This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Treaty of Waitangi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that New Zealand's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi(pictured), barely escaped burning in a fire, was lost for decades, and then was found in a damp basement heavily water damaged and chewed by rodents?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
One of nine extant copies (all damaged by water and rodents while in storage) of the Waitangi sheet of the Treaty of Waitangi, first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. Consequently, Lieutenant Governor William Hobson declared British sovereignty over New Zealand in May 1840. The treaty also established a British Governor of New Zealand; recognised Māori ownership of their lands, forests, and other properties; and gave the Māori the rights of British subjects. In return the Māori people ceded New Zealand to Queen Victoria, giving her government the sole right to purchase land. Owing to significant difference in the English and Māori versions, there was no consensus regarding governance. The courts long ignored the treaty, but in 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with researching British breaches of it, and suggesting means of redress.Document: William Hobson, James Freeman, and James Busby (English version); Henry Williams and Edward Williams (Māori translation)
I've added the exact text from the Engish version of the treaty, The Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty". I think it's an important detail to contast against the text of the Maori version of the treaty. I've also supplied references to this quote so I think it's an accurate quote from the English version of the treaty. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this change. Quoting the treaty in this way is basically doing original research from the primary source. We need to rely on reliable secondary and tertary sources not primary ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explan how it is it OK to quote from the second article where it guarantees to the chiefs full "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties." but not balance it with the quote from the first article saying the Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty? The section lacks balance without this. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you could discuss this with me. User_talk:Gadfium reverted the original edit saying "That wasn't an exact quote". I think it IS an exact quote and provided a reference. User talk:Stuartyeates has revered this saying I can't use that quote because it references a Primary source and later claims it's "original research". My position is that it's important to quote theexact text from the first article to go with the existing quotes from the preamble and the second article so it can be compared and contrasted with the Maori version. Can someone please explain why this is a problem. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, everyone here is a volunteer and we don't spend our whole lives on the Internet just in case someone might want to ask a question.
Why is it so important to add the exact wording of that section added to the article? The section about 'full, exclusive and undisturbed possession' is quoted because that phrase was extensively used in discourse about the Treaty in the 1980s and later.
Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply and sorry for being irritated that no one has found time to discuss this over the past few days. I'm going to reinstate the quote based on what's written above. The reason are are as stated above. I think I have answered the points raised "That wasn't an exact quote" (it is infact a direct quote) and it's not "original research" - here is a reliable source which discusses the treaty in much the same way. http://www.treaty2u.govt.nz/the-treaty-up-Close/two-parties-two-understandings/index.htm The same paragraph already quotes the treaty text from article 2 so I'm going to restore the quote from article 1 so it can be contrasted against the Maori translation. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you don't add it again without making a better case for why it should be added. You haven't explained why it is necessary, and I've explained why 'because another section is quoted' isn't a valid reason in this case. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the intro here, not the body text. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states "The lead section....serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
The word "Sovereignty" adequately summarises the phrase "rights and powers of Sovereignty", and the full quote is correctly used in context in this section within the body text. Consequently I am amending the intro. Moriori (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion but, I really don't understand what this has to do with the lead as this is well down the article. The section which was edited quotes other articles of the treaty but it seems that we can't quote this one? I also disagree that the word "Sovereignty" conveys the same understanding as "absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty". I am trying to add this text so it can stand with the existing quotes from other sections of the treaty and be compared and contrasted to the Maori translation. What do you think of the suggestions by the other participants that this is a Primary Source, Original Research or "not an exact quote"? 23:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.17.35 (talk)
You say "I really don't understand what this has to do with the lead as this is well down the article. What it has to do with the lead is that you want to put it in the lead. You are ignoring the bit about the MOS which I included above, which says the lead is a summary. Also, the term "British sovereignty over New Zealand" and "Britain sovereignty over New Zealand" both appear in the lead.Moriori (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason why 119.224's edit should not be allowed. He/she wants to quote the words in the "Meaning and interpretation" section, and a full quote should be permitted there to allow the reader to study the nuances of what the English version says. Furthermore, the sentence that immediately follows quotes the guarantee to the chiefs of "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties." The ip makes a good point in asking why the full quote from the second article of the treaty is permitted but the full quote from the first article is rejected. I support the ip. Akld guy (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case perhaps you can explain what the IP has not: why is it so important to add the exact wording of that section to the article? Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did, above. It's the "Meaning and interpretation" section. Isn't a reader helped by seeing the exact quote so the nuances can be clearly seen? Akld guy (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm disappointed that Stuartyeates and Moriori are apparently unable to join in the discussion at this time but thanks to Akld guy for taking the time to join the discussion and I see that the edit is now reinstated. Keep up the good work guys! 119.224.17.35 (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede How does it relate to the Treaty of Waitangi? All I can find is a tangential connection via New South Wales attempting to claim sovereignty over the "Aboriginal people of New Zealand" and being denied because of the Murders Abroad Act 1817[2]. Does the Murders Abroad Act specifically state that New Zealand is not part of His Majesty's Dominion as implied by citation 67 in the above source? — InsertCleverPhraseHere08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've added a bunch of citations to the article, and I've also gone through the article and added citation needed tags to the article where I think they need them to be added still. I think we have citations for some of these already in the article, and I'll work on citing those around where appropriate as well as finding new ones. In most cases they aren't necessary as the statements are supported by other linked articles, but they are going to be good to have, especially as some of the linked articles are undersourced as well. For once the issue isn't having sources, it is sifting though the shear volume of sources available to choose from. I'll come at this again tomorrow evening after work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere13:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, It took me a few days, but I've added a dozen new citations to the article (many of them cited several times). I believe that the sourcing of the article is now sufficient for GA Review to continue. — InsertCleverPhraseHere12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add more (and a better variety) of images distributed more evenly through the article. Maybe one of the treaty grounds? Maybe a map of where abouts in New Zealand it was signed? Think images that would be useful in high-school homework assignments. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots in commons. Things like Treaty House, Waitangi 20100301 1Waitangi flagg staffMaori Carvings (3347346902)Whare Runanga poupou and tukutuku 2Waitangi-warcanoe20110205 PH T1015674 0125 - Flickr - NZ Defence Force etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Waitangi. 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.
In the "Effects" section, I have been trying to change the tense in the sentence "Anticipating the Treaty, the New Zealand Company made several hasty land deals...." to "had made", but have been reverted each time by @Insertcleverphrasehere:.
The change seems justified to me because the section starts with the sentence "In November 1840 a royal charter was signed by Queen Victoria...." and is followed by: "The short-term effect of the Treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown...."
Then follows the disputed sentence which refers to the New Zealand Company's actions prior to the signing of the treaty, ie. prior to Victoria's action in November and any short term effects that might have resulted from the treaty. Therefore, we must change to "had made" because the simple past is not right and at first reading implies that the NZC's land deals chronologically followed the first two events. Akld guy (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the sentence in question to make it more clear and I also added back the 'had been'. It wasn't clear what you were talking about in the edit summaries, and I wasn't convinced at the time that adding passive was correct. Thanks for discussing here in more detail. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)05:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. It is a document of central importance to the history and political constitution of the state of New Zealand, and has been highly significant in framing the political relations between New Zealand's government and the Maori population.
The Treaty was written at a time when British colonists were pressuring the Crown toestablish a colony in New Zealand, and when some Maori leaders had petitioned the British for protection against French forces. It was drafted with the intention to to establish a British Governor of New Zealand, recognise Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other properties, and to give Māori the rights of British subjects. The Treaty is bilingual, written in Māori and English. It was intended to ensure that when the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand was made by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840, the Māori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored. Once it had been written and translated it was first signed by Northern Maori leaders, and subsequently copies were sent to Maori leaders across New Zealand for them to sign it. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, though some Maori leaders cautioned against it.[1][2] An immediate result of the Treaty was that Queen Victoria's government gained the sole right to purchase land.[3] After the initial signing at Waitangi, copies of the Treaty were taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed.[4] In total there are nine copies of the Treaty of Waitangi including the original signed on 6 February 1840.[5]
The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. Article one of the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown. Article two establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands, and establishes the exclusive right of preemption of the Crown. Article 3 gives Māaori people full rights and protections as British subjects. However, the English text andthe Māori text that was signed by the signatories differ significantly, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty. These discrepanciesled to disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually culminating in the New Zealand Wars.[6]
During the second half of the 19th century, Māori generally lost control of the land they had owned, some through legitimate sale, but often due to unfair land deals or outright seizure in the aftermath of the New Zealand War. In the period following the New Zealand War, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty and the judgment in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". Beginning in the 1950s, Māori increasingly sought to use the treaty as a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 70s were responsive to these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Māori people and the state. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with interpreting the Treaty in order to give effect to the words used in the Treaty. Its mandate was later expanded to include research into breaches of the Treaty by the British Crown or its agents back to 1840 and to suggest means of redress.[6] In most cases, recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown, but settlements totalling nearly $1 billion have been awarded to various Māori groups.[7].[6] Various legislation passed in the later part of the 20th century has made reference to the Treaty, but the treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law. Nonetheless, the Treaty is generally regarded as the founding document of New Zealand.[8][9][10]
This is my suggestion for a lead that includes most of the important points from the article as it is currently written. It probably does need some major tweaking for accuracy and language, but this illustrates the type and depth of information I think it needs and how I think it would be best organized.·maunus · snunɐɯ·10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Insertcleverphrasehere has twice reverted my change from Treaty to treaty when it's used stand-alone, on the basis that I am untrustworthy in such matters. Yet if he were to read his own souces given in this article he would see that my position is supported by, for instance, Patricia Burns in her book Fatal success, in which she writes on page 284 "Land regulations could be so framed as to take as little cognisance as possible of the Treaty of Waitingi, this idea inspired by the lie that the treaty 'has force nowhere but in the Northern Island.'" I would also argue that the MoS, while not addressing this specific example, makes it very clear when to capitalize and when not to. EricCorbett12:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not want to get into a dispute over this. But for example see:
Waitangi Revisited, Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi also uses 'Treaty', as does Ranginui Walker in Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou, Paul Moon in the path to the Treaty of Waitangi and The Treaty and its Times, and Hiwi Tauroa in Healing the Breach (although these aren't available online, I just checked the physical copies literally sitting on my desk).
I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I literally have a stack of books on my desk that all use the capital. Do all sources use 'Treaty'? I guessnot. But it seems the vast majority of experts on the subject do, and the style of using the capital has been in the article for quite some time (far before I started editing it), if applied a bit inconsistently. If it helps, think of 'the Treaty' being a shortening of 'the Treaty of Waitangi' (if there are any capitalised versions that are not shortenings, they should not be capitalised and are a typo).
It doesn't help and it's just plain wrong, but let's see what other editors think. To answer your question, I didn't have the time to look for all the stand-alone instances of treaty before you started reverting. EricCorbett15:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally prefer 'Treaty' to 'treaty', as 'Treaty of Waitangi' is a proper name, but it matters less which version you choose to go with than it does to keep the style consistent within the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a deeper consistency though, between WP articles. Take a look at Treaty of Versailles for instance, which correctly does not capitalize the word treaty when it's used stand-alone, although it's not entirely internally consistent. EricCorbett19:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My change to "treaty" several times in one section was also reverted by Insertcleverphrasehere. To me, it's very clear. The word treaty is not a formal title when used alone, and should not be capitalized. It's perfectly clear from the context which treaty is being referred to, so "treaty" is appropriate, unless the sentence is a direct quote, e.g. from Orange, in which case the sentence will be enclosed in quotes or some other formatting. Akld guy (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, my reversion of both of you is less a desire to be right than to keep the article consistent with the system that it had to start with. Before I reverted you, I looked in this stack of books and all used 'Treaty'. And since I have looked, the majority of academic sources do seem to use a capital T. Hits on the first page of Google Scholar are much the same. From what I can see there is no rule in grammar that says that the word has to be capitalised, but I'm not sure how this can be "very clear" to anyone, given that there are a stack of books by experts on the subject that you are in effect calling wrong. Grammar sources online seem clear as mud, as they generally say that it should not be capitalised "unless you are referring to a specific treaty", which could be interpreted either way. I think this is one of those cases where English grammar rules just aren't very clear one way or the other (which would explain why some sources don't and some do). In any case, WP:MOSCAPS is entirely unclear about rules for shortened titles of works (the most relevant sections are probably THIS, THIS, and THIS but none of them are clear). However, MOSCAPS does say: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. If you can prove to me that the majority of reliable sources on the Treaty of Waitangi use the lower case, I'm happy to change it myself, but that is not what I am seeing currently. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)19:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSCAPS, scroll down to "Institutions", look at "Generic words". The correct version is shown as The university offers programs in arts and sciences. and the capitalized "U" is explicitly said to be wrong. Here, university is referring to a specific university. In our article, treaty when used alone refers to a specific entity and should be uncapitalized. Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Equating those two scenarios is not the same. While both are proper nouns, the Treaty is not an institution or organisation, it is a document. In law scholarship there are some odd conventions regarding capitalisation when referring to documents (for example see: #3 on this page), which is possibly where the convention comes from originally. MOSCAPS is clear (see above) that we should follow the style used in the "majority of independent, reliable sources". Though it does say that it should be a 'substantial majority' of such sources, and that it shouldn't be capitalised otherwise. I am currently seeing "a substantial majority" of high quality sources using 'Treaty', but there are hundreds of books on the subject, so it is possible, albeit unlikely, that I ended up with a biased sample set by coincidence with the sample of books that I got out of the library and the books that are view-able in Google books on the first few pages. Once again, if I am wrong about the number of sources using the capital, I'm happy to change it, but the evidence seems pretty clear at the moment in favour of 'Treaty'. I agree that this is a super odd situation, that kind of falls through the grammar cracks of title case.
Authors may be experts on the Treaty of Waitangi, but they are not experts on any kind of manual of style, so let's take a different tack. How, for instance does the Encyclopedia Britannica refer to the treaty? Exactly as Akld guy and I have suggested: "In May 1840 Britain annexed all of New Zealand, the North Island on the basis of the Waitangi treaty ...". In other words that exactly parallels the example given in the MoS concerning the capitalization of king: "Louis XVI was a French king". The reliable sources you need to be looking at when considering capitalization are not subject-matter experts but reliable tertiary sources. EricCorbett01:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, following the guideline, it specifically refers to how the subject is capitalised in reliable sources about that topic. MOSCAPS:words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. We therefore should be looking directly at how subject matter experts format it in their publications, in addition to reliable tertiary sources. It is true that the Treaty of Waitangi article at Britannica (which is an incredibly brief and misleading article by the way) does use the lower case, but if you look at the bottom of that article, there is a link to another article "New Zealand: Annexation and further settlement" (which is behind a paywall) and in the snippet shown, it clearly uses 'Treaty'. So even EB isn't consistent across its articles. However, Te Ara encyclopedia uses the lower case and seems very consistent among all the articles that mention the Treaty of Waitangi. Interestingly, the main article on the Treaty there was written by Claudia Orange, who uses the capital in her own books, and the article on the principles was written by Janine Hayward, who also uses the capital in Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi. Additionally, the article at Te Ara about the settlement process was written by Richard S Hill who also uses the capital in his book. All this might indicate it as an editorial decision of Te Ara. Interesting to say the least. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've given you my opinion, and I'm absolutely certain that I'm right. But it seems that I'm not going to change your opinion on the correct capitalization, so I'll have to leave it there. But it's a very nice article in any event. EricCorbett02:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am aware of that bug. Better than the other 'hidden' templates, which don't have 'show' but also don't unexpand by default (making it impossible to see the text at all). I'll look into a hidden template that works on mobile. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Does it need to be hidden? I've added a quotebox at 80% width for those on desktop, and for which a border will show up to set it off on mobile. I also added a |title=, similar to what you had for the hidden template, but removed it because it said the same thing as your third-level header. Thoughts? Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hate it. Looks fine. It was originally set to hidden before I expanded the sections and when they were right next to each other, but it looks fine now with the explanatory sections breaking it up between the versions. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly the same as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.
In Penguin History of NZ Michael King writes
The Ati Awa chief Te Wharepouri told William Wakefield that when he had participated in the sale of land to the New Zealand Company he had been expecting about ten Pakeha, to settle around Port Nicholson, one Pakeha for each pa. When he saw the more than 1,000 settlers who stepped off the company’s ships, he panicked. It was beyond anything that Te Wharepouri had imagined.”
This view challenges the notion that the Treaty as a "foundation stone" for the modern state. King's Te Wharepouri quote seems to back it up?Yonk (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may sum up the situation at Port Nicholson (which we now call Wellington), but the first chiefs who signed were in the Far North District, up around the Bay of Islands. Pakeha were far more numerous up there, weren't they? That's why Russell was made the capital. You'd have to ask why all those northern chiefs signed if they had reservations about the number of Pakeha already there with more to come. It was only later that copies of the Treaty were taken around the country for signing. Akld guy (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy. Are you serious? At that time there were only 2000 Non Maori in NZ. Even if they were all in the Bay of Islands in roles integrated with Maori, I can't imagine the chiefs had any idea of numbers. By 1858 there were as many Pakeha as Maori.Yonk (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't made reference to all chiefs. You've picked out a statement by one chief in order to make a POV declaration. To balance it, you'd need to state that other chiefs, particularly those first ones in the Far North, signed apparently without reservation, or with similar reservations as the case may be. If you're intending to add content stating that the chiefs unwittingly signed away their sovereignty, you'd better do it properly. Akld guy (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intending to attempt to edit the article but there must be some references to the chiefs expectations about the number of Pakeha who would live amongst them? Yonk (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kia Ora, My name is Hemopereki Simon and I am a researcher affiliated to The University of Wollongong and Charles Sturt University. In 2017 I wrote a journal article that is considered the new discourse on the treaty. Please read https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4 In the next six months there will be three more articles which support this one. I want to improve this page. It is lacking Maori perspective and writing by Maori academics which would led me to question the neutrality and authority of the article. Your whitewashing the Maori understandings of the treaty. So lets work together to improve it.
Lets start: In a year one treaty paper at any University in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia we teach that that it is more then mistranslation. Both documents Te Tiriti o Waitangi and The Treaty of Waitangi are in reality two different documents altogether. In the notes of the article I wrote:
The Treaty of Waitangi (English version) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Reo Māori version) are accepted to be two very different documents, due to their content and understandings. For more information, refer to Ani Mikaere, ‘Te Tiriti and the Treaty’, 123–146. He Whakaputanga is also refered to as The Declaration of Independence in English is an important constitutional document that led to the eventual creation of Te Tiriti.
@Hemopereki:, This sort of article isn't the place to publish 'new discourse on the Treaty'. This sort of article should follow the lead of other highly respected tertiary sources, not summarise new writings by unknown authors. In short, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The section on 'differences' covers this already in any case, and clearly states that the two translations are significantly different in meaning from each other. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemopereki:,With regards to Mutu, her work is cited in the 'differences' section, and the Maori view of 'completely different texts' was never removed. I have added a bit more here on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the different treaty texts. I've made some compromise edits with regards to changing 'version' to 'text' wherever it refers to the different language translations of the Treaty and re-adding some information from Margaret Mutu (paraphrased rather than quoted) as well as some information on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the texts differently. Please discuss additional changes you would like here, and it would be better to propose specific changes, rather than generic complaints. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The core problem with this article is that all the comments except Dr Simon are deeply racist and white supremacist. The best accepted translation of "kāwangatanga" in Aotearoa today is "apartheid" (or "Jim Crow",
but really "apartheid" is closer).
Wikipedia should think about how what an NPoV on South Africa in say 1990 would be and apply a similar lens to Aotearoa. 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Jameskjx (talk)
for criticism on the lack of recognition of this legal principle:
The consistent redefinition of Te Tiriti by the judiciary questions their role in the suppression and subjugation of iwi and hapu by implementing the law. Although it may seem progressive, The New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General case, if seen from a non-signatory hapu and iwi perspective, can only be described as an attempt by a white possessive society to subjugate these groups further. This is made worse by the lack of recognition (for the common law doctrine around treaties and contracts) of contra perferentem. This is acknowledged as being applicable to Te Tiriti but has not been implemented by the government due to its potential ramifications for the white possessive state. Ultimately, the judiciary and its decisions are consistent and desperate attempts by the white possessive state in Aotearoa New Zealand to deny hapu and iwi their history and lived experiences as non-signatory hapu and iwi. In doing this they seek to void tikanga and its key principles surrounding mana being: mana whenua and mana motuhake.[1]
^Simon, Hemopereki (2017). Te Arewhana Kei Roto i Te Rūma: An Indigenous Neo-Disputatio on Settler Society, Nullifying Te Tiriti, ‘Natural Resources’ and Our Collective Future in Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Kaharoa 9 (1), https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4
Simon, Hemopereki (2017). Te Arewhana Kei Roto i Te Rūma: An Indigenous Neo-Disputatio on Settler Society, Nullifying Te Tiriti, ‘Natural Resources’ and Our Collective Future in Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Kaharoa. 9 (1), https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4
Malcolm Mulholland and Veronica Tawhai (2017). Weeping Waters: The Treaty of Waitangi and Constitutional Change. Wellington: Huia.
Katarina Gray-Sharp and Veronica Tawhai (2011). Always Speaking: The Treaty of Waitangi and Public Policy. Wellington: Huia.
Jones, Carwyn (2017). New Treaty, New Tradition: Reconciling New Zealand and Maori Law. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Texts in the 'further reading' section should be widely cited texts, not very recent texts which haven't had time yet for people to widely discuss them. Putting a journal article written by yourself on that list is definitely not appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the Treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law."
This isn't correct, and is contradicted by the sentences after it (the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975). It also ignores the massive body of case law that has come about over the years (which is regarded as part of municipal law, esp since New Zealand is a Common Law country). It is true to say (however) that the Treaty isn't part of statute law other than as a schedule to the 1975 Act. That is what the wording should be. --HuttValley (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Matthew Palmer's book as a reference and will (if I get a chance today during my lunch break!) add in references to where the Treaty is part of New Zealand's law. I suspect what the sentence is trying to get across that the Treaty is not strictly part of NZ's constitutional law. --LJ Holden20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted Whareras removal of this. The URL he provided in his edit summary looks pretty compelling - but this 'fact' is so much of the story as understood by many - and apparently baked by A C. Orange ref - that we should not simply zap it, but instead give both sides, via some sort of "..as widely believed, but in fact looks pretty shaky" explanation. - Snori (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right then. I have Claudia Orange's The Treaty of Waitangi on my bookshelf, so it's easy enough to check what she had to say about this detail. I found it on page 55 (my edition was printed in 2004):
As each Maori signed, he shook hands with Hobson (and with the other members of the official party), the Lieutenant Governor repeating, 'He iwi tahi tatou' – 'We are now one people.'
One of the details that's missing from this article is the signing locations of the various copies. I see that Orange (1987) has a map and a location list for the first eight copies. The printed list is not included there (and I haven't read up on why it's not). To me, this would be a useful addition to this article. In fact, given that we are talking eight separate documents (plus the printed copy, which Orange says may have gone round in 1844), all with their individual stories, this may lend itself to a standalone article. We should also do related work on Commons and on Wikidata. This won't be straightforward at all; for example, in her list, Orange refers to Akaroa. That's not very precise, as the treaty was signed at Ōnuku Marae. What do others think? Schwede6601:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working my way through cleaning up the references. It's a bit of a challenge given some of the references don't have page numbers. --LJ Holden22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LJ Holden, Yeah, It was an issue during the GA review as well, I tried adding page numbers to refs that I added, but there were a lot of older references in different styles. There is a digital version of Claudia Orange's book available online though, if that helps. [3] — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)07:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If page numbers are missing, record "p=?" in the sfn template. I have Orange's book on my bookshelf and could do some winter reading... Schwede6610:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66 - cool, I've done my best reading through Orange's book plus the Illustrated Guide, there's a few other references that still need to be tidied up which I'll get on to over the next week or so as I get time. I also think we need to cover the "Crown" --LJ Holden04:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on cleaning up references on this article... does anyone know which book "P.Lowe. The French and The Maori, Heritage 1990." actually is? there are a few with similar / same titles according to Google, but with different authors and different dates.--LJ Holden00:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This bird may have flown years ago, but The French and the Maori (Heritage, 1992) contains a chapter, "French land purchases" by Peter Low. Nurg (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language) at WikiSource
For those interested in material history, specifically the Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language text), it has been transcluded to Wikisource. The source has been proofread, but requires validation on its Page. Te Karere (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: this article identifies the Waikato-Manukau Sheet as a "copy". As it is in the English language, this would be an inaccurate description.Te Karere (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Treaty,that being the Treaty written in Maori. The supposed English Treaty has no legal standing, so can be ignored for the purposes of this wikipedia article. Under international law (Vienna convention on treaties. I will provide details later) if there is any confusion/difference in interpretation between two conflicting versions of a treaty, then the treaty written in the language of the indigenous people is the lawful treaty.Thus no mention should be made of an English language version of the Treaty, as by law no English language version exists.
A suitable backtranslation of the Treaty into English is that done by Hugh Kawheru(?spelling? sorry, this is done from memory) for the Waitangi Tribunal's He whakaputanga me te Tiriti report.
Hugh Kawheru's translation shows Maori gave governance to the British Crown, not sovereignty.
On a different note, concerning the legal standing of the Treaty; The Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.That is the finding of Privy Council decision AC 308. The reason for this is that the Treaty was never ratified by the British parliament. Thus the Treaty only has legal force when incorporated in Acts of the New Zealand parliament.I believe Article two has been incorporated in some legislation, but not Article one. Most references to the Treaty in NZ legislation do not actually refer to the Treaty, but refer to the "principles" of the Treaty, which is not the same thing as the Treaty.Article one is particularly problematic for the NZ state as Article one guarantees Rangatira sovereignty, so it is unlikely Article one will ever be part of NZ law.
Concerning references to the Treaty as NZ's founding document, this is false and misleading.By Court of Appeal decision NZ Maori Council v Attorney General(1987 I believe) NZ's foundational documents are Hobson's proclamations.
I suggest explaining on the wikipedia site why there is no lawful English version of the Treaty, and why the Maori language Treaty is the only Treaty.
I suggest explaining that most(or all) NZ legislation does not recognise/give legal force to the Treaty, but rather recognises the "principles" of the Treaty.
I suggest explaining that the Privy Council has found the Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.(will check exact wording of decision)
I suggest explaining that Hobson's proclamations are currently regarded by the NZ courts as having established British sovereignty in this land.210.48.190.70 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Stuartyeates @user:119.224.17.35 et al. I changed the wording today to reflect more closely what his orders were, with those orders added as a reference. This could be seen as OR by me but it is closer to the orders, obviously, than the interpretation I changed. The exam questions at the side are concerning because they lead the student to a particular preferred response. The orders say Maori had sovereignty but only if certain conditions existed, which it says did not exist, hence meaning IMO that sovereignty did not exist. If sovereignty did not exist it could not be ceded, obviously. The subsequent actions and both texts of the treaty are closer to the idea of a recognition of UK sovereignty (that the UK would simply declare) than of Maori ceding its sovereignty. Much of the sources used to back the notion of Maori ceding sovereignty are low quality unreliable or poorly interpreted. We have to be very careful to be very neutral. See the second section above from 2017. An IP quotes from the treaty that Maori ceded sovereignty. "The Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty" If they did not have the rights and powers of sovereignty Maori could not have ceded them, and Normanby's orders make it clear the UK govt thought Maori did not have sovereignty (that the UK thought under 'normal' conditions they would have had.) If this strictly speaking is my OR interpretaion, it is no different from what is there now. I think some quality academic sources, properly interpretedband quoted should be used, not the various non-independent ones we often use.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Te Tiriti o is obviously a creole or pidgin of the English phrase “The Treaty of”, not pre-colonial Māori. That, or the coincidence is astronomically unlikely. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in the Article it is stated: "Increasingly, the treaty is recognised as a founding document in New Zealand's developing unwritten constitution." Sources 14, 15 & 16 are cited in support. This suggests that there could be multiple founding documents. Later in the article it is stated about the Treaty: "It is nevertheless regarded as the founding document of New Zealand." This suggests that there is only one founding document of New Zealand. Sources 14 & 206 are given in support. However, source 14 says: "Increasingly, New Zealand's constitution reflects the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document of government in New Zealand." As some sources say that the Treaty is a founding document while other sources say that it is the founding document, I propose that we put both viewpoints together in the second sentence by saying: "It is nevertheless regarded as either a founding document of New Zealand or the founding document of New Zealand." Sources 14, 15, 16 and 206 would support this altered sentence. I have not found other examples on official websites of other countries having only one founding document. For example, the official USA websites will list at least three different founding documents for the USA: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. KentLStevens (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "a founding document" accurately reflects the sources. I can't access all of the sources, but the ones I can don't present it as the sole founding document. Furius (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some good points. I think the problem is the meaning of a founding document. It can be official and precise or unofficial and abstract. The latter is the one to apply to the treaty. The former, I think, was the establishment of NZ as a Crown Colony. The first sentence sums it up - the treaty as part of the national mythos (making it a bedrock of NZ society today, hence an unofficial founding document) Personally I would be very wary of anything published by the govt, directly or indirectly. That includes te papa. It is not a properly independent source. I don't think your sentence should be used without a RSS because it is only your opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal two would be to modify the second sentence to say "a" instead of "the". The second sentence would then read as "It is nevertheless regarded as a founding document of New Zealand." Sources 14, 15 and 16 would be used as citations. However, there appears to be at least some academic sources such as with 206 that say "the founding document". Even academic sources might casually state popular misconceptions such as "Napoleon was short". KentLStevens (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again, more carefully. Source 206 is from the Waitangi Tribunal (the one the govt is trying to get rid of because it's gone beyond its mandate). I would not use it as an independent reliable source. I think anything referring to any of its statements should be clearly marked as its opinion or legal decision. IMO, the media and society use the tribunal's decisions and statements to say what (the media and society) are sure really did or did not happen in the past. So, remove source 206 and the treaty being THE founding document is unsupported. If there are other sources that use 'the' we should check them carefully. We could also use wp:weight to see just how evenly spread 'a' and 'the' are, Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 206, Michael Palmer is currently a judge. He also happens to be the son of former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. It would be best not to use the opinions of judges to represent how the Treaty of Waitangi is generally regarded in New Zealand. One concern is that judges opinions around the Treaty of Waitangi are inconsistent. Politician opinions should also not be used to represent how the Treaty of Waitangi is generally regarded. Professional NZ historians should be more reliable Wikipedia sources than judges in general. Professional NZ historian Paul Moon has written a book called "New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents". This book has been cited for sources 24, 29 and 90 in this Wikipedia article. While there being 50 founding documents for NZ is debatable, this book shows Moon stating that there are multiple founding documents for NZ. KentLStevens (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Moon in his book "New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents" includes some of the following items as NZ's founding documents:
- Declaration of Independence
- Treaty of Waitangi, Busby's draft
- Treaty of Waitangi, English version
- Treaty of Waitangi, Māori version
- New Zealand declared a Crown colony (Queen Victoria's Royal Charter)
I cannot disagree with you. There is an interesting published article somewhere about the treaty that is used as a WP source but I cannot remember where. It highlights the different approaches to analysing the past taken by historians and by lawyers, which results in different conclusions being reached about the same past event. The treaty IMO is a good example of this. From what I've read by Paul Moon he says there is not and can not ever be an answer to what the Treaty means, which runs contrary to what the tribunal is doing with all its decisions. The media and the public latch on to those decisions as if they are in fact what the treaty said. Hence we get people demanding their treaty rights, not realising that nobody knows what exactly those rights were, despite what the tribunal says. I would be happy to remove all sources except those from quality history academics but I don't think that would be popular. Incidentally, there is a history professor who regularly appears in the media promoting Maori treaty rights which seems to run contrary to the approach of other historians such a Paul Moon. I believe he and the Tribunal are not natural bed-fellows but I don't have evidence available. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change 'the' to 'a', I for one won't object: Moon as a source IMO trumps everything else. I think reference to the national mythos should stay though.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will change 'the' to 'a' and keep the reference to the national mythos. This is consistent with having a general professional historian viewpoint.
I acknowledge that the first paragraph of the Treaty of Waitangi Wikipedia article refers to the Treaty as 'a' document of central importance and that the Treaty document is 'an' agreement.
Other Wikipedia articles on similarly important historical documents, that are associated with national myth, also use 'a' or refer to there being multiple founding documents. Example statements about other historical documents, from Wikipedia articles about those documents, using truncated wording are:
- Magna Charta ("Great Charter"), is 'a' royal charter of rights
- the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other American 'founding documents'
I have now checked the judge's book: Palmer, Matthew (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's Law and Constitution. Palmer says on p. 24. "The Treaty is acknowledged to be an important founding document which does not, of itself, mostly, have direct legal effect at the moment." KentLStevens (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to have gone well off course and is full of tangential detail. A problem is that much of it is sourced making it difficult to thin out easily by scalping sections. Some citations are from good RSS's but many are not, coming from not properly independent pro-Maori sources or are just generally low grade sources. My suggestion is that someone spends time taking out a lot of the text and re-arranging what is left into a better structure. Some sources would have to be removed as well.Consensus is needed to do that I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stamps gone. Also removed is a sentence inserted into the first paragraph of the lead which was misleading and out of place. Its source is traced back to [4] AWEA, whose aim is "..the advancement, encouragement, and provision of adult and community education that promotes a just and equitable society, in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
background history section can be much shorter - it is in history of NZ. Maybe a summary or maybe limiting it to the hstiroy that relates to the treaty? Drew Stanley (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have cut out a lot of the first paragraph. It takes time doing this because some references might be relevant and have to be checked and removed with care so as not to break links with an earlier source. I think the structure could be re-done, focusing less on the contemporary consequences of the treaty, much of which is not actually about the treaty. Those off-shoots have their own articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger Hi - yes great to get consensus and to update/ improve this article.
I'm hoping to find some time to be detailed with it - as you say it needs to be careful because of all the sources. I'll post in this thrxxx once I've had a look / before editing. Pakoire (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to start editing the Context and background section and edit out some of the detail. For example there is a lot of detail about Christianity in an early paragraph and also Hobson's visit. Currently it is British-centric and this section would be strengthened by a more neutral tone. Pakoire (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed some off-topic detail. I looked again at the history section that forms a large part of this article, and thought I had better things to do just now than wade through it! It looks like a lot of it, but not all, is correctly sourced detail but slanted to stress a pro-Mauri opinion, which makes it hard to unwind. Much of it is probably not needed anyway because it yet again goes off course and gives too much weight to things like Grey's administration. I had earlier added an opening paragragh about treaty making with indiginous people by Britain in the 19thC. I think that is important to help put Waitangi in context - as it was seen at the time of signing. I think that is often overlooked in isolated and inward looking NZ where the treaty - as it has become now where it has taken on a life of its own - is currently judged. The tribunal and its decisions and principles is giving no more than one of many opinions about the treaty. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pakoire Your recent reversals of my addition say I am putting in original research not backed by the source given. Please see this quote from page 9. “Whereas in New Zealand,for example, descriptions of the population and formidable Maori as cultivated capable of rudimentary government would qualify them as interlocutors with whom treaties could be concluded, in Australia the Europeans eventually excluded the possibility of concluding a treaty protocol with the allegedly scare and weak Australian Aborigines after decades of debate.”
Looking at the parts you removed below and what I used in the source to write them..
Powerful = …’and formidable Maori’…
Far more numerous = ‘descriptions of the population… would qualify them as interlocutors… ‘ That means there were a lot of Maori compared to British, meaning enforcing the British will be force would be difficult to do, hence a treaty would be a better approach. Populations in the 1830s were about 2,000 v 100,000. Not mentioned here but in many other sources - is this population estimate really disputed?
Civilised – “as cultivated capable of rudimentary government would qualify them as interlocutors” Cultivated means they farmed, grew food and were not entirely hunter gathers. That was/is a mark of being civilised. Not the more usual meaning of the word today as being a negative description. Rudimentary govt means they could collectively make decisions, in a basic form, that affected them all. See the petitions and united tribes documents of the 1830s as an example. Without that ability they could not make a protocol/agreement/treaty with the British, or anyone. It was the British who wanted Maori to have that ability to make collective decisions/agreements, not the other way round, as it is often portrayed today.
‘By Britian’ Unnecessary in context here. Its insertion shows an opinion by trying to make a point that it was only the British who had this view and that other people did not see Maori in the same light in the 1830s.
Weak Aborigines – ‘…allegedly scarce weak Australian Aborines…’ As well as being undisputed now, even if it is, ie making the descrition of aboriginals only alleged, the terms ‘scarce and weak’ was how it was considered in the 1830s.
My original paragraph should be reinserted otherwise it is not an accuarte reflection of the source. I'm not sure if you have grasped the point of the paragraph I inserted as putting the treaty in a wider context of how it was seen at the time by one side of the treaty, the one that wrote it, not as how it is seen today. At the time, Waitangi was only one of many treaties with indigenous peoples around the world by the British. See Canada and west Africa as examples, meantioned in the source. Waitangi is not a particularly unique of special event in the wider context. It has taken on that special status in NZ since it was signed but that is a different subject, dealt with in most of the test of this article - to excess as I think most editors agree, hence thinning out this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this and think that the point you want the paragraph to make about British views is an important one. However, the paragraph should make the point explicitly, rather than by implication - as it was written, it is not surprising that Pakoire didn't see the point that you intended for it to make. Furius (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the comment Furius. Would it be clearer to start with "Although the treaty took on a special meaning in NZ society after it was signed, and is usually refered to simply as "The Treaty", at the time it was signed, for the British, treaty making by European powers with indigenous peoples had always been common but not universal practice in empire building.[17]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:E James Bowman, IMO your re-insertion of deleted text is a good example of why this article is not the best it could be. IMO, it should be deleted in full and re-written. However, why have you put that text back? You say it is well sourced, but that is irrelevant if what the source talks about something else, which in this case the sources mostly do. Here's one of your paragraphs: Māori generally respected the British, partially due to their relationships with missionaries and also due to Britain's status as a major maritime power, which had been made apparent to Māori travelling outside New Zealand. While heading the parliamentary campaign against the British slave-trade for twenty years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, William Wilberforce co-championed the foundation of the Anglican Church Missionary Society (CMS) in 1799, with other members of the Clapham Sect – determined to improve the treatment of indigenous people by the British. This led to the establishment of the Christian mission in New Zealand, which saw laymen arriving from 1814 to teach building, farming and Christianity to Māori, as well as training Māori ministers. It makes bland statements. Where is the connection with the Treaty? Please read wp:SYNTH. This entire paragraph should't be there unless something is added that connects all these isolated statements with the Treaty. What on earth has the 1807 Slave Trade act got to do with the treaty? Whoever wrote this is forming a link in their mind, making it original research. It might be that the source makes that connection and the person who added this statement has omittted the critical connection made by the source, but that is down to not understanding what the source is saying. Anyway, IMO, the best way to deal with this article is to re-write it in full. That should be done by one person initially, without others chipping in and messing up any structure that is being created. In the short term though, why add more clutter to the existing clutter? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.JPG)
Done — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
