against using the template; if it was moved into template space it might updated more frequently, and a bot could be written rather easily to update it daily. The current value of NZ$ 1.00 is just under US$ 0.67. I use xe.com for currency conversions.-gadfium 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If and when it's approved, I think currency converter templates would be great. Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

History

{{editprotected}} Can someone put in somewhere that we were the first country in the world to give women the vote? I might be blind and unable to see it, as its 0030, but I can't find it.

Its an important part of our history.

It is there, near the picture of Gustavus von Tempsky: "In 1893, the country became the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote.". XLerate (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Two Islands!!!!

I know on the page it says that there are two islands and noticably smaller islands (like Stuart Island) but I think Stuart Island should be included as one of the major islands, most New Zealanders recognise it as a major island. Anyone agree? Eigguhs (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This might have been true in the mid 19th century, when the three islands were separate provinces, and the South Island was at least sometimes called Middle Island, but it hasn't been true for a long time, since at least 1907. Stewart Island/Rakiura is much smaller than the South Island and North Island, and has a much smaller population (Waiheke Island is the third most populous island in New Zealand).-gadfium 07:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What Gadfium said, fairly much. Stewart Island/Rakiura is very much smaller than the smaller of the two main islands, and very much less populous than the less populous of the two main islands. As for population, I think it's somewhere about fifth (I don't know the population figures for Great Barrier or Chatham off the top of my head, but either of them would be comparable, and possibly of greater population, than Stewart Island/Rakiura and its 350 or so inhabitants.) Daveosaurus (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To put this in perspective:

Area:

S.I. - 56.3% of New Zealand
N.I. - 42.3% of New Zealand
All other islands combined - 1.4% of New Zealand

Population:

N.I. - 75.5% of New Zealand
S.I. - 23.6% of New Zealand
All other islands combined - 0.9% of New Zealand

Given those figures, I think it's fair to say two main islands... Grutness...wha? 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm an American and not an expert on New Zealand by any stretch, I bet if I visited Stuart Island I would be wowwed by the cool disposition of the people, and while agreeing with the above argument about size and geography, and agreeing that NZ should be considered as "two main islands", and going by the Wikipedia conventions and such (I'd have to see the reasonableness of Grutness' fine reasoning), by to myself -- I'd think wow -- Stuart Island is a third and major island, and I'll always think of it as SUPER IMPORTANT, and perhaps I'd visit there someday.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

You'll love it if you do - especially if you like the great outdoors :) It's well worth a visit. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am from NZ and Stewart Island is not considered a main Island —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.106.54 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fishing in New Zealand

I looked under sports in Wikapedia article for New Zealand and did not see a heading for fishing. Sure would be nice if some info was included as to where the most famous streams and rivers for fishing are (particularly fly fishing) and their proximity to local towns or landmarks. Kaframer (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Why not add it? There are users who know a lot about New Zealand articles such as User:Gadfium and I bet could give good advice about which articles it might go in or whether it should be a separate article or an addition to the NZ article; why not ask this person?Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Our fishing expert is Geronimo20.-gadfium 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag of New Zealand vs. Flag of Australia

Are the blue textures of these two flags the same or are they supposed to be different? The blues of these two flags in Wikipedia are slightly different and I am not sure if this is correct or not. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on "what is Royal Blue" is already being discussed on the New Zealand Flag Talk page. --125.236.167.62 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

Hi there. The link for citation 16 is incorrect. It is currently: http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/EuropeanDiscoveryOfNewZealand/3/enEuropean, but it should be http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/european-discovery-of-new-zealand, European Discovery of New Zealand. I would change it myself, but this article is locked. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.102.114 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that citation with the following one, because that seemed more relevant to the sentence that was being supported. I've also updated the link, although the error message claims that Te Ara will put redirects in place to fix this sort of error soon. -- Avenue (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maori sovereignty Flag

The Tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag has been added to the subject page however I can't find any reference to either [1] Tino rangatiratanga or [2] the Maori sovereignty flag in the History section. I *think* the related sentence is in paragraph 7 of the History sub-heading as "A Māori protest movement eventually developed, which criticised Eurocentrism and worked for more recognition of Māori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi, which they felt had not been fully honoured".

That sentence is subjective (by stating goals without a citation) and lacks references for "protest movement eventually developed", "criticised Eurocentrism" without citing the point(s) of criticism so I've added citation needed tags.

I've commented out the Tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag as an image as it is not directly cited by any part of the page.

--Sinesurfer 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talk • contribs)

Aotearoa

"The indigenous Māori named New Zealand Aotearoa" - The Aotearoa wikipedia page rightly questions and references the question of who actually started using the Aotearoa name for New Zealand. I think this would be better changed to something like "The indigenous Māori language name for New Zealand is Aotearoa". The page is protected and I can't change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.90.127 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a valid point. Any objections to the change?-gadfium 08:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the proposed wording is better. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it. Thanks for the suggestion.-gadfium 18:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be the modern name. It used to only be the North Island. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox map

A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2008 New Zealand forces are still active in Afghanistan

It's now 2009. Does anyone have an update to this statement? Are the troops still in Afghanistan? sugarfish (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. I've updated the statement, and cited a source that seems to be updated regularly. -- Avenue (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand S.A.S. soldiers were engaged in combat with Taliban forces in Kabul on 18 January 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.225.178 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

They weren't in combat with Taleban, but they were indeed in Kabul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of first settlement

Under "History", this article says:

The first settlers were Eastern Polynesians who arrived, probably in a series of migrations, sometime between around 700 and 2000 years ago.

1. It's not very clear whether this means that the waves of migrations probably stretched across that whole period, or that there was a more concentrated series of migrations that probably fell somewhere in that time period, but it's not known exactly when.

2. History of New Zealand says "The most current reliable evidence strongly indicates that initial settlement of New Zealand occurred around 1280 CE." That's a big difference from 2000 years ago. If this really is the "most current reliable evidence" then shouldn't it be included in this article? 86.140.132.113 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

History of New Zealand currently has an NPOV tag on it, which I think would apply to the the particular passage you quoted. That relies on a single source, a section of a geology field guide, which I suspect has not been peer reviewed. The author clearly is a strong adherent of the Short Chronology, and the passage reflects his POV well. We should not parrot it, however, not when there are prominent researchers who believe otherwise.

Having said that, this article (New Zealand) probably covers the controversy too briefly, and should be improved. -- Avenue (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The dates in this article seems rather more vague than one would expect, and a few brief words about the competing theories and the difficulty of establishing accurate dates would be very useful, I'd say. 86.134.13.26 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Te Ara says:

Most researchers agree that human arrival occurred between 1250 and 1300. But recently some researchers have dated first arrivals to as early as 50–150; these first arrivals would have either died out or sailed away.

(http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/when-was-new-zealand-first-settled/1)

To my humble opinion user:Avenue is speculating about the NPOV tag on History of New Zealand. The passage about the first settlement reflects the general opinion in most of the written sources (as well as for instance Te Ara above). This has nothing to do with “parrotting”. The passage links to a source, that can be read without paying US$31,50 (the “online “ source in New Zealand#History), that looks tidy and up to date, and that above all clearly states that there are different opinions on the subject. So I don't think there is any reason to “suspect” it is not peer reviewed or it is POV.

A diffent matter is of course that in wikipedia on both places the controversy about the first settlement should be mentioned clearly. Is there a historian around to fix that? - Dick Bos (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who added the NPOV tag to History of New Zealand complained on that article's talk page about its statement that "The history of New Zealand dates back at least 700 years [...]" saying that it "doesn't reference the later work that accepts 1250-1300 CE or mention the minority view of 50-150 CE". I think that extrapolating their concern from that to the other passage quoted above is reasonable, and does not involve much speculation.

I'm not sure which online source in New Zealand#History you mean (there's more than one), and I don't think it would be useful to argue over the source I mentioned. The Te Ara passage you quote seems balanced to me. I think we should say something similar here. -- Avenue (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You made it clear to me! Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I propose the following wording, sourced to http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/when-was-new-zealand-first-settled/1

The first settlers were Eastern Polynesians who, according to most researchers, arrived by canoe in about AD 1250–1300. Recently, some researchers have suggested an earlier wave of arrivals dating to as early as AD 50–150; these people then either died out or left the islands.

The "early settlement theory" was put forward in 1996 and probably reached a peak of popularity around 2002. I don't object to the minority opinion being given too, if marked as such, but it's not a very recent development. The source given in History of New Zealand is http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/10289/2690/1/Lowe%202008%20Polynesian%20settlement%20guidebook.pdf, which seems to me to be an excellent summary of the ebb and flow of the different theories. I see that the Te Ara page was updated in March last year, but the content may have been written when Te Ara was launched in 2005, or perhaps even earlier.-gadfium 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That wording sounds okay to me, although we could drop "recently", and I think it would be more coherent to say "The first known settlers [...]" or something similar. (I understand the possible earlier arrivals may have come from Western Polynesia, although I can't recall where I read this.) I think we should also retain the Sutton et al. (2008) source, to show that the minority view is still quite current. -- Avenue (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So to summarize the text should read as:

The first known settlers were Eastern Polynesians who, according to most researchers, arrived by canoe in about AD 1250–1300(ref: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/when-was-new-zealand-first-settled/1). Some researchers have suggested an earlier wave of arrivals dating to as early as AD 50–150; these people then either died out or left the islands (ref: for a summary of different theories see for instance: http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/10289/2690/1/Lowe%202008%20Polynesian%20settlement%20guidebook.pdf. See also: Mein Smith 2005, pag. 6 and Sutton et al. 2008, pag 109. This paper ... “afﬁrms the Long Chronology (first settlement up to 2000 years BP), recognizing it as the most plausible hypothesis”.)

Can we agree on this? Dick Bos (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the main text. However I think it would be easiest to simply cite the sources, perhaps including a key quote for each, but without otherwise commenting on what they contain. Your description of Lowe's paper, for instance, would also apply to Sutton et al. We could alternatively describe Lowe's paper as a summary supporting the majority perspective, but I'd prefer to simply not try to describe them at all. Making the main text NPOV is hard enough. -- Avenue (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Dick Bos (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. -- Avenue (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, this is now much more informative. 86.140.131.126 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cricket

I added stuff about cricket with references but now I think there's too much emphasis on cricket (and possibly rugby too), perhaps these sections should be pared down a bit?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the cricket section could be pared down a bit. The paragraph on rugby deals with both rugby union and rugby league, giving them two sentences each. A similar amount on cricket would seem reasonable. I suggest you remove the material after "Blackcaps", and either remove or find a source for the unsourced sentence. Some of the rest of the paragraph could go into the Cricket in New Zealand article, although the sentence on the waterfront stadium is no longer relevant.-gadfium 19:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pared cricket; got semi-good reference on cricket popularity (a govt tourism site; better than nothing); still not sure about cricket being #2 popular sport in NZ, but took off tag. Put in words about White Ferns = NZ womens' cricket team. Is it women's or womens'? Shouldn't have fallen asleep in English class.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's "Women's" BlueRobe (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Football (aka soccer) is more popular than rugby among young males in New Zealand. "The top five sports played in clubs by boys aged 5 to 17 are: 17% Soccer 16% Rugby union..."[2] That link also provides a more comprehensive break-down of the participation rates among the various sports by New Zealanders. BlueRobe (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken link 59

Link 59 currently points to http://www.heritage.org/Index/country.cfm?id=NewZealand

The correct location is now

http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/NewZealand

Ydjager (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed link. Thanks for posting the new URL. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

few murders, many racetracks

notable stuff I recall about NZ from 90's - not mentioned: single digit annual murders in large cities, and most horse racetracks per population. - Mitch3000 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand has the 2^nd highest rate of violent crime in the OECD, (1^st is the UK), and New Zealand has the 3^rd highest murder rate in the OECD, (1^st is the USA). Ironically, even though New Zealanders frequently cite the USA as an example of a violent country New Zealand has a significantly higher rate of violent crime, (over double that of the United States). [3] --BlueRobe 05:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That source is highly dubious, firstly it states it is from OECD Crime statistics, yet the OECD don't catalogue crime; which sets off alarm bells immediately. Further reading shows that its source has nothing to do with the OECD, and is actually a non-peer-reviewed "study" by a pro drug-legalisation website.

Finally stats on crime are always difficult because often higher rates of reported crime mean greater faith in the police, or that crime is a rare enough occurrence that all cases are reported; as opposed to countries with such high actual occurrences of crime, or such low faith in the police, that most of it goes unreported. Eug1404 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full response, (I will do so at a later date), but, the OECD does include crime statistics in its annual reports. If anything, the OECD provides some of the most internationally authoritative crime statistics in the world. 122.57.54.13 (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

English an offical language?

Apparently it is a common mistake that the English Language is believed to be an official language of New Zealand, yet it is not, or so I have heard. Maori and Sign Language definitely are though. 111.69.243.51 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)MattF

Maori and NZSL have been declared official in their own separate acts of Parliament. English has not, but it is still considered an official language; see for example the second page of the explanatory note accompanying the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, which says that the bill does not affect the status of "New Zealand’s other 2 official languages, English and Maori". -- Avenue (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pakeha Error!

I tried getting to the New Zealanders page after visiting Pakeha and got this. Scrolled down to demographics and noticed "New Zealanders of European descent are collectively known as Pākehā; this term generally refers to New Zealanders of European descent but some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori New Zealanders.[74]"

The second part may be true, Maori use Pakeha like Japanese use Gaijin but New Zealanders of European descent known as Pakeha???! Read the flippin Wikipedia article. It's highly contentious. Some love it but a lot of 'us' ardently hate it. And as the article itself says, "... Pākehā are usually referred to simply as 'New Zealanders'". So minority groups have an ethnic prefix/suffix attached while the majority don't. I would fix this myself but the page is locked. Can someone with editing privileges actually correct/delete this. 118.208.121.198 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The passage is correct The term is generally used to "refer to New Zealanders of European descent", that some don't like it doesn't make the statement less true. Please have a look at the talk page for the Pakeha article. You might also want to look at the "Neutral point of view" policy wikipedia has. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what 118.208... is objecting to is not the second part, but the unqualified statement that "New Zealanders of European descent are collectively known as Pākehā". I'm sure he or she would feel that this does not satisfy our NPOV policy. Perhaps we could collapse it down to something like "The term Pākehā is commonly used to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, although some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]". This also corrects the apparent error about Pakeha referring to non-Maori Polynesians NZers, which I don't believe is supported by the cited source. --Avenue (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While the term Pakeha may be well known in New Zealand, I disagree that it is commonly used. A better paragraph could read: "The (contentious) term Pākehā is used by some to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, or in some cases to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]" Iamtk421 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty here is a disagreement about how contentious the term is, too, so I think stating this directly isn't appropriate. How about "The term Pākehā usually refers to New Zealanders of European descent, although some reject this appellation, and some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]"? --Avenue (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds better to me. Iamtk421 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I love the Star Wars reference BlueRobe (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used this nickname in lots of places and you're the first to ever comment on it. Iamtk421 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the latest suggestion has been here nearly two days with no one objecting, I've moved it into the article. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, but perhaps you could use the paragraph on Pakeha used here? Benner9 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is unsourced, with a citation needed tag attached. It also seems to need some previous mention of the "New Zealand European" term to make sense. Sorry, but I don't see it as an improvement on what we've got here. --Avenue (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Its fine with me, I was just throwing it out there. Benner9 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Images in the Government section

The photos of the Queen, Governor General and the PM are in their own table for some reason - on my monitor (widescreen) this causes the whole Government section to be set in from the right by 5 or 6cm. Is there a better way to display these photos that won't cause this? Looks pretty strange. Kahuroa (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing the table code previews fine for me, if for you also then I think it can be removed. It appears to have been introduced here, maybe a legacy system. XLerate (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've stripped off the table (before I saw Xlerate's reply) - is that any better? It works fine for me either way. --Avenue (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Displays properly now it's gone. Cheers. Kahuroa (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 118.92.118.184, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Wikipedia states that here in NZ we have 2 national anthems. We only have one national anthem which is God Bless New Zealand

Can you please edit this please?

118.92.118.184 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch ·comms 00:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

New person...hi there :-)

This is interesting, and I'd like to add info on it.

First, I suggest you get an account. Free, takes seconds, and painless.

Second, please try to write a little explanation about this, with a reliable source - a book, or something.

We can help you with all of it.

Please, talk to us live, with this or this.

I hope you'll help us fix this. Thanks, Chzz ► 00:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of the IP who made the request, New Zealand has two official national anthems, God Defend New Zealand and God Save The Queen. See here. Moriori (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Zealand Flag

Guidelines for flying the national Māori flag Introduction

Recently, Cabinet has noted that a preferred national Māori flag has been identified, and that it is intended to complement the New Zealand flag. Cabinet also noted that it is proposed that the flag will fly on certain buildings and structures and sites of national significance on Waitangi Day, and that government agencies may also fly the flag at their discretion on Waitangi Day [CAB Min (09) 44/15 refers]. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23dazed (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note however that the reference given also states that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag "does not carry official status". Note also that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag is already depicted elsewhere in this article (and links are given to other relevant articles in its caption). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution

This article is not an appropriate place to discuss the New Zealand prostitution laws in detail. It would be appropriate to have a sentence saying that the laws were liberalised, with the year and a link to the detailed article. No further detail is needed here. This could be part of a paragraph which deals with the social reforms of the first decade of this century, which would also mention civil unions, the Property Relations Act, and the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. None of these need arguments pro and con in this article, just the fact that they were passed and if necessary a brief explanation of what they mean.-gadfium 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. We can move the rest off to the article dedicated to the topic. It always seemed to sit uncomfortably in the Economy section, but I'm not sure where the broader paragraph on recent social reforms should go; perhaps the History or Politics sections? --Avenue (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a business the Economy section is probably best for it, but I honestly don't think it warrants any more than a brief mention. The sort of in-depth content that has been added recently would probably be more appropriate in articles about the reform and about the topic in general. Incidentally the paragraph on fashion immediately following it doesn't seem particularly useful either. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen / Gov-Gen reserve powers

I've edited the way the sentences on this were framed, as they were fairly poorly written. For example, the Prime Minsiter doesn't "effectively" exercise executive power, they simply exercise executive power. Moreover there's a misunderstanding about when the reserve powers might be used. They're called "reserve powers" because they're reserved for certain situations. The principle is "The Queen reigns . . . but the government rules . . . so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives" - in other words, the PM and Cabinet (the Government) can instruct the Gov-Gen to do whatever they want so long as they've got the confidence of the House. I've edited the intro to reflect this. --Lholden (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "effectively" was correct. The GG (on the Queen's behalf) exercises the executive power, essentially always at the direction of ministers. Thus, ministers (it isn't really correct to single out the PM) effectively exercise power, even though the power lies elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Even in context, "effectively" could have been POV. Others' opinions might consider it "ineffectively". ): Moriori (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Used in conjunction with "exercises" the word "effectively" is redundant. The issue is that the power doesn't lie elsewhere, it lies with the PM and Cabinet, as the Cabinet Manual states. The Governor-General simply acts on instruction, they don't have the political power to act save for instances where the Reserve powers are used. --Lholden (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Australia#Politics covers this topic also. XLerate (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. "Effectively" is by no means redundant. You could say that the US president exercises the executive power of the US. The difference, of course, is that the executive power is actually vested in him. In NZ, it is exercised by the GG on behalf of the Queen and on the advice of ministers, meaning it is effectively exercised by ministers. The redundancy argument simply doesn't wash. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The changes are mostly fine, however to say the Queen or GG can only exercise their powers on the advice of Cabinet unless there is none or unless they have lost the confidence of Parliament is wrong. In 1975 the Governor-General of Australia dismissed the Whitlam government for trying to govern without supply from the Senate (something illegal), even though they had a majority in the House of Representatives. I've altered the paragraph to better reflect reality. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're partially correct. Because the Australian senate has the ability to block Bills of money and supply (unlike the House of Lords or Canadian Senate) any blocking of the budget is seen as a vote of no confidence in the government. However, the Australian senate simply deferred the vote, so it's highly contentious whether Sir John Kerr was right in removing Gough Whitlam and dissolving parliament. Whitlam actually had with him a letter asking the Governor-General for a half-senate election to end the impasse, so the claim he attempted to govern without supply is marginal at best, and based on an off-the-cuff remark he made...

That said, I've reverted your changes but added the world "normally" before cannot. That expresses the correct position - Whitlam's dismissal was highly unusual in the Commonwealth and it isn't accurate to say the GG could simply remove the PM, save for breaking constitutional propiety.--Lholden (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But saying "cannot" sounds like they are constitutionally or legally forbidden, when it is actually convention which stops them from doing so. And, all this aside, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to explain all this in detail in the lead, the details should probably be in the Politics section, and the lead should be as short as possible. I mean is someone who is looking for information about New Zealand in general really going to be interested in knowing that the Queen/GG exercise power usually only with the Cabinet's advice? It's a bit too much detail for the lead, but it'll do nicely in the Government section. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed as to both points. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the first point "But saying "cannot" sounds like they are constitutionally or legally forbidden, when it is actually convention which stops them from doing so" you've answered your own question, that's why I was willing to accept the word "normally" being added in. I've copy edited the lead and added the content into the politics section. --Lholden (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer is now Football.

You can't deny it any longer : Plenty of media are using it, (as linked below) And I believe the term is in common usage now. (undoubtedly much more in some parts than others) Any none usage of the word football is out weighed by the fact Football is the official name and, and those with anything to do with the sport use the word Football. :] http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/ http://tvnz.co.nz/football-news http://www.3news.co.nz/3Sport/Football/tabid/734/Default.aspx

CipherPixel (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just browsed the last discussion of this (also commenced by you), and the point was not that "soccer" is more common than "football" (and notice that "football" is not capitalised)), but that both terms are widely used in New Zealand, with "football" giving rise to ambiguity. I would also note that despite what someone (it may have been you) said, the confusion has nothing to do with Americans, who are used to the rest of the world calling "football" what we call "soccer". The confusion arises because because the word "football" is used in relation to four different sports. What's more, to the extent it was argued that "soccer" is the more common word in NZ English, the fact that "plenty of media" use "football" is dispositive. In fact, it's not terribly persuasive. Media outlets are often on the leading edge of this sort of thing, so usage there is not enough to support a change. And again, even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that there is the possibility of confusion. -Rrius (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Football is a very popular sport in New Zealand and we compete at the highest levels. In 2007 we didn't make The Football World Cup , in 2008 we won The Football World Cup and got 2nd in the Football World cup, in 2010 we will participate in The Football World Cup and in 2011 we will host The Football World Cup " . - SimonLyall (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, on the Fifa 10 page I was told I could not mention the bugs because no official sources could be listed. Now I am being told the exact opposite. In NZ the game is called Football. Also between now and the last debate NZ has qualified, records has been set, fans have been converted and the word football has even been drilled into talk back radio! CipherPixel (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know or care what you are talking about in regards to the Fifa 10 page. Also, you allege has been "drilled into talk back radio" is beside the point. You say, that it is called "football" in New Zealand. Wonderful, but other New Zealanders say that both are common terms. As far as I know, that is not really in issue. The point is that as between the two common terms, one of them can create confusion, but the other one doesn't. Finally, once again, it is "football", not "Football": Sports aren't proper nouns. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse you, but what happened on the Fifa 10 page is wiki's official guidelines (and I quote, "ifs it not referenced on reliable sources, it can't go here". Or do they only apply when an admin see fit? Unfortunately, its not up to you to decide what everyone thinks, but rather its up to official sources, which you have none. One term is correct, the other is not. If you want to avoid confusion, you can add "(soccer)" in brackets. Stop being a rugby fan boy. CipherPixel (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise that this issue is the only thing you care about in Wikipedia but the simple fact is that in New Zealand English the term "Football" is ambiguous and the previous discussion decided to keep it as "Soccer" for the time being. Please don't keep re-opening this discussion and then changing the term without consensus - SimonLyall (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His last post shows me he won't agree to consensus. And I made the change before he posted hence thinking no one cares. :) I re-opened the discussion because I thought it was time to review the current status. But it seems Wikipedia's double standards and selective rules have won again. CipherPixel (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to me, then you are wrong. I do in fact care about consensus. Consensus here is to go with "soccer". The goings on at Fifa 10 or whatever are not binding here. What's more "reliable sources" and "official sources" are not the same thing. Reliable sources support both usages, but as noted many times before, one usage is ambiguous and one is not. -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on football, but I do appreciate that the name "soccer" is deemed offensive by a significant proportion of those people who are passionate about their football. This is largely because the word "soccer" is used by American's to distinguish Football from their game of "American football", (where, ironically, the ball almost never touches the foot). Outside the USA, among those who play the game, and the passionate fans of the game, the preferred name for the game is "football", not "soccer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.50.173 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IP, you don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the US. This has to do with usage in Oceana. Americans expect that when people from anywhere else in the world use the term "football", they are talking about what they call "soccer", so that isn't an issue at all. Before you go on about this, you may want to get a grip on the facts. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, whats ambiguous and whats correct needs to be balanced, which it isn't. And their is no consensus here either way. And what went on in the Fifa 10 page is binding here, because apparently they're the guidelines. But I stress again, Wikipedia's selective rules have won again. Since when was the major media outlets in NZ not reliable? And since when was their a reliable source that officially supports both? Your only argument involves ignoring the guidelines and ignoring sources. Ironic isn't it? CipherPixel (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, there needs to be a balance, and the established consensus, and there obviously is one given the previous discussion, is that balance militates in favour of using "soccer". What went on at the Fifa 10 page, whatever that is, is not binding here. The consensus on one article's talk page is not binding on another. Full stop. No one is saying that "football" is never used in New Zealand to describe the sport. What you seem somehow not to understand is that "soccer" is also commonly used in New Zealand to refer to the sport. The choice of which of the two commonly used terms to use was made on the basis that has been stated over and over again: one is ambiguous and one is not. As I said, that was established by a consensus in a discussion in which you had the opportunity to air your views (and did). There is clearly no consensus to change, so the text shouldn't change.

Finally, you keep mentioning a Fifa 10 page, but you've never explained what the hell you're talking about. Having now taken a look at that page, you seem to have made a weird point about people not liking "bugs" in the game. I have no idea what you mean by that, but you were told, in essence, that you needed some sort of verification from reliable sources for whatever you were talking about (you needn't fill me in; I don't care). That is not the issue here. There is ample evidence that both "football" and "soccer" are used by New Zealanders and Australians is not in doubt. That some news outlets use "football" doesn't contradict that; indeed, for all we know they already used the word when the consensus was reached. In any event, even if there were some sort of meaningful evidence there, it is balanced by the fact that the same sources use the word "soccer",[5][6], and others such as the Herald also use "soccer".[Soccer: Chelsea's stumble leaves title race wide open] -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the term "footie" is often used in NZ and Australia to refer to rugby union and rugby league. Football is an ambiguous term to New Zealanders because of this. Since this page is clearly New Zealand-related, NZ English is appropriate. In NZ English, soccer is the preferred term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The first question I would ask is, do we adhere to the conventional usage of the word "soccer" by many mainstream New Zealanders (including those who have little or no interest in the game), or, do we defer to the authority of the players and passionate fans of the game and use the word "football"? It seems to me that many New Zealanders use the word "soccer" because they know no better. Meanwhile, the dominant view among the football players and football fans is that the game is called "football". Many of the football fans I know get very annoyed at the use of the word "soccer" to describe the beautiful game. It is their game and they have every right to name it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We adhere to the conventional usage by mainstream New Zealanders, not the subgroup. We use the most commonly used version in the relevant form of English, not the version fans want to use. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You say "subgroup" like they're a rabble of malcontents with absurd views that are unreasonably contrary to popular opinion. It is their game and they have every right to insist that football is called "football" in New Zealand, especially given their sensitivity to the use of the word "soccer". --BlueRobe 05:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to be picky here, but to assume that a large majority of players of the game use "football" is a big assumption to make, and not entirely factual. While I would agree that "football" does seem to be gaining hugely in popularity, when I played the sport for my province (about 5 years ago), it was almost exclusively called "soccer" by the players from my province, and the opposing teams. In contrast, "football" was generally heard from people who followed European competitions, and in general didn't play themselves. Perhaps times have changed a lot since I played, but even these days, I would argue that most of the people that I come across using "soccer" are players of the sport. I don't have an objection to it being listed as "football" if that is accepted as used by the majority, but claiming that "Meanwhile, the dominant view among the football players and football fans is that the game is called "football" needs sources to back yourself up. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love you guys explaining me why, with so much emphasis, insist in refer to Americans as problematic, when the only problematic so far have been those from USA. Yes, I am aware of the controversy about the denomination of nationals of that country, but for the sake of a fair discussion, keep in mind that me, as well as another hundreds of millons of people living in this continent, are Americans. I understand if you have problems to refer to the (allow me here to use a term coined by the Germans) US-Americans in a more concise way, but let me give some news: we, Americans (except USA, as far as I know), call football (the sport played until a few days ago in the Worldcup in Southafrica) "football" by a large margin, whereas in the USA is, as far as know from my friends from that country, "soccer". No, I don't have a reliable surce. No, I cannot quote anything. As I cannot quote that the sky is blue. Sorry for the un-encyclopedic intrusion. I really dislike how a great project like Wikipedia has become the territory of lifeless individuals who think that they can shape reality by consensus. And spread it. And get away with it. Reality is not a democracy. And yes, I already regreat having left this comment. Martinmdp (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Among the football playing (and watching) public, the game is called "football". Most of the people who call it "soccer" are US-Americans (to distinguish it from the ridiculously contrived game they call "football") and people who couldn't care less about the game. BlueRobe (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The dozen or so people who asked me "are you following the soccer?" during the World Cup were all New Zealanders, at least a couple of them British-born. No one mentioned the F-word. dramatic (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Either you are lying (especially about the Poms) or you need to rush out and buy a Lotto ticket. BlueRobe (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of accusing Dramatic of lying (which doesn't strike me as a particularly valid application of "assume good faith"), why don't you direct your ire at the 119 (as per the Companies Office, earlier today) association football clubs which include the word "Soccer" in their name? And once you've done that, please feel free to start attempting to convince all the non-association football clubs in New Zealand to remove the word "football" from their names.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will call out a blatant lie when it jumps up in front of me. The suggestion that even the British use the word "soccer" instead of "football" is so utterly ridiculous that User:Dramatic can have no further credibility on the subject. Further more, the New Zealand organisation affiliated with FIFA is called New Zealand Football. Its name was changed from New Zealand Soccer in 2007 because of objections to the use of the word "soccer".

The absurdity of this discussion is beginning to resemble that of a fencing dispute with a mental health out-patient who has never seen a fence. Stop pretending that football is called "soccer" by the footballing fraternity.BlueRobe (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your ad-honinem attacks, they only discredit you. I cannot prove my anecdotal evidence, because it is, well, anecdotal, but I have no reason to lie about it! Consider it one small data point. NO, your earlier assertion that only americans say "soccer" is plainly wrong (otherwise no one would be arguing with you). YES, some people call the sport football, and yes, that number is probably increasing. But yes, other people in Australia/new Zealand mean rugby union, league or Australian Rules Football when they say football, so it is not advisable to use an ambiguous term. Is there a single new Zealand football (soccer) club that does not prepend "Football" with "Association" in its title? They recognise the need for disambiguation. If you wish to answer the case rather than attacking the advocates, please do so in a civil manner. dramatic (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic, you misrepresent me. At no point have I said that, "only americans say 'soccer'...". I said, "Most of the people who call it "soccer" are US-Americans (to distinguish it from the ridiculously contrived game they call "football") and people who couldn't care less about the game." I stand by that statement. If you don't want ad hominem attacks, don't misrepresent me. BlueRobe (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I again direct your attention to the 119 soccer clubs in New Zealand which do name themselves thus. I also recommend you acquaint yourself with the article Association football, in which it is explained that the word you take such unjustified offence to is itself of English - specifically, Oxford - origin. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're so busy focusing the microscope on one insignificant bush that you can't see the forest around you, however clearly it is presented to you. Ego much? BlueRobe (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Table discussion for 6 months I would like to propose that discussion be ended at this point as it's seems to be getting uncivil. While there are strong feelings in favour of using football the previous discussion resulted in a consensus for keeping soccer. No new facts have been introduced and this discussion is going nowhere. I therefore propose that this topic be closed for the rest of 2010 since there is zero likelyhood of a consensus in favour of the change any time soon - SimonLyall (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

94.229.22.101 is a pest

Tonight, many edits by Special:Contributions/94.229.22.101 have been reversed. There seems to be a pattern:
10:51, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
10:42, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:38, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:37, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:34, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:32, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:31, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand ‎

--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gorgeous country

I'm an American (former Wikipedian) who visited New Zealand and wrote this article here: An American's perspective on New Zealand. It is my impressions based on a 5 week stay outside Auckland (a house-swap) and visits around the north island. The knol is public domain; feel free to use it in your articles on NZ if you wish; in addition, all my pictures (in my NZ knol) are public domain as well -- landscapes, Auckland, waterfalls, beaches, public parks, etc; feel free to use them in NZ-related articles if you wish. Generally, I think the WP article on NZ is excellent but what I didn't get about NZ (when studying NZ before visiting and working on NZ Wikipedia articles) is how hilly it is (difficult driving), also, how expensive it is in terms of relative prices (why car-swap house-swap arrangements are smart). But the big big finding was how friendly the people were -- I had dozens of conversations with many terrific open-minded and cosmopolitan-oriented people about all kinds of topics. And I think the big thing (my POV theory) is that people in NZ are there (in many times) because they want to be there, like they chose the excellent climate and were willing to put up with the distance & such & hilly geography. Stunning rainbows too. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty fair. But that third pic down is definitely not a kauri tree, lol. They don't branch till wayyyy above ground Kahuroa (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoyed your article.-gadfium 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked the country so much. There were some NZ/US differences I wasn't aware of (I didn't realise it was that unusual to talk politics with friends and neighbours in the US!). But Kahuroa's right - that tree's looks more like a macrocarpa than a kauri. Next time you visit, you ought to go to the South Island :) Grutness...wha? 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed kouri --> macrocapra. You all have a wonderful country. Next time I'll try for the south island, definitely! And politics in the US is quite weird; there are even Wikipedians deleting the criticism section on the United States Congress article. (I'm so tired of the edit warring but am focusing on the knols.) What I'm saying is that if anybody needs pictures for the NZ-related Wikipedia articles, I have perhaps a hundred which I can give as public domain.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, that tree looks more like a pohutukawa than a macrocarpa to me, based on what I can see of the leaves and upper branches. But I'm no expert. Anyway thanks for the offer of the photos. --Avenue (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. Pohutukawa would make more sense for that part of the country, too. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaves are definitely not macrocarpa or any other conifer. Could well be pohutukawa. And the biscuits the American teenager is holding are Squiggles Kahuroa (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yum - my favourites :) Grutness...wha? 09:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My kids and I LOVED Squiggles. Best cookie by far. We bought perhaps a package every couple of days or so. Deeeee-licious! Will change tree to pohutukawa. Whatever your tree is, I'll probably mispronounce it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Film

I can't be bothered, but someone needs to study on the new film "Boy" and write something really Wikipedia-y on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.250.251 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See Boy (2010 film)-gadfium 06:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some reference on the Film Industry section, on this New Zealand page, to the new film "Boy" would be nice i suppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.250.251 (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia vs N.Zealand

What about the rivalry between those two powerful nations ? New-Zealanders feel always superior than australians. This is not neutral. Check up.--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

References needed for common sense items

To Jeff_G Why is "mainland" removed as a legitimate name for the south island without a source? - are you even a new zealander? wikipedia guidelines say you do not need a verifiable reference to common knowlege subject that IS verifiable - ie mars is a planet.. this is easily verifiable and the guide say to do this because otherwise the encylopedia will become a rediculous and unreadible with so many references...this applies to the south Island being referred to as "the mainland"..... is is easily verifiable... you only need to quote and reference things that people do NOT know commonly......whats wrong with these nazi page editors? they don't even follow wiki's own guidelines....I suppose you need a reference to say that the name of the port of wellington is called port nicholson? what source would you consider reliable as far as saying mainland was a legitimate name? This applies also the name Zealand - it simply means "sea land" - you leave in a stupid comment WITHOUT documentation that says there is NO connection to the island or name Zealand and i provided an explanation with a common sense and easily refiable information (ie the pages on wikipedia describing both islands and provinces called by that name and you say there is a problem with what I wrote? - come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Um I've never heard the south island being referred to as the "Mainland". I've lived in the North Island for 20 years. --Crash123 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The South Island is certainly sometimes called the "mainland", and not only by its residents - for example, see [7]. The name is mostly jocular, occasionally polemical. It's appropriate to mention it in South Island, as we do, but perhaps not so appropriate in this article. Similarly, we mention "Jafa" in the Auckland article, but not here.-gadfium 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?

We label Hone Harawira with Category:Māori activist but Tim Shadbolt et al with Category:New Zealand Activists? Why do we specify Māori for Harawira, but not specify Pakeha or New Zealand European for Shadbolt. Why the ethnic label for some NZedders but not for the majority others? Moriori (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why was Tipene O'Regan categorised Māori activist when his article doesn't even mention the word activist? Was. I've fixed it.Moriori (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Good question. I suspect it's because there are specifically Māori areas of activism (e.g., kawanatanga/rangatiratanga/self-determinism, whatever you want to call it) whereas there aren't such specific areas within Pākeha New Zealand. There isn't a "Pākeha independence movement" (thankfully), so most areas of protest and activism that Pākeha are involved with are those which are likely to have activists from across the ethnic spectrum. You'll almost certainly find other "ethnic activist' categories in other countries with vocal ethnic minorities (Category:Kurdish activists, Category:Romani activists, Category:First Nations activists, etc). I'[m not saying it's right or wrong that they're categorised in this way, just that there is some justification for it. (Good call on Sir Tipene, too). Grutness...wha? 08:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In Harawira's case I'd suspect that it's not so much because he is Māori and is an activist, but more that his activism is primarily in areas of specific importante to Māori. Tim Shadbolt, on the other hand, would have been an anti-war protester. Note that a hypothetical Pākehā supporting the tino rangatiratanga movement, and a hypothetical Māori supporting the anti-war movement, could also validly be described as a Māori activist and an anti-war activist, respectively.Daveosaurus (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

POV will decide who is described as what? We have Category:New Zealand Activists, which has 13 sub-categories. Twelve of those start with the words New Zealand, such as Category:New Zealand political party activists. One doesn't start with the words New Zealand. Guess which one? Why does Derek Fox have Category:Māori Party activists but not Category:Māori activist, and Harawira have the exact opposite? Whose POV has decided that?Moriori (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case then perhaps it would be most appropriate to rename that category, Category: New Zealand Māori activists. This would also differentiate them from any hypothetical Cook Islands Maori activists. I would guess that the appropriate place to start that discussion would be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Māori_activists . Daveosaurus (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Category:Māori activists is one of quite a number of similar categories in Category:Indigenous activists - that alone should give you an indication of why it's there. As to the difference between the categories for Māori activists and Māori Party activists, I'd say Harawira is in the wrong category. Category:Māori Party activists is a subcategory of Category:Māori activists, and is presumably intended to be for Māori activists who are also Māori Party politicians. As such, it's a natural subcategory of both Category:Māori activists and Category:Māori Party politicians (which is why it is a subcategory of both). If anything, the question is why there is such a separate category, when in theory at least any Māori Party politician could be considered a Māori activist, by some definition of the word. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

When I organised the political party pages I used '(party) activist' to denote anyone who was involved with a particular party in a meaningful way but hadn't been one of their MPs - it was a way of denoting party involvement by non-MPs. One example would be Matt McCarten, who has been involved in numerous parties but has never been in parliament. So Harawira is not technically a Maori Party activist because he's a Maori Party MP. Derek Fox would be a Maori Party activist (as well as a Maori activist) because as I recall he was a candidate for them. Most Maori Party activists would also be Maori activists (except McCarten, possibly), but they are two different things, just as environmentalists and Green Party activists are different groups even though they overlap quite a lot.

I see at some point someone has changed 'activist' to 'politician'. I can see that 'activist' didn't really fit, a lot of the time, but I'm also not convinced that the term 'politician' can actually be applied to party presidents and other significant players. --Helenalex (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics

I have trimmed the government section under Politics. Namely removed the block quote and the detailed analysis of the 2008 Election. They belong in the main article if anywhere. Most of it was sourced from one site [8] (accessed 2009), which may be why it had such a strong focus on the 2008 election. Also added in more details about the FPP to MMP switch. AIRcorn (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Added some information about 2008 back in. Prob good to talk about the current make-up of the government, even if it needs updating every three years. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anzus treaty reword

Recent edits make it seem as if the Anzus treaty has been revived by the Wellington Declaration and by instances of military cooperation. I thought Anzus was still dead. See PM's position as reported by Radio NZ in November. Kahuroa (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reworded slightly using your above link. AIRcorn (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Economics Section

The Economics section needs some work, more than I have done to the other sections so far. I would like to remove large portions of it to its main article, reducing the history section and condensing some of the other sub-sections I just added. Will involve quite a bit of rewriting. AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of New Leinster Province for deletion

The article New Leinster Province is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Such deletion discussions are included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand. It is not necessary to advertise them here.-gadfium 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool fish catching in New Zealand

Hey I came across this via Facebook -- check this out Catching a fish bare-handed in NZ. Perhaps there's a NZ fishing article where it might be appropriate?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sports section was back to front

The first paragraph in the Sports section said:

"Most of the major sporting codes played in New Zealand have English origins, and rugby union, cricket, bowls, netball, soccer, motorsports, golf, swimming and tennis are the most popular. Victorious rugby football tours to Australia and the United Kingdom .........."

A little while back I reversed rugby union and rugby football, but have just noticed it was reverted. I have reversed them again, for the following reason.

We have our Rugby football article which combines union and league as an overview and we should logically do the same here which justifies me changing rugby union to the all encompassing rugby football.

If the argument is that each code should stand on its own stats then we must remove rugby union and replace it with Touch football (rugby league) which the reference shows (as touch rugby) has more participants than rugby union! In fact, the reference also shows that aerobics, canoeing, basketball, snowsports, mountain biking and table tennis all have more participants than rugby union!

I also wonder if we should remove motorsports. According to the ref, more people participate in badminton, volleyball, squash, surfing or shooting (among others) than in motorsports. Moriori (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They are distinct sports and Rugby Union is very much a part of NZ identity, You might want to make a case for adding in League as well but combining them is an error. I have reverted to allow discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rugby League split from rugby football in the UK in 1895 (see History of rugby union) and League was not played in NZ until 1908. Since there was no split at the time of the first tour and for the second tour league was not yet being played the code would most likely still be known as Rugby Football.

That was a long time ago and now they are recognised as distinct sports and it should stay that way in the intro sentence. However the reference does not match up with whats written. The top participatory sports/recreation (from the first page and with higher than 4% participation) are: Walking, Gardening, Swimming, Equipment-based exercise, Cycling, Fishing, Jogging/running, Dance, Golf, Tramping, Tennis, Pilates/yoga, Aerobics, Cricket, Football, Touch rugby, Netball, Canoeing/kayaking, Basketball, Snowsports, Callisthenics/stretch, Table tennis, Rugby, Hunting, Surfing/body boarding and Volleyball.

Tramping, Hunting and Fishing are mentioned further down as outdoor pursuits and distinguishing between sport and recreation with some of the others will be problemtic (how many are swimming as a sport or for recreation?). Maybe this can be best addressed by adding cycling, swimming, running, canoeing, snowsports and surfing to outdoor pursuits. That would leave Golf, Tennis, Cricket, Football, Touch rugby, Netball, Basketball, Table tennis, Rugby and Volleyball as the top 10 sports (excluding gardening and excercise activities). Might pay to change "most popular" to "are amoung the most participated in" to cover the borderline original research. Or we could just find a reliable source that just measures sport. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree we could use a better source. Te Ara has a nice write-up, which distinguishes between popular spectator sports (e.g. rugby union) and ones with wider participation. (Jock Phillips. Sports and leisure - Organised sports, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Updated 8 Feb 2011.) --Avenue (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Used the above source for the first sentence and the SPARC source to flesh out the outdoor pursuits. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I suggest removing Mormon/LDS from the list of major religions in New Zealand. According to the demographics found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand, There are more Buddhists, Hindus and even Jedi than there are Mormons. (Yes, JEDI—from the Star Wars movie) The two major endemic religions also outnumber Mormon. So why is mormon included in the list?

I have encountered several instances where Mormons have inflated the importance of their movement by little offhanded postings such as that. I recommend we stick to reality here on Wikipedia.

98.86.45.95 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Damiano Francisco

The text is referring to denominations of Christianity and after the ~~five~~ four mentioned (Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism and Methodism) Pentecostal (79,155), Baptist (56,913) and LDS (43,539) have the next most followers (see Table 28 from the 2006 census). It can be argued where to draw the line, but seeing as the numbers are similar for Buddhism (52,362), Hindu (64,392), Islam (36,072) and Ratana (50,565) and the next highest number is under half (Brethren at 19,617) it seems to be a good place. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage gaps, thoughts

Article has improved significantly, nice work folks.

Things that are missing:

"welfare state": any description of what this means. The degree of government-provided social support is one of the things that distinguishes NZ.
The phrase "transformed it from a protectionist to a liberalised free-trade economy" or variations thereof shows up three times at various places, without ever explaining that it means that there are now no subsidies to farmers and few or no tariffs. This is worth spelling out. (IMO, it's also worth mentioning that the changes were rather controversial because of the fiscal pain they caused).

Had mentioned the farmers subsidies, but ended up moving it to Agriculture in New Zealand [9] after it was brought up in the peer review. It was probably too long, but parts of it could be brought back in. AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Universities: very high number per capita. In fact, no mention of post-secondary education institutions, ie. polytechs, wananga, universities.
No mention of the lack of corruption (political etc).

A reference from 2009 [10]. AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No mention that there is one police force for the whole country. (eg. US has 18,000+)

Not sure how important this is, but here is a NZ herald article that mentions it [11] and King from the beehive [12]

"notable campaigns in Gallipoli, Crete,[87] El Alamein[88] and Cassino." Then Passchendaele and possibly the the Somme have to be mentioned as well.
"Social organisation was largely communal with families (whanau), sub-tribes (hapu) and tribes (iwi) ruled by a chief (rangatira) whose position was subject to the community's approval." This should be up in Local government rather than Culture; it's also worth mentioning that consultation with iwi is a requirement of local government.

How does social organisation fit into local government? AIRcorn (talk)

Why are Education and Religion grouped together, anyway? They don't share much in common.

Some people would probably say they are the same.... I combined them as they were both short sections. I agree they should be split though and they would look alright if education is expanded with the tertiary info. AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Culture section still needs a fair bit of work to pull up its coherency and coverage. eg.

"exhibitions in the Venice Biennale in 2001" Need to also mention Te Maori (1984) which lead through to Te Waka Toi (1992), for raising an international art profile.

Please add what you can. I was literally learning this stuff while I was writing it. A non-Te Ara ref for Te Maori [13] AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit worried by the degree of reliance on Te Ara. Yes, it's both excellent and online, but using it quite so frequently seems unwise.

This has crossed my mind, along with the cites to government websites in politics. I hope it is not that big a deal as it would take a long time to find and format new references and is not something I personally would not be willing to do just to present what will amount to the same information. AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Watch the close paraphrasing. An example I noticed: "Māori quickly adopted writing as a means of sharing ideas" is very close to ref 275 "Māori people quickly saw the advantages of writing and printing for conveying ideas". It's a tricky, fine line to walk. Copyright violation through overly close paraphrasing has been a recent problem at FAC: that kind of usage is likely to cause issues with a FAC nom.

Iridia (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your comments. This article has gone beyond my current ability so I will let other more experienced users add (or not) the information. I dug up a few references that might be useful. AIRcorn (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Napier and Hastings aren't the same place

Someone should amend the cities map section and map, it's really stupid. Not by virtue of the creator as I imagine they're not local and don't know better, but StatsNZ are a bit inconsistent with their definitions. Hamilton is another one that's dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard7666 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Napier and Hastings are close enough as to make virtually no difference on a scale that small. pcuser42 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is to provide a visual representation of the list which uses the Napier-Hastings Urban Area so it is far from stupid and Statistics New Zealand combines them when estimating the urban populations[14].

I agree, for urban populations we should follow Statistics NZ's classification. Not because I believe it's perfect (the Wellington/Kapiti division is another example that springs to mind), but it's generally not too bad, and using the official standard helps us avoid this sort of carping. --Avenue (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is missing places like Wanganui, Invercargill? If you can find me a person who live in Hawke's Bay who considers Napier and Hastings one city (as the title implies) I'll eat my hat... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.220.226 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but this is taken from Stats NZ, which for the purpose of measuring the population of urban areas combine the two. Perhaps a note similar to those found in List of cities in New Zealand should be applied and it should be renamed Urban Areas, not cities. As for Invercargill, Wanganui and Gisbourne (again) according to Statistics New Zealand they are not technically cities[15]. AIRcorn (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well you might have to eat your hat. I'm from Hawkes Bay and consider them both a larger urban agglomeration with obvious shared facilities and heavy social integration. Would be right to consider them an interdependent entity considering the amount of people who work in either Napier or Hastings, yet live in another. Very common to live in one, yet shop, work, use council facilities, in another. It would be similar to how Mt Mangunai and Tauranga are distinctively different places yet are included as the same city, or Nelson/Richmond, Dunedin/Mosgiel. The only difference is Napier and Hastings are similar in size, so it is a much fairer pull for residents in either urban area to travel to the other, rather than an alpha node which draws the majority into it's centre of a metropolitan area. I think the main problem of the article is that it states 'New Zealand Cities' so that would be completely wrong in the correct definition as several cities can make up a greater 'Urban Area' like Wellington, and until recently Auckland. By making an official list of 'cities' it would remove places like Hastings, Rotorua, Gisborne, Whangarai, New Plymouth, Whanganui, Blenheim, Oamaru, and Timaru as they are administered by district councils, so are not "officially" cities. The official list is from Statistics New Zealand and would truly reflect the nature of what New Zealander's call cities, rather than 'Urban Areas'. I think this is a case of semantics, on whether we call our population centres the official term 'urban areas' or the colloquial term 'cities'. As this is an international website, where most countries would refer to the 'city' as being the entire metropolitan/urban area, I think that its wise to remain the status quo, and perhaps the link will explain it better in the 'List of New Zealand Cities' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.102.179 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC it?

Apart from some formatting, wikilinking, alt text and copy-editing I feel like this is pretty close. Probably need to take the shears to it and give some sections a bit of a trim. Most have a main so no info need be lost. Some questions/thoughts/ideas:

Etymology

Any more news about the islands official names? If not is Erima Henare notable enough for his own article or is there someone else we can use to indicate the likely choices?

Done Erima Henare removed and Māori Language Commissioner wikilinked AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
History

The Battle of Somme is not mentioned. Should it be mentioned or the picture just removed?

Done Picture removed AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Politics

May need some trimming, especially the government sub-section. Could trim the MMP/FPP history and combine with the current government paragraph. Not sure about the photos, personally would prefer non-personal pictures of buildings and other inanimate objects. Could we remove Anand Satyanand, the queen already represents the sovereign? Not sure how or if the foreign relations and military could be trimmed. Would consider splitting into two sub-sections, but they are closely intertwined.

Done Trimmed all sections and split foreign relations and military . Anand still present for now. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added back Key and Anand. Two main leaders of country and resonable photos of both. Add to article - SimonLyall (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be removed because they are two recent. This is about New Zealand as a whole not just the current set up. Also they are no longer mentioned in the article (although that can be easily changed I admit, but I was trying to avoid getting into specifics). Also I am trying to get this to featured status and comparing it with other featured countries Australia, Canada have none while Germany and Japan have just the one. Having three seperate pictures of leaders in the politics section seems like overkill and in its current incarnation puts a massive squeeze on the text. AIRcorn (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All 3 are mentioned in the article and their positions are mentioned in the section. Germany has photos of both President and Chancellor (further down in group). Both Canada and(see banknotes) and Australia have photos of prominent people which this article lacks. They are the current holders of the positions and certainly would be replaced when they lose office. Personally I think the wholesale deleting of pictures is hurting the article, fair enough of the ones with copyright problems but we now habe just one photo at the top of the history section and then a sea of text below that. As for space for these 3 photos it is about the same as the led paragraph in the text.

The trouble I see with having prominent people is deciding where to draw the line. The history section had more photos, but lost some when copyright concerns were brought up and if possible new ones should be found. Squeezing is a concern (I havn't been to WP:FAC yet, but it has been mentioned at WP:GA so I imagine its even stricter there). I figured this might be a little controversial and while personally I think it benifits the aticle I would be interested in what other editors think.AIRcorn (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to rearrange those photos to make the layout less squished. Personally I feel that the article was a bit overcrowded with images before, but we've probably now swung too far the other way, especially in the history section. --Avenue (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not too good with copyright, but this would fit nicely if it was available File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg under Treaty of Waitangi. Failing that this seems fine File:New Zealand 16 170.jpg. I haven't found anything suitable for the 20/21st Century paragraph yet, its a shame we couldn't use the Maori flag. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The first should be okay, although better sourcing is probably necessary for FAC at least. I'm more doubtful of the second photo. The subject seems to be a non-trivial restoration of the original treaty, so if it's modern, it's probably under copyright and this would be a derivative work. --Avenue (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What about this File:Hikoi-foreshore.jpg (I am assuming photos of the flag are acceptable.) AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted flags are not generally acceptable. For this one, we could try to argue that each flag is de minimis given the number and variety of them, but the central placement of one tino rangatiratanga flag and the flag's relevance to the photo's subject probably makes that problematic. --Avenue (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Environment

Secondary school social studies taught me that geography is where and what things are, while geology explains how they got there. If so the split is probably fair enough (first geology paragraphs a bit iffy), but someone who knows more about it may want to check that the info is in the right place. Would remove the environmental protectionism section and add a paragraph to climate dealing with climate change issues using info from the Climate change in New Zealand article.

Done removed geology header, making the section a part of geography, and moved the Environmental protectionism to the Climate Change talk page. Also left a note there to see if anyone from was intrested in adding a paragraph to the climate section. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Moa is largely believed to have been hunted to extinction by the Maori, and not as a result of European impingement. Haast's Eagle succumbed as a result--the Moa being their primary prey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.102.217 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Add sentence about communications to infrastructure?

Done added airports aswell. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Demography

Mention New Zealand English in languages?

Done Just a sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Culture

Move Te Reo paragraph to language section in Demography. Add icons (Buzzy bee, jandels, stubbies, L&P etc)

Done Moved Te Reo to languages. Haven't added anything yet. AIRcorn (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
International rankings

Delete section? Unless we add all the rankings it will violate WP:NPOV, in which case it becomes the International rankings of New Zealand article. Notable rankings could be moved to Economy or other sections. See here and here for archived discussions. I favour the see also option.

Done Deleted. Put as a see also for now. AIRcorn (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Lead

Needs work, but haven't touched it yet. Should probably be written last when the body is finalised.

Anything else? AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer advised last year, the article could probably use a peer review before going to FAC. Although the referencing has improved, there are still some unreferenced facts (even statistics), which needs fixing. I would also suggest a thorough review of citation formatting, images, and links, along with a copyedit.

Yes, the split between Geography and Geology needs to be reworked, and I agree the international rankings section should go. I'll think about the other content questions later. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avenue - there's going to be a fair bit of trimming/copyediting/prose modification before this should be taken near FAC. Trim some of the large number of images, remove some of the duplication on discussion of naming, make sure the coverage of the history is rigorous enough that it can't be argued with, leave the lead for now - bare bones is better than too long until the article content is settled. NZ English should be mentioned alongside Te Reo, I think. I suggest getting the NZ Wikiproject to all dig in - this article is large enough that it's going to need a small team. There aren't many country articles at FA so I'd suggest making sure this is in tip-top shape before taking it into the process, as the standard is very thorough these days. Happy to help out though if you do want extra people. Iridia (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the other FA country articles (Peru, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Nauru, Turkey), and they are all 2007 promotions; Canada was FAR'd recently, but noone seemed overly happy with how it turned out. So I doubt that any of those are particularly good models to compare against.

I also see an omission here in that no mention is made of NZ art/poetry/music: no Hone Tuwhare, James K. Baxter, Rita Angus, Kiri Te Kanawa, etc? Iridia (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Pretty close was maybe a little bit optimistic ;). I will start working through each section again and make sure all the formatting is consistent, begin implementing some suggested changes and recheck references. I was originally comparing it to the Australia article (nothing like a bit of trans-Tasman rivalry), but I see now that it was promoted way back in 2005 (although it recently passed a FAR). When I edited the Art and Entertainment section I purposely left out the names of artists as I thought it might be easier to have none than argue over who should be mentioned (that's also why I removed the films). However, I have no problem with them being included as long as it doesn't get out of hand and other country articles seem to mention a few. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

True, names might have that problem: it would be better to mention general sweeping themes that have occurred: eg. NZ poetry moved from focussing on the 'alien' landscape in early 20th C. to a more Maori view of it as indelibly connected to identity later in the 20th C; literature tends to focus on small-town drama; etc.

I might take out a few images, too; see what you think. The exceedingly picky licensing check that has to be done on the images before FAC will be easier the fewer there are. Iridia (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image trim done. Article is still large: Prose size (text only): 48396 characters (7624 words) "readable prose size", 113.1 KB. More summary-style should help with that - loading large pages is still really slow on WP. Iridia (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I will keep working on the prose. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll kick off the review of the remaining images. --Avenue (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File licensing, etc

Okay, I guess it's time to review image licensing, documentation, and so on. Starting from the top:

Y File:Flag of New Zealand.svg: This is based on a specification published in 1902 (and the design dates back to 1869), so any Crown copyright on that would have expired. Our SVG rendering is the work of three editors (ZScout370, Butterstick, and Hugh Jass), but the image description page only indicates that one (Butterstick) has released rights to the public domain; it should document the licensing specified by the other two authors too. (A fourth editor's changes were reverted.)
- Done. --Avenue (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Y File:Coat of Arms of New Zealand.svg: This SVG rendering by Sodacan is freely licensed. The current design only dates back to 1956, but I think it may not be protected under copyright law. I'll check into this.
- I was wrong. The magic date for Crown copyright in NZ is 1944; Crown works from 1945 onward retain copyright protection for 100 years from the year they're made. The original design for NZ's coat of arms dates back to 1908, so that is out of copyright, but the current coat of arms is sufficiently different that I believe it would attract a fresh copyright. The changes were made by a committee, which I don't know much about, but I think it's reasonable to presume that it included government employees. So the current coat of arms will come out of copyright in 2057. In the meantime, a non-free use rationale should be written to justify its use here (and in other articles). (The Coat of arms of Canada are also under Crown copyright, so the rationales given there might be a good starting point. However NZ law is stricter in prohibiting essentially any unauthorised non-governmental use, not just commercial use.) --Avenue (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  - And it will need to be transwikied out of Commons, into whichever wikis want it. --Avenue (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    - This is the only item on all of the list that I have some disagreement with. I was asked to look over the image review, and I think this one is a case of over-paranoia. Typically, the blazon (the description of an armorial achievement) is not subject to an initial copyright anymore than any recipe or set of literal instructions to create something. The artist's rendition to translate the blazon into a visual depiction is a separate copyright matter. Having said that, if this version is uniquely created by Sodacan following the blazon, and he chooses to license it, it's acceptable. I'll leave it up to you folks to determine if it was uniquely created instead of a 1:1 copy/conversion of another artist's rendering of the coat of arms. Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      - I think you are right. A particular wording of the blazon might attract a copyright, but that gives no control over new depictions of the coat of arms. I might have been overly influenced by the documentation for the Canadian coat of arms, and in particular the part of {{Non-free symbol}} that said the symbol itself may be copyrighted (which I think is wrong, or at least misleading). That file was produced by converted a conpyrighted raster image into an SVG file. Looking at this rendering of the NZ CoA again, and taking into account what I've seen of Sodacan's other work, I have no doubt that it is an original creation. So I now believe this file is fine. --Avenue (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Y File:God Defend New Zealand instrumental.ogg: Copyright status and documentation looks good, as you'd expect from a featured sound. The source link is currently dead for me, but Google has a fortnight-old cached copy, so I imagine that's just a temporary glitch.
- Not temporary, as I still can't access the page, but it's probably just a local problem; Google's cache was updated just a few days ago. --Avenue (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Y File:NZL orthographic NaturalEarth.svg: This was created using public domain country outlines, and released to the public domain by its creator, Gringer, so it all seems good to me.
File:Detail of 1657 map Polus Antarcticus by Jan Janssonius, showing Nova Zeelandia.png: Would someone please have a look and check the documentation here is good? I think it's okay, but I uploaded it, so it'd be good to have a second opinion.
Y File:Polynesian Migration.svg: Another nice map by Gringer. The licensing checks out fine, but no source is cited for the migration routes indicated by the arrows. Can anyone confirm these?

Don't know about the original source, but from recent journals: This gives support for the dark green arrows from Taiwan to Melanesia and then into the eastern pacific, the other (pale green) lines could represent the earlier colonisation of the Sahul mentioned in the papaer. This details the later expansion from central islands (between the Society Islands and Gambier according to the paper) to New Zealand, Hawai'i and Easter Island. The arrow to Marques Island is further north than this paper suggests it should be, but everything else seems to fit. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now cited these sources on the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

N File:Waitangi Treaty-1-.jpg: Apparently Marcus King (1891-1983) painted this in 1938.[16] It is tagged as {{PD-old}}, but won't qualify for this under current law for decades. I'll nominate it for deletion.

Removed. Iridia (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now deleted, and removed from several other en wiki articles (and another 50-odd uses in other Wikimedia wikis).

N File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg: Designed shortly before the sesquicentennial celebrations in 1990 by Linda Munn, Hiraina Marsden and Jan Dobson Smith. Munn was asserting copyright last year,[17] so our rendering seems to be a derivative work.

Removed. Iridia (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Y File:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg: Copyright status and documentation looks good; featured picture.
File:Anand Satyanand.JPG: I think this is fine, but again a second opinion would be nice.

I commented this out as I removed Anand from the text, but it won't hurt to double check it in case it is decided to put it back in. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He's back now, AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Y File:Parlamento da Nova Zelândia.jpg: If the uploader User:Partyzane was in fact the author ("Alexander Efimov"), then this is fine, but I'm not sure if that presumption would pass FAC review. I've requested clarification at their talk page. (This image was also tagged as a duplicate, but I've tidied that up.) Failing that, it shouldn't be too hard to replace.
- There's been no response in over a month, so I've replaced this image. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Y File:WGNT Cenotaph 07 ANZAC.jpg: License and documentation look fine to me.

Query: there is hidden text at this image: "This photo is of another cenotaph, which is not the National War Memorial." Could someone please confirm this? Iridia (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked the editor that inserted the text and it appears the problem has been resolved [18]. I can't see any reason to keep it with the current wording. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a poor-quality image. Can we replace it with something from Commons:Category:Military of New Zealand? Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your post until now. Good idea; I've replaced it with the following almost iconic photo:

Y File:E 003261 E Maoris in North Africa July 1941.jpg: public domain in NZ because crown copyright has expired. --Avenue (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all I have time for right now. --Avenue (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked User:Imzadi1979 if he would mind providing a second opinion on the images and he has agreed to have a look. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delays, but you folks seem to have everything worked out. I think, as I stated above, that you're being overly, and unjustifiably, paranoid about the coat of arms. There's two issues at play with those. The blazon, which is a description on how an artist creates the graphical version, and the graphical version of the armorial achievement itself.

The only other issue I see too much caution being exercised relates to photos that contain flags. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I specifically familiar with details of the law in New Zealand, but my take on the issue is pretty simple. That unless a photo is dominated by a copyrighted element like a flag or a sign (zoomed in to make that element the sole focus of the photo), and that photo is of a public gathering in a public place, taking the photo is perfectly acceptable. The key is determining whether or not the photo, as depicted, is dominated by the flag to such a degree that the photo's subject is not the event/protest/demonstration, but the flag alone. If that's the case, the fact that the flag is in the photo doesn't really control the copyright/licensing of the photo. This viewpoint can be cemented if the file description and the photo caption in the article legitimately focuses on the event and not just on the flag. :To translate using an example, taking a photo of a balcony in the West Village of New York City doesn't substantially impact a flag maker if there's a rainbow flag hanging from the railing. Sewing together the six colored stripes yourself into a flag does impact the commercial viability of a flag manufacturer who has paid to license the flag design for resale. Making an unlicensed copy of the flag also impacts the holder of the copyright on the original design. New Zealand might differ on that point, but I can't see a photo that includes a flag infringing copyright. Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing our work here. I agree with you on the coat of arms (more details above). I still don't think I agree with your position on the flag issue. According to the Commons policy on de minimis, the copyrighted element has to be a trivial element of the photo for it to be acceptable. Considering the example of a poster in the photo's background, it says "[...] if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. [...] A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is 'in the background'."

In the context of the flag-related images, I think File:Hikoi 008.jpg clearly fails this test, and File:Hikoi-foreshore.jpg does too, given that they depict a protest over Maori land rights. For your rainbow flag example, this would be like having a caption saying "New York's West Village has a large gay population." In that case, the rainbow flag would contribute materially to the image's message, and the image would not be as useful without it, so it would not be acceptable (assuming the rainbow flag was under copyright). It is not enough that the copyrighted element forms only a minor part of the image; what is required is that it be essentially trivial or irrelevant to the image's purpose. Perhaps I am being too strict here, but that is my understanding of the policy. --Avenue (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you mentioned these photos being taken in a public place. I don't believe that is relevant to the de minimis policy. It would be relevant if we were claiming freedom of panorama, and so a photo like this one might be acceptable. But this does not apply to the protest pictures, because they are not of "works of artistic craftsmanship [...] permanently situated in a public place". --Avenue (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacement Images

AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg: Should be okay, although better sourcing is probably necessary for FAC at least.
- I've uploaded a higher quality version (thanks to Kahuroa) and improved the description. I think it's now okay, but a second opinion would be nice. --Avenue (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NFile:New Zealand 16 170.jpg: The subject seems to be a non-trivial restoration of the original treaty, so if it's modern, it's probably under copyright and this would be a derivative work.

NFile:Hikoi-foreshore.jpg: Photos of copyrighted flags are not generally acceptable. For this one, we could try to argue that each flag is de minimis given the number and variety of them, but the central placement of one tino rangatiratanga flag and the flag's relevance to the photo's subject probably makes that problematic.

We could crop the flag off File:Hikoi 008.jpg I suppose. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be okay from the perspective of copyright (the United Tribes flag being old enough), but I think it would rob the photo of much of its strength. Another option from that protest would be File:Hikoi_011.jpg; perhaps with the flag at right cropped off, although this might not be necessary since the design is not really shown.

I'm not sure where you were thinking of placing the image, but if it was in the "20th and 21st centuries" subsection, those photos all seem a bit recent to me. Illustrating something like the welfare state (e.g. with File:State Housing in Oranga, Auckland, 1947.jpg) seems more appropriate to the time period covered. --Avenue (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was my plan. I was looking for something on the protest movement and got a bit stuck on the flag. However I did do a search for a image that represented the depression or one of the wars. Didn't think about the Welfare State, but that could work. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The above three are copied with permission from a discussion above. All comments are from Avenue (talk)

I've changed the icons to crosses on a couple of these. IANAL, so I could easily be wrong, but they seem problematic to me. --Avenue (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Remaining images

Question: File:Realm of New Zealand-2.PNG: Derived from File:Realm of New Zealand.png, which was uploaded in August 2007 by Sesmith, which in turn appears to be based on a map quite similar to File:BlankMap-World-v2.png along with a map of Antarctica in a similar style. However Sesmith did not specify what maps his was based on (and has not contributed since October 2007). He placed his map in the public domain, but File:BlankMap-World-v2.png at least is licensed under a dual GFDL/CC-BY-SA license. So the licensing and documentation is a bit of a mess.
Y File:Satellite image of New Zealand in December 2002.jpg: NASA image, so in the public domain. The source link checks out.
Y File:AbelTasmanNP.jpg: Contributed by its creator under a CC-BY-SA 2.5 license, which seems fine. It's copied on a few websites, but none are as high resolution as our copy, so we are probably their source. The image description could be fleshed out a bit.
Y File:TeTuatahianui.jpg: Released into the public domain by the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust, as confirmed here.
Y File:MilfordSound.jpg: Released to the public domain by its author. Copied on several websites; none are high resolution.
Y File:Romney Ewe and Lamb.jpg: Released to the public domain by its author. Copied on a few websites; none are high resolution. The image description could be expanded.
Question: File:New Zealand population over time - small.png: I think the description and license here is fine, but I made it, so a second opinion would be welcome.
Question: File:Lion dancers at the Auckland lantern festival 2010.jpg and File:Cook Islands dancers at Auckland's Pacifica festival 3a.jpg: Ditto.
Y File:Ratana Church Raetihi.jpg: A lovely photo by Alan Liefting. License and description look fine to me.
Y File:New Zealand Cities.PNG: The license for the underlying map is GFDL-1.2 or later, which agrees with the source. The city locations are taken from the same source, but they are not made available there under the same license, because they are part of the "labelling layer" and ultimately come from Google. So as it stands, this image violates Google's copyright. It could be redone using a different source for the cities, though.

The city locations are now sourced to this CIA map. I think this file is now okay from a licensing perspective. The underlying map isn't entirely accurate (see e.g. the course of the Waikato River), so perhaps it should be replaced. --Avenue (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Y File:KupeWheke.jpg: A fairly recent carving, probably under copyright, but it does form a permanent part of a building, so this photo would be fine under freedom of panorama if it is taken from a place accessible to the public (whether they are charged for entry or not).

Kahuroa has now cleared this up, and I've updated the image description, so this should be fine. --Avenue (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Y File:Hinepare.jpg: A faithful reproduction of an old artwork, so in the public domain. The description looks fine.
Y File:Hillary statue and Mount Cook.jpg: Freely licensed on Flickr.

There are few issues left to address, but most of the images seem fine. --Avenue (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Content

I have got the readable prose down to 6405 words and total prose to 99Kb, which is similar to other relavent featured countries. Does anyone feel something vital is missing or some more info could be trimmed. Here is the article before I started trimming. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Polynesian settlers: I am wondering if we are giving WP:Undue weight to the early arrival theory by mentioning it in this sectiom. The vast majority of the sources I found seemed to dispel it. To my mind a mention under History of New Zealand should suffice. More space copuld be given to Pacific Migration, especially if we keep the map.
Climate: I left a note at Climate change in New Zealand to see if anyone wants to put a paragraph in. I am not too fussed either way.
Culture: I asked Iridia if he/she would mind adding some more to the literature/music/art side of this (not stopping anyone else from jumping in of course).

Sports section: The sentence 'However, changes in society reduced rugby's importance, epitomised by the protests during the 1981 tour from South Africa" could do with some work - it's unclear what it's trying to say really. Protests wouldnt have happened if the sport wasn't important. Just seems a bit muddled and doesn't mesh well with what goes before it. Kahuroa (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again I think it is probably focusing on the wrong thing. Maybe a sentence or addition to a sentence about how rugby now no longer plays as pivitol a role in society. I think the protests should be mentioned somewhere though? AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah sure. I just thought it kind of jarred a wee bit where it is, and 'changes in society' is too vague to be of much use Kahuroa (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

Needs a map. Not being from NZ (UK) I know where Auckland is and that's about it. A basic outline map would be very helpful.Angry Mustelid$nbsp;(talk) 2011/02/05-22:21 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.134.109 (talk)

We had a few, including File:New Zealand towns and cities.jpg, but they're been cut back recently. There were probably too many before, but maybe the trimming went too far. I don't think the cityscapes in the "List of cities" box add much value, so I'll replace them with that map instead. --Avenue (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Languages

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There seems to be some inconsistency in the treatment of New Zealands "official languages" on various Wikipedia pages. As I understood it (and the online sources that I found confirm) New Zealand has two official (i.e. legally specified) languages, namely Te Reo Maori and New Zealand Sign Language. English is a de facto national language, but not an official language, as is also the case for the United Kingdom, the USA and Australia (the latter two pages clearly indicate this). The status of the two official languages in New Zealand is clarified by online sources (including other Wikipedia pages) such as: [19] [20] [21]

It seems that many sources, including the NZ government use the term "offical" in a colloquial sense to include de facto (e.g. see the NZ Sign Language Bill), but this leads to inconsistent accuracy on a site like Wikipedia, that should strive to aim for consistency in both terminology and information, not just for the New Zealand-related pages, but across the entire website. As such, there are clear definitions of what makes an official language, and many wikipedia pages reflect this terminology, e.g.: [22]

I propose that the New Zealand page navigation panel be amended to clearly indicate the separate status of the official and de facto national languages, with something similar the Australia page. This offers an accurate reflection of the legal and social status of these languages, and is consistent with the information that is available throughout Wikipedia.

Not done:According to [23], an official government document, English is an official language. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the original request did not make the point clearly enough, but this request is for consistent terminology usage, and is dependent on two main points:

1: An Official language is one that is "given a special legal status", of which in NZ there are only two (Te Reo Maori, NZSL) that are mentioned in the laws of the country, i.e. are defined as de_jure official languages. The colloqial useage of "official" to include the de facto national language English, even by goverment or any other sources, does not change this definition (as used by Wikipedia, amongst others), or the fact that the laws of NZ do not mention English as an offical language (the laws of NZ being our primary reference source: there is no Official Languages Act or English Language Unity Act equivalent in NZ, but we do have the Māori Language Act 1987 and the New Zeland Sign Language Act 2006 [24]).

2: Several wikipedia pages already recognise the status of English in NZ as "de facto" national language, whereas others (such as this page) combine the two into one group "official", thus there is inconsistent terminology usage within Wikipedia itself.

At this point there are several options:

1: Either this page uses the terminology "official" correctly, and a great number of other pages (such as, but not limited to, USA, Australia, Languages of New Zealand) are incorrect, and must be changed to match terminology usage of this page.

2. This page should be changed to reflect the terminology used for legally official languages, as defined and used on other Wikipedia pages (e.g. List of countries where English is an official language, Languages of New Zealand).

3. Wikipedia remains with unexplained inconsistencies in terminology usage.

PS: Until recently the Netherlands also had no offical language: [25]

Done English is now listed as a National language not an official language. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

_{If my computer and Wikipedia servers will communicate properly :/ Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)}

PPS: Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.64.175 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion seems to have removed this clarification, without any further discussion.

PS: It seems I wrote too soon: on reloading my browser, the correct of the page loaded. Perhaps this is something in how changes to the pages are propagated through the aether ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.205.157 (talk • contribs) 8:25 am, 5 July 2011