Contents

Talk:United Tribes of New Zealand

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 28, 2011, October 28, 2012, October 28, 2014, and October 28, 2016.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Politics / Māori Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

While recent additions to this page are interesting, and certainly worthwhile to have some reference to in this article, they are strongly weighted in favour of one side of the argument over land sovereignty and need to be balanced with alternative views. They also need significant citation, as at the moment they read like one person's extrapolation on historical information which may itself be disputed (e.g., Te Tiriti was signed in the South Island by local chiefs, and was not in any way based purely on primacy of discovery), and seem to be based entirely on the claims of one academic, Bruce Kerehona (again uncited) whose researches seem at odds with those of many reseacrhers in the past (who are also uncited). At the moment it's a very shaky structure, and hardly neutral. Grutness...wha? 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert it. It's unsourced, POV, and highly dubious.-gadfium 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't know whether there was enough of a body of academic though to indicate there might be some support for it, or whether it was better to simply add more info showing that this is one minority point of view. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this image from the article, though it can easily go back if anyone disagrees with it being removed. It is based on an incorrect assumption. The flag of Shaw Savill was almost identical to the flag of the United Tribes (and was probably based on it), and it is that which is shown in the image. See here. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but in that case shouldn't we make a note of that?--LJ Holden 05:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point - it probably should be mentioned. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a number of fact tags. It looks like a specific POV is being pushed here, specifically with the addition of the map of Northland (itself not actualy corresponding with the article, which states Nga Puhi actually took control of most of the upper North Island during the musket wars). --LJ Holden 00:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This article states that the United Tribes were convened in 1834, but Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand says that it was established at the same time as the declaration was signed. Please reconcile the two articles. —howcheng {chat} 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]