Talk:Treaty of Waitangi/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I will conduct this review over the next week. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written:
   1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct  Done
   2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Done
   2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; Done
   3. it contains no original research;  Done
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.  Done (taking this on good faith)
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic  Done
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Done
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Done
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  Done
   2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Done

Discussion

• I have misgivings about the articles coverage of the topic: these come first from looking at the literature list. It has a lot of citations, which is laudable, but vey few of them are to works that are scholarly academic treatments of the various aspects of the treaty. A search in google books, shows that there are many academic books written about the treaty - recent as well as early ones - that are not cited in the article. Some of the books in the "further readings" section look like they should probably not only be cited, but also be a major source of information (Moon 2002, Orange 1989, 1990, Durie 1990, Simpson 1990): Additionally books like these, which look highly pertinent are not cited at all:
  • Ross Calman. 2001. The Treaty of Waitangi.
  • Matthew Palmer. 2008. The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's Law and Constitution
  • Ian Hugh Kawharu. 1989. Waitangi: Māori & Pākehā Perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Gareth Morgan, ‎Susan Guthrie - 2015. Are We There Yet?: The Future of the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Bob Consedine, ‎Joanna Consedine - 2012 Healing Our History: The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Ruth Naumann. 2007. Our Treaty: The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 to the Present
  • Vincent O'Malley (ed.) 2013. The Treaty of Waitangi Companion: Maori and Pakeha from Tasman to Today
  • Marcia Stenson. 2004. The Treaty: Every New Zealander's Guide to the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Michael Belgrave, ‎Merata Kawharu, ‎David Vernon Williams - 2005. Waitangi Revisited: Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Hiwi Tauroa - 1989 Healing the Breach: One Maori's Perspective on the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Janine Hayward - 2003. Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi

I realize that it will not be possible to incorporate all of this literature very quickly, but it will be hard for me to defend passing this under criteria 3 when such a major body of literature has apparently not been surveyed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

​The content of these sources is well represented in the article, I have actually had an opportunity to read a more recent edition of Orange 1989, I just found it more convenient to cite online available summary sources. I'll get it out of the library again and put some citations through the article, as I work very nearby the Wellington public library. I'll see if they have a more recent edition of Moon, Durie or Simpson (late 80s and early 90s is a bit out of date given all the stuff that happened with the treaty through the 1990s).

Some of these books in this list tend to overemphasise the controversy of the treaty. For example: the Morgan and Guthrie book was controversial in and of itself, with reviews and articles flying back and forth when it was written. The last GA review failed because the article had too much emphasis on controversy. Instead I've tried to keep this version to the facts, while briefly discussing all the major points of controversy and legal discussion as discussed by summary sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is one of the main jobs of a wikipedia article to summarize the academic literature about the topic and to cite it in order to point the interested reader towards it. What I don't like is that there are so many citations to sources that are either not about the treaty, or which seem to be institutional or official online sources rather than academic works. It is of course true that when a topic is controversial it is important to take care in portraying the controversy in a well balanced and neutral way, which is not always easy, because it requires a very good understanding of the topic. On a first glance it seems to me that sme of the sections are a little lacking in prose - for example the history and background section could give a lot more detail. I assume that some of this litearature will be able to provide additional historical context and details about the negotiation, elaboration and signing of the treaty, which should not be particularly controversial. The controversies and differing views of its meaning and significance - and future, could resonably be segregated into a section or two towards the end of the article (the current sections 8 and 9 seems like the place for this).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I'll head over to the library today on my lunch break and pick up a few of these sources (I suspect that they have all of them as this is the central Wellington library). I'll add citations from some of these sources throughout and look for additional information to add to the sections you have highlighted. This is likely to take a couple days, so if we can put the review on hold for a bit while I address this, that would be great. Thanks for your input. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

​Ok. I got these books out:

• The Treaty of Waitangi -- Claudia Orange 2011 Second Edition
• The Story of a Treaty -- Claudia Orange 2013 Second Edition
• The Treaty of Waitangi Companion --Vincent O'malley, Bruce Stirling, and Wally Penetito 2010
• The path to the Treaty of Waitangi -- Paul Moon 2002
• The Treaty and its Times, the illustrated history -- Paul Moon, Peter Biggs 2004
• Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou / Struggle Without End -- Ranginui Walker 2004 Revised Edition

I will work on incorporating these sources and expanding the article over the next couple days (and probably into the weekend), I would ideally like to get this through GA and DYK in time to go up on the main page on Waitangi Day (Feb 6th). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will do my best not to hold up the process. Another thing that I can see at a first glance is list incorporation (the ratio of lists to prose seems a little high). If you can get your hands on Tauroa and Kawharu's books they seem as if they would offer valuable Maori perspectives on the treaty.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You ask me to set the review on hold: I don't know if it is necessary to do formally? And do you mean that you would prefer me not to proceed with reviewing other aspects of the article untill you have incorporated this literature? If you are afraid that I would fail it while you work, then don't feat, I wouldn't do that, my aim in a review is always to pass the article, so when the nominator is actively working on improving it I don't care how long it takes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry some people are kinda strict on the '1 week' limit, I'd rather you continue the review of course. I'll see if I can get Tauroa and Kawharu, though I got Ranginui Walker's book for the Maori angle as well. I'll have a look at the 'lists to prose ratio' issue and see what can be converted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good. I am anything but strict on that limit - unless the nominator wants it. I will keep going with more detailed review of the rest of the article then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Section by Section Review

Background: We get the British side of the background, but we don't hear much about the Maori. The first sentence mentions Cook, but not the Maori. Why did they seek protection from the French? What were their social and political organization? What are rangatira? Was there no resistance to British colonization? The article says that Claudia Orange claims something about the British intentions gradually shifting, but does she claim this, or does she in fact argue it? If she argues it what is her argument and data? I would also encourage consolidating the sentences into paragraphs with a topic sentence - and perhaps renaming the section something like "early colonization" and perhaps consolidate sections, 1, 2, 3, 4 into a single section on "History" with 4 or more subsections. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get this book by Orange out (two others), but it is online. The answer to your question is on Page 22, which is the only bit that states "Māori New Zealand".[1] — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! That looks like an argument to me more than a claim, and we should probably mention the instructions which she interpret as indicating this shift.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The instructions mentioned are the ones from Normanby, I reordered the section a bit to make this make a bit more sense, and clarified the bit by Orange to match the source better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done ​ I think I have addressed the concerns you brought up above about this section. Anything else needed here? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Treaty text, meaning and interpretation: I understand why the Maori text is included (having read the previous GA review) but I nevertheless wonder if it is useful to reproduce the entire text in both English and Maori. Is this not wikisource's job? The Maori text is not very helpful for the general reader, but it could potentially be helpful if there was a third column which provided a backtranslation of the maori text into English so that the reader can assess the extent of the differences between the two texts. Do any of the books have an English translation of the Maori text that could be used for such a purpose? I very much like the section on differences, but I think it could esily be consolidated with the subsequent short section on intercultural communication. I think anything that could be added to this section in terms of additional detail in prose form would be worthwhile. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​I very much like the idea of including a back translated version. I've spent the last hour or so researching and the version I think we should use is the one by Prof. Sir Hugh Kawharu, which is often called the 'official' modern english translation of the Māori version,[2] was used in the Treaty Times Thirty translation collaboration,[3] and is listed on various NZ govt sites [4], [5], including the Waitangi tribunal site.[6] The question is whether to also include his footnotes, or whether this would constitute a copyright violation (or would be considered fair use)? In any case, I am not sure how to integrate this, or how Wikisource is integrated into a wikipedia article. If including the back translated version, perhaps we could also include the original Māori version in Te reo, but have it be 'collapsed' by default. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am in fact in doubt whether even including the back-translation in toto would be a potential copyright problem. We might check this with the copyright notice board.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I missed this message before adding the translation but I had thought about this. I believe it meets all the criteria for fair use WP:FREER. There is no free equivalent of sufficient quality, and by some rationalle there cannot be one, if it is an accurate translation as everyone seems to agree. I do not believe that Hugh Kāwharu's footnotes meet fair use, for example here shows that they copied the text with no comment, but the footnotes they say that they only copied with permission. I have therefore not included the footnotes. I have no problem with checking with the copyright noticeboard. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​I have posted a question over at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Treaty_of_Waitangi about the translation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that is good. I hope there are no problems using it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Another possible solution is simply to not include the entire treaty, but only give an example, for example one article. That would serve to illustrate the writing style of the English text, the maori text and the discprenancy in translation between them. Then the full text could be located at wikisource with a link to the translation at the government website. Also, I would suggest using a style that shows the text in three columns, which will make it easier to compare them visually.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

​There was a response over on the noticeboard that seemed negative to the idea of a translation. While I don't agree with GB's assessment, I have removed the text in the meantime and instead collapsed both texts. I don't see the point in having the text unhidden by default, as an english only speaker will not be able to compare the texts anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I imagine that if setting it in a table format it should work on a mobile device. But it would likely take some experimentation to get the best solution. it is not a major issue, though I don't think the current way of showing it would be palatable for example at FAC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

​That's fair. It could be better as a table, potentially as a borderless 'invisible' table (or mostly invisible). I'll look into addressing this sometime in the future, but possibly not as part of this GA review if the current version is 'good enough' for now. I actually have a fair amount of experience formatting tables after working on the FL review of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, but it is pretty time consuming to work out all the column scoping and row scoping for accessibility to screen readers, and I think there are more pressing things in the article to work on for GA at the moment. The current version is accessible as is I think; it will work on mobile (where it becomes unhidden by default) and will also work for screen readers, which will read it out like any other article content. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. In a GA review, I much prefer to focus on content and sourcing than on form.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done ​ I think that the treaty text bits are as resolved as they are going to be for now. I did a bunch of work on the differences section and merged the 'cross cultural' section into it. Anything else needed here? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Debate and Signing: I think I would consolidate these two sections into a single one. I also would like to know more about the signing. How where the signatories chosen? Who were the "Northern chiefs" present at the debate?Who were excluded from the process of signign (i.e. not asked to sign), who refused? It would be useful to have more understanding of Maori political organization - who are entitled to speak and sign on behalf of whom in Maori culture? Did the people who spoke out against the signinf have any effect on others choosing not to sign? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is quite a bit in Orange's book about the 'confederation' of chiefs, and the original intention to only have the treaty apply to them, but wording was generalised to apply to all Maori. I'll add a bit on it sometime soon. There is a bit on 'invitations' being sent out, i'll add a bit on that too. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a bunch on this, and merged the sections. Anything else needed here? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I like this a lot. Good work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I reread te Karere's review and thought this: Would it be possible to give a paragraph summarizing the English text and a paragraph summarizing the Maori text before the collapsible sections? Here you would be able to cite and summarize Sir Huh Kawharu's translation of the Te Reo text. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) (You may have missed this comment in the back and forth)

​I did indeed miss this. It is a good idea, and in line with the comments over on the COI noticeboard. I'll work on it this afternoon. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Effects: This section covers a long history and it is not completely clear in its progression. You might be able to do some work to signal the historical progression, for example with some topic sentences establishing the different periods of the treaty's influence and connecting them to changes in the way the treaty was used and conceived. For the land confiscations and the New Zealand Wars, I think I would prefer a better source than the nz.gov history site - maybe Wrights book on the New Zealand Wars? Also it seems clear that at this point the treaty was violated by the Crown - probably some author has written about that? Also woulædn't the Waitangi Tribunal be considered an "effect" of the treaty?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah this section needs a lot of work actually. Orange has quite a bit on this and I'm hoping that Ranginui Walkers book has a bunch on this from the Maori perspective. I'e got quite a bit of time tomorrow to research for this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Legal standing: I think this is the most sensitive part of the article, and I would really appreciate any input from Te Karere (talk · contribs) regarding this section. It is a little weird that th Tribunal is mentioned out of the blue, without having described when and why the Tribunal was formed. This I think should be done either in this section, or in the "effects" section. There also seems to be some repetition between the last paragraph of the "sovereignty" section and the "Waitangi Tribunal's Te Paparahi o te raki inquiry" - or if there is not it should be specified how the two reports. It is also unclear to the reader what the function of the Waitangi Tribumal is and what legal standing its findings have. I think the "Binding on the Crown?" section is a little odd, with the list of court cases with short descriptions. I think this would read better as a prose section that gives the context of the cases and describes how the standing of the treaty was interpreted in each case, and how these interpretations changed over time. Why did the treaty become more importnat after 1980 - and in what way? I also think we should not use primary sources here (e.g. the links to the parliamentary debates) - because we don't know their degree of relevance to the issue, and by using them we create the assumption that they are relevant. I would much prefer academic secondary literature to be used as sources in this section. The legislation section finally describes the creatoin of the Tribvunal of Waitangi, but there are some chornology issues appearing here then. Would it be possible to rewrite the "legal standing section" in a more chronological way so that the different trials, legislation and inquiries occur in chronological order. If I was a historian of the Treaty I would start by identifying different periods in which the treaty's legal history. It seems there is a period where the treaty was considered irrelevant for legal purposes - followed by a period where it suddenly became very important, which led to the creation of the tribunal and subsequent debates about legality, sovereignty, which in turn led to legal and political changes. Have none of the books you have read given a summary of the legal history of the treaty that could be used for such a chronology and periodization? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Claims for redress: This section seems like it fits into the middle of the previous section because it explains the movment for Māori rights that led up to the creation of the tribunal, and to the renewed view of the treaty. I would suggest writing the "effects", "legal standing" and ""claims for redress sections into a single section titled "Role of the Treaty in New Zealand Society" (or something like that) with chronologically ordered subsections, such as for example "19th century", early 20th century, "Māori rights movement" (or whichever term may be more appropriate) (1960s and 1970s), and recent developments. This would allow writing the changing interåpretations of the treaty and its public significance as a historical narrative which describes the different viewpoints neutrally, without doing so from a presentist perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

​Sigh... Ok. I think we are getting there. It wasn't easy but I shuffled everything around and removed a bunch of extraneous bits that repeated themselves in various sections. I have largely followed your advice above, though not precisely. I kept the Waitangi Tribunal section separate, though its establishment and expansion is mentioned in the 1960-present section. I also stripped it down to a short summary, merging some of the more detailed information over to the main article on Waitangi Claims. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! This looks good, I have no problems with this structure. I will read it in detail over the next days. One thing: If the Waitangi Da Act was passed in 1960 the movement for recognition of the treaty must have begun earlier (in fact the article on Waitangi Day Act says that it started especially among the Ngapuhi and that the promise of the holiday (and presumably implicitly the primise of more recognition of the treaty's significance) was a cause of the 1957 Labor Party election win). So some tweaks for chronology seem appropriate here. Also maybe elsewhere it bears mention that many of the Northern Chiefs who signed were Ngapuhi, which presumably means that Ngapuhi have more stakes than some other Māori in working for respecting the treaty. If any of the sources support this notion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

​Yeah that makes sense. I'll look into the chain of events that led to the 1960 act and clarify that in the article (I suspect it is as simple as local campaigning that led to it, then it spread nationally before becoming a national holiday in 1976, but I'll verify this suspicion and source it tomorrow). I think this local campaigning is a bit separate to the Maori Protest Movement heating up in the late 1960s and 70s though. In any case, I can't do any more tonight, as it is about 1:30 AM here at the mo. I'll have a crack at this and any other issues you highlight tomorrow evening. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Last three sections: These sections both seem to describe into two historical moments "1990s" and "2008". Would make sense to me to move them into the "resurgence and place" section. But I will not be adamant about this, but I think in an FA review this will likely be mentioned. However I do feel that some of the critical statements e.g. the bit about removal from law, the bit about the "grievance industry" and the Orewa speech probably should be sourced to secondary scholarly sources instead of news sources. Scholarly sources are more likely to situate the opposition within a political and historical framework, which would be a good way of attributing the anti-treaty viewpoint, and it will also be clearer which views are notable from scholarly secondary sources. By using news sources we do run the risk of inflating minor viewpoints that have made sensation in the news. I think I am about ready to finish the review soon, so let me know if there are major changes that you will undertake before I finish up.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I joined in the 'public opinion' and 'removal' sections into the continuity section, but kept the Waitangi Tribunal bit separate for now, as it does not really fit anywhere in particular in the chronology (it spans 1990s to present with ongoing cases). I cited the Orewa speech to the Treaty of Waitangi companion, which has 7 pages devoted to it (it definitely warrants inclusion). The intro to those 7 pages describes it very similarly to how the articles does currently, so no changes are necessary (though it could be expanded in future for FL purposes). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Lead: I had purposely kept the lead for last because it needs to reflect the rest of the article. I don't it currently gives a full and adequate summary of the contents of the article - but it should be fairly easy to rewrite it to do so - with the information organized into about four paragraphs in the order and context it is found in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the lede next, it needs a bit on unfair land deals for sure. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

​OK, I updated the lede, anything else that I forgot that should be in there? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest a more thorough rewrite of the lead - that recapitulates the actual structure of the article and the relative weighting of the different sections.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll need to think about it a bit and get onto it some more tomorrow. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted a draft of a lead at the article talk page - it will give you an idea about what I mean, though it probably needs tweaking.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• DYK: On an unrelated note; for the DYK hook I'm thinking about "...that a luggage trunk containing the Treaty of Waitangi spent World War II in a back corridor of the Palmerston North Public Trust office?". Having read the article, if you can think of any other good options, please do suggest. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)