Talk:Stewart Island

Point Pegasus or Port Pegasus?

I see mention in this article of Point Pegasus. Is this the same place as Port Pegasus, or are the two separate?Grutness 09:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deleted text

"The people of these islands are also exempt from requirements to pay taxes, yet still receive government welfare and other services. This reflects the long-running tension between the desire of the government to retain the islands (which have major strategic importance), and the growing awareness amongst the islanders of their unique respective cultures and languages. Whether this conflict can be resolved peacefully remains to be seen." Is any of this true?

"A third, more controversial suggestion, has been made by Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: the Year China Discovered the New World. His contention, that many of the southern place-names in New Zealand show collateral evidence for the impact of cometary debris in the 1420s, has not gained widespread scientific acceptance." Is there a single serious linguist who accepts this? I doubt it. Nurg 06:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

• Reassess the article to C-class.

The article does not pass the B-class criteria #1: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which (editor added "that") is likely to be challenged is cited.

The article is in the following categories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from April 2010
• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2023

There are several unsourced sentences, sentences after a reference, that in some cases can be just a misplacement, and paragraphs. Tagged content needs to be sourced per the policy: Responsibility for providing citations (BURDEN). -- Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed much of the uncited text. It looks as though much of what remains is poorly referenced or is not an accurate summary of what the sources say. Somebody might want to work through what remains of the article - a lengthy and time consuming job. I suggest first removing some low quality sources.Roger 8 Roger (talk)

Southernmost inhabited

"The southernmost settlement in New Zealand is Oban, on Stewart Island, although there is a meteorological station on Campbell Island, though this is no longer permanently staffed since 1995." Campbell Island is currently uninhabited. If Roger 8 Roger or anyone else thinks that there is a more southerly island New Zealand owns that is inhabited, name it. Ravenswing 07:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have to name it, but you have to stop edit warring. Why not try to improve the article instead of adding trivia. What about the most westerly point, or the lowest point? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You can still name it to prove your point. What other southernmost inhabited island that's still considered part of New Zealand is there? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is trivial about this? If you have a problem with extremities then I suggest you remove them from Invercargill, The Lizard, Alaska, Karamea, Whangārei, Far North District, Wellsford, Northland Region, Garston, etc. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Extremities are fine if they are clearly notable, such as Lizard point. Steward Island is not particularly notable as the most southerly inhabited island of NZ. Reference to its southerliness might be warranted in the article but not as a firm statement of fact in the lead. Places like the Lizard are geographical points that cannot be changed unlike inhabited points that can be, thereby making them less notable. The Campbell Island lighthouse is an example of ambiguity and variation. Anyway, for Harry, Ross Island. Don't you have an atlas? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ross Island is no more the southernmost inhabited island in New Zealand than Atafu is the northernmost. It is under a different constitutional arrangement. Until such time as Hardwicke is re-established Oban will remain the southernmost settlement and Stewart Island the southernmost inhabited island. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ross Island is not a de jure part of New Zealand (only four countries recognize its claim), nor is it occupied solely by New Zealand, nor does it have a permanent non-transient population.

If you insist on edit warring in addition to doing so uncivilly, perhaps you might get your facts straight. As to your other points, as it happens, quite aside from List of extreme points of New Zealand, Cape Lovitt is the westernmost point in New Zealand, and that fact is in the lead of its article. Nugent Island is the most northerly point in New Zealand, and that fact is in the first sentence of the lead of its article. The Forty-Fours are the easternmost point, and that fact is in the first paragraph of its lead. Jacquemart Island is the southernmost point, and that fact is in the first sentence of its lead. Anything else, or would you like to dig yourself a deeper hole? If you do, try Momona. The lowest point is near there, and that fact is in its lead. (And by the bye, yes: if you're going to revert a statement claiming that it's wrong, you absolutely have to state why you think it is.)

Folks, may I presume there's a general consensus to keep that line in? Ravenswing 11:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've expanded on your point further down after being pushed, but this initial approach of removing content but refusing to elaborate is textbook disruptive. I'm pretty sure it's literally one of the examples listed on WP:GAMING. I'd suggest taking a look at how you're engaging here over such a minor and inconsequential point. Turnagra (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ravenswing's addition was unsubstantiated and IMO not of enough weight to justify a position in the first sentence, as well as being questionable as to fact, so I reverted, with enough reason given. I did not have to give more in depth reason. The next step was for him to justify his addition on talk and get consensus, not to re-reverse, but he did re-reverse. I re-re-reverted. I have done nothing wrong. I did not have to name Ross Island on the edit tag but I did name it in the more detailed talk page discussion, again following correct practice. This is another example where I am accused of disruption unjustly. The cause of this pointless discussion is that Ravenswing re-reverted me instead of waiting for consensus, thereby starting an edit war. BTW, those other extreme points are all fixed geographical, not changeable population centres. How many times has the most southerly settlement changed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you see anyone agreeing with you here? And seriously, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. You resisted naming Ross Island until you were pushed to do so, and we can all see that above. The cause of this discussion (which does have a point: establishing consensus) is, as Turnagra accurately states, you deciding that this is the hill you want to die on. Finally, what happens when the facts change on the ground? We edit the article to conform to them. Elapsed time, fifteen seconds. I suggest that you drop the stick, accept that consensus has not gone the way you want, and move on. Ravenswing 22:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any of the specifics of what has happened - personally I think there's fault on both sides with what happened. I'm talking about how, after someone has directly asked you to elaborate your reversion of their change, you responded with I don't have to name it. Regardless of who you felt was at fault or where you thought the burden of proof lies, the helpful and less antagonistic thing to do would've been to just explain your motives in a calm and friendly way. You also could have brought it to the talk page first, but didn't. Turnagra (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I could have given the name slightly earlier without sticking rigidly to being technically correct, but I didn't. We can move on as they say. Incidentally, referring to an above comment Tokelau/Atafu cannot be compared with the Ross Dependency, they have a different constitutional arrangement with NZ, which is the whole point. And to dismiss the scientists there as not 'true residents' wouldn't stand up to even minor scrutiny.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

My very words were "It is under a different constitutional arrangement."

You do not own this article. Where nobody else agrees with you as to what is relevant content you need to just suck it up and move on. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this 'discussion' is just silly. The fact that - of all of New Zealand's islands - Stewart Island is the southernmost one that is inhabited, is totally relevant to the page, and there's no reason to reduce the information content of the page by omitting it. When information is removed from a page, the burden of proof should be on the person who removed it. IMHO, the burden of proof in this case has not been met, and the deletion should be reverted. PatricKiwi (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To make this discussion less silly, and to elaborate into a more important point - I think very many articles suffer from overload, filled with what people think is important, and affected by people who don't see how an artic;e should be structired, so detail is put in the wrong place, thereby creating clutter. The question here is not that Stewart Island is the southernmost inhabited island but whether that detail should be in the first sentence. It should first be somewhere below; then consideration given to weighting - how important/notable is that fact? Does it warrant being in a summary/the lead, of the whole article?It is that sort of thinking that seems to be missing here and in very many other additions people make to articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would have no problem with mentioning this somewhere other than the lead paragraph. However, it was only a three-word phrase ("and southernmost inhabited"), and seemed to fit naturally into its sentence. Removing it from that sentence seemed strange. PatricKiwi (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You're changing the tune, Roger 8 Roger; the placement of the phrase was not at any prior point your objection. As to its weight, is (say) "third-largest island" any more important? What facts about the island are more important, and that you'd think more worthy to be in the first paragraph of the lead? Ravenswing 12:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)