Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Football not Soccer

The game was officialy renamed Football by the New Zealand Football Federation. The only professional Football Club in New Zealand is called the Wellington Phoenix Football Club. And the term Football is now slowly becoming the most used word. Mainly, Wikipedia should use the official name and call it Football. -CipherPixel 14:45, 30th April 2008 (NZST)

Bad bad idea. Especially for this article. I agree that the term football is becoming more common in NZ to refer to soccer, but it's still ambiguous to refer to any of the three professional codes of football in NZ as football. Soccer prevents confusion, and is still the most common name for the sport in NZ. - Shudde talk 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And from a Football fans point of view, the most common name for Rugby is "Crappy Game". I think it should go the official way though, and just put Soccer in brackets next to it. :) -CipherPixel 20:30, 30 April 2008 (NZST)
Sorry, but as long as it's ambiguous it's a very bad idea. This article is written in NZ English, and soccer is still easily the most common name for the sport here. Those are two very good reasons we should just leave it as is. - Shudde talk 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since USA is the only major country which still calls it soccer, and if you're studying New Zealand you'll most likely be outside of NZ. It should be Football. This is the official name and is slowly becomnig accepted. That is more than enough reason to have FootballCipherPixel (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Until it's widely used that way in NZ English, I don't think we should call it football in this article. What matters most is common usage, not official names. -- Avenue (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sport in Australia and Australia use Soccer. See also the NZ and Australian entries in Football_(word) - SimonLyall (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, Australia is totally irrelevant. Even though they actually call the game Football aswell. Secondly, officialness is most important. Else wise - this is not a correct Encyclopedia, but one made on user's unsupported opinions. Thirdly, to assume Soccer avoids confusion is ignorant. As USA and parts of Canada are the only major countries to still cal the game 'Soccer'. Fourthly, many New Zealanders are now calling it Football. I know the my school (Wellington College) they refer to it as Football. Also, since Rugby is never referred to as Football, (sometimes, but very rarely, it's referred to as Footy), nor is League referred to as Football and nor is Grid Iron. It in no way shape or form creates confusion. Especially when it is being used in the same paragraph as the other sports outlined above. CipherPixel (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't say Australia is irrelevant and in the next sentence say that only the US and Canada use soccer. Read the article. Within Australia the term "football" is ambiguous and can mean around four different codes of football in Australian English, depending on the context, geographical location and cultural factors - SimonLyall (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your last edits CipherPixel - if you want to make a contested change to an article like this, you should wait until a consensus is reached. At the moment it appears to be running against your proposed change. Kahuroa (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ffs just call it Football already. You know, Football? Where you kick the ball with your foot? No one calls Rugby or League Football so don't use that confusion bollocks as an excuse. Soccer is for ignorant gits from America. Football, get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.105.244 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Football and soccer are both legitimate terms, but there are several distinct games called 'football' and only one called soccer. Since both terms are used in New Zealand, let's just go with the one which won't cause any confusion, even if only amongst 'ignorant gits from America' (by which I assume you mean the United States). --Helenalex (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a bit unfair to have it called soccer. The name on the country shirt is New Zealand Football. The name of the championship is the NZFC- the New Zealand Football Championship. The governing body is refers to the game as football. It would be a courtesy to have it referred to be its correct official name. The country's professional club is the Wellington Phoenix Football Club, playing in the A-league run by the Football Federation of Australia.

The name soccer is a nickname derived from Association Football. No one is suggesting calling the game of Rugby Union, rugger or union, simply because there is another rugby sport- that of rugby league. I would disagree that the name is contentious, it is the offical established name. Any chance of this being respected in the wiki article?

The etymology of the word is not important; neither is what it's called by official organisations. What's most important is the most common name used in New Zealand, so as long as that doesn't change, neither will the article. - Shudde talk 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So just so I understand you correctly- and I have no idea who you are- perhaps you are Tony Veitch or Griz Wylie- it doesn't matter if the people who play the game, name the teams in the game, organise the game, distribute and manufacture the merchandise for the game call the game they play one thing- it will be called something else because this other thing is the most common usuage in the country.

I have to wonder what you are basing this on. I think it is most likely that this is what the sport was called by your Phys. Ed. teacher when you went to school, and you have not given much further thought to it.

It's true that soccer as a term is popular among some areas of the media, who also share this view and by and large take little interest in the sport. However, this is far from universal. Indeed Stuff- which represents a sizeable portion of the countries newspapers refers to it as football. It is called football on the TVNZ website. I think it is only fair to describe these two media outlets as fairly modern and aware of their readership's language. Even in organisations such as Radio Sport that still use the soccer heading- please note that the terms actually used in the following article is football. This occurs in the first five articles on this page http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/SpSoc/

ie "The fight to avoid relegation is well and truly on in English football's Premier League" "The draw for the 2008-2009 A-League football season has been released; the Phoenix will play first two games at home

The draw for the 2008-2009 A-League football season has been released." "It seems another club versus country football battle is looming..." "Football chairman won't stand again 5/1/2008 3:40 PM

Another change in NZ Football with chairman John Morris deciding not to seek re-election at next month's AGM

The sweeping changes continue at New Zealand Football with chairman John Morris deciding not to seek re-election at next month's AGM."

"Waitakere United smarting after 3-1 loss to Kossa FC in first leg of O-League football final in Honiara- heat a problem

Waitakere United is smarting after a 3-1 loss to Kossa FC in the first leg of the O-League football final in Honiara. Injured captain Danny Hay says it is disappointing for a number of reasons."

"Kossa FC have beaten New Zealand Football Championships Waitakere United 3-1 in their O-League final first leg in Honiara."

"Fulham midfielder Simon Elliott is determined to play for the New Zealand men's football team at this year's Olympics."


The term is clearly in common usuage, despite the existence of another nickname, which is now at best on an even footing, and most prevalent with those with little exposure to the game, and therefore least likely to use it. If the term is commonly available in the main media sources describing the game, is this not a fair indication of its usuage? Wikipedia should reflect current language usuage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is enoug evidence to support using the term 'Football' By which in every country other than the US / Canada is not confusing at all. If you went to Europe, many places in South America and most places in the world, they would have no idea what the term 'Soccer' means. CipherPixel (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You are using a page that has a big title saying "*****SOCCER NEWS*****" to try and convince me that football is the more common term in NZ? You're joking right? - Shudde talk 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a very good argument really. They'll get around to a name change some day, but progress takes time during which people keep flogging dead horses. Wiki is it's own best example of that. Check our article about the New Zealand Rugby Union here. Note the name of the article -- New Zealand Rugby Football Union -- yet the official and actual name of the union does not include the word football, (see here). We actually redirect the official NZRU title to New Zealand Rugby Football Union which is not the name of the organisation. I'm usually for the status quo, but support "football" for the round-ball game because more and more people are calling it football. Would anyone here be prepared to edit the Pele article and insert the word "soccer" in the 40 -- yes 40 -- occasions where football/er/ers appear? Oh sure, you might say, they call it football in Brazil. That's exactly the point. In NZ the word football is becoming increasingly popular common usage. I can't see a reason to reject it entirely. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah when I first replied I said it was becoming more common, but it's well away from being the most common name for the sport, and that's what is what matters. - Shudde talk 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my post?

Seriously dude, kind of offended by your comment there. I thought it was a valid point which you completely ignored. I'll post it again, to give you a chance to read it...unless you're getting a kick out of a bit of baiting...not doing anything else much important anyway.

"Even in organisations such as Radio Sport that still use the soccer heading- please note that the term actually used in the following articles is football. This occurs in the first five articles, [and presumably further], on this page http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/SpSoc/"

The term is clearly in common usuage, despite the existence of another nickname, which is now at best on an even footing on the official name.

Could I suggest an edit such as football (also referred to as soccer)?

Being honest you have given two reason why not- one confusion with other football games. A non-issue. Only one is named football. As I mentioned rugby is always referred to as rugby despite there being another sport called rugby league. No problem there. No other sport is directly referred to as football. The Bledisloe cup was requested to be designed for a football game. Initially the ball created on it was round as this was what was understood there by football, and this had to be changed to its current oval shape when it arrived in New Zealand.

You then said it wasn't common usuage. I have put forward some evidence to suggest there is common usuage. TVNZ and Stuff have to be two of the top 3 or 4 nationwide news sources. I feel it is fair enough to take their position as common usuage, something you haven't disputed. Fair play yeh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not going to keep going over this. It's cleary more common, and trying to force people to call it something different is pointless. The Herald website calls it soccer, so does radio sport. Lets not forget that until very recently New Zealand Football was called New Zealand Soccer—clearly they realised that the sport is most commonly called soccer here, and although that may change, it certainly hasn't yet. I'm not going keep rehashing the same old argument. - Shudde talk 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus here is clear, so lets stop wasting any more time please. - Shudde talk 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? 3 people have given clear arguments. If you are a journalist you are an exceptionally poor one. If you are a historian you would never pass a peer review. You are not 'arguing', you are repeating your own line and ignoring any evidence that contradicts it. This is consensus of the George Bush type. As I mentioned the radio sport is a case where the dual usuage is very clearly established. In other words- the New Zealand Herald is the definitive source of New Zealand English. Or perhaps you are. very arrogant. You haven't gone over it once yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shudde, that was a totally arsey-boo argument if ever I saw one. New Zealand Soccer changed to New Zealand Football because football is becoming the common usage. Like hell "they realised that the sport is most commonly called soccer here" as you claim. They wouldn't have discarded the name had that been the case. Hey, I'm not ferociously fighting for football. (Sorry for the alliteration!). I think too that if people discuss this, they shouldn't advance obviously specious claims and then scarper, as suggested by your "Yeah I'm not going to keep going over this". Have a good one. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think consensis this the F-word is ambigious in NZ english and the S-word should be used instead for now since it is still in common usage. A serach of stuff and the herald shows f-word being used for at leat two codes and S-word also being used. Perhaps a few years down the track usage will change. Currently the F-word doesn't appear in the article and there appears to be only 1 user and 2 anonymous users disputing this. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the common usage is football. Majority of football club in NZ has "AFC" or "FC" which represents "Association Football Club" or "Football club", the A was clearly dropped and the usage used is Football. No Football club in NZ has ever used "Soccer". It has become very disgraceful/odious terminology among kiwi Football circles in the last 5 years. The argument about New Zealand Football was called New Zealand Soccer is very weak, considering that New Zealand Soccer was called New Zealand Football Association for well over 100 years. NZS was very short lived as a name. As for the use of the "Soccer" name among the media, it is hardly used and obviously directed towards using "Football" as the term to use. Just because Rugby people and a certain NZ generation use the term "soccer", does not mean that the rest are saying it. Since the majority of the world and football clubs members use the term "football" and not "soccer" and Wikipedia is a global information to everyone in the world, it definitely be "Football" not "Soccer" Topsaint 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsaint (talk • contribs)

Guess you missed Petone Soccer Club , looking at a few websites of the clubs I also see them using soccer in various places so it obvious is being used by people playing the game and not just random old farts who don't play the game. Lets put it this way. You can't use "football" . You can use "Association Football" or "Soccer" or something else. However "football" is too ambigious in New Zealand English which is what the article is written in. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Then again how many people call it "Association Football" in every day usage? You are right though, speaking as someone who played the sport for 15 years, we called it soccer, even though our club was AFC. - Shudde talk 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Could people please sign their posts and refrain from attacking the person rather than argument ('if you are a journalist you are an extremely poor one' = bad; 'arsey-boo argument' = fine although a little odd).
2. When there is any potential for confusion, rugby union tends to be referred to as such. --Helenalex (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you consider odd an accurate description of an argument ('arsey-boo argument')? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's a common phrase in your social circle, but I've never heard it before... --Helenalex (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong helenalex. It's not a common phrase (commonly used) in my social circle, because we don't have a limited vocab. Sometimes we deliberately choose words that give/infer more than one meaning. BTW, did you bother to try to find out what it means? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Soccer has lost it's argument here. While they're the first to bring up the 'majority' they find the only 2 or 3 clubs that still have Soccer in their name. The argument about it being confusing has been teared apart by the international status of Wikipedia. And Shudde, what you called it 15 years ago is irrelevant. As I say, me and my mates call Rugby 'The Poopie Sport' and other names that follow that trend. Also if this article is written in New Zealand English, then the official, proper, non-slang name is Association Football. Not Soccer. CipherPixel (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One point: Wiipedia is a resource for people outside NZ as well. Remember that not everyone using the English Wikipedia is a native speaker of English. I'd guess that someone looking at the sport in NZ page would find "Football" or "Association football" the clearest heading. I suspect that common usage within NZ is not really that relevant for these people *when they are looking for information*. Neil Leslie (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On that theory we should probably follow American usage (soccer), since they make up three quarters of native English speakers. -- Avenue (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I think you have exactly misread my comment: for *non*-native speakers we should prefer the global English conventions (whatever those might be) rather than those of the largest single group of native speakers. AFAIK non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers, and my guess is that for them "football" means "Association football", but I may be wrong, of course.Neil Leslie (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. - Shudde talk 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you mean the bit which reads "Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise." You did mean that bit didn't you? Sorry, I'm being facetious. But that's a thing about guidelines: sometimes they conflict. So you have to make a choice. I was hoping to suggest that "making Wikipeadia more useable for more people" might be a better criterion on which to make a choice then "what NZ English usage is or should be", especially since there doesn't seem to be much agreement on the latter. Best Neil Leslie (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy exists to stop arguments about national varieties of English. There is no confusion here if the word soccer is used, I would be very suprised if any native speaker didn't know what soccer was, the chances of confusion using the term football however, is much much higher. Plus of course, the term soccer is more commonly used in NZ. The point I was making was, what the most common term is outside NZ is irrelevant, and policy backs this up. I don't want to digress off topic too much here, but if we applied the "making Wikipeadia more useable for more people" we would have all start writing in American English (the variety most native and non-native speakers learn) and that would be a disaster. - Shudde talk 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Helenalex. I apologise for the ad hominem. I just find it frustrating to bring up a relevant point and have it it continually ignored. Nobody has debated or refuted that football is in common usuage and not confusing as it is used by two of New Zealand's largest news sources. That soccer is also in use is not denied. Neither TVNZ or Stuff believe that it is confusing. (I think "arsey-boo" is kind of odd, but effective!) RNZ seems to use football as well, but inconclusive sample today. I don't think any other arguments really need to be applied-

It is the official correct name. It is in common usuage in New Zealand. I'm not saying soccer = bad football = good. Also I think we should eat our eggs with the pointy bit sticking up with toast cut into little soldiers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.150.209.201 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, that shouldn't be formed on people's opinion's but formed on official facts. Football is called Football in New Zealand. Football is known as Soccer in USA. Not anywhere else in the world. Arogance suggests we should do everything USA wants. Even though Football was named Football before the Americans named grid iron Football. But that's not the point, the point is Football is the official name, and Football does not cause confusion. Elsewise, Soccer and Football are two completely differant sports, as they have differant names. Soccer = sport without governing body called this by Rugby Fans and others. Football = games governed by New Zealand Football where 11 men aim to get a ball into one of the goals at either end. CipherPixel (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I always look for more information whenever I see the word 'Football' is used in New Zealand - usually I can figure it out from the scores, or from some 'AFC/RFC' name. The word 'soccer' is, to me, entirely unambiguous and as well as having grown up hearing it I also still (regularly) hear it when people talk about (e.g.) 'Indoor Soccer'. The list of 'This RFC' vs 'That AFC' seems to me to imply that, while their might be a belief by soccer fans that the 'F' word belongs to them, it is in fact used by both games. No matter how much the official body might want to elide the colloquial use of the term 'Soccer' and take over the name 'Football' they have a considerable way to go before it is reasonable to call anything other than 'Association Football' an 'official fact'. (disclaimer: I was born in New Zealand and loathe both the 'AF' and 'RF' varieties equally). Karora 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you cannot deny that the official name is Football.
Secondly, if your comment is true, then Soccer and Football refer to entirely differant games. As I said above, Soccer is then some sport without a governing body, while Football is a sport governed by NZF.
If this wasn't the case, the official word is Football. And soccer is just a shortend word. So technically Soccer is counted as a nickname, not the actual name. There is now no evidence stopping this from being changed. CipherPixel (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a lack on consensus as to the consensus. Note that the articles Soccer , Football (word) and Association football have more general wikipedia info on wording. Perhaps if people their choise of wording explicit. This is not a vote (ie don't stuff the ballot) just a chance for people to be clear what they think:

Soccer

Football

  • . (Also known as soccer)- I'm not sure why there is an aversion to getting it officially correct, but also satisfying a group that has historically known it as soccer. Surely this would satisfy both sides? Note the same story in the Herald- Beckham's soccer team and Dom post Beckham's football team. Both in common usuage. -Gulliver
  • And as both are in comman usage, then it would be only correct to use the official term. Also, since Soccer is an abbreviation, then rugby should be used rather than rugby union, and league should be used rather than rugby league. No one says "Did you see the Rugby Union match last night" etc etc. So basic consistancy is lacking in the article. CipherPixel (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Completely disagree with the sport being named "soccer". The official term in NZ is football. The official term on Wikipedia appears to be Association football, as per the article "Soccer" being a redirect. The professional league in NZ refers to the sport as football (NZFC not NZSC). No professional or semi-professional team in NZ use the term soccer, in fact three (Auckland City FC, Waikato FC, Wellington Phoenix FC) use the term football. Hence, soccer is not the most well known name in New Zealand. Perhaps in some circles it's known as such, but this is only colloquial. Wikipedia, being an encyoclopedia, should reflect the official name. Gialloneri (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Official name has nothing to do with it, and there is no way it's a colloquial term. Soccersouth. The main page of their website says "Soccersouth is the Federation that governs Soccer in the region encompassing Timaru, Mckenzie Basin, Waimate, Waitaki, Clutha, Central Otago, Queenstown, Dunedin, Gore and Invercargill." It's just plain insane that people are saying the official name is football, and that soccer is a colloquial term, because that is not true. Soccer is still used by official organisations within New Zealand. - Shudde talk 02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • While you are correct in that Soccersouth have yet to embrace the name change purported by the national sporting body (perhaps due to the fact that it may very well soon merge with Mainland Football, hence making it irrelevant), I refer to it as colloquial because of your insistance on this article being put in the language of the topical country - something I do not dispute. However, Soccersouth only covers a small population base. Every official organisation north of Timaru refer to the sport as Football. Soccersouth is the exception, rather than the rule. I refer to it as colloquial because it is only used in official capacity by what is effectively an anomaly. And I argue this without resorting to attacks on the sanity of anyone who disagrees otherwise. In addition to this, I question and disagree with your stance that the official name is irrelevant. In fact, seeing as Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, namely a collection of facts, not opinions, the official terminology used by the topic party makes the most sense. Anything else is disrespectful. Gialloneri (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We are trying to establish the most common name, read my post below for why claiming it's official means nothing, and I dispute the level of authority over New Zeland English you seem to think New Zealand Football has. Facts are facts, and fact is that soccer is the most common term used by the average New Zealander; which is why the status quo should stay. Also please don't dilute the opinion of a southern body just because the population down there isn't the same as Auckland's. Referring to them as an anomaly could be seen as quite disrespectful. - Shudde talk 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

However now infact socccersouth has changed its name to footballsouth (www.footballsouth.co.nz) which means thae national body, national league and 6 of 7 federatons are using football. seems pretty unnanimous202.154.140.225 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is but by very few, In fact since the name change of the national FA to New Zealand Football the local federations have been rebranding themselves with the word football also. Very few people I know actually call rugby "football", particularly in younger age groups which in my opinion shows the growth in use of the term. If it really is such a fuss is there anything wrong with at least calling it 'Association Football?' It is after all, the original and probably most official term.Critical Lemon (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know many are rebranding, and i'm not disputing that, but that is what changing the name New Zealand Soccer to New Zealand Football is, a re-branding. It's not about them enforcing an official name change for the sport across New Zealand, but simply changing their organisation's official name. I also agree that not many people call rugby football, but some do, and because rugby is the most common name, that is what it's called in the article (although we use the term 'rugby union' as well, because some people get confused between rugby and rugby league). However what we are trying to determine here is the most common name for soccer/football/whatever—not whether other names are growing, or what the name is outside New Zealand, or what the etymology of the word is, or what Football New Zealand calls it. All that we are trying to determine is the most common name used by New Zealanders in New Zealand, and the consensus seems to be (from many regular editors to New Zealand related articles, not specifically affiliated with sports artilces) that it's soccer. - Shudde talk 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What you really have to ask yourself is, Do we want to follow what's official, or do what want to follow what SOME who don't care about it call it. As I also said above, if you keep it as soccer because it is the most comman name (which it isn't) then rugby union will be changed to rugby, and rugby league will be changed to league and so on. It seems pathetic, but it's true. get over yourself rugby fans. And I hardly see the Southern soccer means, as the majority of federations call it football. And Rugby is by far a more dominant game in the south than any other area. basically, if you went to a certain places in Wellington, rugby would be referred to as crap and Football would be referred to as, Football.

Football is official, soccer is slang, as is Rugby is for Rugby Union, and League for Rugby League. The end of. CipherPixel (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - and i point you to [1]. Soccer is the most commonly used name, and should be kept as such. Football is confusing as it could refer to many, many sports. Soccer is just for ease of use. It may be called Football officially (since we seem to adopt everything from other countries anyway), but soccer is the more commonly used name. Metagraph comment 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Others

  • NEW PERSON: Hi readers. New Zealander's use "Soccor" because in my opinion it has been the word used in the majority up until the last 10years. This word is therefore "kiwi" by nature. We need to consider that millions of our Aussie neighbours use "football" for a variety of foot-ball games. The whole of South Australia use "footy" for Aussie Rules because that's a far outweighing sport; Melboune is similar. Yet overall, the use of footy/football appears linguistically for their areas major/favourite game. This comes right down to a personal preference.

My suggestion, with consideration to the US/Euro labelling (which varies in television broadcasting etc)... and this may sound uneasy at the moment, however, could we get used to calling it or at least labelling is as "Soccer Football". I think this would solve personal, media and wikipedia issues. Thanks, Joseph C.

ye old google test

Since no one has yet thrown in a google test, here are a few data points. Searching soccer for sites in .nz gives 350,000 hits. Searching football -rugby gives 361,000 hits, although some of the top 100 are clearly about rugby, and there was mention of that wll known soccer team the Vodafone Warriors! Quite a few of the latter results also included "soccer" in the lead sentence. Removing the -rugby qualifier gave 594,000 hits - that's 230,000 helping cause ambiguity. dramatic (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Companies Office (which records names of registered incorporated societies) also indicates widespread use of the word "soccer". The incorporated societies search is not a particularly nice piece of programming but when searching for "soccer", the first page of alphabetical results returns six active organisations as far as "Avon". Searching for "football" and "association", the first page of alphabetical results only returned two active organisations, by which point it was into the letter "B". Also, New Zealand English is more close to Australian English than British English, and the most memorable name for the Australian soccer team is the "Socceroos".Daveosaurus (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveosaurus (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this discussion? Most of the world uses the word 'football'. FIFA - the largest football organization on this planet uses 'football' in its name. Every 4 years there is a huge sporting event called FOOTBALL World Cup... During the Olympic Games the FOOTBALL games are held - and somehow the population of this planet knows what 'kind' football is played (the one played mostly with foot) - not some rugby etc. Isn't that enough? You want to use slang words in encyclopedia at any price just because in your town people use different word for FOOTBALL??? Please - stop pressing with something that is ridiculuous! This article is read by people from all around the world, not just by 3 milion New Zeleanders (of whom probably half is of migrant background and from countries where the only word known for football is football). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo hi (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Over emphasis on Maori influence

Ok from just scanning this page an unfamiliar person would guess that New Zealand is a majority polynesian country. Can we fix this by adding some British pictures and tags? New Zealand is a majority Anglo country, for how long I don't know, but for now it is...50.80.150.100 (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue specifically is - what "British" images should be added? A quick look through and the pictures are of NZ's flag and coat of arms, Abel Tasman's map of New Zealand... --LJ Holden 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

International Rankings

I would like to suggest that the introduction include a brief statement about New Zealand's (generally high) position in world rankings such as peace, press freedom and the Failed State index: Global Peace Index, Press Freedom Index, List of countries by Failed States Index, just to name a few. Other good country articles summarise these results in a short, concise manner, and I think it would be relevant to the New Zealand article because of our consistently high position in these rankings. EryZ (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are so many of these that they were split into a separate article in 2008. See International rankings of New Zealand. It's linked in the "see also" section.
I would support the addition of a paragraph along the lines of your first sentence, except that we would need a source which justifies why we highlight a few of the rankings in the country article while leaving others in the subsidiary article.-gadfium 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
For earlier discussions about these, see Talk:New Zealand/Archive 3#Non-statistical rankings and Talk:New Zealand/Archive 4#International rankings. There are also a few discussions in the archives about which rankings should be included. Another relevant link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 10#Comments.-gadfium 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gadfium. The last link you posted (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 10#Comments), from my understanding, discusses and reaches an agreement on the discouragement of separate sections on 'International rankings' from country articles. I feel that your replies here have discussed or alluded to this possible separate section. However I am suggesting a short 1 sentence statement in the introduction, maybe on a purely qualitative angle, ie. 'has consistently high rankings in peace, press freedom ...'. Ideas? EryZ (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lowest Temperature

Could someone change the lowest recorded temperature to the current one as the existing one has been proven false, check the reference for the currently listed temperature to find the record has changed.

Thanks. Bob man9000 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out.-gadfium 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Can someone please ammend average highs and lows. These are way off! Winter in the South Island regularly goes below 0 degrees celsius. It's not a mild climate. It's a cold climate. Sabrina Aug 30 2011

The average highs and lows are right. Note that they are averaged. There are definitely occasions when the temperature goes below zero, but there are also occasions (far more of them) when it is substantially higher than zero. (It also depends where in the south you are - some places have notoriously cold winters, e.g., Ranfurly, Twizel; others have far milder winters) Grutness...wha? 10:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think the article is great, and has really been improved over the last couple of years, but I have a few suggestions/comments, and thought I'd make them here. I'll add more later as I look closer at the whole article, but thought I'd post a few thoughts to get things going:

  • Etymology - "It is unknown whether Māori had a name for the whole country before the arrival of Europeans, with Aotearoa originally referring to just the North Island." - should it be made clear this only applied to a few iwi, not all of them?
  • history - "migrated to Rēkohu (the Chatham Islands)" would it be better to say "migrated to the Chatham Islands (Rēkohu)"?
  • "The Moriori population was decimated between 1835 and 1862, largely due to European diseases and Māori invasion and enslavement. In 1862 only 101 survived and the last known full-blooded Moriori died in 1933." - I don't think this makes clear that most Moriori died following the invasion, and the remaining population slowly succumbed to disease (see http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/moriori/4/3).
  • "The Māori population declined to around 40 percent of its pre-contact level during the 19th century; introduced diseases were the major factor." - maybe reword to "Introduced diseases played a major role in the Māori population declining to around 40 percent of its pre-contact level during the 19th century."
  • "The British government appointed James Busby as British Resident to New Zealand in 1832[35] and in 1835, following an announcement of impending French sovereignty, the nebulous United Tribes of New Zealand sent a Declaration of the Independence to King William IV of the United Kingdom asking for protection." - should it be made clear with was on Busby's urging?
  • government - should any mention be made of the New Zealand Legislative Council?
  • is there an appropriate wikilink for "confidence votes"?
  • there is only a very brief mention of the Maori seats - which I thought might warrant a sentence explanation?
  • Is there a good reference around for the explanation of the MMP system?

That is all I have time for at the moment. I havn't had a good check of the references in the article, so I'll do that later as well. - Shudde talk 08:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your question on the etymology section, the sentence is accurate as it stands: it is unknown. No need to add anything to that about which iwi may or may not have used it since that is most likely also unknown. It is one of those words that have changed their meaning is all. Also, I took out the reference to Land of the White Cloud being a literal translation of Aotearoa. It's not. There is nothing meaning "land of the" in Aotearoa. (whenua o te...) Kahuroa (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
On the Moriori population issue, I think the graph you (Shudde) linked to, and its encompassing article, indicates that introduced diseases still may have had a fairly substantial impact. For instance, the population dropped about 15% in the 35 years before Maori conquest, and the article mentions that diseases continued to take a toll afterwards. But even though this hasn't been precisely quantified, it's also reasonably clear that the bulk of the deaths were due to the conquest and enslavement. I agree our text wasn't clear about this, and I've tried to fix it. --Avenue (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think your suggested rewording of the sentence about Maori population decline weakens it too much, and doesn't really reflect the conclusion reached in the source cited. It might be okay if it said "the major role", not "a major role".
I've tried a slightly different rephrasing of the Chathams/Rekohu bit: "migrated to the Chatham Islands (which they named Rēkohu)". I've been explicit about who called it Rēkohu because there is also a third name for the islands (from Maori, Wharekauri). --Avenue (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've rephrased the "confidence votes" part, with a wikilink to confidence and supply. I've also added a sentence mentioning the Legislative Council. --Avenue (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Wars

The name "Land Wars" is outdated; the commonly accepted name today is The New Zealand Wars. This is the name used on the official New Zealand government website Te Ara: The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand http://www.teara.govt.nz/ Uenuku (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed over the years at Talk:New Zealand land wars. I've just made a formal proposal for renaming that article. Please contribute to the discussion there.-gadfium 21:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 222.153.5.189, 26 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add 'English (95%)' to official languages of new zealand, as seen on the languages of new zealand page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_New_Zealand


222.153.5.189 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. English is listed as a national language in the infobox; it does not have de jure official status. IgnorantArmies?! 10:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development both list English as an official language, as does Te Ara. And when NZ sign language became an official language, it was talked of as the 'third' official language. It would be safe to say English is an official language. --110.32.149.165 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your links are compelling. However, since this has been debated previously and the opposite conclusion reached, I'm going to wait to see other feedback before making the edit.-gadfium 05:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} not done, for now; please discuss and obtain consensus. (I can't action the request unless there is clear agreement here, first)  Chzz  ►  06:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

leader_title2 = Governor-General |leader_name2 = Jerry Mateparae

please change Jerry Mateparae to Anand Satyanand

source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35852.htm

117.211.32.47 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The US State Dept info is dated to August 19, 2011. On August 31, Jerry Mateparae succeeded Anand Satyanand.[2] XLerate (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that, and thanks for reverting that change. Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GPD

The GDP figures in the New Zealand page are still the 2010 estimates. Could somebody update these to the later 2011 estimates? Thanks, Sticks317 (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put in the 2012 estimates but I've not updated the rankings since the page they links to seem to be based on older figures. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox independence dates

The infobox notes the date the first Parliament convened and the date the New Zealand adopted dominion status. I don't mean to diminish the importance of either event, but I wonder why these are listed while the grant of responsible government (or home rule, if you prefer) is not. The meeting of the first Parliament is of course important, but it is really just a natural consequence of the Imperial Parliament enacting the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852. The change from styling itself "Colony of New Zealand" to "Dominion of New Zealand" is important symbolically, but only symbolically. It strikes me that the Constitution Act 1852 deserves to be listed, and if editors here believe that would mean too many dates being listed, then it also strikes me that one of the other two (probably the first meeting of Parliament) should make way for the 1852 Act. FWIW, Australia and Canada both list their constitution acts. -Rrius (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand's constitutional history

The section of this article which outlines New Zealand's constitutional history is ambiguous, and directs towards an incorrect understanding: that New Zealand was legally created by cession.

New Zealand, constitutionally speaking, was not created by a treaty of cession (The Treaty of Waitangi) but through annexation to the Australian State of New South Wales (Buick, 1914, pp. 66-67). There are multiple things which can attest to this: The Treaty of Waitangi Act (1795) is the only thing which legally empowers the Treaty'. The government of New Zealand is not empowered by the Treaty of Waitangi, the Treaty is empowered by an Act of Parliament, just as any other New Zealand Act of Parliament. And technically, the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975) could be repealed just as any Act of Parliament leaving the Treaty' legally impotent.

Throughout the Treaty of Watangi signature collection proceedings, Captain Hobson was a subordinate officer to to the New South Wales Governor Sir George Gipps (Buick, 1914, pp. 67-69). Hobson had no imperium (or, office based authority) for constitutional arrangements (Buick, 1914, p. 63). More specifically, his position has no power to arrange constitutional matters and had he done so, they are over and above the powers of his office, therefore invalid.


References:

Thomas Lindsay Buick, The Treaty of Waitangi: How New Zealand became a British colony, Wellington: S. & W. MacKay, 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.209.147 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to read the book cited above, however it appears it conflicts with the advice Governor Hobson received from the Colonial Office, which itself came from a select committee of the UK Parliament. Due to the acknowledgement of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand 1835, by the British Government, the committee beleived that only a treaty of cessation could legally transfer sovereignty to the British Crown. We could add it to Wikipedia as a potential dissenting view on the orthodox position. --LJ Holden 21:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It’s thoroughly consistent with the advice given to Hobson, advice which he required clarification on due to ambiguity/obfuscation.
I’ve read those select committee reports (Irish University Press’ British Parliamentary papers concerning New Zealand) and haven’t interpreted from them what you appear to have done regarding a treaty of cession. Plus, remember also that a lot of the submissions to that committee were lay opinions (often merely observations), and not professional ones. And in fact, they contain dissenting legal opinion regarding the status of New Zealand as a legal/soveriegn state, which has never been judicially tested and thus remains unresolved. For example, the lawyer representing the New Zealand Company presented a different professional legal opinion than another Lawyer who submitted to the committee.
On that note, the contemporaneous British Attorney General’s analysis of the legality is, to the best of my knowledge, not even archived within New Zealand.
Please also, cite something, you are presently putting forward an unsupported opinion.
The parliamentary select committee also records the opinion, as first mooted below by 'F', that the South Island Maori WERE viewed as different to the nothern Maori being both much less populous and less well organised politically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.215.150 (talk • contribs) 5 May 2012
As I've said above, we could add what is a dissenting view to Wikipedia. What I've repeated here is not "unsupported opinion". Please read the articles as they stand, you'll see they're all properly cited and referenced. --LJ Holden 23:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Actually New Zealand South Island was Purchased by the Governor of HM British Colony of New South Wales, in the King's name for 12,748 Pound Sterling. The Treaty of Witangi only settles "Some" North Island Tribal conflicts due to settler encroachment on supposed non assigned land. F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.116.148 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, F. You're referring to Hobson's declaration of Sovereignty, which was enacted on 30 May 1840. Hobson declared the North Island British by dint of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the South Island by discovery. This was basically to thwart the French, not because the Treaty wasn't signed or applied in the South (it was). --LJ Holden 21:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MORE

Would be nice to have more about James Cook and his mapping in the article would be nice to learn more and about the places the Maori challenged him, Cape Kidnappers, e.t.c.210.55.215.173 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's more appropriate for the articles First voyage of James Cook, Second voyage of James Cook and Third voyage of James Cook. Cape Kidnappers has a paragraph on the specific incident.-gadfium 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tourism

The 3 study abroad weeks i spent traveling the islands forever changed my life. When I speak of it i usually describe NZ as a country that offers everything in two little packages. On our trip we traveled across both islands by van hitting most of the touristy spots like the bigger cities, sheep shack, bungie, zorbing, kayaking, etc. And hiked to multiple significant places from mountains, glaciers, rainforests, caves, to Lord of the Rings sites. We visited historical cities & towns, and learned about the Maori & non-indiginous history through museum visits and talking to the people. I noticed a lack of South Island info in this article: cities, wineries, history, beauty, and would to have liked more Maori influence as most all "names" and lore stem from their culture. --Blarah7 (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future you can cut out the nostalgia (I know that sounds mean but I can't think how else to put it). Yes, I do agree that there should be a bit more on the South Island. I will see what I could add to it.Dmcl404 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand English.

1. As a born and breed "kiwi", can someone explain "New Zealand English"?

Last time I checked, the offical (Legal) language of New Zealand, is the Queens' (Kings') English, ie: Same as Britian. New Zealander English? Or Lazy teacher english?

2. "Fush n Chups"? I have been to 29 countries in this world, and I have only ever heard Fush n Chups in south Auckland, Kiwis don't consider Aucklanders to be Kiwis anyway. Most New Zealanders would consider the very use of that phrase to be someone of low level intelligence, and/or education. In reality it's simply lazy english, not how most New Zealanders use the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.116.148 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, you asked for it.
  • Your first sentence contains a dangling modifier. I assume "As a born and breed "kiwi"" refers to you, the writer; but the rest of the sentence is not about you. What is the connection between these two sentence fragments?
  • There's no such place as "Britian".
  • Is there an "official (Legal) language of New Zealand"? I very much doubt it. Where did you do your "check"ing?
  • "Or Lazy teacher english"? Did you mean "Or lazy teacher English"?
  • "Kiwis don't consider Aucklanders to be Kiwis anyway" is a comma splice when it follows a sentence without a proper conjunction.
What was that you were saying about lazy English? And low level intelligence?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand English is typically British English with some Maori words mixed in. Also, as an Aucklander, I do consider myself and everyone else in New Zealand a Kiwi :) pcuser42 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, I am also a Kiwi, I am not the best at grammer, but I will say, I am proud of my accent and if I say Fush and Chups is because I want to eat them :) Every place in the world has many dialects of the one language, why would New Zealand be different. I for one never have seen Aucklanders not being Kiwis. As for the school system in New Zealand which I did attend until I left in 1988, I am clearly a product of the mixed matched version of their English. I was schooled in Wellington, and told if its close enough its good enough, this from a public run school system. I believe the common usage of slang, other languages and correct Queens English is what makes our country a beautiful and Cosmopolitan place to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landofthelongwhitecloud (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no separate language, just a different accent and different vocabulary. Also, I find your comment "Kiwis don't consider Aucklanders to be Kiwis anyway" to be rather insulting. Funny that your comment was unsigned as well. Dmcl404 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Official languages of New Zealand

I see that the official languages given on the page are English, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language. Actually only Maori and NZSL are "de jure" official languages, having formally been designated as such, whereas English is a "de facto" official language due to its widespread use.[1] This seems to be addressed by the sentence "Māori and New Zealand Sign Language are the official languages, with English predominant." but I wonder if this could be more clearly stated as something like "Maori and New Zealand Sign Language have been formally designated as official languages by statute, whereas English is considered a de facto official language by virtue of its widespread use." Does anybody have any thoughts or comments on this suggestion?

The Acts formally designating Maori and NZSL as official languages are the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 and the Maori Language Act 1987.

Sorry for any errors, first-time user here. Elniv (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Acts formally designating Maori and NZSL as official were rendered in English, making English pre-eminence self-evident.

Well there was a note to that affect originally. not sure where/why it went. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of English as an official language (in the info box at the top right of the page) is both wrong and inconsistent with many other pages on wikipedia. English is de facto, pre-eminent and commonly spoken in NZ, but it is not a de jure official language, as indicated by the following pages: Languages_of_New_Zealand, Official_language, List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language. This is also reflected in the pages for Australia, United_States, where English is clearly indicated as de facto, and not de jure/official. This page should be returned to the previous version, where English was clearly defined as de facto and not official. Being "self evident" is not a legal definition of an official language, of which there are only two in NZ.

Agreed: this has already been discussed in detail starting from 26 June 2011. That discussion resulted in the conclusion that English should be listed as a national/de facto language, and not as a de jure/official language.138.232.64.175 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Not needed - see National Language for why this edit is unnecessary Mdann52 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything at National Language that says that a de facto language should be listed as an official language. Currently the info box lists English both as an official language and a national language, but I think this problem can be resolved if we remove English as an official language and leave it as a national language. (166.249.116.28 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
I disagree. English is described by NZ government departments as an official language (e.g. in citation 3), and should be listed here as such. "Official language" can have a broader meaning than "de jure official language", e.g. [3]. I wouldn't object to it being labelled "de facto" again though. --Avenue (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New OECD Data About New Zealand

I think we should try to incorporate some of this information, since it covers a wide range of areas. http://oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/new-zealand/ --Zurkhardo (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sport participation

The facts listed here are incorrect - according to numerous surveys done in New Zealand the most popular sports are 1. Walking 2. Gardening 3. Swimming 4. Equipment based activites. Rugby should really get more mention because whilst it is around number 20 on participation lists, it is still possible the most popular in sporting culture. Towack (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: Rugby is one of the most popular sports in New Zealand.--Anderson - What's up? 06:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i think it is also worth updating that Rowing is a very strong sport in New Zealand, We have been 2nd in the world overall following the last Olympics and half of our olympic medals were won in rowing. -- Stephenrj - (14/09/2012 —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Polynesia migration map...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the conventional suggestion that Taiwanese aborigines migrated FROM Polynesia to Taiwan, and not the other way around? That seems to be what I've come to understand from Taiwan's Natural History Museum. Otherwise, where did the Taiwanese aborigines migrate to Taiwan from? The evidence seems to be supported by a distinct racial profile from Chinese, the age of the earliest settlements in Taiwan, and the close links between the aboriginal languages of Taiwan to Polynesian languages. So just wondering if that map is misleading conventional thought. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.165.75.38 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See Austronesian peoples#History and prehistory. The most common interpretation is that the oceanic peoples originated in Taiwan, but there are alternative suggestions that the origin was in Southeast Asia or Melanesia. The Polynesian culture arose significantly later, and cannot have been the origin of Taiwanese aborigines.-gadfium 19:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Peoples or languages??? СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
From WHICH Chinese? СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

Please add in the recent Christchurch earthquakes and the moving of Christchurch residents to the nearby town of Ashburton and other areas nearby.The recent earthquakes have changes the geography and population of surrounding areas. Webslasher01 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

See 2011 Christchurch earthquake - SimonLyall (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done for now: Adequately covered in History of New Zealand and 2011 Christchurch earthquake. I might be open to adding one or two sentences to this article if the OP can provide specific text. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of NZ

is the real name of the country, even if it's generaly concealed by its inhabitants... on the other hand, 'kiwi' cannot be a name for the land. As a name, it's only used for people and as an adjective, only for locations smaller than an island : kiwi beaches, kiwi mountains (but never kiwi islands, kiwi country, etc)btw the queen of NZ is an old woman from a german family who lives in England, not sure if she has a NZ passport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.176.69 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for that, please. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm (realm is a synonym/euphemism for kingdom (reliable source for this : http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/realm)

The lady I was refering to is Elisabeth of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but her father had their name changed to the pseudonym "Windsor" during WWI because it was looking too german. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor. She, and also some inhabitants of her NZ 'realm' actually believe she's Queen regnant of NZ, hence her presence on the bank notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.128.136 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Realm of New Zealand, but that's not the same thing as the country, and it's not called a Kingdom.-gadfium 03:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good! I know someone who visited California and New-york but he is wrong if he thinks he visited the US because it is something completely different! He just visited some STATES, which is a different thing than the country. And I agree with you that when a royal comes to New Zealand, he or she is not coming to the country, but to the realm, which is not a kingdom, even if it has a queen. This is why they never forgot to visit altogether the Ross Dependency, Niue, Tokelau and the Cook islands, so people cannot insinuate they have come to the country when they actually came to the realm (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realm). Also what is wrong in this page is listing english among official languages of NZ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_New_Zealand) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.128.136 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem a little confused. New Zealand is a part of the Realm of New Zealand, but it is not all of it. You could visit the Cook Islands, for example, and be in the realm but not in New Zealand.-gadfium 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being confused, where obviously YOU are not. Then as a specialist of the difference between the country and the "realm" you can answer this question about "new zealand citizens". Do they live in the Realm of NZ or in the country of NZ? for exemple, when they leave the land of new zealand to go to say the US, who gives them the right to travel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.155.131 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The worst written paragraph in the history of the English language

"During its long isolation, New Zealand developed a distinctive biodiversity of animal, fungal and plant life. Most notable are the large number of unique bird species. With a mild maritime climate, the land was mostly covered in forest. The country's varied topography and its sharp mountain peaks owe much to the tectonic uplift of land and volcanic eruptions. The majority of New Zealand's population is of European descent; the indigenous Māori are the largest minority, followed by Asians and non-Māori Polynesians. English, Māori and New Zealand Sign Language are the official languages, with English predominant. Much of New Zealand's culture is derived from Māori and early British settlers. Early European art was dominated by landscapes and to a lesser extent portraits of Māori. A recent resurgence of Māori culture has seen their traditional arts of carving, weaving and tattooing become more mainstream. The country's culture has also been broadened by globalisation and increased immigration from the Pacific Islands and Asia. New Zealand's diverse landscape provides many opportunities for outdoor pursuits and has provided the backdrop for a number of big budget movies."

Has to be the winner. Every sentence a non-sequitur to the previous, no topic, no conclusion, just random sentences stuck together. 8 year olds could do better, if well-taught. Huw Powell (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph is part of the introduction... --LJ Holden 04:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I assure you many paragraphs "in the history of the English language" are much worse than the one you quoted. If you really believe your assessment is correct then you might be happier finding a hobby where English language skills are less relevant. You appear to be no stranger to such eccentric views, for example, [4] and [5]. The paragraph you quoted is part of the lead. A "well-taught" 8 year old would tell you that Wikipedia leads are summaries or overviews, and not places to develop reasoned discourse with conclusions. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013

Please change from:"New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy" to "New Zealand is a police state with a parliamentary autocracy" - with the new GCSB Bill that stripped new zealanders of their right to privacy the first description is no longer correct neither true. Tzahry (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. You need WP:Reliable sources to back up your claims. CMD (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Coastline

It doesn't make sense to reference the length of a country's coastline - per Coastline paradox which shows that the length measured depends only on the accuracy with which you measure. The CIA factbook reference does not mention how this length was measured, so it's much more accurate to remove this number. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at List of countries by length of coastline which has some comments on the paradox. It appears that coastlines are measured to some standard accuracy (1km or so) which makes them comparable. If you real feel strongly about this number I would suggest getting that whole List of countries by length of coastline article removed rather than picking on the NZ article. That would get a more general wikipedia-wide policy on the issue. - 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The source used for List of countries by length of coastline does not mention how it's measured at all, people assume that the CIA world factbook uses all the same scale but there's no evidence for that at all. People have tried twice to have that article deleted, to no avail. Maybe I'll have another crack. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's reliably sourced, so I don't see any good reason to remove it. Using Coastline paradox to claim it to be unreliable seems to me to be close to WP:SYNTH. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Independence date

I see this issue has arisen again... I've removed the reference to the Statute of Westminster 1931, as it didn't apply to New Zealand until it was adopted by our parliament in 1947. In any case it's a moot point whether the Statute of Westminster granted independence, which is why there is a whole article (Independence of New Zealand) on the issue. --LJ Holden 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Maori names for NI and SI

"On Oct 10th, 2013, NZ Land Information Minister announced the official names for the country's two main islands are the North and South Islands or, alternatively, the te reo names Te Ika-a-Maui (north), and Te Waipounamu (south)Two official options for NZ island names. Please update the last 2 sentences in the Etymology section accordingly. Thank you!

Okay wait up. Looking at the official announcement from the geo board the Maori name is an "Alternative name" rather than a dual name (or the Maori name being made the primary one). I'm goign to revert the name changes for now pending discussion here. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right, they are just alternative names, which means that the writer has free choice as to whether to use both or just one of their choice [2][3]. The Mount Taranaki article uses both of its alternative names, as do the articles linked to for North Island and South Island, so it would consistent to use that style, which is different from the original edit I made, so I propose:

The country geographically comprises two main landmasses ‒ that of the North Island, or Te Ika-a-Māui, and the South Island, or Te Wai Pounamu ‒ and numerous ... And similarly later in the article. Also, the current state which just says "the North and South Islands" doesn't actually really use either of the official names. Randallbritten (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me, except the Māori names should link to the articles on those names:
The country geographically comprises two main landmasses ‒ that of the North Island, or Te Ika-a-Māui, and the South Island, or Te Wai Pounamu ‒ and numerous ...
No need to link twice to the articles on the two islands.-gadfium 01:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this edit correct?

I mean this one? The reason I ask is that the editor who made it has been making similar edits to the Canada article and they're not correct. The editor makes the changes without explaining why and, on the Canada article at least, has no clue about the subject and the changes are either against guidelines such as WP:OVERLINK, against the references or just plain wrong. I don't want to revert the editor's changes here, but would very much like to see some concerted effort made to stop this editor if the edits are not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that the editor has made those types of edits before, but at least with an edit summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Natives of New Zealand

I would like to know why there is no mention of the Moriori being the original settlers of New Zealand and the fact that the Maori committed genocide and wiped them out. The Maoris' claim to New Zealand as their native land is a farce, they hold the country and its people to ransom, cause civil unrest, refuse to honour the Laws and will eventually cause civil war in NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiatheart (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide some reliable references for your statement(s). This would then be a basis for changing the article. Murray Langton (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a myth, and is not supported by reliable references. The article is accurate. -- Shudde talk 12:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand's Maori name

I'm not to sure how all this works. I don't know what a tildes is but out of general interest I looked up my Country, New Zealand. I don't know how to edit the page but Aotearoa is not the Maori name for New Zealand. That term is specific iwi (tribe) term for their territory, which is far north. Nui Terini is the Maori name for New Zealand, it's written on the Treaty of Waitangi for example, as well as cited in any quality New Zealand history book. I don't know if any one cares at Wiki but other iwi find the domination of one iwi's customs over theirs problematic. 118.92.85.34 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Aotearoa is the Maori name for New Zealand. pcuser42 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nui Terini is the maori name for new zealand because that is what is written across the front of our marae and has been for over a hundred years. aotearoa has always been "something from up north".

Interesting. Pcuser42 has made a common and very excusable error. Maori decide what is maori not central govt, Nui Terini is the maori name for NZ at least around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.29.202 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Kia ora. "Niu Tireni" (as it's usually spelled) is an alternative Māori name for New Zealand, and certainly one with a long history, but it isn't used much these days. While "Aotearoa" originally referred to just the North Island, it has since become by far the most common Māori name for New Zealand as a whole, used by Māori and non-Māori alike. I've never heard of a Far North iwi (nor a rohe) by that name, though – at least not from anyone in my iwi (Ngāti Awa). Can you give more specific information? – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

Under the section 'Language', I would like to suggest that the last line in the first paragraph be removed.

"Hence, the New Zealand pronunciation of words such as "bad", "dead", "fish" and "chips" sound like "bed", "did", "fush" and "chups" to non-New Zealanders."

There is no citation next to this sentence and furthermore it appears to be more of a personal opinion from one "non-New Zealander".

There is a an elaborate explanation of of this unique New Zealand pronunciation in the Wikipedia entry New Zealand English which provides a more sensible and impartial definition. This can be found in that Wikipedia article under the section Phonology, sub-section Short front vowels with citations included.

CinOvation (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The reason I'm marking this as unclear is first you are asking for the line removed (which I'd be happy to do), then your asking it to be replaced with an alternate version which can be found on New Zealand English#Phonology with all the citation bells and whistles (which I'd also be happy to do). This leaves me unclear about if you want it gone or fixed. (I'd lean towards requesting it fixed with a nice "Please change X to Y", but it's your call). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

The request to remove the line in question should be the one to proceed with as there are no citations.

The explanation I followed up with was just some information for those who do want to investigate that line further. You can ignore that information. Sorry for the confusion.

So the line, "Hence, the New Zealand pronunciation of words such as "bad", "dead", "fish" and "chips" sound like "bed", "did", "fush" and "chups" to non-New Zealanders." should be removed.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinOvation (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it needs a citation, as it is simply providing examples of the vowel shifts stated in the previous sentence. Adabow (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

Please read the full reason:

...Furthermore it appears to be more of a personal opinion from one "non-New Zealander". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.90.251 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello all,

I see that the line is still there. I'm wondering how long will it be before it is removed. I've had some feedback from contacts in New Zealand who agree that the line should be removed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.90.251 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to suggest that somewhere in the New Zealand section a small addition is made along the lines of 'to a seasoned traveler of many visits just being in New Zealand is good for the soul' it's a personal view obviously but one I feel that people who have visited New Zealand would agree with.

thank you 87.115.43.31 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate terminology

I'm concerned about the fourth line on the page, which reads "Because of its remoteness, it was one of the last lands to be settled by humans." A few sentences later, "Polynesians settled New Zealand in 1250–1300 CE and ..."

In the first sentence, "humans" should be replaced by "Europeans". As it stands, the wording implies that Polynesians, and by extension Maori, are not humans. The word may in the past have been "Europeans" and has possibly been changed by someone bent on racist mischief. Akld guy (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It must be unclear, because you have taken an interpretation of it quite different from mine. Mine is: Well before 1250 CE, almost every land mass was settled by humans; New Zealand was one of the last land masses to be settled, and it was settled by Polynesians. Europeans came later. Does that make more sense to you? If so, how do you suggest we re-word the article so its meaning is clearer?-gadfium 09:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation may well be correct, but the "Europeans [that] came later" in the wave of emigration of 1820-1850 were probably the last in history to settle a new land and probably deserve some distinction too. Akld guy (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Resources

|}

Kikodem (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The text you've provided is copyrighted and cannot be included in the article. Please see WP:COPYVIO. Stickee (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic composition of NZ

If you add all ethnicities percents, you come up that population of NZ iz 111%

It's possible that some people identify with more than one ethnicity. pcuser42 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Geology

I'm not an expert, but Wikipedia also has what looks like a very informative article titled "Geology of New Zealand". Perhaps a few words on the country's geology would be appropriate also in this article, with a link to the longer treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

protected edit request

the last 3 edits need reversed to restore the article to its pre-vandalised state. Willondon (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The sum of these three edits made no change, so nothing to revert. That editor has now also been blocked. Cannolis (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection & Pakeha?

I was going to tweak the reference to pakeha - from "The Māori loanword Pākehā has been used to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, although others reject this appellation" to "The Māori loanword Pākehā has been used to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, but others consider the term highly offensive" and discovered the page has been protected for years! Anyone able to explain why\tweak said sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.5.146 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

Citation 138. ^ Offshore Options: Managing Environmental Effects in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone (PDF). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 2005. is a broken link.

The working URL content is [4] (link to PDF on right of this summary page) 202.36.137.5 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) 202.36.137.5 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the link.-gadfium 06:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Independence

I thought I should explain why I changed the list of key events in New Zealand independence. I removed the reference to the Constitution Act 1986 and inserted instead a reference to the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act (UK) 1947. The 1947 act gave the New Zealand parliament the ability to amend its own constitution, removing the final limit on its legislative power. After this act came into effect, New Zealand had full legislative independence. Britain could not unilaterally pass laws for New Zealand and New Zealand could pass any law it wanted.

The Constitution Act 1986 has only minor significance in the story of New Zealand's independence. It is notable only for two relatively minor reasons: it was symbolic as a rewrite of the core constitutional legislation and it cut a minor tie between the two parliaments that had no remaining practical signifiance. Britain still technically had the authority to write law for New Zealand—but this authority could only be exercised at New Zealand's request. After 1947, New Zealand's parliament could pass any law in its own right so by 1986 the legislative connection to Britain was nothing more than an anachronism.

It's worth noting that the situation was different in Australia. While New Zealand had acquired full de jure independence in 1947, Britain retained the legal authority to legislate for Australia states until the passage of the Australia Act 1986. It's possible that a previous editor included the Constitution Act 1986 in the list of independence events in New Zealand because they saw it as a parallel of the Australia Act. While both acts repealed the Statute of Westminster, the New Zealand act had no impact on New Zealand legal independence and didn't require British participation. By contrast, the Australia Act extended the powers of the Australian parliament and required the law to be concurrently enacted in the United Kingdom.

tl;dr The Constitution Act 1986 act tidied up and clarified a lot of constitutional provisions, but it didn't make New Zealand any more independent. It was the events of 1947—culiminating in the UK parliament passing the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act—that gave New Zealand full legal independence.

Ben Arnold (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the date for responsible government was wrong. It said 30 June 1852 but the correct date is 7 May 1856. This is in the linked article. I found a few encyclopaedia articles online that confirm this date but only in passing, not as the substantive topic of the article so I couldn't find a nice neat reference.

The other date (30 June 1852) is the day on which the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 received royal assent. This provided for elections and a local legislature, but the colony didn't have responsible government until 1856. Before that date there was no premier, just a colonial governor who continued to have executive responsibility. Before responsible government the executive council was made up of civil service appointments with a strictly advisory purpose—responsible directly to the governor, not to the New Zealand Parliament.

Ben Arnold (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is correct to say that New Zealand obtained de jure independence on 10 December 1947. There is academic debate on the topic, and frankly no consensus.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Official languages

According to http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Official-languages, the only official languages in New Zealand are Maori and Sign Language, English is just a de facto official language due to its widespread use. Should be corrected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.198.13.228 (talk • contribs) 22 July 2015

This has been extensively discussed in the past. See for example Talk:New Zealand/Archive 4#Official Languages, Talk:New Zealand/Archive 5#Official Languages, and Talk:New Zealand/Archive 6#Official languages of New Zealand. The talk page of the article Languages of New Zealand is probably the most appropriate place to raise the issue again.-gadfium 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: Currently the factbox is incorrect in stating that English is an official language in NZ. A petition has started in NZ to lobby the government to make English an official language. Details here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71296013/petition-to-make-english-an-official-language-in-new-zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 21 August 2015

Ethnic groups

The ethnic group composition must be revised. The sum is 111%

Ethnic groups (2013) 74.0% European 14.9% Māori 11.8% Asian 7.4% Pacific peoples 1.2% Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.7% Other

Some people belong to more than one ethnic group.-gadfium 08:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion

The article states The Māori-based Ringatū and Rātana religions have experienced considerable growth. [5]

But that reference given states the exact opposite saying Affiliation with some Christian religions decreased between 2006 and 2013, including: Māori Christian – down 19.2 percent. Anyone care to change this? 101.98.248.252 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. The sentence was added before the 2013 census and it was correct that these religions grew between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. Someone subsequently updated figures and references but not this text. I've modified the article and added a more detailed reference.-gadfium 21:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for editing that. You say these religions grew between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. Well, yes they did but only by a small amount, certainly not to any considerable level as the article originally claimed. See the table in Religion in New Zealand 101.98.248.252 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rainfall under climate

This article states Auckland is the wettest of the main cities, yet the wiki articles for Auckland and Wellington show higher rainfall for Wellington. There is a contradiction here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.140.16 (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The source used in this article does give a slightly higher annual rainfall for Wellington than for Auckland, so I have adjusted the wording. Different sources are used in the articles for Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington, and as a result the annual rainfall in those articles is different from the source used here, but the relative positions of the three cities is now the same across these articles.-gadfium 20:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Population history

I think there should be a table for the historical population of the country as well, any one has any thoughts on this?CHCBOY (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We have such a table at Demographics of New Zealand#Population. I think the graph is sufficient for this article.-gadfium 19:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The graph is a bit small and shows a interval for every 50 years so hard to see actual total in point of time in the past. I just thought it could have a table of the growth of NZ population with data for each decade since 1851 census or something similar.CHCBOY (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Constitution Act 1986

Please add Constitution Act 1986 in country Infobox (Independence from the United Kingdom section). Reference articles: Australia and Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.197 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have been one of the major milestones in New Zealand's independence process. It gets scant coverage in our detailed article Independence of New Zealand. If you think it is so important, I suggest you take up the matter on the talk page of that article.-gadfium 18:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The Constitution Act 1986 removed a technical possibility that the UK Parliament could legislate for New Zealand at our Parliament's request. Not really directly related to independence from the UK. --LJ Holden 10:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The following sentence in the lead needs to be changed: "Abel Tasman, a Dutch explorer, was the first European to sight New Zealand in 1642." As written, it implies that Abel Tasman was the first European to sight New Zealand in that particular year - which is confusing, because the sentence was presumably intended to convey that in that year Tasman became the first European to sight New Zealand, something entirely different. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity and immigration

In "In the late 2000s, Asia overtook the UK and Ireland ...", "the late 2000s" is not clear. It could refer to 2900 and later (except it is in the future). If it means in the late 200X years, it is not true according to http://www.enz.org/migrants.html. The tables in section "Top Five Source Countries for Migrants 2001 – 2015" show UK was the biggest source in 2005, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Recent NZ government figures show it was true in 2015. The .pdf from http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/IntTravelAndMigration/HOTPSep15/IntTravelAndMigrationSep15HOTP.pdf: "New Zealand recorded net gains of migrants from most other countries in the September 2015 year, led by: India (12,900), China (8,500), the Philippines (4,700) and the United Kingdom (3,700) ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nh5h (talk • contribs) 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

Change "Polynesians settled New Zealand in 1250–1300 CE" to "Polynesians settled in New Zealand in 1250–1300 CE" Daveishan88 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you consider this is an improvement?-gadfium 06:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone else made the change, and the sentence has since been further improved.-gadfium 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wording

It is not appropriate to describe New Zealand as "one of the last lands to be settled by humans". When speaking of where human beings live, one does not generally speak of "lands". Rather, human beings live in areas, which is a comprehensive term. "Lands" is a vague and imprecise term. It could be taken to be synonymous with countries or nation-states, and is thus inappropriate in this context, because obviously the question at issue is not which nation states were settled first or last, but which places. So respectfully, Moriori, I submit that you should not have reverted this edit. My change was perfectly sensible, and it does not have to be "a great improvement" - only some kind of improvement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

LAND HO! Ring any bells?Moriori (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please give a clear explanation for your revert? Your comment above does not qualify. If there is a reason for preferring "land" over area, you should be able to explain it properly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I already did. If you disagree, take it to rfc. It's 9.29 pm where I live and at this time of night I am not going to get into a debate with someone who really should have already sussed the point. Ka kite ano. Moriori (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Moriori, you did not give a clear explanation for your revert. You expressed the view that the change I made was not an improvement. I am asking for a proper explanation of why you think that, and you have not given one. If you could explain yourself clearly and properly, other editors would not have to guess at why you think one word is better than another word. The suggestion that I place a request for comment is bizarre at this stage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
As you couldn't understand LAND HO!, how about you check the links land and area and examine them in the context of New Zealand was "one of the last lands to be settled by humans". Moriori (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want me to understand what you mean, then try explaining yourself normally and clearly. That is the way Wikipedia editors are supposed to communicate. I looked up both of the articles you linked above, and I haven't any idea what point you are trying to make. The article "area" is about the geometric quantity. Would your point be that New Zealand should not be described as an area because someone might think of the geometric quantity? If so, that's a bizarre reason for objecting to the term. "Area" is a term that can have different meanings, its meaning is obviously not restricted to the geometric quantity, and no one is likely to think of that sense of the term if they see New Zealand described as an area. Land is obviously inappropriate, inasmuch as lakes and other bodies of water are also part of New Zealand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
New zea-LAND. :-) Andrewgprout (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

European Ethnicity?

How can 74% of New Zealanders be of European Ethnicity when even in Europe they can be classified as "other whites"? As a New Zealander I don't identify myself as European - I am a New Zealander. What ethnicity is European anyway other than a geological region? ZhuLien (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.226.51 (talk)

European descent would perhaps be a better term. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Because that is the term that is used on census forms. Adabow (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Food

I'd be more interested to know about the local food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.203.176 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

See New Zealand cuisine (which is linked to from the bottom of this article, within "Articles relating to New Zealand").-gadfium 06:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

New Flag design 78.133.72.60 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We will change the flag at the top of the infobox if the second referendum votes to replace the current flag. To add the proposed new flag now would be premature.-gadfium 01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Not a single word about the Lord of the Rings or Hobbits? Really? Come on, they acknowledge its significance themselves. Hobbits are almost symbolized as New Zealand. [6] Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

I looked up the GINI coefficient of New Zealand on the website of StatsNZ , and found that from 2012 on NZ's GINI coefficient should be 0.33. [6] Dzhu grandmoon (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the figure. The ref doesn't make it very easy to get a direct figure, but hovering over the New Zealand bar in the graph in figure 2 of the reference gives this figure.-gadfium 08:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

--history section

There is a non referenced comment, that of European diseases contributing to the end of the Moriori.

" although European diseases also contributed"

During this period, there were also Chinese and some Arabian visitors to the lands so the term would perhaps be better worded in medical terms rather than a 'location'. Most 'European' diseases were global by this stage of human global developments. Food from these lands was also apparently transported and Maori are documentation to have been employed as sailors and bizarre tropical diseases, not generally found in Europe, were also reported on occasion.

Just seems an out of place speculation, rather than statement.

@User:Tearoa koha (unsigned comment above) Regarding Moriori and disease - thie statement is well supported by the very reliable citation given. I cannot work out what you are trying to say in your subsequent sentences - which Chinese and which Arabian visitors and which bizarre tropical diseases? Andrewgprout (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Chathams (and indeed the Moriori) had a lot of exposure from other than just 'europeans' who were all more or less transient.


Roving Mariners: Australian Aboriginal Whalers and Sealers in the Southern Oceans, 1790–1870

"provided by the Chatham Islands, a group of ten islands located eight hundred kilometers east of New Zealand. In 1870, a population survey was undertaken and it was reported that:

[a]t the present time, the islands are inhabited by as varied and motley an assemblage of people's as can be imagined. There are Morioris, Maoris, Kanakas, Negroes, Chinese, Spaniards, Portuguese, Danes, Germans, English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, Yankees, a native of South America, a Manilla native, a Laplander, a Russian Finn, a half-caste native of New Holland, several Maori half-castes and a few whose nationality it is impossible to determine."

The comment in the article would be better stated as being something along the lines of 'introduced diseases' or similar, rather than that of a specific location. Tearoa koha (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in NZ22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)~~

It seems that the total % of Ethnic Groups in NZ adds up to 111%??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.191.171.109 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is likely many people identify to more than one ethnic group.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "New Zealand"

I feel that the phonetic rendition of the pronunciation of "New Zealand" is incorrect. Although this pronunciation is common among non-New Zealanders, particularly Americans and British people, I believe that the New Zelander pronunciation is more along the lines of "/nju: 'zɛlənd/". Please correct me if I'm wrong! -Jordan 11:37, 6 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.197.68 (talk)

I added an audio file that's supposed to be authentic. Do you agree to it? (If you ever read this posting ...) --GeoTrinity (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The new audio file sounds good to me, as someone who has lived in NZ most of my life.-gadfium 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm very happy to hear that! We produced the file in Hamburg, Germany, today. Cheers to NZ! --GeoTrinity (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Well done.Moriori (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

I think for the religion section(6.4) there should be more religions added such like jewish and sikhism. Speedysingh990 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We include all religions with a following of 1% of the population or more. There is a more detailed article, Religion in New Zealand, which does include other religions.-gadfium 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

Theorfounder (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Spam — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

GINI coefficient in info box

0.33 or 33 ??

While 0.33 is undoubtedly the correct way to write the coefficient and it is what the citation says - if you put 0.33 in the info box the entry gets categorized as "low" if you enter 33 the catagorization changes to "medium". It seems to me that what ever magical wizardly is changing this it is working off percentages rather than the actual coefficient number. what to do here? Andrewgprout (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the country infobox template is configured for GINI coefficients expressed as percentages rather than as decimal numbers. It is easy to correct if you have done a bit of coding, as you can see by examining the source code. But as content builders, Wikipedia blocks us from doing this. You will have to contact someone Wikipedia considers responsible to do it for you - perhaps one of the hundreds of admins appointed for life before 2009 when they were school children. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The sarcasm is palpable. I very much enjoyed reading this. Thank you. Ben Arnold (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Economy not dominated by dairy, etc.

I made this change:

New Zealand is a developed country with a market economy that is dominated by the exports of dairy products, meat and wine, along with tourism.

The imports and exports data for the year ending March 2015 have dairy, meat and wine coming to $20.6B. GDP for the same year was $239.5B so these three exports make up 8.6% of GDP. Tourism is harder to determine, but the industry lobby group says that Tourism accounted for 4.9% of GDP for the same year.

The truth is that service industries dominate New Zealand's production, making up 64.7% of GDP, but this is no different from most industrialised economies so it's not particularly notable. Exports and international tourism get played up in the New Zealand media, but New Zealand's economy is predominantly internal. Ben Arnold (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right - the economy is not dominated by those things but exports are and without exports the country would collapse. Understanding what a country produces is an important part of understanding the character of the country so I think this shold be reworded to say something like New Zealand is a developed country with a market economy, major export earners include dairy products, meat, wood, fruit, wine, fish and tourism. 101.98.248.252 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Telecommunications

"The United Nations International Telecommunication Union ranks New Zealand 12th in the development of information and communications infrastructure, having moved up four places between 2008 and 2010."

This remains true, of course, but there are some more recent IDI indexes available from the ICT that could do with being mentioned under this section--*in addition* to this one, at the very least--so as to be providing more up-to-date information, and all. Here's what's led to me thinking this: http://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/idi/2015/#idi2015rank-tab

I'm not entirely sure if that's a source worth citing, however--it certainly isn't on par with the PDF cited to validate the statement I quoted from the page. As such, I wanted to get some feedback before I went ahead and did any editing. I'll keep searching for other sources, myself, though--and, if I find any, they may end up being more appropriate.

All the same, that website ranks New Zealand at 16th--which means that it's been moved four rankings *down* from its previous position. This is a direct reversal to the state of affairs that the article presently suggests, if it's true. New Zealand's ranking has now moved *down* four places--though, not in the exact same interval of time, it seems. As a matter of fact, though, I only just realized that, if what I'm thinking is correct, then the entirety of that statement is false, at it's given in the present tense--it's saying that New Zealand -is- ranked 12th, even at this very moment, effectively. That's considerably more fallacious--again, *if I'm correct*, anyway.

I imagine this seems like a trivial fix, to some, but I haven't exactly made any real edits of this relative magnitude in quite some time, so I'm feeling rather unsure of myself, and, thus, want to bring this to everyone's attention before I act on it in any way. I might be getting my indexes mixed up, for example--after all, the statement which I quoted specifically states '12th in the development of _information and communications infrastructure_, which might not actually be synonymous with what I've said. Really, I'm not sure. But I've gone on long enough about this--I appreciate your patience, if you've made it this far. Ghost Lourde (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox at NPOVN

I have raised the issue of the what info to put into the "Foundation" field at WP:NPOVN#Info-box: "Establishment" of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I suggest the process will be more likely to succeed if editors who have been involved in the discussions, including myself, limit their participation by presenting their positions and wait for uninvolved editors to comment before engaging in lengthy argument that would make it difficult for univolved editors to follow and comment. TFD (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Official-languages
  2. ^ http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/names-nz%E2%80%99s-two-main-islands-formalised
  3. ^ http://www.linz.govt.nz/about-linz/news-publications-and-consultations/news-and-notices/nz-geographic-board-welcomes-minister%E2%80%99s-decision-on-islands%E2%80%99-names
  4. ^ http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/marine/offshore-options-managing-environmental-effects-new-zealands-exclusive-economic
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand#cite_note-2013religiouscommentary-279. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx#anchor26
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_6&oldid=1142443247"