Talk:New Zealand/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Last?

The term last large landmass might be backed by some sources but it is open to interpretation of large. The Azores are pretty big. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Azores are (in total) a bit larger than Stewart Island, and smaller than Stewart and Chatham combined. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I glad we agree. Can you suggest a better description than large land mass? Based on wikipedia I note the population of the Azores is reaching 240,000. A place must be pretty large to support such a population. Moving on, does Greenland count? And depending how we define settled there are lots of people living in Antarctica,some raisinv families there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My point was that the Azores are, in total, considerably smaller than either of the main islands of New Zealand. It's possible to fit the entire population of New Zealand onto an island smaller than Chatham (it's been done and the result called "Singapore"). The expression is sourced and is not controversial.

I wouldn't describe Antarctica as "settled". It doesn't have a native population - people working there are residents of somewhere else and are working there as scientific or support staff, the majority only for the Antarctic summer. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A dictionary defines landmass as "a continent or other large body of land" which to me means big, but still open to interpretation of actual size. I would say NZ counts and the Azores probably not. However, based on that definition we can remove the word big as unnecessary -landmasses are big by definition. Argentina and Chile have put people in their Antarctic bases to have kids and live there permantly. It is all part of their respective sovereignty claims. A bit artificial but those places ars nevertheless permanent settlements to an extent. On relection, perhaps the sentence is best left as is but with the word large removed - landmass is enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

User:kahastok has commented here. I went there because I realised the Falklands might be codered a landmass and wanted further opinion, which is what I got. I am now more convinced thatlede sentence should be altered. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Government Box

I ask that under the right hand "Government" box that the House Speaker & Chief Justices be added under the Monarch, Governor General and Prime Minister. Foxyplus1 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Spoken languages

I think the language section is a bit confusing. At first it says "English is the predominant language in New Zealand, spoken by 95.4% of the population", followed by "Maori is spoken by 4.0% of the population". Makes sense at first, until the next paragraph, that is. "As recorded in the 2018 census, Samoan is the most widely spoken non-official language (2.2%), followed by "Northern Chinese" (including Mandarin, 2.0%), Hindi (1.5%), and French (1.2%)".

But if we go by the first two paragraphs, 95.4+4.0=99.4. That doesn't leave any room for the non-official languages (except for 0.1%). So something either doesn't add up there or it's badly written. Vistaus (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This has come up before but it still isn't sorted out. There are a number of issues.

• 1/ 'Spoken' is a term open to wide interpretation: it can mean fluent mother tongue or able to say hello, goodbye and what's the time.
• 2/ Referring to the census is an attempt to overcome this problem but the census questions are equally ambiguous and what is worse they usually allow for more than one answer, hence a total above 100%.
• 3/ The census questions are rarely given on wikipedia.
• 4/ There is always a tendency for people to claim they can speak a minority language of a country if that language is at risk or is somehow 'trendy' to use. Just look at many example articles from around the world. This distorts the real situation.
• 5 / In many cases, minority languages have a degree of protection involving forced usage and promotion, which also distorts the figures. That can also lead to some degree of artificial weight being given to a language. Maori in NZ is one such case.
• 6/ Being official or not is not relevant to a statement of how many people speak a language.
• 7/ Due to the blunt nature of the infobox parameter there is usually no distinction made between an indigenous language and one spoken by immigrants, the second type usually being regarded as less important. Hence, Maori will be treated as more important than Korean, despite there being more Korean speakers in NZ, at a level of fluency at least.

In summary, I think the template needs to be better written to allow for less personal interpretation and better uniformity across related articles. However, failing that I think we could look at this again for the NZ article alone and try to reach consensus on how better to use the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It's just slightly misleading. Many people speak multiple languages - the biggest overlap will be between English and another language - therefore the total will add up to more than 100%. I find it more interesting that 5% of NZers don't speak English!

I will try edit the paragraph to reflect the maths but I think as it's currently laid out it might just need a footnote or something. I've seen disclaimers on census data that mentions this but can't find it on the NZ or AU sites right now. TreeReader (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

2601:1C2:4E01:25B0:90D1:F8DE:4E4C:279D (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

replace “Māori: Aotearoa” to “known as Aotearoa” for proper acknowledgment of Aotearoa as New Zealand’s proper name as known by the native peoples who live there, and not just a local translation.

I raised the same issue elsewhere with Las Malvinas being used as the Spanish translation of The Falkland Islands, which it is not. The consensus was to leave it be. I tend to agree with you that to say "also known as Aotearoa" is more accurate. In my view 'Aotearoa' is a Maori word that has now borderline been assimilated into English, meaning it is an English word when used in English, not a foreign word. That would support your idea of using "also known as". However, to follow that line would invite lots of edit wars. If I have to vote it is a marginal support. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any change to the lead here. Aotearoa *is* the name for the country in the Māori-language, and so should continue to be noted as such in the lead sentence (and in the infobox), for consistency with the pages for other NZ place names. However, in the "Etymology" section (where the name "Aotearoa" is described further), it might be worth noting that it is sometimes also used for the name of the country in less formal English text.PatricKiwi (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Important history

Talk about the mass shooting. it will be in the textbooks for sure, so give them something to copy 2603:9001:320A:59A4:7922:BAA1:8C2C:8BBB (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Really?! The United States articles has just one mention in the whole article while Mass shootings in the United States records 59 shootings in just 16 years. I would invite a non-involved admin to simply rev del or simply delete this whole thread as it appears to be mendacious about its intent.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

45th parallel south

The 45th parallel south article could use a better photo of one of the "halfway between equator and south pole" signs in New Zealand. Anybody have one? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: This is a different sign, but could maybe be imported and cropped. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gordoncheungkw/35496849055/in/photolist-W5JCwT-xCDLLg-x3qcEs. Dracophyllum 16:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National anthem of the New Zealand.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Dutch Renaming

At present the section reads: "Hendrik Brouwer proved that the South American land was a small island in 1643, and Dutch cartographers subsequently renamed Tasman's discovery Nova Zeelandia from Latin, after the Dutch province of Zeeland." It would be good to include the detail of specifically who chose the name, rather than 'cartographers'; ' Joan Blaeu, official Dutch cartographer to the Dutch East India Company' as per the first link there, and also that this occurred in 1646, as per here. For a little further detail, and clarity. The 'subsequently' could give the impression that the renaming occurred at the same time as the first part 1643.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh also, it might be germane to mention that the name was chosen to pair with Australia's then name of New Holland. Holland being the larger of the maritime provinces of the Netherlands, with Zeeland being the smaller of the two.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Idk if it's been proposed but don't we want to mention that since the connection of NZ with LoTR, the country is sometimes affectionately called Middle Earth? Aron MacEanraig (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Just checked, it's already there, ignore me. Aron MacEanraig (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Charles III Photo

The photo added today ‎by user:DDMS123 is of the previous Prince of Wales, not the King of NZ, as the description claims. I think the wording should be amended or the photo replaced. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous photo was a candid shot of Charles as Prince of Wales and it had the same caption. There are no good free to use photos we can use of him as King yet. All the photos we have of Charles are of him as Prince of Wales. I think we should keep that photo as it is an official portrait from the New Zealand Government website and it is the only good photo of him that we have permission to use as all other photos are candid shots. https://gg.govt.nz/image-galleries/official-portraits - Link to website. The wording is fine it's just showing what our King looks like. The portrait of Chris Hipkins was taken at the beginning of 2022 before he became Prime Minister and it has a similar caption to King Charles. DDMS123 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You might possibly add the year of the photo to the caption by way of clarification of this. A longer caveat ("King Charles, photographed as Prince of Wales"? "The King Formerly Known As Prince Charles"?) is likely undue. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the problem. I think it should have something in the wording to clarify the year and purpose of the photo, which was an official photo of the PoW, not the king. It is a common error everywhere, I know. I will amend the wording. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

But it's not an "error" at all. And "(as Prince of Wales in 2019)" is precisely the sort of overwrought overqualifier I just argued against. It's the same bloke, and very possibly in the same suit. No cosplaying as "Prince" or "King" actually involved. Just the "(2019)" part would suffice, and comply with the principle of headscratching minimisation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The photo is of the prince of Wales, not a person. It is being used as of a king, not a person, or the prince of wales. That is why it is an error. If wording should be reduced it can be removing 'king of nz' because that is obvious and not necessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To suggest the prince of wales is not a person is pretty abstract. I don’t think most readers would agree, nor more importantly be helped by the distinction.

In any case it doesn’t matter, because the Governor General’s office has established this photos as an “Official portrait of HM King Charles III” ([1]), so if we’re all happy with that, let’s put it back, with possible note on the year of the photo for those nitpickers who might look at the photo under scrutiny. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the naked-eye difference between a picture of a person, who was at the time Prince of Wales (or king of assorted imperial motley fragments), and a Picture of the Prince of Wales, or a Picture of the King? "Abstract" is extremely kin: it's wildly incorrect. The "as Prince of Wales" caption is eye-catching in its oddness, as I've pointed out more than once already. It's the same person, and he's wearing his usual bog-standard suit. No "as" is happening in the photo. There's no title aura visible in it. But as the article is semi-protected, I must leave the privilege of fixing it -- or edit-warring over it -- to the autoconfirmed subset. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

HTGS, I didn't say the PoW was not a person, as you doubtless know. The photo is an official photo of the PoW, not of Charles the person. We want a photo of either the King or of Charles the person but we have neither. The solution is quite simple - we qualify the text below, as I did. Such qualifications are everywhere on photos, so it is far from unusual. If the GG office is using it as an official photo of the King, that complicates matters but it is also incorrect. Since when do we accept govt sources as gospel? Or is it a primary source anyway, coming from the GG? Nit-picking? I'd prefer the term pedantic but even that is not ideal. I'd rather call it getting it right. There are far too many corners cut in WP and the more we can iron out the better. Being accurate is not nit-picking. I do though accept that there is a limit on how far this can be taken. I still see my change as perfectly normal and not at all onerous. It is very common to add a year (and/or place) to a photo of a person. What would then happen if we said for this photo: 'Charles III in 2019'? I am sure it wouldn't last very long. @IP, thank you for your contribution. Yes, you don't understand. Perhaps the best solution to this is to wait for an official photo of the king taken when he was king. In the meantime this one will have to do, properly qualified of course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Following up, the image used on the King's own article says "Charles, as PoW in 2017" Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Balls of Hobiton

The multiple Concrete Balls located in the area aren’t addressed in the article and I would like permission to add this part of the local terrain 81.173.200.78 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

While I wonder whether you're being in any way series, if you are, I suspect this isn't the appropriate article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Rēkohu/Chatham Islands

This, "At some point, a group of Māori migrated to Rēkohu, now known as the Chatham Islands, where..." was changed to this "At some point, a group of Māori migrated to the Chatham Islands (Rēkohu), where..." and then changed back again by Paora, using MOS:GEO so as to avoid an anachronism. Since when has the 'Chatham Islands' been anachronistic? My guess is 99.9% of readers will never have heard of Rekohu. However, if the original sentence says they are now know as the Chatham Islands, why not call them the Chatham Islands? There is something illogical about that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's anachronistic because they weren't known as the Chatham Islands at the time of the events in that sentence. The first version also reads better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@user:109.255.211.6. They weren't known as Rekohu either, not in English, so anachronism doesn't apply. That is why I changed the sentence. We cannot say "...Rekohu (now know as the Chathams...") unless they were know as Rekohu at some past date in English. What is happening is that Maori language and the English language are being intermingled. Even the usual supposed justification that 'that is what we do in NZ English' does not apply, because it says 'now known (in NZ English) as the Chathams'. My point is, if they are known as the Chathams, and always have been in Engish, then call them the Chathams, not Rekohu. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand's monarch, not the UK's

"The British monarch remained New Zealand's head of state"? Doesn't New Zealand have its own monarch as head of state? GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Charles III is both the king of the UK and the king of NZ. He's the same person, but he has multiple titles. Michael60634 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence. New Zealand has its own monarch/head of state, separate for the UK's. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealan has it's own monarch which is now King Charles the Third, the King of the Realm of New Zealand. The King of New Zealand might be the King of the UK but they are separate people who happen to be the same person. 139.180.115.241 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wtf this is so stupid there's only one King Charles he is the King, Monarch, and Head of State of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Commonwealth of Nations, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc. He has multiple titles but there's only one of him how is this a question DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sexism in sport "facts"

The Black Ferns have won the World Cup 5 times, so they should be listed as the country's most successful team, not the All Blacks. https://www.allblacks.com/teams/black-ferns/#:~:text=The%20Black%20Ferns%20are%20New,90%20percent%20of%20their%20Tests. 2406:E007:80C8:E901:2002:75E7:3595:CE4A (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times they've won. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We "list" what we can verifiably source. We can't just introduce our own definition of "most successful" and use that: that'd be classic WP:OR. The Torygraph's is apparently "New Zealand's win-rate over the last 100 years". If that's thought to be unduly whimsical or tendentious, we can keep the factoid but attribute it directly. Or also look for other sources saying the same thing, or contradicting it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not sexist DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning of Kupe and potential proximate causes of human settlement

Hi everyone

Before my most recent edit ( the link is here), there was no mention of Kupe or the potential proximate causes of human settlement (namely, conflict in Polynesia over limited resources after the 1257 Samalas eruption. I would argue strongly that as a prominent figure in both Māori history and the study of New Zealand settlement, Kupe should be at least referenced once. Describing him as solely of legend would be fitting for Māui, a purely mythological character. The theory about the eruption of Samalas as a potential catalyst for Polynesian settlement is also worthy of mentioning. Here's the bulk of what I added below, in italics.

New Zealand was the last major landmass settled by humans. The story of Kupe as the first human to set foot on the New Zealand archipelago, accredited to by most Māori iwi, is considered credible by historians; he is generally believed to have existed historically. Most histories claim that in a time approximately 40 generations ago (between 900 and 1200 AD), The more specific reasons for Kupe's semi-legendary journey, and the migration of Māori in general, is contested. It is thought by some historians that Hawaiki and other Polynesian islands were experiencing considerable internal conflict at that time, which is thought to have caused an exodus from them. Some historians contest that this was because of the fallout from the 1257 Samalas eruption, which caused crop devastation globally and possibly helped trigger the Little Ice Age.

This article details the Samalas eruption's potential effects on human migration to New Zealand.

I genuinely think including mentioning of Samalas and Kupe would be of great benefit to this article. Aubernas (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talk page. There are several issues here. Kupe is given too much weight: a sentence at most is warranted. Kupe can be treated as part of the wider polynesian settlement that might warranted a couple more sentences. There might have been a real Kupe but he is too shrouded in myth and legend to be treated as much more than a legendary figure who might have been based on a true person. Similar in fact to Robin Hood. You are adding as semi-fact a lot of unsubstantiated speculation. You are also, IMO, misusing sources and not being logical. Although I would be careful of using any museum reference, especially anything from te Papa, your source simply says that some people think he existed-that is where it ends. No evidence of any sort is provided. What is verifiable is that polynesians settled here at some point around 1200-1300 but much more that cannot be proven so it remains in the realm of speculation. If you want to add to the history section, or the history paragraph in the lead, why not add mention of Cook, whose name is missing, in the lead that is. It jumps from Tasman direct to 1840. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for following up, but why are you comparing a English fairytale figure for children to a veritable historical figure renowned in the oral history of every Māori iwi? Acting as if Kupe is deserving of the "weight" as Robin Hood is bizarre, and in my opinion, very eurocentric. I think the issue here is that Māori oral history is not considered as viable as European history by many editors, because it is not written and scant on details such as exact birthdates. I suggest that you read the Waitangi Tribunal's Wai 262 report, which I plan to use as a source to get my edits published and not reverted. It gives evidence for the widely endorsed idea that we in New Zealand have two founding cultures; one which came with the arrival of Kupe, the other with Tasman. Here is the link to the official report release.--Aubernas (talk) --Aubernas (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What is important is what reliable secondary sources say, not whether primary evidence is written or oral. Your sources are borderline RSSs but even if we accept them they do not say Kupe existed, but rather they say he is likely to have existed, if you read them properly. Even if you find a source that says categorically that he existed then we would have to question the quality of that reference. Your whole approach is a wp:synthesis of various bits of fact. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a secondary source; I never mentioned comparative weights given to Robin Hood and Kupe. When an editor says another editors additions are bizarre, IMO it usually means he doesn't understand them. Page 31 of your Waitangi Tribunal source says: 'some say Kupe discovered these islands while hunting down an octopus belonging to his enemy Muturangi'. Notre. 'Some say...' There then follows a line of what happened, who sailed with whom, what so and so did, etc. Remember this is all speculation about what some people say happened. Now, please do not make any changes to the article while a talk page discussion is taking place. I have reverted your changes. Wait for consensus to occur here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the reason I referred to your offensive comparison of one of the most important precolonial figures in New Zealand history to Robin Hood as "bizarre" was because I was trying not to provoke you. You seem well-read enough to understand that there can be no comparison between Polynesian oral histories and English folklore; having no written script, Māori took considerably more care passing down stories than literate Europeans did. I believe my approach is not synthesis; I have gathered multiple sources that suggest that Kupe existed historically, while never saying that we know for certain. We don't even know if Jesus existed for certain as the person he is remembered as. I left out "'some say Kupe discovered these islands while hunting down an octopus belonging to his enemy Muturangi' because it is safe to assume that the story of the anthromorphic wheke is legendary. I've also left out virtually all details of the voyage, and information on the canoe, under WP:UNDUE. I mentioned Kuramārōtini's famous words as "[She is] said to have cried out "He ao! He ao! He Ao-tea-roa!". Almost always translated into English as "A cloud! A cloud! A long white cloud!"..etc" I included this because it's valuable to mention where the source of the popular Western epithet came from. If it pleases other editors, I can move this up to the Ethymology section. When you reverted without any edit summary, you also deleted my clean-up of Moriori, to remove the outdated reference to the last "pure-blooded" Moriori (ethnicity is measured through DNA, not blood). Mentioning Tommy Solomon's name was a valid contribution, and you did not mention it when you rolled back my work. Aubernas (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aubernas: This article details the Samalas eruption's potential effects on human migration to New Zealand.. Can you detail where in the above article it says this - the two mentions of Samalas appear to me to be about calibration of the ice cores that go on to document the "moa hunter son's of Kupe" as the most notorious deafforestors of all time leading ultimately to the imminent breakup of the West Antarctic ice sheet - Oh no sorry that would all be WP:SYNTHESIS. Maungapohatu (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maungapohatu I wouldn't put your attitude past you. From your talk page you have a history of deleting academic sources to fit your own narrative. Aubernas (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please explain! Attitude? deleting sources? where? Maungapohatu (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is New Zealand not part of the Australian continent according to Wikipedia?

On the Australian continent page and NZ page it doesn't say NZ is part of Australia (continent). On the Australian continent page it says there are only two countries- PNG and Australia, on this page it has no mention of continent whatsoever. Why is this? It is literally a fact that it's part of that continent how can you try and deny that. What idiot did this. DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that says New Zealand is part of the continent of Australia. I doubt you will find one - New Zealand is ten times further away from Australia than Papua New Guinea is. "Literally a fact" isn't anywhere near good enough sourcing for Wikipedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it isn’t. New Zealand, or Aotearoa (Māori), is a part of the almost entirely submerged continent known as Zealandia, or Te Riu-a-Māui (Māori). New Guinea is a part of the continent of Australian, also known as Sahul. It is true that all the places I’ve mentioned are in Oceania, but the status of Oceania as a continent vs a region is debatable. 202.7.250.175 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand tag

Hi, @Roger 8 Roger:. Did you mean to revert my edit surrounding New Zealand's major non-NATO ally status? KlayCax (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What you added was your opinion, all uncited. IMO it added nothing of value and is not notable enough to change what was there. IMO, rather than mention 'ally' in terms of NATO, you should refer to ANZUS, despite neither being relevant enough in this case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand being a Major Non-Nato Ally isn't opinion - it's a specific designation in America and we're listed as such on the US State Department website. Turnagra (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that. However, its relevance is limited. And, it is one way - the US decided that, it isn't NZ policy. If mentioned there should also be mention of why that is. For NZ being a MNNA is a demotion, not a promotion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the demotion promotion framing is helpful. However, adding it off a news source, especially an American-focused news source, is definitely undue. Are there any good academic summaries or overviews of NZ foreign affairs or foreign policy, and what relevance do they give the MNNA situation? (And what weight to they give all the other sea of blue links crowding the end of the lead?) CMD (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am more concerned with the addition of "Anglosphere" as this is simply a journalist term with no academic clasification ..its inline with saying white Commonwealth.....Vucetic, Srdjan (2011). The Anglosphere : a genealogy of a racialized identity in international relations. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7769-8. OCLC 727944978. Moxy- 12:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as countries with the most insane housing prices. CMD (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've not no strong feelings on anglosphere one way or the other - happy for you to remove it if you think it merits that! Turnagra (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a common term among political scientists, anthropologists, et al. as well.

It's not a WP: Fringe stance. We mention other country's cultural groups/similarities in other articles. KlayCax (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

My main objection is the placement; that section is obviously arranged, in part, chronologically. I would support removal of what is a simplistic characterisation with a single opinion-piece citation (in the Foreign affairs section). I also dislike the Anglosphere section because, again, it's incongruous with the rest of the section's opening, which describes the development of NZ culture. -- --Hazhk (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Major non-NATO allies of the United States are almost always listed on country's article leads. See Brazil, et al. KlayCax (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with rewording it, though. But I think ties with the UK/Anglosphere are obviously notable - it's not like they don't share the same Monarch! KlayCax (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It would benefit from a review and revision. I just had a quick look and had to redo the first sentence which sounded incorrect - it was, between the source and the editor's keyboard the meaning had changed. Easy to do but always worth checking the source. Source is a bit dated too - 1966. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This UK/ connection is much more notable by official connections like the commonwealth over a racial category. Moxy- 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a stretch. The text mentions Māori involvent in Kiwi culture was well. Saying that it also is part of the Anglophonic world is entirely WP: Due.

I don't see the issue. KlayCax (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if it/MNNA is important that is not enough. It has to be blended into the article properly otherwise it is out of place, confusing and invariably counterproductive. That blending often does not happen in articles in which editors throw in a hotch-potch of facts, each backed by sources that themselves are not the best or are used inappropriately, and we end up with an article that is not as good as it should be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, @Roger 8 Roger:. How do you think we should proceed? KlayCax (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I would use source 116 by Prof Patman to get an overview and create a framework on which to build. I would give more weight to post 1947 and still more to post 1986. Patman's paper is a bit old now so there will be detail in the last 20 years to include. I would focus more on general trends rather than specific detail. That is why I have said that the MNNA status given by the USA to NZ should be detail included only if you include ANZUS, NZ's nuclear free policy, and the consequences of that. By itself, simple mention of the MNNA status isn't much use. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

From a brief search, This article from 2022 discusses bilateral relations, but doesn't use the MNNA name. It doesn't mention ANZUS either (it does mention the FPDA though). This book chapter from 2019 accords the nuclear free policy significant weight, as a symbol of a values-based foreign policy, but does not go into much consequences (it discusses ANZUS as an outdated and superseded aspect of foreign policy). It also doesn't mention MNNA as a title. Neither mentions the anglosphere, instead they focus on multilateralism and regionalism. CMD (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree...."Opinion - Britain, Time to Let Go of the 'Anglosphere'". The New York Times. 2018-07-13. Moxy- 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious, I forgot to mention 1973 - UK in EEC - as a key point of relevance. Agree that the UK link is increasingly less important, with the focus more on Asia and the money it brings in, trade and tourism. Much to my horror, I saw Anchor butter is being sold in Sainsbury's with a union jack on the packaging, something to do with Fonterra using a UK agent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's no longer the case. The majority of Kiwis see their closest allies as Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. (In that order.)

With all due respect, saying that New Zealand's major non-NATO ally status + Anglosphere ties is "not important" seems utterly ludicrous. KlayCax (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If a consensus can't be reached - this needs to go to RFC. KlayCax (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No, what is ridiculous is that you don't get that you don't get it. NZ public opinion does not make NZ govt foreign policy. Why not move on? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Major non-NATO ally status is an official designation of the U.S. government. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Argentina, Tunisia, and several other countries — with far weaker cultural/interest ties with the United States — have it mentioned in their leads.

What makes New Zealand not warrant mention? KlayCax (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Should New Zealand's major non-NATO ally/Anglophonic status be mentioned in the article??

There is a presently a debate on whether New Zealand's article should include mention of the country's official status as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and identification with the core Anglosphere.

• Should New Zealand's status as a major Non-NATO ally of the United States be mentioned, as is done in other articles? (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Philippines, Tunisia, et al.)
• Should New Zealand's status as a member of the Anglosphere be mentioned in the article? (Along with mention of Māori culture + growing multiculturalism)
• What version is better? Version #1? (Which includes mention) Or version #2? (Which excludes mention)

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the diff version of bullet 3. Whether or not the items should be mentioned (I lean against per the sources above), the inclusion in that manner is entirely undue. CMD (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - I think both should be mentioned. Major non-NATO ally should be mentioned in order to maintain consistency between all articles and the Anglosphere should be mentioned because New Zealand is a member of the Anglosphere. DDMS123 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Somwhat ok with NATO if content added to the article ......but "member of the Anglosphere" no - The Anglosphere is an imagined community of English-speaking nations....what could be mentioned is the Five Eyes an actual alliance. Moxy- 05:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Five eyes was already listed in the original as the UKUSA Agreement, but agree that it might be worth replacing that with the article for Five Eyes, which I reckon more people will have heard of. Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at this [2] to see what NZ foreign policy relates to. The ministry's full name is ministry of foreign affairs and trade. On its website I could not see mention of NATO or the USA. It's all about the Indo-Pacific, trade and regional stability. Here too is the defence ministy's website [3]. It carries out 'projects' with no mention of anything to defend against. Unlike most other counties, NZ does not have a realistic military enemy so it is inappropriate to catagorise it as if it does, with other countries that do. I think if any good comes from this is might be the heads up that the NZ article section on 'foreign relations and military' is rearranged to split the two and possibly add 'trade' to foreign affairs. As is common in WP, there is urge to find commonality; sometimes that isn't always possible. I agree 'five eyes' might warrant a mention, but I'm not immediately sure where it would best fit.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the two would give military even more prominence, which does not seem to be what you are implying should be the case? The section does need a total rework however, as it stands it's at least half history, when it should be fully focused on describing the present. CMD (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

On its website I could not see mention of NATO or the USA

New Zealand isn't a member of NATO. It's a major non-NATO ally of the United States. That's not a mere subjective assessment.

It's an official designation of the United States and the respective allied country that can be viewed here.

"NZ does not have a realistic military enemy so it is inappropriate to catagorise it as if it does"

I fail to see how we would be designating "enemies" here. All it states is that New Zealand is a major non-NATO ally of the United States. KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I notice most of your 48 talk page comments relate to various forms of disruptive editing. Whether here or elsewhere, you either don't get the point or you do and just can't let it drop. If you want to add something of substance to the NZ article then do - there is plenty of room for improvement. My friendly suggestion was, and still is, to move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Time sink all over. Moxy- 19:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support mentioning major Non-NATO ally status and close ties to UK, US, Australia etc, Neutral on Anglosphere as a specific term. Both of these are fairly fundamental parts of New Zealand's place as a country, and as mentioned above the status as a non-NATO ally is mentioned fairly consistently across countries which have that status. With that said, I'm aware of the concerns around 'anglosphere' as a specific term which were raised above. As such, while I think that the article needs to cover that New Zealand is traditionally closest with the countries that fall within that term, I'm not fussed as to whether anglosphere specifically is used. If there's a way it can be worded that also addresses concerns about that use, then I'd be perfectly happy with that instead. Turnagra (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Angloshere is 40 years out of date, post Muldoon - it is not an issue, most of us agree. It has some lingering appeal to those who long for a return to the days pre 1970s. The Uk chose to go to Europe rather than stick with the Commonwealth in 1973 and the Commonwealth then looked elsewhere, a shock reality faced esp by NZ. NZ was always an obvious part of the old anglosphere, confirmed during WW2 and the later ANZUS group - NZ was an automatic addition to Australia. That all changed in the 80s with Lange and the non-nuclear policy-NZ was taking a stand as then being grown up, having an opinion of its own, and not just a baby brother of Australia or a colony of the UK. Non-nuclear meant no nuclear ships in NZ waters, which meant the end of the ANZUS link and the end of a close ally status with the USA and Australia, and the UK. What we have now is a grudging acknowledgement by those other countries that NZ is sort of on their side for historical reasons, but not really part of the team because of this non-nuclear issue (and its following an independent foreign policy such as dropping its only fighter squadron because NZ doesn't need it, even if the collective USA-AUS group does). NZ PMs struggle to get an audience with anyone above vice-president in the USA, because NZ is no longer important enough to the USA, it's not a proper ally, as Australia and the UK are. The USA choosing to call NZ a MNNA is a sort of condescending gift. It is no big deal for the USA-NZ isn't trusted enough to be a full ally but it sure ain't ever gonna be an enemy. NZ foreign policy regarding the USA is to maintain and if possible improve its already close ties but it won't commit further due the the non-nuclear issue. For NZ, foreign policy mainly looks to trade and Asia, not to the old motherland connections. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If the MNNA status is mentioned, it should say that the U.S. government has designated NZ as a "major non-NATO ally" with NZ's approval. I am neutral on including it because I do not know how significant it is and it is not immediately clear to readers what it means, without adding an explanation. It's pretty clear from the other memberships though that NZ has good relations with the U.S., so it may not be necessary to add this.

I don't think we should add Anglosphere. It's already mentioned that the major language is English and no need to through in jargon that essentially means the same thing.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure that other countries "approve" US foreign policy lingo. It's simply American-centric terminology for their foreign policy. CMD (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume NZ consented because Singapore was offered the status before NZ was added and turned it down. I looked for further information on this but could not find it so it seems to lack significance for inclusion. If we can't even find whether NZ consented, then it's not a major issue. TFD (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, there is some media coverage today about NZ's relationship with NATO. I have added a one-liner to the article with a couple of sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But it doesn't mention NZ's MNNA status. Maybe we should use your edit and omit reference to MNNA. TFD (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion about New Zealand's major non-NATO ally status in body but not in lead. The proposed version doesn't mention this status at all in the article body, and it is undue to include something in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article body. I do think this fact is worth mentioning in the article body, but given that the status of MNNA is given solely by the United States at the United States' discretion, I really don't think that it fits with the other international relationships mentioned in the final paragraph of the lead, which are multilateral blocs with numerous countries participating. Mentioning it in the lead next to the other multilateral blocks looks very UNDUE to me. (On a side note, I'm fine with TFD's suggestion above to mention New Zealand's NATO relationship under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative without a mention to MNNA.) I don't have a view at the moment regarding the Anglosphere mention because I haven't had a chance to look into it deeply. (Summoned by bot) Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support major non-NATO ally, Neutral on Anglosphere. The relationship with the US is important. The Anglosphere bit is pretty obvious from the official language, not so sure it is needed. StellarNerd (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure to what extent it's relevant or of interest, but a discussion on the Australia talk page about inclusion of the term "Anglophone" was closed recently without reaching a consensus. Meticulo (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Key dates in infobox

@Roger 8 Roger: you don't just get to lock a bold edit in place by saying "Use the talk page" - WP:BRD is pretty clear. The position of the Treaty of Waitangi as New Zealand's founding document is well established, and dozens of sources can be found with a very quick google search (but, for your convenience, here are some: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]). Further to this, your proposed dates aren't even accurate, as they state that the Statute of Westminster was adopted in 1931 when in reality it wasn't adopted into the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1947 (which you confusingly also list). Now please stop with the unproductive reversions. Turnagra (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits crossed so I self reverted. This is what I wrote: "Turnagra is arguing a point that doesn't exist. The section in the ibx is called 'independence from the uk', not the founding of nz. I find it difficult to discuss something constructively in this situation. Yes, I know you enjoy mentioning the treaty, but there is a place to do it and in a place about independence from the uk is not such a place. The treaty was about a creation of sorts with the uk, not independence from it. So, happy to discuss but only if we are discussing the same thing." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I pre-empted errors by mentioning possible typos, which you have pointed out, and accept I should have checked myself. Your speed in coming up with so many citations in such a short time is astonishing. My comment above is self-explanatory. With respect you have done this before, where you throw in a load of sources to prove your point when the point you are proving is not the one being discussed, making the sources irrelevant - Independence, not founding. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the heading, but from what I can gather that's a result of the formatting of the infobox rather than what the fields are actually for. The fields within the infobox are "establishment_event" and for countries which don't have "independence from x" listed (eg. France, Japan) they instead just have the heading there as "establishment" or "formation", both of which I think work better in this context and the events make more sense if we think of the section in this context instead. I also think the independence side opens us up to more issues - has New Zealand even achieved full independence, given the head of state is the same? And if so, when? We still used the Privy Council until the early 2000s and had various other connections even after the adoption of the Statute of Westminster. I think pitching this as the key events in NZ's formation makes a lot more sense than trying to pick out how New Zealand gradually decoupled itself from the Brits. Turnagra (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ibx formatting is not ideal, in all infoboxes. That is the inevitable nature of trying to create rigid uniformity when none exists: the space for nuance and exceptions does not exist. The 'languages' section is a good example of a section open to wide interpretation and is dealt with on a country by country basis. However, I think in this case the intent is fairly clear that it means what it says. In the case of the dominions there is a sort of uniform stepped process from formal colony to current situation. I disagree that voluntarily using the PC or having the same head of state means NZ is not fully sovereign. Waitangi is of course a key factor in NZ history but for different reasons. I think it fits somewhere between a legally formal contract and a necessary step to satisfy the circumstances of the time that has never had any formal weight. The recent developments, especially with the tribunal and legislation, are attempting to make the first part stronger - time will tell how that works out. I do not think there is room in the ibx for 'founding' document. Remember, the ibx should apply to all countries, and all a parametre on foundation would do is create endless edit wars. I think the treaty should be dealt with in the body, probably the history section and also in current politics or culture. We should not try to create a New Zealand as we want it to be, but as it is. The treaty has very little "formal" relevance to the current sovereign state called New Zealand. Attempts are being made in some quarters to change that. Even if we were talking about the 'founding' of NZ in the ibx, it is highly questionable if the treaty should be there. Personally, I think there is a strong case for using c. 1300 when the first waka was dragged ashore. (There are very few countries that can place the start of their human history so distinctly). Working backwards from the current situation, we get to the establishment of the Crown Colony. Like it or not everything has been based on the 'European' interpretation of what makes a country a country, and a clear foundation is when NZ became a Crown Colony as legislated in London. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger is right on the purpose here, with the events serving as context for independence. Specifically, the |established_event1 field provides context to the |sovereignty_type = field. Charting the events out as a timeline of history is unwieldy, and shifts the infobox further from its (already difficult) purpose of being a simple summary. CMD (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My point (which I'm probably doing a terrible job at articulating) is more that even if that may be the case, I feel like the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi should be mentioned given how often it's cited as the birth of modern NZ as a nation. Turnagra (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@user:Turnagra If it is in the infobox there has to be another parameter. I suggest that you suggest that in the relevant template talk page. As it currently stands there is no room there for the treaty. Yes, plenty of sources mention it as the founding document, but what of it? Once again, we can't just shove a word into a line in the infobox because we want it to be there-it has to be relevant, which your insertion isn't. Actually, it was the other editor that I first reverted, telling him it was in the wrong place. If you insist on putting the treaty there it does raise questions of having an agenda. Finally, you have agreed that foundation and 'independent from' are not the same, so what is this all about? Are you going to put the infobox back the way it was or shall I, or someone else? Incidentally, it doesn't look good accusing someone of being disruptive for reverting a factual error that you yourself agree is a factual error. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Mine isn't an insertion, it's something which has been in the article for months, and makes a lot more sense in the context of its original inclusion (with the use of the "formation" heading over "independence from the UK"). If literally every source describes the treaty as the foundation of New Zealand, surely it merits inclusion in a section talking about key dates of New Zealand's foundation. If it alleviates this, I'm more than happy to change the heading back to "foundation" as this makes a lot more sense.

I'd also thank you not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my motivations, which as stated are solely that these dates should include something which is almost universally cited as the founding of modern New Zealand. Turnagra (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Maori

just a few additions/changes

Demonyms can include "Maori"

Languages can change "Maori" to "Te Reo (Maori") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modified Soul (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Māori is not a demonym for New Zealanders as a whole, and it is not sufficient as a demonym for Māori people in New Zealand because there are many Māori living elsewhere, particularly in Australia. There are also Cook Islands Māori.

While the language is frequently called 'te Reo' in New Zealand, for the convenience of readers from elsewhere and to keep a more formal tone, Māori language is preferred in this article.-gadfium 23:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

i agree with you in that it is not a Demonym for all but then that highlights "Kiwi" as also not being a Demonym for all here, it is a Demonym, but so is Maori ?

looking at every Pacific islands wiki page, they each have their respective titles in Demonym sub group, samoan, tuvaluan, fijian etc

England also has English as Demonym, and not all would identify with that

not sure why Maori cant have the same in their own country ? talk) 00:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@ModifiedSoul

That's because English means 'from England'. New Zealander means 'from New Zealand', but Maori are a group of people who live in New Zealand. Same with Maori, it's not a demonym, because not every person from New Zealand is a Maori.

Wikifan153 (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ModifiedSoul Adding on to Wikifan, Māori is a race rather than a demonym. "English" is not a race. Panamitsu (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of article

@user:Doomdorm64, I removed your edits, even your sources, because they do not belong where you put them. Human rights is not a valid subsection of Government. It is too narrow a topic. If anything it deserves a mention somewhere else, but to maintain balance in the whole article, only one or two sentences. Your other inclusions, same-sex stuff and first to give women the vote, belong elsewhere and once again balance is needed. Some of your sources are not RSSs either, they are from self published groups with an agenda to push. Remove those and a lot of what you have added is unsupported. Finally, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag that jumps on the latest fad that hits the media for a year or two then fades away. I suggest you discuss here before reverting again. Just because you added sources does not mean your additions cannot be challenged. They can be put back in part, but elsewhere. I see you have done the same to many other country articles. I accept you are a genuine editor acting in good faith but I think on this point you are going off-course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your description of human rights as the latest fad that hits the media for a year or two then fades away or a fringe agenda per your edit summary. While you've identified some valid concerns around reliable sources and placement in the article, that doesn't really justify its wholesale removal (nor does removing all the sources and then saying its unreferenced). Human rights records are absolutely the sort of thing that merits inclusion in a country's article, and the focus should instead be on bringing it up to scratch rather than trying to prevent its inclusion. Turnagra (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the concern here is related to Wikipedia:Advocacy. With our country articles we try to fallow WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents....to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Like our FA and this GA county articles it should be given the same weight as other cultural topics...gun control, death penalty etc.... it should be incorporated into multiple sections....good example is Canada were human rights elements are incorporated thought the article in 5 sections. Moxy- 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Moxy, good summary, that is effectively what I am saying. Turnagra, You are effectively repeating what I said using different words. I never said HRs should not be there or the unisex stuff shouldn't be there, just not in the same depth and not as a subsection to government. Gun control is a good comparable topic - worth mentioning but not in its own section, and we should be aware that it has had a lot of temporary high coverage in the last 4 years due to the chc shootings. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but we should pretend it is now 2050 and look back to put it in a wider context. How much coverage did gun control get from , say, 1920-2020? Not much I think with the occassional surges of media coverage. I blanket reverted the lot because it's too messy sorting it out simply - Doomdorm64 can do that. I therefore judged it better to revert the whole lot, as often happens with large contributions that are challenged - it's easier to start again. I expect Doomdorm6 will put some of it back in a better place and without the agenda based sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

this looks ok to me....very reasonable. FYI editor has replied to concerns raised ..User talk:Doomdorm64#So your being reversed all over! and User talk:Moxy#‎New Zealand LGBT rights Moxy- 16:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I replied there. Thanks for helping. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Odd indigenous citizenship in the lead

Not sure why or what is being said in the lead about indigenous citizenship. Not sure a country article is the place to discuss indigenous citizenship in the lead...... as no country covers this in the lead. Moxy- 00:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The wording 'citizenship' may not be perfect but article 3 says the Queen 'imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects'. That was not usually done with indigenous peoples in the empire. It had no bearing on Maori's 'citizenship' of NZ or their rights that gave them, if such a concept applied then and if that's what you refer to? From memory this was a two edge sword for moari, giving them rights, such as access to uk justice, but also was a crack in their established social system, eg if working they answered to an employer not to a chief. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This still not comprehensible. Removing from lead....can you mention this in the proper section in an understandable manner. Moxy- 02:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear that Roger's views on this tend not to align with those of other NZ wikipedians, or indeed the vast majority of experts in this space. Turnagra (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what is incomprehensible..its perfectly clear to me, if a bit wordy. Do you mean it doesnt tally with what is in the article? The line I changed said the treaty gave the uk sovereignty over nz, which it did not. That is not "my view" it is a fact. South Island sovereignty was declared/claimed based on discovery for example. Turnagra, whatever your comment is supposed to mean, my edits are based on quality secondary sources not my opinion. Are yours? What is it about my recent change to the lede you disagree with? The treaty was/is very important in many ways but the reasons why are not always what we see on the internet or in the media. If you have something constructive to say please say it here and discuss it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Language again

NZ English isn't a language, at best it's a dialect. It is closer to standard UK English than many regional accents in the British Isles. This is probably more to do with the WP template than just the NZ article, but the 'official' nature of a language is a constant cause for edit wars. I think it is confusing to put English alongside Maori and NZ sign language. They are not equal, which is what the current infobox implies. We are not helped by the organised promotion of Mauri by all govt related bodies which gives a very misleading impression, but we should be above that promotional stuff. Maori is NOT official is most people's daily life, hence it is restricted, hence it is less important than English in the running of the country. That does not mean less important in other contexts, but for what happens in the running of NZ as a country English is primary, and that is what the infobox should express. That is why I added 'restricted'. However, the way wp describes a country's languages is not perfect and can be confusing and it goes well beyond just NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Restricted"? By whom, and how?

I would have thought the days when people were beaten for speaking their own language in their own land were well in the past. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger I'm also not sure what you mean by "restricted". Another editor added "de facto" which clarifies your concerns. English is not an official language of New Zealand, but the other two are. This is despite English being the most used language, and is used to run the country as you say. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

English is absolutely an official language of New Zealand. That's what the "de facto" superscript is explaining. It's official due to it's use in judicial proceding, legislative sessions and laws, and as the primary executive language.

I've removed the "de facto" qualifier, as the superscript is more than sufficient to explain this, and is indeed what superscript is supposed to be used for. --Spekkios (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Use in daily life has no bearing on whether it's an official language or not, though I would add that a good number of people do use Māori and NZSL in their daily life. Nobody is restricting the use of either language, and - again - the use of te reo Māori isn't some big government conspiracy.

As for the link to New Zealand English, I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a distinct language. Rather, I think it's a question of what's going to be more useful to a reader. If they're clicking on the link from the New Zealand infobox, presumably they'd be wanting to know more about English in a New Zealand context. New Zealand English seems like a far better link target than the language as a whole (and even better than the current disambiguation link). Turnagra (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that New Zealand English is a better link target, but the language should be listed as "English" --Spekkios (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure - that seems to be what it was before this all kicked off. Turnagra (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The language is English: arguing otherwise is pointless, so I'm glad that has been knocked on the head promptly. We move on. Now, Spekkios, I agree English is official. Your reasoning is drawn out unnecessarily though. The cause of the different opinions here and in every other country article is simply the meaning of the word 'official'. It has two meanings and wp does not say which one to use when describing an official language. That is why de facto and de jure are often added. It's not perfect but it does distinguish the two meanings. Much confusion is created by not distinguishing the two meanings of official because they give languages quite different positions in society. The official-ness of English is totally different from the official-ness of Mauri, but by describing them both as 'official' many people will assume they are equal, which is not true. Some people cannot grasp the fact that when a language is made official in situations stated by a piece of legislation it also means that the language is not official in all other situations. That is a result of being de jure official. de facto official does not have that restriction - it is unrestricted official. My point with our infobox is there should be a way of clarifying that the three official languages have quite different positions in society. de jure and de facto only partly makes that clear. I also think we need to clarify the distinction to make it easier to restrain the agenda driven editors who try to promote a language well above its actual status. This advocacy of minor languages is prevalent in many WP articles, not just NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was arguing that the language wasn't English, nor did any edits make that claim.

I think the existing note next to English in the infobox is perfectly fine to establish that English is de facto but not de jure. Frankly though, I can't work out what the rest of your comment is trying to say and I haven't seen anywhere else ever use the sort of restricted/unrestricted split which you're talking about. Also, I'd like to ask you again to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on myself and other editors - we're not part of some big government conspiracy as you keep seeming to claim. Turnagra (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing at you. I was just saying that official language status is one of those topics that often causes edit wars. That isn't just in the NZ article. Anyway I thought my post was clear. One suggestion would be to say that official 'in some situations', or 'has limited official status', if saying 'has restricted official status' is found to be offensive, but why is beyond me, they all mean the same. It isn't worth disputing that because it is obvious, it's written in law. The current note is not perfect but okay. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand

Similarly the Māori and English names for the whole country are sometimes used together (Aotearoa New Zealand); however, this has no official recognition (my emphasis). It seems that FIFA, the governing body for association football, has recently started labeling the national teams as "Aotearoa New Zealand" (probably since the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup). See [16], [17]. Can this be considered an instance of "official recognition"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, official recognition comes from the New Zealand Government and New Zealand Parliament. FIFA has no jurisdiction over New Zealand and cannot decide the name of the country. DDMS123 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@user:Nehme1499 There is no clear definition of what is 'official' on Wikipedia. The commonly used distinction is de jure and de facto, and this is often applied to languages. You seem to imply that the name can be viewed as de facto official by its common usage in supposedly reliable sources, including sources coming from the NZ govt. If so, I do not think the usage of that name has yet reached the point where it can be taken as official due to its common usage in sources. If you mean the name can be considered as de jure official because it is used by FIFA, then no, of course not: FIFA doesn't decide what a country calls itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123 In support of my friend's claim above, does this mean legitimate information only emerges from the state? What of the use of Aotearoa extensively in literature, books, Matauranga Maori and on the government website? History does not emerge, and is not legitimated by, state power; in this case even the state frequently swaps Aotearoa with New Zealand: https://www.govt.nz/search?q=aotearoa. User: Mackmack11306(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The government of a country has to be a reliable source on what a country is called! New Zealand has three official languages: English (de facto), in which it is New Zealand; te reo Māori (de jure), in which it is Aotearoa; and New Zealand sign language (de jure), which I am not sufficiently familiar with to know. As far as spoken language is concerned, New Zealand is becoming increasingly bilingual and the concatenation of the names in the two spoken languages is often heard, but itself has no "official" status. Daveosaurus (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

History NZ

In 1947 the country adopted the Statute of Westminster, confirming that the British Parliament could no longer legislate for New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand.

........no longer legislate for New Zealand without its consent. 192.116.64.235 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded this sentence. --Hazhk (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Cabinet vs Executive Council

The introduction to this article statese that "...executive political power is exercised by the Cabinet, led by the prime minister...". This is inaccurate. Executive political power is exercised by the Executive Council as a whole. The council inculdes ministers who exercise and implement government policy. --Spekkios (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I propose that the sentence should state "executive power is exercised by the Government, led by the prime minister". I don't think the Executive Council, a formal constitutional body, should be referenced in the lead; that would imply the Executive Council has more significance than it actually does. Ministers outside Cabinet may be formally appointed to the Executive Council but they play no part in exercising functions invested in the Council corporately. Constitutionally, only Cabinet ministers actually advise the governor-general to issue Orders in Council and other formal functions of the Council. Ministers outside Cabinet receive individual ministerial warrants that authorise them to exercise executive power, and this is separate from their appointment to the Council. Parliamentary under-secretaries arguably exercise executive power too, and they aren't members of the Executive Council. In short, it's true that not all ministers who exercise executive power are member of Cabinet but I think it's wrong to identify the Executive Cabinet as the locus of all executive power. --Hazhk (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:BOLD I've substituted "Government" for Cabinet. I don't think this is a controversial change and more than one editor has objected to Cabinet reference, so there is evidently support for a change. Fortunately the New Zealand Government article explains the relationship between Cabinet and the Executive Council. It is accurate to say that the prime minister heads the Government; they aren't the head of the Executive Cabinet. If there is any objection I will self-revert. --Hazhk (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Needs section addressing introduction of mass surveillance.

Both physical and digital. 122.252.156.148 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

We have an article Mass surveillance in New Zealand. I am not sure whether mention of this needs to go into the country article, or where it might best fit. Perhaps we could link the article in {{New Zealand topics}}, in the bracketed section after 'Human rights'. What other country articles include this sort of material? As far as I can see, Australia, United Kingdom and United States have no mention of mass surveillance. There is a brief mention of it in China.-gadfium 08:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of Nu Tirani/Tireni

Spelling has become more rigid in the 21st century than in the 19th. Thus a statement in Wikipedia takes on a certain authority that may conflict with the historic record. In "He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni", as can be seen, the loanword Nu Tireni (New Zealand) is spelled with an "e". But in Te Tiriti o Waitangi the same loanword is spelled Nu Tirani, with an "a". Making the notation in the article clarifies this, so people in the present day do not become too dogmatic about one or the other. Akonga (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That word or phrase is a foreign word not a loan word. Before any reasoned discussion can happen we have to have clear definitions otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)