This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pā 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An image would be a good addition to this stub to start turning it into something worthwhile if someone has or can find one with which can be freely used. -Isthatyou
I removed the following, as I could not find evidence online, and the editor did not provide references. As it sounds rather too involved to be vandalism, I copied it here, until someone can provide references. MadMaxDog 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
START
END
I've removed the following uncited section:
*The old pā remains found on One Tree Hill, New Zealand are thought to be some of the most extensive earth fortifications of history.
as it verges on the frankly ridiculous. One Tree Hill ain't that big. Go take a look at Maiden Castle, Dorset. I'd like to know who claims this and where. Ont thing I can tell you - it won't have been an archaeologist. 81.159.88.164 ( talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive walked over both and Maiden Castle is the larger by far.East-west its longest axis is 984m and North -South is 471m.The shape is roughly oval.The flat area inside the fortification is 640m long by an average of 250m wide- about 24 rugby fields ie enormous.Its total area is about .32km2.The One tree Hill Pa is 460m along its long axis and 460m across.Its shape is extremely irregular as it follows the contours of the volcanic cone.There are no large flat areas at all.The area is about .12km2 making it about a third the size of Maiden Hill.NB I have not included the areas of kumara gardens outside the pallisades as they are not really part of the Pa and also are very hard to find now!Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 ( talk) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that a Howitzer is an artillary piece designed from the start so that the barrel can be elevated at a high angle(say 45 degrees) so that the projectile plunges into the target from considerable altitude.A gun,(or sometimes field gun) such as the Armstrong used in the Waikato campaign is officially a gun as it is designed to fire directly at the target.The piece has only very small elevation of the barrel.I have seen an Armstrong and had a play with it-the mechanisms were all in working order-the barrel can only be raised a few degrees-I guess to fire at a target on top of a hill, so it is definitely a gun.Other pieces used up north were I believe ships' cannons of the older type firing solid round shot -not the streamlined explosive shell of the Armstrong.The Armstrong was credited with more range and a lot more accuracy.Often the term gun is technically used incorrectly to describe any firearm.In WW2 the British 25 pounder could be used as a Howitzer for long range bombardment of say trenches but then placed on a circular steel track so it could be used as an anti tank gun to fire directly at a mobile tank or armoured car. I dont believe the term howitzer became COMMON till well after the NZ wars but I may be wrong.Claudia.Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.35.32 ( talk) 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
. Snori ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It would make the information more readable if someone could add in the neccessary subheadings to break up the long paragraphs to make the information more visually appealing.Claudia feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.74 ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is wrong: "Serious military earth works were first recorded in use by French military engineers in the 1700s". Military field works were in use long before the 1700s. For example they were extensively used in both the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, both of which occurred in the 1600s. They were also used in pre-gunpowder times as well for example fieldworks were used by JC at the siege of Alesia that took place in 52 BC. -- PBS ( talk) 15:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That's cool. The point was made to counter the incorrect statement that Maori invented earthworks for warfare which was alleged by one of Nz's more silly historians in the 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 04:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This artice has a lot of problems with style but for starters it would be good to clean up the following:
1) Lots of Maori words are capped for no reason. For example, the word "Pā" appears throughout with caps, even when it is in the middle of a sentence.
2) "Pā" are called "Maori Pā" throughout the article. After the first mention of "Maori", it is sufficient just to use the word "pā" throughout.
I've cleaned up one section myself but can't be bothered working my way through the others so I thought I'd just mention it here for editors who may have the time or energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 ( talk) 07:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Pā (Māori) → Pā – Current name was presumably to distinguish from other meanings of "pa". The macron disambiguates just fine. Matthew Proctor ( talk) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Currently the article contains a sentence:
This sentence is criticising historians (experts) and as such is expressing a point of view the section ATTRIBUTEPOV in the NPOV policy
See also WP:INTEXT.
So in this case who is making the accusation. Is it the person in the citation that supports the sentence: "Chris Pugsley.NZ Defence Quarterly." In which case the sentence would read:
The sentences:
This is just a nonsense. Serious military earthworks have been in use Europe since medieval times or at least late medieval times (as possibly before the advent of artillery gabions would have served just as well). So certainly by the beginning of the 16th century earth works were in use and were commonly used in both the Thirty Years' War and the overlapping English Civil War. Most of these were restricted to siege warfare but certainly by the War of Spanish Succession general like the Duke of Marlborough were very familiar with the concept of fortified lines and their strategic use (eg Lines of Stollhofen). There is an overview of this in Trench Warfare#Field works with citations to reliable sources. So a better approach would be the use wording similar to but modified as found the paragraph in the article on Trench Warfare that starts: "Nor were fortifications restricted.."
-- PBS ( talk) 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this spelling needs to be mentioned, given that it's common in 19th century sources esp. title of books and paintings. - Snori ( talk) 01:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
From 'Traditional designs': "Standard features included a community well for long term supply of water, designated waste areas, an outpost or an elevated stage on a summit on which a pahu would be slung on a frame that when struck would alarm the residents of an attack. The pahu was a large oblong piece of wood with a groove in the middle. A heavy piece of wood was struck from side to side of the groove to sound the alarm." This special-purpose, all-wood type of pahu should be added to the Pahu page, where it is not mentioned. Does anyone have further knowledge of this? The cited source requires login access. Heavenlyblue ( talk) 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pā 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An image would be a good addition to this stub to start turning it into something worthwhile if someone has or can find one with which can be freely used. -Isthatyou
I removed the following, as I could not find evidence online, and the editor did not provide references. As it sounds rather too involved to be vandalism, I copied it here, until someone can provide references. MadMaxDog 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
START
END
I've removed the following uncited section:
*The old pā remains found on One Tree Hill, New Zealand are thought to be some of the most extensive earth fortifications of history.
as it verges on the frankly ridiculous. One Tree Hill ain't that big. Go take a look at Maiden Castle, Dorset. I'd like to know who claims this and where. Ont thing I can tell you - it won't have been an archaeologist. 81.159.88.164 ( talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive walked over both and Maiden Castle is the larger by far.East-west its longest axis is 984m and North -South is 471m.The shape is roughly oval.The flat area inside the fortification is 640m long by an average of 250m wide- about 24 rugby fields ie enormous.Its total area is about .32km2.The One tree Hill Pa is 460m along its long axis and 460m across.Its shape is extremely irregular as it follows the contours of the volcanic cone.There are no large flat areas at all.The area is about .12km2 making it about a third the size of Maiden Hill.NB I have not included the areas of kumara gardens outside the pallisades as they are not really part of the Pa and also are very hard to find now!Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 ( talk) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that a Howitzer is an artillary piece designed from the start so that the barrel can be elevated at a high angle(say 45 degrees) so that the projectile plunges into the target from considerable altitude.A gun,(or sometimes field gun) such as the Armstrong used in the Waikato campaign is officially a gun as it is designed to fire directly at the target.The piece has only very small elevation of the barrel.I have seen an Armstrong and had a play with it-the mechanisms were all in working order-the barrel can only be raised a few degrees-I guess to fire at a target on top of a hill, so it is definitely a gun.Other pieces used up north were I believe ships' cannons of the older type firing solid round shot -not the streamlined explosive shell of the Armstrong.The Armstrong was credited with more range and a lot more accuracy.Often the term gun is technically used incorrectly to describe any firearm.In WW2 the British 25 pounder could be used as a Howitzer for long range bombardment of say trenches but then placed on a circular steel track so it could be used as an anti tank gun to fire directly at a mobile tank or armoured car. I dont believe the term howitzer became COMMON till well after the NZ wars but I may be wrong.Claudia.Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.35.32 ( talk) 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
. Snori ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It would make the information more readable if someone could add in the neccessary subheadings to break up the long paragraphs to make the information more visually appealing.Claudia feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.74 ( talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is wrong: "Serious military earth works were first recorded in use by French military engineers in the 1700s". Military field works were in use long before the 1700s. For example they were extensively used in both the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, both of which occurred in the 1600s. They were also used in pre-gunpowder times as well for example fieldworks were used by JC at the siege of Alesia that took place in 52 BC. -- PBS ( talk) 15:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That's cool. The point was made to counter the incorrect statement that Maori invented earthworks for warfare which was alleged by one of Nz's more silly historians in the 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 ( talk) 04:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This artice has a lot of problems with style but for starters it would be good to clean up the following:
1) Lots of Maori words are capped for no reason. For example, the word "Pā" appears throughout with caps, even when it is in the middle of a sentence.
2) "Pā" are called "Maori Pā" throughout the article. After the first mention of "Maori", it is sufficient just to use the word "pā" throughout.
I've cleaned up one section myself but can't be bothered working my way through the others so I thought I'd just mention it here for editors who may have the time or energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.144 ( talk) 07:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Pā (Māori) → Pā – Current name was presumably to distinguish from other meanings of "pa". The macron disambiguates just fine. Matthew Proctor ( talk) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Currently the article contains a sentence:
This sentence is criticising historians (experts) and as such is expressing a point of view the section ATTRIBUTEPOV in the NPOV policy
See also WP:INTEXT.
So in this case who is making the accusation. Is it the person in the citation that supports the sentence: "Chris Pugsley.NZ Defence Quarterly." In which case the sentence would read:
The sentences:
This is just a nonsense. Serious military earthworks have been in use Europe since medieval times or at least late medieval times (as possibly before the advent of artillery gabions would have served just as well). So certainly by the beginning of the 16th century earth works were in use and were commonly used in both the Thirty Years' War and the overlapping English Civil War. Most of these were restricted to siege warfare but certainly by the War of Spanish Succession general like the Duke of Marlborough were very familiar with the concept of fortified lines and their strategic use (eg Lines of Stollhofen). There is an overview of this in Trench Warfare#Field works with citations to reliable sources. So a better approach would be the use wording similar to but modified as found the paragraph in the article on Trench Warfare that starts: "Nor were fortifications restricted.."
-- PBS ( talk) 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this spelling needs to be mentioned, given that it's common in 19th century sources esp. title of books and paintings. - Snori ( talk) 01:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
From 'Traditional designs': "Standard features included a community well for long term supply of water, designated waste areas, an outpost or an elevated stage on a summit on which a pahu would be slung on a frame that when struck would alarm the residents of an attack. The pahu was a large oblong piece of wood with a groove in the middle. A heavy piece of wood was struck from side to side of the groove to sound the alarm." This special-purpose, all-wood type of pahu should be added to the Pahu page, where it is not mentioned. Does anyone have further knowledge of this? The cited source requires login access. Heavenlyblue ( talk) 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)