Talk:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand

Category:Dominionist parties
The article needs to state this term is used to describe the party, and provide reliable source. Otherwise, the category should be removed. --Rob 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. - brenneman  {L}  03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tense
The article often, but not always, talks of CHNZ in the past tense which implies it is no longer a political party. Not being a New Zealander, I've no idea as to CHNZ's status. Is this the case? If not, the past tense should surely be removed.

You make an excellent point. Given its apparent quiescence, apart from a single instance when it referred a submission to the New Zealand Electoral Commission, it has shown little sign of life. Accordingly, I have modified the tenses to reflect its apparent demise.

User: Calibanu 14.35, 18 July 2006.


 * Um just because a political party is quiet is not evidence that they have disbanded. You can't decide for them that they have disbanded, you have to reference something that says they have disbanded, before changing the tense. - Drstuey 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that my hunch was correct anyway, and the outfit in question is now officially no more: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3817191a11,00.html

As their ex-website is no longer operative, I've deleted it from the piece as well. User: Calibanu 10.45, 4 October 2006.

Correction- it is back up again, albeit with an explanation about why they folded. Will modify entry and restore website detail accordingly.

User Calibanu 14.14, 8 October 2006.

And now it's down again, presumably for good this time, given the party's shutdown, so I've removed it again, and noted the fact in the main article.

User Calibanu 11.18, 10 November 2006.

Incidentally, I've also modified the entries on the Christian Coalition, Graham Capill and Ewen McQueen to take note of the defunct status of the party. User: Calibanu 13.06, 7 October 2006.

Rename?
As the party is now "historic", maybe we should rename this article to Christian Heritage Party, rather than Christian Heritage New Zealand. Although the latter is more recent, the former was used for most of the party's history, and is still fairly widely used unofficially. When the article was about a current party, it made sense to use the current name, but now, both names are equally defunct, and I think it makes sense to use the original, longer-lasting, and more common one, rather the one adopted in the party's last few years. Thoughts? -- Vardion 03:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. As far as I'm concerned, the difference was only ever semantic anyway. For a time it was also known as Christian Heritage Graham Capill Leader. User:Calibanu 12.45, 7 October 2006


 * In light of there being no apparent objections, I've gone ahead and moved it. -- Vardion 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)