Talk:New Zealand

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Very well written. The only part I would possibly dispute is your statement that the Maori Party are in opposition to the government. While this would certainly be true on issues such as the seabed and foreshore legislation, it is a bit of a stretch to say they are in opposition. They have voted with the government on sevveral issues, and it is important to bear in mind that the Maori electorate traditionally votes on a slightly more left of centre basis. Despite this minor detail, I thought it was a well written and well balanced article. - Tom.

You know what i find funny? the fact that conservapedia claims to be better than Wikipedia and yet it used wikipedia as a source, check the external links for this article, one is for wikitravel, a part of wikipedia, how are you supposed to be better than someone else if you get your info from them?. - John.

Entirely True, i applaud the work of this historian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aheheh (talk) 19th March 2007.

Contents

This is ridiculous

I cannot be bothered to change it, but just to let you know, the japanese did not colonise New Zealand and at least a whole paragraph of this article is a complete and utter lie, I hope someone will deal with it shortly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pallawish (talk) 18th March 2007.

Doesnt make sense

Is their any support at all that Japan and Russia came to New Zealand before america was found? and that they founded a city called "Vodka City" and that australia, in 1796 invaded these two "capitals" and defeated a nation that has been established for many years? makes no sense nor is their any factual backing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thommie (talk) 20th March 2007.

-I think it depends on who you refer to as the Australians, Japanese and Russians at that time. These states were very different before the late modern period. The history of the area isn't as well documented as say the American colonial period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason2010 (talk) 20th March 2007.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wikipedia, you do need to take information from it with a pinch of salt however and it definitely should not be used for serious research purposes. I hope i did my country justice by writing this article -gilltm (30th March, 2007).

thanks for correcting me or for any constructive editing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilltm (talk) 30th March 2007.

Unemployment statistics wrong

The figure of 8.3% unemployment is very out of date. The Labour (centre-left) led government elected in 1999 has reduced the unemployment to something more like 3% and New Zealand has among the lowest unemployment rates in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plqgnmv (talk) 21st April 2007.

Can you provide a citation for your number?--Aschlafly 20:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
The unemployment rate data from the last quarter of 2006 is 3.7%. The information is from the statistics New Zealand website. http://www.stats.govt.nz/top-20-stats.htm plqgnmv 6:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that a liberal governement like this one would have such low unemployment - must be a mistake. Delete maybe? Ferret 08:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Here]. No ideological deletes, especially when so ill-informed. 3.8% in 2006 as a whole. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
That's very different from the number reported in the content page. Could that be due to how unemployment is measured in New Zealand? E.g., are many people simply dropped off the rolls after 6 months, even though they continue to be unemployed?--Aschlafly 10:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
The latest OECD standardised unemployment rate (SUR) for NZ is 3.7%[1]. The SUR counts those of working age who are without work, available for work and actively seeking work and is a sound basis for comparing unemployment rates in different countries.[2].--Jalapeno 12:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
People are most certainly not dropped off the rolls after 6 months. They recieve the unemployment benefit and are supported in the job finding process. Also I don't care if you find it hard to believe the stats are true and have a source, therfore it would be wrong to delete them. The liberal Labour government does have this unemployment rate that has been decreasing since the Labour led government came to power. It probably annoys you to have a very sucessful example of a liberal government on your website especialy one led by a women. plqgnmv (23rd May 2007)
You cannot really use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' outside of the United States, the Democrats and Republicans don't really have any parallels in NZ. I mean sure the Labour party concerns itself with social welfare etc, but they're not 'liberal' in the American sense. The National party is a lot more conservative, but they're hardly influenced by the Christian right like the Republican party. I'm pentecostal myself and I think that politics is beneath religion. Why dirty yourselves with politics? - gilltm (18th June 2007
Must make it somewhat difficult for the Australians and English, to not be able to refer to major political parties in those nations arctangent
yes i agree that you cannot use 'liberal' and 'conservative' outside the u.s. in the same context, new zealand politics is not so black and white as through our fairer proportional representation system we have 8 different parties and 2 independants with various different values and beliefs. in new zealand someone would also never say i am labour or i am national like in the u.s. where people almost identify with their party and seem to belong to it, eg: "im republican." in new zealand people will say 'i vote labour' but never suggest that they belong to it. As an athiest i also believe religion and politics should stay away from each other. plqgnmv

Being a NZer, I can honestly say that NZ`s politics is very different from American Politics. Both the Labour Party and the National Party jump between being left wing and right wing. However, it’s not really the two main parties that are the problem. I find that the minority parties, such as the Green Party, the ACT Party and the Maori Party to be the problem in NZ politics. For either Labour or National Party to get into power, they have allowed smaller parties to join with them. This however allows stupid laws to get in, such as the anti-smacking bill. The problem with NZ politic is that it can become a mess some times. Nothing is black and white.

On the issue of unemployment, I find the National Party are trying to sort that out by fixing the Welfare system. I don`t know what it is like in America, but there is a lot of people on the doll here, many of which could easily get a job, and help to contribute to society. To be honest, I`d rather vote for National than Labour. Labour at the moment I feel is outdated, and a few of their laws I don`t like. The last time Labour got into power, they didn`t really do anything. At least National are trying to help the country. And the best thing of all, they listen to the public. Well, that`s my 2 cents. -TobyKeet 01:26, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

I agree with you, TobyKeet. All systems have systemic problems at times, and the main one with the parliamentary system is the need to often to seek odd bedfellows in a wacky coalition. On the plus side, Kiwi's have a small enough nation, population wide, to have a real deep sense of community (with the exception of the Mori's) and the whole nation seems more close-knit. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Type of Government

The government was listed as a constitutional monarchy, this is not the case. Elizabeth II is the head of state, however NZ's actual government type is a Parliamentary Democracy with a single house of parliament consisting of 120 MP's. gilltm (18th June 2007)

I'm prepared to stand corrected on this, but I will point out that the article already said that it was a constitutional monarchy, a change that you made to the article! [3]
The article also says that Liz is the queen of New Zealand, again a change that you put in the article.
The infobox does not at present allow for "head of state", so making that change effectively hid the reference. The template is quite new, and certainly needs adding to, but I'm unsure what to add in that regard. If I add a "Head of state" row, and Liz goes in there, where does the Governer General go? Should there be a "Head of state" row and an "Acting head of state" row, or what? Your comments are welcome.
Philip J. Rayment 21:41, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps Governor General should just be listed under "Governor General"? (Gilltm 00:09, 18 June 2007 (EDT))
Yes, that would seem an obvious solution. So would we not have a "Head of state" category? Philip J. Rayment 02:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
to my understanding Queen liz is the head of state of new zealand and the govoner general is the representitive of the queen who acts on her behalf in new zealand

plqgnmv

Example of Liberalism

I would really like to add the fact that the government owned Air New Zealand, has produced a nude saftey video. If that isn't an example of a wreckless, corrupt, sexually driven, liberal government than I don't know what is! I posted here first due to the fact that this inclusion may not be quite family appropriate. Thank You!--IScott 16:51, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Wise idea. Link me here, so I can review this. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:08, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Here is one article on this peverted airline. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12748676 . I hope we could tie this in to the socialist/communist Labour Party that controls NZ. --IScott 17:23, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Actually looks like the Nationalist party is in control now (no socialist tie in :( ), but I'm sure the Nationalist are still very liberal.--IScott 17:39, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
That's what they call an advertising gimmick. Since they are really using body paint, what can anyone "see"? Yes, they are being suggestive, in alluding they are nude, but in reality, they appear to the watcher the same as if fully clothed, due to the body paint. I don't think that rises to the level of perversion, just fairly mundane marketing. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:53, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Haha calm down guys, there's no way you can hope to understand the NZ sense of humour. This ad is brilliant. No-one here would seriously consider this advertisement to be offensive, "corrupt", or "sexually driven". Ya'll really need to settle down. I should also mention that the NZ Labour party is centre left, and the National party is centre right (go look this up in any political science textbook). There is very little polarisation in NZ politics and to use the American terms "liberal" and "conservative" is simply not correct (especially since there is no religious influence in NZ politics, seperation of church and state guys! Go read your own constitution). --Gilltm
That ad was mild. From what I can remember, they did show that much, other than their bums. If you are shocked at that, wait till you see "Boobs on Bikes". TobyKeet 08:15, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Organisation of headings

I've swapped History with Sport as I believe the origins of the country are more important than their preference of sport. AndrewJay 21:28, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Indeed they are! Thanks, and please do sign your posts! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:48, 4 February 2010 (EST)
How about we put Sports in a new section called Culture. We could also add other stuff such as music, etc. TobyKeet 20:56, 28 August 2010 (EDT)
Fine with me....Culture of New Zealand, along with the aboriginal's. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:07, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

A couple of edits.

Hi, I just changed a couple of sentences that sounded weird, updated most of the politics info, and updated the bit about early Maori settlement to bring it more in line with contemporary scholarship. I added a reference, but I'm new so I have no idea if it's done correctly or not. feel free to change any mistakes.Cmurphynz 19:53, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Just noticed I wrote twelfth century when i meant thirteenth (1200s). Changed it.

Personal tools