Jump to content

Talk:George Grey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncox001 (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 28 January 2024 (→A re-write needed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spelling revision of a written quote

The spelling are of the word "Maori" as directly from the "The Penguin History of New Zealand". I have inserted [sic] next to each spelling that are disputed by User:Evil Monkey, I am not sure if this is a good idea, but I am reluctant to actually change this historians Michael King written words. NevilleDNZ 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "disputed" is the correct word. Basically all that happened was I went through and changed all the instances of Maori to Māori, not seeing that some are in a quote. And I also don't think sic is the best way to deal with it. I've just changed it back and we can let it be. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Cape Colony

This article implies that Grey went on to become Governor of Cape Colony some time in the 1880s after being Gov of NZ. However the article History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 states that Grey became Governor of Cape Colony in 1854 and left in 1861. Which article is correct? (I suspect the latter).--GringoInChile 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the biography at dnzb [1] he left NZ in late 1853 and returned to NZ in 1861. So the second appears to be correct. Although having said that this article is in need of a lot of work.
World Statesmen Seems fairly reliable. It says Grey was Governor of Cape Colony 5 Dec 1854 - 15 Aug 1861 with Robert Henry Wynyard acting for him between 20 Aug 1859 and 4 Jul 1860. --Scott Davis Talk 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent confusion may be coming from the fact that Grey was Governor of New Zealand twice - for two separate periods (1845-1853, 1861-1868) Kahuroa 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Mutwa on George Grey

Credo Mutwa, Sangome Zanussi of Zulu africans, also historian, claims that George Grey is the founder of apartheid and racial discrimination in Africa in the mid 1800s. He is also said to be a favoured Illuminati contributor, and is directly connected to both the submission of Australian aborigines and African indigenious people. All this can be viewed on [2] wich is an interwiev conducted by famous historian David Icke (very controversial), discusses a lot of what history has been biased by white men of power and great influence. Credo Mutwa talks about him about 3 hours and 35 minutes into the interwiev. George Grey is thus a great example of how historians are biased throughout history, and neglecting to recognize the great pain and terror inflicted to indigenious people in continents such as Africa and Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabulon88 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 August 2006.

Mention of the Illuminati and socalled "famous historian" David Icke suggests that either Grey was a reptile or that any quotes from Icke should be disregarded (the video mentioned is not avaliable) Hugo999 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia re streets named after Grey

I think we might need to be a bit choosier about what we list as being named after Grey. Street names - hmm, there might be a lot of those!!! - there are probably streets named after Grey in almost every town in NZ for one thing. Maybe we could restrict it to towns and geographic entities - others in NZ are the Grey River in the South Island, and thus (perhaps indirectly) the town of Greymouth at the mouth of the Grey. If there are no objections I may get rid of the street names Kahuroa 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Fremantle one is important because there is a house in the street where he was rumoured to have lived. The research continuesFancyfootwork 11:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Fremantle case is important then, perhaps it might be more interesting included into the text in some way when Grey's time in Fremantle is being discussed - which might inform us more about Grey? What do you think? (I just did a quick search on smaps - there are 54 Grey or Greys St/Ave in New Zealand, each of which may or may not have some connection with Grey himself and each of which may have the right to be included in a list if one really gets going.) Kahuroa 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes should the Fremantle case prove important it could be incorporated in the article elsewhere (perhaps just before a list about plants named after Grey or colours named after Grey) or even in the section about him spending time in a real country Fancyfootwork 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Maybe a useful list could be one of the books he wrote... Kahuroa 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I think that at some point George Edward Grey should be moved back to George Grey. It's a case of what Wikipedia:Disambiguation calls "primary topic" disambiguation rather than "equal" disambiguation since one of them is considerably more famous than the other. Evidence:

Pm67nz 03:10, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

4 years on and the case is even stronger.

  • The original reason: There are many new links to George Grey where this George Grey is intended and only 2 new links for other George Greys (the skier and the captain, I've fixed both).
  • A new reason: This page's new name George Grey (Premier of New Zealand) is less than ideal as:
    • it is rather long.
    • It singles out one of his positions as more significant than the others.
    • It singles out the wrong one: I would pick Governor of NZ if I had to pick.

The move is complicated by the existence of the disambiguation page at George Grey. By my reading of the page moving rules it won't be possible to move this page to George Grey even if that page is first moved to George Grey (disambiguation). Help from an admin will be required.

Pm67nz 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This move has now happened. Pm67nz (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maigo

The article refers to Maigo as his aboriginal guide during his second WA expedition yet the source I've got says Kaiber the source is Exploring in Western Australia by Hazel Biggs. Gnangarra 10:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in North-West and Western Australia use "Kaiber". There is no mention of a "Maigo" anywhere. This will need to be corrected at Aboriginal history of Western Australia too. Hesperian 11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK fixed those ones Gnangarra 13:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has just come to my attention that The Beagle (i.e. Wickham, Stokes, etc) had an aboriginal on board named "Miago". The "Maigo" mentioned in the article is almost certainly a misspelling of this name. Little wonder, then, that a search of Grey's journals turned up nothing. Someone should search Grey's journals again using the correctly spelled name. Hesperian 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear from Vol.2 of Grey's journals that it was Kaiber who accompanied him on his second expedition. Reference is made to Miago, but it's clear he wasn't part of this expedition. (Miago sounds like an interesting person, probably worthy of his own wikipedia entry.) SDavies (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions

From the article it would seem that he was never married!! Lady Grey in South Africa is named after his wife. One of the justifications for infoboxes (those ugly boxy things on the side), is that one can access information at a glance without needing to go through the tedium of reading the article. What were the designers of this box thinking of - no provision for family or wife. Rotational (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is provision for his spouse to be added to the box, although I'd have to look up her name and if they had any children - if there's a town named after her in SA then it's likely she's notable enough to justify her own article. --Lholden (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 10 Feb 2011 additions

I've removed the additions done on 10 Feb 2011 by an anon. Apart from problems with spelling, missing spaces, punctuation and grammar, the content violated the WP:NPV policy. Schwede66 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auslit Paywall/Subscription

I tried to refer to the external link restored in this diff . Since I am not in Australia the free access via Australian libraries doesn't apply and I found the following:

"AustLit is also available by annual subscription to institutions and individuals under a range of pricing strategies." From<http://www.austlit.edu.au/subscribe>.

It looks to me like I have to pay. Not only that, but the signup is via email.

At the moment I cannot access the link and I feel WP:ELREG applies, "external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey is an important figure in Australian history. The link is to an edu.au website, not a commercial site; it is available to Australian students and anyone else with a library card, or someone accessing it from one of those institutions. To appease the concern that others cannot access it, I added required). That it is inaccessible to those outside Australia is unfortunate, but not a basis for removal. The two examples given at that guideline are Facebook and online magazines or newspapers. The removal of the link to an organisation whose primary function is the dissemination of information, not collecting revenue, was 'bold' and I reverted that: WP:BRD applies, I'm restoring it. cygnis insignis 04:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment. You are setting up 98% of the population of the world to be disappointed when attempting to use your external link. They simply won't be able to without paying a year's subscription. Where I come from this is called 'Bait-and-switch'.
I decline the edit war and invite others to delete the link as a clear violation of WP:ELREG.
Quoting WP:ELREG:
Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey launched the invasion of the Waikato . . .

"Grey launched the invasion of the Waikato in 1863 to take control of the rich Māori agricultural region". Rich Maori Agricultural Region. I thought at that time it was all swamp (this is not an attempt at a joke, I am not an Aucklander) or rough hillside. Eddaido (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly a lot of swampland and dense forest. But Keith Sinclair, James Cowan and James Belich all refer to the Waikato in general and Rangiaowhaia specifically as a rich agricultural area that provided most of their food needs; they also seem to have had flour mills there for wheat they were presumably growing locally. The colonial settlers were also keen to purchase large expanses of land there for grazing. The wording would be correct. BlackCab (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true to say that Rangiaowhaia (basically the area around modern Te Awamutu) was productive land. This area comprises about 2-4% of the Waikato-depending where you draw the boundary. Most of the remainder was either bush covered hills or swamp. Because of the very small number of Maori in the Waikato(around 3000) they did not need much productive land to support their needs. Much has been made of this richness and how Maori fed Auckland during the early and mid 1850s. Once missionaries set up shop in Te Awamutu in the mid 1840s they quickly introduced modern framing methods, as well as exotic food plants like potatoes, peaches and wheat. The missionaries helped Maori around Te Awamutu set up the mills and bought in millers to do the technical work. It is also true that Maori provided a good deal of Auckland's food for a brief time between 1850 and 1857. However the Auckland figures from 1854 show that Te Awamutu based Ngati Maniapoto produced a very small amount compared to Ngati Maru and other hapu based around Thames. Going by the 1854 figures which are the only really detailed ones I have seen, only about 8% of Auckland's " Maori "food came from Ngati Maniapoto, with most of the rest comming from the general Thames and Waiheke Island area. It was only with the invention of refrigeration for ships-about 1884,that dairy farming took off. The first big scale drainage scheme in the Waikato was done by the 2 Morrin brothers(Morrinsville) from Scotland, who were both engineers. They bought large ammounts of waste swamp land from Ngati Haua (based around Matamata). Even then the Waikato remained a swampy backwater for many years-Hamilton only reaching a permanent population of 1,000 in 1900. It was really after WW2 that the Waikato came to be a rich agricultural region. If you ever fly over the Waikato in winter today you can see that there are still vast swamp areas. After the conclusion of hostilities in 1863 the government was keen to keep the peace in the Waikato. Nearly all the initial farmers were military men who knew nothing about farming at all (quite a few were young Australians who found the cold, wet climate unbearable). There was great bitterness when they found they had been given 50 acres of swamp. Many sold up or simply walked off the land after a few years of constant struggle. Its worth noting that the Forest Rangers,by far the most successful and aggressive branch of the 1863 army, were given the land closest to the Puniu River -a defacto King country border, to act as a trip wire in case the Kingites tried to attack again. By about 1865 the Auckland province had rapidly developed its agriculture infrastructure. The Great South Road helped farmers deliver produce to Auckland. Port development helped Auckland import cheaper wheat and higher quality flour from Australia. The pressure on food supplies also lessened when the British army went home. It is interesting that the Great South Road was still regularly flooded in winter in the 1930s with the Waikato being cut off for weeks at an end. My grandfather told me of being pulled out of the mud by a team of draught horses at Rangiriri about 1937. The main road was last cut off by floods about 2000 from memory. I believe there were about 20 flour mills in the South Waikato by about 1880-1890. The remains of one can still be seen on the river bank near Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Grey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Grey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

In my recent edit I have hidden the 'Coat of arms' section.

While I do not have access to the citation of the New Zealand Armorist that had been used for this, I have done this because I am not convinced these arms actually belonged to George Grey or if he had heraldic achievements at all.

During my own searching I was unable to find a reliable source for these or any arms being associated with George Grey.

The arms provided instead appear to correspond to the arms of "Grey (Whittington, Envil or Enville, and Kinver, co. Stafford)" according to Burke, Bernard (1864). The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales: Comprising a Registry of Armorial Bearings from the Earliest to the Present Time. p. 428., which was published during Grey's lifetime.

These arms instead appear to have a connection to the House of Grey, in particular to the Earl of Stamford. I cannot find any connection from George Grey to this family or to Staffordshire.

If someone is able to find a convincing source that these arms did indeed belong to George Grey, go ahead and unhide the section again. --Radicuil (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this source gives a lot of details and seems very well referenced. It appears his coat of arms may be assumed and he only had a loose connection with the Grey family. I would point out, however, that the source I have given describes three pellets (black roundels) rather than torteauxes (red roundels). This seems more likely given depictions such as this. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. I didn't come across that one while I was doing my search. That does seem to be reasonably convincing that he used arms, even if they perhaps weren't "official" as such.
However, it does seem to be slightly contradictory on whether his arms used pellets or torteaux. The blazon given in the middle of the page says "torteaux" whereas that at the bottom of the page says "pellets". When describing the bearings on the "silver shovel" it says that the engraver incorrectly indicated the roundels as sable rather than gules. But it also suggests that pellets are used in the blazon provided by Burke's Colonial Gentry (1895) (another source I didn't find in my previous search) as a difference from those of the Baron Ferrers of Groby/Marquess of Dorset.
I'm not sure that this source on its own provides enough certainty either way whether it should be pellets or torteaux, but given the depiction from Auckland Grammar you provided that might help swing the balance of probabilities toward pellets. So I think your conclusion could be sound enough.
I will go ahead and unhide the coat of arms section again.--Radicuil (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is ambiguous and I am not totally convinced myself on the exact story. It would seem that the red dots were used by the Grey of Groby Family, to which George Grey's link is a little questionable. Perhaps Grey differenced his arms with black dots when people started to ask too many questions, or people were got confused between the two very similar versions from day one. It seems unlikely that the black version is completely wrong as it has turned up in multiple locations. It would be interesting to see what the New Zealand Armorist has to say as perhaps they have solved the problem.
On reflection, I am inclined to think that maybe a note should be added pointing out that the exact colour of the roundels is ambiguous and could be red or black?
I agree that could be a good idea--Radicuil (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A re-write needed?

I think that this article needs careful re-writing to establish a more neutral and evidence-based tone. Some of the language too is very strange or uncertain. For example, what does "Grey eschewed the class system to be part of Auckland's new governance he helped to establish" actually mean? Ncox001 (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) An example of problems with neutrality is "In 1865, during Grey's second term as governor, the capital was transferred to Wellington, which was seen as a better choice for an administrative capital because of its proximity to the South Island. Grey had appointed the commissioners responsible for the recommendation". This appears to suggest that Grey deliberately rigged to recommendation. In fact, as Governor, it would have been his role to appoint the commissioners, so there is nothing whatsoever unusual or surprising - it doesn't suggest he favoured one decision or another.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Grey&oldid=1199947067"