Talk:New Zealand/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Living standards

I deleted the section about NZ living standards being below the average of other developed economies. I don't know which clown wrote that, or if they've lived in any other countries, but it's patently ridiculous. As a small country at the bottom of the South Pacific, NZ undoubtedly has some structural economic problems, but living standards are identical, if not higher, than that enjoyed in most advanced industrialised countries.Newc0253 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Official language box should say "New Zealand Sign Language", not just "Sign Language"

There are literally hundreds of different sign languages used around the world. List of sign languages gives some of the major ones. In general, different sign languages are not mutually intelligible, and many of them developed completely independently of each other.

The new official language of New Zealand is New Zealand Sign Language. It is not American Sign Language, nor French Sign Language, nor Chinese Sign Language, nor Japanese Sign Language, none of which a New Zealand Sign Language user would be able to understand or use -- no more than an English-speaker of New Zealand could be expected to know French, Chinese, or Japanese.

As such, it makes no more sense to give the new third official language of New Zealand as just "Sign Language" than it would to give the existing two official languages of New Zealand as just "Spoken Language".

-- ran (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, English links to New Zealand English Maori links to Māori language so Sign Language should link to New Zealand Sign Language, it does not need to say NZ Sign Language. New Zealaland uses 'New Zealand English not British, or Australian or US english. If we say NZ NZ Sign Language, we will have to also say NZ english, and NZ maori, as there is other maori out there (eg Cook Island Maori).
This should be fixed ASAP Brian | (Talk) 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Sign Language, but I understand that New Zealand Sign Language is much more different from American Sign Language, say, than NZ English is from American English, and that the differences are big enough for them to be described as different languages, not dialects of the same language. So I think Brian's argument misses the point.
From [1]:
"New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) has been "spoken" for over a hundred years. It developed out of British Sign Language (BSL), brought here by Dorcas Mitchell, tutor to a family of Deaf children in Charteris Bay in the 1870s. BSL can be traced back another 300 years and probably has an unrecorded history as long as that of English. American Sign Language (ASL or Ameslan) is a completely different language."
I don't really know enough about differences between the Māori languages to comment on that part. -- Avenue 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, there are hundreds of different sign languages in the world. Most of them are not mutually intelligible and many of them developed independently from each other. The diversity of Sign Languages worldwide is not comparable at all to the English varieties of the UK, US, Australia, NZ, etc; it is more comparable to the variety of all the spoken languages of the world: English, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, etc.
(According to the article BANZSL, BANZSL (which includes New Zealand Sign Language) has a lexical similarity of just 44% with American Sign Language. In contrast, English has a lexical similarity of 60% with German.)
Brian New Zealand's version, which gives "Sign Language" as one of the official languages of New Zealand, would be like giving "Spoken languages" as the other two official languages, without bothering to distinguish between the spoken languages of the world. If you feel that the spoken languages of the world are different enough for us to specify "English" and "Maori" (rather than just "Spoken languages"), why would you not do the same for New Zealand Sign Language as well?
-- ran (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, my IP was blocked :) You have convinced me, all I was trying to do was make it shorter in the info box. And correct as I saw it. I apologise for the misunderstanding Brian | (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries =) -- ran (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate over Casualties in WWI

Here's the quote from the article:

In addition to the various wars between iwi, and between the British settlers and iwi, New Zealand has fought in the Second Boer War, World War I, (sustaining the highest casualties per head of population of any combatant nation)

I believe that Newfoundland (which held the same status of "Dominion" at the time) actually may be the appropriate holder of this dubious honour. At the same time, I'm not certain - so I'd suggest that either the section in brackets be removed or a reference be provided. AshleyMorton 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find figures for the population of Newfoundland during the war but couldn't find any, so I decided set some bounds on the population. According to World War I casualties, Newfoundland had total dead of 1,251. NZ population from the 1916 census was ~1.2 million and the number of NZers killed was 18,166, meaning Newfoundland would need a population less than 83,000 to have a higher death rate in the war. If we look at total casualities (dead and wounded from the table), Newfoundland would have needed a population of less than 72,000 people. Of course this doesn't show whether NZ or Newfoundland had a higher rate, but my gut feeling is that ~80,000 people seems rather low for a Dominion. 203.173.151.217 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The main Newfoundland page says: "The First World War had a powerful and lasting effect on the society. From a population of about a quarter of a million, 5,482 men went overseas. Nearly 1,500 were killed and 2,300 wounded " - SimonLyall 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the World War I casualties page I would guess that Serbia, France, Romania and perhaps even Bulgaria or Russia are ahead of NZ though. depedning on their exact populations at the time. - SimonLyall 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Demographics of France, it had a population of around 40,000,000 during WWI, and military deaths of 1375800. This would mean 3.44% of its population were killed just in the military, compared to 1.51% for New Zealand. If we look at total deaths and wounded, France had a rate of 14.20% compared to NZ's 6.39%. Even if we ignore civilian deaths, France only drops to 14.10%, so it definitely has a higher rate. As such, I think the comment should be removed from articles that it is found in. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Just to add to this, Austria-Hungary has a death rate of 2.34% for military deaths. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, based on population figures from [2] for some countries, [3] for New Zealand, we find that:
New Zealand had a death rate of 1.51% and casuality rate (civilian and military) of 6.39%
France, 2.55%, and 10.53%
Austria-Hungary, 2.34% and 9.38%
Germany, 2.53% and 8.56%
Romania, 3.73% and 5.06%
Italy, 1.86% and 4.56%
Bulgaria, 1.59% and 4.36%
Evil Monkey - Hello 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you check NZ against other Commonwealth counties? Brian | (Talk) 23:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia was 1.19% and 4.37% and Canada, 0.83% and 3.00%. As for the other Commonwealth countries, South Africa had less deaths and casualities than NZ and India had only slightly more, making it unlikely they would have a higher rate. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been watching the Maori TV ANZAC day covage today and I'm sure they said NZ had the higest casualites per capita in WWI, (out of the Commonwealth) Brian | (Talk) 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If we look instead at the miliary casualty rates as a proportion of those mobilised, New Zealand had a casualty rate of 66% (73,000 casualties out of 110,000 mobilised). It comes third in this list, after the French Empire and Austria-Hungary, and highest in the Commonwealth. However Newfoundland is not listed. -- Avenue 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Been British off to New Zealnd

Hi am British from Newcastle England am off to move with my family to new zealand this July just want to ask are you guys nice? lol just in Australia i found that the guys did not like us lol its ashame.

Yes the New Zealanders like the British a lot more than the Australians. I used to live there and then moved to Australia, and there is a big difference.


i'm from melbourne, and i have never noticed even the slightest animosity to the british... the closest thing i can think of would be the competitive nature of the cricket fans here... don't know what you guys are on about... 203.214.25.139 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is that traditional Aussie expression "whingeing pommie". It doesn't mean that all English people are like that, but it must have had some basis. JackofOz 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I live in Dunedin and evryone I know likes British pplz. British accents ROCK!!! HyperSushi21 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To do list

Has anyone actually looked at the To-Do list recently. There is a pic of the Beehive here, and others certainly have been done. --Midnighttonight 04:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rearrange

I was looking at the article, and realised that the sections don't really make a great deal of sense in their order. I am proposing a bit of a move around to:
1 Intro
2 History
3 Government and Politics

3.1 Central
3.2 Local
3.3 International relations
3.3.1 Foreign territories
3.3.2 Foreign relations
3.3.3 Military

4 Economy

4.1 International rankings

5 Culture

5.1 Demographics
5.2 Sports
5.3 Public Holidays

6 Natural environment

6.1 Geography
6.2 Flora and Fauna

7 See also
8 Notes
9 External Links

What do people think? --Midnighttonight 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, however I don't now if Military should be a sub of International relations Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a version at /proposal which should make it easier for people to comment on --Midnighttonight 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything that strays to far from that suggested by Wikiproject:Countries, or the layout of other featured countries is going to have to be revised if anyone wants to try and get this article featured. I would suggest staying away from sub-sections of any type, and applying some good copyediting - many of the sections (sport, foreign relations, goverment) are overly long.--Peta 11:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Constitution

I removed from the history section the comment that "...though the Australian Constitution still includes provision for New Zealand to be included." This statement is not correct, as New Zealand is only mentioned in Section 6 under the definition of 'states', but this does not mean that there is provision for us to be included, anymore so than for Papua New Guinea (for example).

One could argue that Section 121 of the Constitution does allow for New Zealand to become a part of Australia, however, that does not apply simply to New Zealand, and would probably require ratification in Australia (i.e. a referendum). --Lholden 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the next clause does define original states as those who have ratified by time of proclamation. You may have a point. Xtra 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, although that clause was meant for Western Australia, who like us didn't want to join the Aussie Commonwealth --Lholden 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
new zealand worried that being so far away from the mainland they wouldn't have adequate protection from any would be invaders, and that any military force would not be able to get there in time... i think western Australian's (of which at the time were a very small number) weren't interested in becoming independant from england who still had a powerful empire at the time. Redgardless, it is indeed true that the Australian constitution still includes provisions to allow new zealand to join as a state (4 million people would put new zealand up there with victoria and new south wales who i think have roughly 5 and 6 million people respectively...) although both Australian and New Zealand interest in this is quite low, new zealand because of some strange attitude towards Australia and Australia because of the economic cost involved in adopting New zealand as a state.
Nonsense: Go and actually read the provisions of the Constitution of Australia I've referred to. You will see that no such provision(s) exist for New Zealand to simply become an Australian state other than by the process of adding new states; which applies for any territory (Papua New Guinea or Fiji could become a State of Australia on this basis), not New Zealand specifically.
Western Australia, like New Zealand, didn't want to join the Commonwealth of Australia because out of its own self-interest, indeed they actually voted in 1933 [4] to leave the Australian Commonwealth. --Lholden 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolute balderdash, my friend. They indeed had a referendum, but they voted against seceding. And if the people of WA had not wanted to join the Commonwealth in 1901, they would have voted against it - but they voted for it. JackofOz 11:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Mr JackofOz, I think you are talking "Absolute Balderdash" yourself - in the 1933 Western Australia referendum 68% voted to secede. How you could get your facts so wrong escapes me. GrahamBould 11:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How very odd, that's the first time I've ever been wrong. I retract that part of my statement and plead temporary insanity. :--) JackofOz 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
i'm sorry i must have been thinking of this: Section 6 of the Preamble declares that:
The States’ shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for

the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called ‘a State.

Yes, that is what the Preamble says. If you read the next section, you'll see that in order for the above to apply, New Zealand had to have ratified the Constitution by the time of the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia. This, of course, was not the case and this section cannot apply. Moreover, as I've said above, the section relating to the admission of new states [5] doesn't give New Zealand special rights either. --Lholden 10:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the history section which reads "though the Australian Constitution still includes provision for New Zealand to be included." should be deleted. --Lholden 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Largest city

Should we say NZ's largest city is Manukau City or the Auckland metropolitan area? Manukau is correct in a technical sense, in that it is the local authority with the largest population. 222.154.42.110 has made a couple of recent edits to the infobox based on this interpretation of "city". But this could be misleading, as I suspect that wouldn't be the meaning that most readers would expect. What do you think? -- Avenue 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No contest. Auckland City says 420,700. Manukau City says 360,200. Moriori 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree Auckland City is the local authority with the highest population, although I think that misses the point. The question is whether to give the largest local authority or the largest urban area. And FWIW, these population figures are wrong, or at least misleadingly labelled. The usually resident populations from the 2001 Census were 367,737 and 283,200 respectively, and the most recent population estimates on Statistics NZ's website (30 June 2005, provisional) are 425,400 and 332,900. The Auckland City figure is the provisional population estimate as at 30 June 2004 (the final estimate of 420,800 was slightly higher), and is not the 2001 Census figure as was stated in our article. Manukau City is projected to reach 360,000 sometime around 2010 (under medium growth assumptions). -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
um I have heard before that Manukau is the city with the most population Brian | (Talk) 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Click on Auckland City and then Manukau City. Moriori 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
mmmm, it appers Manukau is New Zealand's third largest city, thats intresting, as I know a lot of people who are sure its the largest pop wise. Brian | (Talk) 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I admit I was one of them. It seems this is very out of date (1989); see Manukau#Population. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The Auckland metropolitan area is probably the best one to say with 1.2 million people. Bringing it down to the council level really doesn't produce a logical result. - SimonLyall 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to use the largest metropolitan area. However I have noticed that U.S. states do not do this; e.g. Florida lists Jacksonville as its largest city, not the larger metropolitan areas centred around Miami or Tampa. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What we have now is completely wrong. We have Auckland which points to the Metropolitan Area when we mean the territorial authority and we list the population as 367,734 when the Auckland City page has 425,400 listed. If people are really hung up about territorial authorities instead of urban areas I suggest we do what Japan does and list Auckland ( 1,241,800) with a note at the bottom of the infobox with Largest urban area. Auckland City is the largest incorporated city . Personally I suspect 99% of people are only going to care about the urban area figure. - SimonLyall 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be Dunedin City. :) This is the largest "city" in New Zealand, based on land area (which seems the most literal interpretation someone might put on "largest city"). -- Avenue 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume silence means assent, and go ahead with Simon's last suggestion above. (I notice that in the meantime, someone has added one million to the Auckland population figure, giving 1,367,734. Chinese whispers anyone? :) -- Avenue 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
NO! I dissent! Auckland is the largest city but the population of the City of Auckland should be given. If you want to list the population of the Auckland metropolitan area, then that should be lead into with that title. Or at least give Auckland City's population and then in brack say 'of total urban population ***'.Enzedbrit 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, can't agree with you. Have a look at Sydney which says "Sydney (pronounced [ˈsɪd.ni]) is the most populous city in Australia with a metropolitan area population of over four million people". Then click on City of Sydney to see it "comprises the Sydney central business district and the surrounding inner west and inner city suburbs of the greater metropolitan area of Sydney" and has a population of 122,211. Works for the Aussies. Works for me. .Moriori 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me that the Greater Auckland city is the one that should be listed, as per SimonLyall and Moriori above.-gadfium 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should list the metropolitan area. Although there are overseas precedents both ways (e.g. Florida and Australia), I believe most Kiwis would think of the broader definition of city in this context. And we have a note below the infobox explaining that Auckland City is the largest incorporated city, for anyone who wants to follow the stricter definition. -- Avenue 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I stand by the semantics. If you are going to list Auckland as the largest city, then you should give the population of the City of Auckland. If you are going to give the population of either 1/ the urban area, or 2/ the Auckland region, then that should be listed. If not, it's being misleading. I don't see why both the city population and the urban population cannot be listed. We could look at other examples, but to follow in the vain of doing something we know isn't right, doesn't make it right still. Enzedbrit 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, do we even need to list the population at all? Other countries don't seem to (haven't look at 'every' country but still ...)Enzedbrit 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point about the population. I haven't found another country's article that include this either, and I'd be happy to see it go. I still think we should list Auckland, not Auckland City. -- Avenue 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be reasonable: to list Auckland as the largest city but not give the population. I checked Brazil, Australia and the United States as three countries where the largest city is not the capital, and none of them list the population of the largest city.-gadfium 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aotearoa

I'm not sure it was a good idea to remove the bit about long lenticular clouds suggesting the name Aotearoa, Land Of The Long White Cloud. It was precisely because migrating Maori had not seen such clouds before that they thought them remarkable, and named the land accordingly. Comments? Moriori 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have three concerns about the lenticular clouds bit. First, it seemed like excessive detail for the preamble (which should just be summarising the article text below, and there is no further mention of Aotearoa in the article). Second, it's unclear to me whether it was the nature of the cloud or its length (reflecting the vast size of the NZ landmass relative to the Pacific islands) that the name was meant to capture. A third issue is that our Aotearoa article gives three possible explanations for the name; lenticular clouds feature in only one of them.
But perhaps I was a bit hasty in deleting it. The first of these issues could be dealt with by shifting it to a relevant section of the article, and the others seem to require some expansion of the comment to at least acknowledge other explanations. I wouldn't object to an expanded version going the History section, for instance. -- Avenue 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It should be in History, alongside why New Zealand was named as such. --Midnighttonight 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Aotearoa is already linked, so yes, bung it in history. Moriori 07:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

history

the history section is quite long, but only one paragraph is dedicated to post-1900 New Zealand. No mention of the world wars even. I think we should rejig the history section, it is meant to be a brief summary of NZ history really. --Midnighttonight 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool... does that mean we can change the Australian constitution part? --Lholden 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Queen

Is it appropriate to have a picture of the Queen in the article? Should the presence of the picture be related to the percentage of monarchists or the influence on the Queen on New Zealand society and politics? Alan Liefting 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

UK has the queen, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda ,Belize and Saint Kitts and Nevis do not. You might be right that she should go from the page based on cross-article consensus. Although my inclination would to be to add the pic to the other pages as the Head of State. --Midnighttonight 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Most countries that have gone on to be featured don't have a picture of the head of state (Queen, PM, President ect.) at all.--Peta 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The photo should remain IMO, otherwise the PM photo will have to go as well, It is not hurting anyone been there. Brian | (Talk) 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the picture appearing, but it shouldn't be the first picture in the article. At the very least, it should appear below that of Helen Clark. I'm not arguing the overall merits of these two people, but Clark has more say on New Zealand at the present time than the Queen does. I also wonder if the Governor-General's picture might be more appropriate than the Queen's.-gadfium 02:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The Queen is our Head of State, If her photo is to appear it should be above that of Helen Clark’s, perhaps we should change the photo to one where HM is wearing her New Zealand Orders, as opposed to her Canadian orders Brian | (Talk) 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a sensible idea no matter what happens for all the NZ articles with a pic of the Queen. Can you use your pro-monarchist links to get one? I agree that Clark has more power, but the current picture is terrible - it comes from the 1999 campaign I think. In terms of order, I would go Queen (de jure head of state), Gov-Gen (de facto head of state), PM (head of government) as per the New Zealand order of precedence. --Midnighttonight 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.


Have a look at Image:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg, it was her official photo for the 2002 royal visit. HM has the ONZ, the Order of Merit and the QSO on Brian | (Talk) 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Copped version: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Brian | (Talk) 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


It is standard to place a picture of a head of state in state articles. The head of state of New Zealand is Queen Elizabeth II so of course she goes in automatically. The Governor-General is number 2 in the constitutional pecking order so if included automatically goes in below the Queen, and the PM below the GG. That is the standard format that corresponds with the constitutional order of status. Head of state. Her representative. Her Prime Minister. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This republican has no problem with a picture of the Queen appearing - she is our Head of state. --Lholden 07:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Queen.......

......as we were, something that has occurred to me is that it might be a good idea to change our Politics subheading to Government, a la the Canadian page which you can see here. I'm quite ambivalent about it, but thought it worth mentioning. Moriori 07:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see Brian's already changed it. I'll just say I'm strongly in favour of the new heading, because the section covers our (largely ceremonial) head of state and the court system, along with politics. -- Avenue 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it was a good idea, I also added a couple more See also's to go with the new heading Brian | (Talk) 11:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I just revamped the international ranking section

Note, the new section is all on Wikipedia already. The old section is here, for those that people want to reinclude.

  • Environmental Performance Index, January 2006: 1st out of 100; followed by Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom; Yale and Columbia Universities; Rankings (pdf)
  • UN Human Development Index (HDI), 2005: 19th out of 177 behind Norway; United Nations Development Programme (pdf) [6]
  • Quality of Life Index, 2005: 15th out of 111 behind Canada; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf) [7]
  • Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005: 14th (out of 146) behind Finland; Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy & Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (pdf) [8]
  • Index of Economic Freedom, 2005: 5th= (out of 155) behind Hong Kong; Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal [9]
  • GDP per person at PPP, 2005: 25th out of 111 behind Spain; The Economist Intelligence Unit (pdf) [10]
  • Transparency International 2005: 2nd= (out of 159) behind Iceland on its list of least corrupt countries in the world. [11]
  • Broadband Ranking June 2005: 22nd (out of 30) [12]
  • Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index 2005: 2.00 (Tied for 12th with Hungary, Sweden, Trinidad & Tobago) For comparison, the U.K. is 5.17 at #24, and the U.S. is 9.50 at #44. Lower numbers indicate greater freedom of the press. [13]

Hope it works better --Midnighttonight 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little bit confusing, because it isn't always clear whether a high ranking or a low ranking is desirable. We're 2nd in the world for corruption - that's good. We're 149th for HIV - that sounds terrible. I can click through to understand whether the figure is good or bad, but it would be preferable if I didn't have to.-gadfium 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Gadmium, I agree. Stats without explanation - almost useless. Would you like me to add a comment to each? Maybe in Talk first? GrahamBould 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Does it make more sense now? --Midnighttonight 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It's grand now.-gadfium 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something. What does the first line mean? i.e. "Freedom - Free (political rights - 1) (civil liberties - 1)" -- Avenue 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House gives a ranking of 1 (free) to 7 (non-free) on both political rights and civil liberties, and does not rank countries against each other per se. Have a look at Freedom in the World 2006 and Freedom House#Reports for how they rank the countries. --Midnight tonight 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. I've reworded it to make it a bit clearer, along with the subsection headings. -- Avenue 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Europe

Someone yelled at me for changing "European Free Market" to the European Community. I thought it would be better to have the correct term, but change it back to your fictional name if you must. This is such a rage-filled community; a lot of you think you own the place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Helen Clark

The picture of Helen Clark should not be used. Another one should replace it. The current picture was used by the Labour Party on their election camapign. Her teeth are FAKE IN THAT PCITURE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purdonkurt (talk • contribs) .

Then provide a public domain accurate picture. --Midnighttonight 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"the nuclear danger presented by the Cold War"

I decided to remove this phrase down to the fact that the only nuclear danger presented by the Cold War to New Zealand came from the Soviet Union, not United States, which had ICBM pointed towards the south pacific and Soviet Naval Forces armed with SLBM's on stand by.--James Bond 07:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that phrase that was pretty vague. I have added disagreements over New Zealand's nuclear-free policy to the list instead. -- Avenue 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Help on linking in info box

I can't figure out how to create a link in the info box. Essentially, "census" should link to New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings. But, I can't figure out how to do it as it is part of an info box. Any thoughts on how to do it? --Midnighttonight 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible in the main body of the infobox. You could link in the footnotes.-gadfium 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word Pākehā

While it is fair to say that the term Pākehā is widely used, I don't think it should be used in the context "Contemporary Pākehā New Zealand has a diverse contemporary culture". There are a significant number of non-Maori cultures in NZ and to give them the blanket term "Pākehā" (a term applied to the European Settlers by the Maori) does not correctly represent the multiculturalism of the country. Furthermore, the word is meaningless to a large proportion of the readers having no direct translation into English. I suggest that we remove Pākehā and replace it with "non-Maori" or leave the word out altogether.

good idea, its not necessary, can be taken out - i will. Kahuroa 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd also lose the second use of that horrible word "contemporary". Contemporary NZ has a contemporary culture indeed - and that's without the pedant in me asking "cotemporary to what?". Grutness...wha? 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Too late, Moriori axed it a few minutes before you posted this. Moriori 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Great minds think alike" ;) Grutness...wha? 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand independence - article?

Not wanting to re-litigate the whole date of NZ's independence, but perhaps we should have a single article explaining why it is difficult to determine the actual date of our independence? There is also some debate (as part of the wider republic debate as to whether we are totally independent --Lholden 02:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good; add in about how in 1947 we stopped using the term “dominion” etc. And as for that republic debate :) Brian | (Talk) 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, to the joe average foreigner there is no 'one' date of independence --Lholden 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated home page - added Independence of New Zealand article --Lholden 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Non-political"?

The 2nd para states that "Elizabeth II is the Queen of New Zealand and is represented by a non-political Governor-General". The use of "non-political" certainly doesn't fit within the dictionary definition of "political":

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

The Governor-General certainly is part of the structure of government.

2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians

A more appropriate term would be "non-partisan", which is defined as:

"A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."

This is a much better description of the office than "non-political". Any thoughts? --Lholden 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

agree. change to "non-partisan". --Midnighttonight 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
apolitical then Brian | (Talk) 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I’ll make that comment unambiguous :) I don’t mind if apolitical, or non-partisan is used. However apolitical is a commonly used term. Brian | (Talk) 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think apolitical is correct either. Many former Governors-General have clearly been political appointments (Tizard, Holyoake, Reeves, Blundell) --Lholden 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC}
Okay, go with non-partisan Brian | (Talk) 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Non-partisan is the correct term.-gadfium 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro mention of "Aotearoa"?

The introduction doesn't mention the alternative name Aotearoa, I think it should because Te Reo Māori is an official language. For example the first line: New Zealand (also in Te Reo Māori: Aotearoa) is a country in the south-western.... --Konstable 11:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The name Aotearoa is mentioned prominently in the introduction, being the focus of the second sentence. -- Avenue 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

British includes English and Scottish. Scottish people are British people as are English people. The majority of New Zealand's European and Pakeha heritage comes from Britain and Ireland. To say British and Scottish just looks silly.

JackofOz states: British is a relatively recent geopolitical term - the Scots and the English have always been ethnically distinct. Well, Scotland is also pretty recent, as is England. Both terms when applied encompassed many disparate tribes into new national and (in modern times with our new view on the world) ethnic groupings. What are the differences in ethnicity between English and Scottish are differences because of geopolitical classification and regional cultural elements within these areas that have been applied to both countries in entirety (such as tartan and morris dancing, which both transcend the border too). Also, British and Britain have been in usage since Roman times.

If one wishes to state English and Scottish peoples as making up NZ's demographic fabric, or even worse, British and Scottish, then there is nationalist fervour behind it. Enzedbrit 08:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's silly to say British and Scottish, but I think mentioning both English and Scottish is perfectly reasonable. Try telling people in Dunedin that there's no real difference between English and Scottish culture. -- Avenue 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately many people in Dunedin have grown up with an idea of what it means to be Scottish several generations after their ancestors left Scotland, and these same people will have no doubt as much heritage that originates south of the border than north of it - the truth is, one doesn't know every aspect of ones heritage for hundreds of years, and if they do then they're exceedingly lucky! It is reasonable to list English and Scottish, and the reason why I would be against this is because British is an all encompassing term and perfectly valid. Enzedbrit 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between stating the groups making up the demographic make up of New Zealand today and the groups that came to New Zealand years ago. If we followed the former, we'd all have to work out what percentage of us are English, Scottish or Welsh to tell how 'British' we are. Personally I think for Pakeha New Zealanders to keep calling themselves 'British' is something of a strange denial of our geopolitical reality; I make the distinction between Pakeha and British being something temporal. Don't ask me how long. And I'm sure that when our great-great grandparents immigrated, they saw themselves as English or Scottish or Irish, not British. The Union wasn't that old during the great waves of immigration in the 1860s / 1870s anyway. Today most immigrants to NZ from the UK wouldn't make such a distinction. Oh, and on the issue we're actually discussing: Yes, it is silly to say that Scottish is not part of British. --Lholden 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Scottish is not British" is a red herring, not the real issue here. JackofOz's version referred to English and Scottish ancestry, and Enzedbrit changed this to British. That's what we're choosing between here. -- Avenue 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the difference between Pakeha and British is temporal. I wasn't born in this country and identify as British because I still retain that link. For me, were I Pakeha, it would be because I have European ancestors but identify with New Zealand as the country that is my home and hadn't that link to Britain or to Europe. I agree too that those that moved here from Britain probably did identify with their home country, or further still, with their home region in those countries, and the same would have been true of people from other old world nations as well who identified with regions and provinces rather than with nation states. Yet, the union was over 150 years old during the great waves from the UK (and there had been a common monarch for over 250 years) so about half way into the life of the union compared with the age of it today. Enzedbrit 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ireland was likewise part of the United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland at the time, and the throne of Ireland had been occupied by the reigning King of England since 1542. But our article still mentions Irish ancestry separately. I think this is desirable, along with mentioning both English and Scottish ancestry, because the differences between these groups had repercussions in NZ history that are still visible today. It also links nicely with the later discussion of pipebands in this article. -- Avenue 03:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Remember, pipebands are not a peculiar Scottish tradition, anymore than brassbands are English. Enzedbrit 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Official languages

According to this government document New Zealand does have three official languages. Ziggurat 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally happy with this usage of "official language", but our article on the topic has a stricter definition which only counts legally privileged languages. It does not include languages that are merely "official by convention dating back many hundreds of years"[14]. Perhaps we should put the words "de facto" next to English in the infobox, to make its status even clearer. (See United States and United Kingdom for example.) -- Avenue 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We do!, the footnode says "4 English is an official language de facto, while the other two languages have de jure official status.", it seems silly to say the same think twice. Brian | (Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The footnote is quite sufficient - sorry, I should have clarified who my original statement was intended for. This diff removed English from the list, and I was replacing it and responding to their edit-summary reason here. Ziggurat 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whimsical name change?

Does anyone think a good name for this article would be Kiwipedia? Preacherdoc 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No.--cj | talk 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh? This is an article about New Zealand. --Lholden 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you may actually have to be from New Zealand to appreciate this... frankly, I think it's a brilliant idea. --203.211.79.92 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Lauren
Erm, I am from New Zealand. This is an article about New Zealand. It should be called New Zealand. --Lholden 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps your dictionary needs a little action; perhaps your sense of humour. It was, after all, a whimsical suggestion. Preacherdoc 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Governor-General

Dame Silvia stands down today; however note that Judge Anand Satyanand becomes the Governor-General-designate, until he is sworn in on the 23 August. (The Chief Justice acts as Administrator of the Government in the interregnum.) Brian | (Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it! --Lholden 22:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
But Dame Silvia is still Governor-General until midnight, so we should hold fire until then.[15] -- Avenue 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I was planning.. :) Brian | (Talk) 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word iwi

As with Pakeha the word iwi is in common use in New Zealand, but it is confusing to the rest of the English speaking world and I don't think it fits in well with this article. For example "In addition to the various wars between iwi, and between the British settlers and iwi" doesn't sound right unless you know what an iwi is. I think we should consider replacing the word "iwi" with tribe, tribes or Maori tribes throughout the article which is much clearer. Mike Kiwi

Although I'm not totally adverse to such a change, iwi is the more precise wording (tribe can apply to a wide range of different societal structures), and is both explained and wikilinked in the History section for those who want or need to know more. Ziggurat 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the first time the term is used in the article, it should be written as "iwi (Maori tribes)", then the term iwi can be used thereafter. The term is explained, linked, and is still able to be used. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is already written as "iwi ('nation' or 'tribe')" on its first mention. I think this is better than the latest suggestion; it conveys the earlier "nation" connotation, and it's clear from the context that it refers to Māori. -- Avenue 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

&, what about "kiwi"?

What about "kiwi"?

kiwi_(disambiguation);

kiwi_(people);

kiwifruit [That's the only sort of "kiwi" that I recall having eaten. Colloquially, & in grocerystores, in North America, it's merely "kiwi", not "kiwifruit", although it is known that it is a fruit.].


iwi.

Hopiakuta 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Could this be a basis for a separate disambiguation page?:

Could this be a basis for a separate disambiguation page?

Particularly the Zealand etymology in the second paragraph????:


New Zealand is one of the most recently settled major land masses. Polynesian settlers arrived in their waka some time between the 13th century and the 15th century to establish the indigenous Māori culture. New Zealand's Māori name, Aotearoa, is usually translated as "Land of the long white cloud", reputedly referring to the cloud the explorers saw on the horizon as they approached. Settlement of the Chatham Islands to the east of the mainland produced the Moriori people, but it is disputed whether they moved there from New Zealand or elsewhere in Polynesia. Most of New Zealand was divided into tribal territories called rohe, resources within which were controlled by an iwi ('nation' or 'tribe'). Māori adapted to eating the local marine resources, flora and fauna for food, hunting the giant flightless moa (which soon became extinct), and ate the Polynesian Rat and kumara (sweet potato), which they introduced to the country.

The first Europeans known to have reached New Zealand were led by Abel Janszoon Tasman, who sailed up the west coasts of the South and North Islands in 1642. He named it Staten Landt, believing it to be part of the land Jacob Le Maire had seen in 1616 off the coast of Chile. Staten Landt appeared on Tasman's first maps of New Zealand, but this was changed by Dutch cartographers to Nova Zeelandia, after the Dutch province of Zeeland, some time after Hendrik Brouwer proved the supposedly South American land to be an island in 1643. The Latin Nova Zeelandia became Nieuw Zeeland in Dutch. Captain James Cook subsequently called the archipelago New Zealand (a slight corruption, as Zealand is not an alternative spelling of Zeeland, a province in the Netherlands, but of Sjælland, the island in Denmark that includes Copenhagen), although the Māori names he recorded for the North and South Islands (as Aehei No Mouwe and Tovy Poenammu respectively[1]) were rejected, and the main three islands became known as North, Middle and South, with the Middle Island being later called the South Island, and the earlier South Island becoming Stewart Island. Cook began extensive surveys of the islands in 1769, leading to European whaling expeditions and eventually significant European colonisation. From as early as the 1780s, Māori had encounters with European sealers and whalers. Acquisition of muskets by those iwi in close contact with European visitors destabilised the existing balance of power between Māori tribes and there was a temporary but intense period of bloody inter-tribal warfare, known as the Musket Wars, which ceased only when all iwi were so armed. Thank You.

Hopiakuta 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?Moriori 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would be needed. If someone was looking for "New Zealand" they would't just search on the word "Zeeland" or "Zealand" (or "Sjælland"), just as someone looking for "New York" wouldn't just search on "York". (Is that what you're asking?) -- Mako 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, you have to wonder how credible it is for a Dutch explorer to name something after Sjaelland in Scandinavia rather than Zeeland in the Netherlands. Kahuroa 06:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)