Difference between revisions of "Talk:New Zealand"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(airline porn? liberals? yes)
Line 67: Line 67:
 
::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
 
::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
 
[[user:plqgnmv|plqgnmv]]
 
[[user:plqgnmv|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!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 16:51, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:51, 28 July 2009

Copyright Details
License: Some content for this article is in the Public Domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
Source: File available from the United States Federal Government [1].

NOTE: Dates after posts shown without "(EDT)" were added later according to when they were posted in Australian time.


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.

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%[2]. 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.[3].--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

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! [4]
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)