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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)