Talk:Stewart Island/Rakiura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stewart Island/Rakiura article.
Article policies
Flag Stewart Island/Rakiura is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Ecoregions, a WikiProject that seeks to provide complete articles about each of earth's ecoregions. Please participate by contributing to the article Stewart Island/Rakiura, or by visiting the project page for more details on current projects.

Contents

[edit] Population

Is it "just under 400" per first paragraph - or 236 as stated under the map?"

Any consensus yet? The gap is huge. GrahamBould 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This discrepancy is still there. Oban, New Zealand says that place had a population of 387 in 2001, which would make the 236 figure impossible. 81.158.2.114 11:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I propose changing the name of this article to the official name of the island, viz. Stewart Island/Rakiura (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ). Apart from the first use in the intro, I have no problem with a shorter form of the name, e.g. Stewart Island, being used in the article. Any objections? Nurg 08:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sounds OK - might need redirect pages at both Stewart Island, New Zealand and Rakiura though... Grutness 05:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Maori name for the island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. A Wikipedia article name should reflect what the place is called in the English language, otherwise calling this article Stewart Island/Rakiura is no different from renaming France to France/Française, Germany to Germany/Deutschland, Auckland to Auckland/Tāmaki Makau Rau and so on. There is a Te Reo Maori edition of Wikipedia, that is where all articles should be named in Maori, and likewise with all other respective languages. Otherwise, this is going to become very silly very fast. User:203.109.252.196 11:20, August 6, 2005
To the contrary. As language evolves, so too do naming, and eventual usage. Kids were taught at school that the mountain near New Plymouth was called Egmont. Now they are taught it is called Mount Taranaki, and that's what they call it, (some older Taranaki-ites probably excepted). By government decree, Stewart Island/Rakiura is the official name, combining two of New Zealand's official languages, and that name must be printed on official maps/signage etc. It is not strictly so that Wikipedia article names should "reflect what it is called in the English language". Wikipedia has to reflect changing reality, not someone's wishes. Click on Burma for an example. Would you suggest that Myanmar should be changed back to Burma because that is the name you are comfortable with? Furthermore, you are drawing a very long bow when you say it is no different from renaming France to France/Française. There is a world of difference. France/Francaise means the same thing twice. Stewart Island/Rakiura recognises two totally different things -- (1) Captain William Stewart who in 1809 was the first to accurately chart the island, and (2) Rakiura, the name that Maori used for untold centuries, which (roughly) translates as Glowing Skies, maybe referring to the island's super sunsets, or for the aurora australis lights that are particularly spectatular there. Moriori 00:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point Pegasus or Port Pegasus?

I see mention in this article of Point Pegasus. Is this the same place as Port Pegasus, or are the two separate?Grutness 09:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted text

"The people of these islands are also exempt from requirements to pay taxes, yet still receive government welfare and other services. This reflects the long-running tension between the desire of the government to retain the islands (which have major strategic importance), and the growing awareness amongst the islanders of their unique respective cultures and languages. Whether this conflict can be resolved peacefully remains to be seen." Is any of this true?

"A third, more controversial suggestion, has been made by Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: the Year China Discovered the New World. His contention, that many of the southern place-names in New Zealand show collateral evidence for the impact of cometary debris in the 1420s, has not gained widespread scientific acceptance." Is there a single serious linguist who accepts this? I doubt it. Nurg 06:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig needed

Just to annoy everyone I've linked Darwin Sound, South America to Stewart Island, but when checking the link this showed up: con the title go to the american one, or do you want something else done?...dave souza 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the link. Would you like to create a Stewart Island (Tierra del Fuego) article?. Cheers Moriori 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] title?

Why is this article called Stewart Island/Rakiura, in common, english daily useage, it is only called Stewart Island. If this format is keeped South Island should be moved etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Brian New Zealand

It is called Stewart Island/Rakiura because its name is Stewart Island/Rakiura. Same as we call Aoraki/Mount Cook Aoraki/Mount Cook. I am unsure what you mean by your last sentence. Moriori 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not signing, I'm sure i added it :)
I mean for the South Island we should be renamed to South Island/Te Wai Pounamu
Untill I read this page I had never heard it called Stewart Island/Rakiura. btw some (alot of) New Zealanders still call Mt Cook by its name, and Mt Egmonut by its name.
The Maori name for the Stewart Island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. Brian | (Talk) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not "the Maori name for the Stewart Island" but the official name of the island, incorporating Maori and English. It is most certainly not "unusued by and unknown to English speakers". Granted, it is taking longer for some people to adapt that's to be expected. Some older folk still talk in inches, feet, yards and miles. Moriori 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay :) I had never heard of it before now, I asked a couple of people and they had not heard of it either :) for intrest when did that become the offical name? could that be written somehow into the article? and maybe something about how a lot of people refer it it as Stewart Island Brian | (Talk) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could/should something be written into the article? Not unless heaps of other articles are changed too, such as what some people call Somes Island in Wellington Harbour or White Island in the Bay of Plenty. Click on them to see their correct names. Maybe we could have an article dealing with the progressive naming/renaming of places in NZ. Go to it. Moriori 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that its a bit sad that many of our society fail to keep up with that renaming process, I know its not intentional, I believe that the places should never have been renamed from the name that they had when Europeans arrived, in my POV. I am really happy with Rakiura and have used it myself for around 10 years, since discovering that Rakiura loosely translates as great glowing in the sky and refers to aurora australis frequently seen in the area. I worked at Waituna Farm next to Waituna lagoon in 1994 and took images of the aurora from Invercargil and Bluff overlooking Rakiura/Stewart Island. To honour that experience i took rakiuraimages as my future art website, and I have my 1994 rakiura images photos at: aurora australis photos. LINZ publishs the official names that are approved by a geographic board for New Zealand, there can be no confusion. Lets just be happy sharing the titles in this new era of collaboration . moza 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's cool, but let's be clear that Wikipedia is not "our society" where "us" is "New Zealand". Wikipedia is international, and its policy is to use common English-language names for things, peope, and places. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's be equally clear that Wikipedia reflects change as well. Click on Calcutta and Bombay and Ivory Coast as examples. It can take a long time for people to adapt to change. For instance, the CIA factbook hasn't yet caught up with Stewart Island/Rakiura, but its 2004 edition adopted Aoraki-Mount Cook as the name of NZ's highest mountain. Moriori 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really agree with that. Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage. I have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved; but, if they don't have a good reason, there's no reason to copy that mistake here. Here is the polcy on using common names. Now, policies aren't always set in stone and I'm very comfortable with WP:IAR, but a policy generally reflects a strongly established consensus of editors, and we should be very careful about going against that. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand you say "Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage" and then say you "have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved". They have moved because they reflect the changing standard English usage of their official names. If people ignored the changes, they would effectively block them from ever becoming "altered standard English". Nothing can change unless we accept it. Wikipedia has enough critics already but refusing to acknowledge that some countries have changed names of geographic locations would earn us many more critics IMMHO. Moriori 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "Nothing can change unless we accept it," if by "we" you mean "Wikipedia". Wikipedia follows changes that have already occurred outside of Wikipediad. It's an interesting hypothetical to consider how Wikipedia would handle things in the future if we become such a large source of information that people are following our lead on what to call things, but we're not there yet. In the cases above, I find it hard to believe that the common name for Calcutta and Bombay has really changed (Ivory Coast, I don't really know about). Likewise, for Stewart Island, is there any evidence that it's common name has changed? "Stewart Island/Rakiura" gets only 20,000-some google hits, whereas "Stewart Island" alone gets over 700,000. Even the Stewart Island website (http://www.stewartisland.co.nz) seems to use "Stewart Island" by itself in most cases. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that as wikipedia is 17th most popular site worldwide it is in fact very much the leader, for better or worse, despite the policy to be a follower and no original research etc. There is a cognitive dissonance here between the intent to copy only whats alraedy published and proven; and the ability for anyone to edit at any time, and publish immediately known information. I think there may be multiple layers of activity that need to be recognised for what they are. Sometimes publishing un-verified information allows the verification to emerge as a result, I think that process may be informal but it happens more than most care to acknowledge. Personally I'm not gonna hide my head in the sand. Humans fall into many categories of behaviour, and I'm an 'early adopter' so its hard for me to understand the resistance to change. I actually see incredible arrogance in sailing across the world and renaming places that have already been named for thousands of years by the HUMANS that lived there. It was a 'gunpowder' mentality that became 'science'. I dont even like the names they chose, they were often simplistic and therefore downright stupid! I live in the 'NORTH' 'ISLAND' of 'NEW' 'SEA LAND'. How creative... not. For all that I will still insist on using the official agreed and published names, there are 55,000 approved and availble on a free download from Land Information New Zealand. I'm licensed to their data supply, and thats the only reference I'm going to take notice of.moza 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Brian asked before, could someone provide details of when the official change was made? Changes like this are interesting and could easily be worked into the article IMO Mattlore 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not against calling the article "Stewart Island", and I accept that the official name is "Stewart Island/Rakiura", but having the slash in the article name makes confusing reading in the URL. Would putting the "Rakiura" in brackets like these () work, even if just for the URL? Trombonator Lord Dark 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial Authority

I was under the impression that the Territorial Authority covering the island is Southland District, and not Stewart Island/RakiuraSkinsmoke 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

??????????? The article clearly says "in local government terms, the island is part of Southland District". Moriori 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the boxed information where it states that the 'Territorial Authority' is Stewart Island/Rakiura. I understood that there is no such territorial authority under New Zealand's local government legislation.Skinsmoke 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. In which case it would be silly to have both territorial and regional in the box. However I think in this case territorial is community board and regional is district council. Hopefully someone from down that way can elucidate. Moriori 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the pattern should be the same for other areas of New Zealand. The general pattern is to include the population etc for the City, Town, Village (or in this case Island), then to indicate the Territorial Authority (in this case Southland District) then the Region (in this case Southland Region). Southland District and Southland Region are not the same (don't blame me for New Zealand's confusing local government system - I'm in England!)Skinsmoke 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna

I don't think Kakapo are thriving - haven't they all been removed before they were wiped out? Of course, they no doubt did well on Stewart Island before man came along! GrahamBould 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stewart Island, the Name

Before reading this article, I had never before in my life heard 'Rakiura'. I have lived in the South Island my entire life. Also, I have never before on a map seen Rakiura in place of, or along side Stewart Island. Furthermore, I think if one of New Zealand's 3 'main' Islands was to be renamed, i.e. Rakiura added, then the media etc would ensure people actually new about it. Infact, you can go to Stewart Islands own website, and read the history of their name, see: http://www.stewartisland.co.nz/About%20the%20People%20and%20the%20Island/The%20Naming%20of%20Stewart%20Island.html the LINZ website is an informative website but has no legal naming right. That falls with the NZ Geographic board, who, pending any change in the name, would Gazette the change first and take submissions. Stewart Island, as its residents will tell you, is Stewart Island. --Hayden5650 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

We should establish what the legal name is. I'm not sure how to go about this. I would have thought the New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database kept by LINZ was authoritative, but I'm willing to take Hayden's word that it isn't. In the meantime, I'm fairly sure that Rakiura is the more commonly used Maori name, though it is certainly less commonly used than Stewart Island, and have changed the article accordingly.-gadfium 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hayden, the New Zealand Geographic Board decisions are available on the LINZ website, and the LINZ database is official[1]. Stewart Island/Rakiura was officially renamed, along with another 87 places, as part of the Ngai Tahu settlement[2]. --Limegreen 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a New Zealander from Chrischurch New Zealand and I have never heard Stewart Island called RAKIURA were in the world did you get the idea that it was known by that I bet you only about 5% or less of the Population of The South Island (no Idea abouth the North)would ever call it that

Exactly, and I have asked many people about this matter, non of whom have ever heard of the name rakiura. When it is debatable whether this name even exists legally on paper, and is certainly not used or even known of, it has no place on Wikipedia in the naming of an article. People come here for information, not opinion and not to have a small group of maoris opinions forced upon them. --Hayden5650 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the legal name. There is zero doubt, if you follow the links. Also, one of the reasons why one person asking people they come across is a bad idea is that you tend to come across people exposed to similar things. Thus, you poll people and find no-one knows, but every body I know does know it. You obviously missed the name change in 1998, and the opening of Rakiura National Park in 2002. And it is used, even people who live on the island (e.g., [3]).--Limegreen 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, and I don't even know the fellow who posted just before. Sometimes things are legal on paper. I'm an engineer and work with roads/highways. There is things called paper road. It exists on paper, but you sure as heck can't drive on it, nor would you put it on a map or direct people to it. The same is the case here. Also, according to the 2001 census, 93.2% of people affiliated with the European ethnicity, so I doubt they would call it Rakiura. And also, if you follow the link; [4] you will see that it is referred to soley as Stewart Island. The Statistics NZ department is just as official as LINZ, if not more so, and they are not even using the name Rakiura. Maybe we could include a 'Controversy' section at the end of the article with reference to a naming dispute or something of the like. However, Rakiura certainly should not appear throughout the article as if it is a common, known and used name. If a tourist was to land in NZ, in anywhere but your town, Limegreen, and asked for directions to Rakiura I'm sure they would receive some funny looks and stammere answers indeed.

I'm quite familiar with paper roads. There are several paper streets in the "block" where I live. You might have noticed, however, that sometimes paper roads become actual roads, some are "stopped", and some just stay as paper roads. And sometimes placenames change names. There are some suggesting that Palmerston North may become Manawatu City for example. The New Zealand Geographic Board (on the LINZ) site are the arbiters of placenames, not Statistics New Zealand. And just because someone has a European ethnicity doesn't mean they share your opinion. You need to produce something more definitive. --Limegreen 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Limegreen, as you are completely correct. Paper roads may someday become roads, but until they are used they are not advertised. The same with Palmerston North. Some may even call it Manawatu City now, but I strongly doubt it as I've never heard anything of it, hence the article is named soley Palmerston North. I have no objection to Rakiura being mentioned and discussed in the article, however I do object to it being presented as being equal to the real and used name Stewart Island. Also, I think the link is posted somewhere above, Stewart Island's own website see's fit to only list Stewart Island as the name.

The name is becoming used. This process will probably take a generation or two, but given that it was changed by the National Government, has been preserved by a Labour Government, there is unlikely to be a change back to just Stewart Island. I would assume that when kids are doing geography at school they have, or will have soon, maps with Stewart Island/Rakiura on them. Thus, much like the metric system, younger people will end up growing up with the new name, and older people will probably continue to mostly think of it just as Stewart Island. People you know, or people I know aren't a good index of what people actually use, so it's hard to tell what the most "used" name is (but there are people using both). The official name is clear. I'm not sure what the "real" name is. And it is also likely that the use of the new official name will increase over time. --Limegreen 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest to put a paragraph on the renaming of the island into the section about its name (And when was the renaming?). You could add an encyclopedic rendering of the issues in this discussion. That would be a solution of this debate, I think. Soczyczi 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this article somehow fall outside the provisions of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It falls under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), which says "New Zealand placenames are written simply as the place name".-gadfium 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for me to tell whether you know this already, but it is clear from context that what this means is that places in New Zealand should be titled Christchurch rather than Christchurch, New Zealand, Auckland rather than Auckland, New Zealand, etc. It has nothing to do with the policy on using common names.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)