Talk:Kūpapa

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kūpapa article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: South Pacific

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

New Zealand: Māori Stub‑class Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

I've just reverted some poorly written and unreferenced example of the role kupapa. Would be keen to see such text added if it raises the quality of the article. Snori (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion[edit]

The sentence "Fortuneately their numbers were low and their war fighting ability was very low as they believed that chanting hau hau, barking like dogs and holding up a hand would make them bullet proof" is clearly an expression of opinion by an editor and is not acceptable. Nor is the appalling spelling. BlackCab (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article, basically limiting the information to that found in works by Belich and King. The statements about "Hau Hau" (actually Pai Mārire) that were recently added remain out of the article and should not be reinstated without a proper source. The one major conflict between kupapa and Pai Marire is now noted in the article. Richard Stowers' Forest Rangers book does have a reference in chapter 20 to an engagement in October 1865 against Pai Marire forces on the East Coast in which kupapa were also involved, but it certainly doesn't support the ignorant rant that an IP user has kept inserting.[1] BlackCab (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your generally poor understanding of New Zealand history is displayed in nearly every edit! The revisionist historian Belich's lack of balance and critical judgement is now well known as are his tendency to make wrong factual statements.You will note there has been a VERY long dry period for Belich's version of NZ history. It is ironic that you poopoo Stowers, who is backed by one of NZ leading military writers. The same military writer has been very scathing of Belich,especially when he stays into military areas, in which he is clearly not well informed. Can you think why Belich is having a dry? The whole sentence you quote about the hau hau is direct from NZETC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about Stowers: at Talk:Invasion of Waikato I supported his inclusion as a reliable source. [2] But it's clearly unacceptable to use him as a citation for your ignorant rant. Despite your poor opinion of Belich, he remains an excellent source for Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what sentence you refer to that is direct from NZETC: let me know and I'll take a look. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Usage[edit]

You might want to reconsider the attribution of "erroneous" to modern usage. It's used a lot where I am, with an understanding of the context that the term is derived from, and it seems unfair to deprive a word of its currency by calling it erroneous. One does not know how a language is expected to develop if it must be arbitrated by historians ;-) --Jack.henderson.nz (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have removed the word "erroneous", which seems to be an editor's opinion. [3] BlackCab (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]