Talk:Treaty of Waitangi: Difference between revisions

Line 179: Line 179:

::Once again, this article should be significantly altered or re-written from scratch. Including the full treaty text in both languages is just one example of why this should be done. About that one example, which is being discussed here, we should view its inclusion differently and not as part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry that has taken root in NZ. What is it about the full version that warrants its inclusion? Nothing, and certainly not for a full Maori version, in this English language article. Do we have the full text of the Treaty of Versailles, in all its language versions? So, the treaty’s notability is that it has affected NZ society in numerous ways. Remember, it is not a treaty in the same way that Versailles was – it has no direct legal relevance. The more specific relevance of the two versions is that they were probably understood differently by both sides in 1840. Speculation about those different interpretations has spawned a growing circular industry in NZ, which most editors here have joined. It often justifies itself by referring to small specific parts of the treaty whose precise meaning in both versions appears to differ slightly. Those words or phrases are what should be quoted in this article, not the full texts, with an explanation of why those sentences/words were those to differ in meaning when the treaty was signed. The vast majority of the treaty is not about disputed interpretations, something that should be made clear. What the three parts mean can be neatly summarised – that is all that is warranted in this article, plus quotes of specific phrases. There should be links to the full versions, that is all. The three summaries should be about land transfer, UK citizenship, and overall authority. The meaning of authority (sovereignty etc) is the only area of dispute. Land seizure in the Maori Wars and later recompense through the Waitangi Tribunal is not a dispute about the treaty. Even if you view this as a simple weighting issue, there is no reason to insert both full versions. Furious, what complicated issues about the treaty? The complicated issues are those created by the treaty industry, not the treaty itself. The undisputed grievances that arose in the 19th century are those about the effect of the different interpretations and of what authority meant. Those effects had consequences, but those effects are not complicated, not unless you try to make them complicated, which is what the treaty industry, and editors here, are trying to do. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

:::As R8R is trying to offend most editors here (“spawned a growing circular industry in NZ, which most editors here have joined”), I suggest we can safely ignore their talk page contributions. ”'[[User:Schwede66|Schwede]][[User talk:Schwede66|66]]”’ 04:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

::: There is no such thing as a “treaty industry”. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 04:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

:I can’t think of any other articles that is about a treaty or similar document that includes the entirety of it in the prose. I think it could be displayed along the side like images are, but I think the entire thing in prose is excessive and contrary to the MOS. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 02:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

:: Other (much longer) documents indeed do, and where they are too long for a single article they are split into articles featuring the text and commentary on their constituent parts. See for example [[Article One of the United States Constitution]]. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 04:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 20, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 25, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
November 13, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted
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?
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “On this day…“ column on February 6, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2018, February 6, 2020, and February 6, 2022.
Current status: Delisted good article

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)

– New Zealand Constitution Act

Note that there were 1846 and 1852 versions of the New Zealand Constitution Act. KentLStevens (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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’

– The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is ‘a’ human civil rights document from the French Revolution KentLStevens (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You could start with removing stuff not sourced to a secondary source such as the stamps. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 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 [1] 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]

looks good. The source ofr the following paragraph looks like it would have some bias. What is relevant from that paragraph to keep? Drew Stanley (talk) 05:53, 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]

Hi, I’ve restructured that para and changed a link to add clarity. E James Bowman (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A common issue, in my experience, about treaty debates is whether The Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tīriti of Waitangi can be considered translations of each other or distinct documents to be considered separate from each other. Legally, there’s only one ‘treaty’ [2] but the history of treaty settlements and debate have made this issue quite murky. For example, the stage 1 report of the WAI1040 claim found that Ngāpuhi didn’t cede sovereignty [3] – a finding clearly at odds with the English text if reo Māori text is to be considered only a translation. The intro to this article describes the name “Te Tīriti o Waitangi” as a translation, and whilst I wouldn’t go as far as to say this makes the article biased, it does gloss over a critical point of the debate around the treaty. Scuzzii (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This argument makes no sense. A translation does not need to be 1 for 1 in meaning to be considered a translation. There is an entire section of the article that goes over the differences between the translations – it is not simply glossed over. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m talking about specifically in the intro; titling the article is about “The Treaty of Waitangi” and posing “Te Tīriti o Waitangi” as a translation antecedent to The Treaty inherently puts a relationship between the two as Te Tīriti being dependent on The Treaty. If we want to describe the complicated relationship between two throughout the article, it should be critically considered as to how we describe the relationship between the two at any point it comes up. I’m not saying scrap everything and rewrite it, but to not mention the question in the article is a failure to describe the real debates that exist about te Tīriti and The Treaty. Scuzzii (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead just says what the name for the Treaty of Waitangi is in Maori. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the differences in understanding, so I’m not sure why you are saying it isn’t mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meerkat77 I think it is best for you to discuss your proposed changes here before continuing to make them as your edits mostly just introduce confusing sentences that make little sense. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they made good sense as I edited. Can you tell me why they don’t more specifically? I honestly do want to know.

Re: “The treaty’s quasi-legal status satisfies the demands of biculturalism in contemporary New Zealand society.”

I took this sentence out because it is not a statement of fact supported by any secondary source; it seems maybe to be taken generally from the cited article by Erich Kolig? But in the “lead” context, it is very misleading for several reasons. The supposedly “quasi-legal status” of the treaty is an opinion (not a fact, not from any source); but more importantly, “satisfies the demands of biculturalism in contemporary New Zealand society” seems at best to be very awkwardly worded, and it begs a lot of questions–“satisfies the demands” implies there is a “demand of biculturalism” to begin with, and this idea does not seem to be leading to further development elsewhere in the article below. Why is it in the lead? Meerkat77 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to it as not being a treaty in international law is easier to understand for a layman than a compact.

I checked the source specifically for the claim about biculturalism. Page 245 says: ‘The perception, now widely extant in official circles, that the privileged position of Maori traditions is anchored in the Waitangi Treaty, ultimately seems to have only a very loose basis in legal precedence’ which supports the claim. If you think the claim shouldn’t be in the lead that is fine but your stated reason was not being supported the citation.

‘which legally inspired a series of Treaty settlements’, I’m not quite sure what legal inspiration is supposed to be, it also omits that the treaty’s modern interpretation is likely not what was intended by the Crown in 1840.

Quasi-legal itself is fine, the treaty isn’t an act or legally binding document but acts of parliament reference and refer to it. And I have no idea why you mentioned a republic, New Zealand is not a republic. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Republic.

“Compact” is the word used in the source (Fox), in the conclusion, after a very long discussion of why this both is and isn’t officially a “treaty.” So the source does not support the contention that the Treaty is not a “treaty”–Fox’s article literally discusses the extent to which it is or could be a legal entity. So a sentence in the lead about how it is really not a legal treaty does not seem to capture the source’s claim–and there’s argument on this point below in the article, too. Some sources later cited do assume it was a legal treaty, even if the Crown didn’t say that in 1840 in the English version. “Quasi-legal” seems like an overstatement to me. And the phrasing “likely not what was intended by the Crown in 1840” really does feel tendentious to me.

“Satisfies the demands of biculturalism” doesn’t appear as a concept in the source, from what I have read–although maybe you can find a better locus? “Privileged position of Maori traditions” is not the same, since there could be many other “privileged” or “non-privileged” cultures in NZ.

“Legally inspired a series of Treaty settlements” is explained by the source that I linked to (but which was just removed). The official NZ government page explains the settlements as ways of addressing the various infringements of the Treaty over time, in courts and by laws. Meerkat77 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A compact isn’t a treaty, referring to it as such very much suggests it isn’t legally a treaty.

>”Quasi-legal” seems like an overstatement to me

How-so? It is not a legal document such as an act but does have an effect on other pieces of legislation as if it were legal.

>doesn’t appear as a concept in the source

It does, I told you the page.

>”Privileged position of Maori traditions” is not the same, since there could be many other “privileged” or “non-privileged” cultures in NZ.

It mentions there is one other privileged culture with the rest being non-privileged.

>The official NZ government page explains the settlements as ways of addressing the various infringements of the Treaty over time, in courts and by laws

Treaty settlements are already mentioned in the lead and the wording is really just not that good. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meerkat77 First, I think the entire lead except possibly the first paragraph should be much shorter and the whole article re-structured to give correct and relevant weight. The word treaty has more than one meaning. Currently it is most commonly used to mean a binding legally enforcable agreement, especially between sovereign states. In 1840, the alternative looser meaning of ‘just an agreement between two people or groups of people’ was more common. If signed today, Waitangi would probably not be called a treaty. That is why the explanatory sentence is there – it is important not to confuse the two meanings. It certainly is not non-neutral. As a result of the correct meaning, ie just an agreement, the treaty cannot have a legal status, not directly at least. (In fact it was just one of many similar treaties the Crown sighned with indigenous people around the world.) It does though feature indirectly in many acts of parliament using the treaty principles. In so doing it creates a quasi-legal status for itself. That has become more the case since 1975 with numerous acts referring to the treaty or the treaty principles. Note, the principles are not written in any act, they are the invention of courts, lawyers, civil servants and so on and their procise usage is often at the whim of a crown entity. Even the term ‘partnership’ is not in the treaty, it was a concept created by a judge to describe the treaty of Waitangi. That idea of a judge, with all its ramifications is, put bluntly, what the proposed ACT party bill is intended to undo. All these facts, yes facts, are missing from so much of the rhetoric coming from certain corners. About “Satisfies the demands of biculturalism”, I think that is a fair reflection of this source, which isn’t easy to read quickly, and many other quality sources. A statement here does not have to be a copy of what sources say, a summary is adequate. The source is good I think because it is not only academic but is also non-NZ, which makes it more obviously objective. At first glance I can see how the phrase looks to be simple unsourced opinion, but if you choose to read the whole source, and many others, you might think differently. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything from “The treaty’s quasi-legal” to “remains intact” should go. “The treaty’s quasi-legal status satisfies the demands of biculturalism in contemporary New Zealand society.” is filler that doesn’t mean very much and certainly many people would dispute it; either because they don’t think it satisfies the demands or because they don’t believe that there are such demands. The following sentences might be Kolig’s view, but I don’t think that all of it reflects the undisputed way that “in general terms, it is interpreted today.” Kolig wrote 25 years ago, so isn’t a great source for contemporary attitudes anyway. All of these sentences use weasel words to avoid clearly stating who holds these opinions. Anyway, the final para gives a far clearer and more appropriate-for-a-lead sense of what the treaty means today. And the sentences clearly interrupt the flow of thought – in the sentence “It was first signed on 6 February 1840 by Captain William Hobson as consul for the British Crown and by Māori chiefs (rangatira) from the North Island of New Zealand.” we are talking about the moment of signing, suddenly we have these sentences about Kolig’s opinion, and then “The treaty was written” returns us to the moment of signing. Finally, we should be removing material from the lead wherever possible, because it is far too long (cf. MOS:LEADLENGTH and US Constitution for a much shorter lead for a comparable document). Furius (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Meerkat77 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely I would have written the ‘quasi-legal’ and ‘demards of bi-culturalism’ parts when I added the first paragraph quite some time ago, without it being based on my reading of sources. I don’t have time now to look again in detail but a quick search of google scholar gives plenty of good sources where the term is used, many quite recent. I do sometimes think this topic is over analysed in NZ where the reality is lost in the detail and we end up in a muddle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I don’t doubt that either of these points belong in the main text of the article (in the “role in NZ society” section), but the nuance and level of explanation required to explain these points and set them alongside other (imo less savoury) views is not something that can be done within the lead. Furius (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to removal based on it being unnecessary for lead. I only restored it because the reasoning (that it wasn’t supported by the citation) was false. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added that first paragraph partly in an attempt to make the whole article more objective and neutral. I do recall plans to work on other parts of the article which never happened, probably because the task was too great. Therefore, if that first sentence is removed, I think the whole article should be altered somewhat at the same time. If that is done I can see disputes arising. IMO, editors have differing starting points which means their edits overlap at times causing friction. The treaty can be seen as 1/ a founding document cherished by and belonging to all NZers, where the reality of what has in fact happened in and after 1840 can sometimes be overlooked. (looking out) 2/ Just one of many treaties signed by the Crown with indigenous peoples around the world, each with its own perculiarities. (looking in) 3/ A way to promote a recently emerged political agenda. Hopefully there is agreement that point 3 should not be followed. Using ‘quasi-legal’ is a perfect illustration of that. Objections come from those who think the term somehow deminishes the importance of the treaty despite it being a perfectly accurate description of the treaty’s actual legal status today. I came across this, quasi-legal and biculturalism again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this article uses the words ‘the treaty’ when referring to the treaty of Waitangi. This isn’t incorrect, but removes and ideas of Te Tiriti, or the Maori version of the article. When referring to the Maori version of the article, wouldn’t Te Tiriti work better and be more accurate than the treaty? An example of this use, and a edit I made, was the final section referring to the Labour attempt to bring Te Tiriti into the constitution. This was their attempt to bring the Maori version into government, not the english version. To clarify this, using Te Tiriti or something similar would be more appropriate in my eyes. What are the thoughts on this? 130.195.253.9 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not absolutely opposed to this. I have two hesitations. One is about NPOV, since some people see “te tiriti” as charged. The other is about accessibility to non-NZ readers, who might find the use of two terms confusing and might fail to grasp the distinction that you are suggesting to make between the two terms (for them “Maori-version of the treaty” would be clearer). Neither of these hesitations is insurmountable. Furius (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really this just comes down to:

How do reliable sources refer to the Maori version? If they also typically or commonly refer to it as Te Tiriti, then that works. But if Maori sources refer to both versions as Te Tiriti, then not so much. I’m pretty much retired but if someone can demonstrate this, I have no objection. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 01:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Furius, at least on the problem of the distinction not being apparent. And I would extend it to NZ readers, and even any expert readers not paying enough attention, who could easily think we are just alternating between Māori and English. And ultimately I’m not sure this isn’t a solution looking for a problem; it is trivial to use “Māori-version of the treaty” (per Furius’s comment) where the distinction is important. — HTGS (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the following material:

After the outbreak of war with Japan, they were placed with other state documents in an outsize luggage trunk and deposited for secure custody with the Public Trustee at Palmerston North by the local member of parliament, who did not tell staff what was in the case. However, as the case was too large to fit in the safe, the treaty documents spent the war at the side of a back corridor in the Public Trust office.

was deleted today with the edit summary “trivia no source”. This material was added by an anon in 2005 with the edit summary “PT centenial history, ‘A Century of Trust'”, a book which exists “A Century of Trust 1873-1973 A Centennial History” by C.W. Vennell, 1973, isbn D978009005300. Not having this to hand, I looked for an online source, and found Revealed: Public Trust’s secret role in safekeeping the Treaty of Waitangi during World War Two, which is an interesting story but differs considerably from the story we had in the article. As both stories originate with the Public Trust, I am not sure which is more reliable, assuming that the anon reported the book’s content accurately. I’ve ordered a copy of the book from my local library, and I’ll report back in a week or so.-Gadfium (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking back so far. Curious to know why the IP did not add that reference in 2005, or why nobody else did either. I am sure the PT source/s makes for an interesting story/-ies, whichever is more accurate. However, in my view they would not warrant more than a sentence or two in this article, possibly added to the mention of the number of extant copies. One of the main problems with this article is the way it has been filled up with all sorts of detail, some with with only a tenuous connections to the treaty itself – we get, for example, paragraphs about the moari wars, and sentences telling us what school somebody went to, or how they felt on any given day. This is all, supposedly, confirmed by the multitude of sources used, making it difficult to simply remove the text as being unsupported (we have to first check on what the source says, which takes time). When you have so many sources used there is always a grave risk of missing the point because the sources usually back one or two sentences taken in isolation – which are then added to another sentence which is backed in isolation, and so on. The result is a disjointed muddle of sentences in the WP article. Somebody might then try to link them to create some sort of coherent thread, but that involves original research. That O-R might only be the addition of a conjunction or adjective, but it still distorts what the sources are saying. There is a common belief that if something is added to an article with a RSS confirming it, then it should be left alone. That is a mistake IMO and is one reason why so many articles, including this one, are filled with unnecessary detail. As I said in my edit summary, I think the best option here is to re-write the article with a clean slate. (A similar problem exists with the mosque shootings article). The treaty itself is really quite simple. The other stuff – land wars, waitangi tribunal, electoral seats, should not be included in any depth, if at all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was a very different place in 2005, and sources were mostly optional. The IP was fairly prolific in 2005 and since posting above I’ve realised I had a positive exchange with them about a different article they edited, to which I later added a source. I don’t expect to restore either version of the material to the article, but I do like following up matters like this.-Gadfium (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to report that I now have a copy of A Century of Trust: A History of the New Zealand Public Trust Office 1873-1973, and it has no mention of either version of the story. I have checked every mention of Masterton, Palmerston North and World War 2 in the index. The index has no entry for the Treaty of Waitangi or Waitangi. There is no mention in the chapter on “Wartime Problems”, not in the final chapter, “In Retrospect” which covers anecdotes. I have skimmed most of the rest of the book, to no avail. It seems that the anon was either mistaken about the source, or was using it as a misdirection as the source they had would not be considered reliable. The online story linked to above is clearly from later research, and I am not surprised this was not in the book.-Gadfium (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a closer look at the recent edits by user:Lookingforpossums. IMO they are a mixed bunch of good sourced detail and poorly sourced opinion. I removed one paragraph in full that it had created and replaced it with what was there before. The edit changes s/he made were to remove good RSS and replace with some other good sources plus some primary and low grade sources used to back clearly opinioned text. I thought it simpler just to remove the entire 1,600 bite addition. This editor made many other changes that probably should have been stopped when they were made. Now, it will take too much effort to weed out the inserted opinion. Yet another example, IMO, why this article is in desperate need of being re-written from scratch. Some might consider it worth going through to simply alter what is already there, step by step, but IMO, the rot is too deeply ingrained to do that.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page used to have the full text of the treaty in both English and Maori but someone has deleted it.

It should be restored because it’s a vital context for the article ~2025-40284-55 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The full text in English and Māori was removed on 3 December by User:Shredlordsupreme, with the edit summary “redundancy removed/resectioned, specific attribution”. The article infobox contains two links under the heading “Full text of the treaty”, but the first of these, at WikiSource, has only the English text, and the other is a dead link. There are of course many copies of the text online from authoritative sources, so that dead link can readily be fixed.

I agree that having the text in both languages in the article was useful, but perhaps Shredlordsupreme would like to explain in more detail why they removed it.-Gadfium (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I initially removed it because of the excess detail tag, which I felt was warranted due to there being two separate (and far apart) sections about the content/differences of the text and interpretation at the time, and because source texts are typically summarized or have only excerpts used. That said, the original texts aren’t insanely long for an article, so it’s probably not a big deal to put it back in if people feel like the current summary/interpretation isn’t enough to detail important content/differences of the texts. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be restored. The text is brief enough that it poses no issue and having the text there makes it easier to follow complicated issues regarding disparity between different language versions. Furius (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this article should be significantly altered or re-written from scratch. Including the full treaty text in both languages is just one example of why this should be done. About that one example, which is being discussed here, we should view its inclusion differently and not as part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry that has taken root in NZ. What is it about the full version that warrants its inclusion? Nothing, and certainly not for a full Maori version, in this English language article. Do we have the full text of the Treaty of Versailles, in all its language versions? So, the treaty’s notability is that it has affected NZ society in numerous ways. Remember, it is not a treaty in the same way that Versailles was – it has no direct legal relevance. The more specific relevance of the two versions is that they were probably understood differently by both sides in 1840. Speculation about those different interpretations has spawned a growing circular industry in NZ, which most editors here have joined. It often justifies itself by referring to small specific parts of the treaty whose precise meaning in both versions appears to differ slightly. Those words or phrases are what should be quoted in this article, not the full texts, with an explanation of why those sentences/words were those to differ in meaning when the treaty was signed. The vast majority of the treaty is not about disputed interpretations, something that should be made clear. What the three parts mean can be neatly summarised – that is all that is warranted in this article, plus quotes of specific phrases. There should be links to the full versions, that is all. The three summaries should be about land transfer, UK citizenship, and overall authority. The meaning of authority (sovereignty etc) is the only area of dispute. Land seizure in the Maori Wars and later recompense through the Waitangi Tribunal is not a dispute about the treaty. Even if you view this as a simple weighting issue, there is no reason to insert both full versions. Furious, what complicated issues about the treaty? The complicated issues are those created by the treaty industry, not the treaty itself. The undisputed grievances that arose in the 19th century are those about the effect of the different interpretations and of what authority meant. Those effects had consequences, but those effects are not complicated, not unless you try to make them complicated, which is what the treaty industry, and editors here, are trying to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As R8R is trying to offend most editors here (“spawned a growing circular industry in NZ, which most editors here have joined”), I suggest we can safely ignore their talk page contributions. Schwede 66 04:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a “treaty industry”. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t think of any other articles that is about a treaty or similar document that includes the entirety of it in the prose. I think it could be displayed along the side like images are, but I think the entire thing in prose is excessive and contrary to the MOS. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other (much longer) documents indeed do, and where they are too long for a single article they are split into articles featuring the text and commentary on their constituent parts. See for example Article One of the United States Constitution. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment