Talk:Boyd massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Could "deal with the aftermath of the massacre" be explicated? RickK`

YES :) I will come back to this when I have time, unless someone
beats me to it! I am also wary of copyright violation. --ledgerbob
this article is emphatically miscatagorized ... the treaty of waitangi wasn't signed till 1840, which means the only law which had relevance at the time was maori law, utu is not a seen as a crime, the body of a maori chief is tapu and therefore if anyone was breaking the law it was the crew of the boyd. This seems to me like an act of war, not a mass-murder, and if we are going to stretch the idea of mass-murder to include acts of war, then saying this was new zealand's bloodiest is quite a stretch. I dont have the literature here and I know of one instance off the top of my head where a french ship killed upwards of 250 northern maori in the late 18th C


Okay, give more info about the French ship.

When 66 people - most of them innocent - are killed and eaten as utu for the flogging of one person, that is mass-murder. There is no argument about that.

The article does not state anything about "law". Murder doesn't have to be part of a "law" to still be murder.

More information on the French incident would be good. Maybe you could start an article about it in Wikipedia. Then comparisons could be made re: biggest mass-murder.

[edit] Blood libel

Unless this is sourced, it appears to be a blood libel against the Maori.Bless sins (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the page linked to at the bottom of the article? Googling "boyd massacre" seems to give plenty of other sources; I've added a few. Did you have some specific issues with the article's text? I can see a few things that should be improved, but I can't see enough to warrant a {{totally disputed}} tag. -- Avenue (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please add sources to specific passages of the article, esp. the parts that accuse the Maori peopel of cannibalism.Bless sins (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If there are no sources then I will have no choice but to delete this material. This is very contentious info.Bless sins (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
accuse the Maori people--what the hell, that's not an accusation, it's history. Nga Puhi's tribal motto was "Kaitangata", which means human food, which indicates they ate people, see http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-TreRace-t1-body-d6-d3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.85.53 (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

There are plenty of sources. Google-search the topic and you will find them. This is a very well documented topic in New Zealand, and there is no controversy involved. I would add the sources myself, but I don't know how to do it. Deleting material would not be constructive. Anyhow, what does blood libel mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.3.77 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it easy to find sources via Google, but several are given as references in the article, and have been there for months. Threatening to delete supposedly unsourced material when you haven't bothered to read the references given is far from constructive. I have shifted some references into inline citations nonetheless. -- Avenue (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)