Talk:New Zealand

IBX re National anthem

I removed the words but and only because they are apologetic unnecessarily. The anthem has equal status with God defend NZ. There is no need to use the word official - they are both national anthems. By default a national anthem is official. We would only need to call it official if comparing it with an unofficial national anthem. The govt source simply explains the usual way the govt chooses to use it. As far as I know there is nothing in legislation that separates the two anthems - the way they are used is at best by protocol. The way the ibx note was written, it gave a clear implication that GSTK was second best and an accidental anthem that was tolerated but that was all. The source does not imply that at all, so IMO between the source and the IBX some personal opinion has been added! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@user:Mir Novov I think the problem with the added note in the ibx is twofold. First, the ibx isn't the place for that level of detail - it is a very basic summary of the article that shouldn't even need sources, and certainly not two sources and a note. Second, the way it is phrased clearly implies that GSTK is secondary in importance to GDNZ. See MOS:EDITORIAL for detail of why words such as ...but... can be used to steer the reader in one direction. The IBX should be impeccably neutral in every sense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If it’s in a note, I’d say it’s fine. There’s plenty of articles that do that, hell this one does it for English under the official languages section. If you disagree with that, then it should be brought up at WT:MOSIBX.

Secondly, although they are officially equal in status I think it’s fair to say one is used in certain circumstances and the other in other contexts, and that is backed up by the new source I added. It would be misleading to merely include them without any additional context as that would imply that they are both interchangeably used in any situation when they are not. The famous playing of GDNZ before it became co-official would not be remembered if what you were saying was strictly correct. ― novov (t c) 23:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the full explanation. In reply, what other wiki articles do isn't relevant. I agree, many do use sources and notes, but that doesn't make it correct. The place to look is WP:IBX, not other articles. I think the place to raise this is here, not MOS:IBX, because it is specific to this article. Yes, one is used more often but that has nothing to do with their level of official-ness. That detail should be added to the article below where it belongs. Omitting the note in the IBX isn't in the least bit misleading. What's misleading about omitting the note? That both are national anthems of equal official status? Well, they are. Saying when and where either one is usually used immediately opens the door to ambiguity which undermines the equality of their official status. That famous playing of GDNZ before GSTK is so famous I can't remember it, and any connection with the current issue is your opinion. I'm not saying mention of their usage should not be added, just not in the ibx. The problem of the official languages is different and has been disgusted at length, but even an ibx note isn't ideal either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I already checked MOS:IBX - it says References are acceptable in some cases and mentions nothing about footnotes AFAIK. Also to me it makes little sense to say one should refer to the MOS that isn't here but discuss the issue here. Whether footnotes should be used in infoboxes is clearly not an issue specific to this article and trying to decide it here is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as it has already been discussed on the MOS:IBX talk page multiple times.

It's not our job as Wikipedia article writers to maintain the equality of their official status, but reflect the information on the ground as summed up by reliable sources. The infobox is a place for all information about a country, not an official government fact sheet; this is New Zealand, not New Zealand Government. The fact is that one anthem is played at sporting events, sung in school assembly, and the other is usually played at royal events. This is reflected in the preponderance of RSes:

• The CIA World Factbook: "God Save the King" normally played only when a member of the royal family or the governor-general is present; in all other cases, "God Defend New Zealand" is played
• RNZ: doesn't list GSTK at all
• NZHistory: our best known official national anthem, ‘God defend New Zealand’... ‘God save the Queen’ is usually reserved for formal ceremonies involving the Queen, the Governor-General or the royal family.
• Britannica: mentions GDNZ as the anthem on its main page, only GSTK in the individual article.
• Many sources refer to GDNZ as merely the "national anthem" [1][2][3][4], the same is never done for GSTK.

Similarly, Sweden has its anthem listed (with infobox note) even though it is not officially legislated, and Switzerland has Bern as its capital (with an infobox note) even though it is officially merely a "federal city" to maintain the equal standing of the cantons. ― novov (t c) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. To me this boils down to the level of summary/shortness someone wants in an ibx. I think the official languages section does warrant a brief note because the way English and Maori are official is quite different, but I don't think the distinction between the two national anthems is big enough to warrant a note. But you clearly think otherwise and that's fine - its not a big deal. Thinking about it more, if anything is to be removed it should be the references, put into the article below, with the ibx being a very brief summary of what is below, with references not needed. Now, seeing as I have your attention, please see the section below. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad source

There is an unsafe source in the system from 1966, the Encyclopedia of NZ. It has a warning on it to that effect so I am not sure why it is still available. I removed it from this article a couple of days ago and ― novov (t c) put it back. I also removed what it supported, that Maori came from East Asia because it was then unsupported. I think that comment is pointless and lacks any relevance. Maori came from the Rift Valley too if you want to go back that far. My changes were reverted. I think the source should be removed, as has happened at other articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. What you describe as "a warning on it" is a caveat on the on-line version that the original text has not been updated. I suggest you read the linked Wikipedia article and revise your opinion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see. My apologies, I was confusing this page about music with another page, also from 1966, that has the warning and does contain some obvious inaccuracies. I can't remember where that one was. I didn't mean the Encyclopedia of New Zealand is a bad source, it was just the one specific page (which I think may have been about Maori history). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Polynesian people (including Māori) originally came from East Asia is supported in the cited article in An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand: from a far-distant past when the Polynesian people lived somewhere on the mainland of South-East Asia. I agree that it's not terribly relevant though, hence why I removed it in my following edits. Also, the EoNZ is used multiple times elsewhere in the article.

The main reason why I reverted your edit is because Māori developed traditional chants and songs from their ancient Southeast Asian origins, and after centuries of isolation created a unique sound. Flutes and trumpets were used as musical instruments or as signalling devices during war or special occasions. doesn't make much sense if you remove the first sentence - what flutes and trumpets are being referred to here? This is a moot point though since I have rewritten that passage using new sources. ― novov (t c) 08:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Improvement article for the month

Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ) has selected this page as our improvement article for the month in our September newsletter. CopperAlchemy (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2024

Hi, I would like to change this sentence to sound appropriate.

Original sentence: "A developed country, it was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote."

Edited sentence: "Being a developed country, it was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote." Xzsh0 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the difference? Your new version makes it sound as though a country has to be developed before it can give women the vote. The first version does that too, but less strongly. Why not just remove the developed country part? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I agree with Roger 8 Roger here, though I believe the 'developed country' bit is relevant and should stay. No change necessary. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Large amount of out-of-place detail

@user:Aircorn, The BRD cycle has ended. There have been ten or so edits since my original edit without dispute. See WP:BRDR. At best, I think it is not clear there is a BRD cycle in place. Anyway, is it really worse spelling it out? Strictly speaking NZ history began in 1769, or 1642, with written evidence, but a case can be made that oral evidence and archeology is also valid, so let's assume c. 1300 is our start point. Before that is not really history, which is what this huge paragragh is all about. It belongs somewhere else - archeology, myths, theories, geology, anthropology, human migration etc. I did not just delete it because it had many sources and in itself it appears fairly good, except it's in the wrong place. I therefore moved it to the NZ history article, (and said I had), for it to be sorted out there. Another way to look at this is wp:weight. Between a quarter and a third of an overview of NZ history (which is what this subsection is about) is spent on pre-Maori theories? Do you really think that is in any way warrented? user:Mir Novov should be telling us why she thinks it is needed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not a she. And I don't see anything about a certain amount of intermediate edits on WP:BRDR.

I disagree that "Strictly speaking NZ history began in 1769, or 1642"; the history of Germany doesn't start with the Roman Empire. Also these aren't "pre-Māori theories", this is the accepted historiography of how the Māori got here, so really post-Māori in a certain sense, depending on when you consider the Polynesian arrivals became Māori. I agree that even after my condensing it it still goes into a bit of extraneous detail which isn't appropriate for a general overview article, and was going to work on further paring it down. But I don't think that completely removing almost all of the text is the right solution, 1280-1642 is just under half of 1280-2024 so proportionateness isn't an issue.

Note also that Australia which is an FA goes into a similar level of detail on the pre-European history.  novov talk edits 08:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the content is fine (but could do with a bit of an edit, which I'm in the process of doing), and shouldn't have been wholesale removed. With that said though, I think that if anything it needs to go into more detail about pre-Pākehā New Zealand, given that it jumps straight from the arrival of Māori to the arrival of Abel Tasman and skips over a lot of the Māori period altogether. I don't think this needs much, but I think it absolutely needs another paragraph on this period at least. Turnagra (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to sound expert, because I am not, but I won't waste too much time on what history is and is not and how it is analysed or is written about. There are plenty of editors who can do that. For example, one of many problems in wp articles is the assumption by many that time=proportionatness. It leads, for example, to subsections based on centuries with no consideration for any other far more important separation points. To say, as you are, that an equal amount of space should be given to NZ history 1400-1499 as to 1900-1999, is, er, inviting disagreement. When removing the section, I left behind the opening sentence, which is about all that is needed here. More detail can be found in redirect links to other articles. Once again, there is very little room here, in the history section, for NZ before 1769, for many reasons. Overlying all of this of course is the current topic of the decade, societal Maori promotion, which engages many people's thinking, which should not, but does, affect many NZ articles, not just history ones. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my argument (or claim that I'm part of a wider agenda, as you've done several times and have already done again). I'm not saying we need equal coverage of the 15th and 20th centuries - we obviously don't. I'm saying that we essentially jump from the arrival of Māori to the arrival of Cook, with only a single sentence covering Abel Tasman to represent the 400-year gap. This should have some degree of coverage, which doesn't need to be a huge amount, but enough to highlight that this period has also contributed to the history of New Zealand. Turnagra (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If we look at similar articles like Mexico and Australia they both go into much more depth on indigenous history than what you think is appropriate for this article. And I agree with Turnagra that all periods of time shouldn’t receive exactly the same amount of text – some periods in history are more eventful than others – I was merely pointing out that it’s not disproportionate to include the amount of content the article has in its current state.  novov talk edits 01:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what is there now after the first couple of lines -

"According to most Māori oral traditions, the islands were first discovered by the semi-legendary explorer Kupe while in pursuit of a giant octopus.[33] These traditions held that Kupe was then followed by a great fleet of settlers, who set out from Hawaiki in eastern Polynesia in around 1350.[34] The existence of a single great fleet which settled New Zealand has since been superseded by the belief that the majority of settlement was a planned and deliberate event that occurred over several decades.[35][36][37][38][39] The exact date of this settlement is unclear, with recent sources favouring settlement in the 14th century. While mitochondrial DNA variability within Māori populations suggest that New Zealand was first settled between 1250 and 1300,[24][40][41] no human remains, artefacts or structures can be reliably dated to earlier than the Kaharoa eruption of Mount Tarawera in around 1314 CE.[42] This scenario is also consistent with a debated third line of oral evidence,[43] traditional genealogies (whakapapa) which point to around 1350 as a probable arrival date for several of the migratory waka (canoes) from which many Māori trace their descent.[44][45] Some Māori later migrated to the Chatham Islands where they developed their distinct Moriori culture.;[46] a later 1835 invasion by Māori iwi resulted in the massacre and virtual extinction of the Moriori.[47]"

That is all guesswork, theory, geology and myth, not history. It is in the wrong place. I did not accuse you of being part of a conspiricy, Tunagra. I am suggesting that the latest social craze is affecting the neutral and objective treatment of many NZ articles by many editors. That is understandable, because we are drowning in it if we live in NZ, but that doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is a worldwide English language encyclopedia, not a mouthpiece for promoting any agenda of any sort anywhere. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the start of articles like Australia and Germany there is also similar stuff with uncertain dates and estimated events based on archeological excavations. See France:

After demographic and agricultural development between the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, metallurgy appeared, initially working gold, copper and bronze, then later iron. France has numerous megalithic sites from the Neolithic, including the Carnac stones site (approximately 3,300 BC).

Or from a featured article India:

By 55,000 years ago, the first modern humans, or Homo sapiens, had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa, where they had earlier evolved. The earliest known modern human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago. After 6500 BCE, evidence for domestication of food crops and animals, construction of permanent structures, and storage of agricultural surplus appeared in Mehrgarh and other sites in Balochistan, Pakistan. These gradually developed into the Indus Valley Civilisation, the first urban culture in South Asia, which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in Pakistan and western India. Centred around cities such as Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Dholavira, and Kalibangan, and relying on varied forms of subsistence, the civilisation engaged robustly in crafts production and wide-ranging trade. During the period 2000–500 BCE, many regions of the subcontinent transitioned from the Chalcolithic cultures to the Iron Age ones.

Norway:

The earliest traces of human occupation in Norway are found along the coast, where the huge ice shelf of the last ice age first melted between 11,000 and 8000 BC. The oldest finds are stone tools dating from 9500 to 6000 BC, discovered in Finnmark (Komsa culture) in the north and Rogaland (Fosna culture) in the southwest. Theories about the two cultures being separate were deemed obsolete in the 1970s.

 novov talk edits 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't reference itself, feature article or not. The France and Norway bits are about the same amount of space I left in this NZ article, ie brief two-three line summaries. The India part is not well written, unbalanced and patchy. The Indus valley civilisation was not India or a precursor to India. India is an artificial collection of a multitude of cultures. And, Homo Sapiens did not arrive on the sub-continent from Africa, unless they came by boat, which they didn't. Another point to mention is there is better evidence of human life on the sub-continent 3,000 years ago, than New Zealand 300 years ago, due to writing. I have never said there should not be something in this article about the first humans, but there is very little that can be said of any substance other than what is in the first two lines - they arrived from Pacific islands in waves c. 1250-1350. A mention of the shift from archaic to modern culture might be warranted. Although not popular now, this lack of any solid written evidence is why the period is called pre-historic. (I have no opinion on that topic, it has been discussed before elsewhere.) Tasman's 1642 skirting of NZ should have a sentence at least because it was one, written and is undisputedly true, and second, it led to New Zealand getting its name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

India is a featured article, so clearly a lot of editors disagree given how FAs are nominated. It is standard practice to include an historical overview of all the peoples who occupied the respective territory in country articles and I cannot think of a single country article that does not do so. I don't see what this has to do with referencing Wikipedia, I'm not proposing that.

And the Norway bit is an excerpt, because my comment was already rather long. The full quote is:

The earliest traces of human occupation in Norway are found along the coast, where the huge ice shelf of the last ice age first melted between 11,000 and 8000 BC. The oldest finds are stone tools dating from 9500 to 6000 BC, discovered in Finnmark (Komsa culture) in the north and Rogaland (Fosna culture) in the southwest. Theories about the two cultures being separate were deemed obsolete in the 1970s.
Between 3000 and 2500 BC, new settlers (Corded Ware culture) arrived in eastern Norway. They were Indo-European farmers who grew grain and kept livestock, and gradually replaced the hunting-fishing population of the west coast.
Metal Ages
Main articles: Nordic Bronze Age and Iron Age Scandinavia

From about 1500 BC, bronze was gradually introduced. Burial cairns built close to the sea as far north as Harstad and also inland in the south are characteristic of this period, with rock carving motifs that differ from those of the Stone Age, depicting ships resembling the Hjortspring boat, while large stone burial monuments known as stone ships were also erected.
There is little archaeological evidence dating to the early Iron Age (the last 500 years BC). The dead were cremated, and their graves contained few goods. During the first four centuries AD, the people of Norway were in contact with Roman-occupied Gaul; about 70 Roman bronze cauldrons, often used as burial urns, have been found. Contact with countries farther south brought a knowledge of runes; the oldest known Norwegian runic inscription dates from the third century.

As one can see, there's quite a bit written about cultures that lacked "any solid written evidence" and do not have any facts about them that are "undisputedly true". The part of France covering pre-writing cultures is similarly three times as long as the excerpt I included.  novov talk edits 06:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

45TH parallel South market pic needed

I ask this every couple of years without success, so let's try again: If anybody has a good photo of one of the markers of the 45th parallel in New Zealand, the 45th parallel south article could use it. The one it has right now is lousy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth your while also asking at Talk:Pukeuri, the nearest locality with an article (which mentions this marker), and at Talk:Oamaru, the nearest major town.-Gadfium (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You could also ask these people if they could release the photo under a free license, or if they have another photo without people in it that they could release.-Gadfium (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: Ditto for this photo]. Both these flickr users appear to be recently active.-Gadfium (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)