text:
Talk:Mathematical folklore

Untitled

 * Apology in advance - a detailed and polite response to each and every one of the points in this Talk file was eaten by a crash - so this will be less polite

This article really suffers from a fundamental confusion over three different entities: mathematics in its current form, calculation, and physics.
 * No, YOU suffer from a fundamental confusion that mathematics, calculation and physics are distinct, one shared by others as a symptom of scientism. Older cultures based their conceptions of prediction of events not on absolute trust in human cognition and 'proof' but on more 'mystic' or 'ethical' conceptions.  That bias is extant throughout what you have written, as is your arrogance:

 * When you state: ...their conceptions of prediction of events... you are not talking about mathematics. Mathematics doesn't predict that there are an infinite number of primes; it proves it.
 * The concept of prediction vs. proof is a modern one, that of science vs. math. It should be covered in the article.  No, I would not confuse the concepts in an article about physics or mathematics.  It is however necessary to treat them together in an article about FOLK mathematics, where this "confusion" (your word, a perjorative one) was common, and probably necessary, given their technologies.

 * modern... didn't the Greeks prove statements?

 * Physics predicts events; so your comments in this regard indicate a confusion - you are attempting to define mathematics as something to do with the real world; but that is not the the domain of mathematics. Chas zzz brown 01:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * That is your own personal philosophy of mathematics. Not mine.  And not that of every practitioner creating proofs either.

It is quite interesting, from a philosophical and historical viewpoint, to observe "naive" mathematical ideas and how they inform the current state of mathematics; but this article is littered with confusion and bias.
 * Nonsense. It is your statements that are littered with, at best, unthinking groupthink probably inherited from your math teachers.  While modern physics can be compared to other ideas and called "naive" due to provably better results, it's not at all clear that what distincts folk from modern mathematics is anything but social.  More on that below:

 * Examples? Chas zzz brown 01:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * You state yourself correctly that Fermat was defying an emerging concept of peer review and proof, in keeping his own proofs secret. You state also correctly that these are the two main differences between our modern ideas of science and mathematics.  In fact one can go quite a bit further to say that mathematics has proof, and peer review, science has peer review, and empirical evidence, and the social sciences have empirical evidence, and correlation (not causal proof).  Folk mathematics was not likley to distinguish these much, if at all.
 * The question is, where does 'proof' and 'peer review' lead us to different conclusions than less rigorous quasi-empirical and social methods? Putnam wrote a paper on this called "What is MAthematical Truth" (1975, reprinted in 1998) that is worth reading on this.  In his view, not often, mathematics has always been at least quasi-empirical, and has always accepted oddballs (like Fermat) based on their reputation, as opposed to a formal process of proof (remember that Fermat's Last conjecture was in fact known as Fermat's Last Theorem on the assumption he MUST HAVE BEEN RIGHT BECAUSE OF HIS REPUTATION) right into modern times.

I removed:

 * These could be said to have been carried into modern times by a single surviving copy of manuscripts in an Arab library, reprinted in Latin by Diophantus and delivered to Pierre de Fermat.

It's quite a stretch to imply that the axiomatic approach, as begun by Euclid, would not have proceeded without some single document read by Fermat in the 1600s. This is during a time when many were already attempting to prove the independence Euclid's 5th postulate - a far more relevant activity to the idea of a formalized axiomatization than the document discussed. Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * That is not implied. If you think it is, change the wording don't remove the point - this is the historical link between the whole community of modern mathematicians and the ancient proofs, at least according to Simon Singh who wrote roughly this in "Fermat's Enigma".

 * Why are the practices of Pierre de Fermat less relevant than Euclid's 5th postulate? You are looking at the body of proofs, which is only one way to look at mathematics.  If you look at the body of mathematicians, you would be more interested in Diophantus than the 5th postulate.
 * The premise of this article appears to be that there is something called "folk mathematics" which is different than something else called "mathematical practice". The relevant differences between the two appear to rotate around two features: the axiomatic approach, and the process of peer review. This paragraph attempted to state that an important element of modern "mathematical practice" is derived from a single document read by Fermat. Since Fermat contributed very little to the theory of axiomatics, and since Fermat's impact on peer review would not appear to be affected one way or the other by the Diophantus document, I fail to see what relevance it has to the argument. On the other hand, to demonstrate that there was indeed already at the time an interest in the formalization of understanding what is meant by "axiomatic system", I note that there was at the time of Fermat many other mathematicians whose work on axiomatics is relevant to the development of "mathematical practice"; mathematicians whose goal was to publish for the review of others, in an approximation of the modern manner. Chas zzz brown 01:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

''It is hard to imagine how mathematics might be different without these events, or the development of early algebra and the abacus in China, primitive accounting in Sumeria, the discovery of zero in India, and the modern number system from Arabia. See History of mathematics for more.''

 * 1) Early algebra, in terms of its influence on mathematical thought in China as well as the rest of the world today, is more due to the work of Arabic scholars (see Al-Khwarizmi) than from Chinese.
 * Ask anyone in China. That's a Western bias, tothe degree Islam is Western.  An abacus is evidence of understanding of algebra.

 * Please see the mathematical definition of algebra. An abacus is a machine used for calculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Ancient China had discovered Gaussian Elimination,  Chinese Remainder Theorem (it is called Han Xin Counting Soldiers, as I recall), calculated pi to find it lies between 3.1415926 and 3.1415927 (Zu Chong Zhi) in the fifth century, discovered (but did not prove) Shang Gao(Pythagoras) Theorem  before Pythagoras  and invented various algorithms.Hillgentleman 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * And there is no implication that the Chinese practices spread to the West, it's simply one thing on alist of things.

 * 1) I find it quite easy to imagine mathematics in its current form without the development of the abacus, or for that matter, primitive accounting in Sumeria; as the whole point of this article appears to be that such mathematical ideas as "counting" and "calculation", and the economic pressures that supported this activity, arose independently in many parts of the world.
 * Yes, that is a main point, and should be stated more clearly, as you have.

 * 1) It seems like this article should be retitled "folk calculation" rather than "folk mathematics", since most of what is discussed here relates to the application of calculations to real world problems. For example, the use of the digit "0", while vastly simplifying the notation of numbers and the basic calculations of addition and multiplication, sheds absolutely no light on questions of geometry, topology, calculus, analysis, discrete mathematics, or number theory - in short, any of the major elements of modern mathematics. While the naive reader may assume otherwise, calculation is not the primary activity of mathematics.
 * The field is called 'folk mathematics' and that term originates elsewhere, so don't complain to me. Calculation, physics, and mathematical proofs are three different practices TODAY, but they were not so in most cultures of any interest.  And none of them existed apart from beliefs about mysticism:
 * For this reason, I don't see how it would be hard to imagine how mathematics might be without some particular feature of this earlier conglomeration - these earlier formulations were largely discarded as inessential to what is now considered mathematics. 13 is a prime number, whether it is written base 10, or as XIII, or any other form. Chas zzz brown 01:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Even in the cultures where modern mathematics was developed, such as the ancient Greek, folk mathematics existed alongside that of the elites, even next door, since many mathematicians, e.g. Pythagoras, kept their discoveries secret, and shared them only with their inner circle.

"Folk mathematicians", in the form of computer scientists who use a heuristic approach to math rather than an axiomatic one, still exist today (and one could argue that they form a more elite group than are mathematicians in general - they certainly get paid more). It is not the "secrecy" of "elites" that created the folk mathematician as described here; rather, it was the focus on applications and calculation, as opposed to proof from fundamental principles, that appears to be the ultimate distinction.

 * Even Pierre de Fermat kept secret most of his proofs until others had discovered them.

This is the reason that many were "irked" with Fermat - he disliked proving his statements rigorously, and enjoyed tweaking professional mathematicians by stating he had a proof and challenging them to come up with one as well. This was at a time when the "culture of mathematics" already required publishable proof of assertions; his reticence to provide these proofs is supposed to be evidence of... what? That Fermat was secretely a folk mathematician? That some people are annoying? Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Nonetheless, commerce, engineering, calendar creation and the prediction of eclipse and stellar progression were very well understood by almost all of these ancient cultures, and until the arrival of rival civilizations with knowledge of modern mathematics and physics, they survived without most of our ideas about math or any mathematical practice (proof, peer review, publication, citation).

What is your agenda here? The dinosaurs thrived for millions of years until they were utlimately wiped out by a meteor, and yet they too had no formalized, axiomatic approach to mathematics. So what? Mathematics is not about survival; it is a particular human activity, like music. It is instructive to note which aspects of mathematical understanding arise independently of a particular cultural history; but to seek for the reasons of a society's survival or ultimate destruction in terms of their mathematical "sophistication" seems far off the point here.

In addition, to state that stellar progression was "well understood" is more a statement of physics than mathematics - given the instruments at hand, they were capable of astoundingly accurate predictions, but accuracy does not imply understanding. Chas zzz brown

 * Mathematically, such structures rely on some basic geometry such as pi, concepts of angles (especially of repose), and simple figures like arches, which require master (sic) of both ideas.

It has not been demonstrated that a "mastery" of pi (whatever that means) or the angle of repose is neccessary to construct an arch. This can just as easily be seen as a cut-and-try approach from engineering; and since most engineers of the day were trained as part of an apprenticeship, this seems a far more likely source for the use of these ideas.

This is not to say that, after the fact, these structures are not great achievements; but they do no therefore imply a great knowledge of the mathematical abstractions involved. Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * A cynical assumption about ancient practices is that they worked only because human life was cheap - there was labor in abundance and there was little or no consequence if people died in collapses because some structure was poorly understood. This seems to have been debunked in recent years, especially by the unearthing of workers' quarters at the Great Pyramids, and workers' graves, all of which seems to indicate that the Pyramid builders were not luckless slaves, but a well paid professional work force who was better off than the main population.

Do you have a reference indicating that anyone has ever seriously suggested that "because human life was cheap", structures like the pyramids were rebuilt again and again until they remained standing? Even if this were true, it disregards the great cost in building such structures above and beyond any waste of human life, as well as the obvious loss in prestige that would accompany the failure of any project so large and so fraught with religious meaning. Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * So one could say that American measurements are a leftover of older systems that were themselves a folk practice, and reflected only a limited understanding of what a measurement was, e.g. definitions of a 'foot' varied until it was finally well-defined - in terms of the meter - in the 19th century.

First, this has nothing to do with mathematics or counting systems - it has to do with measurement systems (perhaps considered as part of naive physics), and their ultimate standardization. The implication that "folk mathematicians" didn't understand the importance of measurements is absurd as well - how would a carpenter make a door if that carpenter didn't first measure the opening for which the door was intended?

Secondly, from a mathematical viewpoint, there is nothing in the abstract to distinguish between base 12 systems or base 10 systems, with one system being more "folk mathematical" and the other more "modern". If we calculated in base 12, then it would make more "sense" to measure in base 12 - but this again comes to ease of calculation, and has no bearing on mathematics itself. Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Another is to determine if an ancient (or any older) proof would stand the test of today's rigorous methods, or if it must be considered a piece of folk mathematics, or an error of process.

What is older than "ancient"? Pre-historic? This paragraph appears to posit that either a piece of mathematics is rigorously proven in the modern sense, or else it is "folk mathematics", or else it is an error. This seems to me to be a false trichotomy - a mathematical result can be guessed at through inuition (folk mathematics), incorrectly proven through an erroneous process, and then rigourously proven. The interesting thing about folk mathematics is not so much their results, as the process by which they are attained, and what that tells us about human cognition - which should be the point of this article. Chas zzz brown 05:36 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * This example illustrates a problem with the idea of folk mathematics: to a future or alien being, today's mathematics might well appear as crude and inexact, overly certain of itself, naive, even ignorant.  A key tenet of anthropology is to avoid assumptions of superiority, and to understand the real gains that may be possible when adopting some simpler but less powerful system of thinking, or of choosing actions.

The implication is here is that there is something called "folk mathematics" that is currently derided as crude, inexact, overly certain of itself, naive, even ignorant, etc.; and that this arises from a general impression of cultural superiority. This is a straw man argument - what is apparent is that the goals of modern mathematics are different than the goals of "folk mathematics". Estimating the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter as 22/7 is crude and inexact - but when your goal is to ensure you've got sufficient material to cover a cylinder with a known radius, it's perfectly acceptable as an approximation. Contrariwise, while most mathematicians today consider Galois theory to be a great mathematical triumph, it would probably not be considered of particular interest to your average Sumerian accountant - or even your average IT professional.

It is simply not true that pi can expressed as the ratio of two integers; but this doesn't mean that people were "stupid" for not proving this in ancient times; they simply had a different agenda. At the same time, that does not then imply we should adopt a simpler, less powerful system of thinking about mathematics - and the question of how we choose our actions is in a completely different category.

-

 * Another key study in folk mathematics is counting systems?. The most common base for mathematics was often 12 in such systems not 10, which was the standard for the Greeks and Romans - and the modern Metric system. The Babylonians used a base 60 counting system for most of their calculations. English measures were based on 12ths until they were finally supplanted by metric in the 20th century - which in the United States has not yet happened.

What do different number systems have to do with this? (and don't link plurals, please!) English measures were based on EVERYTHING, 12, 16, 3, etc. -- Tarquin 00:10 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Different number systems are clearly evidence of different thinking.
 * Again, the modern notions of proof, calculation, physics, measurements, number systems or bases, are of course very different concerns of moderns. All of these were fused into less distinct practices in ancient cultures, and even in some modern cultures (correctly noted by Chas Brown above).  It's entirely inappropriate to make confused objections about the fact that folk mathematical concepts don't divide up the world of thought into neat packages the way we did in the 20th century (but may not always do in future, see cognitive science of mathematics).  It's just more arrogance to state that things like number bases etc. 'in the abstract' can't possibly make a difference to what we call 'mathematics', or that abstract algebra is somehow more a part of mathematics than standard systems of weights/measures.  That's clearly wrong historically and probably in theory too.

 * It is not "arrogance", it's by definition that abstract algebra is part of mathematics, and standard systems of weights and measures are not. Standards system of weights and measures are features of the real world - they are not mathematical objects in the modern sense; the "kilogram" is not somehow derived from set theory, it's an agreed upon physical onject which is actually sitting somewhere. You are again confusing what we now call mathematics with some combination of engineering, physics, and calculation. Chas zzz brown 01:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Choice of number system does NOT affect mathematics. You could do algebra in roman numerals if you really felt like it. -- Tarquin 10:16 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Mathematicians speak of something called a folk theorem and of mathematical folklore. That does not mean "non-professional mathematical practices, especially of aboriginal or ancient peoples outside the Mediterranean basin". (Why "the Mediterranean basin", by the way?) Rather, a folk theorem is a result that is well-known among people familiar with the relevant area of mathematical research even though it is not found in any published source. A folk theorem circulates only by word-of-mouth without benefit of publication. That doesn't mean it non-professional; the people among whom it circulates are usually professionals. Michael Hardy 02:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

--

Let's face it -- we have another crank on our hands. :( -- Tarquin 10:16 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * At least it makes a break from FWappner. Chas zzz brown 20:29 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * He's not new though. It's user:24 who is currently being banned from the site. Whenever you see someone making links to sacred geometry or foundation ontology, you know it's him. Another favorite of his is the crank theory that Euler's identity somehow has a deep relevance to the philosophy of mathematics, never quite explained. AxelBoldt 02:02 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I was startled to read that Kurt Goedel, in his first paper on undecidability, wrote about a hypothetical "Martian mathematics". I know only secondary sources, and since Goedel's original argument is of course considered needlessly complicated, I am not encouraged to look at the original. Maybe this claim will change that. Has anyone heard this claim before? Michael Hardy 20:21 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * I haven't heard of it before. Chas zzz brown 20:29 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I would like quick confirmation of the first sentence
 * especially of aboriginal or ancient peoples outside the Mediterranean basin.

AxelBoldt 02:02 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I have now divided this up, sending half to ethno-cultural studies of mathematics. I'd naturally like to redirect the back-links properly; but the whole area seems to be a snarl of assertions about this and that. I'm not really sure where to start. Of course there should be some way to interface what the mathematics community says it is doing, with some critical views from outside. Also it is not uninteresting to identify what 'traditional' mathematics was, and what 'modern' mathematics is; many of the users of mathematics adhere to attitudes which are better described as traditional rather than modern.

Charles Matthews 12:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Folk theorem
Hey folks! Folk theorem currently redirects here. The term "Folk theorem" is used for a particular result regarding first the iterated Prisoner's dilemma and now a more general series of results. I really don't know to much about the area, but I'm sure of the term. Anyway, I wanted to know if you would prefer a disambiguation page at Folk theorem or would you rather I just take the name over and put maybe a note at the top? -Kzollman 23:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I created a disambig page linas 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the most famous example of a folk theorem, as defined on this page, is folk theorem (game theory). Shouldn't this page make mention of it, at least as an example of how a folk theorem can become a major result?Smmurphy 21:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I added another disambig notice. Note that I changed the redirects to be disambig pages Click on folk theorem to see. As to fame ... never heard of the game theory version, whereas math undergrads encounter the definition given here ... linas 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm just trying to bring this in line with commonly accepted wikipedia article structure guidelines, that's all. linas 21:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As for fame, compare to, the word folk theorem refers very often to that specific class of theorems having to do with feasible outcomes of repeated games. I think the article should give the particular example of the most common folk theorem.Smmurphy 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I feel a disambiguation page is a bit much, when a simple link will suffice with one less click, and can put into context why folk theorem sends the user here and not there.Smmurphy 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

RENAMING SUGGESTION: Mathematical Folklore
'Suggestion: 1. Mathematical Folklore 2. Folklore Theorems  in MathematicsHillgentleman 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never heard anybody using the term "folk mathematics". Usually I hear people say, "it is in the folklore" or "in the literature".
 * The word "folk" confused a lot of people.
 * The word "mathematical" gives the correct tone.

Examples?
Can we have some examples of "theorems, definitions, proofs, or mathematical facts or techniques" which come under mathematical folklore? --Kprateek88 ( Talk |  Contribs ) 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded 74.132.209.231 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an example would be something like: "If a function is continuous, its Hessian is symmetric." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Table of Section Contents
Is there a reason no table of contents for these sections is not at the top of this talk page? EricDiesel (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Self referentiality paradox problem in "Stories, sayings and jokes" section of Mathematical folklore
How to source common career advice in the mathematical folklore, like the only semi-joke "If you want tenure in this department, don't do any of the following on the side-- win a teacing award, write a textbook, or do any applied math.", when "Mathematical folklore", as used in this section, is partially defined as being verbal, thereby not sourcable with written citations? EricDiesel (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Half of the 'stories, sayings and jokes' are not about maths at all, but about e.g. physics, and should be cut. Ben Finn (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mathematical folklore


text:
Muller v. Oregon

Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. Women were permitted by state mandate fewer working hours than those allotted to men. The posed question was whether women's liberty to negotiate a contract with an employer should be equal to a man's. The law did not recognize sex-based discrimination in 1908; it was unrecognized until the case of Reed v. Reed in 1971; here, the test was not under the equal protections clause, but a test based on the general police powers of the state to protect the welfare of women when it infringed on her fundamental right to negotiate contracts; inequality was not a deciding factor because the sexes were inherently different in their particular conditions and had completely different functions; usage of labor laws that were made to nurture women's welfare and for the "benefit of all" people was decided to be not a violation of the Constitution's Contract Clause.

The case describes women as having dependency upon men in a manner such that women needed their rights to be preserved by the state; their "rights" were in effect, to have maternal gender roles, again however to the loss of some of their contractual liberties. The quotes for the decision follows:

"woman has always been dependent upon man.'"

"in the struggle for subsistence she is not an equal competitor with her brother."

"Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights."

"her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal functions — having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race — justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man."

"The limitations which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all."

The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation and was decided just three years after Lochner v. New York, in which a New York law restricting the weekly working hours of bakers in the state was invalidated.

Background
Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry business, was convicted of violating Oregon labor laws by making a female employee work more than ten hours in a single day. Muller was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.

Louis Brandeis, the young attorney who used social science to argue that women workers needed special protection due to the inherent difference between women and men. Brandeis wrote a unique legal brief which later became known as the Brandeis brief, in which there were only two pages of legal arguments followed by over one hundred pages of statistics and expert opinions from social scientists who argued that women were physically, mentally, and emotionally unable to work for more than ten hours at a time. His legal strategy paid off.

Judgment
In Justice David Josiah Brewer's unanimous opinion, the Court upheld the Oregon regulation. The Court did not overrule Lochner, but instead distinguished it on the basis of "the difference between the sexes". The child-bearing physiology and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours.

"That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.208 U.S. at 412."

"When the constitutionality of the Oregon ten-hour law for women was challenged, Florence Kelley committed the National Consumers League to it's [sic] defense. As Kathryn Kish Sklar has explained, NCL's research director, Josephine Goldmark, prepared a pathbreaking brief, of which only 2 pages consisted of traditional abstract legal reasoning, and over 100 pages offered sociological evidence. Her brother-in-law, the future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, argued the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Goldmark and Brandeis's innovation would come to be known as a "Brandeis Brief," and many others would later be modeled on it."

Goldmark and her team were able to assemble 98 out of the 118 pages of the brief, meaning much of the credit for the brief goes to her.

Significance of the case
Groups like the National Consumer League (which included Florence Kelley and Josephine Goldmark as feminists) and the state won shorter hours for women. However, many equal-rights feminists opposed the ruling, since it allowed laws based on stereotyped gender roles that restricted women's rights and financial independence. While it provided protection from long hours to white women, it did not extend to women of color, food processors, agricultural workers, and women who worked in white-collar jobs. The government interest in public welfare outweighed the freedom of contract that is displayed in the 14th Amendment and the effects of Muller v. Oregon did not change until the New Deal days in the 1930s. It was also a watershed in the development of Maternalist Reforms.

The ruling was criticized because it set a precedent to use sex differences, and in particular women's child-bearing capacity, as a basis for separate legislation, supporting the idea that the family has priority over women's rights as workers. Feminist Scholars such as Alice Kessler-Harris opposed the ruling as "an attack on women as workers" cloaked in altruistic labor laws. Kessler-Harris recognized the admirable motives of the period's protective labor laws but also observed that the Muller case provided justification for not just regulating but possibly prohibiting women from working in certain capacities. Moreover, the case supported a definition of women in society that according to Joan Hoff was "highly traditional and restrictive." While many of the criticisms of Muller came by scholars in later decades there were some critics at the time of its ruling. One such critic was suffragist and editor of the Rose City Woman's' Tribune Clara Colby who commented two years before the case was decided: "the whole subject is very difficult and it had better be left to woman's own judgement as to what is necessary and desirable.  The State has no right to lay any disability upon woman as an individual and if it does as a mother, it should give her a maternity pension which would tend to even up conditions and be better for the family."

"Until the late 1930s, when the Fair Labor Standards Act created gender-neutral workplace protections, the Equal Rights Amendment championed by the NWP would have demolished the gains for women workers won in Muller. This dispute between feminists who valued protection and feminists who valued equality continued until the latter group gained the upper hand in the 1970s."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Muller v. Oregon


text:
Rod of Asclepius

In Greek mythology, the Rod of Asclepius (⚕; Ῥάβδος τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ,, sometimes also spelled Asklepios), also known as the Staff of Aesculapius and as the asklepian, is a serpent-entwined rod wielded by the Greek god Asclepius, a deity associated with healing and medicine. In modern times, it is the predominant symbol for medicine and health care, although it is sometimes confused with the similar caduceus, which has two snakes and a pair of wings.

Greek mythology and Greek society

The Rod of Asclepius takes its name from the Greek god Asclepius, a deity associated with healing and medicinal arts in ancient Greek religion and mythology. Asclepius' attributes, the snake and the staff, sometimes depicted separately in antiquity, are combined in this symbol.

The most famous temple of Asclepius was at Epidaurus in north-eastern Peloponnese. Another famous healing temple (or asclepeion) was located on the island of Kos, where Hippocrates, the legendary "father of medicine", may have begun his career. Other asclepieia were situated in Trikala, Gortys (Arcadia), and Pergamum in Asia.

In honour of Asclepius, a particular type of non-venomous rat snake was often used in healing rituals, and these snakes – the Aesculapian snakes – crawled around freely on the floor in dormitories where the sick and injured slept. These snakes were introduced at the founding of each new temple of Asclepius throughout the classical world. From about 300 BCE onwards, the cult of Asclepius grew very popular and pilgrims flocked to his healing temples (Asclepieia) to be cured of their ills. Ritual purification would be followed by offerings or sacrifices to the god (according to means), and the supplicant would then spend the night in the holiest part of the sanctuary – the abaton (or adyton). Any dreams or visions would be reported to a priest who would prescribe the appropriate therapy by a process of interpretation. Some healing temples also used sacred dogs to lick the wounds of sick petitioners.

The original Hippocratic Oath began with the invocation "I swear by Apollo the Healer and by Asclepius and by Hygieia and Panacea and by all the gods ..."

The serpent and the staff appear to have been separate symbols that were combined at some point in the development of the Asclepian cult. The significance of the serpent has been interpreted in many ways; sometimes the shedding of skin and renewal is emphasized as symbolizing rejuvenation, while other assessments center on the serpent as a symbol that unites and expresses the dual nature of the work of the Apothecary Physician, who deals with life and death, sickness and health. The ambiguity of the serpent as a symbol, and the contradictions it is thought to represent, reflect the ambiguity of the use of drugs, which can help or harm, as reflected in the meaning of the term, which meant "drug", "medicine", and "poison" in ancient Greek. However the word may become less ambiguous when "medicine" is understood as something that heals the one taking it because it poisons that which afflicts it, meaning medicine is designed to kill or drive away something and any healing happens as a result of that thing being gone, not as a direct effect of "medicine". Products deriving from the bodies of snakes were known to have medicinal properties in ancient times, and in ancient Greece, at least some were aware that snake venom that might be fatal if it entered the bloodstream could often be imbibed. Snake venom appears to have been 'prescribed' in some cases as a form of therapy.

The staff has also been variously interpreted. One view is that it, like the serpent, "conveyed notions of resurrection and healing", while another (not necessarily incompatible) is that the staff was a walking stick associated with itinerant physicians. Cornutus, a Greek philosopher probably active in the first century CE, in the Theologiae Graecae Compendium (Ch. 33) offers a view of the significance of both snake and staff: "Asclepius derived his name from healing soothingly and from deferring the withering that comes with death. For this reason, therefore, they give him a serpent as an attribute, indicating that those who avail themselves of medical science undergo a process similar to the serpent in that they, as it were, grow young again after illnesses and slough off old age; also because the serpent is a sign of attention, much of which is required in medical treatments. The staff also seems to be a symbol of some similar thing. For by means of this it is set before our minds that unless we are supported by such inventions as these, in so far as falling continually into sickness is concerned, stumbling along we would fall even sooner than necessary."

In any case, the two symbols certainly merged in antiquity as representations of the snake coiled about the staff are common.

Unicode
A symbol for the rod of Asclepius has a code point in the Miscellaneous Symbols table of the Unicode Standard: the spelling is theirs.

Modern use

A number of organizations and services use the rod of Asclepius as their logo, or part of their logo. These include:

Asia
• Beijing University of Chinese Medicine

• Chinese Medical Association

• Armed Forces Medical Services

• Army Medical Corps (India)

• Dental Council of India

• International Medical University, Malaysia

• Ministry of Health, Cambodia

• Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of China

• Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China

• Ministry of Health Vietnam

• Medical Council of India

• Pakistan Army Medical Corps

• Medical Corps (Israel)

Africa

 * Kenya Medical Research Institute
 * Kenya Medical Training College
 * Nigerian Medical Association
 * South African Medical Research Council former coat of arms
 * South African Military Health Service

South Pacific

 * Australian Medical Association
 * Australian Medical Students' Association
 * Medical Council of New Zealand
 * Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps
 * Royal Australian Army Medical Corps

Canada
• Alberta Medical Association

• Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

• Canadian Dental Association

• Canadian Medical Association

• College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba

• Medical Council of Canada

• Ottawa Paramedic Service

• Paramedic Association of Canada

• Royal Canadian Medical Service

• Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Europe
• Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

• British Medical Association

• British Royal Army Medical Corps

• Emergency medical services in France (SAMU, SMUR, et al.)

• Emergency medical services in Italy

• Emergency medical services in the Netherlands

• Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom

• Emergency medical services in Portugal

• The London Clinic

• Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK)

• Royal Society of Medicine (UK)

• University of Copenhagen Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

• Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (SVK)

United States
• Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine

• American Academy of Family Physicians

• American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

• American College of Osteopathic Internists

• American Medical Association

• American Medical Response

• American Medical Student Association

• American Osteopathic Association

• American Veterinary Medical Association

• Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (U.S.)

• Geisel School of Medicine (at Dartmouth)

• Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine

• Hofstra School of Medicine

• Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine

• International Medical Corps

• MedicAlert (U.S.)

• Michigan State Medical Society

• Morehouse School of Medicine

• National Athletic Trainers Association

• National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians

• National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians

• New York University School of Medicine

• Stanford University School of Medicine

• Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences

• Student National Medical Association

• Student Osteopathic Medical Association (U.S.)

• United States Air Force Medical Corps

• University of Minnesota Medical School

• Yale University School of Medicine

Worldwide

 * Medical Protection Society
 * Star of Life, symbol of emergency medical services
 * World Health Organization

Variation
In Russia, the emblem of Main Directorate for Drugs Control features a variation with a sword and a snake on the shield.

title: Rod of Asclepius


text:
Talk:Treaty of Waitangi

File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Treatyofwaitangi.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 28, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Good summary, although a rather ugly dangling modifier in that text. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 02:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Quote from English version
I've added the exact text from the Engish version of the treaty, The Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty". I think it's an important detail to contast against the text of the Maori version of the treaty. I've also supplied references to this quote so I think it's an accurate quote from the English version of the treaty. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this change. Quoting the treaty in this way is basically doing original research from the primary source. We need to rely on reliable secondary and tertary sources not primary ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explan how it is it OK to quote from the second article where it guarantees to the chiefs full "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties." but not balance it with the quote from the first article saying the Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty? The section lacks balance without this. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could discuss this with me. User_talk:Gadfium reverted the original edit saying "That wasn't an exact quote". I think it IS an exact quote and provided a reference. User talk:Stuartyeates has revered this saying I can't use that quote because it references a Primary source and later claims it's "original research". My position is that it's important to quote theexact text from the first article to go with the existing quotes from the preamble and the second article so it can be compared and contrasted with the Maori version. Can someone please explain why this is a problem. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Settle down, everyone here is a volunteer and we don't spend our whole lives on the Internet just in case someone might want to ask a question.
 * Why is it so important to add the exact wording of that section added to the article? The section about 'full, exclusive and undisturbed possession' is quoted because that phrase was extensively used in discourse about the Treaty in the 1980s and later.
 * In any case, the full English text of the treaty is freely available at . It's not as if it's being hidden from view. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply and sorry for being irritated that no one has found time to discuss this over the past few days. I'm going to reinstate the quote based on what's written above. The reason are are as stated above. I think I have answered the points raised "That wasn't an exact quote" (it is infact a direct quote) and it's not "original research" - here is a reliable source which discusses the treaty in much the same way. http://www.treaty2u.govt.nz/the-treaty-up-Close/two-parties-two-understandings/index.htm The same paragraph already quotes the treaty text from article 2 so I'm going to restore the quote from article 1 so it can be contrasted against the Maori translation. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you don't add it again without making a better case for why it should be added. You haven't explained why it is necessary, and I've explained why 'because another section is quoted' isn't a valid reason in this case. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing the intro here, not the body text. Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states "The lead section....serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The word "Sovereignty" adequately summarises the phrase "rights and powers of Sovereignty", and the full quote is correctly used in context in this section within the body text. Consequently I am amending the intro. Moriori (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for joining the discussion but, I really don't understand what this has to do with the lead as this is well down the article. The section which was edited quotes other articles of the treaty but it seems that we can't quote this one? I also disagree that the word "Sovereignty" conveys the same understanding as "absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty". I am trying to add this text so it can stand with the existing quotes from other sections of the treaty and be compared and contrasted to the Maori translation. What do you think of the suggestions by the other participants that this is a Primary Source, Original Research or "not an exact quote"? 23:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.17.35 (talk)
 * You say "I really don't understand what this has to do with the lead as this is well down the article. What it has to do with the lead is that you want to put it in the lead. You are ignoring the bit about the MOS which I included above, which says the lead is a summary. Also, the term "British sovereignty over New Zealand" and "Britain sovereignty over New Zealand" both appear in the lead.Moriori (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * His/her last attempt to insert the full quote was nowhere near the Lead. Here's the diff. Read what I wrote below. Akld guy (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I can see no reason why 119.224's edit should not be allowed. He/she wants to quote the words in the "Meaning and interpretation" section, and a full quote should be permitted there to allow the reader to study the nuances of what the English version says. Furthermore, the sentence that immediately follows quotes the guarantee to the chiefs of "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties." The ip makes a good point in asking why the full quote from the second article of the treaty is permitted but the full quote from the first article is rejected. I support the ip. Akld guy (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 * In that case perhaps you can explain what the IP has not: why is it so important to add the exact wording of that section to the article? Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, above. It's the "Meaning and interpretation" section. Isn't a reader helped by seeing the exact quote so the nuances can be clearly seen? Akld guy (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, Moriori can you please put the edit back since it's not in the lead so you reverted it in error. Thanks. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed that Stuartyeates and Moriori are apparently unable to join in the discussion at this time but thanks to Akld guy for taking the time to join the discussion and I see that the edit is now reinstated. Keep up the good work guys! 119.224.17.35 (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review
I suggest you add something about the Murders Abroad Act 1817 to the section 'Background'.  Schwede 66  08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Schwede How does it relate to the Treaty of Waitangi? All I can find is a tangential connection via New South Wales attempting to claim sovereignty over the "Aboriginal people of New Zealand" and being denied because of the Murders Abroad Act 1817 . Does the Murders Abroad Act specifically state that New Zealand is not part of His Majesty's Dominion as implied by citation 67 in the above source? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it does state this in the article on the subject. I'll work on including it. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done. Would have done it myself but working with refs is clumsy via smartphone.  Schwede 66  09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel ya. Mobile editing sucks except for the most basic of tasks. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've added a bunch of citations to the article, and I've also gone through the article and added citation needed tags to the article where I think they need them to be added still. I think we have citations for some of these already in the article, and I'll work on citing those around where appropriate as well as finding new ones. In most cases they aren't necessary as the statements are supported by other linked articles, but they are going to be good to have, especially as some of the linked articles are undersourced as well. For once the issue isn't having sources, it is sifting though the shear volume of sources available to choose from. I'll come at this again tomorrow evening after work. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, It took me a few days, but I've added a dozen new citations to the article (many of them cited several times). I believe that the sourcing of the article is now sufficient for GA Review to continue. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd add more (and a better variety) of images distributed more evenly through the article. Maybe one of the treaty grounds? Maybe a map of where abouts in New Zealand it was signed? Think images that would be useful in high-school homework assignments. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this suggestion Stuart, I'll work on finding additional images. I presume you are talking about the treaty house grounds? Do you think any of the photos over at that article would be suitable? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are lots in commons. Things like Treaty House, Waitangi 20100301 1.jpg Waitangi flagg staff.JPG Maori Carvings (3347346902).jpg Whare Runanga poupou and tukutuku 2.jpg Waitangi-warcanoe.jpg 20110205 PH T1015674 0125 - Flickr - NZ Defence Force.jpg etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Waitangi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827000341/http://www.waitangi.net.nz/ to http://www.waitangi.net.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Past tense
In the "Effects" section, I have been trying to change the tense in the sentence "Anticipating the Treaty, the New Zealand Company made several hasty land deals...." to "had made", but have been reverted each time by.

The change seems justified to me because the section starts with the sentence "In November 1840 a royal charter was signed by Queen Victoria...." and is followed by: "The short-term effect of the Treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown...."

Then follows the disputed sentence which refers to the New Zealand Company's actions prior to the signing of the treaty, ie. prior to Victoria's action in November and any short term effects that might have resulted from the treaty. Therefore, we must change to "had made" because the simple past is not right and at first reading implies that the NZC's land deals chronologically followed the first two events. Akld guy (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I modified the sentence in question to make it more clear and I also added back the 'had been'. It wasn't clear what you were talking about in the edit summaries, and I wasn't convinced at the time that adding passive was correct. Thanks for discussing here in more detail. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for Lead rewrite
The Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. It is a document of central importance to the history and political constitution of the state of New Zealand, and has been highly significant in framing the political relations between New Zealand's government and the Maori population.

The Treaty was written at a time when British colonists were pressuring the Crown toestablish a colony in New Zealand, and when some Maori leaders had petitioned the British for protection against French forces. It was drafted with the intention to to establish a British Governor of New Zealand, recognise Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other properties, and to give Māori the rights of British subjects. The Treaty is bilingual, written in Māori and English. It was intended to ensure that when the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand was made by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840, the Māori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored. Once it had been written and translated it was first signed by Northern Maori leaders, and subsequently copies were sent to Maori leaders across New Zealand for them to sign it. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, though some Maori leaders cautioned against it. An immediate result of the Treaty was 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.

The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. Article one of the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown. Article two establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands, and establishes the exclusive right of preemption of the Crown. Article 3 gives Māaori people full rights and protections as British subjects. However, the English text andthe Māori text that was signed by the signatories differ significantly, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty. These discrepanciesled to disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually culminating in the New Zealand Wars.

During the second half of the 19th century, Māori generally lost control of the land they had owned, some through legitimate sale, but often due to unfair land deals or outright seizure in the aftermath of the New Zealand War. In the period following the New Zealand War, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty and the judgment in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". Beginning in the 1950s, Māori increasingly sought to use the treaty as a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 70s were responsive to these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Māori people and the state. 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 in the Treaty. Its mandate was later expanded to include research into breaches of the Treaty by the British Crown or its agents back to 1840 and to suggest means of redress. In most cases, recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown, but settlements totalling nearly $1 billion have been awarded to various Māori groups. . Various legislation passed in the later part of the 20th century has made reference to the Treaty, but the treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law. Nonetheless, the Treaty is generally regarded as the founding document of New Zealand.

Waitangi Day is a national holiday established in 1974 commemorating date of the signing of the Treaty.

This is my suggestion for a lead that includes most of the important points from the article as it is currently written. It probably does need some major tweaking for accuracy and language, but this illustrates the type and depth of information I think it needs and how I think it would be best organized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have modified your original version above, and have copied the modified version over to the article. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Treaty vs treaty
User:Insertcleverphrasehere has twice reverted my change from Treaty to treaty when it's used stand-alone, on the basis that I am untrustworthy in such matters. Yet if he were to read his own souces given in this article he would see that my position is supported by, for instance, Patricia Burns in her book Fatal success, in which she writes on page 284 "Land regulations could be so framed as to take as little cognisance as possible of the Treaty of Waitingi, this idea inspired by the lie that the treaty 'has force nowhere but in the Northern Island. I would also argue that the MoS, while not addressing this specific example, makes it very clear when to capitalize and when not to. Eric   Corbett  12:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not want to get into a dispute over this. But for example see:

 * The Treaty of Waitangi by Claudia Orange,
 * The Treaty of Waitangi Companion by Vincent O'Malley,
 * Treaty of Waitangi Settlements by Janine Hayward, Nicola Wheen,
 * Healing Our History by Robert Consedine and Joanna Consedine,
 * Are We There Yet?: The Future of the Treaty of Waitangi by Gareth Morgan, Susan Guthrie,
 * Waitangi Revisited, Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi also uses 'Treaty', as does Ranginui Walker in Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou, Paul Moon in the path to the Treaty of Waitangi and The Treaty and its Times, and Hiwi Tauroa in Healing the Breach (although these aren't available online, I just checked the physical copies literally sitting on my desk).
 * [NZ History] also uses the capital.

 * I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I literally have a stack of books on my desk that all use the capital. Do all sources use 'Treaty'? I guess not. But it seems the vast majority of experts on the subject do, and the style of using the capital has been in the article for quite some time (far before I started editing it), if applied a bit inconsistently. If it helps, think of 'the Treaty' being a shortening of 'the Treaty of Waitangi' (if there are any capitalised versions that are not shortenings, they should not be capitalised and are a typo).
 * Also, why would you change only a couple instances, when 'Treaty' (caps) is used many dozens of times throughout the article? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 * It doesn't help and it's just plain wrong, but let's see what other editors think. To answer your question, I didn't have the time to look for all the stand-alone instances of treaty before you started reverting. Eric   Corbett  15:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I'd personally prefer 'Treaty' to 'treaty', as 'Treaty of Waitangi' is a proper name, but it matters less which version you choose to go with than it does to keep the style consistent within the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a deeper consistency though, between WP articles. Take a look at Treaty of Versailles for instance, which correctly does not capitalize the word treaty when it's used stand-alone, although it's not entirely internally consistent. Eric   Corbett  19:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My change to "treaty" several times in one section was also reverted by Insertcleverphrasehere. To me, it's very clear. The word treaty is not a formal title when used alone, and should not be capitalized. It's perfectly clear from the context which treaty is being referred to, so "treaty" is appropriate, unless the sentence is a direct quote, e.g. from Orange, in which case the sentence will be enclosed in quotes or some other formatting. Akld guy (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, my reversion of both of you is less a desire to be right than to keep the article consistent with the system that it had to start with. Before I reverted you, I looked in this stack of books and all used 'Treaty'. And since I have looked, the majority of academic sources do seem to use a capital T. Hits on the first page of Google Scholar are much the same. From what I can see there is no rule in grammar that says that the word has to be capitalised, but I'm not sure how this can be "very clear" to anyone, given that there are a stack of books by experts on the subject that you are in effect calling wrong. Grammar sources online seem clear as mud, as they generally say that it should not be capitalised "unless you are referring to a specific treaty", which could be interpreted either way. I think this is one of those cases where English grammar rules just aren't very clear one way or the other (which would explain why some sources don't and some do). In any case, WP:MOSCAPS is entirely unclear about rules for shortened titles of works (the most relevant sections are probably THIS, THIS, and THIS but none of them are clear). However, MOSCAPS does say: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. If you can prove to me that the majority of reliable sources on the Treaty of Waitangi use the lower case, I'm happy to change it myself, but that is not what I am seeing currently. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 * WP:MOSCAPS, scroll down to "Institutions", look at "Generic words". The correct version is shown as The university offers programs in arts and sciences. and the capitalized "U" is explicitly said to be wrong. Here, university is referring to a specific university. In our article, treaty when used alone refers to a specific entity and should be uncapitalized. Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Equating those two scenarios is not the same. While both are proper nouns, the Treaty is not an institution or organisation, it is a document. In law scholarship there are some odd conventions regarding capitalisation when referring to documents (for example see: #3 on this page), which is possibly where the convention comes from originally. MOSCAPS is clear (see above) that we should follow the style used in the "majority of independent, reliable sources". Though it does say that it should be a 'substantial majority' of such sources, and that it shouldn't be capitalised otherwise. I am currently seeing "a substantial majority" of high quality sources using 'Treaty', but there are hundreds of books on the subject, so it is possible, albeit unlikely, that I ended up with a biased sample set by coincidence with the sample of books that I got out of the library and the books that are view-able in Google books on the first few pages. Once again, if I am wrong about the number of sources using the capital, I'm happy to change it, but the evidence seems pretty clear at the moment in favour of 'Treaty'. I agree that this is a super odd situation, that kind of falls through the grammar cracks of title case.
 * NOTE: this is not the only Wikipedia article that follows this convention. The Treaty of Lisbon, and Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe use caps as well, though other articles such as Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo do not. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Authors may be experts on the Treaty of Waitangi, but they are not experts on any kind of manual of style, so let's take a different tack. How, for instance does the Encyclopedia Britannica refer to the treaty? Exactly as Akld guy and I have suggested: "In May 1840 Britain annexed all of New Zealand, the North Island on the basis of the Waitangi treaty ...". In other words that exactly parallels the example given in the MoS concerning the capitalization of king: "Louis XVI was a French king". The reliable sources you need to be looking at when considering capitalization are not subject-matter experts but reliable tertiary sources. Eric   Corbett  01:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, following the guideline, it specifically refers to how the subject is capitalised in reliable sources about that topic. MOSCAPS: words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. We therefore should be looking directly at how subject matter experts format it in their publications, in addition to reliable tertiary sources. It is true that the Treaty of Waitangi article at Britannica (which is an incredibly brief and misleading article by the way) does use the lower case, but if you look at the bottom of that article, there is a link to another article "New Zealand: Annexation and further settlement" (which is behind a paywall) and in the snippet shown, it clearly uses 'Treaty'. So even EB isn't consistent across its articles. However, Te Ara encyclopedia uses the lower case and seems very consistent among all the articles that mention the Treaty of Waitangi. Interestingly, the main article on the Treaty there was written by Claudia Orange, who uses the capital in her own books, and the article on the principles was written by Janine Hayward, who also uses the capital in Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi. Additionally, the article at Te Ara about the settlement process was written by Richard S Hill who also uses the capital in his book. All this might indicate it as an editorial decision of Te Ara. Interesting to say the least. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, I've given you my opinion, and I'm absolutely certain that I'm right. But it seems that I'm not going to change your opinion on the correct capitalization, so I'll have to leave it there. But it's a very nice article in any event. Eric   Corbett  02:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'll take the compliment, thanks. It has been a lot of work to get it from its previous state to where it is now. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Click [show] to view
On the mobile version of Wikipedia, there is no [show]—it's there by default. Compare this to this. Is there a better way to display the text in a way that works across platforms? Perhaps a blockquote? cc GA nominator Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am aware of that bug. Better than the other 'hidden' templates, which don't have 'show' but also don't unexpand by default (making it impossible to see the text at all). I'll look into a hidden template that works on mobile. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be hidden? I've added a quotebox at 80% width for those on desktop, and for which a border will show up to set it off on mobile. I also added a |title=, similar to what you had for the hidden template, but removed it because it said the same thing as your third-level header. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't hate it. Looks fine. It was originally set to hidden before I expanded the sections and when they were right next to each other, but it looks fine now with the explanatory sections breaking it up between the versions. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Glad we were able to solve it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Demographic Change
In David Slack's Bullshit, Backlash & Bleeding Hearts - A Confused Person's Guide To The Great Race Rowlaw lecturer Alex Frame proposes that the Treaty was a gamble. Crucially Maori had little idea about the numbers of colonists who would arrive?

 * People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
 * So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly the same as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.''

In Penguin History of NZ Michael King writes
 * The Ati Awa chief Te Wharepouri told William Wakefield that when he had participated in the sale of land to the New Zealand Company he had been expecting about ten Pakeha, to settle around Port Nicholson, one Pakeha for each pa. When he saw the more than 1,000 settlers who stepped off the company’s ships, he panicked. It was beyond anything that Te Wharepouri had imagined.”

This view challenges the notion that the Treaty as a "foundation stone" for the modern state. King's Te Wharepouri quote seems to back it up?Yonk (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 * That may sum up the situation at Port Nicholson (which we now call Wellington), but the first chiefs who signed were in the Far North District, up around the Bay of Islands. Pakeha were far more numerous up there, weren't they? That's why Russell was made the capital. You'd have to ask why all those northern chiefs signed if they had reservations about the number of Pakeha already there with more to come. It was only later that copies of the Treaty were taken around the country for signing. Akld guy (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Akld guy. Are you serious? At that time there were only 2000 Non Maori in NZ. Even if they were all in the Bay of Islands in roles integrated with Maori, I can't imagine the chiefs had any idea of numbers. By 1858 there were as many Pakeha as Maori.Yonk (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But you haven't made reference to all chiefs. You've picked out a statement by one chief in order to make a POV declaration. To balance it, you'd need to state that other chiefs, particularly those first ones in the Far North, signed apparently without reservation, or with similar reservations as the case may be. If you're intending to add content stating that the chiefs unwittingly signed away their sovereignty, you'd better do it properly. Akld guy (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to attempt to edit the article but there must be some references to the chiefs expectations about the number of Pakeha who would live amongst them? Yonk (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New Discourse of the Treaty
Kia Ora, My name is Hemopereki Simon and I am a researcher affiliated to The University of Wollongong and Charles Sturt University. In 2017 I wrote a journal article that is considered the new discourse on the treaty. Please read https://www.tekaharoa.com/index.php/tekaharoa/article/view/6/4 In the next six months there will be three more articles which support this one. I want to improve this page. It is lacking Maori perspective and writing by Maori academics which would led me to question the neutrality and authority of the article. Your whitewashing the Maori understandings of the treaty. So lets work together to improve it.

Lets start: In a year one treaty paper at any University in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia we teach that that it is more then mistranslation. Both documents Te Tiriti o Waitangi and The Treaty of Waitangi are in reality two different documents altogether. In the notes of the article I wrote:

The Treaty of Waitangi (English version) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Reo Māori version) are accepted to be two very different documents, due to  their  content  and  understandings. For more  information, refer  to  Ani  Mikaere,  ‘Te  Tiriti  and  the  Treaty’,  123–146. He Whakaputanga  is   also   refered   to   as   The   Declaration   of Independence in English is an important constitutional document that led to the eventual creation of Te Tiriti.

On this point work by Margaret Mutu also points this out https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/14137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemopereki (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , This sort of article isn't the place to publish 'new discourse on the Treaty'. This sort of article should follow the lead of other highly respected tertiary sources, not summarise new writings by unknown authors. In short, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The section on 'differences' covers this already in any case, and clearly states that the two translations are significantly different in meaning from each other. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ,With regards to Mutu, her work is cited in the 'differences' section, and the Maori view of 'completely different texts' was never removed. I have added a bit more here on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the different treaty texts. I've made some compromise edits with regards to changing 'version' to 'text' wherever it refers to the different language translations of the Treaty and re-adding some information from Margaret Mutu (paraphrased rather than quoted) as well as some information on how the Waitangi Tribunal treats the texts differently. Please discuss additional changes you would like here, and it would be better to propose specific changes, rather than generic complaints. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Racism, white supremacy, apartheid
The core problem with this article is that all the comments except Dr Simon are deeply racist and white supremacist. The best accepted translation of "kāwangatanga" in Aotearoa today is "apartheid" (or "Jim Crow", but really "apartheid" is closer). Wikipedia should think about how what an NPoV on South Africa in say 1990 would be and apply a similar lens to Aotearoa. 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Jameskjx (talk)

Contra Proforentem
This article needs to comment about the legal principle of Contra Proforentem. It is highly held in academia that this applies to the treaty refer to: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=contra+proferentem+and+the+treaty+of+waitangi&btnG=

for criticism on the lack of recognition of this legal principle:

The consistent redefinition of Te Tiriti by the judiciary questions their role in the suppression and subjugation of iwi and hapu by implementing the law. Although it may seem progressive, The New Zealand  Māori  Council  v  Attorney-General  case,  if  seen from  a  non-signatory  hapu  and  iwi  perspective,  can  only  be described  as  an  attempt  by  a  white  possessive  society  to subjugate these groups further. This is made worse by the lack of recognition (for the common law doctrine around treaties and contracts) of contra perferentem. This is acknowledged as being applicable to  Te  Tiriti  but  has  not  been implemented  by  the government  due  to  its  potential  ramifications  for  the  white possessive  state. Ultimately, the  judiciary  and  its  decisions are consistent and desperate attempts by the white possessive state  in  Aotearoa  New  Zealand  to  deny  hapu  and  iwi their history and lived experiences as non-signatory hapu and iwi. In doing this  they  seek  to  void  tikanga  and  its  key  principles surrounding mana being: mana whenua and mana motuhake.

Hemopereki (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started adding a bit on this, with regards to the Waitangi Tribunal, but it could use some more. I'll look into it and get back to you. Thanks. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"the Treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law."
This isn't correct, and is contradicted by the sentences after it (the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975). It also ignores the massive body of case law that has come about over the years (which is regarded as part of municipal law, esp since New Zealand is a Common Law country). It is true to say (however) that the Treaty isn't part of statute law other than as a schedule to the 1975 Act. That is what the wording should be. --HuttValley (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added Matthew Palmer's book as a reference and will (if I get a chance today during my lunch break!) add in references to where the Treaty is part of New Zealand's law. I suspect what the sentence is trying to get across that the Treaty is not strictly part of NZ's constitutional law. --LJ Holden 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"We are one people"
Just reverted Whareras removal of this. The URL he provided in his edit summary looks pretty compelling - but this 'fact' is so much of the story as understood by many - and apparently baked by A C. Orange ref - that we should not simply zap it, but instead give both sides, via some sort of "..as widely believed, but in fact looks pretty shaky" explanation. - Snori (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right then. I have Claudia Orange's The Treaty of Waitangi on my bookshelf, so it's easy enough to check what she had to say about this detail. I found it on page 55 (my edition was printed in 2004): "As each Maori signed, he shook hands with Hobson (and with the other members of the official party), the Lieutenant Governor repeating, 'He iwi tahi tatou' – 'We are now one people.'" I'd be interested to know what Orange makes of the 2017 The Spinoff article / thinks of Dr Danny Keenan. She is, after all, the acknowledged authority on the Treaty.  Schwede 66  21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I keep trying to get in contact with her to get her to do a review of this article but no luck so far... —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , have just tried to establish contact via LinkedIn.  Schwede 66  18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, If you get in contact let me know. I've tried via her work (Te papa), but no dice. I think to get this to FA we need the advice of a true expert. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    10:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , just letting you know that I have not heard back.  Schwede 66  01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Locations where the treaty was signed
One of the details that's missing from this article is the signing locations of the various copies. I see that Orange (1987) has a map and a location list for the first eight copies. The printed list is not included there (and I haven't read up on why it's not). To me, this would be a useful addition to this article. In fact, given that we are talking eight separate documents (plus the printed copy, which Orange says may have gone round in 1844), all with their individual stories, this may lend itself to a standalone article. We should also do related work on Commons and on Wikidata. This won't be straightforward at all; for example, in her list, Orange refers to Akaroa. That's not very precise, as the treaty was signed at Ōnuku Marae. What do others think?  Schwede 66  01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great idea! --LJ Holden 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference clean-up
I'm working my way through cleaning up the references. It's a bit of a challenge given some of the references don't have page numbers. --LJ Holden 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, It was an issue during the GA review as well, I tried adding page numbers to refs that I added, but there were a lot of older references in different styles. There is a digital version of Claudia Orange's book available online though, if that helps. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  (click me!)    07:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks. There seems to be multiple references to different variations/editions of the same book. --LJ Holden 09:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I had one of them out of the library, so not sure if the pg numbers I added will match. Looks like the online version has some pages missing as well... :/ —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If page numbers are missing, record "p=?" in the sfn template. I have Orange's book on my bookshelf and could do some winter reading...  Schwede 66  10:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - cool, I've done my best reading through Orange's book plus the Illustrated Guide, there's a few other references that still need to be tidied up which I'll get on to over the next week or so as I get time. I also think we need to cover the "Crown" --LJ Holden 04:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – you legend!  Schwede 66  05:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The French and The Maori book
I'm still working on cleaning up references on this article... does anyone know which book "P.Lowe. The French and The Maori, Heritage 1990." actually is? there are a few with similar / same titles according to Google, but with different authors and different dates.--LJ Holden 00:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone back through the edit history and this reference was added by an IP user. First mentioned in an edit summary and then added as a crudely formatted reference. The IP last edited in 2011.  Schwede 66  04:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm... this book looks like the one it's referring to. --LJ Holden 08:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * John_Dunmore certainly looks like a mainstream modern historican whose work would count as a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He is, what I'm trying to figure out is who "P.Lowe." is. Not sure if anyone has seen this book? --LJ Holden 09:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks like the book on Google books --LJ Holden 09:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This bird may have flown years ago, but The French and the Maori (Heritage, 1992) contains a chapter, "French land purchases" by Peter Low. Nurg (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language) at WikiSource
For those interested in material history, specifically the Waikato-Manukau Sheet (English language text), it has been transcluded to Wikisource. The source has been proofread, but requires validation on its Page. Te Karere (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note: this article identifies the Waikato-Manukau Sheet as a "copy". As it is in the English language, this would be an inaccurate description.Te Karere (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

what is the Treaty?
There is only one Treaty,that being the Treaty written in Maori. The supposed English Treaty has no legal standing, so can be ignored for the purposes of this wikipedia article. Under international law (Vienna convention on treaties. I will provide details later) if there is any confusion/difference in interpretation between two conflicting versions of a treaty, then the treaty written in the language of the indigenous people is the lawful treaty.Thus no mention should be made of an English language version of the Treaty, as by law no English language version exists. A suitable backtranslation of the Treaty into English is that done by Hugh Kawheru(?spelling? sorry, this is done from memory) for the Waitangi Tribunal's He whakaputanga me te Tiriti report. Hugh Kawheru's translation shows Maori gave governance to the British Crown, not sovereignty.

On a different note, concerning the legal standing of the Treaty; The Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.That is the finding of Privy Council decision AC 308. The reason for this is that the Treaty was never ratified by the British parliament. Thus the Treaty only has legal force when incorporated in Acts of the New Zealand parliament.I believe Article two has been incorporated in some legislation, but not Article one. Most references to the Treaty in NZ legislation do not actually refer to the Treaty, but refer to the "principles" of the Treaty, which is not the same thing as the Treaty.Article one is particularly problematic for the NZ state as Article one guarantees Rangatira sovereignty, so it is unlikely Article one will ever be part of NZ law.

Concerning references to the Treaty as NZ's founding document, this is false and misleading.By Court of Appeal decision NZ Maori Council v Attorney General(1987 I believe) NZ's foundational documents are Hobson's proclamations.

I suggest explaining on the wikipedia site why there is no lawful English version of the Treaty, and why the Maori language Treaty is the only Treaty.

I suggest explaining that most(or all) NZ legislation does not recognise/give legal force to the Treaty, but rather recognises the "principles" of the Treaty.

I suggest explaining that the Privy Council has found the Treaty is not normally enforcable by law.(will check exact wording of decision)

I suggest explaining that Hobson's proclamations are currently regarded by the NZ courts as having established British sovereignty in this land.210.48.190.70 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, there really needs to be citations from verifiable sources for the above changes to be made. --LJ Holden 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hobson's orders
@user:Stuartyeates @user:119.224.17.35 et al. I changed the wording today to reflect more closely what his orders were, with those orders added as a reference. This could be seen as OR by me but it is closer to the orders, obviously, than the interpretation I changed. The exam questions at the side are concerning because they lead the student to a particular preferred response. The orders say Maori had sovereignty but only if certain conditions existed, which it says did not exist, hence meaning IMO that sovereignty did not exist. If sovereignty did not exist it could not be ceded, obviously. The subsequent actions and both texts of the treaty are closer to the idea of a recognition of UK sovereignty (that the UK would simply declare) than of Maori ceding its sovereignty. Much of the sources used to back the notion of Maori ceding sovereignty are low quality unreliable or poorly interpreted. We have to be very careful to be very neutral. See the second section above from 2017. An IP quotes from the treaty that Maori ceded sovereignty. "The Chiefs "cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty" If they did not have the rights and powers of sovereignty Maori could not have ceded them, and Normanby's orders make it clear the UK govt thought Maori did not have sovereignty (that the UK thought under 'normal' conditions they would have had.) If this strictly speaking is my OR interpretaion, it is no different from what is there now. I think some quality academic sources, properly interpretedband quoted should be used, not the various non-independent ones we often use.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Māori?
Te Tiriti o is obviously a creole or pidgin of the English phrase “The Treaty of”, not pre-colonial Māori. That, or the coincidence is astronomically unlikely. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire treaty (along with He Whakapukenga) are utterly colonial documents.
 * The aim is to end colonisation, not to perfect it. Jameskjx (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who's aim? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the Treaty a founding document or the founding document?
Earlier in the Article it is stated: "Increasingly, the treaty is recognised as a founding document in New Zealand's developing unwritten constitution." Sources 14, 15 & 16 are cited in support. This suggests that there could be multiple founding documents. Later in the article it is stated about the Treaty: "It is nevertheless regarded as the founding document of New Zealand." This suggests that there is only one founding document of New Zealand. Sources 14 & 206 are given in support. However, source 14 says: "Increasingly, New Zealand's constitution reflects the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document of government in New Zealand." As some sources say that the Treaty is a founding document while other sources say that it is the founding document, I propose that we put both viewpoints together in the second sentence by saying: "It is nevertheless regarded as either a founding document of New Zealand or the founding document of New Zealand." Sources 14, 15, 16 and 206 would support this altered sentence. I have not found other examples on official websites of other countries having only one founding document. For example, the official USA websites will list at least three different founding documents for the USA: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. KentLStevens (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I think "a founding document" accurately reflects the sources. I can't access all of the sources, but the ones I can don't present it as the sole founding document. Furius (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points. I think the problem is the meaning of a founding document. It can be official and precise or unofficial and abstract. The latter is the one to apply to the treaty. The former, I think, was the establishment of NZ as a Crown Colony. The first sentence sums it up - the treaty as part of the national mythos (making it a bedrock of NZ society today, hence an unofficial founding document) Personally I would be very wary of anything published by the govt, directly or indirectly. That includes te papa. It is not a properly independent source. I don't think your sentence should be used without a RSS because it is only your opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposal two would be to modify the second sentence to say "a" instead of "the". The second sentence would then read as "It is nevertheless regarded as a founding document of New Zealand." Sources 14, 15 and 16 would be used as citations. However, there appears to be at least some academic sources such as with 206 that say "the founding document". Even academic sources might casually state popular misconceptions such as "Napoleon was short". KentLStevens (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've looked again, more carefully. Source 206 is from the Waitangi Tribunal (the one the govt is trying to get rid of because it's gone beyond its mandate). I would not use it as an independent reliable source. I think anything referring to any of its statements should be clearly marked as its opinion or legal decision. IMO, the media and society use the tribunal's decisions and statements to say what (the media and society) are sure really did or did not happen in the past. So, remove source 206 and the treaty being THE founding document is unsupported. If there are other sources that use 'the' we should check them carefully. We could also use wp:weight to see just how evenly spread 'a' and 'the' are, Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Source 206, Michael Palmer is currently a judge. He also happens to be the son of former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. It would be best not to use the opinions of judges to represent how the Treaty of Waitangi is generally regarded in New Zealand. One concern is that judges opinions around the Treaty of Waitangi are inconsistent. Politician opinions should also not be used to represent how the Treaty of Waitangi is generally regarded. Professional NZ historians should be more reliable Wikipedia sources than judges in general. Professional NZ historian Paul Moon has written a book called "New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents". This book has been cited for sources 24, 29 and 90 in this Wikipedia article. While there being 50 founding documents for NZ is debatable, this book shows Moon stating that there are multiple founding documents for NZ. KentLStevens (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Paul Moon in his book "New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents" includes some of the following items as NZ's founding documents:
 * - Declaration of Independence
 * - Treaty of Waitangi, Busby's draft
 * - Treaty of Waitangi, English version
 * - Treaty of Waitangi, Māori version
 * - New Zealand declared a Crown colony (Queen Victoria's Royal Charter)
 * - New Zealand Constitution Act
 * Note that there were 1846 and 1852 versions of the New Zealand Constitution Act. KentLStevens (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you. There is an interesting published article somewhere about the treaty that is used as a WP source but I cannot remember where. It highlights the different approaches to analysing the past taken by historians and by lawyers, which results in different conclusions being reached about the same past event. The treaty IMO is a good example of this. From what I've read by Paul Moon he says there is not and can not ever be an answer to what the Treaty means, which runs contrary to what the tribunal is doing with all its decisions. The media and the public latch on to those decisions as if they are in fact what the treaty said. Hence we get people demanding their treaty rights, not realising that nobody knows what exactly those rights were, despite what the tribunal says. I would be happy to remove all sources except those from quality history academics but I don't think that would be popular. Incidentally, there is a history professor who regularly appears in the media promoting Maori treaty rights which seems to run contrary to the approach of other historians such a Paul Moon. I believe he and the Tribunal are not natural bed-fellows but I don't have evidence available. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to change 'the' to 'a', I for one won't object: Moon as a source IMO trumps everything else. I think reference to the national mythos should stay though.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will change 'the' to 'a' and keep the reference to the national mythos. This is consistent with having a general professional historian viewpoint.
 * I acknowledge that the first paragraph of the Treaty of Waitangi Wikipedia article refers to the Treaty as 'a' document of central importance and that the Treaty document is 'an' agreement.
 * Other Wikipedia articles on similarly important historical documents, that are associated with national myth, also use 'a' or refer to there being multiple founding documents. Example statements about other historical documents, from Wikipedia articles about those documents, using truncated wording are:
 * - Magna Charta ("Great Charter"), is 'a' royal charter of rights
 * - the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other American 'founding documents'
 * - The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is 'a' human civil rights document from the French Revolution KentLStevens (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now checked the judge's book: Palmer, Matthew (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's Law and Constitution. Palmer says on p. 24. "The Treaty is acknowledged to be an important founding document which does not, of itself, mostly, have direct legal effect at the moment." KentLStevens (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Treaty of Waitangi