Talk:Treaty of Waitangi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Te Karere (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article inadequately covers the topic. The English language text is outlined in the first paragraph of section 6, "Meaning and Interpretation". One subsection, 8.4, is dedicated to "Principles". The outline of the Māori language text is limited to a comparison with the English language text. The article could be improved considerably through a discussion of both languages' texts following the format of treaty article quotations in Treaty of San Francisco. It is unlikely that this improvement could occur within seven days.

The article offers an interpretation of the topic that is not neutral in its point of view. This causes internal discrepancies to appear as early as the Lead's second paragraph. For example, the first statement with citation indicates cession. In sections 6 and 8, the article outlines the Waitangi Tribunal (2014, Wai 1040) decision concluding that cession did not occur. No amendment is made to the Lead. — Te Karere (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have amended the lede to remove that bit. I'll see what I can do about the interpretations of the text using your suggestions. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  03:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A review to determine the reliability of some sources is required. You may wish to begin with citations that require inline qualifiers. For example, "Some non-Māori New Zealanders have suggested that Māori may be abusing the Treaty in order to claim special privileges" (from Lead) is presented as a statement of fact. The first citation (credited to Donald Brash) does not count as a reliable source, the research self-published, and the link no longer works. The second citation might be (at best) described as an opinion piece. With link rectified, the inline qualifier would identify those "non-Māori New Zealanders" such that the sentence would read "Don Brash and Michael Laws have suggested that Māori may be abusing the Treaty in order to claim special privileges."
 * The primary concern, however, is the article's lack of neutrality. Undue weight is given to a viewpoint not found in commonly accepted reference texts, namely that "the subject [being the Treaty of Waitangi] is of heated debate, and much disagreement by both Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders" (from Lead's fifth paragraph, uncited). Whilst there continues to be critiques of the reference texts (for example, Orange 1987), and the area is one which continues to grow (partly as a consequence of reports of the Waitangi Tribunal), the Treaty itself has been accepted as a "founding document of government in New Zealand" and "a significant element in our constitutional arrangements" . Like the United States Constitution, matters for debate that are based in reliable sources (for example, the right to keep and bear arms) could be contained within other articles. Greater prevalence is therefore required for the majority viewpoint as held by reliable sources. Thank you for your continued work on this matter. —Te Karere (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the referencing for Brash's speech and added an additional reference from the New Zealand Herald. I have made a couple changes regarding the "heated debate", including the removal of the sentence you highlighted in the lede. I largely agree that the sources do not support the view that there is "heated debate, and much disagreement". I hope this addresses NPOV concerns for this issue. I will have a look through the other sources in the article over the next couple days. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  00:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Te Karere. I have been through all of the sources in the article. A lot of the online sources had broken URLs, I fixed these, or if I couldn't fix them replaced them with another, better, source. I also found a couple of other errors in references that needed fixing. Tomorrow I'm going to work at expanding the "Meaning and interpretation" section, with an additional section "Text" using your suggestions of adding quotes of the text. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  14:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I am published (one textbook plus conference papers) and have taught in this area, so am a subject expert. I, therefore, hold a real interest in improving this article so that it reflects NPOV as shown in the majority viewpoint held by reliable sources. To give an example of how the NPOV matter might be resolved, I suggest a rewrite of the Lead per below. The rewrite emphasises the bilingual nature of the document. After checking and failing some sources' verifiability (including the NZ Herald article you added), I have removed sentences in my rewrite, which are not supported by citation.

Following much thought, I have deleted the Don Brash and Michael Laws sentence. I considered retaining it as I know scholars who have developed positions in response to this racism. However, it is not reflected in the majority of the Treaty literature (primary or secondary) and therefore irrelevant.

Please note: alone, my suggested rewrite is insufficient, requiring a significant shift in tone across the whole article. However, I accept that the GA nomination is a genuine attempt to develop an article that reflects the scholarship in this area:
 * The Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. The Treaty is bilingual being written in Māori and English. It resulted in the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840.


 * The Treaty established a British Governor of New Zealand, recognised Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other properties, and gave Māori the rights of British subjects. An immediate result of the Treaty is 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. In total there are nine copies of the Treaty of Waitangi including the original signed on 6 February 1840. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi.


 * The English and Māori versions of the Treaty differ significantly. For example, the English text gave Britain sovereignty over New Zealand. Comparatively, the Māori text allows the Crown a right of governance without Māori giving up authority over their own affairs. 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.


 * The Tribunal researches breaches of the Treaty by the British Crown or its agents, and suggests means of redress. As “almost all Māori signatories signed the Māori text, considerable weight [is] given to that version” and contra proferentem applied. In most cases, recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown.


 * Today the Treaty is generally considered the founding document of New Zealand. The date of the signing has been a national holiday, now called Waitangi Day, since 1974.

I have added tags to Section 1 as this strikes me the easiest to rectify. Thank you again for your work. It is very much appreciated. —Te Karere (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I Think we should close this GA as failed. I was not aware of the scope of the NPOV issues before starting the process, but it is clear that the article will have to substantially change before meeting GA. Thanks so much for your work so far, and I am very keen to work with you over the coming weeks to improve the article to the point where it might pass a future GA review. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  08:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Until the GA nomination, I had made no edits to this article. Given the scope of the NPOV issues, I did not want to enter an editing war. My position remains the same. I will now withdraw and allow the article's primary contributors to consider my feedback. It is the interest (and sometimes obsession) of enthusiastic editors, which allows particular articles to progress. I thank you for being one of those editors. —Te Karere (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Te Karere I'd prefer if you would stick around. your experience is invaluable for improving the article. While I have a good amount of knowledge on the topic, the depth of that knowledge leaves much to be desired. If you decide that you have some time available, I'd quite like to collaborate on a reconstruction of the article. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  18:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)