Talk:Waitangi Day

Untitled

Does anyone know if the 'd' in 'day' is lowercase for a specific reason? --Chuq 13:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Major changes

I have made some major changes to the page, mostly regarding the history of Waitangi Day. This is a subject which has been under-researched, and it is not surprising that the history was vague and occasionally inaccurate. All my changes are based on my (as yet uncompleted) PhD thesis, so I was unfortunately unable to provide many references. However I can add a few in if people feel they are needed. I have also removed one or two things which are no longer current, such as the section on Peter Dunne's NZ Day bill. This seems to have fallen into oblivion, so there was no point in the reference to it remaining up. --Helenalex 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I have just read the policy on original research, and realised that it probably looks like I have broken it. Pretty much all the facts I have used are on the nzhistory.net site which is linked at the bottom of the Waitangi Day page. It wasn't one of my sources, but it does back up nearly everything which I've said. If anyone has an issue with anything specific I will endevour to find a specific published reference for it. --Helenalex 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Helenalex as the questions raised go beyond any single article.-gadfium 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

[Re-written with further examples] The "Controversy and Protest" and "Celebrations" sections have some deeply problematic sentences.

"in the early 1980s attempts were made to halt the celebrations altogether"

"Many Maori see these as moves to disregard the Treaty."

"The official celebrations were shifted from Waitangi to Wellington in 2001. This change was considered an insult to Māori."

The second and third quotations (notably the use of the passive in the second sentence of the third quotation) are classic examples of weasel words. Can anyone name names? If not, I see no alternative but to delete the problem sentences. The first quotation is not quite as problematic, as names were named earlier in the same paragraph; even so I greatly doubt that Nga Tamatoa are the only people meant in this sentence.

Furthermore:

"This however is contrary to the basic nature of the commemoration, which is of a treaty between the Crown and Māori"

-- is, let us say, a tad non-NPOV. I rather doubt the PM would agree, for example. 121.73.13.228 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The first quote I have references for somewhere, and I will try and dig them out when I get back to work. I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about Nga Tamatoa, and I'm not even sure if they were still around in the early 1980s. I've just rewritten it so that Nga Tamatoa are acknowledged as pioneers but hopefully now I'm not suggesting that they were the only group protesting at Waitangi ever.

The other stuff was not written by me, but...
The 2nd quote I don't have a problem with because I do remember people expressing those views, but it would be good to have references. The 3rd should be reworded to make it clear that not everyone (not even all Maori) saw it as an insult, and a reference would be good. I'll change the wording.

I've gotten rid of the entire paragraph the last quote was in, because I don't think the media hoo-ha about whether or not the PM will go to Waitangi is particularly important, and that was really the sole reason why people paid more attention to the PM than the GG at Waitangi. Objectively speaking, the Treaty IS between the Crown and Maori rather than the government and Maori, so its not really the sentence you picked out that I had an issue with, rather the assertion that the media's focus on the PM somehow changed the nature of the commemorations. If the original author of the paragraph meant something else they need to rephrase it, and ideally find a reference.

To the person above - you have some intelligent points to make; how about creating an account (or signing in if you already have one) so we can get to know you? --Helenalex 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-Anglo Celtic European

What on earth is "Non-Anglo Celtic European"? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-02-06 19:22Z

They are Europeans who are'nt Ango-Celtic (ie British and/or Irish). I've changed the wording to 'non-British' since it's clearer and I don't think Irish NZers have any special connection to Waitangi Day either. The whole sentence is very POV - 'many' New Zealanders think this? - and should be modified at the very least, especially if no one has a reference. --Helenalex 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"Unlike Māori, few Pākehā saw the Treaty as a valid legal document to which they needed to strictly adhere." This pushes the view that very few pakeha saw the treaty as valid, i would like the source cited or this removed. I think you are confusing this with the fact that land was often sold by maori without the authority to do so, and there is no need to demonize early pakeha settlers whose opinion you cannot speculate upon now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.222.254 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Will add a source for that, which I should have done about two years ago. --Helenalex (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because most historical documents I've read on the issue (i.e. early immigrants diaries) point to this conclusion. --Lholden (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Small Point

"British citizens" actually should be 'British subjects'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.205.213 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

While there's a mini-plague of anonymous IP vandalism ((suspiciously similar IPs too) maybe semi-protection for 2 or 3 days might be in order (and probably again at this time every year!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would support a longer term protection for both this article and Treaty of Waitangi. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 04:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article gets this sort of attention at this time every year. Most of it is simple test edits, not intended to deceive or offend. We haven't protected it in previous years.-gadfium 04:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already commented privately but may as well here too: I'd support semi-protecting the Waitangi Day and Treaty of Waitangi articles for a couple of days either side of the holiday itself. I don't think any longer would be necessary because usually the IP silliness gets stomped on fairly swiftly; but around the day itself I'd guess the articles would be more often read than usual due to people elsewhere in the world hearing about Waitangi Day and wanting to know what it is all about.

Gadfium: I don't remember it being this bad in previous years, but that may just be age creeping up on me.

Derby: The similarity between IPs may just be that they're all from NZ, maybe even all from Xtra. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at edits in 2011 and 2012, there were fewer test edits in the couple of days leading up to Waitangi Day than over the same period this year, but the number of tests increased after it for a few days, presumably because the article was linked from the front page. It will be linked from the front page again tomorrow (but we'll see the results of that mostly on Thursday), so I'm reconsidering semi-protection.-gadfium 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If we protect holiday articles on the day of the holiday, it is even less likely they get edited ever. -- 签名 _sig at 06:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Protest normal

I changed a sentence to read that protest is now normal as it happens far more often than not, ie virtually every year. Activists of all kinds are attracted by the media presence. In 2016 the main protest theme was anti TPP(a wide ranging free trade agreement promoted strongly by the govt but opposed by opposition political parties and Maori activists.) Maori are upset that, allegedly, the agreement takes away NZ sovereign rights to make our own laws and NZ be dictated too by other nations or large multi national corporate firms over trade issues . Others were protesting that the public was kept in the dark about the agreement until it was signed. As the document is several hundred pages of turgid legalese the media have given it little specific coverage. The PM stayed away as the tribe arranging the Waitangi day events had made it clear he would not be able to speak (which he normally does)to defend the TPP. The situation was confused just prior to the event as some supported Mr Key and others oppose him. Both factions expressed very strong feelings in the media indicating there would be a degree of trouble. Mr Key stated he was not afraid of protestors but was not prepared to attend if he could not speak. In Maoritanga it is the norm for male leaders to state their frank opinions on a marae, though rare for women to be allowed to do so. Stephen Joyce MP did attend to represent the government and was assaulted by a rubber penis throwing nurse who was arrested but later released without charge.It is quite common for protestors to throw objects (wet t shirt at the queen,mud at an mp) despite the presence of parliaments security detail , many police and members of the armed forces.The nurse was described in the media as a "dildo tosser".... She was disowned by the wider anti TPP movement who have only undertaken legal protest action. Some mps have said that protest at Waitangi is fine and to be expected.115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The dildo incident is a textbook case of recentism and your comments sourced to Simpson are not reliably enough sourced for the purposes of Wikipedia (anything from Simpson published by Blythswood is self-published which isn't good enough). In addition, the notion that the Treaty wording is less valid than some random pronouncement from Hobson sends the comment into conspiracy-nutter-land. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be recentism if it was an isolated incident unrelated to the day in general. All kiwis know that it is seen as a day of protest by activists for the last 30?years. You are clearly unaware that in NZ it is just too expensive to get a major publisher to take on a relatively "unknown" author ie one who is not a best seller -too much commercial risk- so now authors have to either publish their own books or pay a a publisher up front for all costs -there is no sharing of costs and sharing of profit as was the norm in the past. This means that only a well established author could get a publisher to publish a book on a % profit basis-which used to be usual. Simpson has produced at least 8 ? maybe more books that I am aware of and no one -apart from you- has called him a nutter. Pot kettle back?The fact that an author publishes his own books is not a valid reason to not have his information on wiki. If it is shown that he is wrong then thats another matter. Incidently other historians have the same opinion. Black cab regularly uses a source that entirely agrees with Simpson .You don't seem to be aware that the the Proclamation at Waitangi was the MAIN event until relatively recently(in historical terms).It was held on 29 Jan for a long time because that when the proclamation of sovereignty was made. Simpson is writing about factual historical events. He has all the footnotes and sources . It seems that you have formed this opinion based on general ignorance of the facts,to "protect" the common or received 2016 version rather of events in Waitangi. If you understood more history you would perhaps make less "knee jerk" comments(like those above)to which you are prone.

How could a proclamation, written by the government in England and then given to Hobson, be less significant than the later, made up on the spot, Treaty versions? It is illogical to believe that the various treaty versions- written largely by a bunch of amateurs- some how transcends a British govt document ? If you recall the treaty was ruled a nullity (in the Hadfield case)because sovereignty had already been established prior to the treaty by the proclamation a week earlier.This doesn't mean the treaty is not important-it is, it demonstrates that the vast majority of native chiefs who had the opportunity, "signed" a version of the document approving of control of the nation passing to the British. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

115.188, in two places (the Lead and 'History' sections) you have inserted the word 'first' to indicate that the Treaty was first signed at Waitangi. I don't have any objection to that because it's well known that after February 6 the Treaty was carried around New Zealand for months to give all chiefs the opportunity to sign. But, if you're going to insist on the words being present, you're going to have to give the explanation and cite references for the carrying around the country. If you can't or won't do that, the words will be removed. Akld guy (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it for you. Akld guy (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mondayisation

The effects of this should be clarified in the article, -the date of Waitangi Day does not change. Mondayisation means there is a substitute holiday entitlement for employees on the Monday, if they would not have otherwise worked on the actual date if it falls on the weekend. Anyone who would work on the actual date gets their statutory holiday entitlement on the actual date even if it falls on the weekend. (This also means schools are closed of course, since the teachers get their stat on the Monday). Sources; here, here, and hereNumber36 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number36: Yes, the way it's currently worded, 'shifting' implies that the ceremonies also take place on the Monday. It does need a bit of expansion. I'll devote a bit of thought to it and will make a change soon, if nobody else does. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocking from 'On this day...'

On 5 February 2017, one day before Waitangi Day, User:Howcheng tagged the article with the 'references needed' tag. I had no objection to that, but Waitangi Day did not appear in the 'On this day...' list of the day's notable events on Wikipedia's Main Page on 6 February. On reporting its non-appearance, I discovered that the tag blocks it from appearing. I removed the tag and endeavoured to get WD into the list, but by then the day was almost over and another editor re-instated the tag anyway.

Howcheng appears to monitor a list of upcoming notable events on his page. It seems he saw that WD was upcoming, checked the article, and deliberately blocked it from appearing by adding the tag. He could have waited one day before adding it, but the timing seems to indicate that his intention was to block, rather than draw attention to the lack of references. He was aware that his action would block, because on his Talk page he told another editor that this was the case. All editors need to be aware that this day of national significance in New Zealand's history can be blocked in this way and keep a sharp eye open around 4-5-6 February each year. Akld guy (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. I never have intention to block any article from appearing on OTD. I do the OTD scheduling on the day before it appears on the Main Page. Here's the thing: I am not the only person vetting the articles. If it hadn't been me, someone else would have done the exact same thing. In recent months, the standard of quality for inclusion on the Main Page has gotten higher, and things that might have been previously allowed, such as long stretches of text without references, are no longer permitted. Thank you for your understanding. —howcheng {chat} 07:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Akld guy Rather than complaining about the absence of a weak article on the main page of Wikipedia, why not fix it up to a reasonable standard? Or why not help out at WP:OTD so Howcheng's not doing it all themselves which sometimes leads to the last-minute reviews and subsequent discovery of below-standard articles. I note that the New Zealand Wikiproject has identified it as an article needing an improvement drive. I suggest they (and you) make good with that and crack on, rather than making such bad faith accusations and threats (e.g. "I'm watching your edits"), because that will only lead to you being prevented from participating in the project as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, Howcheng blocked the appearance of Waitangi Day at the OTD section of the Main Page one day before it was due to appear. I'm furious that he showed lack of judgement about that. It doesn't matter that the article is light on references. This is not some trivial article. Waitangi Day is a day of national significance to the entire population of New Zealand, and consensus has established that its article is not grossly in error despite lack of references here and there. Howcheng gave editors, most of whom would not be aware that the article was about to be disqualified, less than 24 hours to locate references, knowing full well that what he was doing would disqualify it. Howcheng asks me to assume good faith, but I cannot when I see that he did exactly the same thing here at International Holocaust Remembrance Day, on the morning of 26 January, the very day it is observed. A complaint was made on his Talk page about that incident and the fact that that day didn't appear, and you made the same defence by suggesting that the complainer should devote their time to improving the article rather than complaining. You seem to not understand the timing of the tags - which indicates that the intention was to block, rather than notify that references were required. Once is an error of judgement, two identical incidents perhaps indicate a pattern of control freakness. Howcheng and you need to get it through your heads that a highly notable article with good consensus from New Zealand editors shouldn't be disqualified at short notice just because one of you enforces the technicality that a few more references might be needed. Akld guy (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So it wasn't a dirty trick at all, it was just quality control. I don't need to get anything "through my head", thanks. Now, please start working on improving the article in time for next year. If you like, I'll highlight all the issues in the article so you can all focus your efforts. And by the way, your personal attacks and bad faith are completely unwarranted, continuing in this manner will not help anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There, a quick pass through on a section basis, there are now 20 specific [citation needed] tags that you can focus on addressing. That more than justifies its exclusion from the main page, of course. If you'd like another review, do let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Akld guy: If this article is so important to you, perhaps you and your fellow NZ editors should have done the work to get it to B-class long ago, which would have made this whole conversation moot. And I'm not talking about its suitability for the Main Page. Article quality should be your primary goal. The fact that you haven't done so only indicates that you don't really care. (NOTE: This is me jumping to conclusions of bad faith, just as you did for me. To be clear, I don't actually believe any of that. Perhaps you should give me the same courtesy.) —howcheng {chat} 17:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Howcheng: @The Rambling Man: Over the next few days, I'll attempt to provide sources where you've indicated they are needed, or will delete content if they cannot be found. This is likely to lead to conflict with other editors, because the entire tone of the article will likely change. As is evident, the day's ceremonies are often marked by controversy and protests, which on some occasions lead to physical assault. There are passionately-held views about the day, from racial and political viewpoints, and from racial-political viewpoints, and while the article is currently the result of consensus, it's possible that the deletions which you are forcing me to make will lead to heated debate and edit-warring. Akld guy (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Akld guy: it's a great idea to start fixing the article up. It wasn't until I took a closer look today that I realised how really poor it was, your claim of consensus has established that its article is not grossly in error despite lack of references here and there is probably true but only because no-one can be bothered to fix up the article. I note that the New Zealand Wikiproject listed it as an article to improve, but that was in 2010. So that didn't happen. Incidentally, no-one is forcing you to do anything at all. We're simply telling you that until the article is better referenced, it will never feature on the main page, regardless of how important it is. You shouldn't summarily delete text anyway, if you believe it to be true enough to have left it for years, then you should be able to source it. Good luck! Debate is good, edit warring is not, so focus on the former, and avoid the latter using reliable sources to verify the claims in the article. This is all simple stuff, and as Howcheng noted, if this really is such an important article, then it's a crying shame that you nor any of your compatriots have seen fit to actually make it a decent one. Last thing, those tags are only "major" tags, i.e. on sections or paragraphs without a single reference. It's just the beginning. There will doubtless be more to come, so don't expect to just solve those 20 and be done, we are in this for the long haul. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Akld guy: You'll be happy to know I've now added appropriate references and removed the hatnote. I assume this article wasn't posted in OTD this year, but here's hoping for Feb. 6 2019. — Hugh (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Founding document

An anon editor has tagged the lead to this article re that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as New Zealand's founding document. I'm sure there's plenty of other sources for this, but it seems to me that it's not a relevant issue for a page on the holiday to commemorate the signing of the Treaty. --LJ Holden 01:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)