Talk:New Zealand Company

Contradiction re: date of establishment

How can an organisation established in 1857 encounter financial difficulties almost 20 years earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Barrett's role

Barrett details show that although his knowledge of written Maori was probably poor he was still a key figure for the land buying company-he was probably the only person in Wellington who spoke Maori, understood their culture and had lived with Te Atiawa for about 12 years. He was clearly trusted by the iwi having lived with them, married a chief's daughter, fought an horrendous battle with them where their victory seems to be down to his adriot use of cannons and then migated with the iwi down to Wellington. The NZ company paid him very handsomely for his skills. He was almost certainly the only person who understood both cultures in the entire region. It is often overlooked that inter iwi politics in Port Nicholson at the time were incredibly complicated. Barrett would have been one of the few, maybe the only European, to understand the whole political-geographic picture. He was not the perfect human being but he was the best available for the job. He has been criticized for reducing a very long English document down to 180 words in Maori. Some would say that indicates a good deal of skill! Clearly Maori could not understand the convoluted English legalese that was used at that time. The gist needed to be expressed in terms Maori understood. Its not like there was a long line of fluent, professional translators waiting to do the job! Think about the hard job Henry Williams and co had in rendering the English version of the treaty into Maori only 1 year later-this puts Barrett's efforts for the NZ Company into perspective.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct that Barrett was a key figure in the land purchasing process. I have reduced the amount of biographical detail about him, however. It is irrelevant to this article at this point that he returned to Taranaki in 1841 and interrupts the narrative of the 1839 land-buying expedition. A wikilink is in the article in that section where readers can find more detail. Angela Caughey's biography (p.188) notes that he was married in 1841, although he and Rawinia had been living together since 1928. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes -married and wife were a highly flexible terms in those days. I suspect that he was a quite a bright cookie despite being raised (apparently) in a slum according to Caughey. I wander how many slum raised kids got to be mates with the a premier? Depending on your definition maybe half of Britain's populaton were slum dwellers at that time. Though I see Fox himself was raised in South Shields so was probably well acquainted with slums ,although he he a more upmarket life himself.Claudia

Page references

Most of the references to Patricia Burns' Fatal Success lack page numbers. I will endeavour (progressively) to find them and insert them to improve the refs. BlackCab (TALK) 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"growing lawlessness"

This is now recognized as false, as the degree of violence was considerably less than 20 years before. It was a reason heavily pushed by the influencial LMS and gained favour with the Aboriginal Protection Society in London which had the ear of the government. The LMS were keen for government involvement to keep out the godless land entreprenuers and traders from Sydney.Likewise the Bay of Islands was no worse than many other part of the British Empire including some in England.115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Swamped by Black cabs recent edits.

Not only did you remove some very useful material in understanding the connection between the British Whig govt, leading Whig involvement in all the migration plans to NZ but removed specific information about criminal involvement of a key figure and the reason why it was important for him to involve a wealthy Whig in the migration plan. All this was very germane to a holistic understanding of the article. All this with just a cursory comment related to just one part of your edit -no attempt to talk about the issues involved. Your vast number,style and tone of edits dominates many NZ history articles, sometimes to their detriment. It appears that you have appointed yourself an unofficial wiki guardian of NZ history? Often your use of sources is selective and/or partial. I have commented before on your heavy use of the contentious work of J Belich, an author who has acknowledged his anti British attitude. Often you now rely on sources such as historians employed by the Treaty Tribunal to establish a particular point of view. You seem unaware(or dont care??I realise that being in Australia you cant attend meetings or conferences on these matters) that the tribunal is not a neutral source. Its chair for 19 years -E Durie has written that it was his deliberate intention for the tribunal to" rewrite NZ history from a Maori perspective"see E Durie: Ethics and Values 1999. The tribunal pays historians to produce evidence to support their case. The ONLY role of the tribunal is to find fault with historical NZ governments' actions. Durie himself stated "that claimant groups had asked tribunal researchers to change findings that did not support their cases and were told they would not be paid unless changes were made." I write this in the spirit of achieving balanced NZ history articles. Other editors please comment.Your input is valued.115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Presumably this is a response to my copyedit on your edits of 9 February. Your additions were of a poor quality, mostly unsourced and in one part repeated material already in the article. I retained the most important of the material you added, though in a different place. I am working my way through the article from the beginning to improve it further, making the history clearer. Neither Belich nor the Waitangi Tribunal are used as sources in this article, and nor is the Treaty of Waitangi currently a large part of it, so none of those criticisms are relevant. If you dispute any factual material in the article, please identify the problems rather than just attacking me as an editor. BlackCab (TALK) 05:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to see that you are no longer relying so much on such well known problematic sources. Progress is great. Now you need to go back through your thousands of edits relying on these sources on NZ history and change them to a neutral tone.115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Coming from you, Claudia, that's quite amusing. BlackCab (TALK) 04:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem unaware of a sea shift in NZ re the reliability of Belich. Military historians and other historians have taken Belich to task over a wide range of issues such as: using hearsay /gossip as the basis for many statements,the failure to check may of his accounts of battles by walking the ground or even visiting the general area(he wrote his book in England and did not visit many places till he did his TV series much later) and as a result making many blunders about time and distance, making up sources, repeatedly using military terms incorrectly(he got terribly confused between tactics and strategy) and racial bias. In a private email one historian said the whole tone of the book is "anti British and pro Maori". And on top of all this Belich himself has admitted(in the preface to 2nd Edition) to an anti British attitude, which coloured his work. Ironic that Belich and Chris Pugsley are now both working in England. All this has come to the fore with a recent detailed academic examination of the attitudes of the authors writing about NZ. Of all the authors examined Belich comes out the worst by a long, long way.115.188.178.77 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Belich is not used as a source in this article so I don't know why you're banging on about this. BlackCab (TALK) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand company Tormex, Ltd.

Any input for relevance to this?

https://thesternfacts.com/trump-jr-now-tied-to-mexican-drug-cartels-money-laundering-scheme-5906b8d4ce5d

--Wikipietime (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in your information

The Treaty of Waitangi - Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Crown. This is wrong. What was granted in the Treaty of Waitangi by Maori is the right to govern but in the Maori text, the language of the land at the time the Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, is that the chiefs retained tino rangatiratanga = sovereignty. There have been a significant number of court cases evidencing this so you need to update your records 2406:5A00:34E1:A600:7869:B694:89F7:995B (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@User talk:2406:5A00:34E1:A600:7869:B694:89F7:995B, where do you get your quote from that you say is wrong? Under the Treaty of Waitangi section it says " The treaty transferred sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown". Incidentally, what is written here isn't determined by court cases. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)