Talk:Foreign relations of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Recent events

Do we want the level of detail of the sections on "New Zealander-Israeli relations", "Response to the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake" and "Gaza kidnapping"? They seem out of kilter with the overall tone of the article by providing a lot of information on relatively small matters (as far as NZ foreign policy is concerned).-gadfium 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The article sucks. I will work on rectifying it. If those sections have more content, it is justifiable because they are the only sourced sections. Everything else is OR. Republitarian 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is way too strong to say the article sucks. It does need to be sourced, although a lot of the current material is not controversial (membership of international organisations, for example). There's a big difference between WP:OR and uncited material. It only becomes original research if no reasonable cite can be found on request.

I really don't see the point of the current "New Zealander-Israeli relations" section, which is simply a press release from Clark on a fairly uncontroversial matter. By that, I don't mean that the situation in the Middle East is uncontroversial, but a press release welcoming Resolution 1701 is. Even if New Zealand sends troops to participate in an international peacekeeping force, that would be more relevant at Military history of New Zealand.-gadfium 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest separating this article into two: Foreign relations of New Zealand and Timeline of foreign relations of New Zealand which would include the much more specific events. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me.-gadfium 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why a timeline? What info would go on that? Republitarian 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On the time line would go (kinda obviously) all the events of NZ's Foreign Relations. Why? Because it would provide a demarcation of the current administration's policies, current membership etc. from the historical. I will place it at WP:NZCOTF (although will probably be unable to edit it much because I have 35,000words due in 44 days time). --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not Foreign relations of New Zealand - current and Foreign relations of New Zealand - historical? That way the change over time stuff can have a better analysis than a timeline can give - NZ's early relationships with the UK, France etc, Declaration of Independence, colonisation, participation in Boer War, the question of federation with Australia, ANZACs, League of Nations, and so on up to Bolger's declaration that NZ is an Asian country. There's a story to be told there of the shifting allegiances - it doesn't need to be any more in depth than school cert history (showing my age). --Tirana 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but I think that's an awfully stupid idea. I once again reiterate the need for content to put on the page before the page is started. This page should be vastly expanded before any consideration for splitting it is taken seriously. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on wikipedia talk pages should follow these guidelines. Please avoid saying things like "awfully stupid idea" - that's inappropriate. Nicknz 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So let's put an historical section in the main article, and if it gets the material it needs, then split it out. Or keep the focus on historical as it is, and add a current events section with brief outline of things that have happened in the last 3 years. As it stands, it's out of balance. One sentence is dedicated to a bombing carried out by French agents in NZ territory, nothing is mentioned of NZ's role in the wars or the establishment of the League of Nations and UN, yet a whole section is dedicated to a relations with one country which is neither a major ally or enemy. --Tirana 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International disputes

"Gaza kidnapping" is not an international dispute, as it is not a dispute between NZ and another country. It has essentially nothing to do with foreign relations and should be removed. Petrouchka 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. It also had not been updated to reflect the outcome.- gadfium 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. If anyone has grounds for disagreement, hopefully they'll indicate that here. Petrouchka 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)