Talk:Republicanism in New Zealand

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Politics High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV, I belive that this article does not meet the NPOV requiment, it is pro Republicanism Brian | (Talk) 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article pro-republican? Which category of NPOV does the article fail to meet? --Lholden 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Err... what exactly was 'won'? --Lholden 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming Brian | (Talk) 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's not a war Brian. --Lholden 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know :) Sorry for been so abrupt, um, thanks for citing your quote Brian | (Talk) 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Realm of New Zealand must be re-written, or deleted. Legally it is a nonsense to suggest that the Realm of New Zealand would still exist if New Zealand was a republic. Would the United Kingdom continue if the UK became a republic?!JohnC (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No it isn't. See Andrew Townend's article, section VII. --Lholden (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks good to me--Lholden 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? -

I'll dig them up, they'll mainly be to newspaper articles. --Lholden 09:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Put them both in, as they show how silly the "republicanism by stealth" claim is :-) --Lholden 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You'd better ask your monarchist friends down here why they think it's necessary... --Lholden 04:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nice article. I propose it be given Good Article status. 60.234.139.116 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extract from the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Final communiqué [1]

"Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership."

In cases of changes in constitutional status, as when a monarchical realm becomes a republic, it was agreed that the old procedure of reapplying for membership is not necessary. It was accepted that where an existing member changes its constitutional status, e.g. from a monarchy to a republic, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership as long as it continues to accept all elements of the criteria for membership. --Dlatimer (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent.--Lholden (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article text is incorrect in its statement (sourced to a republican group's site) that this has applied since 1949. When South Africa became a republic in 1961, they were not allowed to remain members, and when Fiji did so in 1987, their membership was declared to have lapsed (in each case this was done to entrench racially biased power structures and the nations were readmitted after these had been replaced).LE (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've re-worded that part to reflect what the citation states (i.e. since 1949 republics have been able to be members). I'll also add the CHOGM details, the link above is now broken. --LJ Holden 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I came across this article and was surprised by the number of issues. It says to be bold when editting, so I have made some changes when they are obvious. I summarise below:

1) Republicanism is not really a movement, it's a political construct. The "Republican Movement" is a movement!

2) The idea does not necessarily require that a realm become a Commonwealth Republic.

3) I've removed the Hone Heke reference as there is no evidence that he was acting out of republican sentiment. He was motivated by a disagreement with authority, regardless of that authority's structure.

4)Re: Te Whiti, the citation for this source points to a self-published work which wikipedia prefers not to rely upon according to their guidelines. It could be restored, of course, if a more reliable source is found.

5)The material regarding Bolger not being supported in his call included mass attribution and no citations.

6)"His government ended the awarding of

7)Shipley's views on the flag are not really related to republicanism. Note the flag of Fiji.

8)Woolcott's views are not really relevant to an article on NZ republicanism.

9)Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. Many of the points listed there are mass attributions and do not express anything more than the opinions of various groups. These opinions belong on the pages of those groups.

10) Wikipedia expresses concern in their guidelines regarding the citation of editorials. The views of Colin James, while fascinating to vast swaths of the New Zealand populous, are not facts, no matter how fervently he may cling to them.

11) The opinion poll section makes numerous claims which are not backed up by citations, or use citations which are quite old. The paragraph ends with an acknowledgement that the polls are unreliable. As that is clearly the case, it seems odd to include the paragraph.

12)The Labour paragraph has been editted to remove mass attributions and he-said, she-said components.

13)If national's vote was not motivated by republicanism, as the paragraph stated, then why is it on this page?

14)The citation for Turia's views is a self-published work. Furthermore, it does not actually demonstrate the views being asserted.

15)Moved New Zealand First to the "Parties Outside Parliament" section.

16)The Privy Council reference is mass attribution again. As with point 6), this is another example of a non-neutral point of view applied to an historical event.

17) The Constitutional Issues section is highly speculative. It seems like shadow-boxing in some sort of they-say we-say dynamic. This has led to many mass attributions. I won't remove it at this moment as perhaps it can be cleaned up. However, if not it probably should come out.

18) I have removed all of the extraneous material fromt he recent developments section. Almost none of those issues directly relate to republicanism. I have left the only one that does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.120.244 (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article in a sandbox for people to comment upon. It can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:130.216.172.138/Sandbox

My reasoning for these changes are as below.

Comments most welcome. Thanks to everyone who suggestted this method.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by the enthusiasm of the authors of this page but a little concerned about the content. This page needs a lot of work from a consistency point of view. I've made the following changes below:

1. Removed ambiguous, and somewhat poorly worded, sentence relating to support. Statements re polls incorrect as those cited are neither numerous nor recent.

2. Removed history definition and most history. There seems to be confusion between protest or rebellion, and what is a change of the entire political structure. The article is using the term at least two different ways, but assume the article is about republicanism as changing the entire governmental structure, not people protesting within the system.

3. If broadsheet has nothing to do with republicanism, as stated, then why is it here? Removed.

4. Aramoana. Again, confusing republicanism (the political concept) with rebellion.

5. Australia, Keating an Australian issue. Oddly.

6. Article about republicanism, not the monarchist league. They can advertise themselves just fine without our help.

7. Bolger’s Irish heritage is inappropriate. It is stereotyping.

8. As fascinating as the Aussie referendum was, it didn’t affect the republic in Aussie much less in New Zealand. Also nothing to do with NZ.

9. Support for Republic title is dog-whistling.

10. Political party section changed to reflect only the stated views of parties, not individuals within those parties. Removed the personal opinions, which are highly selective and misleading. If such comments belong anywhere it would be on the individuals’ personal wikipages.

11. Governor Generals removed. 3 of the 4 people quoted have no opinion re this page topic; one has no source. As with my previous comments, these are personal opinions which appear selectively collected.

12. I note and agree with a previous editor’s comments re Constitutional Issues. Section is very speculative and somewhat simplistic. Removed.

13. Commonwealth membership section similar to above. While I think correct, it appears argumentative, not encyclopaedic. It bespeaks an agenda

14. Fixed misleading quote from the Constitutional Inquiry Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the article can be improved, however unilaterally removing sections is not on, which is why they've been reverted by bots. Also, it seems most the edits are aimed at simply removing content, not improving the article.

1. Removed ambiguous, and somewhat poorly worded, sentence relating to support. Statements re polls incorrect as those cited are neither numerous nor recent.

Agreed - in fact, the polling data should be moved down to a section on "Public Support" - more polls here [2].

2. Removed history definition and most history. There seems to be confusion between protest or rebellion, and what is a change of the entire political structure. The article is using the term at least two different ways, but assume the article is about republicanism as changing the entire governmental structure, not people protesting within the system.

Disagree - the start of the history section explains that the use of the term "republic" in the New Zealand context was around protest or rebellion. It's therefore relevant so far as the use of the term in New Zealand goes.

3. If broadsheet has nothing to do with republicanism, as stated, then why is it here? Removed.

Because the broadsheet in question started out as a broadsheet on republicanism.

4. Aramoana. Again, confusing republicanism (the political concept) with rebellion.

As above, there was a republican element to the protest, so it's relevant and should be kept in the article.

5. Australia, Keating an Australian issue. Oddly.

The Keating reference was to a funny interjection made during Bolger's speech. It also links the debate with that of Australia.

6. Article about republicanism, not the monarchist league. They can advertise themselves just fine without our help.

Disagree. The Monarchist League are active in opposing republicanism. It's important that they're mentioned for balance.

7. Bolger’s Irish heritage is inappropriate. It is stereotyping.

Indeed it is, but it was an argument made against Bolger's views. It should be kept in the article.

8. As fascinating as the Aussie referendum was, it didn’t affect the republic in Aussie much less in New Zealand. Also nothing to do with NZ.

Interest in the republic debate grew around this time.

9. Support for Republic title is dog-whistling.

Agree - the title should be changed to "Public Opinion"

10. Political party section changed to reflect only the stated views of parties, not individuals within those parties. Removed the personal opinions, which are highly selective and misleading. If such comments belong anywhere it would be on the individuals’ personal wikipages.

Disagree. MP's views are relevant. And How are the opinions stated "highly selective"?

11. Governor Generals removed. 3 of the 4 people quoted have no opinion re this page topic; one has no source. As with my previous comments, these are personal opinions which appear selectively collected.

Disagree. Not sure where you get the 3 out of 4 number from - Sir Michael Hardie-Boys is against a republic, Dame Cath Tizard and Sir Paul Reeves have both made statements in support. It should be kept in the article.

12. I note and agree with a previous editor’s comments re Constitutional Issues. Section is very speculative and somewhat simplistic. Removed.

If it's speculative, then the speculation ought to be removed or highlighted. Deleting the entire section, with all its non-speculative and verified legal arguments, is very unhelpful and does not improve the article.

13. Commonwealth membership section similar to above. While I think correct, it appears argumentative, not encyclopaedic. It bespeaks an agenda

Certainly, but that's a reflection of the nature of the debate. It should be kept in the article.

14. Fixed misleading quote from the Constitutional Inquiry Report.

Not sure how the quote was misleading - please explain further.

--Lholden (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of edits to reduce excess text, uncited statements, etc. per the above discussion. --Lholden (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the discussion below I have amended the introduction to reflect what was agreed upon - specifically that Republicanism can refer to both dissent against the government historically and as the modification of the constitution.

Fair enough, although I think the sentence should reflect the historical meaning. Also, you need to sign your comments with four tildes (see above) --Lholden (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your view, but the use of the protest term is not confined to history in this article. Hence the way it was written. As it is used both ways throughout the article, it should reflect that in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.17.73 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean "not confined to history", from the way the article's been edited, the contemporary republicanism is not "dissent against the government". --Lholden (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realise I wasn't very clear in the wording of my previous explanation. The way the article is written, the term republicanism refers to both the theoretical constitutional concept and protest movements. You proposed that the term republicanism, as a protest movement, was "historical" and that the only meaning of the term at present is the constitutional concept. That is not what appears in the article. The article frequently alternates between the meanings with no apparent connection to the past or present. I think the wording as I have modified it reflects this. Of course the whole thing would be simplier if this article was about a single concept and not two distinct concepts with the same name "republicanism". Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.17.73 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively the protest movements of the past no longer exist, neither is the term associated with protest other than in a pejorative sense, which the article explains. However, you seem to be saying that it would be simpler to simply state the theoretical aspect of republicanism? I won't edit the lead again for now, but if you could respond on that point I'd be much obliged. --Lholden (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New lead

As per the above - the lead has been re-extended to summarise the article, as per

I've reverted a removed paragraph regarding the Succession to the British throne as despite the editors' claim, the law itself has not yet changed, and even when (or if) it does, the discrimination against Catholics from being New Zealand's head of state remains. The paragraph should therefore stand. --LJ Holden 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

...and I've changed the most recent addition, which was only partially accurate and badly worded. --LJ Holden 02:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republicanism in 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colinjames.co.nz/herald/Herald_2002/Herald_column_02Feb19.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

Why would you suggest that this proposal doesn't need sources, when it has already been removed from the article because it is unsourced? Further, you would need to show why this is relevant to this article, which is about republicanism rather than monarchism.-gadfium 04:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with its being removed from the article so promptly, and I think that republicanism in New Zealand is mostly about nationalism, and many New Zealand republicans would not object to having a uniquely New Zealand monarch. I also think that sources may be found in future.

Please only add information if you can cite it with reliable sources at the time of adding it. Helper201 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources. The reference doesn't support the text. --LJ Holden 21:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reference has a deceptive heading, because in the article the Canadian monarchists also suggest that all the Commonwealth realms, including New Zealand, should have their own unique and resident monarchs, not just Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no monarchism in New Zealand article, and many New Zealanders are republican only for nationalist reasons, and yet the section has been removed, despite having a good but deceptive source. I think this was the wrong decision.

If the source is deceptive, then it's not a good source. --LJ Holden 00:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the title should be changed to Debate on the monarchy in New Zealand. There is no monarchism in New Zealand article, and creating one would be unnecessary, as this article could easily function as both a monarchism in New Zealand article and a republicanism in New Zealand article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you're suggesting a title change you'd need to use the correct template to do so, although I think you'd need a bit more than the claim of nationalism. --LJ Holden 00:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article has next to no coverage of what type of republic (e.g.

Ok, have added that in --LJ Holden 02:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]