Jump to content

Talk:New Zealanders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

If Kiwis (the people) is the colloquial term/nickname for New Zealanders (as stated in the first sentence of each article) then these two articles are about the same thing. Should they not be merged? I think 'New Zealanders' is the most encyclopaedic name (although I feel this could be a common name argument in the making and if a merge is acceptable I will go with consensus). AIRcorn (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison there are the Yankee / People of the United States, Alternative names for the British / English people, Aussie / Australian articles. AIRcorn (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. I think your second comment negates your first suggestion - if there are separate articles for Aussie and Australian etc, indicating the (slight) difference in usage between the two, then that is a clear indication that separate Kiwi and New Zealander articles are viable. Yes, they are terms used for more or less the same thing, but the emphasis of their usage is slightly different, and the articles should be structures differently to reflect this rather than merged. Grutness...wha? 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are their even slight differences in usage between Kiwi and New Zealander? I tend to use them interchangeably. In hind sight I probably shouldn't have put the comparisons up there, the Yankee example in particular is not great as it (historically at least) refers to certain population within the US. Your second point is good, maybe expanding this article and linking between the two better would be more appropriate. AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Examples

[edit]

I know I may be talking a bunch of lame shit (excuse my language), but could we fit Bruce McLaren into it? He's really another famous New Zealander who isn't a rugby player (no offense). Sorry for the informality, I've had a lack of sleep recently. 24.106.192.178 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in New Zealanders

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New Zealanders's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "statcan":

  • From Latin Americans: 2006 census"Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada Highlight Tables, 2006 Census". Statistics Canada. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  • From Abbotsford, British Columbia: "Profile of Ethnic Origin and Visible Minorities for Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2006 Census". 2.statcan.ca. June 10, 2008. Archived from the original on March 2, 2009. Retrieved 2011-03-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Māori people: Statistics Canada (2003).(232), Sex (3) and Single and Multiple Responses (3) for Population, for Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2001 Census – 20% Sample Data. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 97F0010XCB2001001.

Reference named "Quickstats":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in New Zealanders

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New Zealanders's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2006quick":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population needs updating

[edit]

The overseas population needs updating.

Kiwis in Australia have a more recent source.

The number should be

http://www.border.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/17nz


Also, where is the number 4.6 million coming from? I can't find a source for this anywhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.28.96 (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in infobox

[edit]

The infobox describes New Zealanders as predominantly Christian, but this cites an article that clearly shows that New Zealanders are predominantly non-religious. New Zealand is rather unique in this fact, and Wikipedia should reflect the facts. Furthermore, the information on this page should certainly reflect the sources cited.

Is there any reason why this page states something blatantly different from the source it cites?

If not a change should be made.

Xto 999 (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox lists religious adherence—not lack of. The majority of New Zealanders adhere to a religion of some kind. And Christianity is the largest religion in New Zealand. There's not a lot to discuss when these facts are acknowledged. --Hazhk (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xto 999: New Zealanders are not predominantly non-religious, since only 41.9% of the population stated that they had no religion (ie. were secular) at the 2013 census. I have added this detail to the infobox to reflect this, and I have provided a better reference. Akld guy (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Zealanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant source - anachronistic?

[edit]

Further to today's reversal about Scottish immigrants by Matt Lunker, with which I agree, should we separate British immigrants from Irish immigrants? Irrespective of today's, possibly politically correct, preferences, British can refer to the British Isles (which includes Ireland), and if Britain is used to refer to the UK state, when the majority of Irish immigrants came here, they came from within the United Kingdom. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who tried to make the distinction by adding Scottish has my sympathy, and not all readers could be expected to know that "British" includes the Scots. So, rather than go even further by merging the Irish too, I'd prefer to disambiguate and change the sentence to "Most European New Zealanders are of English, Scottish and Irish ancestry, ..." Would that be a suitable compromise? Akld guy (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same can of worms occurred to me, without a satisfactory resolution coming to mind but wording it to note Scots in distinction from the British was clearly confusing. If we need to spell out that Scots (etc.) are included every time the word British is used, because of gaps in some readers’ knowledge, there’s a lot of work and a lot of cumbersome wording ahead of us all over Wikipedia. Listing Ireland in distinction from British, as well as not reflecting the historical situation doesn’t take into account the current partition whereby many people are both Irish and British by identity (even Ian Paisley, for instance, always asserted both). Perhaps dropping British and listing the constituents is an answer but is there any reason then for omitting the Welsh? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the simplest solution might be to spell out the four nations involved as coming from the "British Isles" at the start of a section and thereafter using just "British", which would then be less contentious as it had been defined at the beginning. However, that might be clumsy and impractical. There is a case for seperating the various nations in some cases, because some areas were more specifically associated with only one of those nations. For example, Otago was a Scottish settlement, and Canterbury more English (Anglo-Irish perhaps). The same could be said elsewhere outside NZ, eg Scots in Cape Breton, Panama; and the Irish in Boston. The Welsh seem to lag somewhat in this regard, with the exception of Patagonia. But, I don't really have a simple answer to this problem, if one does in fact exist, which I very much doubt. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealanders&oldid=1205429542"