Talk:New Zealand

Soccer is now Football.

You can't deny it any longer : Plenty of media are using it, (as linked below) And I believe the term is in common usage now. (undoubtedly much more in some parts than others) Any none usage of the word football is out weighed by the fact Football is the official name and, and those with anything to do with the sport use the word Football. :] http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/ http://tvnz.co.nz/football-news http://www.3news.co.nz/3Sport/Football/tabid/734/Default.aspx

CipherPixel (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just browsed the last discussion of this (also commenced by you), and the point was not that "soccer" is more common than "football" (and notice that "football" is not capitalised)), but that both terms are widely used in New Zealand, with "football" giving rise to ambiguity. I would also note that despite what someone (it may have been you) said, the confusion has nothing to do with Americans, who are used to the rest of the world calling "football" what we call "soccer". The confusion arises because because the word "football" is used in relation to four different sports. What's more, to the extent it was argued that "soccer" is the more common word in NZ English, the fact that "plenty of media" use "football" is dispositive. In fact, it's not terribly persuasive. Media outlets are often on the leading edge of this sort of thing, so usage there is not enough to support a change. And again, even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that there is the possibility of confusion. -Rrius (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Football is a very popular sport in New Zealand and we compete at the highest levels. In 2007 we didn't make The Football World Cup , in 2008 we won The Football World Cup and got 2nd in the Football World cup, in 2010 we will participate in The Football World Cup and in 2011 we will host The Football World Cup " . - SimonLyall (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, on the Fifa 10 page I was told I could not mention the bugs because no official sources could be listed. Now I am being told the exact opposite. In NZ the game is called Football. Also between now and the last debate NZ has qualified, records has been set, fans have been converted and the word football has even been drilled into talk back radio! CipherPixel (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know or care what you are talking about in regards to the Fifa 10 page. Also, you allege has been "drilled into talk back radio" is beside the point. You say, that it is called "football" in New Zealand. Wonderful, but other New Zealanders say that both are common terms. As far as I know, that is not really in issue. The point is that as between the two common terms, one of them can create confusion, but the other one doesn't. Finally, once again, it is "football", not "Football": Sports aren't proper nouns. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse you, but what happened on the Fifa 10 page is wiki's official guidelines (and I quote, "ifs it not referenced on reliable sources, it can't go here". Or do they only apply when an admin see fit? Unfortunately, its not up to you to decide what everyone thinks, but rather its up to official sources, which you have none. One term is correct, the other is not. If you want to avoid confusion, you can add "(soccer)" in brackets. Stop being a rugby fan boy. CipherPixel (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise that this issue is the only thing you care about in Wikipedia but the simple fact is that in New Zealand English the term "Football" is ambiguous and the previous discussion decided to keep it as "Soccer" for the time being. Please don't keep re-opening this discussion and then changing the term without consensus - SimonLyall (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His last post shows me he won't agree to consensus. And I made the change before he posted hence thinking no one cares. :) I re-opened the discussion because I thought it was time to review the current status. But it seems Wikipedia's double standards and selective rules have won again. CipherPixel (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to me, then you are wrong. I do in fact care about consensus. Consensus here is to go with "soccer". The goings on at Fifa 10 or whatever are not binding here. What's more "reliable sources" and "official sources" are not the same thing. Reliable sources support both usages, but as noted many times before, one usage is ambiguous and one is not. -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on football, but I do appreciate that the name "soccer" is deemed offensive by a significant proportion of those people who are passionate about their football. This is largely because the word "soccer" is used by American's to distinguish Football from their game of "American football", (where, ironically, the ball almost never touches the foot). Outside the USA, among those who play the game, and the passionate fans of the game, the preferred name for the game is "football", not "soccer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.50.173 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IP, you don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the US. This has to do with usage in Oceana. Americans expect that when people from anywhere else in the world use the term "football", they are talking about what they call "soccer", so that isn't an issue at all. Before you go on about this, you may want to get a grip on the facts. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, whats ambiguous and whats correct needs to be balanced, which it isn't. And their is no consensus here either way. And what went on in the Fifa 10 page is binding here, because apparently they're the guidelines. But I stress again, Wikipedia's selective rules have won again. Since when was the major media outlets in NZ not reliable? And since when was their a reliable source that officially supports both? Your only argument involves ignoring the guidelines and ignoring sources. Ironic isn't it? CipherPixel (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, there needs to be a balance, and the established consensus, and there obviously is one given the previous discussion, is that balance militates in favour of using "soccer". What went on at the Fifa 10 page, whatever that is, is not binding here. The consensus on one article's talk page is not binding on another. Full stop. No one is saying that "football" is never used in New Zealand to describe the sport. What you seem somehow not to understand is that "soccer" is also commonly used in New Zealand to refer to the sport. The choice of which of the two commonly used terms to use was made on the basis that has been stated over and over again: one is ambiguous and one is not. As I said, that was established by a consensus in a discussion in which you had the opportunity to air your views (and did). There is clearly no consensus to change, so the text shouldn't change.

Finally, you keep mentioning a Fifa 10 page, but you've never explained what the hell you're talking about. Having now taken a look at that page, you seem to have made a weird point about people not liking "bugs" in the game. I have no idea what you mean by that, but you were told, in essence, that you needed some sort of verification from reliable sources for whatever you were talking about (you needn't fill me in; I don't care). That is not the issue here. There is ample evidence that both "football" and "soccer" are used by New Zealanders and Australians is not in doubt. That some news outlets use "football" doesn't contradict that; indeed, for all we know they already used the word when the consensus was reached. In any event, even if there were some sort of meaningful evidence there, it is balanced by the fact that the same sources use the word "soccer",[1][2], and others such as the Herald also use "soccer".[Soccer: Chelsea's stumble leaves title race wide open] -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the term "footie" is often used in NZ and Australia to refer to rugby union and rugby league. Football is an ambiguous term to New Zealanders because of this. Since this page is clearly New Zealand-related, NZ English is appropriate. In NZ English, soccer is the preferred term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.33 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The first question I would ask is, do we adhere to the conventional usage of the word "soccer" by many mainstream New Zealanders (including those who have little or no interest in the game), or, do we defer to the authority of the players and passionate fans of the game and use the word "football"? It seems to me that many New Zealanders use the word "soccer" because they know no better. Meanwhile, the dominant view among the football players and football fans is that the game is called "football". Many of the football fans I know get very annoyed at the use of the word "soccer" to describe the beautiful game. It is their game and they have every right to name it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We adhere to the conventional usage by mainstream New Zealanders, not the subgroup. We use the most commonly used version in the relevant form of English, not the version fans want to use. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You say "subgroup" like they're a rabble of malcontents with absurd views that are unreasonably contrary to popular opinion. It is their game and they have every right to insist that football is called "football" in New Zealand, especially given their sensitivity to the use of the word "soccer". --BlueRobe 05:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to be picky here, but to assume that a large majority of players of the game use "football" is a big assumption to make, and not entirely factual. While I would agree that "football" does seem to be gaining hugely in popularity, when I played the sport for my province (about 5 years ago), it was almost exclusively called "soccer" by the players from my province, and the opposing teams. In contrast, "football" was generally heard from people who followed European competitions, and in general didn't play themselves. Perhaps times have changed a lot since I played, but even these days, I would argue that most of the people that I come across using "soccer" are players of the sport. I don't have an objection to it being listed as "football" if that is accepted as used by the majority, but claiming that "Meanwhile, the dominant view among the football players and football fans is that the game is called "football" needs sources to back yourself up. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love you guys explaining me why, with so much emphasis, insist in refer to Americans as problematic, when the only problematic so far have been those from USA. Yes, I am aware of the controversy about the denomination of nationals of that country, but for the sake of a fair discussion, keep in mind that me, as well as another hundreds of millons of people living in this continent, are Americans. I understand if you have problems to refer to the (allow me here to use a term coined by the Germans) US-Americans in a more concise way, but let me give some news: we, Americans (except USA, as far as I know), call football (the sport played until a few days ago in the Worldcup in Southafrica) "football" by a large margin, whereas in the USA is, as far as know from my friends from that country, "soccer". No, I don't have a reliable surce. No, I cannot quote anything. As I cannot quote that the sky is blue. Sorry for the un-encyclopedic intrusion. I really dislike how a great project like Wikipedia has become the territory of lifeless individuals who think that they can shape reality by consensus. And spread it. And get away with it. Reality is not a democracy. And yes, I already regreat having left this comment. Martinmdp (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Among the football playing (and watching) public, the game is called "football". Most of the people who call it "soccer" are US-Americans (to distinguish it from the ridiculously contrived game they call "football") and people who couldn't care less about the game. BlueRobe (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The dozen or so people who asked me "are you following the soccer?" during the World Cup were all New Zealanders, at least a couple of them British-born. No one mentioned the F-word. dramatic (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Either you are lying (especially about the Poms) or you need to rush out and buy a Lotto ticket. BlueRobe (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of accusing Dramatic of lying (which doesn't strike me as a particularly valid application of "assume good faith"), why don't you direct your ire at the 119 (as per the Companies Office, earlier today) association football clubs which include the word "Soccer" in their name? And once you've done that, please feel free to start attempting to convince all the non-association football clubs in New Zealand to remove the word "football" from their names.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will call out a blatant lie when it jumps up in front of me. The suggestion that even the British use the word "soccer" instead of "football" is so utterly ridiculous that User:Dramatic can have no further credibility on the subject. Further more, the New Zealand organisation affiliated with FIFA is called New Zealand Football. Its name was changed from New Zealand Soccer in 2007 because of objections to the use of the word "soccer".

The absurdity of this discussion is beginning to resemble that of a fencing dispute with a mental health out-patient who has never seen a fence. Stop pretending that football is called "soccer" by the footballing fraternity.BlueRobe (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your ad-honinem attacks, they only discredit you. I cannot prove my anecdotal evidence, because it is, well, anecdotal, but I have no reason to lie about it! Consider it one small data point. NO, your earlier assertion that only americans say "soccer" is plainly wrong (otherwise no one would be arguing with you). YES, some people call the sport football, and yes, that number is probably increasing. But yes, other people in Australia/new Zealand mean rugby union, league or Australian Rules Football when they say football, so it is not advisable to use an ambiguous term. Is there a single new Zealand football (soccer) club that does not prepend "Football" with "Association" in its title? They recognise the need for disambiguation. If you wish to answer the case rather than attacking the advocates, please do so in a civil manner. dramatic (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic, you misrepresent me. At no point have I said that, "only americans say 'soccer'...". I said, "Most of the people who call it "soccer" are US-Americans (to distinguish it from the ridiculously contrived game they call "football") and people who couldn't care less about the game." I stand by that statement. If you don't want ad hominem attacks, don't misrepresent me. BlueRobe (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I again direct your attention to the 119 soccer clubs in New Zealand which do name themselves thus. I also recommend you acquaint yourself with the article Association football, in which it is explained that the word you take such unjustified offence to is itself of English - specifically, Oxford - origin. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're so busy focusing the microscope on one insignificant bush that you can't see the forest around you, however clearly it is presented to you. Ego much? BlueRobe (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Table discussion for 6 months I would like to propose that discussion be ended at this point as it's seems to be getting uncivil. While there are strong feelings in favour of using football the previous discussion resulted in a consensus for keeping soccer. No new facts have been introduced and this discussion is going nowhere. I therefore propose that this topic be closed for the rest of 2010 since there is zero likelyhood of a consensus in favour of the change any time soon - SimonLyall (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 118.92.118.184, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Wikipedia states that here in NZ we have 2 national anthems. We only have one national anthem which is God Bless New Zealand

Can you please edit this please?

118.92.118.184 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 00:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

New person...hi there :-)

This is interesting, and I'd like to add info on it.

First, I suggest you get an account. Free, takes seconds, and painless.

Second, please try to write a little explanation about this, with a reliable source - a book, or something.

We can help you with all of it.

Please, talk to us live, with this or this.

I hope you'll help us fix this. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of the IP who made the request, New Zealand has two official national anthems, God Defend New Zealand and God Save The Queen. See here. Moriori (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Zealand Flag

Guidelines for flying the national Māori flag Introduction

Recently, Cabinet has noted that a preferred national Māori flag has been identified, and that it is intended to complement the New Zealand flag. Cabinet also noted that it is proposed that the flag will fly on certain buildings and structures and sites of national significance on Waitangi Day, and that government agencies may also fly the flag at their discretion on Waitangi Day [CAB Min (09) 44/15 refers]. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23dazed (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note however that the reference given also states that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag "does not carry official status". Note also that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag is already depicted elsewhere in this article (and links are given to other relevant articles in its caption). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution

This article is not an appropriate place to discuss the New Zealand prostitution laws in detail. It would be appropriate to have a sentence saying that the laws were liberalised, with the year and a link to the detailed article. No further detail is needed here. This could be part of a paragraph which deals with the social reforms of the first decade of this century, which would also mention civil unions, the Property Relations Act, and the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. None of these need arguments pro and con in this article, just the fact that they were passed and if necessary a brief explanation of what they mean.-gadfium 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. We can move the rest off to the article dedicated to the topic. It always seemed to sit uncomfortably in the Economy section, but I'm not sure where the broader paragraph on recent social reforms should go; perhaps the History or Politics sections? --Avenue (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a business the Economy section is probably best for it, but I honestly don't think it warrants any more than a brief mention. The sort of in-depth content that has been added recently would probably be more appropriate in articles about the reform and about the topic in general. Incidentally the paragraph on fashion immediately following it doesn't seem particularly useful either. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen / Gov-Gen reserve powers

I've edited the way the sentences on this were framed, as they were fairly poorly written. For example, the Prime Minsiter doesn't "effectively" exercise executive power, they simply exercise executive power. Moreover there's a misunderstanding about when the reserve powers might be used. They're called "reserve powers" because they're reserved for certain situations. The principle is "The Queen reigns . . . but the government rules . . . so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives" - in other words, the PM and Cabinet (the Government) can instruct the Gov-Gen to do whatever they want so long as they've got the confidence of the House. I've edited the intro to reflect this. --Lholden (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "effectively" was correct. The GG (on the Queen's behalf) exercises the executive power, essentially always at the direction of ministers. Thus, ministers (it isn't really correct to single out the PM) effectively exercise power, even though the power lies elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Even in context, "effectively" could have been POV. Others' opinions might consider it "ineffectively". ): Moriori (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Used in conjunction with "exercises" the word "effectively" is redundant. The issue is that the power doesn't lie elsewhere, it lies with the PM and Cabinet, as the Cabinet Manual states. The Governor-General simply acts on instruction, they don't have the political power to act save for instances where the Reserve powers are used. --Lholden (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Australia#Politics covers this topic also. XLerate (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. "Effectively" is by no means redundant. You could say that the US president exercises the executive power of the US. The difference, of course, is that the executive power is actually vested in him. In NZ, it is exercised by the GG on behalf of the Queen and on the advice of ministers, meaning it is effectively exercised by ministers. The redundancy argument simply doesn't wash. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The changes are mostly fine, however to say the Queen or GG can only exercise their powers on the advice of Cabinet unless there is none or unless they have lost the confidence of Parliament is wrong. In 1975 the Governor-General of Australia dismissed the Whitlam government for trying to govern without supply from the Senate (something illegal), even though they had a majority in the House of Representatives. I've altered the paragraph to better reflect reality. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're partially correct. Because the Australian senate has the ability to block Bills of money and supply (unlike the House of Lords or Canadian Senate) any blocking of the budget is seen as a vote of no confidence in the government. However, the Australian senate simply deferred the vote, so it's highly contentious whether Sir John Kerr was right in removing Gough Whitlam and dissolving parliament. Whitlam actually had with him a letter asking the Governor-General for a half-senate election to end the impasse, so the claim he attempted to govern without supply is marginal at best, and based on an off-the-cuff remark he made...

That said, I've reverted your changes but added the world "normally" before cannot. That expresses the correct position - Whitlam's dismissal was highly unusual in the Commonwealth and it isn't accurate to say the GG could simply remove the PM, save for breaking constitutional propiety.--Lholden (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But saying "cannot" sounds like they are constitutionally or legally forbidden, when it is actually convention which stops them from doing so. And, all this aside, I'm wondering if it's a good idea to explain all this in detail in the lead, the details should probably be in the Politics section, and the lead should be as short as possible. I mean is someone who is looking for information about New Zealand in general really going to be interested in knowing that the Queen/GG exercise power usually only with the Cabinet's advice? It's a bit too much detail for the lead, but it'll do nicely in the Government section. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed as to both points. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the first point "But saying "cannot" sounds like they are constitutionally or legally forbidden, when it is actually convention which stops them from doing so" you've answered your own question, that's why I was willing to accept the word "normally" being added in. I've copy edited the lead and added the content into the politics section. --Lholden (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

94.229.22.101 is a pest

Tonight, many edits by Special:Contributions/94.229.22.101 have been reversed. There seems to be a pattern:
10:51, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
10:42, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:38, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:37, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:34, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:32, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand
‎ 10:31, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist) New Zealand ‎

--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)