Jump to content

Talk:Israel–New Zealand relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some improvements

[edit]

I'm a little short on time today, but have a few suggestions on how this article could be improved:

That said, the article as a whole reads very well and I like it :) Ziggurat 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the following statement in the article:

"While the 2004 Israeli spies scandal did not leave "scars or grievances" between New Zealand and Israeli diplomats, the Jewish-New Zealander community was isolated economically. Business with Israel was hurt by a moratorium imposed by New Zealand companies on business deals and agreements until the crisis was resolved, significantly motivating Israel's apology.[4]".

I am a Jewish New Zealander, who owns a business and at no time was myself or anyone Jewish I know affected economically or isolated as this fanciful claim says. Secondly the claim that business between Israel and New Zealand companies was hurt - is an unsubstantiated claim made in the NZ Herald link, again one that I doubt. Cybershul 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the New Zealand Herald made the story up? I think that's unlikely. I think that it is much more likely that some businesses but not all were affected. If you could find a counter quote in a reliable source, we could link to that too.-gadfium 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you counter quote unsubstantiated claims? If opinion is good enough for them, then also accept my two cents worth as your counter quote. The article said quote "New Zealand companies". I have a "New Zealand company". This article doesn't represent my New Zealand company or any I'm aware of. What makes an unsubstantiated claim in the NZ Herald any better then an unsubstantiated claim on Wikipedia (which would be tagged as such)? Cybershul 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the New Zealand Herald article, it wasn't written by the Herald itself but came through the NZPA, and was written by Yehonathan Tommer, who I think is based in Israel. The business that was hurt was with Israel, not with local businesses, and the local community was considered isolated because Israeli officials could no longer visit. I've changed the wording in the article to make this clearer.-gadfium 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the quote from the NZ Herald:

Private business with Israel was sharply hit by the crisis atmosphere as local New Zealand companies placed a moratorium on potential deals and agreements pending a resolution of the crisis.

which is unsubstantiated opinion because it does not cite any examples to back up their claim. Business is business, and business relations are often more robust then political considerations, so business deals will continue anyway. If you're Joe schmo NZ business owner and you have a good relationship with your Israeli supplier/customer, are you going to upset the apple cart over some stupid act committed by a couple of unrelated Israeli nationals? I think not. Cybershul 08:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamings

[edit]

I see that this article has been moved, and then moved back. Unfortunately, neither of the names is appropriate. As I noted above, the name should be New Zealand-Israel relations, consistent with Israel-United States relations, Australia-New Zealand relations, Turkey-United States relations, Cuba-United States relations, United States-Côte d'Ivoire relations, and a whole heap of others. Ziggurat 22:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about United States-Venezuelan relations and Venezuelan-Israeli relations? I see both versions used. I am more than happy to have the page moved, but only if their is a clear policy or precedent that stipulates the nomenclature is the country name alone. Republitarian 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You either created or renamed both of these yourself - that's not a precedent, that's a systematic error on your part. The reason countries are used instead of nationalities is that these articles are talking about diplomatic relations between countries, not between people of those nationalities. All three should be renamed. Ziggurat 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I already said, I started Venezuelan-Israeli relations but did not start United States-Venezuelan relations. DanKeshet started it.[1] The reason why I brought these two pages up, obviously, is because numerous experienced users have edited the pages without changing the titles. If you cannot cite policy, then there is no reason to move the page. One could just as easily say that the pages you presented should be moved to the nomenclature I presented. Respectfully, Republitarian 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know you didn't create that page, but you did rename it on August 15 (diff) from the former name, which did follow the opposite pattern I describe. There is not a policy on this as best I can follow, but that's far from the only reason to move something. As I've stated above, these articles relate to the countries, not to the people in those countries. There is a case to be made for finding an adjectival form (as in Russo-United States relations) but "New Zealander" is certainly not that form. Additionally, the reasoning that no-one has changed it is irrelevant: these two articles have existed under their current name for all of four days.
Hopefully you can provide a good reason not to change it based on the merits of the name itself; if not can I suggest we take this to WP:3O? Ziggurat 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that New Zealand-Israel relations (or perhaps Israel-New Zealand relations - if I understand correctly, the order within those pairs is alphabetical). ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealander refers to people; as such I'm a New Zealander; this article refers to countries thus New Zealand is more correct. That is why I moved it in the first place to New Zealand-Israel relations Brian | (Talk) 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. New Zealander seems odd in this context. I fail to see what is inappropriate with New Zealand-Israel relations. I see no need to rigidly adhere to a bad article name for the sake of consistency.--Ezeu 07:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it was renamed again against the consensus (minus Republitarian) here. Unless a reason better than mysterious "common nomenclature" is provided, IMHO this should be renamed into Israel-New Zealand relations. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be titled either New Zealand-Israel relations or Israel-New Zealand relations, per Ziggurat and Brian. I don't really mind which way around the country names go. -- Avenue 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]

A couple things that IMHO need fixing: 1) this article seems to be written from a NZ perspective and 2) a huge part of the artile reads like a blog on the recent events. Let's remember what WP is not. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK

[edit]

I suggest trying (very soon) in placing this on Did you know for full front page attraction. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox journalists kipnapping

[edit]

Why is this kidnapping discussed in this article? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think it relates directly to NZ-Israel relations. And making it a subsection under the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict also seems odd to me. -- Avenue 12:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that was Palestinian National Authority, not Israel. I am removing that section. The content may be recovered from history or from this diff: [2]. I didn't want to create a new article on this because I am concerned that WP is turning into a blog lately. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to elaborate.
  1. It doesn't belong in Israel-New Zealand relations.
  2. I don't mind if someone creates an article about the story but I woudn't do it because I feel that while the current events and political controversies take too much attention here, WP has too many substandard pages on important encyclopedic subjects. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005-2006 Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis

[edit]

That page (encyclopedic article?) doesn't even mention Israel. Why is it here? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the guys who was kidnapped was a New Zealander, then until there's a page on Iraq-New Zealand relations there should be a mention of the incident here. Republitarian 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it have to do with Israel? Perhaps Iraq-New Zealand relations or Foreign relations of New Zealand but I fail to see the logic for putting it here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism of the Clark administration

[edit]

With respect...the personal opinions of a former MP who has never been elected to Parliament under ACT hardly constitutes reasonable or fair comment in a Wikipedia article about Israeli-New Zealand relations. Clearly this former Labour man has an axe to grind and his personal assumption concerning the relationship between Phil Goff and Arafat would be better vented in some gutter tabloid, not in Wikipedia. Political or religious opinion belongs somewhere else.

Lest we not forget that Gabi Ashkenazi is the chief of staff to the IDF and his associates had just been done for passport fraud in NZ. The last thing New Zealand needs is for the holder of a NZ passport to be convicted somewhere in the world for an assassination which goes wrong and takes out women and children!

I propose that this article is either rewritten in a neutral tone or removed forthwith..Mombas 11:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section is making too much out of a minor incident, and have replaced it with a single sentence with a more neutral reference in an earlier section.-gadfium 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Relations between the two countries are excellent"

[edit]

This statement is problematic, because it is unreferenced and borders on POV and/or original research. It needs to be substantiated or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TippTopp (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this. It's probably more right than wrong, but needs a strong cite. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel–New Zealand relations. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–New_Zealand_relations&oldid=1207752460"