Talk:South Island Independence

Untitled

moved from a user page:

Sole external link to arguments for independence

I don't have a problem with a link to any genuine SI independence movement. I do question whether the link you have readded represents such. The image of a woman's bouncing breasts on the website makes it clear that this is someone's idea of a joke. The other images fail to dispel that impression. I think the whole page, if not a prank, is an advertisement for a book publisher. Please actually look at the website before readding.-gadfium 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice to look at a site before you jump to conclusions is appropriate, Gadfium, and one I always try to practice (especially in my professional life).

This is a multiple page site that has had a lot of effort expended on it. The jokes may not be to your taste or mine but it is NOT a pornographic or joke site.

If you actually read the text you will see that the bouncing breasts draw attention to the news item that women in Nelson (in the South Island) have the biggest breasts - not the clincher in a political argument, I agree, but please also look at the economic and health arguments for independence this site advances befoer you condemn it as being without merit - there are at least 4 separate pages you need to thoroughly read...

Please don't make vandalistic reversions without reaching a consensus here first.

<Please consider how few external links are likely to be placed here and read Wikipedia policy before you delete the external link to http://www.cutthecable.co.nz. again without reaching a consensus here.

South Island Independence movement unofficial website. (Caution may offend some North Islanders)

Note to the deletionist tendency: please don't try and exercise political censorship on what is quintessentially a political topic. The arguments for independence are better rehearsed on an external website than here on Wikipedia and, if you are still tempted to delete the link, I can only suggest that a neutral PoV requires you to at least make an effort to précis the arguments expressed on that external link here in this article before you delete a link to an alternative viewpoint to your own...Gaimhreadhan 02:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC) i[reply]

Yes, I did read the website's claim that South Island women have bigger breasts. I don't consider it authoritative, and I don't see what that has to do with independence. The whole website has clearly exaggerated claims: comparing the South Island to Tibet? It isn't even funny. I also don't consider the website as evidence that a modern South Island independence movement exists. I think this is someone with a strange sense of humour and too much time on their hands. Wikipedia is not a place for such jokes.-gadfium 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is inappropriate, what is necessary is an independent source. Without one the article would surely fail an AfD nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources; the source should be removed. - Shudda ^talk 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with not linking, site appears to be mostly a joke rather than a proper political site advocating change. - SimonLyall 07:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. A better source should be found, and I've added {{sources}} to the article. --Core desat 09:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vogel and South Island independence

I've tagged the claim that Vogel supported South Island independence. I've never heard of, or read about, Vogel ever stating this; he certainly didn't while he was Premier (the article currently implies he was Premier in 1865). Certainly the issue was debated then, and I have a feeling a resolution was put, but the outcome was moving the capital from Auckland to Wellington. --Lholden 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags and potential POV issues

I've added further fact tags along with sections. Some of the claims really do need to be backed up with a proper source - e.g. the claim about Treaty of Waitangi settlements. I know for a fact that support amongst the general population for ToW settlements is a lot higher than the article implies (cf NZ Study of Values, 2005) --Lholden 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What modern independence movement?

The article has consistently failed to provide any evidence of a modern independence movement in the South Island, apart from the South Island Party which appears to be defunct since 2002. Where is the evidence that there is an independence movement? We need sources in reliable media and names/links for specific groups who have some influence or at least organisation. The existing list of arguments for South Island independence appear to be original research, since they are attempting to use cited facts to make a case on Wikipedia, rather than reporting an outside body making such a case and getting media coverage for it.-gadfium 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list of arguments for an independent South Island, as there are no links to groups advocating such independence. The article now mentions several internet-based groups advocating independence - we should link to their websites, assuming that they are sufficiently organised to have achieved coverage in national media. For example, we should add "Group X [website] has called for blah since 2005 [ref to Otago Daily Times, or Christchurch Press]". A website which has received no such coverage from reliable sources isn't worth linking to.-gadfium 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moderators of this page, obviously have their own agenda, given the continued attempts to censor any links or acknowledgement of pro-independence groups within the South Island. Perhaps this page needs to have a change of title because it certainly doesn't reflect the current one. May also be appropiate to remove the image of proposed South Island flag because it has not received any coverage in the national media either. Son of Zealandia (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's linking, verifiability and Manual of Style before you accuse anyone of censorship. None of the edits of this article have been done with the intent to get prevent acknowledgment of the topic - I've only put in fact tags on statements I believe to be wrong (e.g. the claim that European New Zealanders don't support Treaty of Waitangi settlements - as noted above, I've seen figures in academic studies that contradict this claim). If you can find verifiable statements otherwise, what you've written will stand. --Lholden (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mergefrom South Island nationalism

A new article, South Island nationalism, has been created in the last couple of days. The information in that article, understandably, relates directly to South Island independence, and any extension of the new article will cover very much the same ground as this one. As such, the options seem to be to merge the information into one article (most effectively, into this larger, established article), or allow both to grow and run the real risk of content-forking. I propose that these two articles be merged at South Island Independence, with a redirect from South Island nationalism. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The information on the South Island nationalism page is largely repeated. --Lholden (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Merging should not be considered if...The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles" I believe this the situation we have. --South Islander (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not separate topics. FWIW, BTW, both LHolden and I have been involved to some limited extent in the SI movements, so we do know what we're talking about. Grutness...wha? 09:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, but I'm not sure which is the better target article.-gadfium 09:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I think "South Island nationalism" would be a better description for the movement; South Island independence may be their aim, but it is one they have yet to achieve. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I commented on this on the other page. The articles cover the same stuff and I think nationalism is a better word for it than independence, because that's slightly misleading. Nationalism is also broader. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I've done some thinking and I think you guys are actually right...I also agree with the use of South Island Nationalism as the main article since it is broader.--South Islander (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nationalism and Independence are not necessarily the same thing. Independence is political by its nature, whereas nationalism is not necessarily so. Nationalism may focus on cultural differences and identity, dialect or language, historical pride, and a celebration of things which identify a nation of peoples without calling for political independence, as in Maori nationalism, for example, which seeks to recognise the separateness of the Maori "Nation" within a greater New Zealand society, identifiable within it but not politically separate from it. Independence by definition must include a desire or call for political autonomy within set boundaries. TheSourceAura (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good arguments as to why if there is a merge it should be to "nationalism" rather than "independence" - one is a subset of the other. But it still doesn't address the fact that - as separate articles - they will cover very much the same ground and easily become content forks. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, under the "South Island nationalism" title. Independence can be covered sensibly under the broader title, and combining these articles shouldn't produce too long an article at present. -- Avenue (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus? It looks like there is a majority for merging to South Island nationalism rather than South Island Independence. --Lholden (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that's the consensus to me. The only outstanding opposing rationale has been answered, and was from an editor who has only edited once since (with 2 edits on 6 Feb). If no one objects, I'll start merging them in a week or so. --Avenue (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge... several months later! --Lholden (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've been busy and it slipped my mind. --Avenue (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No stress. --Lholden (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]