Talk:Treaty of Waitangi

GA Reassessment

Treaty of Waitangi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This article contains cleanup banners that are unquestionably valid (per WP:GAFAIL) Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donald Francis McKenzie reference from 1985 about interpretation dated, obscure, de minimus to the discourse, and must be deleted.

Who agrees that the Donald Francis McKenzie reference from 1985 about interpretation issues as "contrast between a literate culture and one that was wholly oral." are a) dated, b) obscure, and c) only one very minor thread in the important conversation about interpretation of these documents, and as such should be removed. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

An academic work published by a reputable academic publisher is certainly due for inclusion. What does 'obscure' even mean in such a context? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle I see no one has really jumped on the bandwagon here. It can't possible be plainly true that "An academic work published by a reputable academic publisher is certainly due for inclusion" without any conditions, because there are very many of many, many different views. The point I am making is that this 1985 publication is in plain fact dated, it expresses a deep white racism, and it does not represent a generic or overall perspective. Instead it expresses a specific narroe viewpoint on a question that is not posed (such as, how would a white academic characterise the parties to the Treaty). The question posed at that point in the page is "The two texts differ, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty..." which is a point the McKenzie quote simply obscures and is incapable of adding anything to. In fact, in my vast experience, the statement as it now exists is by far the best place to leave the question: we should acknowledge "The two texts differ, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty...", and we don't need to assert any answers to this extremely complex matter. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno how it's racist? I think it would be more racist if he said "Illiterate". It seems factually correct that Maori culture followed an oral tradition at the time. Not sure about this guy's other views or what else he is known for... maybe he is a racist and his views should be discounted; if that's the case feel free to provide sources supporting that view. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 02:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

So its plainly racist because it generalises Maori society at the time as 'oral' compared to 'literate' when that generalisation is not factually true. It therefore establishes ethnicity based grounds to differentiate between ethnic groups, in a negative way. That's what racism is. If was in fact true that Maori society an all Maori were 'wholly oral' then. it could only be racist if it seemed or appeared to Maori that it was denigrating in nature, which I would argue is still the case. But in this case, it is also not true. Maori were literate in 1840, and many white people were not literate in 1840. It is therefore a wholly inappropriate way to reflect on that moment in time, and not relevant to the point being made on the page. I have no idea of any of his views either, but I know that this view doesn't belong on this page, unless we all accept racist content. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure some Maori were literate in 1840. Just as there were many white settlers that were illiterate. He here was referring to the *culture* being an oral one. Maori stories and teaching were an oral tradition, not a written one, and importantly agreements between tribes would have typically been spoken, not written down. Maori language was entirely oral, with no written component prior to European arrival. This isn't a denouncement of Maori culture, but rather an acknowledgement that an culture with an oral tradition treats agreements differently than one with a written culture. As many write about the treaty signing, the Maori in attendance put a lot in what was *said* at the treaty signing, rather than just what was written down, this obviously conflicts with a culture that treats written agreements as binding to the words that are put on the page. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 06:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This is my interpretation too; I don't think it's controversial to state that the Māori language has an oral tradition, rather than a literate (written) one; by 1840, the written form of Māori using the Latin alphabet was still very new, having developed between 1817–1830. That said, has there been anything published in academic literature since 1985, that either supports or challenges McKenzie's interpretation here? nil ^nz 06:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I completely and 'wholly' acknowledge that McKenzie's quote can be interpreted (generously) as a non-rigorous, non academic generalisation about two cultures, and that the Māori language has an oral tradition, but this isn;t waht McKenzie's quote says!!!. It still isn't true that Maori culture was 'wholly oral' or that tauiwi culture was wholly literate.

Do you think a 'new published academic literature since 1985, either supporting or challenging McKenzie's interpretation' is required to remove a dated, racist, out of place quote from page - we need new authority on an invalid point to remove it? ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

We need a published source to establish that it is 'dated', 'racist' and 'invalid'. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If a work is dated you should be able to support that contention with other sources that either directly or indirectly contradict it; age itself does not inherently make a work unreliable/unsuitable. It isn't said to represent an overall perspective, it is quite clearly attributed to the academic in question. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

We could change "wholly oral" to "illiterate", which would reduce byte usage, but we have to stick to what the author actually wrote. The term used is somewhat conservative in defining the difference between an 1840 European culture and one that had only started emerging from its primeval existence a couple of decades or so earlier. Age does not invalidate an historical source, it could in fact enhance its relevance. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

History is an ever-changing field, so we can't rely on secondary sources that are too old and are thus out of date. They can refer to older primary documents that are still historically significant (like the Treaty itself) but the same doesn't apply to the history books/papers etc. themselves. That doesn't mean anything beyond a certain date is worthless, but especially in a field of study that's still active and publishing new material every year, why rely on a 40+ year old source just because it's old? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

With all that said, if the Donald Francis McKenzie source is contested, I do think we need something to back that view up too, we can't just rely on the word of ~2026-10604-40. Has McKenzie's "literate vs. wholly oral" view come under scrutiny, especially in other papers? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Gee Rog you're really showing your colours now e hoa. Obviously we can't change his quote so it has to go. And of course it doesn't speak to the context anyway so arguments to keep it equate to arguments to keep racist content in there where it makes no sense. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Being ever changing does not mean ever improving. Much of what McKenzie writes is stating facts that cannot be disputed. What is causing much of the contemporary debate is the extent to which these indisputeable facts are twisted to suit an agenda. Some alteration to the language used to describe these facts is justified, compared to the language used in earlier days, but that is mainly due to change in the English language, not the facts themselves. It is preferable today, for example, to decribe Maori in 1815 as primitive and warlike rather than uncivilised and savage, but the meaning is the same. When these facts are twisted or ignored to the point where they give a misleabing or wrong version of the past, we should correct that. Quality academic sources do not make misleading or incorrect statements of fact, but most people don't bother reading them properly, if at all. What we are therefore left with is the multitude of low grade sources that work to an agenda. That includes all govt based sources, yes all, including maps; it also includes comments from most people younger than 40 who have grown up hearing all this agenda based version of history. That includes many academics whose speciality is not history. McKenzie is useful because he predates much of the agenda based detail that was about to be rammed into NZ society. His work is not supposedly out of date because it has been superceded by later proper historical interpretations of what happen, but rather because he is not affected by the current agenda. In the same way, contemporary overseas sources are useful because they are on the whole not affected by the agenda based thinking within New Zealand society. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Rog its not preferable to me to "describe Maori in 1815 as primitive and warlike rather than uncivilised and savage."

In fact in my opinion both of these approaches are racist like McKenzie because you are making generalisations about a people as a whole which are plainly denigrating. So I reject those positions completely :).

I completely agree that quality academic sources do not make misleading or incorrect statements of fact, but most people don't bother reading them properly, if at all. But I completely reject your suggestion that we are therefore left with is the multitude of low grade sources that work to an agenda. There is a wide variety of excellent academic work that speaks to this point (the one that McKenzie's quote doesn't speak to, but in my view nothing further is required there, unless you want to pursue the ongoing inclusion of racist material in this content.

Okay everyone, having read rog rog above, I now consider that he has completely discredited himself and his radicalised editorial wisdom must be withdrawn from!

To state it once more, the McKenzie must go as it is dated, racist and does not speak to the paragraph it appeared in. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

RE: McKenzie, are there any critiques of his views here as being racist beyond your own personal opinion? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus to keep the McKenzie text for now, please stop removing it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle I completely disagree with your assertion that there is consensus for it to stay. There is neither qualitative nor quantitative data here to make such a claim.

The consensus is however clear that it must go, because NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE has raised any real debate to my specific positions that it is dated and does not actually fit in that place.

If you have read my explanations of how it meets any threshold for being a racist comment and you don't agree, you must debate that with me here. Otherwise it holds true. I do not need to reference my argument for it being racist because I am not stating that on the page. I have set out a plain and objective argument. If you can't debate it, you can't debate it.

So once again it's gotta go. Reversion will do no more than gate keeping bad content on an important page. In any instance, the removal of this kind of a dated, racist, and out of place quote is the correct and editorially conservative thing to do. To hold on to it because I showed that it's racist is radical! Imagine if we were editing a paper and someone's article included that quote, and we had this same discussion (racist, dated, and out of place, and added nothing critical): would it stay in or come out? Come on. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus against it's removal, and many editors have disagreed with your interpretation of racism by describing the Māori language and culture of the time as "wholly oral". By 1840, Europeans had been using a written language for millennia, whilst Māori was only transliterated less than 20 years earlier; that's the contrast that McKenzie is trying to make, and it's quite different to calling Māori of the time illiterate (which we all know would be inaccurate).
McKenzie was published 40 years ago, so it could well be out-dated and incorrect; if it were, then there would be more contemporary sources available that challenge or discredit McKenzie's interpretations. nil ^nz 23:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I think my bigger thing with the McKenzie source from what I've seen so far isn't so much that it's been discredited, it's that it hasn't been discussed at all and seems fairly obscure. The author is from a different field and I haven't seen anything discussing his views, which makes me think that quoting and inclusion of this scale feels like it could be WP:UNDUE, particularly given how large the article is and the need to cut stuff. Turnagra (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

McKenzie's argument has been reported on by other sources, it certainly isn't obscure as it has over 100 cites Traumnovelle (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

nil this is not true: "There is consensus against it's removal, and many editors have disagreed with your interpretation of racism by describing the Māori language and culture of the time as "wholly oral"." This [describing the Māori language and culture of the time as "wholly oral"] is not my assertion of racism - you should read my entries again. The racism arises because he goes beyond describing to making up, and to setting up a comparison on false grounds. He does that in a context of making a broad and untrue generalisation about Maori, which creates a comparison with tauiwi and tauiwi culture of the time which is plainly derogatory to Maori and presumes - as a generalisation - the superiority of tauiwi. We see the problem with generalisations, generally, and we find generalisations can and are often used to diminish people. When this occurs in the context of ethnicity comparisons, it is commonly called racism.

There is no consensus against removal. No one has said 'it must stay cause it is good and true and wonderful!' No one has disagreed with me that it does not belong. Modern reference is not required top remove dated material.

No one has actually disagreed much less argued my points or argued my assessment of the racism. Yes, people have repeatedly asked about it, but none of you actually have a formed alternative view. That is not a consensus to keep it. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No one has bothered to disagree with you explicitly because no one cares for your ultracrepidarian arguments to discredit a work that has been cited numerous times in academia. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep the racist quote... Keep the racist quote... Keep the racist quote... Keep the racist quote... yay, yeah, let's keep it in there! Great!

Well, no one bothering means there's no consensus to keep it. Build a consensus. I've made a case, no one's touched it.

An ultracrepidarian is someone who confidently offers opinions, judgments, or advice on subjects completely outside their area of expertise. It's the ultimate term for an armchair expert or a blustery "know-it-all". Gee, that really hurt :)

So, cited numerous times right? OK, that specifically doesn't protect it from being racist. Nor does it defend it from being dated in this present instance. Nor does it protect it from being out of place as it is in this article. I asked someone else recently if a quantitative analysis of quotes means they are right... That is an argument that has no basis.

So if you all accuse me of bludgeoning or lawyering, you can plainly see yourselves here in this racism vortex can't you.

Traumnovelle's triumphant gag on why no one has argued the points I've raised makes my point perfectly - none of you care (about racism on the page, or whether the quote makes sense where it is). Ultracrepidarian I'd say might apply to you: your opinions are strong, especially when it comes to upholding bad content, but you can't debate (except of course using bits of policy to hold yourselves in place). I am thinking about that story of the businessperson who came into town, paid the motel $100 for the night, the motellier went to the pub and paid their $100 bar tab, they paid the grocer, the grocer paid the local contractor, and the local contractor paid the businesswomen for their work. Everyone got $100 richer lol.

If my arguments are so weak, feel free to shoot them down, if you know so much about racism, and how English works and what sense making is, and why obscure meaningless racist quotes from 40 years ago should in fact be tidied as we go and new insights emerge!

So it goes on and on:

Keep the racist quote... Keep the racist quote... Keep the racist quote... we don't have any good reasons that we know of or can write down... but keep the racist quote... yay, yeah, let's keep it in there! It's great! ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, tell us more about this "agenda" that has befallen our nation's youth. nil ^nz 05:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

References

How we describe the Treaty of Waitangi

Spoiler alert: I deeply disagree with the historical agreement reached on this page, that a Te Tiriti o Waitangi page should not exist, and these documents should be treated together and as one.

To accomodate what is truly the vast difference between these two documents, and the complexity added by the fact that te Tiriti - promising tino Rangatiratanga to Māori - represents the agreement reached in 1840 in a modern context in which Crown authority reigns by virtue of colonial power and process, I propose a revision of this opening sentence.

It currently reads: "The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi), sometimes referred to as Te Tiriti (lit. 'The Treaty'), is a document of importance to the history of New Zealand, and its national identity."

This is problematic because in professional, legal and Māori contexts, and other contexts more generally, the Treaty of Waitangi is rarely if ever referred to, only te Tiriti is referred to as the agreement reached which must be worked with and not obfuscated, and, in those contexts te Tiriti means the te Reo Maori text as the agreement reached in 1840. As you'll see, this is simply my analysis, I am not trying to include this analysis on the page. I am simply providing context for a fruitful discussion.

But on those grounds, and others, I think this version is better:

"The Treaty of Waitangi (English) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (te Reo Māori) are documents of importance representing an early agreement between Rangatira Māori and the British Crown. As such they are important to the history of New Zealand, New Zealand's constitutional and social landscapes, and its national identity. They are sometimes paired, sometimes decoupled, and there are numerous approaches to which document is or should be referred to in a multitude of contexts."

The page then continues:

"The cornerstone legislative recognition of the Treaty in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 represented a paradigm shift and a radically altered official discourse, relating to Māori rights and the relationship between Māori and the Crown. The role of the Treaty in the relationship between Māori and the Crown has become more prominent from the late 20th century...."

And I propose these minor revisions:

"The Treaty was not recognised in law until 1975. Legislative recognition in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 represented a paradigm shift and a radically altered official discourse relating to Māori rights and the relationship between Māori and the Crown. This Act bound the Crown and generated new common law norms relating to the Treaty as intended. As a result the role of the Treaty in the relationship between Māori and the Crown has become more prominent from the late 20th century....",

This latter proposal operates to balance the following statements relating to status in international law which is very much a second tier question (maybe even an irrelevant one) compared to status in domestic law, which is what I have addressed/inserted via this revision.

I just can't wait to hear your thoughts and to reach a consensus on these matters which moves away from obscuring the difference in the texts and the differences revealed by the question of what was signed as the agreement reached. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Constructive talk page discussion is always welcome and forgiveness of transgressors is a virtue, but to date you lose all credibility…

By…being a newly arrived one-topic IP, who knows they're right

By…using words like ‘racist’, ‘truly vast difference’, ‘crown authority reigns by virtue of colonial power’

By…putting words in other editors’ mouths, such as 'conspiracy theory'.

By…re-inserting your reverted edits before consensus is obtained

By…removing constructive posts from others in discussions on your talk page just because you don’t agree, as well as removing misconduct warnings – allowed but not good form

By…ignoring WP:BRD and starting edit wars

By…failing to understand that we add what independent reliable secondary sources say about a subject, not what we think should be said. Note the above non-neutral unsubstantiated suggestion for an introduction.

By…ignoring repeated requests to supply sources

By…dismissing any detail from reputable academic experts that you don’t like – at least two so far.

By…dismissing the opinion of others without giving any plausible reason, such as ‘that source is no good because it’s all of 40 years old, and the author's a racist anyway’ or ‘Prof Paul Moon’s twenty- minute long interview is no good because I don’t like the interviewer’.

I do, however, agree that this article should be re-written if that is at all possible, which it might not be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Constructive talk page discussion is always welcome and forgiveness of transgressors is a virtue, but most recently you lost all credibility because you proposed Michael Laws and the Platform as a reliable and neutral source. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Rog I'm sure I've never dismissed you views without giving any plausible reason, such as ‘that source is no good because it’s all of 40 years old' - in the story of Treaty recognition 40 years is basically the whole story. So it is not just 40 years, its like saying views held at the start of this journey still hold true. That would be blind. I also pointed out that it was factually wrong, which was part of my racism argument. But actually it is more important to recall the real reason I repeatedly removed and argued against the quote - which was because it literally made no sense in the context: this is because the same people wrote both texts, so a false comparison about the societies at large was out of place (and in 2026, out of time). Also, there are many modern sources we could add there, who say something valid about the differences between the texts

I never said the author is racist. You are putting words in my mouth. Bad form. I said the quote from him is racist and I took time to set this out in some detail so that you could see that I was serious about that statement.

I didn't say that "Prof Paul Moon’s twenty- minute long interview is no good because I don’t like the interviewer - those are your words. What I said in that regard is that his history is agenda-d and I don't accept his histories as neutral. And I'm pretty sure I will have made those points with some additional evidence. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider Michael Laws a reliable source for the Treaty of Waitangi but Paul Moon is a respected historian and the most prolific author in New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that Paul Moon is the most prolific author in NZ, and do you believe that quantity equates to believability, sanctity, purity, or neutrality? ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The source on the youtube link is what Moon is saying. It is therefore a primary source that would normally not be allowed. However, he is a subject expert with many secondary sources, which means we can consider his primary evidence, especially as it is lengthy and not a short one-liner. The interviewer is not relevant. The interview is for this talk page discussion anyway, not for use on the article page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

My problem with your racism argument about McKenzie isn't that it's incorrect, it's just that this entire discussion is surrounding just your own interpretation of it as such. Are there critiques of McKenzie's views in news articles or other academic publications? As we see with Paul Moon, fellow historians and activists aren't shy to decry someone who they see as propagating racist views about the Māori. It's not that McKenzie has to be as controversial as Moon's to "count" as sufficiently controversial, but just something, even a single article critiquing him, would be much more useful here than relying on your word. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. No that's not right. While tauiwi often obsess over suggestions of racism because we deeply understand their importance, the entire discussion does not surround my interpretation of McKenzie's comments as racist. I have specifically made at least 3 high level arguments for its removal: the entire discussion is about reason to exclude from the article. It being a racist comment is just one. The others are that McKenzies comment is and was incorrect and therefore invalid - especially for 'our' purposes (Maori culture in 1840 was not wholly illiterate, tauiwi culture was not wholly literate - to pretend they were is a racist and false dychotomy which tends and aims to frame Maori as inferior and incapable of matching or attaining the literacy of tauiwi). Regardless of these reasons, an anachronistic reflection from a tauiwi author about cultural and mutually-exclusive literacy simply makes no sense in a sentence about the texts being different. So, it's racism, and its also other things which I have set out in detail. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The racism argument continues to be your main focus, while the other points seem to be downstream from that. With McKenzie's 1985 text being cited over a hundred times (according to Traumnovelle), surely you can bring up at least one article critiquing him, or taking him to task for what he said? Has anyone else other than you called him incorrect? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Rog I'm keen to hear how you would describe the difference between the Treaty in which the Crown promises Sovereignty to itself, and te Tiriti, in which the Crown promises to respect and uphold absolutely the sovereignty of Maori? I used the words "truly vast difference" to reflect this and you have said this discredits me. So how do you describe the difference between the two versions which promise sovereignty to both parties separately?

You've also attempted to discredit me on the basis that I have "dismissed any detail from reputable academic experts that you don’t like – at least two so far." Can you list them please, and explain how I have failed to actually state or argue my position in relation to them. This is the talk page where I can share views.

You meanwhile have proposed I watch established far right editorial non-academic media content to understand your views.

I have not "ignored repeated requests to supply sources" - that is a lie Rog. I do often seek to rely on the texts of the Treaty and te Tiriti (these I assume do not require referencing), and in other regards, your demand for sources does not match your own vigilance in providing sources. I have continued to identify parts of this article to which no reference is attached, and yet you have still instigate edit war on changes aiming to meet that basic standard. You defend un referenced material that YOU like, in pursuit of a page that tells your story. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've stated it prior but different translations, even if they vary significantly, are not considered separate documents/objects. This is not the only treaty/agreement where disagreements have arose over the translation. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

So in the case of the Treaty of Waitangi with te Tiriti o Waitangi being the principal and signed document, shouldn't the page be "Te Tiriti o Waitangi"? ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No, because the most common name in English is 'Treaty of Waitangi'. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of that being the most commonly used name in English? It's not the most common name I hear. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

So 'no' then. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Now you are just being disruptive. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not disruptive, just the evidence you pretended to provide didn't meet any standard of meaning in the context. In fact, it isn't evidence. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In what way is it "not evidence"? Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To IP - What's wrong with Article 3, in either language?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It has comparatively limited constitutional meaning, in context. ~2026-29758-63 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

New Article?

If any re-writing of this article is to happen, I think the first step is to agree on a structure, with each subsection given a weighting - to help stop it from again expanding out in all directions. That would also have the effect of limiting the prefered final size (half the current size?). All tangential topics, such as the Tribunal must be given brief mention but directed to their own article and not allowed to fester and grow in this article. An initial suggestion is four subsections of roughly equal size: 1/ The reason for the treaty; 2/ The period of signing and the three clauses; 3/ The different understandings of the disputed parts 4/ Later role in NZ society, incl post-1970 (most of which is tangential and is better dealt with in seperate articles). It would be useful, and justified I think, to create seperate articles about the different interpretations and the consequences of that. All the opinion based stuff about that could then be moved to moved elsewhere. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

By new article you mean a rewrite, not a separate standalone article? Because I see no need for the latter. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a total rewrite so it loooks new although it will be the same article. Some existing text and sources will remain but probably be arranged differently. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with outlining an initial plan from the article and going from there to get GA status back. I think it would be most helpful for wikipedia to provide a chronological history (easily navigable etc), so sections would be: reason for treaty/relevant history, then difference in interpretations and understandings, then a section on its pre 1970s statutory history, and then finally 1975 onwards. This would demonstrate the Treaty's role in constitutional history, which is crucial to its notability. Drew Stanley (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe to combine Roger 8 Roger & Drew Stanley's initial outlines:

Pre-signing history

1. Reasons for the treaty, which is part of pre-1840 New Zealand history but requires significant cutdown from current "Background" section

2. Drafting and signings (1840 focus)

Text and Interpretations

3. Contents of the treaty between the languages

4. Discrepancies between versions

5. Relevant disputes

Post-signing history

6. Pre-1970s treaty grievances

7. 1970-2010s - modern-treaty activism and statutory history

8. Other sections: in popular opinion, commemoration...

Just something rough to keep the conversation going. again, from my very cursory view, I think the most glaring problem is the fact that the background section attempts to write the entirety of pre-1840 NZ history.

Additionally wondering why Native Land Court is brought up, since land alienation at large is a process concurrent to yet not directly related to treaty grievances...? looking to more-read Treaty scholars on this. Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tunnelcrawlerwyan@Drew Stanley@Roger 8 Roger@Traumnovelle. Almost anything that is cut out needs to be either incorporated into another existing article, or spun off to another new one. This article lost its Good Article status from people cutting "unnecessary stuff" and then other people adding back other stuff that was just worse. The solution is to make sure that you don't just cut down the background section (and other sections), but have it be a summary that links elsewhere, to another article, or a new article that serves as an expanded version of that section that we don't have room for here.

The travesty of having removed the treaty text is insane to me, how can we have an article on the Treaty of Waitangi that doesn't actually have the text present? If people thought it was too bulky, then it could be a collapsed-by-default click to expand option. This was floated at one point but was rejected in the GA review due to accessibility concerns on mobile devices. The current 'solution' of removing all but article four has been the worst possible option. It's not a long treaty, it's not taking up too many bytes, and it could be collapsed by default. If you can't tell, yes, I'm a bit salty that the several weeks worth of work I put into getting this thing to GA have been ruined by busybodies thinking the article was too long, then using that as justification to remove stuff they don't like. If we have consensus for a shorter article, the solution is sub-articles with summary sections, not hacking the article at the knees. We could start by just reverting it to the version that passed GA, as it's far superior to the current one. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 21:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The article did not lose GA status because of content being removed it. It lost the GA status due to having clean-up banners which are a GAFAIL. The three banners were:

This article's lead section may be too long. (November 2024)

This article contains an excessive amount of intricate detail. (August 2025)

This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (August 2025)

One of these goes back to a year before the GA delist, the person who nominated it for GA review did not add the tags and did not have much involvement in the article. There are also other issues like a verification tag dating back to 2023.

The GA version was 8 years ago, a revert of 8 years in a highly edited article is out of the question. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that reverting to the GA version is out of the question, but I also think staying with the current form is equally out of the question due to the numerous issues with it. Turnagra (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Aye. @Traumnovelle, you mentioned earlier to not to approach this article rewrite piecemeal. How can we help then? Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I almost feel like we need to start a draft somewhere and rewrite from scratch - potentially putting the call out to people on the main WP:NZ noticeboard for people with history experience to help out too given the importance of the article. Turnagra (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Aye. What do we do after putting the call out though? how do we organize? Is that allowed? soz for the potentially dumb questions cos i'm novice. Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be good to start with the sources, look at all the academic/reliable sources published on the subject within the last 20 years and pick the highest quality ones (whilst ensuring a wide range of POVs). Look at what multiple sources state before adding something. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Paul Moon and Claudia Orange are who I would look towards for sources, although I am sure there are others. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We should also take a look at Richard Boast, Alan Ward; Sinclair, Belgrave... so and so. Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, there isn't an unreliability problem in the body of sourced works, right? If so we can use some of the ones listed already? Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Opinions on that vary - some editors have expressed concerns about some of the cited sources. While other editors think the sources are fine, I think we'd be best placed to be careful with the sources we use. Of course this will also depend on the specific topic being cited, some things are more uncontroversial which other sources could be used for. Turnagra (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Understandable. I dug through some archives and it seemed like editors really wannted to steer clear of any government-published histories, especially the Waitangi Tribunal reports. I tend to agree. WT reports are not really histories, and to read them as such is problematic. I would also try to steer away from Te Ara/NZHistory just because they're editorialized.

Eager for thoughts. Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Te Ara isn't good because its tertiary and summarises things, where as secondary sources provide better detail for us to summarise, its easier to summarise something that is in-depth than something that is already summarised. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to this Te Ara sometimes oversimplifies the nuances of these issues to the point where statements are outright incorrect/misleading. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

To cleanup tag #1 (which is now removed) - the lede is hard to read. This is mainly attributable to confusing chronology in the current lede, which starts from 1975 and simply stays at 1840-ish for the rest of it.

Suggesting a four-paragraph lede for the rewrite that resembles Talk:Treaty of Waitangi/Archive 2#Suggestion for Lead rewrite, save the sources and composition, which aren't the most legitimate.Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes all fair points. The treaty text absolutely belongs in the article. I agree that we shouldn't do a complete revert to 8 years ago per Tn. Let's at least agree on an outline? Drew Stanley (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)