Talk:Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Use the official title, with redirect at commonly used names? 58.28.133.63 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the move. I knew when I created the article that it would probably not stay at this title for long. However, let's take a few days to discuss the best title so it doesn't get moved more than once.
Would including the year be useful, as is common for most Acts of Parliament? That would make the title Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007 (currently a redirect).-gadfium 20:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be at the most common English name, not at the official name. Is Child Discipline Bill the most common name? —METS501 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Child Discipline Bill (or more correctly Child Discipline Act) would be the most widely recognised name of those which are reasonably accurate. The Anti-Smacking Bill is probably better known but is a misconception of the purpose of the act.-gadfium 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Child Discipline Act, which is indisputably more accurate than the previous title of "Child Discipline Bill". I believe this move is uncontroversial.-gadfium 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page name[edit]

About the name "Child Discipline Act", exactly where is that used and why is it believed to be common? I've never seen it anywhere (and I followed the debate closely); the only common name I've heard is the "anti-smacking bill" (inappropriate for an encyclopedic title). I would say that it should be at Crimes (Amended Section 59) Amendment Act 2007, which its proper name? (It was renamed to that by the select committee and passed under that name, so it was never the "Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007" to start with.) I don't think a common English name is necessarily appropriate for legislation...

This isn't a formal move request, yet—unless someone else makes it one—otherwise, I'm happy to wait for a response. (I'm not very active; there might be a while between my responses.) Neonumbers (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with a move, although the formal title of the act is the "Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act". I don't recall exactly how I came up with the original title of "Child Discipline Bill", but it seemed to be both descriptive and neutral. There are a substantial number of relevant google hits for this term independent of the Wikipedia article, but fewer for "Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act" and very few for "Child Discipline Act".-gadfium 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would lik to see it moved to Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act as the offical name. The more popular name would be a redir to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present title of "Child Discipline Act" is plain wrong as it is capitalised as though it is a proper name which it is not. Child discipline act would fix that but I'm not sure that is the best solution. I would need more time (which I don't have right now) to form an opinion. Nurg (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to its official name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll's and research[edit]

Can I include http://www.voteno.org.nz/polls.htm#curia a Curia Market Research poll? ChrisTParkin (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well on one hand they are polls commissioned by one side of the debate so I guess they could be considered dubious on that ground? Are the results also listed on Curia's website, that may be a better link than the voteno website if they are available, you could mention in the article that they are commissioned by one side of the debate. Otherwise it's probably best to only put them up alongside some polls from neutral media or the yes campaign so as to ensure a neutral POV. Have any of the main media outlets done polling recently? I'm sure they will closer to the time if they haven't yet. Mattlore (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Sorry, I was thinking this was the referendum article not this one, wouldn't they be better there anyway?
Thanks for the feedback :)

If we are qustioning the neutral POV then the OCC;s info needs to be ballenced. OCC were one of the main factors behind the law change, so hardly neutral.
Are the results also listed on Curia's website?
No, they don't display any of theirs on line.
Otherwise it's probably best to only put them up alongside some polls from neutral media
Yes, those removed as they were internet based and so bias :( ChrisTParkin (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An independent poll by a reputable polling company is worth including, so long as the commissioning group is mentioned. However, this does not appear to be an independent poll. See Smoko: Taking a closer look at new smacking poll-gadfium 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting view point Stephen Mills is one of the UMR researchers (1st one on the list) and he has worked for the last PM and has a simular list of Labor leaning past jobs as David Farrar has National. Add to that that National has not come out in favor of the referendum and your objections are looking shakey (IMHO). ChrisTParkin (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your references a little more. I didn't understand what you were trying to say here at first, but presumably it's along the lines of the comments here. I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but presumably you are arguing that neither poll is entirely neutral, or at least, that shit is being flung by both sides to discredit poll results.
What wording do you suggest would be appropriate for the Curia poll?-gadfium 09:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of polls done on this issue. Any polls that we include should be from a reputable polling company, name whoever commissioned the poll and include the questions that were asked. I think the biggest influence on the poll outcome is the wording of the question. It is often a leading question. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete[edit]

Info about number of prosecutions needs to have an "as of" date, as it changes. It would be much better to have a neutral source for the info too. Nurg (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to add a citation[edit]

I have located a source for a statement on this website but as an inexperienced editor, I don't know how to enter the details in the citation for it. It isn't a website, a book or a journal, it's a UN report.

The statement for which I have found a source is:

"The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) also put pressure on the New Zealand Government for education and promotion of changing attitudes and parenting practice"

The source is on page 6 of the Concluding Observations: New Zealand of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2003. I downloaded the document which had a reference GO344655 The title of the report is Convention on the Rights of the Child CRC/C/15/Add.216 27 October 2003 Original: ENGLISH

COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD Thirty-fourth session CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION Concluding observations: New Zealand

I found it via the UN website: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2f15%2fAdd.216&Lang=en

Can someone assist with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noracrentiss (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref for you. You are welcome to just add the bare url as a reference, preferably putting it between ref tags, as follows:<ref>https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2f15%2fAdd.216&Lang=en</ref> Someone will come along sooner or later and format it for you.-gadfium 08:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimes_(Substituted_Section_59)_Amendment_Act_2007&oldid=1206825275"