Talk:New Zealand/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

languages

hello, maori isant an offical language of New Zealand, the offlical language is english. So why is maori under the offlical languages of New Zealand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.15.148 (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As it states in the infobox: English is a de facto official language; the other two have de jure official status. Hope that helps clear up how that works! Ariel♥Gold 06:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is actually helpful since legally there isn't a distinction between English, Maori and New Zealand Sign Lanugaue. To describe English as de facto' implies that it isn't 'de jure', which it is. It also implies that Maori and NZSL aren't used in any offical capacity, which they are. Creating this distinction is re-writing the definition of an offical language. As the percentages speak to usage (which is what the de facto/jure distincition is pointing to), shouldn't this footnote be removed completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnz (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How on earth does saying Maori and NZSL are de jure official languages imply they aren't used in any official capacity? 'De jure' means 'by law', ie they are officially official. And if that doesn't imply they are used officially, I don't know what does. I was also under the impression that there are actual laws saying Maori and NZSL are official langauges, but there is nothing equivalent for English; it just gets used for most things because nearly everyone in NZ speaks it. But I could be wrong about English. --Helenalex 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
English, Maori & NZSL all are official, according to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25408. English is not "de facto" official, it actually is socially and legally. 125.238.51.250 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen numerous online sources indicating that English is an official language in NZ - including some official government web pages such as this one. However, I have only found supporting sources for de jure official language status for the Maori language (see [1]) and for NZ Sign Language(see [2]).I have not been able tofind any indication that English is "legally" an official language in NZ in the sense that there is a legislative act in force declaring its official status. If you know of such an act, please identify that act and supply a supporting source. -- Boracay Bill 23:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Minor alterations made. As per the link above [3] English was originally the ONLY official language of New Zealand. 2006 NZ Sign Language was accepted and 1987 Maori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonial from the Middle Island (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit, since no one has yet produced anything proving that English has other than de facto official status. The claim that English is the 'original' official language I find a bit bizarre. If we are going to claim that de facto counts as official, then surely Maori is the original official language, given it preceded English here by several hundred years? --Helenalex (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Helen's photo

The current photograph of Helen Clark has been altered using photo editing tools. Compare: http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=90471&articleTypeId=0 an http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/11/06women_Helen-Clark_EXX3.html.

We should probably put a more realistic one in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.102.232 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if Helen Clark looks a little touched-up, I think its better if someone can look better in aphoto if it depicts them in a much more glamourous way, i say, leave it as is. (Murchy 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I would support replacing it, if there is something suitable available. I've got nothing against flattering photos, but when they look nothing like the subject, it crosses a line. --Helenalex 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeez guyz, whats with all the Helen Clark prejudice. Don't we want to project a good image for new zealand, look at the photo, it is only electronically touched up, its not as if she went hollywood on herself and got implants on anything with 2mm or more of skin or liposuction on every squishy outcropping on her body. I think the new photo should remain, i think if you had 2 pictures of yourself 1 normal and 1 retouched i highly doubt that ANYONE would choose the average version! ((♠Murchy♠) 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
I think that would depend on what the photo was being used for. As an encyclopaedia, we should go for accuracy. --Helenalex 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Murchy, have you got a more natural alternative? I see that some of your pix feature Helen - any you could crop her out of? Kahuroa 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a -less- official one we can acquire? Not that we need a completely 'neutral' photo, but I know that the current photo was used for the Labour campaign (and thus has been touched up to look better). I quite like the current photo, but would one that shows Helen with some other members of parliament be helpful? Heck, with the Beehive in the background? Zombequin (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How about the one at Helen Clark? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes

The infobox footnote labels were apparently trashed in this edit at 19:15, August 23, 2007. Could someone who cares more than I do about the health of this article please fix this? FWICS, footnote 2 just needs to be relabeled, but footnote 3 needs some more figuring-out. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Labels fixed. I've also rewritten footnote 3 to cover the de facto/de jure distinction, while also linking to the legislation. -- Avenue (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Official name

Is the official name of New Zealand just "New Zealand"? You'd think it would be like in the case of Canada or Australia "The Commonwealth of New Zealand". --The monkeyhate (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand's provinces are long gone, so commonwealth in the Australian sense wouldn't fit. I understand Canada is just named Canada too - see Name of Canada#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada. -- Avenue (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time......

the (now) Etymology section in this article SAID "It was later named "Nieuw Zeeland" after the area in Batavia where they had been based, which in turn was named after their province of Zeeland" which is true. Can someone please put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.68.182 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? --Helenalex (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to contradict the above, and supports the current version of our article. -- Avenue (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Population growth

Shouldn't this been mentioned somewhere? I've been trying with little response to get it added to the infobox of countries, but it should still be mentioned in the text regardless. It states the Labour government's goal re: immigration, but doesn't have any infomation on actual growth and how much of that is due to immigration. Richard001 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth incorporating some of the information covered here: Myth: New Zealand's population is only growing because of migration. -- Avenue (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a graph that illustrates NZ's historic population growth, and shows Statistics NZ's various future projections. -- Avenue (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing that we're referencing that Stats NZ page on population growth, which itself quotes Wikipedia... Okay, not on the same thing, but you would think the organisation which tracks things like that would be able to find a definition of 'sub-replacement fertility' somewhere other than Wiki. --Helenalex (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article.

Have i done the correct thing in reverting a possible vandalism done via another user [4] i wasn't sure if it was vandalism but after reviewing it the user does seem to have vandalised the article.  Dust Rider  Talk  14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did exactly the right thing. Thanks.-gadfium 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Continent

we need to add what coninent it is part of, i cant tell if it is part of the continet of austrailia or asia.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not part of any continent, in the traditional sense. See Zealandia (continent) and Oceania for more controversial answers.-gadfium 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thean howcome its not listed in the contenets of the earth thing at the bottom of continet articles(modern part)? and howcome its not in that one preeschool song "The & Continents"??? im confused.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Template:Continents of the world, then Oceania is listed on the line of groupings that are not traditionally called continents by English-speakers, and Zealandia is listed as a submerged continent. I'm not familiar with your pre-school song, but again, New Zealand is not part of any of the traditional continents.
If you don't speak English well, or you are very young, you may find the Simple English Wikipedia is easier to understand.-gadfium 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

International rankings

Should the "International rankings" section be removed? I don't see it in the guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and havn't seen it on any FA class country articles. Maybe is should be merged into the other sections, or split off to form List of New Zealand's international rankings? - Shudde talk 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See an earlier discussion at #Non-statistical rankings. I have no problem with it being split off into a separate article.-gadfium 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is no opposition I will split it off, and add a link to it in the 'see also' section. - Shudde talk 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Flag

I feel there is enough support in New Zealand to put their secondary flag by their official flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.180.112 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What secondary flag? I'm aware of numerous proposals to change the flag, none with any official standing or overwhelming support. The place to discuss this is Talk:Flag of New Zealand.-gadfium 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of New Zealand?

The editors of the New Zealand article have settled on 1907 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the 'Date of statehood' of New Zealand was actually 1840 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This depends on your definition of state. New Zealand was a colony from 1840, and became a Dominion, but wasn't considered an independent Dominion until 1907. However it didn't become a fully independent country until 1947 due to the ratification of the Statute of Westminster. Don't get super stressed about the WP:VERIFY thing, because the idea of statehood varies depending on what definition you use. It's something that should be discussed and clarified though. - Shudde talk 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article does explain that there is no single date, and refers you to Independence of New Zealand. Much of that article is in summary style for articles on the various important dates. WP:Summary style does not require sources so long as it accurately reflects the content of the more detailed articles, so WP:V is not an issue in this article and not as large an issue as may first appear in the Independence article.-gadfium 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Climate

-remove the longest name in the world from the climate section.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.101.149 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that bit of trivia doesn't seem to belong in that section, or even in the article. (It'd be fine in our list of New Zealand place names and their meanings, though.) Anyone object to its removal? -- Avenue (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree.-gadfium 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved it to the other article. -- Avenue (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorsport

I have added motorsport to the sports section of the article because I know that it has a much bigger following than other sports listed like golf, swimming and tennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exalt4korn (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I note that the article was indef semi-protected on 12 March due to anonymous vandalism. I think the levels of vandalism on this article are in fact quite mild, and there is no recurring vandalism by someone on a dynamic IP address, which is the usual reason to semi-protect an article in the long term. The article is also on very many editor's watchlists, and blatant vandalism doesn't last long.

This is the highest profile article relating to New Zealand on Wikipedia. This is the 410th most popular article on the site, and no other NZ-related topic is in the top 1000. The hit counter gives it 8-9000 hits per day.

It's part of our core philosophy that anyone can edit. I'd like to see the semi-protection of this core article dropped. Do I have support to remove it?-gadfium 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the admin who semi-protected the page in the first place. I have no problems with it being lifted. Acalamari 19:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the semi-protection, as no one has commented other than Acalamari.-gadfium 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still semiprotected. 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.108.250 (talk)

It was protected again due to ongoing vandalism. See #Protection back?-gadfium 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"reigns but does not rule"

I don't think the reference given actually backs up the statement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference given. This statement is common knowledge to most NZers. Smithspa (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Do other Commonwealth nation's articles use this phrase? (Australia, Canada etc...) rossnixon 08:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Canada, and Monarchy of Australia all use it. There may be more, but I stopped at three. The main articles Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia do not use the phrase, but that is no reason why this one shouldn't. -Rrius (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Median household income (again)

The statement:

As of 2006, New Zealand's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United States.

was referenced by a link to Median_household_income_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand, but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference (Can't find policy on that at the moment). I've added the following calculation as a ref:

The median weekly household income in New Zealand in 2006 was NZ$1129 (ie NZ$58708 per annum) [5] The US median annual household income in 2006 was US$48201 [6] The exchange rate in mid June 2006 was 0.6217 [7]. US$48201/.6217 = NZ$77531. 58708/77531=0.757

I took the IRD exchange rate for mid June 2006; taking some other "official" exchange rate may make a significant difference. The result indicated the New Zealand median household income was just under 76% of the US one, so I changed the article to say if was 24% less.

Ideally, we'd quote a source which says in plain English that the NZ and US figures were such and such, in the same currency and at the same time. In the absence of such a source, is it valid to quote separate sources for each country, and a third source for the exchange rate, or is that original research?

Feel free to fix my logic errors, improve figures or sources, etc in the article.-gadfium 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is fine, but I do believe we should find a source that spells it out. This is basically OR—we should still keep what you have put for now. The exchange rate changes heaps though, so any value is going to change simply because of that. Would be nice if anyone knew of a source that made a comparison between the median incomes of both countries? Then we could just quote that as it'd be the best we could do. - Shudde talk 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that my logic is not acceptable to the author of the statement, so I have removed the sentence until such time as we can reach an agreement on how to reference it here.-gadfium 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Theres been some pretty persistant vandalism lately, and some pretty stupid edits. Maybe SP'ing the article could ease the vandalism? Matt (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there have been higher levels of vandalism than usual recently, but its usually caught pretty quickly. See the (attempted) discussion above at #Semi-protection. When Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions is implemented, this problem should significantly diminish. However, that feature under various different names has been "coming soon" for about three years now.-gadfium 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism seems to be pretty much every edit in the last week or so, with few constructive edits. Althought it is caught quite quickly, i still think Semi Protecting the article would be a good idea. However, if anyone disagrees ill change my stance, however this article does get some pretty high exposure.
And to gadfium, i don't fully understand what that feature is suppost to do, or if its even working yet? Matt (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right Matt, and I don't think Sighted versions is going to be implemented on en wiki in a hurry. It's such a conservative project compared to the German one. - Shudde talk 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The exact implementation of sighted versions in the English Wikipedia is still under discussion. However, the main idea is that established editors (a pool larger than the group of admins and rollbackers, but smaller than the group of all autoconfirmed users) can mark a version of an article as "sighted" ie free from obvious vandalism. Anon users will see that version by default. This gives anons considerably less incentive to vandalise. Not all articles will have sighted versions, but I think this one would clearly benefit.
That the German Wikipedia has implemented Sighted versions is a very good sign that real progress is being made on getting it accepted here. The feature is in the software, it's a matter of policy, and as Shudde says, we're very conservative about making such policy changes.
If there's a general clamour for semi-protection of this article, I will protect it. However, vandals usually attack more than one article, so that won't stop the overall problem. If you find recent vandalism, please fix it, warn the vandal using one of the {{uw-vand}} templates, and check their contributions for any other recent edits they've made. Vandals with lots of escalating warnings get blocked. Vandals with few or no warnings generally don't, even if they have a long history.-gadfium 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since flagged/sighted revisions are still not implemented, and several anon vandalisms occur each day on this article, I have reluctantly semi-protected it.-gadfium 05:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to have stopped, looked like semi-protecting did it. I dont think that it can be unprotected without the same sort of vandalism occuring.. but hopefully the sighted revisions are put in place soon. Metagraph comment 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Median household income and PPP

The median household income section has three core arguments:

1. That US incomes have decreased, which was verifiable from the reference

2. That New Zealand incomes have grown substantially over the last eight years. Not only is this verifiable from Statistics New Zealand, but also endorsed by Michael Cullen (Finance minister) when he used arguments from the Wikipedia article Median household income in Australia and New Zealand to reassure New Zealanders that we can survive a downturn (note the debt figure has been changed from 20% after his speech). [8]

3. The combination has allowed New Zealand to close the income gap.

Gadfium, I am not trying to mislead you. PPP is not the current exchange rate. Median household income is not income inequality. This is clearly not your area of expertise, so it's difficult to communicate, but do you think the Minister of Finance would quote information from Median household income in Australia and New Zealand if it were in any way false?Badenoch (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I never believed you were attempting to mislead anyone, and I do not doubt the accuracy of your figures. I apologise if I have in any way given that impression. My change to the figure of 20% was because the calculations I made indicated a slightly different figure, and I acknowledged that the actual figure would have considerable play.
However, every statement in Wikipedia should (ideally) be backed by a reliable source. Many articles come nowhere near this situation, but the New Zealand article is already fairly well referenced, and is an important article, so I am holding it to a higher standard than I do many articles.
We need a reliable source to back up the statement that the New Zealand MHI is within 20% of the United States. You cited another Wikipedia article, and that article cites a third. I was trying to put the sources together in a single paragraph. You have to show clearly to the non-specialised reader how the figure of 20% is arrived at. The best way to do so is to link to someone reliable giving the fact, or including it in a table. When two different sources give facts which can be combined to back up the statement, then we are straying into original research, which is much less acceptable in Wikipedia. When those different sources use different currencies, the problem is much worse.
You say that PPP is not the current exchange rate, which confuses me because I never thought the current exchange rate was relevant, but I used a historical exchange rate to try to compare the two different currencies at the approximate time that the sources give. Clearly, we cannot compare figures in two different currencies without using an exchange rate. If you have a single source giving the MHI in the same currency for the same time period for NZ and the US, that would be much more acceptable.
I am also confused when you say that Cullen has quoted the Wikipedia article. I see no such quotation in the Herald article you link to. Perhaps you mean he uses similar arguments. However, Wikipedia should not be putting forward its own arguments; we can only attribute such arguments to some reliable source.-gadfium 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


New Zealands median household income in US$(PPP) = NZ$58708/1.52[9] = US$38,623 You can work out the rest.

Cullen's speech borrows 5 concepts, to reassure the public:

1. That New Zealand is well positioned to survive a global downturn.

2. The debt has be reduced to 20% of GDP (since changed to 18.3%).

3. That New Zealand can deficit spend (lossen the books as he puts it).

4. That monetary policy (interest rates) can be eased if things deteriorate.

5. That household incomes have risen more than 25% in the last eight years.

When a Government uses information from a Wikipedia article it suggests that the article is of good quality and is relivant to New Zealander's.Badenoch (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've got a figure of 1.52 which is authoritatively sourced and can be used to convert the NZ$ figure into US$. We still have three separate sources, but we're making progress. For convenience, I will reproduce the calculation here so others can examine it:
The median weekly household income in New Zealand in 2006 was NZ$1129 (ie NZ$58708 per annum).[10] The US median annual household income in 2006 was US$48201.[11] The OECD PPP for GDP for New Zealand was 1.52,[12] which can be used to convert the New Zealand figure into US$: NZ$58708/1.52 = US$38,623. We can see that 38623/48201=0.801, a difference between the country MWHI of 20%.
The question remains, is a calculation such as this, drawn from three separate sources, valid as a reference on Wikipedia?
You still are asserting that Cullen is getting his arguments from Wikipedia without any proof.-gadfium 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe such a calculation would be a valid reference. Let's put it this way, if we were to take the article to FAC with that statement there, it would be heavily criticised. We need to find a source stating that the median household income in NZ is 20% lower then the US, then we won't have a problem. - Shudde talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia has an international audience, and simple comparisons are commonly made between countries to convey meaning (e.g. see the table in median household income). However if you don't want to make any comparisons, that's no problem. One can simply state the income in New Zealand dollars (from Statistics NZ) and the fast growth (from the Cullen speech). Another option would be to delete all mention of household income, but that would be pity since it is something that New Zealanders should be very pleased with [13]. Badenoch (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible merge?

I was just womdering if it would be wise to merge the 'geography' and 'climate' sections together and label it "geography and environment' or somthing along those lines because it seems redundant that there is a section just for small pice of info climate. Taifarious1 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I see that the articles on Australia, United Kingdom, United States and Canada all have climate and geography together in the same section. As a counter-example, Argentina has Climate as a subsection of a much larger Geography section. If you don't get any objections in the next few days, go ahead and merge them.-gadfium 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the general consensus among articles is that merging the 2 are more beneficial, so i have done so, but feel free to revert if you are dissatisfied Taifarious1 08:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add iw link

[[wuu:纽齐朗特]] -- its only a stub at the moment, & the 25th Asian language page I think.

Done.-gadfium 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rat dating

New radio carbon dating indicates : The pacific rat was introduced to NZ in 1280+- and this is the time when the first settlers reached NZ. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801507105--Stone (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would be good to source this. Metagraph 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Stone did source it, but made a typo in the ref, which I've fixed.-gadfium 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Biodiversity

If New Zealand has land turtles, what are they? If it doesn't, why does my edit to that effect keep getting reverted? It's factual, it's relevant to the Biodiversity section, and it's certainly not original research — please tell me what's wrong with it. —NakedCelt (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown the relevance to the section.-gadfium 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The section is about New Zealand's biodiversity. The statement I've tried to add is a fact about New Zealand's biodiversity, with significance equal, as far as I can tell, to statements already accepted. The statement "New Zealand has no snakes" has been retained; I imagine because it's a significant fact about New Zealand's biodiversity, in that most land masses do have snakes. The absence of land turtles from New Zealand is also a significant fact about New Zealand's biodiversity in that most land masses do have land turtles. The only difference I can see is that it happens to be a less remarked-upon fact that New Zealand has no land turtles than that it has no snakes, but surely an encyclopedia is not only there to recirculate much-remarked-upon facts. Honestly, I'm having serious trouble seeing what's not clear about this. —NakedCelt (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing remarkable about not having a particular group of animals, unless that group is in almost every other country. We also don't state that polar bears are not found in New Zealand outside of zoos. Snakes are in almost every other country, so it is unusual that New Zealand doesn't have any. Indeed, we don't have any even in zoos.-gadfium 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Land turtles are in almost every other country. It is unusual that New Zealand doesn't have any. I don't think zoos and pet shops count as part of our biodiversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NakedCelt (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, according to no more obscure a source than the Reader's Digest Encyclopaedia of Animals, turtles and snakes have pretty much the same distribution worldwide, except that snakes have not colonized quite so much of the oceans. The absence of land turtles is therefore just as significant as the absence of snakes for New Zealand biodiversity. Please revert the deletion of my edit. —NakedCelt (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you link to an online source which explains why their absence in New Zealand is notable?-gadfium 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That part of the biodiversity section at the moment does seem to be unduly biased towards 'none of our fauna is likely to kill you' rather than biological unusualness. --Helenalex (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, native fauna maybe. Just watch out for pitbull terriers, bull mastiffs and staffordshire bull terriers. rossnixon 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

There's no mention of healthcare here... Ged3000 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think many country articles mention healthcare. It isn't practical for a country article to cover every aspect of life and government of a country - it would become unwieldy.
Perhaps you mean that there isn't a single article on Healthcare in New Zealand. You can see the articles relating to this in Category:Healthcare in New Zealand. I agree that an overview article would be useful, perhaps modelled on Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Healthcare in Ireland, or Health care in Australia. You're welcome to start such an article yourself, or you can add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles.-gadfium 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IPA/Pronunciation

Why does this article and .ogg soundclip give the *American* pronunciation of New Zealand [ˈnu ˈzilənd] with no acknowledgement of the pronunciation [ˈnju ˈzilənd] used by New Zealanders? (And most other Commonwealth countries for that matter.) Muzilon (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing it from the article. If anyone objects they can state here why we should have American accent/pronunciation. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not just substitute the New Zealand IPA and record an ogg soundclip to replace the previous one?-gadfium 09:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Now, if I knew how to, I would. But......Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files. I'd do it, but I'm not a New Zealander and have a distinct accent.-gadfium 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Summer?

The article says right now that it is summer! it is WINTER! also, our anthem is God Defend New Zealand as far as i know. not god save the queen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bexpepe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the time zone information in the infobox. This says that during summer, the time zone changes, and gives the approximate dates when this happens.
For the anthem, see the footnote at the bottom of the infobox. Both are official anthems.-gadfium 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the New Zealander British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

economics - ease of doing business

Suggest adding a mention in the Economy section on NZ's second ranking by the World Bank for "ease of doing business"? See /wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index Twilding (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably belong at International rankings of New Zealand.-gadfium 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tax ?

I don't really see the point of this section. Just random information about an area of government. You could write the same paragraph on just about anything else eg:

Immigration in New Zealand is regulated by the Department of immigration on behalf of the New Zealand government. Immigration regulations cover both short-term and permanent migrants as well as diplomatic and student visitors. All visitors or immigrants to New Zealand are subject to these regulations. In 2005-06 the immigration Dept had a budget of $150m. Quotas for immigration and regulations vary from year to year.

Oh and I think the bit about New Zealand residents are liable for tax on their worldwide taxable income is wrong. I'm in favour of removing the wrole section as it doesn't contribute to the article. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the wording, thoughts? - SimonLyall (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy for the section to be removed. Might it be worthwhile adding a link to Taxation in New Zealand to Template:New Zealand topics instead?-gadfium 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That image

I removed the image of Clark that User:Rossnixon uploaded to Wikipedia and inserted in this article earlier today. As he says on his talk page that he is a Christian, I have told him it was not Christian-like of him to insert an image that could be considered to denigrate her, and suggested he try reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which says material (including images) requires a high degree of sensitivity. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was also uploaded under fair use rationale, which I wouldn't have thought applied since there are already free pics of her on Wikipedia. --Helenalex (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection back?

I count around 21 instances of vandalism in the 10 days since protection was removed. Can we perhaps get at least semi-protection back? - SimonLyall (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly favour semi-protection for this article. Anyone opposed?-gadfium 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing school holidays (9 days to go). Are they from NZ IP addresses? rossnixon 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection has been restored.-gadfium 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about grammar

How would I say about something done in New Zealand, eg. game? "X (New Zealandish game)"? "X (New Zealander game)"? "X (Kiwish game)"? "X (Kiwi game)"? Or in other way? Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To be formal, say "x is a popular New Zealand game". To be informal, say "x is a popular Kiwi game". The term "kiwi" is not offensive and can be used for both people and New Zealand-related things such as games. New Zealander is only used for people, e.g. "y is a New Zealander" or "y is a kiwi". New Zealandish or Kiwish are never used.--118.93.122.2 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would add that 'Kiwi' with a capital K means a person while with a small k it means the bird, but it would generally be too informal for Wikipedia anyway. The format for page titles would be "X (New Zealand game)". --Helenalex (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently there is an archaic term Zelanian which is also acceptable, though other than in one musty old dictionary i've never seen (or heard) it used. For a list of such adjectival forms, BTW, see List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Official Languages

I suggest the words (de facto) next to 'English' in the Official Languages section of the fact box. Maori and NZ Sign language are official languages under the The Maori Language Act and the New Zealand Sign Language Act respectively, whereas no statute seems to proclaim NZ English an official language, even though it is by far the most widely used. Comments? Cheers, GintyFrench|(talk!) 12:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you put (de facto) next to 'English', then you would need to put (de jure) next to both 'Māori' and 'NZ Sign Language'. Unecessary overkill IMMHO. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm, point noted, but the section is Official Languages, is it technichally an official language if it's not de jure? Official languages isn't crystal clear on his point, but seems to suggest it's not. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think it is an interesting point to raise that the most widely spoken language is the only one not enshrined in law (even if those laws are written in English). GintyFrench|(talk!) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Add link to MadeFromNewZealand.com

Is someone able to add the following to the external links section:

I don't think that would be a suitable link. See WP:EL.-gadfium 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The World "Fact" Book map needs amendment

Resolved

The map, reputedly of major cities and towns in NZ, shows Greymouth, but not Nelson or Whangarei which both have pops over 50,000. Also, the name of the island south of Foveaux Straight is Stewart Island/Rakiura, not Stewart Island and we should be accurate. I don't have access to Photoshop at the moment, or I'd deal with it. Someone want to volunteer? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Having just been making 70-odd election maps, I have an outline template open in Photoshop now, so I guess I could tackle it. dramatic (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister

John Key is being sworn in now. This Needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDesign (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Helen Clark is still Prime Minister until the Governor-General appoints a new Prime Minister. The earliest that this is likely to happen is tomorrow morning I'd guess. Ben Arnold (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read the relevant bits of the Cabinet Manual and it seems to go like this:

  • Helen Clark is Prime Minister, but in a caretaker capacity, until she asks the Governor-General to accept her resignation once the Key ministry has been sworn in
  • John Key is not Prime Minister-designate at the moment. By my reading he needs to sort out his coalition arrangements first. At the moment he is merely presumptive Prime Minister-designate.
  • Between the time John key has sorted out his coalition arrangements and the time he and his ministry gets sworn in he is Prime Minister-designate.
  • Once he's sworn in, Helen Clark will ask the Governor-General to accept her and her ministry's resignations and that will be that.

Ben Arnold (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

According the the Labour Part website, the leader of the governing party is the Prime Minister. Therefore Phil Goff is now PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.144.40 (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No. -Rrius (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You should write to correct them. The Prime Minister is appointed by warrant from the Governor-General, not by the Labour Party website.[14] Ben Arnold (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Not that I'm suggesting we put this up, but if Goff became Labour leader before Key got sworn in, doesn't that technically mean he was PM for a little while? --Helenalex (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No, because the PM is appointed by the Governor General, and is not simply the leader of the majority party (or in this case, of the party which had a plurality prior to the recent election)-gadfium 05:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Snippet

When I googled this page, the snippet didn't correspond to anything on this page. It read,

New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyperlinked encyclopedia article covers the country's history, government and politics, geography, economy, demographics, language and culture.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand - 260k - Cached - Similar pages

I've never seen this happen with any other article on Wikipedia. Two questions, with the first having two parts. 1a) Why is this happening? 1b) Who did this? 2) Isn't serving different pages to Google versus a human against Google's TOS? (Yes it is.) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.108.250 (talk)

Three questions:
  1. What search string gave you that result?
  2. What makes you think that the explanatory text you reported was provided by Wikipedia rather than Google?
  3. What makes you think that this page is where violations of Google's TOS are discussed?

-Rrius (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google gets its descriptions from more than one source. I don't know the details, but ask at the help desk if you want to know more.-gadfium 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. For what it's worth, France & Mexico came up with similar specially worded introductions in Google, but United States of America simply came up with the first lines of the article. GrahamBould (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_4&oldid=1048342384"