Talk:New Zealand flag debate

Proposals gallery

We had previously reached consensus on the Flag of New Zealand page that all new proposals should be verifiably referenced and actually exist outside of Wikipedia. This doesn't appear to be the case with the flags I've just removed. --LJ Holden 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just undone an edit adding Mikola Akbal̆ as it doesn't meet the above.ShakyIsles (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada's Flag

LJ Holden, you well know that Canada never officially had it's own flag. Quote from the reference - "You were at least as likely to see the Dominion of Canada’s only official flag—the Union Jack—flying from schools and libraries and other town halls from sea to sea." It's well known that the Canadian Red Ensign was only the de facto flag of Canada. --Luke96241 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke96241 (talk • contribs)

That's not how the lead is worded Luke. It currently states Canada "never had its own distinctive national flag". That is clearly not the case, and isn't supported by your own reference - in fact from your statement above it appears the de facto flag flew next to the Union Flag (as was the case in NZ during the 50s / 60s as well). Moreover, I can't see why it's relevant to the lead for an article on the New Zealand flag debate, other than to imply somehow the current New Zealand flag is distinctive, in which case there's a POV issue. --LJ Holden 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the Canadian debate. It's barely relevant to the New Zealand debate, and one editor (above) is making un-constructive edits. Whether Canada's "official" flag was the Union Flag or not is not relevant to the New Zealand debate. --LJ Holden 08:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NZFlag.org

This article reads like an advertisement for NZFlag.org . Doesn't really feel reassuring in terms of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.191.80 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've balanced out the sections on arguments and external links. Hopefully that should help. Transparent 6lue (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Upon event of....

.... is simply not English. The correct phrase is 'In the event of'.80.60.103.23 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. In future, feel free to make a change like this yourself, by clicking the edit button. Ollieinc (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Use and legality of the current flag

I've expanded this sub-section, as the Bill goes further than simply making it legal to keep using the current flag should the flag change - it specifically is "recognised as a flag of historical significance." This is an important aspect of the Bill (since it amends the current legislation establishing the New Zealand flag) and has come up in the debate a number of times. --LJ Holden 20:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article?

"This result would not change the coat of arms (which includes the current national flag), [...] nor the New Zealand Red Ensign (merchant marine)" and then two paragraphs down: "Ships would be given an extra six months to change their flag to the new design." Dudes: the flag NZ private ships fly is the NZ Red Ensign. It either does not change or people get six months to dump their old flags and have to purchase new ones. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because there is actually conflicting information between the RIS and the Bill. Presumably the latter takes precedent at this point now that it has been passed by Parliament. By my reading of the Flag Referendum Bill clause 71 and Ship Registration Act 1992 it seems only the Red Ensign would be affected, but it's not clear to me. Transparent 6lue (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article should clarify that there is discrepancy, instead of leaving it to an expert reader who happens to realise the Red Ensign is a version of the current flag and there appears to be a contradiction in stating that the Red Ensign does not change yet there is a requirement for private vessels to replace their (often expensive) flags. Otherwise one might suspect the article reads like a propaganda article biased towards change? Besides, it is unrealistic to expect the country could in the future be represented by some sort of vegetal leave, yet ships carry on displaying the traditional ensign. XavierItzm (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My ultimate preference would be to figure out what the actual situation is, and reflect a single answer in the article. But for the time being, I suppose that will do. Transparent 6lue (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Labour's election policy

There seems to be no mention that Labour went into the election last year on the back of having a flag referendum and have now suddenly done a complete u-turn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.253.148 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki, so you are welcome to write this. If you do, don't forget to include reputable sources, e.g. a large newspaper and not a blog. Schwede66 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

2015/2016 referenda as a separate article?

Just thinking that this should be a separate article. This New Zealand flag debate is a long running debate that has be going on for a while and will continue into the future after these referenda. The current referenda dominate the article at present. It would also bring it more inline with other NZ referenda (Referendums in New Zealand). I'm happy to break it out just wanted peoples views on the move. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, the two topics are synonymous in the public consciousness. Talk of the referendum will bring up the debate arguments and opinion polls. Talk of the debate will bring up the referendum's design options. I would leave them merged until the event is over. 02:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. While there definitely seems to be enough material for a new article, on the two referenda, the current debate doesn't feel like it's that distinct from the historical debate. In saying that, I'm not opposed to a new article. — Harry (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate article for the referenda. Both this article, and one on the referenda, are notable in their own right, and are thus deserving of separate articles. Schwede66 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started drafting a new article here Draft:New Zealand flag referendums, 2015/2016 if anyone wants to help out. Started with a copy paste so needs a lot of work still. ShakyIsles (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got Draft:New Zealand flag referendums, 2015/2016 to a good enough standard and have pushed it for review. Once it goes live I'll have a big go at this page. Again feel free to help out. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I've moved it into mainspace. Schwede66 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Eventually, there should be two articles but the second article is too stubby now. It could be written but maybe a sandbox is better Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are two articles now: this one, and one for the referendum. That's all we need, isn't it? Schwede66 04:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Transition period after referendeums

I just undid the edit by Lcmortensen (talk • contribs) that stated "If a new flag is chosen, it will come into effect six months after the second referendum result is declared; until then the current flag will remain the sole official flag of New Zealand."

The only mention I can find about 6 months is here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0008/latest/DLM6405458.html

Section 71 - Transitional provision

For the purposes of section 58(2) of the Ship Registration Act 1992, until the day that is 6 months after the date on which this provision commences, the 1902 Flag may be flown as the New Zealand Flag.

Am I missing something? I thought it became official straight away and was going to be used at the 2016 Olympics, only 4 months after the second referendum.

ShakyIsles (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did miss something -- http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0008/latest/DLM6404973.html

2 Commencement

(1) This Act (except sections 69, 70, and 71) comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

(2) If, in the second flag referendum, the alternative flag design gains a greater number of votes than the current New Zealand Flag, then sections 69, 70, and 71 commence on whichever of the following dates is earlier:

(a) a date set by the Governor-General by Order in Council

(b) the day that is 6 months after the date on which the result of the second flag referendum is declared.

(3) If, in the second flag referendum, the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design, then sections 69, 70, and 71 do not commence.

(4) In this section, alternative flag design means the alternative flag design referred to in section 14(1)(a).

Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong comment??

New Zealand Herald writer Karl Puschmann called it a design for those "sitting on the fence" who didn't want much change.[76] Members of the public have compared it unfavourably to Weet-Bix packaging, "Kiwi Party Ware" plastic plate packaging, the National Basketball Association logo, or a merger of the Labour and National party logos.[77]

I guess these critics have been expressed regarding the flag before (with red upper left part)...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.69.58.57 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Zealand flag debate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131025134518/http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Vote-The-result/tabid/1788/articleID/305338/Default.aspx to http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Vote-The-result/tabid/1788/articleID/305338/Default.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Zealand flag debate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509075014/http://www.nzflag.com/royal.cfm to http://www.nzflag.com/royal.cfm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006184748/http://www.nzflag.com/essay_sweeney.cfm to http://www.nzflag.com/essay_sweeney.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923223706/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nzflag-process-cabinet-paper-october2014.pdf to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nzflag-process-cabinet-paper-october2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905123627/https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/gallery/ to https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/gallery/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031044457/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nzflag-process-cabinet-paper-october2014-appendix1.pdf to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nzflag-process-cabinet-paper-october2014-appendix1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201072945/http://www.nzflag.com/ to http://www.nzflag.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Zealand flag debate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170724222404/http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity.aspx to http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927142637/http://www.nzflag.com/press_040805.cfm to http://www.nzflag.com/press_040805.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119104052/http://www.wix.com/silverfernflag/silverfernflag to http://www.wix.com/silverfernflag/silverfernflag
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://designmyflag.nz/morgan-foundation-flag-competition-judging-results/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Front page

Hey guys, just wanted to ask really nicely if we could restrain from removing what I have written. There wasn't any real need to revert it; I worked very hard, made good citations, and ensured that it would not be too long or too boring. I took time out of my schoolwork to improve it, so I ask you all very nicely to keep it up there as it is. Thank you all.--Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This user initially posted on my talk page, so I responded on his/her talk page, but I'll repeat it here so it doesn't get lost.
Leavepuckgackle1998, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I did not remove your content. I moved it. I had some reservations about the writing (I don't have time to go into those details right now) but I appreciated the additional points and citations. As I mentioned in the edit summary, this content was more suited to the referendums article. Thus, I personally took the liberty of rewriting the content to address these concerns and moving it to that article at the same time. You may notice that the criticism section of the referendum page is now very expanded, includes the citations you added, and contains points familiar to you (e.g. the "national disgrace" quote, discussion of crowdsourcing and the reference to groupthink), just heavily rewritten to fit the existing standards, structure and style. At the end of your message on my talk page, you propose retaining your contribution but making adjustments to address any specific concerns that others may have. This has already happened. Your efforts have been appreciated and not been dismissed nor gone to waste. It has simply been migrated to the page in which it belongs and is not worded in the exact form that you remember it.

Transparent 6lue (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)