Talk:New Zealand

Aotearoa New Zealand

Similarly the Māori and English names for the whole country are sometimes used together (Aotearoa New Zealand); however, this has no official recognition (my emphasis). It seems that FIFA, the governing body for association football, has recently started labeling the national teams as "Aotearoa New Zealand" (probably since the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup). See [1], [2]. Can this be considered an instance of "official recognition"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, official recognition comes from the New Zealand Government and New Zealand Parliament. FIFA has no jurisdiction over New Zealand and cannot decide the name of the country. DDMS123 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@user:Nehme1499 There is no clear definition of what is 'official' on Wikipedia. The commonly used distinction is de jure and de facto, and this is often applied to languages. You seem to imply that the name can be viewed as de facto official by its common usage in supposedly reliable sources, including sources coming from the NZ govt. If so, I do not think the usage of that name has yet reached the point where it can be taken as official due to its common usage in sources. If you mean the name can be considered as de jure official because it is used by FIFA, then no, of course not: FIFA doesn't decide what a country calls itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123 In support of my friend's claim above, does this mean legitimate information only emerges from the state? What of the use of Aotearoa extensively in literature, books, Matauranga Maori and on the government website? History does not emerge, and is not legitimated by, state power; in this case even the state frequently swaps Aotearoa with New Zealand: https://www.govt.nz/search?q=aotearoa. User: Mackmack11306(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The government of a country has to be a reliable source on what a country is called! New Zealand has three official languages: English (de facto), in which it is New Zealand; te reo Māori (de jure), in which it is Aotearoa; and New Zealand sign language (de jure), which I am not sufficiently familiar with to know. As far as spoken language is concerned, New Zealand is becoming increasingly bilingual and the concatenation of the names in the two spoken languages is often heard, but itself has no "official" status. Daveosaurus (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of article

@user:Doomdorm64, I removed your edits, even your sources, because they do not belong where you put them. Human rights is not a valid subsection of Government. It is too narrow a topic. If anything it deserves a mention somewhere else, but to maintain balance in the whole article, only one or two sentences. Your other inclusions, same-sex stuff and first to give women the vote, belong elsewhere and once again balance is needed. Some of your sources are not RSSs either, they are from self published groups with an agenda to push. Remove those and a lot of what you have added is unsupported. Finally, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag that jumps on the latest fad that hits the media for a year or two then fades away. I suggest you discuss here before reverting again. Just because you added sources does not mean your additions cannot be challenged. They can be put back in part, but elsewhere. I see you have done the same to many other country articles. I accept you are a genuine editor acting in good faith but I think on this point you are going off-course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your description of human rights as the latest fad that hits the media for a year or two then fades away or a fringe agenda per your edit summary. While you've identified some valid concerns around reliable sources and placement in the article, that doesn't really justify its wholesale removal (nor does removing all the sources and then saying its unreferenced). Human rights records are absolutely the sort of thing that merits inclusion in a country's article, and the focus should instead be on bringing it up to scratch rather than trying to prevent its inclusion. Turnagra (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the concern here is related to Wikipedia:Advocacy. With our country articles we try to fallow WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents....to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Like our FA and this GA county articles it should be given the same weight as other cultural topics...gun control, death penalty etc.... it should be incorporated into multiple sections....good example is Canada were human rights elements are incorporated thought the article in 5 sections. Moxy- 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Moxy, good summary, that is effectively what I am saying. Turnagra, You are effectively repeating what I said using different words. I never said HRs should not be there or the unisex stuff shouldn't be there, just not in the same depth and not as a subsection to government. Gun control is a good comparable topic - worth mentioning but not in its own section, and we should be aware that it has had a lot of temporary high coverage in the last 4 years due to the chc shootings. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but we should pretend it is now 2050 and look back to put it in a wider context. How much coverage did gun control get from , say, 1920-2020? Not much I think with the occassional surges of media coverage. I blanket reverted the lot because it's too messy sorting it out simply - Doomdorm64 can do that. I therefore judged it better to revert the whole lot, as often happens with large contributions that are challenged - it's easier to start again. I expect Doomdorm6 will put some of it back in a better place and without the agenda based sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

this looks ok to me....very reasonable. FYI editor has replied to concerns raised ..User talk:Doomdorm64#So your being reversed all over! and User talk:Moxy#‎New Zealand LGBT rights Moxy- 16:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I replied there. Thanks for helping. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Odd indigenous citizenship in the lead

Not sure why or what is being said in the lead about indigenous citizenship. Not sure a country article is the place to discuss indigenous citizenship in the lead...... as no country covers this in the lead. Moxy- 00:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The wording 'citizenship' may not be perfect but article 3 says the Queen 'imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects'. That was not usually done with indigenous peoples in the empire. It had no bearing on Maori's 'citizenship' of NZ or their rights that gave them, if such a concept applied then and if that's what you refer to? From memory this was a two edge sword for moari, giving them rights, such as access to uk justice, but also was a crack in their established social system, eg if working they answered to an employer not to a chief. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This still not comprehensible. Removing from lead....can you mention this in the proper section in an understandable manner. Moxy- 02:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear that Roger's views on this tend not to align with those of other NZ wikipedians, or indeed the vast majority of experts in this space. Turnagra (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what is incomprehensible..its perfectly clear to me, if a bit wordy. Do you mean it doesnt tally with what is in the article? The line I changed said the treaty gave the uk sovereignty over nz, which it did not. That is not "my view" it is a fact. South Island sovereignty was declared/claimed based on discovery for example. Turnagra, whatever your comment is supposed to mean, my edits are based on quality secondary sources not my opinion. Are yours? What is it about my recent change to the lede you disagree with? The treaty was/is very important in many ways but the reasons why are not always what we see on the internet or in the media. If you have something constructive to say please say it here and discuss it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Language again

NZ English isn't a language, at best it's a dialect. It is closer to standard UK English than many regional accents in the British Isles. This is probably more to do with the WP template than just the NZ article, but the 'official' nature of a language is a constant cause for edit wars. I think it is confusing to put English alongside Maori and NZ sign language. They are not equal, which is what the current infobox implies. We are not helped by the organised promotion of Mauri by all govt related bodies which gives a very misleading impression, but we should be above that promotional stuff. Maori is NOT official is most people's daily life, hence it is restricted, hence it is less important than English in the running of the country. That does not mean less important in other contexts, but for what happens in the running of NZ as a country English is primary, and that is what the infobox should express. That is why I added 'restricted'. However, the way wp describes a country's languages is not perfect and can be confusing and it goes well beyond just NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Restricted"? By whom, and how?

I would have thought the days when people were beaten for speaking their own language in their own land were well in the past. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger I'm also not sure what you mean by "restricted". Another editor added "de facto" which clarifies your concerns. English is not an official language of New Zealand, but the other two are. This is despite English being the most used language, and is used to run the country as you say. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

English is absolutely an official language of New Zealand. That's what the "de facto" superscript is explaining. It's official due to it's use in judicial proceding, legislative sessions and laws, and as the primary executive language.

I've removed the "de facto" qualifier, as the superscript is more than sufficient to explain this, and is indeed what superscript is supposed to be used for. --Spekkios (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Use in daily life has no bearing on whether it's an official language or not, though I would add that a good number of people do use Māori and NZSL in their daily life. Nobody is restricting the use of either language, and - again - the use of te reo Māori isn't some big government conspiracy.

As for the link to New Zealand English, I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a distinct language. Rather, I think it's a question of what's going to be more useful to a reader. If they're clicking on the link from the New Zealand infobox, presumably they'd be wanting to know more about English in a New Zealand context. New Zealand English seems like a far better link target than the language as a whole (and even better than the current disambiguation link). Turnagra (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that New Zealand English is a better link target, but the language should be listed as "English" --Spekkios (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure - that seems to be what it was before this all kicked off. Turnagra (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The language is English: arguing otherwise is pointless, so I'm glad that has been knocked on the head promptly. We move on. Now, Spekkios, I agree English is official. Your reasoning is drawn out unnecessarily though. The cause of the different opinions here and in every other country article is simply the meaning of the word 'official'. It has two meanings and wp does not say which one to use when describing an official language. That is why de facto and de jure are often added. It's not perfect but it does distinguish the two meanings. Much confusion is created by not distinguishing the two meanings of official because they give languages quite different positions in society. The official-ness of English is totally different from the official-ness of Mauri, but by describing them both as 'official' many people will assume they are equal, which is not true. Some people cannot grasp the fact that when a language is made official in situations stated by a piece of legislation it also means that the language is not official in all other situations. That is a result of being de jure official. de facto official does not have that restriction - it is unrestricted official. My point with our infobox is there should be a way of clarifying that the three official languages have quite different positions in society. de jure and de facto only partly makes that clear. I also think we need to clarify the distinction to make it easier to restrain the agenda driven editors who try to promote a language well above its actual status. This advocacy of minor languages is prevalent in many WP articles, not just NZ. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was arguing that the language wasn't English, nor did any edits make that claim.

I think the existing note next to English in the infobox is perfectly fine to establish that English is de facto but not de jure. Frankly though, I can't work out what the rest of your comment is trying to say and I haven't seen anywhere else ever use the sort of restricted/unrestricted split which you're talking about. Also, I'd like to ask you again to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on myself and other editors - we're not part of some big government conspiracy as you keep seeming to claim. Turnagra (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing at you. I was just saying that official language status is one of those topics that often causes edit wars. That isn't just in the NZ article. Anyway I thought my post was clear. One suggestion would be to say that official 'in some situations', or 'has limited official status', if saying 'has restricted official status' is found to be offensive, but why is beyond me, they all mean the same. It isn't worth disputing that because it is obvious, it's written in law. The current note is not perfect but okay. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Nu Tirani/Tireni

Spelling has become more rigid in the 21st century than in the 19th. Thus a statement in Wikipedia takes on a certain authority that may conflict with the historic record. In "He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni", as can be seen, the loanword Nu Tireni (New Zealand) is spelled with an "e". But in Te Tiriti o Waitangi the same loanword is spelled Nu Tirani, with an "a". Making the notation in the article clarifies this, so people in the present day do not become too dogmatic about one or the other. Akonga (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

History NZ

In 1947 the country adopted the Statute of Westminster, confirming that the British Parliament could no longer legislate for New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand.

........no longer legislate for New Zealand without its consent. 192.116.64.235 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cabinet vs Executive Council

The introduction to this article statese that "...executive political power is exercised by the Cabinet, led by the prime minister...". This is inaccurate. Executive political power is exercised by the Executive Council as a whole. The council inculdes ministers who exercise and implement government policy. --Spekkios (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)