 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 26, 2018. |
Regarding the frequent reverts, I offer two suggestions. Firstly, it might pay to come to the talk page and discuss the issues with a view of reaching agreement, as that might be more constructive than undoing each other's work. Secondly, the article is completely devoid of inline referencing. Maybe adding some inline referencing would go some way towards coming to agreement. Schwede66 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Colony of New Zealand's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DNZB":
{{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "supposedly" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as meaning According to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement).
I propose that we remove the word "supposedly" from the article on the basis that it is not supposedly but in fact well established in practice that the treaty of Waitangi granted the British sovereignty over New Zealand and was the country's founding document. It's pretty easy to back that up with high quality references.
I agree that the treaty has proven controversial over the years and there are many wrongs which must be righted but lets remove the weasel word "supposedly" from that paragraph.
What do you think, Schwede66? 101.98.248.252 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about NZ history, but it seems to me that there is a simple solution: rephrase the sentence as Schwede describes without using "supposedly", e.g.,『The basis for the claim over the North Island was the grant of sovereignty to the British in the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi, which was agreed by the Māori tribal leaders, but whose Māori language version did not grant such sovereignty.』Or, something to that effect. Perhaps one of you with better access to NZ history sources could find appropriate wording that can be referenced. Ground Zero | t 17:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first attempt was a bit clunky. Here is another version:
There are controversies over the meaning of the treaty but the suggestion that there was no grant of sovereignty conferred by the Maori version Treaty is a very biased point of view and you can't put that statement here because the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders would disagree with it. 101.98.248.252 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Cook claimed New Zealand for Britain at Mercury Bay 15th November 1769. There was no sovereign power in NZ at that time.This was SOP for the British when they wished to claim some new territory and in the 1700s did not did not depend on any natives signing anything. Maori had a divided, neolithic community structure. There was no central authority. There was no agreed political system -even the language used was so different that Maori from central North Island found it hard to understand Maori from Northland. Many powerful chiefs considered that they were the ultimate power,indeed Europeans sometimes described individual chiefs as "kings " in the early 1800s.
In 1840 it should be noted that NZ was proclaimed a sovereign nation by Hobson 6 days before the treaty was discussed with Maori at Waitangi . The sovereignty of NZ had already been proclaimed by the governor of NSW in Sydney prior to this. On the face of it seems the Waitangi discussions and signing throughout New Zealand were a formality as NZ was already a sovereign nation."Recentism " is a real plague in this topic. It must be remembered that probably no Maori in New Zealand could read either the English or Maori version in 1840 -they depended on what was said. Most of the talking and explaining was done by missionaries who for a variety of reasons wanted NZ to be a British colony. The LMS were especially partial as they had communicated with Whig MPs regarding colonisation in the year leading up to the event. The LMS could pull strings in London and they did.
The literacy evidence is in the Waitangi and other signatures. Only 12% of the 600 odd chiefs signed their own name and most of those in a very shaky unconvincing hand-the rest signed with an X or part of their moko. If only a few were capable of doing a simple thing like signing their own name it is nonsense to suggest that they would have been able to read the subtle differences between the English and Maori copies.
Debate about the differences between the versions is largely irrelevant in terms of how Maori behaved in 1840.115.188.178.77 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ,the article needs to be bought up to date to reflect what actually happened at the time. "Recentism" has meant that the original facts have been lost. There needs to be a preamble to explain what actually was going on prior to the colonization.ie the situation in Britain ,the situation in the British empire and the Maori situation, other wise it doesn't make much historical sense.115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Colony of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this phrase to be modified to say "kāwanatanga which is generally translated as either governance or government". The whole affected sentence would then appear as『The Māori translation of the treaty refers to kāwanatanga which is generally translated as either governance or government rather than sovereignty and this point remains a subject of much controversy and political debate.』This then maintains consistency with the quoted source in the article's footnotes which uses kawanatanga to mean either governance or government. The quoted source says:『Māori leaders gave the Queen 'te kawanatanga katoa' or the complete government over their land.』In that sentence kawanatanga means government while katoa means complete. A translation of the Maori text of the Treaty of Waitangi will typically use "government" for where "kawanatanga" is used originally. This can be seen in the modern translation of the Māori text of the Treaty of Waitangi by Hugh Kāwharu, which is used by the Waitangi Tribunal. This suggestion will be open to discussion before I potentially modify this sentence in June 2024. KentLStevens (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most common and important things historians emphasise when discussing the Colony of New Zealand is the transition from nominative sovereignty to substantive sovereignty. This reflects the reality of the fact Māori held dominant status in population, the economy and control of land (and therefore law) when the Treaty was signed. It's disputed by historians when exactly the moment that the British gained substantive sovereignty occurred - James Belich argues it was during the 1860s and 70s, whereas Danny Keenan pinpoints it clearly as the end of 1863 that "the crown prevailed" (Wars Without End, 2021 ed. pp.26-27)
Reflecting upon this, I wrote a subsection of this article about to what degree the Colony of New Zealand was legitimate, seeing as it was established from the Treaty of Waitangi (signed between Māori rangatira and representatives of the Crown). In its present state, the article is flawed because it presents the establishment of the colony in 1841 as an absolutely legimate and wholly recognised one, but this is ahistorical.
The editor Roger 8 Roger has undone this edit twice, without giving an adequate explanation. Apparently the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry is not a valid source ?. @Gadfium @Schwede66
One of the most commonly discussed matters of the Colony of New Zealand is the matter of when the Colonial Government first achieved substantive sovereignty. Although the status of New Zealand as a Colony was recognised under English law, there is a growing modern consensus that this, nor any transfer of sovereignty, was neither consented to nor immediately recognised by Māori.
According to historian James Belich, sovereignty fell into two categories: nominal (meaning the de jure status of sovereignty, but without the power to govern in practice) and substantive (in which sovereignty can be both legally recognised and widely enforced without competitition). In his 1986 book The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, Belich comments that "There is little doubt that the British had the latter meaning in mind, but it is the former which may have come closer to the Maori understanding of the Treaty." At the time of the Colony's founding, Māori owned the vast majority of the land, made up almost all of its population, produced foodstuffs and dominated the economy. (Basil Keane, 'Te Māori i te ohanga – Māori in the economy - Māori enterprise, 1840 to 1860', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-maori-i-te-ohanga-maori-in-the-economy/page-3 accessed 11 July 2024) [better source needed]
Given that Māori who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not seek to give up their land and resources, and that many iwi managed to retain control over their own dominions for decades afterwards, there is debate as to when the 'Colony of New Zealand' began to exist as a fully sovereign entity. Belich continues that "Certainly, for many years after 1840, 'nominal sovereignty' was much closer to the reality. This ambiguity was a source of friction. The British imagined that they were entitled to govern the Maoris in fact as well as name, although [William Hobson and Robert FitzRoy] were sufficiently realistic to grasp that substantive sovereignty could not be applied comprehensively overnight."[1] Danny Keenan pinpoints specifically the end of 1863 as the moment when "the crown prevailed" and won substantive sovereignty for the Colony.
In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry found that Māori, specifically Ngāpuhi, never intended to cede sovereignty. "The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain", the Tribunal concluded. "That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories". The Tribunal conceded as well that rangatira who signed the treaty did agree to share power with Britain, but only to the extent that they "agreed to the Governor having authority to control British subjects in New Zealand, and thereby keep the peace and protect Māori interests", on the understanding, and thus the condition, that Māori and Britain would be equal partners.[2] Dhantegge (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
