Talk:New Zealand Company

message: How can an organisation established in 1857 encounter financial difficulties almost 20 years earlier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction re: date of establishment

message: Most of the references to Patricia Burns' Fatal Success lack page numbers. I will endeavour (progressively) to find them and insert them to improve the refs. BlackCab (TALK) 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page references 

message: This is now recognized as false, as the degree of violence was considerably less than 20 years before. It was a reason heavily pushed by the influencial LMS and gained favour with the Aboriginal Protection Society in London which had the ear of the government. The LMS were keen for government involvement to keep out the godless land entreprenuers and traders from Sydney.Likewise the Bay of Islands was no worse than many other part of the British Empire including some in England.115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "growing lawlessness" 

message: Not only did you remove some very useful material in understanding the connection between the British Whig govt, leading Whig involvement in all the migration plans to NZ but removed specific information about criminal involvement of a key figure  and the reason why it was important for him to involve a wealthy  Whig in the migration plan. All this was very germane to a holistic understanding of the article. All this with just a cursory comment related to just one part of your edit -no attempt to talk about the issues involved. Your vast number,style and tone of edits dominates many NZ history articles, sometimes to their detriment. It appears that you have appointed yourself an unofficial wiki guardian of NZ history? Often your use of sources is  selective and/or partial. I have commented before on your heavy use of the contentious work of J Belich, an author who has  acknowledged his anti British attitude. Often you now rely on sources such as historians employed by the Treaty Tribunal to establish a particular point of view. You seem unaware(or dont care??I realise that being in Australia you  cant attend meetings or conferences on these matters) that  the tribunal is not a neutral source. Its chair for 19 years -E Durie has written that it was his deliberate intention for the tribunal to" rewrite NZ history from a Maori perspective"see E Durie: Ethics and Values 1999. The tribunal pays historians to produce evidence to support their case. The ONLY role of the tribunal is to find fault with historical NZ governments' actions. Durie himself stated "that claimant groups had asked tribunal researchers to change findings that did not support their cases and were told they would not be paid unless changes were made." I write this in the spirit of achieving balanced NZ history articles. Other editors please comment.Your input is valued.115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this is a response to my copyedit on your edits of 9 February. Your additions were of a poor quality, mostly unsourced and in one part repeated material already in the article. I retained the most important of the material you added, though in a different place. I am working my way through the article from the beginning to improve it further, making the history clearer. Neither Belich nor the Waitangi Tribunal are used as sources in this article, and nor is the Treaty of Waitangi currently a large part of it, so none of those criticisms are relevant. If you dispute any factual material in the article, please identify the problems rather than just attacking me as an editor. BlackCab (TALK) 05:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Coming from you, Claudia, that's quite amusing. BlackCab (TALK) 04:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned above, Belich is not used as a source in this article so I don't know why you're banging on about this. BlackCab (TALK) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swamped by Black cabs  recent edits. 

message: Any input for relevance to this?
https://thesternfacts.com/trump-jr-now-tied-to-mexican-drug-cartels-money-laundering-scheme-5906b8d4ce5d
--Wikipietime (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand company Tormex, Ltd. 

message: The Treaty of Waitangi - Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Crown.  This is wrong.  What was granted in the Treaty of Waitangi by Maori is the right to govern but in the Maori text, the language of the land at the time the Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, is that the chiefs retained tino rangatiratanga =  sovereignty.  There have been a significant number of court cases evidencing this so you need to update your records 2406:5A00:34E1:A600:7869:B694:89F7:995B (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @User talk:2406:5A00:34E1:A600:7869:B694:89F7:995B, where do you get your quote from that you say is wrong? Under the Treaty of Waitangi section it says " The treaty transferred sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown". Incidentally, what is written here isn't determined by court cases. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in your information