Talk:Languages of New Zealand

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

English as an Official/National Language

The definition provided for an official language excludes the assignment of 'de facto' and 'de jure' labels. As provided under the section 21 of the 1867 Native Schools Act 1867, I believe English has been an official language in that "no school [was to] recieve any grant unless it [was] shown ... that the English language and the ordinary subjects of primary English education [were] taught". However, I am unable to find legal recognition beyond this point.

I propose an alternative that would read: the 'most widely spoken national language is English'. This acknowledges the importance of English whilst still providing a NPOV.--Te Karere —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The spokesperson for the New Zealand Justice Minister explains that English does not need legal recognition to be official. Maori and sign language only needed special status because English was the dominant language, according to the MP in charge of the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006, Ruth Dyson.
I propose we remove the 'de facto' and 'de jure' labels and simply state that NZ has three official languages, like the NZ government does.
MrTree 14:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree and will elaborate soon when time is less pressing. I think this language sub-section needs a tidy up which I will attempt later. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gone off track again and is muddled. NZ Tourism Guide (Yellow Pages Ltd) is a private company, not very reliable regarding matters outside tourism, and its website is incorrect by stating NZ has two official languages - it has three and there are quality references to back that up The usual cause of confusion is that a language can only be official if written legislation says it is, which is incorrect. De facto and de jure status is useful to insert, in my opinion, to help clarify the different roles of the three official languages. I see that even the meaning of (and grammatical use of) those terms confused a new editor recently, which Hazhk seems to have sorted. I plan to rearrange the relevant sub-section but thought I'd mention it here first and welcome comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article

I wonder if we should accept that this article cannot really be much more than small. There is a risk in filling it with minutiae and information that better belongs elsewhere. For example, do we really need info about the history of English or of Maori? Or indeed, is any useful purpose served in an extensive list of every language noted on a census, down to half percentages? By cramming this sort of information in, the article is weakened and being devalued. There are other ways to improve the article. For example, the title makes no distinction between NZ and the Realm of NZ. If the latter is meant then Cook Island Maori etc deserve a prominent place. I agree with Akld Guy that English must be kept in a prominent position. There are too many people on WP who love expanding the importance of minor languages. That was why I earlier tried to make it clear that English is number one in NZ. The infobox and the wider use of statistics can be misleading, here and elsewhere. For example, to say that 96% speak English implies that 4% do not. There is no distinction drawn between L1 and L2 speakers either, which again, distorts the figures. Dealing with this sort of thing might be more useful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction needs to be between official and non-official (immigrant) languages. English is the predominant language, and I think this article communicates that fact. Maori and NZSL have official status and their own importance. I appreciate minority languages have a limited scope. --Hazhk (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languages of 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:

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) 22:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the article

This article has been tampered with frequently by various editors and its current condition is less that ideal. I would prefer to get a consensus of sorts here before changing things. We agree NZ has three official languages, one de facto and two de jure. We therefore accept that a language can be de facto official, something other country articles deny, such as the USA. A cause of confusion IMO is that editors think that means they are all equal, which they are not. English is overwhelmingly more significant as an official language. It could be said that rather than improve the importance of Maori and Sign Language, their respective acts have deminished it. Maori is now official in certain situations, but it is now also unofficial in other situations. (Because the act defines the situations in which it is official). Before the 1987 act Maori was not official, but it was also not prescribed as unofficial. Unlike English then, Maori has only limited official status. Sign language has very little official standing. For that reason I see no reason why we should not rank these languages in order of official standing (I am avoiding using the term 'importance' which will open a can of worms.). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed a few things including the infobox. Before reverting if that is the intent, please discuss here. By giving those percentages it implies that 95.4% speak English and 4.6% do not speak English, which is wrong and not what the source says. If English is an official language, why in the infobox is it noted as 'main language', and not added to the an official language with Maori and Sign language. The article treats English sometimes as official and sometimes as not official. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori

Thanks for your thanks but I'm not sure it was intended. I wanted to remove Moriori. I reverted to correct an error I made. Talk here if needed? Ok, I'll keep it simple - why do you think Moriori should be in the article at all, and even if it is, why in the infobox? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger: Unsure if you think you’re on Turnagra’s user talk page, but you need to be clearer on article talk pages so the rest of us don’t have to work out what you’re referring to. — HTGS (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: I don’t have strong opinions on whether Moriori should be in the infobox, but it would be much easier to support it if you wrote up a small summary style section on the language in the body. — HTGS (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, HTGS. I'm meant to be on this talk page, addressing Turnagra. About Moriori, looking at similar articles, they do not include extinct past languages, whether or not there is a section in the body. A stronger case IMO could be made for inserting immigrant languages. Otherwise, where do we stop? Why not include Latin under 'Languages of Italy' (Which is far more relevant and notable to Italy today than Moriori is to NZ). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not inherently limited to languages that have healthy populations of speakers, and there is no requirement that this page match exactly to other similar pages. I understand your point, but I see very little downside to including the language in the infobox. Also, I don’t know if you noticed, but there are immigrant languages in the infobox already, under “minority”. — HTGS (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair - I've been wanting to add a section for a while, but haven't been able to figure out where to put it, as it doesn't fit within official or immigrant languages. I'll try and find some time this week to write something up.
As far as the inclusion of Ta Re Moriori, it's basically what HTGS said. It's not as if NZ is somewhere where there are dozens of extinct languages, it's a single language which still has some degree of relevance and prominence in a part of New Zealand, even if it's not regularly spoken. We don't have sections which several other Languages of... articles have either - it just reflects the unique attributes of languages in New Zealand. Turnagra (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the question here Template talk:Infobox country languages. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That feels a bit like WP:FORUMSHOPPING but whatever. Turnagra (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which means: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages,..." I don't see any connection at all. This issue affects many articles and seeing as NZ is the only one I can think of that inserts an extinct language, getting non-NZ opinion looks to be common sense. Let's see what happens. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defining use of the languages

I changed the lead wording today but expect some opposition. I have always been uncomfortable with the wording used because it gives an incorrect impression of the use of Maori in NZ. The census data is incorrectly used as a reference which complicates matters further. Incidentally, the same problem applies to many other countries with minority indigenous languages. It should be made very clear that 3% (or so) of the population is not brought up speaking Maori as a normal living language. It should also be made clear that the vast majority of Maori people speak English as their first language, not Maori. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you think a change is going to be controversial, you should post the talk page discussion before making the change, rather than after? For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to the decline and revival of te reo being mentioned if we think that's not WP:UNDUE for the lede, but I think the wording you've currently got is bordering on a WP:NPOV violation and needs significant changes (and a good spell check) - particularly around how it gives the impression that te reo simply declined of its own accord rather than being actively suppressed, or your use of past tense terms. Turnagra (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you suggest then? Why not put your wording here? We aren't dealing with the English-only in schools requested by Maori, which is too specific for the lead. The language declined and was/is revived, which is all that is required in the lead. You do not address my principal point, which is not to give the false impression that te reo is an actively used everyday language in NZ society to the level of 3-4% of the population. As I said, the problem is compounded by the restrictions of the parameters used in WP. For example "X% of the population speak Y language according to Z census". The word 'speak' strongly implies a given language is the everyday at home language; the census questions asked usually are not at all about a sole or bilingual speakers, but about if people use a few words of a given language during the week (while actually speaking another language). This is the case with te reo. My preference is to start using another term than 'speak' a language, but that would involve a major change throughout WP. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put my wording here because it was late at night and I wanted to go to bed rather than reword your addition. If you think the repression of te reo Māori is too much detail for the lede then I don't think we should be having anything about the history of te reo up there, as it's one and the same.
I'm also not sure where you're getting your assertions to back this stuff up from - I've had a look around for stats on te reo proficiency and the only thing I've been able to come up with is Stats NZ, which has figures of 30% of New Zealanders able to speak some te reo and 8 percent able to speak te reo at least fairly well, with 23 percent of Māori saying it was regularly spoken as one of their first languages. Have you got anything more reliable to back up your claims, other than your own dissatisfaction with the census? Turnagra (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My 3-4% comes from the ibx where it says 96% speak English. Although I know that that does not mean only English, but it gives the impression that the other 4% speak something else all the time, which is my point. Of those who do regularly speak another language all the time, more will speak Samoan, Chinese, Korean, but they don't get a mention. Your detail from stats-nz proves the data we do have is being misused. 30% of NZers able to speak 'some' Maori. What on earth is that supposed to mean? I am included in that 30%, as is most of NZ. And 8% able to speak it 'fairly well' - again, no standard measure, it just relies on how someone is feeling at the time. Most school kids learning te reo would probably be in that 8% because they can ask for a cup of tea or say what the weather will be tomorrow. And 23% of Maori say it was regularly spoken as one of the first languages? First language could mean the language of the ethnic group, irrespective of its use; 'regularly' could mean nearly all the time or saying kia ora twice a week; No I haven't got any better data, but that does not mean we can interpret the limited data we do have incorrectly, which is what is happening. I think the parameters we have cause a lot of this misleading information published on WP, especially the use of the word 'speakers'. The lead is not the place for saying Maori was repressed. Aside from being IMO too specific for the lead, it isn't too relevant for this article, which is about the language as it is spoken today rather that its post 1840 history. Mentioning it in the lead would amount to pushing a personal opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say you don't want to misinterpret statistics, as you proceed to do exactly that. Roger, I'm sure you mean well but I can't help feeling that you're letting your personal views about te reo cloud your judgement on this one. You're trying to say that your vague uncited assertions are more reliable than the New Zealand Census and a range of reliable academic sources. Nowhere on Wikipedia would that fly, nor should it.
At any rate, and to prevent the risk of this spiralling away from the topic at hand, you've said that the lede needs to be about the language as it is spoken today rather that its post 1840 history. Your changes exclusively refer to the history, so I'll go ahead and revert your edit based on this kōrero. Turnagra (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia ahead of the game?

From today's Press - On the topic of bilingualism, NZ First also secured National’s support to officially legislate for English to be an “official language”. Arguably, given most law is written and debated in English, this would already be the case. Which is the approach we have consistantly taken, that English is an official language already. However, if such a bill is passed it will stop the endless back and forth edit changes, or will it? Unless the new law says something as all encompassing as "English is unrestricted official in NZ and is the primary official language", I can see possible problems. One advantage of the current system is that English cannot be compared with Maori because their status is totally different. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah! english isn't legally an official language of new zealand. wikipedia needs to either cite it's sources, or change the article to accurately reflect the legal reality of language in new zealand. it's long past time for english to become an official language of new zealand. but we are not there yet! 110.44.18.224 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any current problems with the article. It says that English is de facto official. If this law came into place, all we would need to do is remove the "de facto".
Māori is an official language, and so is NZSL. They don't need all this "restricted" bloating up the infobox. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of all the disputes is the word 'official' has more than one meaning. In a loose interpretation English is official because it is used by everyone everywhere; in a tighter interpretation a language has to be made official by something specific such as a written constitution. NZ is confusing because it uses the different meanings for different languages. Wikipedia is confusing because it uses one word (official) to describe two different situations - de facto and de jure. Maori does have a restricted official status, English does not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why we write "de facto". I'm not sure what's confusing about this. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't understand the consequences of the two terms, or what the terms mean - they just look at the word 'official'. How often do you ever hear or read in the media the terms de facto and de jure after official? Almost never. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
De facto is a perfectly common and well-understood term in English, and not the sort of thing we need to re-litigate the use of. Turnagra (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are that well understood. I am also not sure that making English de jure official is such a good idea, which I think you are saying too? I think the best step forward, which I think you would disagree with, is for there to be some sort of public statement that Maori has only limited official status and it cannot be seen as equal with English in NZ society. That is a simple fact. It has no bearing on English being better than Maori in a linguistic sense because in that sense they are equal - they are both just languages. I have tried before to describe English in this wiki article as NZ's primary language, which got limited support as well as the expected objections. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm not saying anything about the status of either language in New Zealand, I'm saying what language we should use on wikipedia. And de facto is clearly the best understood term to describe exactly this - a language which is official for all intents and purposes but not legally recognised as such. Turnagra (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Languages_of_New_Zealand"