This is an archive of past discussions about New Zealand. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe that the Constitution Act 1986 should be included as the final stage in New Zealand's independence as that was when the UK's power to legislate for New Zealand was completely removed, giving it full sovereignty. If you notice the pages for Canada and Australia, both have similar acts passed around the same time period that also removed the UK's power to legislate for their governments as well. The dates which these acts were enacted are included in the respective country's info box, as the final step in independence from the UK. Thus, I think that my edit should be kept to bring in line with the wiki pages of Australia and Canada, as well as to mark the date of full sovereignty for New Zealand. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Before the act, could the UK have legislated for NZ without a prior request from NZ? If the answer is no, NZ sovereignty has not been affected. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. See wp: 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, or wp: Gough Whitlam. There is no real difference from the governmental system in NZ.The difference is that such a situation has not (yet) occurred in NZ. In fact, discretionary intervention by the Governor-General is more likely and more necessary under the supposedly more democratic NZ MMP arrangement of government. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Akld guy - what you say would be true if it was the Queen of England that was signing the legislation. The entity that provides the Royal ascent is the Queen of New Zealand.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
What point are you making? Are you saying that Queen Elizabeth II acts entirely independently in the case of New Zealand without any conflict of interest from her role as Queen of Great Britain? If she does act entirely independently, what is the point in retaining her as head of state? Wouldn't NZ have a New Zealander as head of state by now, or has she used her power to veto that? Do you see the dilemma? New Zealand is forced to seek Royal Assent even to remove her as head of state. Akld guy (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It is really questionable that the Queen has any practical powers she certainly has never used them if she has. The point I am making is that Royal ascent is given by the Queen of NZ - which is not something that anyone can really contest - so this does not affect the independence argument in any way. And your question about the Queen's usefulness is probably off topic but in essence her usefulness is her powerlessness.Andrewgprout (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
She doesn't seem to have used them, but that's because legislation passed in NZ is innocuous to someone 20,000 km away. Royal Assent would take on huge significance if a war were to break out that involves or might involve New Zealand. I'm sorry, but as long as New Zealand is forced to seek Royal Assent for approval of legislation, it cannot be said to be independent. You can try to make it seem that it is by claiming that Royal Assent has never been refused, so far as we know, but that won't make it so. Akld guy (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be making the rather bizarre claim that the Queen or more precisely the Governor General could withhold ascent to a Bill and keep that a secret and without it becoming a full-blown constitutional crisis which it most certainly would be. Your answers sound way too conspiratorial for my liking. So unless you have something to say about why or why not the 1986 Constitution Act should be in the info box I think we should leave this discussion here. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
What I took exception to was the statement by Agent5514 right at the beginning that the 1986 act was "the final stage in New Zealand's independence". It was not, and New Zealand is not independent. In fact, the current infobox is misleading because it implies that independence has been achieved. The real argument should be that there should be no entry for Independence at all, and that is what I would support. Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(In this post, I moved Roger 8 Roger's post up under my first post because he replied to me and subsequent edits moved his comments down the page. I have re-indented other posts accordingly). Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Previous discussion here... Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_6#Constitution_Act_1986 and Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_6#Independence and probably elsewhere -- to quote from this previous discussion "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".
This discussion started because I reverted the addition of the Constitution Act into the independence section of the info box - my main reason for doing this is that we could put any number of acts and changes in the last 176 years as leading to independence and we cannot put all of them in - I believe we currently have the three most significant dates listed and I am unsure that the 1986 Act matches these in importance. I do wonder whether it might be wiser to say something in the info box to say " its complicated" and point readers to Independence_of_New_Zealand article. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of info-boxes is to provide key information, not to explain the complexities of the evolution of New Zealand's independence. Independence was achieved through the establishment of conventions followed by official declarations and finally by legislation. I think we could safely limit the dates to the recognition of dominion status, which is the most commonly used date. The field name ("Independence") could be changed to something like "Recognized as dominion." TFD (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the claim that New Zealand is not fully independent is a rather extreme view and should be in a footnote rather than the infobox. I suggest that Akld Guy's edit should be reversed.-gadfium22:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I came here to advise I had added a citation required template, but on reading the paragraph above, I agree with Gadfium, so will go back to the article and remove the claim. It would need mention and referencing within the article text to be restored. Moriori (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is even an extreme view: it is simply wrong, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of NZ's constitution. Any mention of it should be in a section about the constitutional not about whether NZ is or is not independent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree it should be removed. It is a misunderstanding of the constitution, but reading it requires expertise and therefore it comes under original research to interpret it, which can only be done by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
since there is consensus in reliable sources that New Zealand is independent, it should. So far you have provided arguments why New Zealand is not independent but no source that make that argument. The fact that a country's head of state can withhold assent to legislation does not mean a country is not independent. The fact that one country shares a monarch with another does not mean one country is dependant on the other. Furthermore, there are procedures for obtaining royal assent against the wishes of the monarch. TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please supply a source stating that New Zealand is independent. The onus is on you to add a reference to the article to that effect, since the infobox implies that it is. The onus is not on me to justify that NZ is not independent. Do you have any comment on the fact that New Zealanders NEVER speak of or celebrate the attainment of independence? Do you have any comment on the fact that NZ has no Independence Day? I repeat, NZ is forced to seek Royal Assent from the Monarch to pass legislation to remove her as head of state. That cannot be called independence. I am neither a monarchist nor a republican, but interested in seeing that the infobox does not misrepresent the situation. Akld guy (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
See "Australia and New Zealand" in The Routledge Companion To Postcolonial Studies, p. 24: "In 1919, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa all signed the Treaty of Versailles (establishing the League of Nations) as independent states, and in so doing claimed a status in international law formally recognized by the British Parliament's 1931 legislation (known as the Statue of Westminster) to grant the dominions full independence."[1] Perhaps the reason New Zealand does not celebrate independence is that there was no date that could be seen as a transfer to independence, unlike say Barbados. It marks it independence from 1966. New Zealand under the 1980s legislation has the same legal position as Barbados. Also, it could be that they did not like the term. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
One obscure reference that does not state explicitly that NZ is fully independent. In fact it states that Australia, NZ, Canada and South Africa claimed a status that was recognized by 1931 legislation to grant them full independence (at an unspecified later time). Doesn't say that it did grant independence. Come on, if NZ were fully independent, don't you think we'd have shouted it from the rooftops and there would be references everywhere? The infobox is misleading and there is no way that it can be reworded to make the situation clear. The only option is to delete the Independence entry and explain the stages in the body of the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
New Zealand has full independence from the UK Government but not from the monarchy. This seems to be the central piece of confusion. The legal entity that is the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is quite distinct from the Crown in Right of New Zealand. The remaining piece of inter-dependence is that these rights of sovereignty are both nominally held by the same institution, the monarchy. This state of affairs is known as a "personal union". In the case of a constitutional monarch with a locally appointed viceroy (the governor-general) this is a very limited form of inter-dependence. It's true in practice (and to some extent in theory) that the monarch isn't sovereign, Parliament is—and the New Zealand Parliament is a different entity from the British Parliament that just happens to share the same figurehead.
You don't hear people shouting from the rooftops about New Zealand's gradual independence because it's been gradual. Ties have been severed incrementally at a snail's pace. Imagine for a second that Dominion Day had also been the day that:
we ratified the Statute of Westminster to get the right to pass laws with extraterritorial effect
we gained the right to independently modify our Constitution and used it to pass the Constitution Act
the Queen's title changed to say "Queen of New Zealand and her other realms and territories"
we replaced our Premier with a Prime Minister
we replaced our Governor with a Governor-General, a New Zealand national appointed on the advice of our Prime Minister
we exchanged Ambassadors and High Commissioners with other countries
we were given membership of the League of Nations/United Nations
New Zealanders ceased to be British subjects and became New Zealand citizens
we stopped participating in the British honours system and set up our own system
we replaced appeal to the Privy Council with our local Supreme Court
If all that happened in one day (or even over a year) we would have absolutely seen shouting from the rooftops and many, many sources talking about New Zealand's independence.
In what way is NZ NOT independent? As far as I can see NZ can do whatever it wants to whenever it wants to. Restraints on that, meaning limitations on its independence, are most likely to come from such things as dependency on other countries for food supply, military occupation, or free movement restraints. Indepence is a relative thing. Most peeople would say that a country like Belgium was independent, but I suggest it is very interdependent on, and hence constained by, other countries, especially within the EU. Are we confusing independence with sovereignty? Not exactly the same thing. Perhaps we should look to change 'independent' with 'sovereign' (even though NZ is sovereign so the result will be the same.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"In what way is NZ NOT independent?" It looks like you haven't read my posts above. And as I said, the onus is not on me to prove that it doesn't have sovereignty, the onus is on you and the others here to prove that it has, since it didn't have it at the start in 1840. When, since 1840, has NZ been declared independent? Akld guy (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I replied to your arguments about independence above [20:43, 4 March 2017]. I agree with you on one point though that unlike almost all other former colonies, Canada, NZ and Australia did not use the term independence. Instead I would just include the date NZ was recognized as a dominion, which is the most commonly used date for NZ. TFD (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The Queen's role for New Zealand is the same as it is for Australia, Canada, or Britain itself, she remains a 'last resort' authority for the people from a bad or evil government, in that she has the ultimate power to dismiss governments that are corrupt or plain bad, governments that are beyond the power of the people themselves to remove. In addition, as head of the respective armed services and police forces/services the members of these services ultimately owe allegiance to the Queen herself, and not to the respective national government. Governments change and one may end up with a government that does things that are 'beyond the pale', e.g. Nazi Germany. You may notice that such governments generally remove the Queen as Head of State. e.g., Apartheid-era South Africa, and Amin-era Uganda. This is generally done so that a nation's armed forces can be lawfully ordered to do things to the population that a civilised country would not tolerate. In circumstances with the Queen as Head of State should a member of the armed forces receive orders that he/she regarded as patently wrong they could make an appeal to the Queen, who would then decide whether the orders as a matter of policy were justified, etc., if she decides this is not then the orders would be unlawful, and the government giving them would be acting unlawfully. The troops involved would not be legally obliged to obey such orders. Obviously some extreme governments would not like this, so that's why they remove the Queen as Head of State. That is also why Hitler made himself Head of State and made his armed forces swear allegiance to him, personally, rather than to the German States, as was required for German leaders previously. For a Civilised, Democratic, country allowing this much power in the hands of one man or woman, Is Not A Good Idea.
BTW, when acting as Head of State for a commonwealth member nation she makes her decisions on the basis of the interest of that nation, not those of the UK. Sometimes these do not coincide.
I nearly forgot, the Queen's role is illustrated in the Air New Zealand Flight 901 controversy where the official government accident investigation was distrusted by significant numbers of people who requested and received a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. By doing so they could be fairly sure the matter would be impartially investigated without favouring one side or the other. At the time Air New Zealand was run and operated by the New Zealand Government. The case eventually went to the Privy Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.238 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure it can, anyway it should be clarified. I suggest "is, unofficially, the official language of New Zealand" Siuenti (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an approved religion in New Zealand and I, as an ordained minister of the Church, would like it to be included in the "Religion" section of the article. - Jolly Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B233:4EF0:8CB5:F914:A966:C27E (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The section in this article is a summary of the more detailed article Religion in New Zealand. That article relies heavily on the New Zealand census results. It appears that your church has not had sufficient adherents to feature in the most recent census. Perhaps you will be more successful in the next census, which I assume will be in 2018.-gadfium20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Government and politics section
I've made a few revisions to the article over recent days (I'm preparing this article for a FA nomination). Despite the large number of edits, you can see the actual change to content is minimal and mostly consists of updating facts and statistics, rewording sentences and cleaning-up references. However I have made one WP:BOLD edit which is retitling the "Politics" section to "Government and politics" and eliminating the "Government" subheading. My reasoning was that the term "Government of New Zealand" refers chiefly to the executive branch (i.e. the Cabinet and other ministers in the Executive Council) and not to the judiciary or parliament which were described extensively within the subsection. I think the new arrangement is more accurate.
I don't anticipate any big objections to the edit but I thought I'd explain my reasoning here. I'm happy for my edit to be reverted if a discussion is needed. --Hazhk (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Languages
Shouldn't the official languages and the percentage of usage be in different sections? So in a spoken/used languages section. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014 - Please add Geology of New Zealand
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Geology of New Zealand==
New Zealand is a section of Zealandia, a much larger submerged continental landmass. Zealandia extends a significant distance east into the Pacific Ocean and south towards Antarctica. It also extends towards Australia in the north-west. This submerged continent is dotted with topographic highs that sometimes form islands. Some of these, such as the main islands (North and South), Stewart Island, and the Chatham Islands, are settled. Other smaller islands are eco-sanctuaries with carefully controlled access.
The submerged landmass of Zealandia
The New Zealand landmass has been uplifted due to transpressional tectonics between the Australian and Pacific plates (these two plates are grinding together with one riding up and over the other).
To the east of the North Island the Pacific Plate is forced under the Australian Plate. The North Island of New Zealand has widespread back-arc volcanism as a result of this subduction. There are many large volcanoes with relatively frequent eruptions. There are also several very large calderas, with the most obvious forming Lake Taupo. Taupo has a history of incredibly powerful eruptions, with the Oruanui eruption approx. 26,500 years ago ejecting 1170 cubic km of material and causing the downward collapse of several hundred square km to form the lake. The last eruption occurred c.232CE and ejected at least 100 cubic km of material, and has been correlated with red skies seen at the time in China and Rome.
The subduction direction is reversed through the South Island, with the Australian Plate forced under the Pacific Plate. The transition between these two different styles of continental collision occurs through the top of the South Island. This area has significant uplift and many active faults. As you can imagine, large earthquakes are frequent occurrences here. The most powerful in recent history, the M8.3 Wairarapa earthquake, occurred in 1855. This earthquake generated more than 6m of vertical uplift in places, and caused a localised tsunami. Fortunately casualties were low due to the sparse settlement of the region. Recently, the area has been rattled by the M6.5 Seddon earthquake, but this caused little damage and no injuries. New Zealand’s capital city, Wellington, is situated bang in the middle of this region.
The subduction of the Australian Plate drives rapid uplift in the centre of the South Island (approx. 10mm per year). This uplift forms the Southern Alps. These roughly divide the island, with a narrow wet strip to the west and wide and dry plains to the east. A significant amount of the movement between the two plates is accommodated by lateral sliding of the Australian Plate north relative to the Pacific Plate. The plate boundary forms the nearly 800km long Alpine Fault. This fault has an estimated rupture reoccurrence interval of ~330 years, and last ruptured in 1717 along 400km of its length. Worryingly, it passes directly under many settlements on the West Coast of the South Island and shaking from a rupture would likely affect many cities and towns throughout the country.
The rapid uplift and high erosion rates within the Southern Alps combine to expose high grade greenschist to amphibolite facies rocks, including the gemstone ‘pounamu’ (jadeite). Geologists visiting the West Coast can easily access high-grade metamorphic rocks and mylonites associated with the Alpine Fault, and in certain places can stand astride the fault trace of an active plate boundary.
To the south of New Zealand the Australian Plate is subducting under the Pacific Plate, and this is beginning to result in back-arc volcanism. The youngest (geologically speaking) volcanism in the South Island occurred in this region, forming the Solander Islands (<2 million years old). This region is dominated by the rugged and relatively untouched Fiordland, an area of flooded glacially carved valleys with little human settlement.
Since the end of 2010, several large (M7, M6.3, M6.4, M6.2) and shallow (all <7km) earthquakes have occurred immediately beneath Christchurch. These have resulted in 185 deaths, widespread destruction of buildings and significant liquefaction. These earthquakes are releasing distributed stress in the Pacific plate from the ongoing collision with the Australian plate to the west and north of the city. The earthquakes have significantly altered the city, forcing the demolition of many commercial and residential buildings.
Chatham Islands name
@Moriori. This refers to the edits today. Were the islands ever called Rēkohu by Englisg speakers? If not then they were never 'renamed' by English speakers. I prefer the earlier version by hazhk. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The previous version said "At some point, a group of Māori migrated to the Chatham Islands (which they named Rēkohu)." That is impossible. Moriori were settled on Rekohu long before the Europeans reached there and called it Chathams. Whether we should be saying changed name, or renamed, or whatever, I 'm unsure. But, there is no way that "...Māori migrated to the Chatham Islands which they named Rēkohu.Moriori (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I recognise the problems with the previous revision but I don't think your current wording is clear. "Subsequently renamed" is confusing on first glance. Subsequent to what? There is a long period between the original settlement of the islands by Polynesians and later European discovery. The Europeans named the islands with no regard to the original Moriori name. Therefore the assertion that the islands were "renamed" is contentious; the Māori and Moriori names still exist in parallel with the English. I think we need to be conscious of not unnecessarily lengthening the sentence, which is supposed to be about the Moriori people, not the naming of the archipelago. --Hazhk (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
To give again a brief ground for the edit. In this article it is about representativeness not about uniqueness. The ratana is no broad religious belief. The former image can of course be included in the main article of religions in NZ. The new image portrays the belief of the majority. This shoud appear to be perspicuous, kia ora.--Joobo (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: Did you even read MOS:PERTINENCE?. It does not count one single point that it was "established" for a long time, it also does not matter if you or other revert it, since it simply is not correct. It is neither about the fact that it might have been long established, nor that the current image might appear "boring". Images have one single purpose, to highlight the content of the article, which is given here as a text. In this case the sections is about the religions in NZ, and the Catholic faith simply is the biggest faith. Not Ratana. Using an image of a ratana church is not representative for the nation. I have no objection for usage in the main article, yet not here on the NZ article. You also do not use religious buildings of some natives in Brazil for the Brazil article, or Mexico. Only cause it might be "less boring" or more "unique". Those are not WP criterias. --Joobo (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
so your argument is that the image has to be a Catholic Church because that is representative of religion in NZ. I suspect you have no idea about religion in NZ if that is what you think and I can't help thinking such a view is somewhat distasteful. You have experienced a lot of opposition to your change and you have been reverted by a series of editors please leave the established image until there is consensus for change.Andrewgprout (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"Representativeness" is spurious. According to the 2013 census, the majority of the population is actually non-Christian. Anglicanism was historically the largest religion in New Zealand, while in 2013 Catholicism was nominally the single largest religious group. Going by estimates of active practitioners, Christianity is marginal in New Zealand. Regardless, what I really question is your choice of image; what do you think is the significance of St Patrick's Cathedral, as opposed to Sacred Heart Cathedral in Wellington or St Paul's Cathedral in Wellington (the national Anglican cathedral of New Zealand)? You've chosen a particular church (a rather dull one at that) with no regard to its actual status. And you've chosen an image that is aesthetically poorer than the one you replaced (which has long been in this article). The photo of the Ratana church is very distinctive; it illustrates a uniquely New Zealand religion, and illustrates a distinctively New Zealand architecture. You have not put forward a persuasive argument for replacing it. --Hazhk (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
To the first response: no I wont back down cause some users simply favor something without any logic behind. This is still an encyclopaedia with certain guidelines and criterias. No online magazine de gusto. You can "suspect" all you like, i follow the facts and those are that Catholics are the largest religous group. Now it already refers to the second statement. So in case one decides to use an image of a relgious building in the particular section, eventhough the majority are non christians, one should take an image of the largest group as it is the most representative, and nothing as Ratana. One also does not take an image of a Mormon Temple and puts it in the US religion section, only cause other images would be dull or not unique. The only critizism i can somehow follow and would agree with is the highlighting of the fact that the new image might not portray an extraordinary or important church. In case it is not the case now with the Catholic church included by me, i have no objections for inclusion of another image showing a Roman Catholic church which has a possibly bigger significance. However boring, uniqueness etc, are no criterias applicable here as it is no country travel-book-guieline-magazineetc, but an encyclopaedia.--Joobo (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If the image were to change, I would favour a photo of an Anglican cathedral, and preferably Wellington Cathedral of St PaulWellington Cathedral of St Paul (image to the right; I think it's a good photo). You may argue that Catholicism is the single largest religious group therefore the image must depict a Catholic church. However, you will know that Anglicanism is the traditional dominant religious tradition, with huge historic & cultural significance due to the British colonial legacy; New Zealand is not a "Catholic country". Only 0.8% more people self-report an affiliation with the Catholic Church than self-identify as Anglican. I still favour the Ratana image. --Hazhk (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Joobo: For all of your talk of guidelines, you haven't pointed us to one that requires all editorial decisions to conform with your personal perception of "representitiveness". In contrast, the very reason we use images in articles is to better convey the article's subject matter to the reader. And the subject of this article is New Zealand. An image of a building that is uniquely "New Zealand-ish" is preferable to one that is not. Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind on this. But it is equally unlikely that you are going to convince the three of us to change ours, either. Your better course will be to open a Request for Comments and solicit the opinions of the community at large. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Every church image used here would be unique. What you are trying to say is that it simply would be NZ-Ratana-unique. I see that this is a particular NZ belief, same as Mormon etc. are from the US. etc. Yet Both do not stand for any huge group in the society. As you pointed out correctly images aim to convey information to the reader. But they also have a particular emphasis. Without any doubt even you would agree that on the first view, everyone would believe that Ratana would be one major denomination in the Nation if seeing the section of Religion just with this one image of the Ratana church. in the first section in the initial sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images it says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." The argument used the new image would be "boring" directly conflicts with this prerequisite, as it would mean the Ratana church is less boring and hence more decorative. That is not of importance as you can see. And what about the "uniqueness"? It says images need to have significance and relevance. Well, according to the numbers Ratanas significnce is way under those of Catholic or Anglican faith, or do believers of Ratana have more importance in society, eventhough they have much smaller numbers? I agree with the fact brought up here, and i do cause it simply is a fact, that Ratana is a particular NZ belief. But that does not automatically qualifies it to stand above other denominations with much higher significance. Again one also does not go ahead and puts one single image of a mormon temple in the US section of religion. Just cause it is American uniqueness.--Joobo (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Ratana has a much greater influence in New Zealand culture and politics than its number of adherents might suggest.--Hazhk (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hazhk: So do the Mormons or the Jews have in the United States. However, they still have way less significance than Catholics or Evangelicals.--Joobo (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hazhk: I am asking, so would it also more be logical, less boring and more unique and basically simply better to include an image of a Mormon temple the the US religion section instead of a baptist or evangelical church?--Joobo (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Joobo: I think you need to be very careful applying what might be percieved as right or correct in the USA to situations in the rest of the world. This is true generally but true even more when it comes to religion as the average individual and institutional relationship entities have with religion is very different in the USA than most other places in the world. Comparing Ratana, millenial yes but relatively mainstream, with LDS is not particularly helpful in this situation.
And please remember this is the general New Zealand page not the specific NZ religion page - Ratana is specifically mentioned in this quick precis, and the current image is entirely appropriate for this situation. Choosing an image is not a competion won by a popularity contest. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course every nation has its uniqueness and there are various circumstance. Nevertheless you actually do can compare both situations. You simply chose to not do so, because then you got to admit that for the US it would be fairly peculiar to include such an image, eventhough also there the Mormon religion is mentioned in the text. It simply does not add up. The same goes for Ratana in NZ article. Both denominations are unique for each country and have their importance also concerning the historical context of each nation. However they are both fairly small in numbers and hence in significance for this sort of section. That is the whole story. Including only either an image of a Ratana church or of a Mormon temple would create a distorted view for the reader. --Joobo (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Except that the Mormon church (Church of the Latter Day Saints) is not unique to the US. It has adherents even in New Zealand. Are you even aware that this magnificent LDS temple exists on the outskirts of Hamilton, New Zealand? Whereas I'm pretty certain there isn't another Ratana church building anywhere else but NZ. Akld guy (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for a discussion about Charles, Prince of Wales in its talk page, under "RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession?" Feel free to go there and join the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Political status of constitutional monarchy should be included in the lead
Political status is not already summarized in the lead, so the addition by Albinoni67 should stand because it is important information. I read in the lead "In 1841, New Zealand became a colony within the British Empire and in 1907 it became a Dominion", but if we go to the Dominion of New Zealand article it says that " It was a constitutional monarchy". Then back in the New Zealand article I read in the lead, "legislative authority is vested in an elected, unicameral Parliament, while executive political power is exercised by the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister... Queen Elizabeth II is the country's head of state". Nothing in the lead says anything about a constitution or New Zealand being a constitutional monarchy. Thinker78 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is so important that the (arguably obscure) term "constitutional monarchy" appears in the lead. The term is included in the infobox, so the issue can't be that the precise 'political status' of New Zealand is entirely absent from the article. I think the third paragraph encapsulates the political system of the country: "legislative authority is vested in an elected, unicameral Parliament, while executive political power is exercised by the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister... Queen Elizabeth II is the country's head of state...". That rules out any idea of an absolute monarch. New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy with a representative government, under a monarch. --Hazhk (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". The third paragraph may describe the political system but does not explicitly state which system it is. And probably some people have no idea what an absolute monarch is. Thinker78 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and "constitutional monarchy" does appear within the article, found in the 'Government and politics' section. I don't see why the term is obligatory in the lead when the concept is already clearly articulated. I don't think the lead will be improved by tacking a sentence on the end of a paragraph (the contribution you reinserted was incongruous to the rest of the paragraph), or by rewording an existing sentence, making the text even more convoluted. I think New Zealand's political system is fundamentally that of a parliamentary democracy—and that is more substantial than the obscure "constitutional monarchy". --Hazhk (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The term is not obligatory in the lead, but I think it would be useful to readers to include it there. I don't know why you say that "the concept is already clearly articulated", or why you point out that it is already in another section of the article. MOS:LEAD states, "The lead... should... summarize the most important points", MOS:LEADCITE states, " the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body", WP:INTRO states, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". And including "parliamentary democracy" without including "constitutional monarchy" would be a misleading omission. Thinker78 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be much response here to the proposal, but I do recognise that more than one editor want to include the term. If it is going to be inserted anywhere then I propose that it is incorporated into an existing sentence: "As a constitutional monarchy, the country is headed by Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by a governor-general, currently Dame Patsy Reddy." The last clause might be in parentheses. I would also take this opportunity to move this sentence before the one beginning, "Nationally, legislative authority is vested in...". --Hazhk (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to insert a sentence in there try inserting one with segments that have been used in some reliable sources. It is kind of controversial to say that the queen "heads" the country, although she is technically the head of state. Thinker78 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's controversial to assert that the head of state "heads" the country. Surely that's the meaning of the term? I think this reasonably reflects the sources. The next (currently preceding) sentence makes it clear that the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, exercises real executive power. I am open at any other suggested wording. However, I note that there is no longer clear support for changing the lead. --Hazhk (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a question of how much weight is given to NZ being a constitutional monarchy. It is a parliamentary democracy, which takes many forms of democratic government. Do we need to say what type of PD? The parliament has only one house, which in some cases is important, and unusual, but should we mention that in the lead too? I note that Australia and Canada have leads that do mention CM, so it might be useful to mention it here, for uniformity alone. However, I am also wary of putting into the lead detail that can be better explained in a section further down, and that repeats detail in the infobox anyway. So, although I am fairly neutral on this, I have a slight preference to leave CM out of the lead. If it is included it really should be mentioned succinctly.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Leads should avoid both jargon and redundancy. Basically if a country has a queen and an elected legislature, it is a constitutional monarchy. TFD (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
As previously stateed, I am fairly neutral on this, but as the debate has progressed, by leaning has changed more towards describing NZ as a CM in the lead rather than only as a PD. The description used to describe Australia seems flow well.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
The article includes a note saying that the sum is greater than 100% as people could choose more than one ethnicity. pcuser42 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Rather than rearranging today's edit by Giantflightlessbirds, I think mentioning it here first is better. The new wording about the official names does not seem to tally with the citation given, nor with the LINZ site here [2]. LINZ notes the official (de jure) names as either 1/ the Maori name or 2/ North Island and South Island (no article). The minister's comment is worse, noting the NI name as the North Island, and the SI name as South Island. Does this mean that Auckland is on the North Island and Nelson is on South Island? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest GFLB revert the edit and try again. It's not correct - maps show the islands as North Island and South Island, not The North Island or The South Island - and not sourced (the next source does not seem to include usage of the definite article). The names seem to invariably take the definite article when used in sentences, but that does not mean the definite article is part of the names themselves. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Davosaurus, that GFLB starts again. I am puzzled as to why s/he ever raised the issue or the article. The point of the legislation seems to be nothing more than clarifying that the Maori names have as equal a status as the English names. A consequence seems to have been that it has also clarified that the English names do not have a definite article, even though everybody uses one. There is a similarity here with the Netherlands, where the 'official' name appears to be Netherlands, even though if an English speaker dropped the article, it would sound odd. Similarly, the official name of The Bahamas does have an article, one with a capital 'T', so writing that in the middle of a sentence would also look odd, even though correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
If Abel Tasman says he named NZ after the dutch parliament, then so should we.
For more than 10 years our article has said that Abel Tasman named New Zealand Staten Landt believing it was connected to South America. The reference given is to a writer whose opinion has been voiced by others. The problem is that the opinion is wrong.
In his "JOURNAL or DESCRIPTION, By me Abel Jansz Tasman, Of a Voyage from Batavia for making Discoveries of the Unknown South Land in the year 1642, Abel Tasman wrote the following:
"This is the second Land discovered by us. We named it Staten Land in honour of the States General. It is possible that this land joins to the Staten Land but it is uncertain."
(The States General was then and still is the name of the Netherlands parliament.)
You need a reliable secondary source. The primary source you provide was an English translation made in 1776 of a copy of the original. The original journal may have been partly or largely written by officers working for Tasman. This could have been an error by these officers or the transcribers, a mistranslation or an ex post facto attempt to rewrite history. You need to look at what was publicly said by Tasman following his trip. If you are right, why was the name changed to New Zealand when it was found there was no land connection? That requires analysis of primary sources, which is original research. TFD (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I've undone those changes. "As at" is the British equivalent of "as of" and it seems likely that this is also true for New Zealand English. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you are right. Those British English people have very funny ways of saying things. L293D (☎ • ✎)14:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
About the name, Etymology section
A Dutch explorer "found" the islands. But why did the English call it "New Zealand" and not "New Zeeland" ? This isn't quite explained. In (British) English, Zealand is a Danish island. I don't really object to our current explanation, but without a solid source, a certain uncertainty exists. I think... Boeing720 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The real question is why the didn't call New Zealand New Sealand which would be truly in English. The OED says this
"Origin: From a proper name; modelled on a Dutch lexical item. Etymon: proper name New Zealand. Etymology: < New Zealand, the name of an island nation in the South Pacific, about 1600 km south-east of Australia, after Dutch Nieuw Zeeland or post-classical Latin Zelandia Nova, which appears on Blaeu's world map (1645–6). The second element represents Dutch Zeeland , the name of a province of the Netherlands (see Zeelander n.). The name was perhaps coined by analogy with New Holland, former name of Australia (after a neighbouring province of the Netherlands); it is first attested in English use in 1768 in Cook's journal." http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/126662?redirectedFrom=New+Zealand#eid
IIRC the traditional English name for the Dutch province was Zealand. The anglicisation predates the discovery of New Zealand. Perhaps this could be briefly noted, with appropriate source. --Hazhk (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC) --Hazhk
I think the use of percentages, in whichever infobox structure is used, is misleading and those percentages should be removed. They can be dealt with lower down in the article. There is a very clear impression given that 3.7% of the population grow up talking Maori as their mother tongue, which is palpable nonsense. This has arisen from a misinterpretation of census statistics and a misuse of the infobox template. The handling of "official" languages, in NZ articles, and in other country articles, is constantly being used inappropriately. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree to removing the language percentages from the infobox. As for the use of percentages in the article, the text is clear that these figures are census responses.--Hazhk (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, if no one objects perhaps you would like to remove the percentages? The other matter will make an 'interesting' discussion topic. I am drawn to the expression, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It is notable that the footnote was not removed along with the percentages—the footnote explained that respondents could choose more than one language. I do not think that implies "3.7% of people spoke Maori and nothing else". However, it seems that the note may have gone unread.--Hazhk (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Nobody reads the small print in WP infoboxes, and what's more, they shouldn't be expected to in order to get the full story. The percentages as formerly displayed were misleading. There's a tendency to overwhelm the reader in some NZ articles by adding too much detail to infoboxes, viz, the deputy prime ministership while Ardern is on maternity leave. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
IPA pronunciation
An editor has objected to people removing the IPA pronunciation from the first sentence of the article. He/she has asked people to use the talk page to discuss it.
"If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name.... Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)."
I agree that "Zealand" would be hard to mispronounce. Surely it's the "New" that could be a problem. Many, including New Zealanders themselves, will say "nyoo". Others (think Americans) will say "noo". HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I stand to be corrected, but is that the intention of the IPA pronunciation guide? N-oo or Ny-oo is simply a matter of an accent sound nuance, not pronunciation in the intended meaning here. In either case there can be no realistic possibility of a misunderstanding. The pronunciation guide should be used for places like Whakatane where an English speaker, especially one outside New Zealand, would struggle knowing where to begin. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Infobox religion data
See today's edits. The template instructions are here [3]. Not explicit about what to insert? In any case, used census data here is a primary source so is invalid so the list is unsourced and can be removed, as it has been. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Just wondering why we would not comply with WP:SANDWICH in the geograph section this edit did. What compelling reason is there to make accessibility hard for no reason? Simple GA standard fix here.--Moxy (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: I have moved the image whose position you object to, to the right so that the section begins at the left with text. Maybe this will solve your objection. Akld guy (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons galleries are stongly discouraged and not normally seen in GA or FA articles. That said they are not all that bad here ....yes not the same size as any other image but they are not causing an accessibility problem....just bad format. As for your additions being removed ....adding 15 images in a gallery at Portugal wasn't going to last very long. Pls review WP:GALLERY....best not to add them if your intention is for a professional-looking page that has an authoritative look.--Moxy (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I have changed a sentence in the opening paragraph to "New Zealand is situated some 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi) east of Australia". This is far more accurate than the 1500 km figure that was previously given. I am unsure if the previous figure was a recent change (whether good faith or disruptive), and I am surprised it went unchallenged. I have been unable to locate a single source that specifies a closest distance of less than 1700 km. The average distance is about 2000 km (if we are providing a round figure); this is the distance stated on other articles. --Hazhk (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
"The royal style and titles of Her Majesty, for use in relation to New Zealand and all other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in New Zealand is responsible, shall be— Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith—" Andrewgprout (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Good, I was concerned no one had thought of this before and we would have to sort it out :). It is still an interesting point. Thanks. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).
Would these recent events be notable enough to be mentioned in this article. It appears not but if anyone wants to provide their own viewpoint... Benica11 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It is notable enough. IMO it would be better to wait until events become clearer before indulging in the sort of second by second edit scrap taking place on the event's own wp article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
For the moment, probably. In the long term, maybe not: I just checked the Australia article and it doesn't mention the (comparable) Port Arthur massacre. Any mention should be short and to the point - let any controversy be covered at its own article. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait until secondary sources have commented, with evidence, on how this has effected New Zealand or its history. Not how it might in the future. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).
Wait, as per Rsfinlayson and Dushan Jugum, until we see whether this affects the NZ dollar or diplomatic relations somehow. Akld guy (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
At this time, no. Events that have had larger death tolls, such as the Napier and Christchurch earthquakes, the 1918 influenze epidemic, the Erebus crash, or the Tangiwai rail crash, are not mentioned on this page. This event would need to have consequences that significantly affect New Zealand in an ongoing way for it to be included on this page. Paora (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the reason for its future inclusion in this article is not because of its temporary world media coverage or the death toll, but rather because it marked a "loss of innocence", or words to that effect. Determining that will depend on many factors. I also think that the omission of the Napier and Chch quakes, Erebus etc is no reason to leave it out. Those other events have without doubt had a marked effect on the making of NZ and its people - their omission is simply because nobody has bothered to put them in yet. I do however very much agree that we should be wary of inserting media frenzy news that appears every month or so. Distinguishing between the relevant and the non-relevant is not always easy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
English as an official language
Should "The official languages are English, Māori, and NZ Sign Language, with English being very dominant" really be left in the introduction as it is? I don't believe that English is actually an official language of New Zealand. Quinnov (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm missing it, but there doesn't seem to be any real conclusion here. The sentence above can remain, but shouldn't the status be clarified beyond this, as it is in the information table? Quinnov (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't even go that far. English is mentioned in law, for example, the Maori language act which made Maori official clearly regards using it in official formats as an alternative to English. CMD (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Just so I am clear, does everyone agree that, Māori and sign language are official languages and that English is, while not an official official language, it is the main language of almost all official things. Are we just debating how to say this or do we disagree on the facts? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC))
I think any disagreement is about what constitutes being 'official'. Some have a narrow view that to be official something must be part of legislation of some sort (eg, the Maori language Act) whereas others accept a wider interpretation of the word 'official', that it only has to be used in an official capacity: hence, de jure and de facto. The USA article takes the view that English is the national language but not an official language [5] whereas the UK article says English is the official language [6]. There may be other considerations as to why these different approaches are taken, such as each country's history, but it is clear that despite English being the language of everyday use in the running of both countries, different approaches are taken to calling it official. From numerous debates about this topic it does seem that there is a consensus that we NZ does have three official languages although I do not think there is consensus on how to describe those three official languages. IMO, it is ironic that being de jure official usually means a language is more restricted and therefore less official (but not less important) than one that is de facto official. That is certainly the case in NZ, something that some people seem to find unpalatable. And therein lies a can of worms. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The UK never passed legislation explicitly calling English an official language, as it existed long before such a concept really existed. Instead it was the law of the courts and official business. The UK never really got on board with the whole need for specific legislation thing, hence common law and the fact it never created a single constitution. New Zealand inherited this acceptance of English without the need for specific legislation. However, I think it's useful to look through the legislation designating the other official languages. The legislation declaring Welsh official in Wales bases this status on the status of English, mentioning English numerous times, such as requiring authorities to "give equal standing to the Welsh and English texts". The Maori Language Act is perhaps not as forceful, but clearly compares Maori to English, defining "interpretation" and "translation" as between English and Maori, and providing equivalency in statements such as "Where, in any proceedings, any question arises as to the accuracy of any interpreting from Māori into English or from English into Māori, the question shall be determined by the presiding officer in such manner as the presiding officer thinks fit." My interpretation is that as these acts are very clear in using the use of English as something the newly designated language can be compared to, that English is clearly an official language, despite there not being a law explicitly saying "English is an official language" or similar. CMD (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Geat, however, that reads like very good and compelling original research. Can anyone find a secondary reference, to confirm it or any other idea. Eg.[7][8]. We may need to go with this person says X, that person says Y. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)).
In Canada, where the constitution mandates official languages at the federal level and in New Brunswick, there is an Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, supporting legislation and case law.[9] There is no equivalent in NZ. TFD (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"Official" means that something has been explicitly sanctioned by an authority such as a written constitution, legislation or valid order in council. In the U.S., which English-speaking, there is a contentious debate about whether English should be declared the official language. Why not change the name of the field to language(s)? TFD (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Adding how New Zealand was named.
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
We need to write on the 'New Zealand' page that 'Aotearoa' means 'Land of the Long White Cloud' and that NZ was named by Kupe's wife (Kuramarotini).
Not done. @George.ls: The translation is already in the article, so there's nothing to do. And for the second claim, it would need a reliable source to back it up before adding. It would also help whoever responds to indicate exactly where in the article you want to add it, and the exact text you'd want to add. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@NiciVampireHeart: I don't think that a second file is required. There is a reason that it was not there. "God Save the Queen" may be equal in law (I acknowledge this, and I expanded the National anthems of New Zealand article to explain this situation) but in practice it's obscure and used only on rare occasions. Including an audio file gives the second anthem more prominence than I think is appropriate. I would support removing the first audio file too - I think the infobox is too crowded.--Hazhk (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hazhk: I'm not attached to the edit – I merely answered JamesDEvans0203 (talk·contribs)'s edit request. Before doing so, I did a quick search through the talk page archives, and saw no discussion on including or excluding the audio file of "God Save the Queen", so I went ahead and implemented the request. I've no objections if you want to revert my edit; like I said, I was merely acting as a conduit here and have no strong feelings on the subject. NiciVampireHeart10:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand. I recognise that your edit was a reasonable response to a request, which is why I brought it here rather than revert. I am surprised this hasn't been discussed on the talk page previously; I recall that similar edits have been reverted in the past. I will revert the edit if you're agreeable to that. Thanks! --Hazhk (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Demographics out of date
The data on under the demographic section is out of date as of last years census. It’s still showing all info from the 2013 one instead of 2018
An explanation: The 2018 census was held in March 2018. There was an unusually long delay in releasing the results – see 2018 New Zealand census for the reasons – and the data was not published until 23 September 2019. Yes, some articles need updating but as I write this the data has been available for only 6 weeks. Some media reports stated that some data is unreliable. Akld guy (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the sentence ...
"There are 18 peaks over 3,000 metres (9,800 ft), the highest of which is Aoraki / Mount Cook at 3,754 metres (12,316 ft)"
... to ...
"There are 18 peaks over 3,000 metres (9,800 ft), the highest of which is Aoraki / Mount Cook at 3,724 metres (12,217 ft)"
... because this has been measured in 2014 to be more accurate.
The main Wikipedia article about Mount Cook already states this height. Hans Korsika (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought it meant nothing more than changing some images that have created a half sandwiche or two: move to left, or right, or down. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article. I've made some tweaks in the coordinates; but if you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. 17:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add "However, New Zealand legislators in 1983 were only ready to grant Maori women political rights because their influence would be limited to preexisting Maori-only electorates, diminishing indigenous impact on settlers' political dominance." Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Grimshaw, Women's Suffrage in New Zealand; Patricia Grimshaw, "Women's Suffrage in New Zealand Revisited: Writing from the Margins," in Daley and Nolan, eds., Suffrage and Beyond, 25-41
The introduction states that the treaty of waitangi "declared British sovereignty over the islands". I think it would be better to say something along the lines of "...the Treaty of Waitangi, which paved the way for the British to claim sovereignty."
Reasons for this are as follows:
- Sovereignty wasn't actually claimed by British until Governor Hobson made proclamations to that effect later in the year, and
- Whilst the English language version of the Treaty states that sovereignty was to be ceeded to Her Majesty, the Te Reo Maori version uses the word "Kawanatanga", more commonly translated as "government", and states that Maori will retain "tino rangatiratanga", usually translated as complete cheftainship, AKA sovereignty.
- The Maori version, being the copy that was actually signed, and under the international convention that Treaties with divergent translations should be interpereted according to the language of the indigenous peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.222.97 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted, I think a more neutral way putting it would be "which was the basis for the British to claim sovereignty..." --LJ Holden03:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Last settled landmass? End of the line?
Following today's edits - I think it is so obvious that Antarctica is not realistically habitable, in the contextual sense intended here of towns, farms, roads etc, that we do not need even to mention it as an exclusion: but it would avoid any accusations of inaccuracy if we do insert an adjective like habitable, (but even that might itself need to be qualified). I am happy with or without a qualifier like 'habitable'. There are families living in bases on the Antarctic Peninsula, where babies have been born, but this is an artificially orchestrated part of the Argentine and Chilean territorial claims to sections of the continent. I think it should not really be seen as evidence of habitability. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Say...."Other than Antarctica, New Zealand was the last major landmass settled by humans. ".....--Moxy🍁02:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
James Cook's anglicising the name into 'New Zeland'
I came across the instructions which Captain James Cook received on his first journey. Cook is instructed to look for Terra Australis Incognita going Westward between the 35th and the 40th degree latitude, and if he does not find it, is insrtucted to go on until he comes across "the Land discovered by Tasman and now called New Zeland".
"But not having discover’d it or any Evident sign of it in that Run you are to proceed in search of it to the Westward between the Latitude beforementioned and the Latitude of 35° until’ you discover it, or fall in with the Eastern side of the Land discover’d by Tasman and now called New Zeland."
I thought this might suggest that Cook himself had not anglicised the name Nova Zeelandia into New Ze(a)land, since he had not even been there yet. However, he could have been responsible for anglicising the name without having actually been on the island yet. I was wondering if someone had any proof that Cook was indeed the one who came up with this anglicised version of the name. If there aren't any proof, I would suggest the removal of the sentence "British explorer James Cook subsequently anglicised the name to New Zealand.[16]". I have checked the source of this statement, and the (very interesting) web page to which it directed me does mention Cook naming places in New Zealand, but never his having anglicised the name itself.
It states it is 203rd in the world, but the list of countries by population density puts it at 167. That list was updated this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.92.116 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I am after some opinions here please about the map. Why does it include the Antarctic territorial claim? Is that part of New Zealand? The map does seem a little odd. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that a different map is used in the infobox. The template guidelines [10] give the example of Location/Country.svg. This is brief but clear enough not to include areas such as associated territories (Tokelau) or areas claimed by a country (Ross). The Antarctic claim is just that, a claim; it is recognised by only four other countries (all also claimants to Antarctica) and it is questionable whether NZ has established any form of 'effective control' over the RSD outside the base. The map does mention the RSD and Tokelau separately but based on the guidelines I do not think they should be there at all. This map would however be useful further down in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all clear from the template guidelines that we ought not to include dependent territories and territorial claims. I note that articles of other countries with Antarctic territorial claims (e.g. Argentina, Australia, France and Norway; the latter two go a step further and have two maps) also show the claims, always in a lighter green to indicate that the claim is not universally recognised, or is disputed. If it's advisable not to include such claims then clearly the guidelines are consistently being interpreted wrongly by other editors. I'm not suggesting that we're bound to follow other articles, but having some consistency between comparable countries' articles is helpful. I think there is value in showing the Ross Dependency; from the perspective of the New Zealand government this territory is part of New Zealand and New Zealand laws apply there, at least notionally. If it is agreed that another map is to be used then we might include this map. However it's very simple and excludes outlying islands. It's poorer quality than the current map.--Hazhk (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Your thinking is similar to mine on this. I did ask on the template talk page for the guideline to be more clearly defined but the reply came across that it is clear enough and any ambiguity should be dealt with on the relevant article talk page, which has not really solved anything! Yes, I am aware of the other Antarctic claimant articles and the importance of uniformity. One reason I think all those maps should remove the Antarctic claims is that the maps can be used to make political statements by agenda pushing editors. This is particularly the case with Chile and Argentina, where its map includes a large area of the South Atlantic including the Falklands, meaning areas that are under another countries sovereignty. My view on sovereignty is pretty simple and in line with accepted definitions - you must exercise that sovereignty and it must be accepted by a significant majority of other countries, otherwise it does not exist. This is why I thing NZ's claim to the RSD is questionable, (as is all seven other claims to Antarctica) but the UK's Falklands sovereignty is not. To start adding claimed areas and areas loosely within a countries authority, such as Tokelau, is IMO a slippery slope. My preference is only to have areas actually within a countries sovereignty as defined above: everything else can be dealt with later in an article. But, I can see it is not simple. There are editors on WP who can make maps easily. Your map plus the outlying islands (Auckland, Chathams etc) should not be too difficult to make if we choose to do it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I do feel that uniformity between articles is advisable. This is an area that raises a lot of questions. In the cases of countries which have disputed populated territories, such as China, North Korea and South Korea, the general practice on Wikipedia has been to map the disputed areas in light green. Taiwan is internationally recognised as being a part of the PRC (even if it's de facto independent), but in the case of the two Korean states they are both UN members and their claims are not recognised. Showing the disputed territories is the most neutral stance that Wikipedia can take because it doesn't make a claim either way. I believe that omitting the Ross Dependency from the infobox would be undesirable because it's less informative for the reader (which is probably the main factor) and I think, it would be taking a stance on the issue of claims of sovereignty in the Antarctic. To include the Ross Dependency, shaded green, is simply recording the de facto situation, not asserting that New Zealand actually has sovereignty over the territory. Tokelau is a dependency and therefore falls under New Zealand. We don't include Niue and the Cook Islands because they're recognised as foreign states by New Zealand, whereas when the Prime Minister visited Tokelau last year it was regarded as a domestic trip. I'm in favour of discussing this further.--Hazhk (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The same source website (IMF) gives the 2020 Nominal GDP per capita as US$44,208, with the PPP as US$42,862. There were more recent and up-to-date GDP numbers in there previously so I find it odd that these have been replaced with older and less accurate numbers. As I cannot edit the article I suggest someone who can should substitute the current numbers with those I have provided here. The reference does not need to be changed as the numbers I've provided are from the same source (the IMF), thanks. 2407:7000:8402:B200:2C83:8F8E:F963:EA56 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
MOS:OVERLINK
WOW that first intro paragraph is all blue. Im pretty sure people know what European descent and asians are.
Can we tidy this up in accordance with MOS:OVERLINK
I'm not auto confirmed so someone else will need to
Both are correct. What's the reasoning for using island country over island nation. Island country sounds weird but maybe its just me. 49.224.242.18 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Nation and country are not interchangeable. A nation is a group of people with a common ethnically, history, and territory that can exert political influence. A country is a state or territory that is in some way controlled. Neither are necessarily sovereign. Spekkios (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Photos
It has been suggested there are too many photos in this article. To what percentage of the current size should we reduce the number? 50%? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Not about a percentage but about accessibility, weight per section, and most relevant image pertaining to prose text. WP: Sandwich ( related to accessibility) - WP:Gallery ( related to underweight putting more emphasis on one section over another and accessibility if people have to side scroll) and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE { related to relevant images).--Moxy🍁12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Several images appear to be unnecessary. For example, a photo of an Air NZ airliner; ewe and lambs; the southern alps from various angles plus a few lakes, to name a few. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Kiwi - man or bird?
About today's edit scuffle - has this been discussed before, and was there a resolution? Kiwi commonly used as a demonym for a New Zealander? In NZ, obviously yes. But elsewhere? A very quick and very unscientific google search revealed a surprisingly low number of non "xxxx.co.nz"'s that use kiwi to mean a New Zealander, with a correspondingly high number of xxxx.co.nz sites that do use kiwi to mean a person. If it is indeed commonly used only in NZ, is that any reason not to refer to it as a demonym in the lead? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
New Zealand & Denmark: the only 2 countries that have 2 national anthems. Canada also has 2 national anthems.
Canada also has 2 national anthems, 'O Canada', and 'God Save the Queen' This fact was missed in the New Zealand article in the 'Anthems' section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.214.151 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Administrative divisions of New Zealand
Was looking for administrative divisions and to my surprise it was not there....then realized it is there in the way of Template:Administrative divisions of New Zealand in the middle of the article...however this is not seen by 60 percent of our readers because navboxes are not seen in mobile or app view. This should be fixed ASAP as its not seen by most and is not normal to have nav aids in the middle of prose text. One of a few accsibility problems here.--Moxy🍁17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
In 1989, the government reorganised local government into the current two-tier structure of regional councils and territorial authorities. The 249 municipalities that existed in 1975 have now been consolidated into 67 territorial authorities and 11 regional councils ... The territorial authorities consist of 13 city councils, 53 district councils, and the Chatham Islands Council. While officially the Chatham Islands Council is not a unitary authority, it undertakes many functions of a regional council.
The section then talks about associated states and dependencies. Do you think the prose could be clearer? I removed the table because a footer template probably is not suitable in the middle of an article, but I can add a new list. --Hazhk (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Talk page by request
Noticed an edit reverting something which shouldn't be controversial but seemingly is. The state that colonised NZ was officially named, between 1801 and 1922, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The obvious abbreviation of this would be "British and Irish" - not just "British" alone as that cuts out the whole of Ireland, including that part of the island still to this day in the UK. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Very sorry for missing this before - I did the original revert. When I did the revert I did think twice first because this is not as clear cut as some other examples of anachronistic usage. I disagree with your view that your change is 'obvious'. In my view it is far from obvious. Under your view we would currently not be saying 'British' when we mean 'of the UK', but we would be saying 'British and Northern Irish', which we do not do. The state at the time was called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and as far as I know that was shortened to the UK and/or Britain, in just the same way as it is today. There was greater use of the term 'Great Britain' back then which might indicate that GB and Ireland were treated separately, but we need clearer evidence of that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Great Britain is one island. Ireland is another island. These two islands, along with some more, are the British Isles. People specifically from Great Britain are Great British. People specifically from Ireland are Irish. People from the British Isles, whether they be from Great Britain, from Ireland, or from some other island, are British. For this reason, to say 'British and Irish" is akin to saying 'mammals and dogs'.122.148.227.2 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections to the phrasing "British and Irish settlers" because Irish people have not historically been described as British. However, I think the state/government should be described as "British", which was the usual terminology. Regardless of the formal constitutional arrangement in the 19th century, Ireland was never truly subsumed into the British state and it was still in part autonomous. Power rested in Britain a d the government was British. New Zealand was a part of the British Empire, not the "British and Irish Empire". The IP user's reply is misinformation - it is not standard practice to refer to anyone from the islands as British and in fact Irish people reject the term "British Isles". --Hazhk (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Ireland became part of the British state without autonomy in 1800, and was thus part of Britain from before NZ became a colony until after NZ became a dominion. It feels anachronistic to split them out in that manner during this time period, while not splitting out other internal identities. One of the two sources in the body [11] does use the terminology, but treats them as a single group. The other is specifically about the English, not the British, and explicitly includes the Irish in the wider UK population until 1921[12]. CMD (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Irish people were British subjects under British law until they were re-classified as "Irish citizens" under the British Nationality Act 1948. Under Irish law, they ceased to be British subjects after independence in 1922. Also, under British law, the sovereign is the state. In international law, the sovereign is referred to as his or her Britannic Majesty. The UK and his or her dominions and territories beyond the seas were referred to as the British Empire. I don't know why this did not change with the union of 1801, but that's the terminology that was used. TFD (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to mention that Irish people emigrated to NZ, then it should be phrased English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. Or we could say emigrated from the British Isles. Or emigrated from Great Britain and Ireland. TFD (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
New Zealand is currently enjoying publicity in the USA as being largely Covid-free and not needing masks or personal distancing, and as not having limitations on it healthcare facilities, as a result of its early (March, 2020) strong enforcement of social and other precautions. I don't see any mention of this important and notable status in the article. David Spector (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Should we add Grant Robertson‘s position as Deputy Prime Minister to the infobox below Jacinda Ardern?
I’m just going by the example that Michael McCormack - the Australian Deputy PM is in the infobox on the Australia article. So why not the same for Robertson here? Ciaran.london (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In my view it is not an important addition to this page. Way better to keep the info box here clear a succinct to the things that matter. There are plenty of other pages that this info can be detailed. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You yourself noted, "the office doesn't really have a lot of power". I say that it isn't in fact the second most powerful political office in New Zealand. The current specified roles are most significant: sovereign, governor-general (sovereign's representative, de facto head of state), and prime minister (de facto leader, head of government). --Hazhk (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi there. Under Section 4 (Geography and environment) you have included this sentence: "New Zealand is part of Zealandia, a microcontinent nearly half the size of Australia that gradually submerged after breaking away from the Gondwanan supercontinent".
Whilst New Zealand is part of Zealandia, Zealandia itself has now been recognized as the eighth continent and is not a microcontinent. Also, the size of Australia is 7.692M km2, and the Oceanic continent 8.526M km2, either is less than twice the size of Zealandia which is 4.920M km2, with Zealandia being essentially two-thirds the size of Australia.
The rest of the page in so far as I can tell is accurate.
That section of the article you quote has a Wikilink to Zealandia, which tells us that it "has variously been described as a continental fragment, a microcontinent, a submerged continent, and a continent." So not decisive. However, later in that article we have "In 2017, a team of eleven geologists from New Zealand, New Caledonia, and Australia concluded that Zealandia fulfils all the requirements to be considered a drowned continent..." Sounds good, but I'm not sure if that's strong enough to support your case. Do you have what we might consider a reliable source to support your proposal? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
In common understanding, continents are generally defined by convention and not geology. Most people would not exactly call Zealandia a proper continent, so directly calling it a continent instead of microcontinent may confuse readers. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Zealandia is a fully-fledged continent and this fact will soon require the redrawing of New Zealand's maritime boundaries and the extension of NZ's EEZ due to its submerged continental shelf. The fact that most of Zealandia is a submerged continent does not stop it from being a continent. The seabed under the Caspian Sea is still the Eurasian continent and does not stop being so because there's water on top of it. If you need a source for this perhaps do a search under the Law of the Sea re: Zealandia. 2407:7000:8402:B200:2C83:8F8E:F963:EA56 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This this NZ government sponsored science website article on Zealandia refers to it as a "submerged continent" and a "proposed continent" and also discusses that there is no official definition of what constitutes a continent. However it does state that Zealandia meets the geological definition of a continent. I think it's fair to say debate about whether Zealandia is a "proper" continent is pointless here as there is no conclusive answer. However in the context of this article I think "submerged continent" might be a better choice from the available options since it is more easily understood than "microcontinent". --NathanGriffiths (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Zealandia can not have been recognised as the eighth continent because because there are only six continents. Actually, there are only five. Or four. Which would make Zealandia the fifth. Or sixth? Spekkios (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Statistics NZ have a webpage about Ethnicity and released findings about their latest consultation in June 2020. The standard is valid for census related data but might not be followed by other agencies, as it depends how they collect and record ethnicity data. In New Zealand, ethnicity is as much a state of mind and personal preference as it is heritage and one's ethnicity (or ethnicities) can change over time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
God Save the Queen audio file
Our general policy framework is that we need consensus in making changes in articles that we edit. And we have responsibility to be factual of the changes that we've made, regardless of how large or small revision it is. We do not include or exclude items and files because of their unpopularity but rather the facts behind them.
God Save the Queen is one of the national anthem of New Zealand. It was adopted in 1840 when it was a British colony. New Zealand adopted God defend New Zealand as a new national anthem in 1977, but place God Save the queen on equal standing with it. The government recognises the anthem and included it in protocols.
This reason is suffice for the audio file of the anthem to be added to the article.
Ministry for Culture and Heritage recognise it as one of the New Zealand's two anthems with equal standing. [13]
I suppose I don't follow the logic that we are required to have two audio files simply because the two anthems are de jure equal in status. Editorial decisions and stylistic choices on Wikipedia do not have to be determined by the legal status of anthems in New Zealand law. The choice to include only one audio file is because two files is gratuitous clutter, which detracts from the purpose of the infobox: being to present the most relevant information in a clear and concise way. And yes, "God Save the Queen" may be an equal anthem but it is barely used apart from royal and military events.[14] I think that a second audio file implies that "God Save the Queen" is used more prominently than it actually is. The first consideration, reducing clutter, is the most pressing one, IMO. There is nothing in the MOS that states that the infobox must have audio files for anthems. Personally, I would prefer no audio files if the other option is two files. For what it's worth, I have been very attentive to acknowledging that NZ has two anthems; a while ago I expanded the National anthems of New Zealand article and found a source for the "equal status" claim. I don't have an agenda. --Hazhk (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Hazhk above that while listing the anthem is appropriate the audio file is easily available on the linked page adds nothing but clutter to this particlar page. I also believe this basically follows the guidance given at WP:SAMPLE. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
How does not including God Save the Queen conform with WP:SAMPLE where it talks mainly about copyright for music? Please cite an example wherein a country has officially 2 anthems but only puts one music file? Denmark has 2 music files, Nazi Germany has 2 music files, both of them have equal statutory law for both anthems so I think that removing the file is pretty unnecessary. I will be re-adding the file since it has been there for a long time now, unless a formal RFC discussion is started, then I think it should remain. PyroFloe (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Would people be open to the idea of adding 1-2 sentences about climate change in New Zealand into this article, including a wikilink to climate change in New Zealand? It could say something about greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Paris agreement, sea level rise, impacts on people. EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you see anything in the definition of a federal government that describes it as "any country consisting of two islands"? Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cyberllamamusic. As a New Zealander, I don't know where you get your ideas about NZ being a federal state. Before you try and insert 'federal' in the NZ article again, it would be helpful if you can quote some reliable sources to justify your assertion. Murray Langton (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
A federation is a country that derives its power from its constituent states, such as the United States and Australia. New Zealand is a unitary state; the central government doesn't derive its power from the state governments of the North and South Islands, because they have no governments.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at the section you reference. In particular: "Since then {1876}, New Zealand has had a unitary system of government". How does this make it a 'federal' system? Murray Langton (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I hope that in the future New Zealand will be absorbed by Australia bu reducing new Zealand to the 7th state of Australia Cyberllamamusic (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I apologize you Chipmunk Davis I hope there's no trouble away in later times okay?
Should "Aotearoa New Zealand" be in the introduction?
"Aotearoa New Zealand" is not the official name, however it is used by official sources. Below are some examples of how other country pages have dealt with similar problems, not that they are the template for success or unchangeable. Just thought we should talk about it.
The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland [ˈneːdərlɑnt]), informally Holland
The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America
Isn't it nothing more than common usage as reflected by (independent) RSSs? That explains the above three examples you give. I would say that Aotearoa New Zealand does not come even close to being commonly used in NZ and would be almost unheard of outside NZ. I would disregard official or government based sources, such as TVNZ because they are legally obliged to promote such names. I think a greater case could be made for including in the lead just Aotearoa as an alternative name to just New Zealand, which I believe comes closer to being fairly well used in commonly used English, at least in NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
"Aotearoa New Zealand" doesn't meet the common use standard. Official sources are not enough for proving common usage. Spekkios (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done. Search for "language" in the talk page archives. This topic comes up every few years. I am no expert, however, your argument has been covered a few times. That said you might like to try again with more detail, once you have had a look at previous debates. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
At first glance I think that might be deceptive. It is my understanding that the speakers role in NZ politics is more like an intentionally biased umpire (rather than leader or party strategist). Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
No agreement for this. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has little power in New Zealand, less so than the chief justice for example. --Hazhk (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation 52: "In 1788 Captain Arthur Phillip assumed the position of Governor of the new British colony of New South Wales which according to his commission included New Zealand."
You're right that the article doesn't name New Zealand, but it states "latitude of forty-three degrees thirty-nine minutes south and of all the country inland westward as far as the one hundred and thirty-fifth", which includes the islands of New Zealand. I think this was a somewhat misleading sentence as it may give the impression that New Zealand was administered as a British colony before 1840, whereas it was a notional claim. I have removed this sentence. --Hazhk (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove this:
New Zealand, still part of the colony of New South Wales, became a separate Colony of New Zealand on 1 July 1841 :(
and add this:
New Zealand remained part of the colony of New South Wales until becoming a separate Colony of New Zealand on 1 July 1841.
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Stop italicising the word 'Aotearoa'. It is not a foreign word and this practice actively centers Western notions of supremacy over Indigenous people. Similarly, the noun 'Indigenous' should be capitalised, like 'Asian', 'European', or 'Ethiopian' for example.
The article as it stands is currently Eurocentric and only very briefly glosses over the rich 800+ year history of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. This should be fixed. Letsmakethattika (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbothwe. Peer reviewers: Leonardlauryn, Brprate, Kevcox.
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It needs to be noted on this page that Aotearoa is not an official name of New Zealand. Aotearoa is a marae in Eastern Taranaki and the Maori name for New Zealand is Nu Tirene. 218.185.229.221 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Wikipedia doesn’t go by official names. See: WP:OFFICIALNAMES for further explanation. Aotearoa is a common English name for New Zealand, which is why it is noted prominently here. See Aotearoa for more thorough treatment of that name. — HTGS (talk)00:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Further to which - my passport is bilingual and clearly states URUWHENUA AOTEAROA on the cover. Languages change over time. "Nu Tirene" is no more the current name of the country than "Middle Island" is the name of the largest island of the country. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
English is an official language, as established by convention. It is just not a de jure official language in the same way that Māori is. The article does reflect this as there is even a note in the infobox. --Hazhk (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This has been discussed many, many times on this talk page (search for past discussions) and there is consensus to list English as an official language. --Hazhk (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you link the consensus? It has a different status from Māori and New Zealand sign language, and our article should reflect that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Search past discussions. There is no difference in status: all are official. There is a distinction between de jure and de facto official languages but this is a description not a difference of status. The article reflects this. The infobox already contains an explanatory note alongside English, noting that it is a de facto official language, and explains why this is so. Moving English to a separate parameter below the other languages is both needlessly confusing but implies that English is somehow less official. Before the 1980s there was no de jure official language but English has always been official. --Hazhk (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I did, I wasn't able to find a discussion that produced a consensus. Were you? And there is a difference in status; two are official, and one is not, though it is considered de facto official. See also articles on countries like Japan and Mexico, which label their de facto official language a "national language" rather than incorrectly as an "official language". BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
BilledMammal, when you provide a link to a 100 page report, it would be helpful if you cited the page number where the claim you are making is supported. TFD (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. A passing reference to fact in an article about a different subject isn't what I would look for in resolving the issue, especially if the source does not say how it comes to this conclusion. When Maori was declared to be "an official language of New Zealand," it implies that was already at least one official language recognized in law, otherwise Maori would be the sole official language. So I would want an expert source that explained this anomaly. TFD (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I would expect better sources. Since this is about the laws of New Zealand, I would expect a legal textbook. All these sources assume that the lack of an act of the NZ parliament means there is no official language, but you need to show that there is a consensus for that opinion. The fact that a political group petitioned to have English made the official language does not mean that it is not already. Basically they are non-experts repeating common understanding without providing any references. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but we should be certain. And readers following the links would want to know where this comes from. TFD (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the government of New Zealand (twice) a good enough source? I would also point out that for us to state that English is an official language, we need per WP:V to have a source telling us that - we don't. Even if you aren't happy with the sources provided, they are better than no source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
"The current [2005] picture of languages policy in New Zealand is based on an approach which is arguably positive but piecemeal. For example, while the official status of English is not set out in legislation, 'an official language is one that has been declared by a government to be the language of the governed nation' (Goff 2003). English is clearly the everyday language of trade, social interaction, commerce, government and education. Since 1987, however, te reo Māori has been legislated as an official language...legislation is before Parliament to make New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) a further official language...there is no policy giving guidance even in such issues as official languages and their use." Languages of New Zealand (2005)CMD (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
That source doesn't actually state English is an official language; it suggests that it is analogous to one, but it doesn't state that it is one. This supports the notion that we should list it differently; either as a "de facto official language", or as we do at other nations, as a "national language".
The source also makes it clear that there is a difference between English and the two official languages; our article needs to reflect that difference. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I find it hard to read "while the official status of English" in the way you seem to be. The difference is in explicit legislation, which is in the context of New Zealand being a common law country. Such detail is not suited for an infobox. CMD (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The difference seems to be greater than that, given the sources that make it explicitly clear that English is not in the same category as Maori or NZSL - which includes your source. Further, while the infobox shouldn't provide too much detail, it shouldn't simplify things to the point of inaccuracy, which is what we are doing when we say that English, Maori, and NZSL all have the same status. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
add In October 2018, Rocket Lab revealed their new manufacturing facility in Auckland, New Zealand.[83] It is intended for the production of propellant tanks and stage builds and is in charge of the overall integration of launch vehicles for Launch Complex 1.[84] The company's headquarters in Long Beach, California, produced the Rutherford engines and avionics 136.32.29.15 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The adjective form of "New Zealand" is "New Zealand". You need to find some sort of source demonstrating that anyone in the real world even uses "New Zealandic", let alone commonly uses it as the adjectival form. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to New Zealand has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The population is a really basic fact that ought to appear in the introduction. Please add "The population was estimated at 5.1 million in 2022" after "covering 268,021 square kilometres (103,500 sq mi)". This is derived from a sourced line in the infobox: 5,132,630 estimated population in July 2022. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:56, 14 April 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done. @George.ls: The translation is already in the article, so there's nothing to do. And for the second claim, it would need a reliable source to back it up before adding. It would also help whoever responds to indicate exactly where in the article you want to add it, and the exact text you'd want to add. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
_2.svg){kind=link}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbothwe. Peer reviewers: Leonardlauryn, Brprate, Kevcox.
Not done: Wikipedia doesn’t go by official names. See: WP:OFFICIALNAMES for further explanation. Aotearoa is a common English name for New Zealand, which is why it is noted prominently here. See Aotearoa for more thorough treatment of that name. — HTGS (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)