Talk:New Zealand

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree, English links to New Zealand English Maori links to Māori language so Sign Language should link to New Zealand Sign Language, it does not need to say NZ Sign Language. New Zealaland uses 'New Zealand English not British, or Australian or US english. If we say NZ NZ Sign Language, we will have to also say NZ english, and NZ maori, as there is other maori out there (eg Cook Island Maori).

This should be fixed ASAP Brian | (Talk) 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Sign Language, but I understand that New Zealand Sign Language is much more different from American Sign Language, say, than NZ English is from American English, and that the differences are big enough for them to be described as different languages, not dialects of the same language. So I think Brian's argument misses the point.

From [1]:

"New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) has been "spoken" for over a hundred years. It developed out of British Sign Language (BSL), brought here by Dorcas Mitchell, tutor to a family of Deaf children in Charteris Bay in the 1870s. BSL can be traced back another 300 years and probably has an unrecorded history as long as that of English. American Sign Language (ASL or Ameslan) is a completely different language."

I don't really know enough about differences between the Māori languages to comment on that part. -- Avenue 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, there are hundreds of different sign languages in the world. Most of them are not mutually intelligible and many of them developed independently from each other. The diversity of Sign Languages worldwide is not comparable at all to the English varieties of the UK, US, Australia, NZ, etc; it is more comparable to the variety of all the spoken languages of the world: English, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, etc.

(According to the article BANZSL, BANZSL (which includes New Zealand Sign Language) has a lexical similarity of just 44% with American Sign Language. In contrast, English has a lexical similarity of 60% with German.)

Brian New Zealand's version, which gives "Sign Language" as one of the official languages of New Zealand, would be like giving "Spoken languages" as the other two official languages, without bothering to distinguish between the spoken languages of the world. If you feel that the spoken languages of the world are different enough for us to specify "English" and "Maori" (rather than just "Spoken languages"), why would you not do the same for New Zealand Sign Language as well?

-- ran (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Debate over Casualties in WWI

Here's the quote from the article:

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

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

I tried to find figures for the population of Newfoundland during the war but couldn't find any, so I decided set some bounds on the population. According to World War I casualties, Newfoundland had total dead of 1,251. NZ population from the 1916 census was ~1.2 million and the number of NZers killed was 18,166, meaning Newfoundland would need a population less than 83,000 to have a higher death rate in the war. If we look at total casualities (dead and wounded from the table), Newfoundland would have needed a population of less than 72,000 people. Of course this doesn't show whether NZ or Newfoundland had a higher rate, but my gut feeling is that ~80,000 people seems rather low for a Dominion. 203.173.151.217 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main Newfoundland page says: "The First World War had a powerful and lasting effect on the society. From a population of about a quarter of a million, 5,482 men went overseas. Nearly 1,500 were killed and 2,300 wounded " - SimonLyall 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the World War I casualties page I would guess that Serbia, France, Romania and perhaps even Bulgaria or Russia are ahead of NZ though. depedning on their exact populations at the time. - SimonLyall 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Demographics of France, it had a population of around 40,000,000 during WWI, and military deaths of 1375800. This would mean 3.44% of its population were killed just in the military, compared to 1.51% for New Zealand. If we look at total deaths and wounded, France had a rate of 14.20% compared to NZ's 6.39%. Even if we ignore civilian deaths, France only drops to 14.10%, so it definitely has a higher rate. As such, I think the comment should be removed from articles that it is found in. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Just to add to this, Austria-Hungary has a death rate of 2.34% for military deaths. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, based on population figures from [2] for some countries, [3] for New Zealand, we find that:

New Zealand had a death rate of 1.51% and casuality rate (civilian and military) of 6.39%

France, 2.55%, and 10.53%

Austria-Hungary, 2.34% and 9.38%

Germany, 2.53% and 8.56%

Romania, 3.73% and 5.06%

Italy, 1.86% and 4.56%

Bulgaria, 1.59% and 4.36%

Evil Monkey - Hello 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australia was 1.19% and 4.37% and Canada, 0.83% and 3.00%. As for the other Commonwealth countries, South Africa had less deaths and casualities than NZ and India had only slightly more, making it unlikely they would have a higher rate. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the Maori TV ANZAC day covage today and I'm sure they said NZ had the higest casualites per capita in WWI, (out of the Commonwealth) Brian | (Talk) 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Been British off to New Zealnd

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

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

To do list

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

Rearrange

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

3.1 Central

3.2 Local

3.3 International relations

3.3.1 Foreign territories

3.3.2 Foreign relations

3.3.3 Military

4 Economy

4.1 International rankings

5 Culture

5.1 Demographics

5.2 Sports

5.3 Public Holidays

6 Natural environment

6.1 Geography

6.2 Flora and Fauna

7 See also
8 Notes
9 External Links

What do people think? --Midnight tonight 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, however I don't now if Military should be a sub of International relations Brian | (Talk) 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up a version at /proposal which should make it easier for people to comment on --Midnight tonight 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australian Constitution

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

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

Hmmm, the next clause does define original states as those who have ratified by time of proclamation. You may have a point. Xtra 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although that clause was meant for Western Australia, who like us didn't want to join the Aussie Commonwealth --Lholden 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city

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

No contest. Auckland City says 420,700. Manukau City says 360,200. Moriori 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Auckland City is the local authority with the highest population, although I think that misses the point. The question is whether to give the largest local authority or the largest urban area. And FWIW, these population figures are wrong, or at least misleadingly labelled. The usually resident populations from the 2001 Census were 367,737 and 283,200 respectively, and the most recent population estimates on Statistics NZ's website (30 June 2005, provisional) are 425,400 and 332,900. The Auckland City figure is the provisional population estimate as at 30 June 2004 (the final estimate of 420,800 was slightly higher), and is not the 2001 Census figure as was stated in our article. Manukau City is projected to reach 360,000 sometime around 2010 (under medium growth assumptions). -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um I have heard before that Manukau is the city with the most population Brian | (Talk) 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on Auckland City and then Manukau City. Moriori 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm, it appers Manukau is New Zealand's third largest city, thats intresting, as I know a lot of people who are sure its the largest pop wise. Brian | (Talk) 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was one of them. It seems this is very out of date (1989); see Manukau#Population. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Auckland metropolitan area is probably the best one to say with 1.2 million people. Bringing it down to the council level really doesn't produce a logical result. - SimonLyall 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer to use the largest metropolitan area. However I have noticed that U.S. states do not do this; e.g. Florida lists Jacksonville as its largest city, not the larger metropolitan areas centred around Miami or Tampa. -- Avenue 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we have now is completely wrong. We have Auckland which points to the Metropolitan Area when we mean the territorial authority and we list the population as 367,734 when the Auckland City page has 425,400 listed. If people are really hung up about territorial authorities instead of urban areas I suggest we do what Japan does and list Auckland ( 1,241,800) with a note at the bottom of the infobox with Largest urban area. Auckland City is the largest incorporated city . Personally I suspect 99% of people are only going to care about the urban area figure. - SimonLyall 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll assume silence means assent, and go ahead with Simon's last suggestion above. (I notice that in the meantime, someone has added one million to the Auckland population figure, giving 1,367,734. Chinese whispers anyone? :) -- Avenue 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa

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