Wikipedia

Talk:Foreign relations of New Zealand

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 185.65.135.160 in topic Recent events
Learn more about this page

Recent events

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Do we want the level of detail of the sections on "New Zealander-Israeli relations", "Response to the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake" and "Gaza kidnapping"? They seem out of kilter with the overall tone of the article by providing a lot of information on relatively small matters (as far as NZ foreign policy is concerned).-gadfium 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article sucks. I will work on rectifying it. If those sections have more content, it is justifiable because they are the only sourced sections. Everything else is OR. Republitarian 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think it is way too strong to say the article sucks. It does need to be sourced, although a lot of the current material is not controversial (membership of international organisations, for example). There's a big difference between WP:OR and uncited material. It only becomes original research if no reasonable cite can be found on request.
I really don't see the point of the current "New Zealander-Israeli relations" section, which is simply a press release from Clark on a fairly uncontroversial matter. By that, I don't mean that the situation in the Middle East is uncontroversial, but a press release welcoming Resolution 1701 is. Even if New Zealand sends troops to participate in an international peacekeeping force, that would be more relevant at Military history of New Zealand.-gadfium 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest separating this article into two: Foreign relations of New Zealand and Timeline of foreign relations of New Zealand which would include the much more specific events. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good idea to me.-gadfium 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why? Why a timeline? What info would go on that? Republitarian 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
On the time line would go (kinda obviously) all the events of NZ's Foreign Relations. Why? Because it would provide a demarcation of the current administration's policies, current membership etc. from the historical. I will place it at WP:NZCOTF (although will probably be unable to edit it much because I have 35,000words due in 44 days time). --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why not Foreign relations of New Zealand - current and Foreign relations of New Zealand - historical? That way the change over time stuff can have a better analysis than a timeline can give - NZ's early relationships with the UK, France etc, Declaration of Independence, colonisation, participation in Boer War, the question of federation with Australia, ANZACs, League of Nations, and so on up to Bolger's declaration that NZ is an Asian country. There's a story to be told there of the shifting allegiances - it doesn't need to be any more in depth than school cert history (showing my age). --Tirana 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I mean no offense, but I think that's an awfully stupid idea. I once again reiterate the need for content to put on the page before the page is started. This page should be vastly expanded before any consideration for splitting it is taken seriously. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Discussion on wikipedia talk pages should follow these guidelines. Please avoid saying things like "awfully stupid idea" - that's inappropriate. Nicknz 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
So let's put an historical section in the main article, and if it gets the material it needs, then split it out. Or keep the focus on historical as it is, and add a current events section with brief outline of things that have happened in the last 3 years. As it stands, it's out of balance. One sentence is dedicated to a bombing carried out by French agents in NZ territory, nothing is mentioned of NZ's role in the wars or the establishment of the League of Nations and UN, yet a whole section is dedicated to a relations with one country which is neither a major ally or enemy. --Tirana 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This opening feels very out of date, like it didn't survive first contact with Trump. TPP is dead, there is definitely no hope now of anything in that quote happening, and it seems odd to lead with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.65.135.160 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

International disputes

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"Gaza kidnapping" is not an international dispute, as it is not a dispute between NZ and another country. It has essentially nothing to do with foreign relations and should be removed. Petrouchka 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree and have removed it. It also had not been updated to reflect the outcome.-gadfium 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cool. If anyone has grounds for disagreement, hopefully they'll indicate that here. Petrouchka 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Other Countries

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are articles about relations with Australia and Greece which should be referenced here, see Greece-New Zealand relations and Australia-New Zealand relations Hugo999 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC) How about medical relations? Medicine degrees awarded by both countries are recognized by either territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.123.161 (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I find it amazing that the page for UK-new zealand relations isn't linked to. Britain is the former colonial power and the two countries still share a head of state so that makes UK-NZ relations much more important than NZ'greece relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.55.184 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry. There is very little on the UK-new zealand relations anyway. It is just "assumed". If you want to go ahead and put more in, plus links, feel free. UK-NZ relations sure are important - there has been plenty of blood spilled in various wars! (Don't forget the Greeks too) :) Wallie (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

New Zealand-Israel relations

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no objects to cutting the level of detail in this section, since a fuller article exists, so long as the link to that fuller article is restored. However, the presence of a Holocaust memorial, set up primarily by the Jewish community, does not support the statement that "New Zealand also remembers the 6 million Jewish people who died in the Holocaust, especially on its national day of remembrace, Anzac Day." There is no link between this memorial and Anzac Day, and no indication that this makes NZ any different to the very many nations which have Holocaust memorials.-gadfium 09:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Foreign relations of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of New Zealand. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Foreign relations of New Zealand. 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) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Foreign relations of New Zealand. 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) 14:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign relations of New Zealand. 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) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_New_Zealand&oldid=1206660989"