Talk:God's Own Country/Archives/2013
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
First use of phrase
There are many unsubstantiated claims made in this article. I sympathise with some of the other contributors above, it does seem that NZ has co-opted this article, if not the phrase. The opening paragraph needs to be referenced. The quoted first use of the phrase is also given without reference. I'd suggest that, had anyone bothered to seek out references, inaccuracies in this article could have been corrected long ago. The most brief use of the google books search facility should be enough to ring alarm bells. The phrase was in popular use well before Bracken borrowed it for the title of a poem.
Theodore D (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- It;'s not a case of co-opting, it's simply that you're the first person to have brought up its earlier usages. Amendments have been made. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you review the edit history of this page you'll find that certain Kiwipedians have been somewhat controlling, for want of a better word. Also, do you not think your amendments might be verging into the territory of original research? And while you were at it, you could have at least deleted the unsourced claim that Australia followed New Zealand's lead. in fact, now that I think about it, this article probably needs an extensive rerwrite. At present it's just a hodgepodge of random statements. Theodore D (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not original research - it has been cited and is verifiable. As for deleting the unsourced claim, it is far better to simply add a {{fact}} template than to delete it outright, as it is quite likely that some source will be available (it is certainly fairly common knowledge, so citing it rather than removing it seems more likely). And I did check the page history, and found nothing particularly untoward in it - certainly nothing that suggests any form of WP:OWN. There was considerable editing by NZ editors in the early days of the article, but that is perhaps understandable, given the strong kiwi connection with the phrase. Similarly there seems to have been considerabl;e editing by Indian editors, for the same reason. This is not so muchy control as simply a case that those editors who are most exposed to the pohrase will have more worth saying about it. nAs for a rewrite, the article is a little messy, but certainly no more or less so thanm many other articles on Wikipedia, and it is slowly improving as time goes by. A complete rewrite is rarely the best way to proceed in those circumstances, though tidying and reformatting may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The big problem with this Wikipedia article is that it's unsure exactly what it is. Looking at the edit history it is clear that the article was initially created under the false premise that this particular phrase was coined by Bracken in relation to New Zealand, with the expectation that everything would then flow nicely from that starting point. However, with the resultant clarifications, amendments, even some contributions of original research to the article, it is now a hodgepodge of random facts and anecdotes. The article still says nothing about the origin of the phrase. Because of the New Zealand influence from the beginning there is an obvious bias toward a New Zealand perspective. It's laughable that any mention of the use of the phrase in the US has only just recently been added. (I note in the edit history that a past attempt was made to at least mention US usage of the phrase, but it was given short shrift by Kiwipedians, on the basis that no source was given. Oh the irony!!).
- Having done some research into this matter myself, I'd suggest that if the phrase "God's own country" is associated with any country in particular, it is the US. It's certainly not New Zealand. Maybe in New Zealand it is, but worldwide it is not. So, I'd suggest the lede needs a complete rewrite, at least. Having lived in NZ for a considerable time I feel qualified to also point out that the phrase "God's own country" is very rarely heard nowadays. The shortened version "Godzone" is more often heard. I'd suggest a separate article "Godzone" might be an idea. At present "Godzone" appears to default to "God's own country", presumably under the false belief that both phrases are NZ in origin. Theodore D (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would definitely argue with several of your points. Living in NZ as I do, I can tell you categorically that the term is still in widespread use, thoguh usually in its truncated form (I even heard "Godzone" used on tonight's TV news). What's more, while I was in the US ansd while talking to people from the US either now living here or via internet, those who knew anything at all about New Zealand knew the term primarily to refer to NZ. I've never once heard any of them to use the term to refer to the US, and, other than in moderm religio-political contexts, there seems to be little evidence of it referring to the US overall. Note that the sources I added - the only ones I copuld find to refer to the term prior to Bracken - it was used only for specific sections of the US, never to the country as a whole.
- FWIW, I did a quick google search for the phrase. of the first 200 weblinks which use to the term to refer to a specific place, 112 refer to Kerala in India, 87 refer to New Zealand, and one referred to Australia. None at all referred to the US. As to "Godzone", a mere handful of the 200 top uses referred to anything other than New Zealand.
- It is worth remembering that the term Godzone originated out of the term God's Own Country, and as such a separate article, even if useful, would still strongly link top this one. Given that, at least as far as the net is concerned, Kerala and New Zealand are the two main current users of the term, I'm not sure how much of an advantage having a separate article would be. Grutness...wha? 06:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I said, the phrase, when used in NZ, is usually only heard in its shortened form. As for your experiences talking with people from the US, I can only say that is hardly a good argument. Perhaps they read it in Wikipedia? I've taken the trouble to search out a couple of definitions for the phrase.
- No, it's not original research - it has been cited and is verifiable. As for deleting the unsourced claim, it is far better to simply add a {{fact}} template than to delete it outright, as it is quite likely that some source will be available (it is certainly fairly common knowledge, so citing it rather than removing it seems more likely). And I did check the page history, and found nothing particularly untoward in it - certainly nothing that suggests any form of WP:OWN. There was considerable editing by NZ editors in the early days of the article, but that is perhaps understandable, given the strong kiwi connection with the phrase. Similarly there seems to have been considerabl;e editing by Indian editors, for the same reason. This is not so muchy control as simply a case that those editors who are most exposed to the pohrase will have more worth saying about it. nAs for a rewrite, the article is a little messy, but certainly no more or less so thanm many other articles on Wikipedia, and it is slowly improving as time goes by. A complete rewrite is rarely the best way to proceed in those circumstances, though tidying and reformatting may be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you review the edit history of this page you'll find that certain Kiwipedians have been somewhat controlling, for want of a better word. Also, do you not think your amendments might be verging into the territory of original research? And while you were at it, you could have at least deleted the unsourced claim that Australia followed New Zealand's lead. in fact, now that I think about it, this article probably needs an extensive rerwrite. At present it's just a hodgepodge of random statements. Theodore D (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- "God's (own) country, the United States, or some particular part of the United States; also applied to other countries, and, more generally, an ‘earthly paradise’. orig. U.S."
- "God's country(God's coun|try) (also God's own country) noun ,an area or region supposedly favoured by God, especially the United States regarded in this way."
- "God's (own) country, a special part of the United States or the country as a whole, viewed nostalgically as almost a paradise."
- The first two are from the OED (1989 and online versions), the second originates from the 'Dictionary of American English'. Interesting to note the inclusion or exclusion of the word 'own' in the phrase. This is not addressed in the Wikipedia article. You are correct that the term is not generally, at least nowadays, used to refer to the US as a whole. But that's not really the point. The problem is, as I stated previously, the apparent confusion regarding what this Wikipedia article is meant to be about. You've still not adequately explained that. To me, this article still looks like a hodgepodge of ideas, and the claims concerning NZ are unsourced, and more prominent than they should be. Theodore D (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is clearly self-contradictory. The introduction refers to New Zealanders using it for 100 years, then cites uses such as the US in the 1830s. Certainly if you asked someone British where is God's Own Country, they would undoubtedly say Yorkshire.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- there's still some bias in the article, but it's slowly improving. I think the opening needs to be reworked, it still seems to imply that there is a special association of the phrase with New Zealand, which I don't believe is true, outside of NZ at least. Theodore D (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
the introduction definitely needs re-wording with emphasis taken away from New Zealand. It would have us believe that Christopher Hitchens was referring to New Zealand in the last sentence of this article. Clearly not the case, and New Zealand has been comprehensively shown not to be the primary usage meaning for the term 'God's Own Country'. Perhaps something along the lines of "...is a term that is used to refer to several places such as the United states, New Zealand and Yorkshire."--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)