Talk:Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand

Legal effect of the Declaration

THere is no citation that the legal effect of the Declaration is disputed, so I'm going to remove it. --Lholden (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Independence of New Zealand from Britain: Dominion Day?

I was comparing the present revision to that of 8 February 2006 and I can see that the whole paragraph on the other possible dates on the Independence of New Zealand is now removed. I appreciate that this paragraph may seem irrelevant to the "Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand" signed by James Busby in 1835, a very specific document. However, lots of people who check the Wikipedia are not New Zealanders and don't have the background understanding that you as a Newzealander may have on the History of your own country. The concept of a national "Independence Day" is indeed foreign to the New Zealand psyche but it is an important date for many countries around the world, it's not only an Americanistic quirk as you suggested. For example, I'm from Brazil and we celebrate very lively our independence from Portugal every year, we have an Independence Day as well. Malaysians, Ukrainians, and many other countries do too. According to International Standards (e.g. the CIA World Factbook), New Zealand became independant from the UK the 26 September 1907. But we know that the NZ Parliament adopted the Statute of Westminster Act only in 1947 and it was only from this year on that New Zealanders were issued a New Zealand passaport. Before that all New Zealand nationals were British Citizens. Therefore, I suggest that the paragraph on other possible dates of the Independence of New Zealand be reinserted or reformulated for the sake of all those visitors to Wikipedia who aren't New Zealanders and wonder why their information on the date of Independence of New Zealand doesn't match with the information of your article. Hope this makes sense. Thank you.

Thanks for your comment. I removed that paragraph, because I felt it was not relevant for the above article. IMHO, anyone reading the New Zealand article can figure out that New Zealand's date of independence isn't clear.

As an aside, I would add that, legally speaking, New Zealand isn't totally independent of Britain. While the Queen of the United Kingdom may also be Queen of New Zealand, the law governing the succession to the New Zealand Crown remains a British statute that New Zealand is unable to change without consulting the other 15 Commonwealth Realms. Thus, we are not *totally* independent. --Lholden 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, i didn't realise there's a separate article on the Independence of New Zealand and that you're involved in it as well. Independence and sovereignity can indeed be very complex concepts. I have one question though: can you confirm that the "NZ Parliament adopted the Statute of Westminster Act only in 1947 and it was only from this year on that New Zealanders were issued a New Zealand passaport"? Is it correct? Is it from this date that newzealanders started being called "New Zealand Citizens" officially? It appears to me that before this date, officially, all New Zealanders were British Citizens. Can this piece of information be inserted in the body of the article "New Zealand Independence" for reference? Cheers.

I'll have to look that up, but I think you may be correct; that would makes sense since the effect of the Act was to give New Zealand control over our own citizenship law - there was a case in the early 80s when a Samoan woman, born before 1947, sought New Zealand citizenship because she was born a "British citizen", and thus became a New Zealand citizen in 1947, only to become a Samoan citizen on independence in 1964. I think she was successful because the High Court held that citizenship could not be retrospetively changed, although Parliament pretty quickly enacted an amendment to the Citizenship law to cover this loop hole. --Lholden 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article title can be quite misleading though; after all it was not modern New Zealand independence that was asserted - only that of a handful of northern Iwi, and then the matter was essentially forgotten apart from some constitutional manouevering. Perhaps the title would more accurately be "Declaration of Independence of the 'United Tribes' of New Zealand". For those not familar with NZ history, this article makes the declaration seem far more important than it is - self ranking it as highly important doesn't help. While NZ histiography can be expected to have a strong liberal bias, we can probably do better in reducing this. Leaving aside the contentious issue of whether it should ever have had any legal status, what was the historical significance of this declaration? The declaration today is politically useful to a small percentage of the population who are promoting the political element of modern Maori cultural separation from mainstream NZ culture; it is also of some interest to those following the 40 odd year long process of the United Kingdom establishing effetive political control over the North Island. But it had not the slightest impact on the reality of who had control in 1835, 1840, 1853 (when it never crossed anyone's mind) or 1865; nor did any of the ephermera of state follow after the declaration was signed and fflag chosen. the title was farcical - the tribes remained ununited - and while modern thinking may have assumed Maori had independence, that not have been as New Zealand, but as individual iwi. In summary for those not already familar with the subject, the article may make the declaration far more significant than it really is. I think the best way of reducing this imbalance would be an honest assessment of the unimportance of the declaration, and correcting the title would be a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.96.151 (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Signatories

Who signed this? Is there any record of the signatories? Is it the same as the United Tribes of NZ? And what iwi belonged to this? Aidan (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading title

The 1835 "Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand" was of no legal effect, was irrelevant then and even more so now. It is not justified to have an article under this misleading title.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. Read the article.Moriori (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is full of false and contentious claims. New Zealand did not exist as a legal entity in 1835. The declaration was made by a handful of chiefs who had no legal authority to speak for their tribes, much less all of New Zealand. The declaration was of no effect whatsoever. The same applies to the Treaty of Waitangi - the handful of chiefs who signed it had no power or authority to bind their tribes, and many tribes did not sign. British sovereignty over New Zealand was established by proclamation, not the treaty.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Continuing sovereignty

It is not correct that "independent sovereignty which continued after 1840 to the extent that the flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand was flown at the Pukawa hui when the Maori King was appointed in 1857." Firstly it is doubtful that the declaration gave the "United Tribes" [which did not actually exist] sovereignty. Secondly, flying a flag does not establish sovereignty. Someone could place a British flag on the White House - that would not mean that the USA had automatically become a British colony.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand. 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/20110811225106/http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/background-to-the-treaty/declaration-of-independence to http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/background-to-the-treaty/declaration-of-independence

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2024

Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand → He Whakaputanga – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The declaration is overwhelmingly referred to as He Whakaputanga in recent reliable sources, with the current title being more of a descriptive term than its actual name. Turnagra (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: The WikiProject New Zealand notice board has been notified of this discussion.Turnagra (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose English language article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Roger, WP:USEENGLISH says that we use the name something is known as in English, not that the name has to be English. My point is that He Whakaputanga is known by that name in English, and therefore should be at that title. Turnagra (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You ask 1,000 people across NZ what He Whakaputanga means and you'll get 999 dumb faced looks. That's only in NZ. This article caters for a worldwide audience. Most of the sources you have looked at will not be independent so their relevance should be discounted accordingly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside other issues with your comment, could you explain what you mean by sources not being independent - particularly given that the United Tribes haven't existed as an entity for nearly 180 years, so it's tough for a modern source to not be independent from them. Turnagra (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

What I mean by independent is the same as usual- if someone (an official body) is forced to use a particular name because it is the law to do so (all maps must use the NZGB names) , or it is their way of enforcing a law (they have to 'promote te reo'), then it isn't independent because using a particular name is forced on them. I realise this isn't as simple as that and that at some point common sense has to take over, but in this case common sense says the te reo name isn't understood or used by English speakers, whereas the English name is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I said, regarding maps and names at least, and I know some people do not agree. The NZGB names are the official names. The surveyor-general is an official position, and the S-G decides what is put on almost all maps printed in NZ. All official bodies, eg the S-G are legally bound to promote te reo, so if the S-G general says use the NZGB names, that is what happens. I might not be quite correct in this reasoning but I think it is broadly of correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. WP:USEENGLISH unless it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Ngrams show a spike in usage. Theparties (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose proposed title is unrecognisable compared to the English name. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain your argument, given ngrams posted above would suggest otherwise? Turnagra (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provide some examples of the recent reliable sources? Especially those used in an otherwise English context? Peetel (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here are some examples from a quick search:

• Scholarly articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
• Books: [13] [14], [15], [16],
• Web and news: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

Turnagra (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact most of those provide a translation/definition is basically my argument, if the terms were recognisable there wouldn't be a translation provided, especially in academic context where a higher level of education is expected from a reader. 6 is a bilingual source for example and uses the English title for the English chapter. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is an English encyclopaedia, and the non-English name is unrecognisable to most people. If anyone asked me what "He Whakaputanga" meant, I would have no clue. The sources provided use both the English and Māori name, which does not suggest that the Māori one is most common. For example, the NZHistory source title is "He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence" and the archives.govt.nz source says "He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni - known in English as the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand".

Google Ngrams is comparing apples to oranges because it is not only called the "Declration of the Independence of New Zealand", but also more properly the "Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand" or just the "Declration of Independence" (looking at the provided sources).―Panamitsu (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support - as per WP:COMMONNAME. Te Ara and NZ History ought to be pretty definitive, but there's also archives NZ, the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, UNESCO, the NZQA curriculum, academics [28] [29], media articles [30] [31]. IdiotSavant (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

All of these sources also use an English name alongside it bar one. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Too soon—I fully expect that it will be the common name in the next few years, but it's not there yet. As an encyclopedia we need to be careful not to lead trends, but report on them having happened. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, after looking at the sources and others I'm not convinced that He Whakaputanga is a more common name. I think it is in the same category as Te Tiriti on Treaty of Waitangi--not the most common name but widely used enough to be in the first sentence. Peetel (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, even though it is the proper name for the document, I think WP:COMMONNAME points us to using the common English term for now. Similar to Beeswaxcandle, I think this will probably be a less controversial move in a few years as the te reo name becomes more widely adopted. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)