Talk:Republicanism in New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Republicanism in New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
NPOV, I belive that this article does not meet the NPOV requiment, it is pro Republicanism Brian | (Talk) 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- How is the article pro-republican? Which category of NPOV does the article fail to meet? --Lholden 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The part about Queen's Counsel needs to be updated, the Republicans won that one, and it is been renamed SC Brian | (Talk) 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Err... what exactly was 'won'? --Lholden 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] link
I propose we remove the link to the blog Queen & Country, a check shows that there have been no posts since late May, any objections? Brian | (Talk) 00:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, although Wilmot is still on the web, he just e-mailed me a very long load of BS about HRH Prince Charles. I suspect my response may encourage him to restart his blog... --Lholden 09:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Republicanism in Oceania template
Do we need the Republicanism in Oceania template; considering that; there are only a few monarchies in Oceania and the red links are distracting. I propose that we remove it, any objections? Brian | (Talk) 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, I agree. The problem is most pacific states wouldn't consider monarchism as part of their constitutional make-up when considering independence, except for maybe Fiji and Papua New Guinea. --Lholden 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just made a replacement we could use on the 4 main articlesTemplate:Republicanism, what do you think? Brian | (Talk) 02:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me--Lholden 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Referencing
Reading through this I see that there are a lot of statements that are not referenced. I have added citation needed templates to several sentences but there are more needed. This article seems to get regularly edited, so was wondering if those editors could find some sources for the info in this article? - Shudda talk 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll dig them up, they'll mainly be to newspaper articles. --Lholden 09:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Winston Peters quote
Why are we quoting Peters on Clark in the Labour Party subsection, when there's a perfectly good quote by Clark already in her own article? This looks to me like bias in the article, since the Peters quote is saying Clark is implementing Republicanism by stealth, while Clark is openly saying Republicanism is inevitable. Any objection to my putting the Clark quote in place of the Peters one?-gadfium 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Put both in imo. The Peters quote sums up how many people feel about this government’s changes Brian | (Talk) 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Put them both in, as they show how silly the "republicanism by stealth" claim is :-) --Lholden 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent developments
Reading through the section "Recent developments" makes me wonder what this material has to do with republicanism. There are monarchies that have supreme courts, oaths without reference to the monarch, and their own national awards without any threat to their status as monarchies. I can see how the moves covered in this section show a break from Britain, but I fail to see what they have to do with abolition of the Crown. --G2bambino 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- You'd better ask your monarchist friends down here why they think it's necessary... --Lholden 04:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great article
This is a really nice article. I propose it be given Good Article status. 60.234.139.116 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
