Talk:Order of New Zealand

locally v. nationally

Might I suggest the word 'nationally' is used rather than 'locally' in describing the award. 16:29, 25 April 2006‎

Tabulation

I'm sorry if the undo operation caused offence. If there was not any other widely used system (see Order of Merit, Order of the Companions of Honour, Order of Australia, etc...) then there would have been no change, but becuase there seems to be a standard formatting going on, I undid it. It was nothing against the table, or you... 202.89.152.147 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise the table would have been a Good Thing, so here is the table:

Sovereign
Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II
Members
Name	Date of induction
Sir Edmund Hillary KG ONZ KBE	6 February 1987
Lady June Blundell ONZ QSO GCStJ	6 February 1987
Dame Miriam Dell ONZ DBE JP	6 February 1993
Margaret Mahy ONZ	6 February 1993
The Hon. Tini Whetu Marama Tirikatene-Sullivan ONZ	6 February 1993
Sir Roy McKenzie ONZ KBE	17 June 1995
Dame Kiri Te Kanawa ONZ AC DBE	17 June 1995
Sir Miles Warren ONZ KBE	17 June 1995
Sir James Fletcher ONZ	2 June 1997
Dr. Ivan Lichter ONZ	2 June 1997
Jim Bolger ONZ	31 December 1997
Ken Douglas ONZ	31 December 1998
Dr. Clifford Whiting ONZ	31 December 1998
Mike Moore ONZ	31 December 1999
Thomas Stafford, Cardinal Williams ONZ	5 June 2000
Jonathan Hunt ONZ	31 December 2004
Dr. Vera Blumhardt ONZ DCNZM CBE	30 December 2006
Lloyd Geering ONZ PCNZM CBE	30 December 2006
Sir Kenneth James Keith ONZ KBE QC	4 June 2007
1 vacancy
Additional Members
Michael Duffy ONZ	6 February 1990
Dame Catherine Anne Tizard ONZ GCMG GCVO DBE QSO DStJ	3 June 2002
Sir Brian James Lochore ONZ KNZM OBE	6 February 2007
Sir Paul Alfred Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO	6 February 2007
Christian Karlson Stead ONZ CBE	6 February 2007
Owen Woodhouse ONZ KBE DSC	6 February 2007
Honorary Member
Sir Shridath Ramphal ONZ OE GCMG OM AC QC	6 February 1990
Officer
Diane Morcom (Clerk of the Executive Council of New Zealand)

202.89.152.147 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deceased members

I'm sure that the bottom half of the list can be spun off--- no information is lost btw, since there is an official list on the government's website on the issue.

I was bold and removed it, my justification being that no other honours pages I know of (except Order of the Garter) have a full list of all members. 118.90.51.62 (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would favour keeping the deceased members on the list. This is always going to be a fairly small list, and having our own list allows us to link to our articles on the people.-gadfium 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always link to Category:Members of the Order of New Zealand - I would agree with removing deceased members from the article. PalawanOz (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of retaining the deceased list. This an exclusive order (limited to fewer living members than the Order of the Garter), and is a veritable who's who. Contrary to the original post, I think information is lost with leaving only the government list, because then there are no internal links to the subject's articles. --Limegreen (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think the comparison to the Order of the Garter is not the best one to make, since the pool of potential awardees is much smaller in the case of NZ (24/50 million v. 20/4 million), so in fact the Order of the Garter is much more exclusive on a "per capita" basis.

That said, I think the internal links can be found by going to the category page. The pages on the Order of Merit and Order of the Companions of Honour don't have the deceased persons links even though fundamentally they follow the same format. 118.90.20.125 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The category only contains people who have articles, and makes no distinction between living and dead members.-gadfium 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The point though is that from the international perspective it is just a list of names, like the other articles mentioned above, and no matter what their significance is to certain groups, the standard of significance is not universal --- some people obviously see that being awarded this particular honour is significant on its own (and so justifying a list of dead people), though that is not a standard shared by everyone. I'm not saying that the standard I propose is any more valid, but keeping to living people would send the message that current achievements are what we are interested in (which I believe the Order of Merit and Companions of Honour articles do). 118.90.20.125 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of people bestowed with an Order

I'm interested in the opinions of wikipedians and the facts regarding the validity of using MBE/OBE appointments as indications of notability for Bio purposes? surely published Royal appointments based on central government advice is beyond question? here is the text from the 1977 list; ""CENTRAL CHANCERY OF THE ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD ST. JAMES'S PALACE, LONDON s.w.i 31st December 1977 THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased, on the advice of Her Majesty's New Zealand Ministers, to give orders for the following appointments to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire: Order of the British Empire. (Civil Division) M.B.E. To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order :" [10] My personal opinion doesnt count, I need to know why some editors express the pov that an order in insufficient on its own. If there is something wrong with a royal appointment then I believe that we deserve to know what it is. The royal order process must have some discipline and honour surely, how is that less than good enough for wikipedia, that's my concern. How can it not be good enough on it's own. The issue is a little more messy when considering the previous order system, and that enables less respect for notability in some cases for those people, as there is less support in the general media for those recipients.mozasaur (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, when someone is appointed to an order of Chivalry they would be notable for the reason that caused the appointment. The Order of the British Empire is used to recognise an on-going contribution to the community over many years so notability would be for the years of work even if the Honour fails to meet the Wikipedia Standard.

An example would be the late Sir Edmund Hillary who might fail to qualify as notability for his knighthood however would be unique in the world as first person to climb Mt Everest (and to return). Just research the underlying reason for which the honour was granted if you encounter resistance for the honour itself. ---- Karl Stephens (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir/Dame or not

I'm confused. Some ONZs are "Sir" or "Dame", others are not. Why the difference? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Scrub that. I've worked it out. Some are Knight Bachelors, which carries no postnominal. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Relocating Lochore

Sir Brian Lochore is in Deaths in 2019 and must be moved from the living to deceased Additional Members. However,older revisions show him as ahead of Sir Paul Reeves when both were alive,yet there is no gap in the numbering among deceased members said to be consecutive since the Order's inception that would allow him to be slotted ahead of Reeves.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the entry. Deceased members are sorted by date of appointment and then date of death. Schwede66 20:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional members

What is the difference between ordinary and additional members, apart from additional members being appointed to commemorate specific occasions? When there is an exclusive limit of 20 ordinary members, what is the point of additional members, for which there is seemingly no limit? I know this page is not the place for general discussion of the topic, but I would expect the article to cover it. Nurg (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)