Talk:Boyd massacre

message: Could "deal with the aftermath of the massacre" be explicated? RickK`
:YES :) I will come back to this when I have time, unless someone
:beats me to it!  I am also wary of copyright violation. --ledgerbob
::this article is emphatically miscatagorized ... the treaty of waitangi wasn't signed till 1840, which means the only law which had relevance at the time was maori law, utu is not a seen as a crime, the body of a maori chief is tapu and therefore if anyone was breaking the law it was the crew of the boyd.  This seems to me like an act of war, not a mass-murder, and if we are going to stretch the idea of mass-murder to include acts of war, then saying this was new zealand's bloodiest is quite a stretch.  I dont have the literature here and I know of one instance off the top of my head where a french ship killed upwards of 250 northern maori in the late 18th C
Okay, give more info about the French ship.
When 66 people - most of them innocent - are killed and eaten as utu for the flogging of one person, that is mass-murder. There is no argument about that.
The article does not state anything about "law". Murder doesn't have to be part of a "law" to still be murder.
:: Incorrect - murder is a legal definition (see the Murder article on WP) and in a situation where you have two cultures with differing interpretations of what would constitute murder, if you want to use the term murder in the article then it should be made clear that it was murder from the European point of view, but not the Maori (and more specifically the Whangaroa tribe), who clearly considered it a justified revenge killing by their standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.182.39 (talk) 
:::The article does not currently use the term "murder", and I don't think it should. "Mass killing" seems more appropriate, as does "massacre". -- Avenue (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the editor above is referring to the incidents surrounding the death of Marion du Fresne in 1772. He was killed, along with two boats of his countrymen (27 people), by Maori after breaking tapu by fishing in a bay where locals had earlier drowned. The French burned a village in revenge, killing ~250 people. Shows how dramatically these cross-cultural misunderstandings can spiral out of control. -- Avenue (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am interested in the concept that suffering a loss of "mana" by one minor chiefs son can warrant the killing of 70 people. Is there any academic discussion on this? I would have thought that even in a society as violent as that of the Maori, this would have been a disproportionate response. In the absence of any evidence for this response having been deemed by Maori to be culturally acceptable, I would have thought that Wikipedia would have to take the view that the massacre was possibly precipitated by the flogging, but not justified by it.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible for an encyclopedia to determine whether or not the Māori's reason was justified or not. It presumably was to them. --2A00:23C6:CC00:A00:B864:46FF:C5F0:4DC7 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of mana 

message: 'Chief Piopio sparked a flint. This ignited the gunpowder, causing a massive explosion that killed him and nine other Māori instantly.'
If this huge explosion killed everyone present, how can it be known which individual struck a flint? This is written from an authorial, third-person, viewpoint. Was there a survivor who related this tale?Dean1954 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can this be known?