This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@user:Dhantegge I think the onus is on you to supply a reference for your addition to the lead sentence. However, a citation mentioning the de jure status of the colony of New Zealand won't solve the main problem. Your addition is off topic. This colony of New Zealand was de jure by its very nature - by a legal document, the act, which is the subject of this article. To what extent the colonial authorities had effective control - de facto - over every spot in the colony is another topic, which is what you are alluding to. Your statement could apply to every colony everywhere at any time, making its use here pointed and agenda pushing. Incidentally, the colonial govt had greater de facto authority over all NZ that most other colonies. Compare NSW or all the various African colonies. If you mention its de jure status we then need to mention what constitutes, and what does not constitute, de facto control in international law. Also, please remember the lead is meant to be a brief summary of what is written below, so even if mention is made of the govt's lack of de facto authority over some parts of the country, it is a minor point at best so should be put into the body and left there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
