Talk:New Zealand

New Zealand Wars

The name "Land Wars" is outdated; the commonly accepted name today is The New Zealand Wars. This is the name used on the official New Zealand government website Te Ara: The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand http://www.teara.govt.nz/ Uenuku (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed over the years at Talk:New Zealand land wars. I've just made a formal proposal for renaming that article. Please contribute to the discussion there.-gadfium 21:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 222.153.5.189, 26 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add 'English (95%)' to official languages of new zealand, as seen on the languages of new zealand page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_New_Zealand

222.153.5.189 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

N Not done. English is listed as a national language in the infobox; it does not have de jure official status. IgnorantArmies^?! 10:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development both list English as an official language, as does Te Ara. And when NZ sign language became an official language, it was talked of as the 'third' official language. It would be safe to say English is an official language. --110.32.149.165 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your links are compelling. However, since this has been debated previously and the opposite conclusion reached, I'm going to wait to see other feedback before making the edit.-gadfium 05:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• For convenience, previous discussion here. I think the links here are pretty solid, although perhaps a footnote should be added with regard to the actual legal status if it is disputed. sonia♫ 06:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} not done, for now; please discuss and obtain consensus. (I can't action the request unless there is clear agreement here, first)  Chzz  ►  06:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

leader_title2 = Governor-General |leader_name2 = Jerry Mateparae

please change Jerry Mateparae to Anand Satyanand

source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35852.htm

117.211.32.47 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The US State Dept info is dated to August 19, 2011. On August 31, Jerry Mateparae succeeded Anand Satyanand.[1] XLerate (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that, and thanks for reverting that change. Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GPD

The GDP figures in the New Zealand page are still the 2010 estimates. Could somebody update these to the later 2011 estimates? Thanks, Sticks317 (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put in the 2012 estimates but I've not updated the rankings since the page they links to seem to be based on older figures. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand's constitutional history

The section of this article which outlines New Zealand's constitutional history is ambiguous, and directs towards an incorrect understanding: that New Zealand was legally created by cession.

New Zealand, constitutionally speaking, was not created by a treaty of cession (The Treaty of Waitangi) but through annexation to the Australian State of New South Wales (Buick, 1914, pp. 66-67). There are multiple things which can attest to this: The Treaty of Waitangi Act (1795) is the only thing which legally empowers the Treaty'. The government of New Zealand is not empowered by the Treaty of Waitangi, the Treaty is empowered by an Act of Parliament, just as any other New Zealand Act of Parliament. And technically, the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975) could be repealed just as any Act of Parliament leaving the Treaty' legally impotent.

Throughout the Treaty of Watangi signature collection proceedings, Captain Hobson was a subordinate officer to to the New South Wales Governor Sir George Gipps (Buick, 1914, pp. 67-69). Hobson had no imperium (or, office based authority) for constitutional arrangements (Buick, 1914, p. 63). More specifically, his position has no power to arrange constitutional matters and had he done so, they are over and above the powers of his office, therefore invalid.

References:

Thomas Lindsay Buick, The Treaty of Waitangi: How New Zealand became a British colony, Wellington: S. & W. MacKay, 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.209.147 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox independence dates

The infobox notes the date the first Parliament convened and the date the New Zealand adopted dominion status. I don't mean to diminish the importance of either event, but I wonder why these are listed while the grant of responsible government (or home rule, if you prefer) is not. The meeting of the first Parliament is of course important, but it is really just a natural consequence of the Imperial Parliament enacting the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852. The change from styling itself "Colony of New Zealand" to "Dominion of New Zealand" is important symbolically, but only symbolically. It strikes me that the Constitution Act 1852 deserves to be listed, and if editors here believe that would mean too many dates being listed, then it also strikes me that one of the other two (probably the first meeting of Parliament) should make way for the 1852 Act. FWIW, Australia and Canada both list their constitution acts. -Rrius (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MORE

Would be nice to have more about James Cook and his mapping in the article would be nice to learn more and about the places the Maori challenged him, Cape Kidnappers, e.t.c.210.55.215.173 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's more appropriate for the articles First voyage of James Cook, Second voyage of James Cook and Third voyage of James Cook. Cape Kidnappers has a paragraph on the specific incident.-gadfium 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)