Talk:South Island nationalism

Where can I vote for deletion

This entire article should be deleted. Its very existence misleads. There is no active separatist movement in the South Island. The New Munster independence movement doesn't belong on a list of separatist movements. It belongs on a list of joke political parties along with the McGillicudy serious party and other instances of political satire and non-serious political fun. The main problem with this article is that it treats what is essentially a joke political movement seriously thereby conveying a completely misleading impression about the political situation in New Zealand. There is no active separatist movement in the South Island. Furthermore the purported history of the movement can be most charitably described as historical fiction and has no place in an encyclopedia. The article survives only because it has been locked, an action which I regard as highly questionable. Why is such ridiculous content being defended? Hawthorn (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you seriously believe the article is a suitable candidate for deletion, then Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion is thataway. However, before doing so, you may wish to acquaint yourself with the sources and references given in the pre-vandalism version of the article, here: [1]; also, see the quotes and references currently at the base of this page. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Going from recent events in the media, I'd say this request for deletion is a bit null and void TheZealandian (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/happen-south-island-independence-movement-vows-break-away TheZealandian (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

I don't think this page adds anything significant to that already stated in South Island Independence. I dee it's already been redirected once, but reverted. What do you think? I don't know how to make a redirect, or I would probably be bold and do it myself.

In fact, I suppose nationalism is almost a better umbrella term; besides, the Independence article has a capital letter is shouldn't in the title. Perhaps merge? Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now re-directed South Island Independence and copied over all material that wasn't duplicated. See the discussion on the SI Independence page. --Lholden (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I've removed the uncited claims, some of which dated back to October 2009. I've also add new tags for points that require clarification. --Lholden (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just cleaned up some of the article. I deleted the national symbols section because most of it unreferenced. The only referenced thing was the anthem which was a self-published source. I removed the extra names because they were unsourced. I removed the area section which was another self-published source. I also removed the economy section because it was a mix of unsourced claims and self-published sources. The form of government section was also the same. I removed two of the flags, both were from self-published sourced. I'll be back for more. Teroamahai (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Joke article?

this article is a joke ppl from the sth island r 2 dum 2 hav nationalism delete asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teroamahai (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a serious article. I suggest you read the references given within the article to acquaint yourself more fully with the issue at hand. I would also strongly suggest you learn to type in recognisable English, instead of text message code, if you wish your contributions to be taken seriously. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is a joke, it serves as a propaganda page for South Island First.

• The name of the group "South Island First" is used three times in one section (click here to see).
• "Kym Parsons' concept" was designed by the creator of South Island First, Kym Parsons and only appears to be here to boost his ego. His flag appears twice in the article.
• They're mentioned in the proposed state section as well.
• If all information relating to South Island First was removed then this article would be worst than North Island nationalism before it got deleted.

Teroamahai (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the article may need cleaning up (which it does) is no reason to suggest it should be deleted. I agree that the flag doesn't need to be shown twice, but your comments about SIF being overly-mentioned seems incorrect otherwise. As the principal active separatist group, it makes sense to mention them in various parts of the article, such as thje section you point out. Yes, it is mentioned three times in that section - it is a heading of that section and mentioned once further under that heading, and is mentioned in relation to another group which joined with it. That is certainly not indication that it is a "propaganda page". In contrast to the North Island, there have long been calls for SI independence or self-government (part of the reason for which is the attitudes of North Islanders towards the south, as beautifully illustrated by your first comment under this heading). Grutness...wha? 06:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section that you deleted, Kym Parsons' flag is not given any more prominence than the other suggested flag designs. Therefore I have restored that content, and instead removed the first instance of Kym Parsons' flag as a duplicate. The North Island nationalism page was removed not because of the quality of the article, or lack thereof, but because it was an apparent hoax. The South Island page gives references, and two of the nationalist organisations listed are sufficiently notable that they have their own Wikipedia articles. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.

File:Love it or leave.png

A South Island nationalist slogan "New Munster, love it or leave".

South Island nationalism is inspired by the Brazilian military government and racism. Soon they will be taking Hitler as idol. "This annexation was in response to New Zealand Company attempts to establish a separate colony in Wellington, and French claims in Akaroa, and so Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson declared British sovereignty over all of New Zealand on 21 May 1840 (the North Island by the Treaty of Waitangi and the South by discovery)." South Island nationalists want to write the Māori in the South Island out of history. I imagine a swaztika will appear on this article as a symbol of South Island nationalism...If this article is not a joke then people in the South Island have some serious metal issues. Teroamahai (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing any citations from reliable sources you can provide to back up these claims. Managing to avoid Godwin's law while doing so will give them added credibility. And the South Island does not have serious issues with metal; after all, it was that island that spawned The Gordons. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

thumb|left|150px|Scouts flag

Royalist French flag. The use of the same symbols must mean the Scouts are French monarchists, right?

(after ec, and removing another "metal" joke) Sharing a slogan means absolutely nothing. New Zealand First's slogan for a while was identical to the 1930s German Nazi Party's, until someone pointed it out to them, but I don't think many people have seriously equated Winston Peters and Adolf Hitler. As to "writing the Māori in the South Island out of history", surely it is you who are joking. Several Kai Tahu are among the most prominent advocates for South island self-determination. And you may notice that one of the other flags in the flag section is deliberately based on Māori tribal flags. Accusing an organisation of being influenced by a racist group simply because of a similarity of slogan is like saying that the Boy Scouts support restoring the French monarchy because they both use the fleur-de-lys as their emblem. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kym Parsons flag design is already in the article, adding it again with a slogan of some NN group is against WP:NOTSOAPBOX. XLerate (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I meant mental. Look at that image, Son of Zealandia aka Kym Parsons created it in the last month. Do you think it's a coinsciendence that both images have the same format? The flags are in the same position on both images, both "countrys'" names is in the same position on their respected image as well, also the slogan is in the same place. Parsons has admitted his flag design was just a rip-off of Iceland's flag, why would this slogan be any different?...You claim "several Kai Tahu are among the most prominent advocates for South island self-determination" Do you have any evidence to back-up your claim?...This article is obviously a joke, look at this; http://newmunster.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=100265270 The most important group for South Island nationalism plans to "boycott the elections", that won't do anything except lessen the voice of South Islanders which they claim to represent...I guess I am the only one seeing the anti-logic here. :S Teroamahai (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that Son of Zealandia based his image on the Brazilian one? or perhaps evidence that he based it on one of many other flag- or logo-bearing images which have similar designs. If you're making a design based on a logo, a name, and a slogan, it's the most logical arrangement for them. Perhaps these people are neo-Nazis. or maybe these people (actually, that's possible). Parsons hasn't ever 'admitted his flag was a rip-off' of anyone. it was influenced by Iceland's, true, but that's a completely different thing... and Iceland's flag is an unlikely choice for a neo-Nazi organisation, given how liberal the country's society is. As to Kai Tahu, yes, I have plenty of evidence, but I'm certainly not going to start bandying their names around in an open forum like this. And no, the most important group for South Island nationalism does not intend to boycott the elections - the New Munster Party is not the most important group for South island nationalism - it is only a very tiny voice in the South Island self-determination movement and is not particularly highly regarded. Not that that matters one way or the other - boycotting elections is a perfectly valid protest method and there is a long history of its use. Check Election boycott for a large number of examples. You might also like to check this site for more details of why electoral boycotts are used as a valid protest tactic. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag Section

I have deleted parts of the flag section because they were not mentioned in the source . My reasons are listed under each quote. Also I unlinked the dead links. "Vexillologist James Dignan proposed a flag including the Southern Cross stars that appear on the New Zealand national flag, with a depiction of the Southern Alps (the white peak) and the forests and fields of the south (the green inset). The Southern Alps are the South Island's most prominent geological feature, and agriculture and forestry the main primary industries, making this concept an appropriate representation. This flag has gained a small degree of acceptance, appearing at several sporting events and rallies in the South Island, and as an image on some merchandise items"

• No where in the reference does it say James Dignan is a Vexillogist.
• No where in the reference does it mention anything about acceptance.

"This flag, the New Munster Cross (also known as the Zealandia Ensign), was designed by Kym Parsons, a supporter of South Island Independence and is a relatively new addition to the list of proposed South Island flags. This flag is promoted by the political lobby group South Island First through the distribution of motor vehicle bumper stickers.

It comprises a Nordic Cross with white background representing the Southern Alps, with a green cross representing the lush bush and farmland of the South Island and blue representing the ocean.

The general impression is reminiscent of the flags of the Nordic nations."

• No where in the reference does it use any of those names.
• No where in the reference does it say Kym Parsons designed it.
• No where in the reference does it mention when it was created.
• No where in the reference does it mention the "distribution of motor vehicle bumper stickers".
• No where in the reference does it say what it represents.
• The last bit is just unsourced trivia.

Teroamahai (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As explained further up this page, I am James Dignan - that is the reason I haven't done much in the editing of this article myself, since it could be viewed as a conflict of interest. I am most definitely a vexillologist, as any number of online sources will attest. I have been called upon as a flag expert by the print, radio, and television media in New Zealand to discuss aspects of the history and future of New Zealand's flag, and have written widely on the subject. If you wish for references or examples for that, may I suggest [2], or [3], or [4] - the latter being a document in which the Flag Institute refers to me as a vexillologist (which should be enough proof). The flag has gained a degree of acceptance in exactly the way that the article said - I have seen it on bumper stickers as far afield as Blenheim and Gore, and have seen it flown at sports events and at least one protest march, so there must be some degree of acceptance of it. Unfortunately, that cannot in itself be seen as proof for the article, since it counts as either original Research or hearsay. If you like, I could send you a bumper sticker, though - I have quite a number of them :) It is very likely that I could find a photo of the flag being waved during a sports event or a protest rally, though, if that would qualify as proof.

As to the dead link to an article on me, I took that article to AFD when I found it. Thankfully, it was deleted (but by a slim margin, it must be said). There are quite a number of articles which linked to it, I must have missed this one when I tidied up the redlinks. Intriguingly, the AFD discussion mentions that most of the information available about me online is about my vexillology work...

I cannot speak for Kym Parsons' design, but if there is truth to the claims, then it is likely to be possible to source them.

It is unfortunate that your edits to this page seem to be disrupting what has been, up until now, a stable article which - though in need of some editing and citation - certainly doesn't seem to need the large chopping which you have been giving it. I sincerely hope that your sudden interest in changing this article - and your earlier comments relating to thinking it was "a joke" - haven't in any way been influenced by having the article you created on North Island nationalism deleted. Grutness...wha? 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I, Kym Parsons did design the proposed South Island Flag also known as the New Munster Cross in 2008. It comprises a Nordic Cross with white background representing the Southern Alps, with a green cross representing the lush bush and farmland of the South Island and blue representing the ocean. Myself and other supporters of South Island self-determination (notably through South Island First) have distributed car bumper stickers of this flag throughout New Zealand, Australia and as far afield as Europe. The fact that we have and still are actively promoting this flag design rather than just posting an image onto the internet, gives weight to our argument that it should be included in any section relating to proposed South Island Flags. Son of Zealandia (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the proposed South Island flag design, known as The New Munster Cross was removed from this page, despite being actively promoted by at least one pro-South Island independence group. Dean Thomas' concept also be removed because aside from the one link on this page it is not actively promoted as a South Island flag and has little or no following. Son of Zealandia (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the article is unprotected the bit about the Chathams and Stewart Island also needs work. Yes, in both cases somebody did a design which was used once - but there's no reference to evidence of widespread use, or even proposals for use - and certainly no evidence that they have any sort of status (which the article implies). Snori (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I've added tags to the "see also" section as there is apparently no actual link between the articles linked to and this one. For example, the article JAFA is about a pejorative term used to describe Aucklanders. The Save Aramoana Campaign appears to have virtually no link to South Island nationalism, as much as the Save Manapouri Campaign did. The article on New Munster is just that, about the historical province of New Munster. While "South Island nationalists" might like the term to be applied to the South Island, that doesn't mean that the article has anything to do with this one. I've also added dubious tags to the Irish nationalism and Scottish independence articles, as this appears to be an attempt to create an equivalence where none exists. --LJ Holden 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Aramoana one has a tenuous link, since it did "declare itself independent" as a micronation, but that's completely different from any SI nationalist sentiment. Similarly back in the day the SI West Coast was a hotbed of Irish nationalism. But neither have any real connection with this article, - and the others certainly don't. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism

Ok, this is just strange. Nothing in this article explains the link between South Island nationalism and Ethnic nationalism "...a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity." There's nothing in the article which comes close to this - is this to be added? --LJ Holden 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it.-gadfium 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not... The South Island has developed it's own cultural and ethnic identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.62.36 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether I like it our not. It's a question of factual accuracy - an ethnicity requires there to be common ancestry. Does everyone in the geographic area of the South Island have the same common ancestry? No. Not even close; while it is true the South Island is more ethnically homogeneous than the north, that doesn't mean that a South Island identity is based solely on ethnicity, if it was you would expect to see evidence to that affect - however it seems most of the elements of the South Island identity are not ethnically specific (e.g. laid back lifestyle). It would be more accurate to describe South Island nationalism is a form of civic nationalism than ethnic nationalism. --LJ Holden 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to describe it as parochialism. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

South Island nationalism is of a unique form. It certainly doesn't fit any one particular category and therefore both sides of this argument could be considered to be correct. As time goes by and the social differences between the North and South Island's become more apparent then we may find that it develops its own form of ethnic or cultural nationalism.Son of Zealandia (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be a blend of different forms, but there's certainly nothing in it which even remotely approaches ethnic nationalism. Civic, yes; cultural, plausibly; ethnic? Not by a country mile. Ethnically, The people of Dunedin and Hamilton (both settled by Scots) are more alike than those of Dunedin and Christchurch (Scottish/English), and similarly those of Christchurch and Wellington (both settled by southern English) are closer than those of Christchurch and Timaru (southern English/Cornish and northern English) or Christchurch and Greymouth (southern English/northern English and Irish). The latter is apparent when you look at the support for Irish nationalism in NZ is the early 20th century - Westland was fiercely pro-Irish; Canterbury was staunchly loyalist. I don't think you could find more than the slightest slim minority of Mainlanders who think there is an ethnic difference between them and North Islanders, whether they are pro-independence or not. The suggestion that there's any "ethic nationalism" involved is, to be honest, laughable. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"The central theme of these ethnic nationalists is that "...nations are defined by a shared heritage (in this case settler colonialism), including a common language (English), a common faith (Christianity), and a common ethnic ancestry (European).""...National Front much? Teroamahai (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between homogeneity and fascism. It's also worth noting that the line you mention, which was added by an anon, looked dubious enough that a "please show citation" notice was instantly placed after it. Unless anyone finds a citation for it, it shouldn't be there because (with the exception of one Wikipedian editor), no-one anywhere seems to have mentioned there being any ethnic nature in calls for South island self-determination. Which makes perfect sense, since there is none. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

1970s Era

When I sat my School Certificate English paper in 1974 there was a question asking students to use creative writing to topics supplied, one of which was on South Island Independence. That reflected a widespread view at the time calling for greater South Island representation, often referencing the Cook Strait cable and the power that flows North from the southern hydro lakes. This argument grew through the 1970's and the 1980's, but became less important by the 1990's. The article doesn't refer to this period and jumps from regional government to more recent southern autonomy movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.131.218 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably because of Wikipedia's preference for citations; there is less material easily available, particularly on-line, about the informal "cut the cable" movement of the 1980s. If you have access to any neutral and reliable secondary sources about the South Island independence movement of the time, references to them would be most appreciated. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Available online, the following mentions of the cut the cable movement:- A brief history of Southern Self-Determination

excerpts:-

The Cook Strait power cable, which was laid in 1965, to provide the North Island with its electricity power, has served to arouse the Mainlanders' latent resentment of the North and various calls to "Cut the Cable" have been made over the years.

and;

A sizeable measure of residual support still exists for the cause of South Island self-determination. This is commonly manifested through semi serious campaigns such as the South Island Independence Movement, the Cut the Cable movement, the Zealandia Independence Project and a growing youth culture promoting this agenda through social networking websites such as Bebo and Facebook.

Today, demands for South Island independence are based on the idea that since political separation of New Zealand from New South Wales in 1841, the South Island has developed its own identity, culture and a much more resilient economy.''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.144.98 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that there should be some mention off it - ISTR a song called "Cut the cable" which was popular at the time, too. It should be possible to find some information about it that can bee cite somewhere... Grutness...wha? 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The song has an entry in the Radio NZ Sound Archives. I'm not sure if this is a persistent link, but if not, searching here for "cut the cable" should find it. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, it seems that the cable has often transferred power the other way (NI -> SI) during drought years.[5] --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It has from time to time - but IIRC not since the establishment of windfarms in various parts of the south. Grutness...wha? 22:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Proposed state section

I'm planning on deleting the whole proposed state section. It only contains three sentences. Also it appears to be more of the historical call than a modern one. The reference only mentions a historical call for Dunedin to become the capital of a SINist nation. The reference for the name section only mentions New Munster being a historical name for the province nothing to do with an actual proposed nation. I was just wondering if there is any reason to keep it? :) Teroamahai (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Going over the article history, that section appears to have been much more substantial up until the point where the bulk of it was deleted yesterday: [6]. I would strongly suggest that, before you delete more of this article, you seek the advice of a more experienced editor, and preferably one with a neutral point of view on this matter. As a guide to what a neutral point of view may be, this: [7] does not demonstrate same. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of Teromahai's real intention is this comment - I imagine a swaztika will appear on this article as a symbol of South Island nationalism...If this article is not a joke then people in the South Island have some serious metal issues. Teroamahai (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Son of Zealandia (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided reasons for why I removed that information in the Clean up section. The Proposed state section will be removed, unless someone can think up a reasonable reason for it's inclusion. Teroamahai (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to establish consensus...

• Delete Reasons stated above. Teroamahai (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Simply having three sentences is no reason for deletion - it is a reason for expansion. There is plenty of information which can be added to it - indeed there was plenty of information here until someone decided that it was better to simply remove it rather than hunting for references. The section is an important part of the article. If it is deleted, it should be added back in - and no doubt will be at some point by someone - with information which is appropriate for an article of this nature. Deleting it now simply makes more work for others later. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Those three sentences only duplicate information found in the History section.Teroamahai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Grutness, are you still a "Strong keep" or would you support a merge into the History section?Teroamahai (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I still favour keeping it, though not as strongly, especially given that the person who added the information seems willing to have it removed. I would suggest, however, that instead of deleting it out of hand, it would be better to re-write it using what information can be found. If none can be found, then that in itself is worth mentioning (e.g., "There has been little debate over what the national symbols or capital of a South Island state would be". This should also be the section of the article used to discuss what form of state the South would be - would it be totally independent, part of a federated New Zealand, or semi-autonomous? There has been considerable discussion about this in the past, and yet it is not mentioned to any great extent in the article. A "State" section would be the most obviious place for such information to go. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a few quick google searches, the results appeared completly unrelated. I think we should wait until we have information from sources which belong in a Proposed State section rather than a History section before re-establishing the Proposed State section. Teroamahai (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Grutness, or merge into History section per Teroamahai below. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the section could be re-written to reference the historical information, but deletion seems to be going too far. --LJ Holden 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, it is weaselly-worded speculation. XLerate (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Reinstate to this version: [8] and let all further changes be by consensus of editors. Incidentally, your input into the discussion below (preferably addressing Grutness' five questions) would be welcomed. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The five questions are all ad hominem, please try to focus on the article content. WP:CONLIMITED says consensus of a few cannot override WP:V or other policies. XLerate (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Developments in the last few days including Tim Shadbolt's statement on a South Island Parliament give further strength to the article.Mayor Tim Shadbolt said the southern grouping could be called the South Island Parliament. Son of Zealandia (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is getting out of hand. Some people are getting way too emotional over this. The section was originaly created by me on the old article but it was a mistake to do so. It was only to further my agenda at the time, sorry guys. We shouldn't try to restore it to what it was, it was pure fantasy. The section isn't as important as people are making it out to be, after all why wasn't the section created before I came to Wiki? Plus Tero is right, the section only copies points from the History area. I feel keeping it is silly when all information present can be placed in the History section (including the link SoZ posted). South Islander (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

^Is that a good enough compromise for everyone? (merging all current and future proposed state information with the History section). The history section is in need of a rewrite anyway because it is mainly a history of the South Island (from a p­akeh­a point of view) rather than a history of South Island nationalism. But that is an arguement for another day I guess...Back to the compromise, yes or no? (state reasons if you choose no)Teroamahai (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"The history section is in need of a rewrite anyway because it is mainly a history of the South Island (from a p­akeh­a point of view)" is yet another example of Teroamahai's true motive and an indication that he intends to delete this whole page. Instead of wasting our time wouldn't he be better off contributing to a subject that he has a more indepth knowledge about.... perhaps the Māori protest movement is more in line with his persona. Son of Zealandia (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate information

Time to sort out this dupilcated information issue. Let's look at the Proposed state section's sources. It has two sources; [9] and [10]. Both are also used in the History section (check source 7 and 4 of the article). The second source ([11]) was used to verify that New Munster was a name for the South Island, this had already been established in History section. This means the Name part of the Proposed State section is duplicate information. The Capital part states:

"One of the issues presented for an independent South Island is deciding which city or town would be the capital. Dunedin has been suggested because it was previously proposed as a capital for an independent South Island." -I placed the information which could be verified in the first source ([12]) in bold. The rest is Original research.

This is what the source has to say about Dunedin as a capital:

"Otago, argued its editor, Julius Vogel (who, ironically, was ultimately to lead the centralists to the abolition of provincialism), was in terms of shipping days three times as far from the capital of Auckland as it was from Victoria or Tasmania, and he looked forward to "a glorious future - the separation of the two islands". A well-attended public meeting in 1862 endorsed the principle of separation - though Southland, which had achieved independence from Dunedin only by appealing to central government, and Canterbury, understanding that Dunedin saw itself as the South Island's capital-to-be, were both unenthusiastic." This is already in the article in History section, using the same exact wording.

Is it time to delete the duplicated information? Teroamahai (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection of page

I've protected the page. There seems to be a culture of culling of this article, notably by one individual. While the principle involved in this excising of material is correct in theory, in practice there needs to be considerably more discussion than has been done about the issues. If citations are lacking for a section, then the first thing should be to hunt for citations once this omission has been brought to editors' attention - not removal of the information after short warning with summary notice that the same editor will do the same with more. Teroamahai, other editors here have been patient with your clear antagonism towards this article, but you need to make more effort to work with other editors to improve the problems you see with it. Simply removing the bits you have problems with is not the way to resolve the situation. Discussion is always better than unilateral action in cases like this. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

PS - if anyone is concerned that, as a major editor of this page, I may not be within my rights to protect this page, I'd like to say that I haven't protected the page earlier for exactly those reasons. I had a major hand in editing sections of the article which have previously been (at times inexplicably) removed, but I was too close to the action, as it were. In the case of the current dispute over the "state" section, however, I have had no input into the dispute, and have done virtually no editing to the section concerned. My personal preference would have been for references to be found for parts of the articles previously excised, but I have not protected the page in that previous form, and those preferences are irrelevant as far as the protection is concerned. My concern is primarily that changes are being made recklessly with little discussion beforehand, when it would be better for the article - and therefore for Wikipedia - to make an attempt to (a) come to some agreement about what should and should not be in the article, and (b) to make a concerted effort to find relevant references where necessary. I have also asked a non-involved admin to vet my protection of this page, and if necessary to either overturn or endorse it. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading through the recent developments concerning this page and am grateful that somebody (Grutness) has taken the initative. Given his behaviour and actions, Teroamahai clearly has a much deeper problem with the subject of this page rather than just its content. He is intent on discrediting anyone or any edits relating to the South Island self-determination movement. Considering the abusive nature of his behaviour, I am surprised that he has not been blacklisted or banned from Wikipedia. Son of Zealandia (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Grutness, since you are so unbias towards this article, would you mind removing your extra flag? This way it doesn't get more attention than Dean Thomas' flag. While you're there you can remove the line "The sense of separate identity for the South Island has sparked the interest of some vexillologists (flag researchers) and vexillographers (flag designers) into possible designs for a South Island flag." or if not add a citation needed tag. By the way, how long will it be until the proposed state section is deleted? (since it does not appear notable enough to be in the article) Teroamahai (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend that, if any edits are to be made to this article, that it be reverted to this: [13], its most polished state before yesterday's unilateral deletions. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daveosaurus. Teroamahai is still intent on disrupting this page and shows no sign of changing his attitude or behaviour. Son of Zealandia (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about who you agree with but Wikipedia policy. This article fails to meet the notabliity guidelines. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Articles which fail to meet this should be deleted according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. See WP:DEL#REASON. Hey that gives me an idea, we should delete this article because it does not meet Wikipedia policy. :L Teroamahai (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've alerted an admin who has had a lot of dealings with New Zealand articles but - as an Australian - has a clear outsider's perspective. I've asked him to review what's been going on with the article and protect or not as he sees fit. As to the extra flag, I feel that there should be an image of an actual flag flying in the article, but would have no objection with my image being replaced with one from Kym or Dean should they be willing to provide one. I feel that an image of a flying flag gives more indication that the flag is in use than a simple graphic image, though I also feel that a graphic image gives more indication of the actual design. S.o.Z., Teroamahai's actions may seem disruptive, but they are legitimate ones, albeit with more than a hint of gaming the system. As such, blacklisting or banning would be an extremely harsh measure - I doubt whether any admin would support such a move, though a request for comment might not be out of place. Again, it's a far better idea to discuss things, in the hope that some less drastic outcome can be achieved. Teroamahai, the article easily passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As you say, the guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It has received significant independent coverage, as has been shown clearly by many of the article's references. Grutness...wha? 07:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"

""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc"

How many sources use the term South Island nationalism and which sources are they?Teroamahai (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked all the sources we have and only one of the sources use the term. Although it was on a link to a youtube video and the source itself is not independent from the source. Therefore SIN fails notability.Teroamahai (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Significant coverage independent of the subject does indeed refer to those things, and such coverage exists and has been cited in the article. Addressing the subject in detail does not mean exactly using the term as it is in the title of the article. The subject of the potential independence, self-government, or secession of the South Island, or of some southern region of New Zealand, or some form of devolution for that region, has been significantly covered by independent sources. As such, South Island nationalism easily, effectively, and thoroughly passes WP's notability guidelines. Grutness...wha? 08:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wish for further significant coverage in independent sources, I suggest you find the chapter on South Island self-determination in the book "Nationalism by Country or Region: Pan-Arabism, Chinese Nationalism, Irish Nationalism, African Nationalism, American Exceptionalism". Perhaps for now the New Zealand Listener could be seen as a fairly independent source (especially since it's run from the North Island) - it deals with the idea of South island nationalism on several occasions, albeit sometimes in passing: [14], [15]. Or bFM, perhaps?[16]. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Grutness, while the edits and arguments put forward by Teroamahai may be legitimate (accordly to Wikipedia's guidelines) most people will recognise and agree that they stem from the earlier deletion of his North Island nationalism page. Unfortunately he has adopted a "if I can't have one then neither can you" attitude. Quite frankly it wouldn't bother me if he deleted the whole page. It certainly won't deter those of us who are dedicated to campaigning for our full and inevitable independence from New Zealand. Good luck to him, a classic example of why South Island nationalism exists. Pro Patria New Munster ! Son of Zealandia (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty applies here, too S.o.Z. - or to put it another way, Assume good faith. I'd agree that Teroamahai seems to be on a one person crusade to prove that everyone else is marching out of step and only he knows the truth about the notability of this article, but there's a big difference between that and saying he should be barred from Wikipedia. As I said, a RfC would probably be the way to continue. I'm certainly too involved in this article to act as an impartial admin on whether Teroamahai's actions demand some form of disciplining, but I'm sure there are non-involved admins that would be willing to do something about what's been happening here. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually his/her first edit to this page was made in May of this year, about four weeks before the hoax article North Island nationalism was deleted. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Very true - and here is what that edit was [17]! His first edit to the article itself was to add a link to the hoax article. These were the only edits he made to this article and its talk page prior to the NI article being deleted. Within a few days of the NI article being deleted, Teroamahai started excising information from this article. He also started becoming considerably more vocal on the talk page, in doing so making direct comparisons between this page and the one which had been deleted. The timing is extremely suspicious, to say the least, as are the comments, and they give more than a slight hint at the possible motivations behind them. The following questions need to be considered and answered:

1. Given that this article was, according to Teroamahai "a joke", why did he start a parallel hoax article on the North Island? Was it simply WP:POINT ?
2. Why did he suddenly take a renewed interest in this article once his article was deleted? If he was serious about it, he would have made attempts to improve the article from the point he first considered it a "joke", or - if he thought it such, to nominate it for deletion.
3. Why hasn't he nominated it for deletion? If he considers it a joke, that would be the obvious thing to do; if he considers that in doing so his efforts to have it considered non-notable would be rebuffed, then he would be far more likely to simply attack it. Which has he done?
4. Why have his only edits to this article since the deletion of the North Island article been to remove information? Has he made any serious attempts to try to find sourcing, or to improve the article by adding more information? Or has he simply gamed the system by excising information in an attempt to reduce the article to a stub?
5. Why has he continued to fight against items added to the article by people who - with due respect - may know a little more about South island nationalism? Teroamahai seems to be the only one holding the views he does about the article. If he feels that others are being obsstinate for the sake of it, there are many channels on Wikipedia that he could have gone through to sort the article out. He has not done so. It could be argued that the numerous other editors could have done likewise to Teroamahai (as i mentioned above, a RfC is a reasonable possibility), but in most circumstances there are easier ways to deal with a solitary problem editor.

It's all very circumstantial, but it's all mounting up... Grutness...wha? 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite History Section

I am proposing the removal of the Discovery and Annexation and the New Munster Province sections. First, they don't appear relevant to SIN. Second, SIN does not appear to exist before Julius Vogel from my research on this topic. Third, they're more relevant to a SINist than someone studying SIN. So now I will attempt to build consensus, if there is no opposition in a week I will assume consensus. Does anyone oppose this rewrite? (if so, why?) Teroamahai (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I oppose it. It provides clear background context for the reasons who South Island nationalism is a recurrent political cause. It is, in part, an explanation of why the South Island has developed in a different way to the north, and as such is highly relevant to calls for South Island nationalism and to any article on South island nationalism overall. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"The first Europeans known to reach the South Island were the crew of Dutch explorer Abel Tasman who arrived in his ships Heemskerck and Zeehaen. Tasman anchored in Golden Bay, at the northern end of the island, (he named it Murderers Bay) in December 1642 and sailed northward to Tonga following a clash with local Māori. Tasman sketched sections of the two main islands' west coasts. Tasman called them Staten Landt, after the States-General of the Netherlands, and that name appeared on his first maps of the country. Dutch cartographers changed the name to Nova Zeelandia in Latin, from Nieuw Zeeland, after the Dutch province of Zeeland. It was subsequently Anglicised as New Zealand by British naval captain James Cook of HM Bark Endeavour who visited the islands more than 100 years after Tasman during (1769–1770)." Would you please enlighten me on the relevance of this paragraph to SIN? Teroamahai (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going look for individual sections to query out of context, then you're always going to find bits which appear to have no relevance. However, in the context of the rest of the section it makes perfect sense, and is directly relevant to the article at hand. The information about the setting up of New Munster Province directly relates to later calls for South Island independence, but to a casual reader the setting up of New Munster makes little sense without background information. That background information is provided in the paragraph you quote and the one proceeding from it. There's nothing there which isn't important to the topic. As such, it should stay. Grutness...wha? 11:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Grutness, can you honestly say that bit I quoted adds anything of significance?Teroamahai (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote didn't you understand? Directly, no; indirectly yes, as it forms the background for all the information which follows it. As such it needs to stay. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How does Abel Tasman's arrival form "the background for all information which follows it"? It is not relevant at all and does not need to stay as you claim it does. Teroamahai (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The information about the European discovery leads on to the explanation of the annexation. This in turn leads on to the information about the setting up of the provinces. I would have thought it was clear enough without me having to spell it out, but if you're going to repeat the same basic question again and again and again, there's no point in me continually answering it for you. If you feel like asking again, re-read the answers i've already given. Grutness...wha? 03:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Will your arguement stand up against Wikipedia's policy on Original Research? "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." The sections have no sources cited which relate directly to SIN. If we want to keep it we will need sources which relate it to SIN. Teroamahai (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It really is getting to the stage where there's no point in replying to this. There is absolutely nothing that is OR in this whatsoever. Just to humour you, since you seem to fail to understand how WP:OR works, I should point out that the section of the South Island nationalism article you refer to could easily be sourced from any of several works relating to the history of the South Island, a topic which is directly relevant to the subject of this article. Those sources would directly support the information presented as presented. As such, it would pass Wikipedia's standards on OR with flying colours. I think I'll leave things here, simply because you have not yet come up with anything really worth replying to, and seem to have only vague notions of the way in which several basic Wikipedia policies are maintained. You cannot simply cherry-pick the bits you want from policy and then try to bend the wording of it to advance your case. Until you do understand the policies and how they are applied, and until you come up with a sensible, coherent argument, there's just no point adding more, because no matter what I say, it seems you're not willing to consider any of it. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about South Island Nationalism, not the history of the South Island. You admitted the part I quoted does not directly relate to SIN. If there is no obvious relation between the information and SIN and our sources don't relate it to SIN then it shouldn't be in the article. Your argument for keeping the information appears to be based on the assumption that the historical province of New Munster is related to modern SIN. Let's stick with the facts. We have no evidence to support such a theory. Calls for an independent South Island in recent times have been about issues like wind farms not re-establishing New Munster. Teroamahai (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the section on WP:OR again, and read what I wrote again. The items in the history section are perfectly valid so long as they are about a topic which is directly relevant to the subject of the article. The items written do not themselves have to be directly relevant – they have to be about a subject which is directly relevant. Which they are, as long as the history of the South Island is related to South island nationalism. If you are trying to tell me that the history of the South Island is not directly related to calls for South Island self-determination, you are patently wrong. And if you're not, then your argument for removing this section from the article is invalid. Either way, this section is an acceptable and logical part of the article.

I really do think this is a waste of time – you keep advancing the same ill-considered argument which seems to ignore what is stated in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or tries to bend it to mean something different to what it says. This could easily be construed as gaming the system, or even wikilawyering – especially given that you seem far more keen on trying to disrupt the work on this article than you do actually doing constructive work on Wikipedia articles. Nearly 70% of your edits to Wikipedia are to this talk page! This is surely far too high a ratio - editors are meant to spend their time building up articles, not repeatedly arguing about how they want to reduce a single article. Please – if you have something positive to contribute, do so. Regurgitating the same arguments over and over again when they have been easily countered and shown to be at least in part your misinterpretations of policy is not constructive. From now, I will abide by the comment I made above: Unless you come up with something new which actually has a valid argument, there is no point in me replying. If you do come up with something new, I will reply, either to oppose it or support it, depending on its soundness. If you do not hear from me, consider it a blanket opposition – simply because, going on past evidence – anything else you put down here will as likely as not simply be yet more of the same misinterpretations. Grutness...wha? 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see you want to talk about my edits. Well I feel my edits have started to add a semi-balance which this article was well overdue for. The majority of the editors of this article have been South Island Nationalists, including yourself. I'm under the impression that your editing of this article has been violation of WP:COI/WP:SOAP. You have used this article to promote your flag. Your flag was already shown once on in the article, then one day you randomly add a photograph of your flag to the article[18]. I was wondering since you're such an expert on Wikipedia policy, how is that not a violation of WP:COI, WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE? And what about this edit[19], why do people reading about SIN need to know if you're a vexillologist or not? Or is it just to add more credibility to your flag? This article is for information about SIN, it's not about you or your flag.

Now, back to the History section. If the only reason you see to keep it is because the information is part of the history of the South Island then why have you not bothered to add information relating to the Ngāi Tahu or the Waitaha? Or is SIN, like I assumed earlier, a form of White nationalism? Let's look at other articles about nationalist movements. We'll start with Irish nationalism. Is its History section about the history of Ireland or the history of Irish nationalism? How about Canadian nationalism? Is its History section about the history of Canada or the history of Canadian nationalism? Should we look at more articles like Kurdish nationalism, Japanese nationalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Cornish nationalism, Korean nationalism and Breton nationalism? Oh and because you want to show essays, I will show you one, WP:ROC. I would have shown this essay instead of the WP:OR, but sadly its just an essay not a policy. I am pretty sure your argument has been dismantled, but is this argument still not good enough for you? :L Teroamahai (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, man - will you listen to yourself a minute? No, I don't want to talk about your edits. I want you to consider your own edits, and why editing articles would be more useful than spending all your energy trying unsuccessfully to argue on the talk page of one article. I want you to make constructive edits. And doing that doesn't mean continually trying to find something wrong with one article which is fine the way it is. To answer the questions you have posed or implied: 1) Just because I have had frequent contact with South Island nationalist groups does not make me a South Island nationalist - I am not one, and have never belonged to nor voted for a South Island nationalist group or party. As such, there is no COI involved. 2) I have not used the article to promote my flag. The original image of the flag was not added by me, and neither was any information about it. I have made it clear that I would be happy to see any image of a real, flying flag in the article, as the article is improved by the addition of ssuch an image. The only available image of a flying South Island flag in Wikipedia currently is of my design, that is true, but if an image of one of the other designs is available, then I would welcome its replacement. If you regard that as "promotion of my flag", I only hope you do not work in the advertising industry! 3) As to whether I'm a vexillologist, someone else originally added that statement, and rather than researching it and adding a reference, which would have been standard procedure, you simply excised it in one of your culls of the article. All I did was what you should have done in the first place - look for and attach a reference. 4) As to the History section, New Munster was the first administrative split of the South Island from the North island. The whole concept of separate administration is something what only became possible due to the acquisitiveness of the pakeha. As such, mention of this settlementm is relevant to the article. Kai Tahu and Waitaha never saw the South Island as a separate administrative entity - they simply saw it as their homeland. As such, reference to the pre-colonial views of the South Island is not relevant to the article. 5) If you want to compare articles, don't apples with oranges. There's little point in comparing the nationalism of an area known to its settlers since prehistory, like Ireland, Cornwall, or Kurdistan, since they are not similar cases. You need to have a look at somewhere settled during recorded history by colonialists. If you have a look at something like Quebec nationalism. It doesn't go into the pre-European history of Canada, but it does go back to the first days of Canadian settlement, long before the concept of a place called Quebec. Cascadia is an even better example, as it is a cultural, not ethnic, nationalism. It has developed in the last few decades as an independence movement, yet the article on it starts with Thomas Jefferson (not, I hasten to add, with the pre-Columbian tribes who occupied the Pacific northwest). This article, on a similar subject and movement, follows that style exactly. 6) The content of this article seems to be far more in line with WP:ROC than it would be if the history section were to be removed. 7) Your argument still holds no water whatsoever. So far, you have shown policy pages which this article adheres to, guidelines which it adheres to, and essays which it adheres to. Surely that's enough, no? Grutness...wha? 02:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like no one is prepared to compromise, so I suggest taking the issue to Wikipedia:Third opinion. XLerate (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Getting an outside opinion was exactly why I asked a couple of non-involved admins to look at the article and the discussions here. WP:Third opinion would be another way of doing that. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree a third opinion is needed because I think your examples of Cascadia and Quebec can be used to further my argument. Anyone wish to initiate the process? Teroamahai (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Teroamahai, earlier tonight you deleted a section from the article while your edit summary claimed that you were merging two sections together. Please don't falsify edit summaries in such a manner. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You should reread the article. The information found in the Proposed state section only duplicates information found in the History section. Which means a merge, in this case, is just deleting the duplicated information. Unless you can think of another way for the merge to go through? You should also scroll up this page and look at the Deletion of the Proposed state section section. There you will see that I stated that merge=delete. No one objected in clear words to that proposal after I suggested it. Now if you have an actual problem with the merge please state it here so we can establish a compromise.Teroamahai (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"No one objected" ? Not so. Five editors preferred that the section be kept and three preferred that it be deleted. Following your revised suggestion, one editor supported and one opposed. That is not even acquiescence, never mind consensus. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?

Why, Grutness, can editors not edit this article? Do you seriously think only administrators are capable of contributing to it? I am naturally not suggesting you have any conflict of interest here, but having recently relocated from the North Island to Otago myself, finding myself stranded on the Taieri Plains with nothing much to do, I am rather miffed that I cannot contribute my North Island wisdom to this article and be a cause of further consternation. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because of edit wars. What you can do is make the suggestions here on the talk page and we can add it to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic - I protected the page because of edit wars, as mentioned a couple of sections further up the page (it wasn't to stop Northerners!). Since I do have a minor CoI I asked a couple of uninvolved admins (User:Capitalistroadster and User:Zscout370) to check the page over, asking that they remove the protection if they thought that it was out of place. As you can see, ZScout370 has been keeping an eye on the page and seems to feel that the protection is justified. And yes, the way to proceed with adding things to the page is to add stuff here that can then be integrated into the article (after discussion if necessary). Grutness...wha? 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does there seem to be so much North Island hostility towards the idea of Southern Independence? Be as a historical fact that it has been a thing and proof from recent media ( https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/happen-south-island-independence-movement-vows-break-away ) that the movement is still alive? Being the case as you put it as 'edit wars', I for one am grateful this page is protected - The Zealandian — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZealandian (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Some data from a historical source

I've had a quick hunt through A.H. McLintock's “The History of Otago: The Origins and Growth of a Wakefield Class Settlement” for relevant citations and there's a wealth of material in separatism during the Provincial era - not just of Otago and the provincialist struggle but also relevant to South Island nationalism as it's understood today. It forms a weighty chapter - chapter 11, “The Fight for Independence”. pp. 555-627 of the book. Selected quotations:

“popular opinion in Otago had swung round to the conclusion that a political union for the colony, which disregarded the geographical division of Cook Strait, would in all probability shackle the south with financial fetters and hamper its efforts to achieve its own destiny. As if to give point to this belief, the bloody Civil War in the United States, a struggle against centralist authority, was regarded in Otago as “the sad but inevitable result of joining by artificial bonds of union countries that Nature designed should be separate.””

P. 555, citing the Otago Colonist, October 25, 1861. On Julius Vogel:

“Otago, he held, was three times as far removed from Auckland, the seat of government, as it was from Victoria or Tasmania. Better, then, for Otago to be an appanage of one of the wealthy neighbouring colonies than to be bound in uncongenial association to the embarrassed North Island which, let it be known, would find the south a useful ally but a troublesome slave.”

P. 556; citing the Otago Daily Times, January 14, 1862.

“at a great public meeting on May 10, 1862, over a thousand people warmly endorsed the principle of separation.”

P. 557; citing the Otago Daily Times, May 12 and 13, 1862.

“the Otago separationists, who regarded the Maori War as a costly and unnecessary attempt to despoil the natives of their territory, drew fresh arguments in support of their case from that protracted and unhappy struggle. Thus Macandrew, who was coming more and more to the forefront of affairs, introduced into the Provincial Council a long and involved motion, the purport of which was that, owing to the financial burden which Otago was shouldering on behalf of the North Island, a separate government should be established in the Middle Island.(2) Macandrew’s motion, however, was withdrawn in favour of a series of resolutions introduced by John Cargill who, in the course of a long speech full of weighty rhetoric, deplored the cost of a war which fell upon the inhabitants of Otago in a tenfold degree. Unless, therefore, the war could be brought to a speedy and honourable conclusion, he urged that the province of Otago should endeavour to obtain the concurrence of the other provinces of the Middle Island to a scheme for the political and financial separation of the colony into two governments, one for each island.(3)

This is from somewhere about p. 560; I forgot to note down exactly which page because I was in a bit of a hurry and making sure to cite the references within the citation instead. These are:

(2) is cited as V. and P., O.P.C., Session XIX, November 7, 1864, pp. 81-2. (3) is cited as Ibid, pp. 91-2. This last citation, in particular, should put paid to the canard that there is any particularly notable white-supremacist element to the broader movement for South Island self-determination. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Secession in New Zealand

Hi. I would suggest that the category titled 'Category:Secession in New Zealand' be added to this article. It is a category for secessionist and nationalist movements in New Zealand. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern Era

The idea of South Island independence or semi-autonomy is very real, but this article jumps from the late nineteenth century to the 1990's. There is no mention of the South Island party that campaigned through the 1970's and 1980's (though I believe it was closely aligned with the NZ Labour Party). The South Island Party under MMP era was no relation. I'm assuming the writer of this article is young and knows nothing about the older now defunct South Island party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.206.30 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

South Island Indepdence Movement

Calling this a "group" is a bit of a stretch. It's one person acting alone. There's a website that seems to be ignored, and a Facebook page reposting memes from the USA. There is no organisation or political party behind the SIIM facade. I'd say this does not meet Wikipedia's standard of noteworthiness in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:843A:5C39:9DF9:13EC:18A1:FF2F (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so tag it as such... --LJ Holden 00:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)