Talk:Wellington Wars

Is this page really necessary

This page is newish and I'm not really sure what it is adding to Wikipedia other than confusion. The Wairau affair and the Hutt Valley campaigns appear to me to be quite significantly covered in their respective articles and the overall details in New Zealand Wars. Should this page be nominated for deletion?Andrewgprout (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew. I think whoever started this page had the idea of showing that the conflicts were all linked by geography, the same people( more or less) and the same causes(more or less). All this seems quite valid. I noticed you have made a lot of minor changes but also removed the information that the NZ colonial govt didnt actually exist when the "buying" of land in Wellington was going on. This is an important point because the NZ company was following a common and well established procedure in 1839. Of course the rules changed the following year but that critical point is now missing. I propose to put it back unless you can can come up with a good reason why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

122.62.226.243 can you please leave a line between comments as if you don't they run together and I find it hard to tell where one comment starts and another stops (i have added breaks and indents). Anyway thanks for your reply I still think there is unnecessary duplication issues between this page and others and this is only getting worse.

ALSO The edits that appear to have been made by me are in fact were not mine. I have reported this as an error to the 'visual editor' feedback page. My only edit on the actual page was to remove the word 'Revisionist" from the description of James Belich which I believe was innocent but can be interpreted as having a rather negative aspect in some circles. Historical_revisionism_(negationism)Andrewgprout (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewgprout, it appears that you accidentally edited a version from 12 July 2011, as edited by Sunleng. This wiped out all improvements made since this date. I will reset the article to its version prior to your edit, but remove the contested word "Revisionist".-gadfium 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gadfium for the fix. You are a gem. I think for Wiki the removal of revisionist is ok. Ive seem him referred to as revisionist a few times in particular contexts, some positive ,some negative but dont have a reference. Other commentators have mainly commented on his apparent lack of military knowledge. All the conflicts in Auckland and Waikato are covered in a single article so it makes sense to have all the Wellington conflicts grouped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrewgprout that this article is redundant. It repeats material in the Wairau Affray and Hutt Valley Campaign articles, is poorly referenced and poorly written. I can find no reference source that refers generically to the "Wellington Wars" and an anonymous IP user's guess about the motives of a short-term user who began the page is of no help at all. The best solution would be to redirect this article to the Wairau affray article, which contains a link to the Hutt Valley Campaign article -- itself an article that needs work to improve sourcing and remove its essay flavour. BlackCab (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]