Talk:Waitangi, Northland

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Am I right in thinking that the name of Waitangi translates as "River of mourning"? If so, this fact ought to be recorded in the article, since it sheds such an ironic light on the Treaty. seglea 08:11, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You need to remember that words and phrases don't necessarily translate literally between different languages, and this is especially the case for two very much originally unrelated languages like English and Māori. Although I don't know the language, I would assume that wai could translate as either river or waters, depending on the context (and no doubt various other types of waters as well), and tangi can certainly also have various meanings (after all, it is the word for a Māori funeral, which certainly involves much weeping and mourning). The translation needs to carry the same poetic meaning, and cultural context, as the Māori word. The current translation, and the suggested translation, both do this in one way or another, but I don't see the point in mentioning them both on the article, and as far as I'm aware weeping waters is the generally accepted translation.

Now that I've written that, I don't suppose anyone will read it for another two or three years (as is the case with the previous message on this page)! Markdarb 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just ignored the second part of the first message in my reply. This is an encyclopedia, so we're not trying to shed ironic lights so much as to state the facts (and sometimes the various viewpoints, but from a neutral point of view). And if such an ironic light is to be shed, perhaps it should be shed on the actual Treaty of Waitangi page, where it would be more relevant. Markdarb 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this should focus on the actual place, and leave the stuff on the Treaty and Treaty house to those pages. --Helenalex 05:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]