Talk:Treaty of Waitangi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Assorted links for reference purposes

• Waitangi Tribunal - principles.

does anyone know what was the initial reaction by moari and pakeha? yes

Linked page fault?

The linked page contains some JavaScript that replaces the page with some kind of advertisement if one doesn't have a certain plugin installed. It's rather annoying. (To read the treaty, disable scripting in your browser.) --Brion 06:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi browser crash

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 02003.

The Treaty of Waitangi article crashes my browser! (Mozilla 1.4, Linux). This must be a browser bug of course, but is there anything illegal in the article? Maybe it's the image? 81.86.233.209 07:17 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it's the image: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=image:treatyofwaitangi.jpg

In another tool I get a warning: Corrupt JPEG data: premature end of data segment 81.86.233.209 07:35 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I fixed Mozilla by recompiling with different options. The precompiled versions should be OK 81.86.233.209 18:29 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Controversial material - links

The description of the Littlewood Treaty link should reflect the NPOV policy, even though the website it points to is not NPOV. I think "argument" or even "claims" is a fairer representation of the Littlewood website than "evidence". It's not controversial that there are similarities between the Littlewood text and the official Maori version, however, it is not widely accepted as to why they are similar. The site argues that the Treaty is a fraud proven by the Littlewood document - that's definitely controversial. Tirana 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved the section on the "grievance industry" to the Claims section, as it relates primarily to Treaty claims rather than the Treaty today. I don't think the newspaper article links are particularly helpful, as either examples of what the original author intended or as general resources - perhaps a political party's website on its Treaty policy might be an alternative as a source for the issues. I've taken reference to the Lake Taupo issue out of the Treaty of Waitangi article because it's nothing to do with Treaty claims or rights. It's to do with what the rights of the owner of the lakebed (Ngati Tuwharetoa, thanks to a government grant in 1992) are to restrict use of the space above it, under general law. Instead I've summarised the issues of debate in what I hope is a more NPOV tone. Tirana 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Principles of Treaty of Waitangi were largely ignored?

That is more opinionated, because no source says that it is "largely ignored". --inky 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to say that "no source" says so - I've seen some that do, but to include references along those lines and refer to specific violations. --MacRusgail 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi Audio Visual 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 of 7

A result of a personal project that was started in 2005 while a student at Waikato University in the School and Māori and Pacific Development and a student in Te Wananga o Aotearoa as a year one and two Ata Reo student. The process started with a programme that turns text into audio. First the book was scanned in to the computer and optical character recognition (OCR) was used to ready the text for it to be turned into MP3 files. These files in audio form were loaded into Movie maker (a free programme found in the start menue under accessory in the microsoft opperating system.) Note the text to audio programme was not trained to pronounce Māori words and greatly weakens this word as it needs to be reworked with better pronunciation. The pictures were scanned into the computer next and imported into movie maker and lined up to match the audio visual commentary. Text was added to the beginning and end of the audio visual segments and saved as one file. This file was not used for 12 months until www.youtube.com was read about on a BBC news artical. The file was broken up into 7 segments of approx. ten minutes long and words were added to beginning and end. A group was started in a person page in Youtube and the seven video's were uploaded on to that site. TPK was informed of the work at this stage and though was given to contact the Turnbull library for copy right matters to do with the images. This work is in progress and has taken another step today now that this link to wikipedia has been made. Next the link between youtube and wikipedia was made on 28 October 2006 after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia. The idea to develope the use of the process outlined to help in the wikipedia needed an example of it worked in principle and so linking off the wikipedia page on Treaty of Waitangi become a great way to work both together as a scientific project. I have seen the Treaty of Waitangi Road show in Rotorua, a truck that travels New Zealand and stops in parks and sports grounds and unloads an audio visual presentation display. The book that I used for my project is featured in the hand outs of presentation. As a part treasurer of my local Kohanga Reo I am passionate to see the languge of Māori developed as the offical mother tounge of Aotearoa. I have offered this project as part of this. At a recent launch of a Te Reo strategy by the Iwi Raukawa I took a video of the launch and it was after that night that I put my work onto youtube. The process took both Saturday and Sunday but I feel it was in the true spirit of what was being asked and offered by Raukawa. It was a labour of love. Now this process has moved one step further along now that the world can read and hear the story of the greatest navigating people's on the planet which is on a scientific level with the apolo missions of NASA. If you have any questions please email me on young.roderick@gmail.com.RoddyYoung 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think a link to the text might be more useful than to a text-to-speech rendering. The value of the spoken Wikipedia is that it provides a high quality human rendering of articles, which may be useful for blind users' of Wikipedia, or for people who want to practice listening to spoken English. Blind users already have text to speech software available, and it's much more efficient for them to use their own software with text than to download much larger video/audio files.-gadfium 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was ever a place to give some voice to text it is here. To take off that material and mute it makes me feel frustrated. The power of delete is to easly used in wikipedia. Do you know I sent people to this site and because of your delete you have preventing them interacting. Yes I would have loved to had a very good reader spell out the text but that will come. I am going to revert your doings by moving them to a site that they refer to and then link of this site. Thank you for your constructive criticism. Blind people will have to follow that link now to hear anything.RoddyYoung 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes have been made. I am supprised that any different presentation of the official information could be seen as not up to standard. I have reposted the videos on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Audio_Visual_links The irony is if the links are removed on the Treaty of Waitangi also then where would be a home for this in wikipedia? I ask that you revert back so the links are within the Treaty of Waitangi page please.RoddyYoung 10:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the copyright to the work in question? If not, then the material is in breach of copyright, and we do not knowingly link to breaches of copyright. If you do have the copyright, then linking to the text and pictures would be about one hundred times more useful than linking to a robotic voice reading the text. Everyone would benefit, including blind people who would have much lower bandwidth requirements to download the material and would hear much the same result.-gadfium 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You make good points, both of them, and both questions are being addressed as I write this. The blind would not see the pictures and so using text to speech software on a personal computer from a download of the .rtf or .doc file would give the same voice recognition. I will look at gutenburg to see if I can find the text. The deaf also would see the pictures and be able to read the text from the book but are barred due to the limits of books getting to remote parts of the planet for cost effective reasons but deaf would get a much better comprehension of a book than looking at a montage of images and not being able to hear the words. However 98 percent of people would listen to a tv ad but would not read an article after the headlines in a news paper. The reason from making the video book was to let a lecturer who is involved in research and education to show the material to a class of hundereds and let individuals create the synergy from the meanings for historical fact and go on to research in new areas after gaining a new insight to a true history of a nation. I am using this material for an educative purpose in a non commerical way. When I have more information for you I will post it. RoddyYoung 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The information in the video's is feely online at http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/ here You will fine it in pdf format no .rtf or .doc format RoddyYoung 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that text to speech software works with PDF files. I don't see how talking about deaf people helps your case, as deaf people will find the PDF files much more useful that the text to speech version. People at remote parts of the planet will also find the PDF files more useful, because they are a much smaller download that the video. While it is true that many people will listen rather than read, I suspect that very few will listen to a robotic voice by preference.

You have not addressed the copyright question, except that you say earlier that "though was given to contact the Turnbull library for copy right matters to do with the images". Does this mean that you do not currently have written permission to distribute the material?-gadfium 19:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gadfium. I have worked with blind web users in the past, and most prefer to control the speed and sound of the text to speech software. Advanced blind users will often listen at 600 words per minute or more. At that speed, I can't make heads or tails out of it. Its all about choice. A PDF offers users the choice to listen to it their way, or read it, all in one simple easy to use file. --Roue2 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with pdf on my computer and so can not access them at present but I am part of the 100 million people who down load daily youtube video's with a broad band connection. Google paid $US1,650,000,000.00 to purchase www.youtube.com. I also have worked with blind people and the use of text to speech software has a copyright exeption for the use of the blind and disabled. I too can read at 600 word per minute and faster with this software after 4 months practice and can read a book cover to cover in 3.5 hours. It is great for university work. Very few students read all the required text in a course but doing so makes comprehension better. Oral tradition means that the use of text to speech software opens up the ability to process information to the masses that was limited to a few. Many people have access to only broad cast Audio visual and no choice of content or adds. Many children also have to watch adds and material that is suductive by not very educational or relevent to their cultural background. Youtube gives video on demand and a globle reach. Have you looked at your official site on the first external link on this page. I challenge you to produce the equivilent copyright paper work that is being asked for too. My paper work is in the pipe line.RoddyYoung 09:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a .govt.nz site is in copyright breach, or do you mean some other external link? At any rate, until you have your paper work, I'll remove the links. When and if you get copyright permission, I'll still oppose the link since the PDF is a far superior format.-gadfium 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of copyright law around educational uses says that what has been produced is fine. I can not speak on the govt.nz has down with copyright but I do invite anyone to ask them for their paperwork and post it here. If their work is educational too then leave it on. I understand you point. That is what makes wikipedia great. I also like youtube because it limits deleters of you own work. Have a nice day.RoddyYoung 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent and future edits

Made a few changes to the 'meaning and interpretation' section. There is quite a bit of debate over whether 'mana' would have been an appropriate translation of 'kawanatanga'. I don't feel the page should simply say that it would have been appropriate. I will footnote the scholars mentioned once I get back to work in the new year. I also added a bit about the translation of the pre-emption clause. As the page indicates, this was fairly important and a note about its translation was needed.

In the 'effect of the Treaty' I added a section reflecting the fact that the Treaty was not ignored straight away, and made a minor correction to the section on the Treaty in the courts. (the quote about it being a 'device to amuse savages' was from the NZ Company, not a court judgement). Also, the Treaty regained Pakeha attention after Bledisloe bought the Treaty house; by 1940 its profile had already been raised although obviously the centennary raised it further.

In general this page is a good resource for schoolkids etc who are researching the Treaty, and for the generally interested. I think it does need expanding in some areas though:

- More is needed on the Treaty in the courts. The events of the late 1980s are dealt with well but a concise summary of important cases before that is probably needed.

- There is virtually nothing on how Maori have regarded the Treaty, except a very brief bit on protest. It is a pity there is no page on the Maori protest movement that could be linked to from here... any volunteers?

-Mention of Waitangi Day should be made as there is a decent page on it.

I should have read the page more carefully. Perhaps the commemoration bit should be elsewhere, as the 'signing of the Treaty' section is not really the place you would expect to find it, at least in my opinion. I have added a link in the section to the 'Treaty house' page and corrected the date of the first Waitangi Day (see the Waitangi Day page for the reason why).--Helenalex 08:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The danger of course is that the page could get too large and visitors could easily be overwhelmed and put off. A better initial summary would help counter this. Currently it focusses a bit too much on the translation issues. While this is obviously very important it is dealt with in the 'meaning and interpretation' section. Perhaps it would be better to replace that paragraph with a brief history of the Treaty's place in NZ history (focus for Maori greivances, ignored by the courts and parliament except in lip service terms until the 1970s, is a major focus of Maori protest, given recognition in the 1980s, but still subject of major debate and controversy).

I don't want to make major changes without some kind of consensus... what do people think? --Helenalex 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week and no-one has said anything, so I rewrote the intro. --Helenalex 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Act of Union

Why is there a link to the 1707 Act of Union on this page? It's not as if the Treaty of Waitangi and the Union Treaty are the only two treaties ever to be broken. We could include every other broken treaty ever, but this would quadruple the size of the page. If there are no objections within the next week or so, I will remove the link. --Helenalex 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The link is not relevant to this article.-gadfium 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally relevant. The Brits have been making bogus treaties for years. Waitangi is one. The Act of Union between Scotland and England is another. Both were signed in good faith by the other party, and both were violated almost in their entireity by England. Both should be seen and compared in an international context, instead of in isolation, because they mark a trend. Both are more or less instruments of annexation, dressed up as equal partnerships. --MacRusgail 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is defective. The Treaty of Union was between England and Scotland, and it is only "British" in the sense that both parties were from the island of Britain. Therefore, I assume you must be using "British" as a proxy for "English" which suggests a lack of knowledge regarding NZ colonial history on your part, and also a rather extreme interpretation of the political background to the Treaty of Union. If this is your reason for including the link, it is certainly no good. The Angel of Islington 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant. One has to look at it in the wider context of Euorpean expansion worldwide. There is evidence to suggest that the British did go into Treaty negotiations with Maori in good faith and with good intentions (to protect Maori from dodgy private land dealings as had happened in North America 40-50 years or so prior to the signing of the Treaty... in fact Britain, in trying to protect Native Americans from European land grabs in North America had angered the US government to the point where the US declared war on Britain in 1812 - Britain was already at war with France) as well as a attempt to gain control of New Zealand before the French got there. I won't dispute that the Treaty was violated following the signing, however that has more to do with unprincipled, power-hungry, materialistic and mana-less individuals than any particular nation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.32.165 (talk • contribs)

So you think the Treaty of Waitangi was a completely isolated incident, without historical precedent in British law and elsewhere, was completely original and should be seen in total isolation then? --MacRusgail 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a case for writing a brief paragraph on the history of British treaties, or better yet linking to a page which does a decent overview of the topic. But what was originally here was just a link to the Act of Union page. If you're going to compare the Treaty of Waitangi with something else, there are many, many better choices, for example things which are actually treaties. A simple link does nothing to put the Treaty in context. --Helenalex 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<pedant mode on> Of course the Act of Union was preceded by a treaty <pedant mode off> but I would agree that the link is not relevant. The Act of Union between England and Scotland, which had long history of social, political and economic interaction is not sensibly comparable with British colonial expansion and subjegation of peoples with whom the British had little or no cultural understanding of or prior contact with. The Angel of Islington 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"is not sensibly comparable with British colonial expansion and subjegation of peoples with whom the British had little or no cultural understanding of or prior contact with." - Pedant mode on. The British are neither a people or a nation (even today), and I doubt English people would have had much "cultural understanding" of Scotland or Ireland, or would have wanted to have. The main aim was usually military and economic subjugation. In the case of Scotland, England was concerned that it might develop its own colonies. --MacRusgail 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The English may have misunderstood the Scottish a fair bit, but the two peoples had been living next to each other for hundreds of years, shared monarchs etc. On the other hand, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed the British and Maori had only been in contact for a few decades, and not very close contact at that. Also, the ToW was clearly not about military and economic subjugation - Britain had no need to subjugate NZ as it was not an important place and certainly no threat to Britain. Rather, it made military and to a lesser extent economic subjugation necessary. Perhaps you should have turned your pedant mode off. :) --Helenalex 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The treaty of Waitangi was about appeasing native leadership, and co-opting them into the British project by a series of guarantees (later broken). The treaty of Union was about appeasing Scottish leaders, and co-opting them, by a series of guarantees, later broken. I wouldn't be surprised if Waitangi involved bribes and threats too. --MacRusgail 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not unless you count rights as bribes. Nor was the Treaty 'about appeasing native leadership'. Look, obviously there were some parallels, but there were more differences. --Helenalex 23:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Helen. At the time of the Treaty, Maori and Great Britain had never gone to war against one another, let alone had centuries of warfare and related monarchs and so on. You might as well compare the Invasion of the Waikato with the Easter Uprising. --Tirana 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia inconsistency?

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia states that there is an audiovisual section "using text-to-voice and moviemaker software and also a web provider" (to quote). Where has it gone? -HuBmaN!!!! 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See above under #Treaty of Waitangi Audio Visual 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 of 7 The links were removed for copyright reasons.-gadfium 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of page

I'm wondering of the legal section should be moved forward, so that it comes before the principles and Treaty claims sections. A lot of the content of those two sections works better if the reader already knows about the legal stuff, I think.

My, this Wikipedia editing is addictive, isn't it? --Helenalex 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The background information and subsequent history should come first, then the legal issues, then claims and application information. --Lholden 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to work better, although it does break the flow which previously existed between 'effect of the Treaty' and 'Treaty claims'. I have slightly altered the end of 'effect' so that it is not obviously pointing at the claims section. It is still a little bit awkward but I think the claims section makes more sense if the reader already knows about the Treaty's legal standing or lack thereof. --Helenalex 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reordered the effect section to make it more chronological. Whether or not the treaty was ratified and its exact legal status was not regarded as significant in the years immediately following the signing. The British clearly were able to implement provisions of the treaty without enabling legislation. For example they were able to control the activities of the New Zealand company. Ratification was not thought neccessary at the time and was not discussed until much later when New Zealand became a country and aquired its own legal system. To start the section with this topic is to put later preoccupations ahead of their time. Hawthorn (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Many Maori/Many Pakeha

I think it's fair to characterise the debate around it in more or less those terms, but we should use verifiable info and provide cites for it, rather than the "many" weaselword. Calls from Maori in the 70s/80s for the Crown put right its breaches of the Treaty (cite Nga Tamatoa or Ranginui Walker or someone) were answered by the Crown first establishing the Waitangi Tribunal to decide on breaches of the Treaty, and then the Crown conceding that it had in many cases breached it and apologising for it (ref to settlements?). Some pakeha considered x about it (cite, maybe hansard from TOW amendment act), which flared into public debate in 2004 etc. Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements#Criticisms has some examples. There's a values survey somewhere that has some other verifiable info. --Tirana 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that maybe the New Zealand Election Study or the Study of Values. I think I've got the statistics saved somewhere. --Lholden 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sources on this, but they're mostly archival. What's the story with archival sources? they are mostly in the National Archives in Wellington, so they are accessible to the general public, but not in the way that a book or newspaper is. --Helenalex 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if I entirely understand what archival sources are. There isn't a problem that they're not as accessible as a book. If they are primary sources, e.g. the diary of a historical figure, then they can be used only with caution. Hansard would be a primary source, but I would expect it to be relatively easily available. WP:RS gives the rules for use of such materials.-gadfium 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I can probably get away with it. They are primary sources (ie letters to and from govt ministers, internal memos etc) but the info I would be getting is basically descriptive, ie 'such-and-such person said that...' It would be reporting of opinion rather than fact.

For future reference, archival sources are sources found in archives, ie original unpublished papers, and would include things like letters, diaries, memos, internal reports and so forth. --Helenalex 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this again, Tirana appears to be referring to the final paragraph of the 'Treaty claims' section, which has the only example I can find of vague 'some people thought x' type language. My references aren't that recent, but there should still be news reports online somewhere. If this isn't what you're talking about, Tirana, could you indicate specifically what you are refering to? If you're saying that there needs to be more info on the debate, feel free to add this, and I will try and find appropriate references where I can. --Helenalex 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about some excerpts from the Herald's Sharing a Country feature in early 2004? There was an article I can't find that outlined some vox pops from both Maori and Pakeha. (whoops, forgot to sign that) --Tirana 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ka nui te pai (excellent)

Great work on Treaty of Waitangi. Kia kaha koutou (Keep up the good work). Kahuroa 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of signing

The intro to the article states that the treaty was signed on Feb 6, 1840. Is this strictly true, if copies of the treaty were subsequently distributed and signed by chiefs throughout the country as late as September? It might be better to refer to the initial signing being on Feb 6, and the progressive collection of signatures that persisted until September that year. Grimhim 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. Here is an excerpt from Te Rauparaha to illustrate that the 6 of Feb was only the starting date: On 14 May 1840 Te Rauparaha signed a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi, believing that the treaty would guarantee him and his allies the possession of territories gained by conquest over the previous 18 years. On 19 June of that year, he signed another copy of the treaty, when Major Thomas Bunbury insisted that he do so (Oliver 2007). Kahuroa 08:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple explanation in the intro

The introduction to this article still doesn't quite say – in the first sentence – what the treaty is. It presupposes some knowledge of what it is, but actually dodges explaining what it is. Strangely, no source explains it succinctly: NZ History online says it is "New Zealand's founding document"; The NZ Encyclopedia 1966 says it was a document to establish the sovereignty of the Crown over the islands of New Zealand; the Waitangi Tribunal website waffles somewhat before describing it as an agreement in which Māori gave the Crown rights to govern and to develop British settlement, while the Crown guaranteed Māori full protection of their interests and status, and full citizenship rights. The latter description probably comes closest to being a description in the fewest words. Is someone game to boil this down to a sentence or two as the opening statement in this article? Grimhim (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If it were that easy to do I'm sure there wouldn't be so much debate about it. I assume you're after something explaining what the treaty did or does, as opposed to what it is - 'a treaty', 'possibly an actual legal treaty, possibly not', 'a bunch of words on paper', 'a thing to have arguments about' not really being very helpful. I'll have a shot at clarifying things though. --Helenalex (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent. At the risk of making that specific section unwieldy, one other important feature of the treaty was the pre-emption clause, which was to try to halt the rampant exploitation of the Maori by the New Zealand Company and others, who were trying to buy as much land as they could for the cheapest price. This could be added easily, by making this section read ... "The Treaty established a British governor in New Zealand, recognised Māori ownership of their lands and other properties, but required that they sell their land only to the Government or its agents, and gave Māori the rights of British subjects. (Italics not to be included, of course).Grimhim (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The trouble with that is that it's not clear that that's what Hobson intended, and it definitely wasn't how Maori understood it - the alternative meaning was that the government just got first dibs. Also, the pre-emption clause hasn't played as big a part in NZ hitsory as the other clauses. It was suspended several times and has been pretty much irrelevant for a long time. I tried to keep the intro limited to stuff which people need to know to grasp the basics of what the Treaty was about, and I don't think the pre-emption clause needs to be there. I might have a look at adding something about the British motivation, though. --Helenalex (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the significance of the pre-emption clause in the long run, but it was certainly an important part of the treaty at the time, and historians clearly state this. Keith Sinclair's "A History of New Zealand" refers to it several times: in his summary of the treaty's provisions he writes: "By the first article the chiefs ceded their sovereignty to the Queen. In return the Queen guaranteed the Maoris in the possession of the lands, forests .... they possessed. The chiefs yielded to the Queen the sole right of purchasing their lands." A couple of pages later, in discussing the intentions of the treaty, he says: "The treaty (and official proclamations invalidating land purchases unless confirmed by the Crown) prevented unrestricted settlement by the New Zealand Company." Patricia Burns, in her "Fatal Success", says: "At the time, the treaty appeared to the company very simply as an iron door closing off their right to acquire the greatest possible amount of New Zealand land at the cheapest price." I don't have Michael King's history with me, but I'll check tonight whether he had a view.

My point, then, is that the pre-emption clause was recognised by the NZ Company at the time and historians since as a critical part of the treaty: to the authors of the treaty it was ostensibly a beneficial thing to protect the interests of the Maori in the face of the frenzy of land purchasing that was going on at the time; to the NZ Company it was a source of frustration that they could no longer continue to buy vast tracts of land in exchange for guns and blankets. Hence my view that a brief mention in the opening lines of the article is warranted. Cheers! Grimhim (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that it was an important clause. The trouble is that there are a lot of important things about the Treaty, and they can't all go in the opening paragraph. I've tried to limit it to stuff which absolutely has to be there if the reader is to grasp broadly what the Treaty is all about. So tino rangatiratanga isn't mentioned either, nor is Waitangi Day, nor in the end is the British motivation, not because any of these things are unimportant but because there is a limit to how much info the opening section can contain and still be readable. The pre-emption clause probably needs more time spent on it in the body of the article, probably in 'meaning and interpretation' and 'effect of the Treaty'. Since you've done some reading on the topic, you would be the best person to add this in. --Helenalex (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll add a little something at some point. Grimhim (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

northern North Island

An IP has a query about the wording "northern North Island: in the intro. I am moving it here from my talk. Kahuroa (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you not think of a better way of saying northern North Island? It just sounds slightly silly and is likely to be misunderstood (as I did). If it is intended to mean the northern part of the North Island, I think we should say that, or something similar. 193.60.63.224 (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind northern North Island personally. But I suggest you do some research and give us a list of the tribes and areas the signatories at Waitangi came from. Then we can work out what needs to be said to make it accurate. Kahuroa (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Americans

Interestingly, some members of the United States Exploring Expedition were present: "...a disastrous circumstance for the natives..."

That is a revelation. I had thought (I think from Dr Orange's book) that only the American Consul was present. --LJ Holden 03:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's another interesting point - the "American Consul", (J. R. Clendon), was in fact an Englishman, and the report above is pretty scathing about how he (allegedly), put his own and British interests before American ones. Snori (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons

The infobox contains two flag icons - the Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the Union Jack. Until someone can tell me why the Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand applies here I will delete the flags. The treaty was signed throughout New Zealand but the United Tribes of New Zealand was a local phenomenon I would have thought, mainly Northland, and our intro says it was signed between the British Crown and "various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand" rather than the Crown and the United Tribes. Kahuroa (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. --Avenue (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Signatories

This sub-section has been added and appears to largely be POV pushed by someone opposed to Treaty settlements with non-signatory iwi. A quick look at publications online appears to show that its assertions are wrong (i.e. the government only started to treaty all Maori as British subjects post-New Zealand Wars, it appears this was actually a decision made by the Colonial Office). --LJ Holden 08:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I took out a reference based on a site that calls itself a personal website - I will take out the rest pending consensus here Kahuroa (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one. I also meant to say treat Maori as British subjects... --LJ Holden 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure

The middle sections of this article seem to be reptitive and poorly structured. Currently, it looks like this:

• Meaning and interpretation - discusses the different meaning and interpretations of the Treaty and translation issues
• Effects - discusses the aftermath of signing the Treaty (New Zealand wars, etc.)
• Legal standing - discusses the legal position of the Treaty, repeats a lot of information from the "effects" section.

I propose we structure the article like this:

• Aftermath - covering the post-Treaty history
• Interpretation and legal standing - put the meaning and interpretation section as a sub-section to this new section, with the legal standing sub-sections underneath it.

Thoughts? --LJ Holden 04:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "Treaty copies" section should be renamed "Extant copies" under the signatories section. --LJ Holden 23:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is Māori?

You keep writing "Māori" instead of "the Māori" to refer to the whole people. This makes it sound like there's a person named Māori involved in the story.69.158.89.138 (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a convention in the Maori language which NZ English follows when using Maori language words. There are no plurals in the Maori language so instead of saying "Maoris" you write "Maori" to refer to a group, or the entire people. — Ballofstring (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the objection was to the collective plural, it was to the lack of the definite article.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I'm not sure why I responded about the collective plural! But I think it is also a convention to drop the definite article. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong! Ballofstring (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New interpretation of the TOW

@Gadfium: re "Michael King's book does say this, but it isn't clear what he means. What is this new document of the late 1980s?" I think he's referring to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, later amendments, and the 1989 "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi" (see later in article), which all talk about the principles of the Treaty. I don't think he's referring to a particular new document, but rather an emerging practice + legislation maybe. — Ballofstring (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This article should be more explicit in naming the Treaty of Waitangi Act (and the specific amendment, if appropriate) or Principles for Crown Action, and include a reference specifically naming such. We should not have to interpret King's words ourselves.-gadfium 07:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gadfium: I've tried to address your relatively old clarify message – hopefully to your satisfaction! Maybe I should add in the name of the document which set out the principles? Ballofstring (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy with your changes to the lead and link to the new article.-gadfium 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How much detail does this article need about the principles of the TOW?

Hi all, just wondering how much detail you all think is needed here regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I created the child article Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi on the basis that it's quite a complicated subject, and so it would be possible to go into more depth there. Today I removed some of the detail from the fourth labour government section of this article, and was just wondering what people thought the right balance was? Did I go too far removing that information from this article, or is safe to assume if people are interested they'll dig a bit deeper and visit the other article. I may have been slightly overzealous with my cutting ... Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maori breaches

Is anyone aware of any apologies, settlements, concessions or investigations into Maori breaches of the treaty?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this subject for decades and have never seen it seriously suggested that there were even any breaches of the Treaty on the part of Māori in the first place, let alone settlements of the same. If you can find any reliably sourced information about Māori breaches, then supply a link to said reliable source and we can work from there. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It must be remembered that The Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal was set up to investigate only Governmentt breaches of the treaty, nothing else.It must be remembered that the tribunal was not a court of law, so information provided did not have to reach the same high level as evidence presented to a court of law. For example the tribunal allowed hearsay to be accepted which is forbidden in a law court. Some historians claim that the tribunal has "rewritten"aspects of NZ history based on this rather loose "evidence". Several of the historians hired as researchers by the tribunal were aghast as to how the information was used and have written articles and books about this. The tribunal had no powers to investigate Maori breaches of the treaty - assuming such things actually exist.

Detail missing of what happened before the Waitangi Meeting

The account lacks some very important details such as the British Whig government's views on migration and the close cooperation between the NZ Company and the British Whig Government. It fails to mention completely that sovereignty was proclaimed in NZ by Hobson 6 days before the Waitangi meeting and that British Sovereignty over NZ had been proclaimed in NSW before this. Likewise it fails to mention that Cook claimed NZ for Britain on his first voyage. There is no mention at all of the secretive meetings that went on between various Maori and influential officials in Sydney prior to all the proclamations where they attempted to get Maori to sign a different agreement altogether. NSW entrepreneurs who had already bought land from Maori wished to protect their investment and anticipated commercial profits by ensuring that the Government did not have preemptive rights to buy land. Sydney businessmen were very active in NZ in the preceding decades and wished to continue their profitable trade in kauri spars and flax(for rope) in particular without direct government interference.

Opening sentence referring to the early Europeans poor behaviour

The sentence gives undue weight to this oft repeated myth. To give this as a reason for NZ becoming British colony is verging on complete nonsense.The Bay of Islands was one of many places in the world used by ships to stock up supplies and for sailors to enjoy shore time. At that time -in almost every case I have read, there was considerable conflict between natives and Europeans. Even in Portsmouth,England at that time, behaviour when ships arrived was, by the standards of today, appalling. There were at least two ports in Australia where the behaviour was as bad- and they were already part of the British colonies. In Tahiti the "misbehaviour" of sailors was legendary. It was encouraged by the behaviour of the "single" women. Exactly the same happened in NZ accept there is ample evidence Maori society in general encouraged "single" women and girls to ravage the sailors in return for western goods. Britain did not make this bad behaviour a reason for colonizing Tahiti!!

Most of the European men in the Bay of Islands appear to be ex convicts -who were then freed, having done their time , who had then jumped ship. This was common in whaling ships in those days where the standard of care was almost non existent. Living and working condition were extremely harsh. In some cases men who had been placed in onshore whaling stations were simply abandoned by ship owners-in one case they weren't found for 4 years. Charles Darwin in 1835 visited the Bay of Islands and it appears likely that it was his very brief visit and the dim views he espoused, that informed much of British opinion. Darwin came from the British wealthy, and well educated elite so he probably didnt realise the same behaviour, more or less, went on in England.

Settlers ? There were none. The missionaries did complain as they had a very limited and extreme view of humanity and morals. Perhaps most importantly they had contacts in very high places in London and in government that they could write to and complain. Maori complain? The activities of the Maori masses over several decades strongly suggests they were very willing participants in the mayhem! There are many accounts -not all British (-a very revealing one from a French captain )of the sexual behaviour of Maori women. What especially appalled the missionaries was Maori men taking girls as young as 9 or 10 out of school to take part in the ship trade.I have read one single account of a Maori chief complaining -but that account was actually written by a puritan LMS member.

I'm not saying bad behaviour didnt happen -it did, but it must be put in context. To have it as the opening sentence as a reason leading to colonization is not acceptable.115.188.178.77 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments such as this can't be used to change the article without solid sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The information had the source provided. It is interesting that the author had connections to the British govt. His information is backed up strongly by what actually happened at that time- in many places around the world- "when the ships came in". It is very clear the the LMS had its own strong connections to the Whig govt. Some of its MPs were of a strong evangelical bent .The LMS views of "Hell" coincided exactly with the often puritanical and moralistic views about "native people" at that time in educated British society. In other words the LMS missionaries knew how to provide the sort of "evidence" that Whig MPs were liable to accept as "gospel". Simpson has a lot more to say about this aspect-several chapters in fact. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Differences between England and Britain in 1840

Technically there is a big difference between England and Britain-even in 1840, let alone now -but in popular use then -even the well educated British used the two terms interchangeably so it is no wonder Maori use followed this practice of "normal" confusion. In reality of course the two were different but there is no doubt that England dominated Britain to such an extent(population, capital, parliament , commerce ,ports, education,industry, shipping,raw materials,inventions) that for all practical purposes, they were the same. There is nothing sinister to be found in the use of one term or the other,it was just normal every day use.115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Selling, leasing , kaitiaki

While it is true that Europeans and British had differing views on land ownership /control but not the ones deleted. Maori clearly understood trade and exchange of property(food ,timber, flax, heads)for other goods(gunpowder , axes , knives)) or actual money. They had regular trading experience with ships over many decades in Northland in particular. Chiefs "controlled" land but did not own it, as in freehold title own ,no such thing existed in the Maori world until the native land court came into existence. They controlled land through various agreed cultural practices such as tapu and mana but ultimately they held it by force. It took many years for Europeans to comprehend even a small part of Maori cultural practice . In particular it depended to a large extent on the abilities and degree of violence a chief was prepared to use to get his way. In other words it was arbitrary to a large extent. Hongi Hika was much feared and "respected" by Maori and Pakeha alike in Northland. He was a very good exponent of intimidation. He used food to control missionary action -especially over mending and selling muskets. It is nonsense to suggest that Maori understood the term "lease" but not the term "sell". Selling is an integral part of trading which they did on a regular basis. Leasing land(for cash) was a very foreign concept but one to which Maori regularly agreed in the Wairarapa from the earliest days. The term kaitiaki never appears in writing about land, customs, kawa or anything else from the early days. It seems to have been used from the 1990s -invented to establish a special relationship with the land for Maori. I'm willing to be proved wrong if an editor can come up with use of this term (meaning guardian or guardianship)from the 1820-1840 period. It may even be a bogus term. There are many well known instances where Maori would "sell" land (especially in Taranaki)to different parties if they could get away with it. It is normally forgotten (or unknown) that trickery was one of the most valued or appreciated behaviours in Maori society, quite contrary to European practice.115.188.178.77 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proclamations 1840 style

In English (British) Law in 1840 a proclamation by the government was a document written by the government and approved by the king or queen. It was used to solve problems of law or authority when timing was urgent as in those times laws or statutes took a long time to pass. Time was important as a contingent of English settlers(the NZ Company) had already set out, en mass, to NZ. The government was very aware of this -because some Whig MPs had invested in the company and backed it politically.

Britain had already claimed sovereignty over NZ in 1769(Cook claimed NZ several times -perhaps 5 times-his journals are somewhat vague-the most well known is Mercury Bay). Proclamation spread the idea of the new law from a central position outwards. Sovereignty over NZ was first proclaimed in Jan 1840 from Sydney by the Governor and Hobson read out the same proclamation to an assembled crowd at the Bay of Islands on Feb 1 1840 where it caused quite a stir, mainly because Hobson announced that a committee would be set up to investigate all current land claims. The actual signing of a treaty was clearly an after thought as Hobson had not even bought a treaty document with him. With the help of local missionaries one was cobbled together in a few days. He had been instructed to obtain the intelligent consent of the natives which he proceeded to do. The British government believed the proclamation was enough to secure sovereignty. The signing was pro forma -to satisfy the colonial secretary's instructions-legally NZ was already British. With the guidance of missionaries, who often spoke fluent Maori, and other govt appointed officers the treaty copies were taken around NZ for months to be "signed". No two copies were the same, as they were all hand written documents. currently it is believed 612 "chiefs" "signed". Hobson did not feel he needed to get every chief to sign. The Treaty was not even taken to the South Island (more than 50% Of NZ) at all, as Maori were few and far between -it was considered that the proclamation was sufficient for the treaty to have legal force. Nor was it taken to all parts of the North island.So perhaps 30% of NZ in total was canvassed over several months.

Not all the copies survived this journey well as they were often wet and mouldy. This rather pours cold water on all the arguments about two different versions being signed, as the British government did not see that as an essential part of sovereignty transfer, just a convenient line of action to achieve the spread of the new legal situation. Clearly it didn't matter that chiefs signed or not. Te Whero whero , a well known Waikato warrior chief, who had killed hundreds of Maori in battle, and was considered a ferocious figure, refused to sign, but sovereignty went head anyway. This powerful chief then maintained very good relationships with the government for over 20 years after the treaty and was even given land at Mangere by the government and included in the local Royal Fencible defence force charged with defending Auckland against a Maori attack! Not a murmur about the treaty signing. Clearly he was not bothered if he signed or not, nor was the government.115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a very long comment, but I'm sorry I don't really know what your point is and whether it has anything to do with this article. BlackCab (TALK) 10:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The comment was in answer to the question from a few days ago-"it is not clear what the status of a proclamation was" . Clearly it is at the core of understanding the treaty. My comment shows how this is reinforced by what the govt actually said and did, at the time. I have noticed you have removed a lot of detail about some aspects of the treaty and added more detail about other aspects of the treaty, so I fail to see how "too much detail" is logical reason for removing information that clarifies aspects of treaty. There has been a vast amount of argument about the "2" version" ( which is now less relevant), whereas in fact detail about the British government's intentions and reasoning are poorly covered. Likewise it is important to have detail about cross cultural misunderstanding -which you removed- to understand the widely differing views at the time. To young people or people from overseas this is very important. They deserve the latest and best accounts,not some dated version from 30 years ago. As this is still considered our founding document it deserves far more detail, such as its cultural setting. As it is ,it lacks its true context and has been subject to much" recentism". ie The treaty being re caste to match present political expectations rather than being viewed in its true historical context . Im not saying that more recent events arent important -they are, but they need to be put in perspective-things were done very differently 150 yrs ago and cant be judged by today's enlightened standards. There are other aspects of the article quite misleading -there is no place where it alludes to the fact that some prominent Whigs were actually involved in backing the NZ company. It is not often realized that when the govt investigations regarding pre treaty land sales took place, the group that benefited most(by far) was -surprise-the Whig backed NZ company!!! As it is the article lacks balance and has a strong sense of "1980" about it.115.188.178.77 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have meant to provide context with the detail about Whigs and food shortages but there is no discernible connection to the treaty. Also your continued reference to "recentism" indicates a misunderstanding of the term. BlackCab (TALK) 01:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you cant see the connection then that is your issue. The issues are very clear to any open minded, knowledgeable person, with a good understanding of the treaty I believe. The key to understanding is that the British Whigs believed sovereignty was fully established, legally, with the proclamations, the "signings ", while perhaps desireable, were not really needed to establish the legal position. This is clearly indicated by the very off hand attitude to the actual treaty document that some chiefs signed. The fact that the govt was not bothered if some chiefs didnt sign, even though they were great warriors, establishes the fact that signing was not critical to the transfer of sovereignty to Britain. Get it now?115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The connection is not clear at all. You clearly have your own opinion on the need for the treaty, dragging in a whole range other issues, but this article, which has to rely on statements in reliable published sources, is not the place to present them. BlackCab (TALK) 10:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely none of the above is opinion. All based on recent (and a few old ) sources. You need to keep up to date. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

With her usual good grace, User 115.188.178.77 invites other editors to "comment on Blackcab's lack of comprehension"[1] in regard to my comments above and the deletion from the opening sentence her garbled and nonsensical reference to the Treaty being "proclaimed" on 1 February 1840 and its earlier "announcement" in Sydney. At best guess the IP editor refers to the proclamations issued in Sydney after Hobson's departure for New Zealand on 18 January regarding the validity of past and future NZ land purchases. At Kororareka on 30 January Hobson gave a speech in which he announced he was assuming his duties as Lieutenant Governor, and then also proclaimed the land restrictions as they had been issued in NSW. Those proclamations are already covered in the "Background" section of the article and do not need to be in the lead section, let alone the opening sentence. There was certainly no proclamation of a treaty which did not even exist at that point. If there are any issues of comprehension, they're not on my part. BlackCab (TALK) 11:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left a wake-up note on Claudia's talk page - hope springs eternal that she might finally take some advice on board about her edits. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)