| Revision as of 08:07, 16 July 2006 editInkybutton (talk | contribs)253 edits Principles of Treaty of Waitangi were largely ignored?← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:35, 16 July 2006 edit undoMacRusgail (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,084 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| That is more opinionated, because no source says that it is "largely ignored". --] 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | That is more opinionated, because no source says that it is "largely ignored". --] 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I think it's wrong to say that "no source" says so - I've seen some that do, but to include references along those lines and refer to specific violations. --] 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 16 July 2006
Assorted links for reference purposes
- Waitangi Tribunal - principles.
Linked page fault?
The linked page contains some JavaScript that replaces the page with some kind of advertisement if one doesn't have a certain plugin installed. It's rather annoying. (To read the treaty, disable scripting in your browser.) --Brion 06:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
Treaty of Waitangi browser crash
Moved from Misplaced Pages:Village pump on Thursday, July 10th, 02003.
The Treaty of Waitangi article crashes my browser! (Mozilla 1.4, Linux). This must be a browser bug of course, but is there anything illegal in the article? Maybe it's the image? 81.86.233.209 07:17 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the image: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=image:treatyofwaitangi.jpg
- In another tool I get a warning: Corrupt JPEG data: premature end of data segment 81.86.233.209 07:35 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I fixed Mozilla by recompiling with different options. The precompiled versions should be OK 81.86.233.209 18:29 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Controversial material - links
The description of the Littlewood Treaty link should reflect the NPOV policy, even though the website it points to is not NPOV. I think "argument" or even "claims" is a fairer representation of the Littlewood website than "evidence". It's not controversial that there are similarities between the Littlewood text and the official Maori version, however, it is not widely accepted as to why they are similar. The site argues that the Treaty is a fraud proven by the Littlewood document - that's definitely controversial. Tirana 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've also moved the section on the "grievance industry" to the Claims section, as it relates primarily to Treaty claims rather than the Treaty today. I don't think the newspaper article links are particularly helpful, as either examples of what the original author intended or as general resources - perhaps a political party's website on its Treaty policy might be an alternative as a source for the issues. I've taken reference to the Lake Taupo issue out of the Treaty of Waitangi article because it's nothing to do with Treaty claims or rights. It's to do with what the rights of the owner of the lakebed (Ngati Tuwharetoa, thanks to a government grant in 1992) are to restrict use of the space above it, under general law. Instead I've summarised the issues of debate in what I hope is a more NPOV tone. Tirana 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Principles of Treaty of Waitangi were largely ignored?
That is more opinionated, because no source says that it is "largely ignored". --inky 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's wrong to say that "no source" says so - I've seen some that do, but to include references along those lines and refer to specific violations. --MacRusgail 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)