Talk:Wairau Affray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	Wairau Affray is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

--In recent decades, there has been a strong move to rename this as the "Wairau Incident". Robin Patterson 03:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--I'm moving this Wikipage from Wairau Massacre to Wairau Affray. -- PFHLai 04:35, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

--However, the Europeans did write the history of the incident: for this reason it became known by the pejorative title of the Wairau Massacre. Wairau Affair or Incident would be a more accurate title, but the facts became lost in a welter of subsequent events and the need to justify the British position

--Isn't this a POV? How do you know the British reasons? And for the families of those killed, it was a massacre.

--To the above: If you get arms and seek to fight, you engage in combat. Massacre would be if they were all unarmed, did not cause any trouble and were civilians in their own right. But these settlers were armed and looking to force the issue. Therefore how can it be said when they lost the initiative, they were all of a sudden massacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.214 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

--This Article is completely biased towards the Maori Point of view. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who has any understanding of history that this is infact, incorrect.

--I agree, this sentence in particular: "Twenty-two Europeans died in the incident. It could have been more if the Māori had seriously pursued the rest of the party, but having made their point, they allowed them to escape."

I've fixed this and added a references section. I'll go through the article eventually and adde further references. Can you please sign your comments on the talk page with four tildes. Thanks! Grimhim 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

--This Article is completely biased towards the Maori Point of view. I SECOUND THAT WHO EVER WROTE THIS needs to get there facts correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.47.18 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bias you're referring to. I've given the article a bit of a re-work, relying on one major book on the subject so far and replacing the viewpoint material that had drifted into it; I'll bring in other information from other authoritative sources when time allows, as well as move on to the "Aftermath" section.Grimhim (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)