Talk:Invasion of the Waikato

message: "Unjust confiscation" - isn't this POV?  Some people would argue that for thousands of years men have fought other men for control over their land.
:Well, considering the NZ government paid a lot of money and the Queen made a formal apology about it, perhaps it is a fair statement of fact. older≠wiser 23:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
::Agreed, that was what I had inmind when I used the word "unjust".  It was the judgement of history, not my own. ping 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unjust confiscation

message: One editor keeps adding things that look like links, and yet if I try a manual search with them, I get no results.
I am tempted to just remove them, but don't want to get into an edit war.Kadathdreamques (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlinked Sources. 

message: It is a big stretch to call the Maori sytem of retribution "law".The system was suited to illiterate tribal folk in lieu of anything better  and depended very much on the person and the mood of the people and the chief-in other words it was arbitrary.Without a literate society or a good chunk of society ,then the function and administration of law becomes haphazard in other words it was based on lore and custom.Maori had no separate legal or justice system.Claudia Jan 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.160 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori law? Lore? 

message: It has been suggested before that in view of what is now known that this is a better title than Invasion of the Waikato....It must be recalled that a significant number of Maori toa-some from the Waikato supported the Govt.A large number of the battles took place in Auckland -well north of the self declared Maori border giving significant credance to the "attack on Auckland "scenario.I believe in all there were about 9 conflicts in Auckland .
After the war when the confiscations first took place a large number of hapu protested as they had either fought on the govt side or remained neutral- so they were returned land.The pa/stockade that was established at Rangiriri on a hill near the present village was occuppied by a rangitira who supported the govt.The confiscation figures show that the actual proportion of the land taken was small-even then much was returned  after 1864.The old idea of the war being  a "land grab" has been largely discredited.The Waikato did not have any real economic development of note till the 1920s-it was not till the swamps were drained , the land fertilized ,road and rail links established and the British market for butter and cheese developed that the population grew.Also can you "invade "land that is already part of Nz and had been for 23 years?It should be noted that 44 Waikato chiefs signed the treaty in 1840 according to the treaty road show.The old idea that the land wars was Maori v Pakeha is clearly wrong.What happened in the King Country after the war ie tension/conflict between Maniapoto and the Kingitanga over who should sell the land for the railway shows that the war was about Maori who wanted to sell land being able to do so without being threatened (or killed as happened at Waitara).With Maniapoto(who had been the most violent anti govt in 1860-1864-changing their mind to a pro govt stance, the Kingitanga was left high and dry-at one stage the King was so distraught that he considered going to Taranki according to the royal house -though to do what is not revealed.Clearly  the govt wanted:-the rule of law-the suppression(note not necessarily the destruction) of the kingitanga and peace.King Movement Suppression anyone? Claudia Jan 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.26 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Movement Suppression 

message: The original Treaty Of Waitangi documents clearly show that 44 Waikato area chiefs signed the treaty.In the Treaty Road Show this was changed to 4 chiefs ,which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake. The iwi clearly broke the treaty by going to war against the government. The steps in the Waikato war were:1 the attack on Kawau Island to steal massive supplies of gunpowder,2 the attempted seaborne invasion of Auckland via the Waitemata Harbour,3 The attack by Rewi Maniapoto on the troops at Taranaki when a truce was in place.4 The attempt by Rewi to murder the CMS missionary in Te Awamutu,5 The burning down of the Te Awamutu mission and the Maori trade school 6 The building of the secret base for thousands of warriors in the Wairoa Hills in Auckland 7 The refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen 8 The refusal to hand in Firearms 9 The forcing of all settlers out of the Waikato 10 The actual attacks on settlers and soldiers in Auckland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.164 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been tagged since 2008 for inadequate sourcing. You continue to add material, much of it not directly relevant to the article's subject, without citations. I have also found one example (which I have removed) where the citation was incorrect. The charitable view is that the editor copied down the wrong page number; an alternative view is that it was added to give the appearance of authenticating the claim. Much of the problematic material has been added by one editor, and comments such as those above ("which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake") provide further proof of that editor's determination to have many NZ articles reflect their own outlook on history. All new material must carry a full and correct citation or it will be challenged and removed. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the bottom line of Wikipedia is the five pillars. The second of those is that material must be written from a neutral point of view (which you constantly ignore) and that articles strive for verifiable accuracy, which you also ignore. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." WP:V also states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Your answer above shows that you don't understand much of that at all, or choose to ignore it. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  44 Tainui " federation" chiefs signed the treaty 

message: I am going to begin a very necessary cleanup project on this article, which has suffered for too long from an excess of extraneous, unsourced detail. The article does a poor job of explaining the background to the invasion and includes simplistic claims about why Grey launched the invasion. There are excellent sources that can be used, including Belich, Keith Sinclair, Michael King, WH Oliver, James Cowan and BJ Dalton; the few citations the article does use are incomplete and in some cases questionable.
I have completed the first stage, which I'll upload in a day or two: this cleans up the lead section and replaces "Aftermath of the First Taranaki War" with a new section, "Background and origins of the invasion", which will be fully sourced to those authors. My guess is that the section "Preparation to suppress the Kingitanga", which is completely unsourced, ignores Wikipedia style, and will repeat sourced material in the new "Background" section, can mostly be deleted. I'll continue to work my way through the article, cleaning up sections on specific battles as I go. BlackCab (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First section completed. I'm now pausing to clean up Battle of Rangiriri, from which I'll create a more succinct summary to insert in this article. BlackCab (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and cleanup 

message: I have deleted this edit which stated that "in contrast", Browne persisted in trying to contact Tamihana to effect a peaceful settlement. Dalton (a New Zealand historian, not an American) was not reporting on any "contrast" to the well-known sequence of events leading to the Waikato invasion. As he explains in his JPS article (see p.202 and footnote 31)  and his War and Politics book, Browne viewed the Kingite stance as a threat to Crown sovereignty; the only way to "peace" was if the King Movement renounced its claim to equal footing with the authority of the Crown. Browne briefly held a hope that Tamihana might be prepared to push the King Movement back from that hardline position, but it was about this time he learned he was to be replaced by George Grey as Governor and abstained from any further action to as to avoid locking his successor into any course. Thanks for the reference to the JPS article, however; I was previously unaware of it. BlackCab (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamihana 

message: I am going to revert the series of edits by IP:122.62.226.243 (aka Claudia) dated 27 October 2013 that changed the "First engagements" section heading to "The War In Auckland behind the Front" and added another section heading, the lamentably spelt and capitalised "Koheroa and the River Campaign at Mere mere". The edits are sloppy work that:
*(a) repeats material already in the article (see Camerontown, Martin's Farm (or Martyn's Farm as Claudia calls it), Pukekohe East as examples); 
*(b) adds woefully inadequate citations (War Comes to Pukekohe. T Ryan. Stone Ed. 2005 and Papers Past. Attack on Parata.Colonist. 22 Dec 1863.p3 as examples); 
*(c) contains manifestly careless writing ("The Kingitanga Maori were able to manoeuvre freely in the extensive bush covered hills in the Pokeno and Hunua(Wairoa)ranges to the north Of the the Mangatawhiri stream that the Kingitanga had claimed was a border."Maori hovered in the long belt of bush.. and so threatened the general's(Cameron) communications" ... as an example).
*(d) A flagrant disregard of Wikipedia style. "Four natives were killed, including 2 it was assumed ..." is just one example of a disregard for WP:MOSNUM and WP:ORDINAL. Sentences conclude with a fullstop, then another fullstop is added after the citations. "Sept 8 1863" disregards style on abbreviations. There are spaces before fullstops. 
Without wanting to appear precious about this, I have worked hard to give this article a much-needed clean-up. It is of no benefit whatever to shovel in redundant material that is so poorly written. BlackCab (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts to improve article but there are still big gaps. Because you have leaned quite heavily on Belich, NZ Wars, the article contains much the same emphasis. Belich's approach is recognized as flawed- mainly trying too hard to correct earlier accounts. Clearly the "Fighting behind the Lines" deserves its own section as it was a distinct and very important part of the conflict. I had not finished improving the new section (good things take time!)when you deleted it. I realised it still need a bit of work. You put in a lot of hard work on this one-time to let others improve or do your own improvement. Another suggestion: If you see technical wiki errors how about fixing a few rather than just deleting? That would be a far more positive contribution don't you think? To me some of your complaints are a bit pedantic.No one "owns" an article.Thanks Claudia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The war in Auckland behind the front 

message: Just a bit of detailed information from various sources-mainly C. Pugsley ,military historian from 1997. The plan of the pa on the site is not quite correct in that it does not show the projecting arm which appears to be an incomplete pa extension. A visit to the site shows all the positions quite easily. It reinforces the old idea that the pa was VERY poorly sited. It is on land that is virtually flat to the West, North and North East. It is overlooked by a thin ridge 800m to the SW. This ridge a far better pa site too and  about 15-20m higher than the site used. Some authors have confused the position of the 4th on the battle field. On some maps they are shown as being in plain view of the Pa that is  only 200m away to the North West. They may have been placed there on a rough map by Carey, but no self respecting British soldier would sit less than 200m, down hill, from a Maori pa and in the open. While most Maori in the pa were armed with double barrel shotguns they did have rifles that could easily reach 200m. On the down side Maori had a lot of coarse gunpowder they had made themselves by this late stage in the campaign, so shooting may have been variable. It is highly likely the 40th took up positions behind the  hillock /slope. This would have given them shelter from any stray shots/shrapnel from the guns that were shooting across their front from the left. We know that many were employed cutting ti tree for the sap protection leaving only a few to guard the position. Perhaps the "ake ake" speech, where Maori inferred they would go down fighting, was just a ruse, it was only a few hours later that the bulk fled into the swamp past the  40th, chased by the forest Rangers. 
The present monument is very sparse, though in good condition. The information boards could be improved by the Historic Places Trust which have done a good job elsewhere.Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orakau tidy 

message: Re the links in the Battle of Rangiriri. Think it is fair to day that the link to the SMLE 303 is incorrect, being it didn't enter service until 1895. Assuming that the link should be to the page for the Pattern 1853 Enfield. All happy to change?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.194 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was my error, and I think you're correct. I'll fix it. Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link error 

message: In the chapter "Background and origins of the invasion", the final sentence of the first paragraph reads:
"In response to Browne's belligerence, Kingite leaders formed plans to launch a violent raid on Auckland on 1 September, burning the town and slaughtering most of its residents.[12]"
That sentence gives the impression that Auckland was not only attacked, but was burned and most of its residents killed. I'm not aware of any burning, let alone "most" of the residents being killed. Due to bad grammar, the sentence appears to convey a false impression that the plan was carried out. Wouldn't a better construction be:
"In response to Browne's belligerence, Kingite leaders formed plans to launch a violent raid on Auckland on 1 September in which the town would be burned and its residents slaughtered.[12]"
To be honest, I still don't like "violent raid", which is overly emotive, and in fact redundant since the town would be burned and residents killed. If the sentence is verbatim from [12] (Sinclair), it's not obvious from the text. I think that a far simpler construction would be "...formed plans to attack Auckland on 1 September and burn the town and slaughter its residents.[12]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akld guy (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence construction? 

message: The addition of details of the 1865 land return by the new government shows examples of who got the land and how much they got, as well as its exact location. All of this is new information which adds materially to understanding of the topic. As the source is 1865  the term "in rebellion' was (and still is) understood to apply to Maori who fought against the government in a failed attempt to set up a new Maori state under the kingite system. Further the detail shows that it was "rebels" who  surrendered that got the land, not those who retreated into the King country and who were still "at war" with the government. The term rebels is a good one to distinguish between the minority of Maori who "rebelled" and fought the crown and the majority(or kupapapa) who either supported the NZ government or remained neutral. Further it shows that the defeated rebels had to swear allegiance to the crown -something that had been requested and refused prior to the Waikato campaign against the rebels starting in 1863.
W Thompson surrendered to the British after Rangiriri but then took up arms again in an ineffective, half hearted stand on the slopes of Maungatautari. He was rewarded for turning his back on the kingites by being allowed to keep most of his land(basically from just a few Km  west of modern Morrinsville- all the way east to the Kaimai ranges). The strip of land that was taken was to protect the government supply lines along the Waikato River. Ngati Haua never did "own " or control that strip anyway-the best that can be said is that they had  shared and overlapping interests with other Waikato hapu. That Ngati Haua land retained ownership can be shown by the fact that Wiremu Thomson/Tamihana was very busy selling swamp land to Auckland business men /farmers like Morrin and Firth in the 1870s and later Ngati Haua gave the Te Aroha hot springs(in the extreme east) to the government. The value of the swamp land sold in modern terms was about $1.5 million-not bad for a patch of bog. Further when the escaped convict and renegade Te Kooti rolled into Ngati Haua territory while on the run from the law, he was offering to protect their land as their new "king" in January 1870. Clearly he saw they had plenty of land that needed "protection" and of course he knew by then that Ngati Haua and broken with the kingites. At Matamata he came to realise that Ngati Haua had thrown their lot in with the government and the Europeon settlers. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 
:Sourcing this kind of thing to a single historical primary source of this nature is entirely unacceptable, as is the characterisation of the actors in this event. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claudia", I am not interested in your views of history. I have already explained at your talk page that the sourcing is problematic. It is inadequate, unverifiable and unreliable. BlackCab (TALK) 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1865 land return to surrendered rebels 

message: An editor has added a section on the Army Commissariat Transport Corp, which Belich (p.124) says was established by Grey, probably early in 1862. The section contains some interesting information. It is sourced to "Alexy Simmons. Comestibles of the Waikato Campaign. Simmons, Simmons and Associates.Hamilton. 2014". Is this is a book? Is it self-published? Does anyone know of the author or their credentials? BlackCab (TALK) 06:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled it just before. It's an Otago University PhD thesis. I left a note on Claudia's talk page suggesting she edit it down, format the reference properly and add it to the Commissariat page instead. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it could be included if there's a source to say it was a revolution in supply systems or food types that resulted in a significantly lower rate of sickness and thus helped them win the campaign. As the edit was, it was mainly a list of foods the soldiers ate, which adds little to an article on a military invasion. It says it was a "fundamental change", but doesn't say what the change was or what difference it made compared to other military campaigns over a great distance in rough terrain. It also says "Recent studies have showed ..." but cites only one person. It's unclear if the author wrote about other studies or conducted one of her own. BlackCab (TALK) 07:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

text: What you've written now is better, but it nowhere states the basis for the claim that the Commissariat Transport Corps was "a critical part of the success of the campaign". It doesn't state that this was a new development; for all the reader knows this was standard operating procedure in British military campaigns. Without that detail, the diet of the British soldiers is no more interesting than the diet of the Maori fighters. I can't find any definition online of the Otago pack saddle. Your citation is still inadequate: it is impossible to properly identify the source.BlackCab (TALK) 00:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've located a few more sources on the commissariat that may help to explain its benefits. An Australian book, Equal to the Task by Neville Lindsay,, refers to a Commissariat Department, which operated from a base at Port Waikato, and a Commissariat Transport Corps, which operated from Auckland to the base set up at Waikato Heads. It says they comprised volunteers from the regular and militia regiments. Another book, Salute to Service: A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and its Predecessors by Julia Millen  (pages 27-31) explain the Transport Corps was part of the  Commissariat Department. It also refers to the 5 percent sick rate, citing Belich. A Captain Francis Cadell was appointed  superintendent of the River Transport Service on 15 February 1864, and he served in this capacity until 31 January 1866. He seems to have had no prior service in Crimea. Belich spends some time discussing the benefits to the British campaign of the commissary under H. Stanley Jones, the commissary-general. BlackCab (TALK) 08:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexy Simmons as a source 

message: The Kingite movement itself could be called extreme, in that it was a minority of Maori and that it wished to separate Maori from New Zealand jurisdiction. After its "defeat" in the Waikato in 1864 this is in fact what the Kingtanga did in the King Country.ie set up an independent (but short lived) separate Maori kingdom. However within the kingitanga movement in 1863, before the Auckland war broke out,there was no unity on the degree of violence to be used to achieve this independent state. Gorst is very good on the heated conflict between the militant Maniapoto, who in early 1863 showed they were prepared to use murder, and the far more passive Ngati Haua and their christian leader Wiremu Tamahana who argued for continued negotiations with the government. Caught in the middle were many Waikato Maori  who were more influenced by the christian message of peace. Even within the "Christian " Maori community there was ill will between the Protestant Maori and Catholic Maori which nearly came to blows.It was the  Maniapoto who went to attack Auckland and achieved some "success" against scattered settlers in areas like Runciman before their defeat at Pukekohe East Church. "Recentism " raises its  head here.
Many editors forget that Waikato was  part of sovereign New Zealand. 44 of its chiefs signed the treaty. Sovereignty was proclaimed over the whole of NZ ,not just parts. The fact that a chief had declared a boundary over which Europeans could not pass was an example of a separatist act. At the time the governor saw it as his absolute right and duty to defend  sovereign NZ against attack.
 
Recent events and person have attempted to recast history-sometimes quite successfully, in that until the Governments Treaty road show many kiwis believed that Waikato WAS actually independent. It WAS commonly believed that no Waikato chiefs had ever signed the treaty. The treaty tribunal is one partial organization that had a serious role to play in recasting history. A number of well known historians, who were employed to do research for the tribunal, were very upset at how this research was used (or in some cases not used). The most critical point is the use of hearsay as reliable evidence. As one historian said-they preferred to accept hearsay from over a century ago -incapable of being proven or refuted ,to establish historical "facts" over the force of written records from the same time period which present a contradictory  point of view.
I believe  "extremist" should stand .It means someone who is prepared to use violence  against the state.Tt fits the case exactly. In any ones books the Maniapoto were the extreme edge of the kingitanga.
Others may care to comment?115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cowan, in the source cited (chapter 26) says the plan to launch a murderous attack on Auckland on 1 September 1861 "was favoured by most of the Kingites", so unless the Kingite movement itself is accepted as an extremist group, the term is inaccurate. The IP editor above contends that the Kingite movement was indeed an extremist movement because it advocated military action against the state (which of course was itself in breach of the Treaty by using armed force to drive Maori off their traditional lands), but I know of no reliable source that suggests this is the case. BlackCab (TALK) 03:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguement is seriously flawed.You are relying on 'recentism" again. You are confusing -what the govt knew and thought at the time(1850s-60s)ie historical fact, with what politicians and the treaty tribunal would have us believe now( partial interpretation of events). Clearly the NZ govt at the time did not believe Maori had a right to go to war to create an  independant Maori state. Your statement "most of the Kingitanga Maori were in favour of the attack on Auckland" is ample proof, in itself, that they were extremists.ie prepared to use force and violence to get their way in violation of the Treaty of Waitangi. You dont seem to comprehend the difference eg-Trump is hardliner,ISIS or Al Quada are extremist organizations. The violation of the treaty was about the extent of chiefs' powers which were restricted to their own iwi and rohe. There was no provision in the treaty for a separate Maori state or a Maori king. The govt had sovereignty over all of NZ. Chiefs only had local control over their own affairs. Note Wiremu Kingi , the Taranaki warlord, left his rohe to join with Rewi to attack the government. He was in breach of the treaty.115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Re reading your comment- "murderous attack"- is pretty damn extreme in my book !!I intend to change it back to reflect reality unless you can convince me that "murderous attacks" were normal?115.188.178.77 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by your comments below, you seem to be pretty flexible with your definitions of what conduct is acceptable in wartime. You seem to suggest "murderous attacks" are not "normal", yet within a very short time (and without that attack even taking place) the government was driving bayonets through the guts of Maori men and women defending their hereditary lands, and turning armstrong gun fire and hand grenades against them. Would you say those soldiers, or the governor commanding them, were extremists? The plot against Auckland was certainly horrifying, but to label them "extremist Kingite Maori" would be a subjective opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 07:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Actually I think "murderous attacks" was my phrase, not Cowan's. And let's not over-egg the pudding. The raid on Auckland was planned for September 1861, but didn't take place. Both Dalton and Belich have made clear (and these statements are in the article) that Grey lied his arse off in his subsequent reports to London, greatly exaggerating the supposed threat to British settlers in order to get troops. He knew there was in fact no threat and that your so-called "extremists" were angry, but not planning any bloody uprising at all. You mention the Pukekohe East attack: this took place in September 1863, two years after the rumoured raid and two months after Cameron led an invasion with 4000 troops to drive the Maori off their land so white settlers could move in. The raids north of the frontier were guerrilla tactics aimed at harassing the Maoris' enemy. BlackCab (TALK) 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion at the Maori King Movement talk page, I have removed the term "extremist" from the lead section. The term is subjective, disputed by some historians, and—given the description of the feared attack as a "violent raid"—actually unnecessary. BlackCab (TALK) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extreme "Kingites 

message: This is a grossly misleading statement in the context of the 1863-64 WAR. Is is not normal to place defeated enemy combatants on trial -not now and not then. For much of this unsettled period and later the government had passed laws enacting martial law, in which there is no provision for trials, yet  a few editors continue to make very POV statements about the "lack of trials". Its bit like saying that people caught speeding in Melbourne taxis were not beheaded last week.115.188.178.77 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle of Rangiriri article, in the "Aftermath" section, provides the context for that statement. There was considerable debate at the time about how the prisoners should be dealt with under law, and what charges they should face — high treason possibly, or a court-martial under the specially-passed 1863 Suppression of Rebellion Act. In the end the government chose to bring them before no court and simply kept them locked up. BlackCab (TALK) 06:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Held without trial 

message: Readers should take with a large grain of salt any adverse comments by B J Dalton about Governor Grey. Dalton wrote a PhD, then a book, which is largely his PhD revisited but with a new name. The primary object of both was  to discredit Grey and restore the reputation of Browne, the previous Governor. While Grey was not the perfect human being Dalton did him gave disservice. Dalton totally ignored the domestic political situation in which Grey operated. He ignored the fact the this was a transition period- from being a British colony run by a governor alone, to a parliamentary democracy with elected representatives having to listen to the voters. He ignore totally the impact of voters opinions on MP's actions. In particular he ignored Grey's vast knowledge and understanding of Maori culture and politics compare to that of Browne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 
:Thanks Claudia for more ignorant commentary on yet another highly respected historian who apparently knew a lot less than you. Once again your comments have nothing to do with improving the article. Please stop using Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for your uninformed rants. BlackCab (TALK) 02:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been caught out inventing quotes and inventing sources on Wikipedia, so you have zero credibility. You have your own twisted take on history and it's probably best you keep it to yourself. BlackCab (TALK) 09:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BJ Dalton's wrote with one intention