Talk:Treaty of Waitangi

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 28, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good summary, although a rather ugly dangling modifier in that text. BlackCab (TALK) 02:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I suggest you add something about the Murders Abroad Act 1817 to the section 'Background'. Schwede66 08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Schwede How does it relate to the Treaty of Waitangi? All I can find is a tangential connection via New South Wales attempting to claim sovereignty over the "Aboriginal people of New Zealand" and being denied because of the Murders Abroad Act 1817 . Does the Murders Abroad Act specifically state that New Zealand is not part of His Majesty's Dominion as implied by citation 67 in the above source? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it does state this in the article on the subject. I'll work on including it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. Would have done it myself but working with refs is clumsy via smartphone. Schwede66 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel ya. Mobile editing sucks except for the most basic of tasks. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Ok, It took me a few days, but I've added a dozen new citations to the article (many of them cited several times). I believe that the sourcing of the article is now sufficient for GA Review to continue. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this suggestion Stuart, I'll work on finding additional images. I presume you are talking about the treaty house grounds? Do you think any of the photos over at that article would be suitable? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots in commons. Things like  thumb|Waitangi flagg staff     etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Waitangi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827000341/http://www.waitangi.net.nz/ to http://www.waitangi.net.nz/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Effects" section, I have been trying to change the tense in the sentence "Anticipating the Treaty, the New Zealand Company made several hasty land deals...." to "had made", but have been reverted each time by .
The change seems justified to me because the section starts with the sentence "In November 1840 a royal charter was signed by Queen Victoria...." and is followed by: "The short-term effect of the Treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown...."
Then follows the disputed sentence which refers to the New Zealand Company's actions prior to the signing of the treaty, ie. prior to Victoria's action in November and any short term effects that might have resulted from the treaty. Therefore, we must change to "had made" because the simple past is not right and at first reading implies that the NZC's land deals chronologically followed the first two events. Akld guy (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the sentence in question to make it more clear and I also added back the 'had been'. It wasn't clear what you were talking about in the edit summaries, and I wasn't convinced at the time that adding passive was correct. Thanks for discussing here in more detail. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense 

message: The Treaty of Waitangi () is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. It is a document of central importance to the history and political constitution of the state of New Zealand, and has been highly significant in framing the political relations between New Zealand's government and the Maori population. 
 The Treaty was written at a time when British colonists were pressuring the Crown toestablish a colony in New Zealand, and when some Maori leaders had petitioned the British for protection against French forces. It was drafted with the intention to to establish a British Governor of New Zealand, recognise Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other properties, and to give Māori the rights of British subjects. The Treaty is bilingual, written in Māori and English. It was intended to ensure that when the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand was made by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840, the Māori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored. Once it had been written and translated it was first signed by Northern Maori leaders, and subsequently copies were sent to Maori leaders across New Zealand for them to sign it. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, though some Maori leaders cautioned against it.Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, Bridget Williams Books, 1987, Appendices p. 260 An immediate result of the Treaty was that Queen Victoria's government gained the sole right to purchase land. After the initial signing at Waitangi, copies of the Treaty were taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed."Treaty of Waitangi signings in the South Island", Christchurch City Libraries In total there are nine copies of the Treaty of Waitangi including the original signed on 6 February 1840. 
 The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. Article one of the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown. Article two establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands, and establishes the exclusive right of preemption of the Crown. Article 3 gives Māaori people full rights and protections as British subjects.  However, the English text andthe  Māori text that was signed by the signatories differ significantly, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty. These discrepanciesled to disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually culminating in the New Zealand Wars.
 During the second half of the 19th century, Māori generally lost control of the land they had owned, some through legitimate sale, but often due to unfair land deals or outright seizure in the aftermath of the New Zealand War. In the period following the New Zealand War, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty and the judgment in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". Beginning in the 1950s, Māori increasingly sought to use the treaty as a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 70s were responsive to these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Māori people and the state. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with interpreting the Treaty in order to give effect to the words used in the Treaty. Its mandate was later expanded to include research into breaches of the Treaty by the British Crown or its agents back to 1840 and to suggest means of redress. In most cases, recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown, but settlements totalling nearly $1 billion have been awarded to various Māori groups.. Various legislation passed in the later part of the 20th century has made reference to the Treaty, but the treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law. Nonetheless, the Treaty is generally regarded as the founding document of New Zealand. 
 Waitangi Day is a national holiday established in 1974 commemorating date of the signing of the Treaty.
This is my suggestion for a lead that includes most of the important points from the article as it is currently written. It probably does need some major tweaking for accuracy and language, but this illustrates the type and depth of information I think it needs and how I think it would be best organized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified your original version above, and have copied the modified version over to the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Lead rewrite

message: On the mobile version of Wikipedia, there is no [show]—it's there by default. Compare this to this. Is there a better way to display the text in a way that works across platforms? Perhaps a blockquote? cc GA nominator  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am aware of that bug. Better than the other 'hidden' templates, which don't have 'show' but also don't unexpand by default (making it impossible to see the text at all). I'll look into a hidden template that works on mobile. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it need to be hidden? I've added a quotebox at 80% width for those on desktop, and for which a border will show up to set it off on mobile. I also added a |title=, similar to what you had for the hidden template, but removed it because it said the same thing as your third-level header. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't hate it. Looks fine. It was originally set to hidden before I expanded the sections and when they were right next to each other, but it looks fine now with the explanatory sections breaking it up between the versions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! Glad we were able to solve it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Click [show] to view 

message: In David Slack's  Bullshit, Backlash & Bleeding Hearts - A Confused Person's Guide To The Great Race Rowlaw lecturer Alex Frame proposes that the Treaty was a gamble. Crucially Maori had little idea about the numbers of colonists who would arrive?
::People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
::So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly the same as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.''
In Penguin History of NZ Michael King writes
::The Ati Awa chief Te Wharepouri told William Wakefield that when he had participated in the sale of land to the New Zealand Company he had been expecting about ten Pakeha, to settle around Port Nicholson, one Pakeha for each pa. When he saw the more than 1,000 settlers who stepped off the company’s ships, he panicked. It was beyond anything that Te Wharepouri had imagined.”
This view challenges the notion that the Treaty as a "foundation stone" for the modern state. King's Te Wharepouri quote seems to back it up?Yonk (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That may sum up the situation at Port Nicholson (which we now call Wellington), but the first chiefs who signed were in the Far North District, up around the Bay of Islands. Pakeha were far more numerous up there, weren't they? That's why Russell was made the capital. You'd have to ask why all those northern chiefs signed if they had reservations about the number of Pakeha already there with more to come. It was only later that copies of the Treaty were taken around the country for signing. Akld guy (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Akld guy. Are you serious? At that time there were only 2000 Non Maori in NZ. Even if they were all in the Bay of Islands in roles integrated with Maori, I can't imagine the chiefs had any idea of numbers. By 1858 there were as many Pakeha as Maori.Yonk (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't made reference to all chiefs. You've picked out a statement by one chief in order to make a POV declaration. To balance it, you'd need to state that other chiefs, particularly those first ones in the Far North, signed apparently without reservation, or with similar reservations as the case may be. If you're intending to add content stating that the chiefs unwittingly signed away their sovereignty, you'd better do it properly. Akld guy (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not intending to attempt to edit the article but there must be some references to the chiefs expectations about the number of Pakeha who would live amongst them? Yonk (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic Change 

message: Kia Ora, My name is Hemopereki Simon and I am a researcher affiliated to The University of Wollongong and Charles Sturt University. In 2017 I wrote a journal article that is considered the new discourse on the treaty. Please read https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4 In the next six months there will be three more articles which support this one. I want to improve this page. It is lacking Maori perspective and writing by Maori academics which would led me to question the neutrality and authority of the article. Your whitewashing the Maori understandings of the treaty. So lets work together to improve it. 
Lets start: In a year one treaty paper at any University in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia we teach that that it is more then mistranslation. Both documents Te Tiriti o Waitangi and The Treaty of Waitangi are in reality two different documents altogether. In the notes of the article I wrote:
The Treaty of Waitangi (English version) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Reo Māori version) are accepted to be two very different documents, due  to  their  content  and  understandings.  For  more  information, refer  to  Ani  Mikaere,  ‘Te  Tiriti  and  the  Treaty’,  123–146.  He Whakaputanga   is   also   refered   to   as   The   Declaration   of Independence in English is an important constitutional document that led to the eventual creation of Te Tiriti. 
On this point work by Margaret Mutu also points this out https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/14137  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , This sort of article isn't the place to publish 'new discourse on the Treaty'. This sort of article should follow the lead of other highly respected tertiary sources, not summarise new writings by unknown authors. In short, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The section on 'differences' covers this already in any case, and clearly states that the two translations are significantly different in meaning from each other. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ,With regards to Mutu, her work is cited in the 'differences' section, and the Maori view of 'completely different texts' was never removed. I have added a bit more here on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the different treaty texts. I've made some compromise edits with regards to changing 'version' to 'text' wherever it refers to the different language translations of the Treaty and re-adding some information from Margaret Mutu (paraphrased rather than quoted) as well as some information on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the texts differently. Please discuss additional changes you would like here, and it would be better to propose specific changes, rather than generic complaints. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Discourse of the Treaty 

message: The core problem with this article is that all the comments except Dr Simon are deeply racist and white supremacist. The best accepted translation of "kāwangatanga" in Aotearoa today is "apartheid" (or "Jim Crow",
but really "apartheid" is closer).   
Wikipedia should think about how what an NPoV on South Africa in say 1990 would be and apply a similar lens to Aotearoa. 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism, white supremacy, apartheid 

message: This article needs to comment about the legal principle of Contra Proforentem. It is highly held in academia that this applies to the treaty refer to: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=contra+proferentem+and+the+treaty+of+waitangi&btnG=
for criticism on the lack of recognition of this legal principle:
The consistent redefinition of Te Tiriti by the judiciary questions their role in the suppression and subjugation of iwi and hapu by implementing the law. Although it may seem progressive, The New  Zealand  Māori  Council  v  Attorney-General  case,  if  seen from  a  non-signatory  hapu  and  iwi  perspective,  can  only  be described  as  an  attempt  by  a  white  possessive  society  to subjugate these groups further. This is made worse by the lack of recognition (for the common law doctrine around treaties and contracts) of contra perferentem. This is acknowledged as being applicable  to  Te  Tiriti  but  has  not  been implemented  by  the government  due  to  its  potential  ramifications  for  the  white possessive  state.  Ultimately,  the  judiciary  and  its  decisions are consistent and desperate attempts by the white possessive state  in  Aotearoa  New  Zealand  to  deny  hapu  and  iwi their history and lived experiences as non-signatory hapu and iwi. In doing  this  they  seek  to  void  tikanga  and  its  key  principles surrounding mana being: mana whenua and mana motuhake.Simon, Hemopereki (2017). Te Arewhana Kei Roto i Te Rūma: An Indigenous  Neo-Disputatio  on  Settler Society,  Nullifying  Te  Tiriti,  ‘Natural Resources’ and Our Collective Future in Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Kaharoa 9 (1), https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4
Hemopereki (talk • contribs)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started adding a bit on this, with regards to the Waitangi Tribunal, but it could use some more. I'll look into it and get back to you. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contra Proforentem 

message: need to add these to further reading list. 
Simon, Hemopereki (2017). Te Arewhana Kei Roto i Te Rūma: An Indigenous Neo-Disputatio on Settler Society, Nullifying Te Tiriti, ‘Natural Resources’ and Our Collective Future in Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Kaharoa. 9 (1), https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4
Malcolm Mulholland and Veronica Tawhai (2017). Weeping Waters: The Treaty of Waitangi and Constitutional Change. Wellington: Huia.
Katarina Gray-Sharp and Veronica Tawhai (2011). Always Speaking: The Treaty of Waitangi and Public Policy. Wellington: Huia.
Jones, Carwyn (2017). New Treaty, New Tradition: Reconciling New Zealand and Maori Law. Vancouver: UBC Press.
The list requires more Maori perspectives which these should add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Texts in the 'further reading' section should be widely cited texts, not very recent texts which haven't had time yet for people to widely discuss them. Putting a journal article written by yourself on that list is definitely not appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: This isn't correct, and is contradicted by the sentences after it (the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975). It also ignores the massive body of case law that has come about over the years (which is regarded as part of municipal law, esp since New Zealand is a Common Law country). It is true to say (however) that the Treaty isn't part of statute law other than as a schedule to the 1975 Act. That is what the wording should be. --HuttValley (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Matthew Palmer's book as a reference and will (if I get a chance today during my lunch break!) add in references to where the Treaty is part of New Zealand's law. I suspect what the sentence is trying to get across that the Treaty is not strictly part of NZ's constitutional law. --LJ Holden 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law." 

message: Just reverted Whareras removal of this. The URL he provided in his edit summary looks pretty compelling - but this 'fact' is so much of the story as understood by many - and apparently baked by A C. Orange ref - that we should not simply zap it, but instead give both sides, via some sort of "..as widely believed, but in fact looks pretty shaky" explanation. - Snori (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then. I have Claudia Orange's The Treaty of Waitangi on my bookshelf, so it's easy enough to check what she had to say about this detail. I found it on page 55 (my edition was printed in 2004): As each Maori signed, he shook hands with Hobson (and with the other members of the official party), the Lieutenant Governor repeating, 'He iwi tahi tatou' – 'We are now one people.' I'd be interested to know what Orange makes of the 2017 The Spinoff article / thinks of Dr Danny Keenan. She is, after all, the acknowledged authority on the Treaty. Schwede66 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I keep trying to get in contact with her to get her to do a review of this article but no luck so far... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , have just tried to establish contact via LinkedIn. Schwede66 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Well, If you get in contact let me know. I've tried via her work (Te papa), but no dice. I think to get this to FA we need the advice of a true expert. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , just letting you know that I have not heard back. Schwede66 01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "We are one people"

message: One of the details that's missing from this article is the signing locations of the various copies. I see that Orange (1987) has a map and a location list for the first eight copies. The printed list is not included there (and I haven't read up on why it's not). To me, this would be a useful addition to this article. In fact, given that we are talking eight separate documents (plus the printed copy, which Orange says may have gone round in 1844), all with their individual stories, this may lend itself to a standalone article. We should also do related work on Commons and on Wikidata. This won't be straightforward at all; for example, in her list, Orange refers to Akaroa. That's not very precise, as the treaty was signed at Ōnuku Marae. What do others think? Schwede66 01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! --LJ Holden 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations where the treaty was signed

message: I'm working my way through cleaning up the references. It's a bit of a challenge given some of the references don't have page numbers. --LJ Holden 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Yeah, It was an issue during the GA review as well, I tried adding page numbers to refs that I added, but there were a lot of older references in different styles. There is a digital version of Claudia Orange's book available online though, if that helps.  — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 07:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brilliant, thanks. There seems to be multiple references to different variations/editions of the same book. --LJ Holden 09:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Yeah, I had one of them out of the library, so not sure if the pg numbers I added will match. Looks like the online version has some pages missing as well... :/ — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If page numbers are missing, record "p=?" in the sfn template. I have Orange's book on my bookshelf and could do some winter reading... Schwede66 10:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - cool, I've done my best reading through Orange's book plus the Illustrated Guide, there's a few other references that still need to be tidied up which I'll get on to over the next week or so as I get time. I also think we need to cover the "Crown" --LJ Holden 04:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  – you legend! Schwede66 05:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference clean-up 

message: I'm still working on cleaning up references on this article... does anyone know which book "P.Lowe. The French and The Maori, Heritage 1990." actually is? there are a few with similar / same titles according to Google, but with different authors and different dates.--LJ Holden 00:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone back through the edit history and this reference was added by an IP user. First mentioned in an edit summary and then added as a crudely formatted reference. The IP last edited in 2011. Schwede66 04:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... this book looks like the one it's referring to. --LJ Holden 08:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: John_Dunmore certainly looks like a mainstream modern historican whose work would count as a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He is, what I'm trying to figure out is who "P.Lowe." is. Not sure if anyone has seen this book? --LJ Holden 09:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like the book on Google books --LJ Holden 09:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This bird may have flown years ago, but The French and the Maori (Heritage, 1992) contains a chapter, "French land purchases" by Peter Low. Nurg (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The French and The Maori book 

message: For those interested in material history, specifically the Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language text), it has been transcluded to Wikisource. The source has been proofread, but requires validation on its . Te Karere (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: this article identifies the Waikato-Manukau Sheet as a "copy". As it is in the English language, this would be an inaccurate description.Te Karere (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language) at WikiSource 

message: There is only one Treaty,that being the Treaty written in Maori. The supposed English Treaty has no legal standing, so can be ignored for the purposes of this wikipedia article. Under international law (Vienna convention on treaties. I will provide details later) if there is any confusion/difference in interpretation between two conflicting versions of a treaty, then the treaty written in the language of the indigenous people is the lawful treaty.Thus no mention should be made of an English language version of the Treaty, as by law no English language version exists. 
A suitable backtranslation of the Treaty into English is that done by Hugh Kawheru(?spelling? sorry, this is done from memory) for the Waitangi Tribunal's He whakaputanga me te Tiriti report.
Hugh Kawheru's translation shows Maori gave governance to the British Crown, not sovereignty.
On a different note, concerning the legal standing of the Treaty; The Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.That is the finding of Privy Council decision AC 308. The reason for this is that the Treaty was never ratified by the British parliament. Thus the Treaty only has legal force when incorporated in Acts of the New Zealand parliament.I believe Article two has been incorporated in some legislation, but not Article one. Most references to the Treaty in NZ legislation do not actually refer to the Treaty, but refer to the "principles" of the Treaty, which is not the same thing as the Treaty.Article one is particularly problematic for the NZ state as Article one guarantees Rangatira sovereignty, so it is unlikely Article one will ever be part of NZ law.
Concerning references to the Treaty as NZ's founding document, this is false and misleading.By Court of Appeal decision NZ Maori Council v Attorney General(1987 I believe) NZ's foundational documents are Hobson's proclamations.
I suggest explaining on the wikipedia site why there is no lawful English version of the Treaty, and why the Maori language Treaty is the only Treaty.
I suggest explaining that most(or all) NZ legislation does not recognise/give legal force to the Treaty, but rather recognises the "principles" of the Treaty.
I suggest explaining that the Privy Council has found the Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.(will check exact wording of decision)
I suggest explaining that Hobson's proclamations are currently regarded by the NZ courts as having established British sovereignty in this land.210.48.190.70 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, there really needs to be citations from verifiable sources for the above changes to be made. --LJ Holden 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the Treaty? 

message: @user:Stuartyeates @user:119.224.17.35 et al. I changed the wording today to reflect more closely what his orders were, with those orders added as a reference. This could be seen as OR by me but it is closer to the orders, obviously, than the interpretation I changed. The exam questions at the side are concerning because they lead the student to a particular preferred response. The orders say Maori had sovereignty but only if certain conditions existed, which it says did not exist, hence meaning IMO that sovereignty did not exist. If sovereignty did not exist it could not be ceded, obviously. The subsequent actions and both texts of the treaty are closer to the idea of a recognition of UK sovereignty (that the UK would simply declare) than of Maori ceding its sovereignty. Much of the sources used to back the notion of Maori ceding sovereignty are low quality unreliable or poorly interpreted. We have to be very careful to be very neutral. See the second section above from 2017. An IP quotes from the treaty that Maori ceded sovereignty. "The Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty" If they did not have the rights and powers of sovereignty Maori could not have ceded them, and Normanby's orders make it clear the UK govt thought Maori did not have sovereignty (that the UK thought under 'normal' conditions they would have had.) If this strictly speaking is my OR interpretaion, it is no different from what is there now. I think some quality academic sources, properly interpretedband quoted should be used, not the various non-independent ones we often use.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobson's orders