Talk:2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Links

Phgao 10:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio NZ coverage

Theres been some really good coverage on Radio New Zealand's Morning Report, heaps of interviews. The MP3's are available here. If someone coul dadd some of the information into the article that would be usefull.

Lossenelin 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction

All of this is negative reaction from the left fringe, despite quite a few positive responses from the other end of the spectrum. Anyone care to balance the article? Winstonwolfe 07:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at adding some reaction from those who support the raids, althought I haven't come across any yet. It's like those who support the move are waiting for the full facts to come out, while those who are critical have already jumped on the issue, at least it seems to be. Gazzatude —Preceding comment was added at 11:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The following was deleted earlier from the 'Reaction' section: Socialist organisation The Workers Party realesed a statement condeming the raids as "state violence." And; (Maori Party) Co-leader Pita Sharples said the action has violated the trust that has been developing between Maori and Pakeha and sets race-relations back a hundred years.

Can I get an explanation as to why? if not I'll add it back in (both these statements had sources by the way). Lossenelin 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably a mistaken merge. Although, while Wikipedia may have no size constraints, the article would probably read better if we kept the reactions section to minor parties and groups, rather than minor insignificant unregistered minor parties. John Nevard 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stick the comments of Pita Sharples in again. I think the comments of the Greens and NZ first should be added to. Lossenelin 04:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text entirely by accident. I was intending to fix a typo, and somehow edited an old version by mistake. Sorry. I've restored it.-gadfium 06:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caching of refs

Most news sites don't keep stories for ever. In particular, stuff.co.nz doesn't keep stories for more than a week or so. I don't know exactly what their retention policy is, and it might vary according to which newspaper published the story. In any case, one ref in this article, to a Manawatu Standard story, is already no longer available. Radio New Zealand seems to keep material for one year, and the New Zealand Herald keeps material indefinitely, although it used to be that material with URLs returned from their internal search engine disappeared quickly.

The Internet Archive sometimes can retrieve articles which have disappeared from the web, but it doesn't seem to include news sites such as stuff.

I am adding the external refs to a site called WebCite, as suggested in Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". This has to be done while the story is still available. Once added to WebCite, the story is available indefinitely through the WebCite url I'm adding to the refs.

I suggest editors bear this in mind for other articles in Wikipedia they contribute to.-gadfium 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anyone support the raids?

I've been trying to keep the article balanced but am having trouble finding groups/parties or prominent people who support the raids, anyone know of any? I hear Chris Trotter supported them but can't find his column online, anyone have the print edition of the Dom Post it was in? Lossenelin 06:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Trotter piece is here [1]

Quadparty 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current?

I notice the "current" tag was removed (with a reasonable rationale provided). I suggest that it be returned. The article is being constantly updated with new reaction, protests etc. The raids themselves are over, but the other matters are not - this is an ongoing story with new matters happening daily, and, I suggest, this means that the story is still current. Thoughts? Objections to adding the tag back? Quadparty 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add a current template just to the "reaction" section. The court cases of those arrested are still current events too, though theres little information about them yet (I think they are all appering in court on the 2nd) that could probably be another section with a current tag as well. Lossenelin 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revealing names

I think we should we revealing the names in this article, the people arrested are part of the event. Often these days Wikipedia is the first point of call for people looking for infromation and I think the names of people arrested are relevent informaiton. Also, there was a seperate article on those arrested but when it was nominated for deletion the consensus was to merge it with this article Lossenelin 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Most of these people are not notable other than for the events around these charges. In future years, the news reports will no longer be readily found in a Google search, but this Wikipedia article will. To have the names at present may be okay since these people are currently in the news, but I suggest we consider removing them in a year or two to preserve their privacy. This doesn't apply to Tame Iti, who is sufficiently well known that there are no privacy issues involved.-gadfium 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good point, I think while this article is being used as news by people (rather than as history as it will in a year or so) the names should be there, but would support removing non-notable names sometime in the future Lossenelin 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:BLP1E seems relevant to this- names may add value to the article now, but in the future they are likely to become less useful (as a starting point for research, whatever). John Nevard 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebalancing article in view of leaked police surveillance material

It seems to be generally agreed that the article has a large left wing anti-police bias, especially as the activities of the plotters seem to be confused with the sweeping powers in the Terrorism Suppression amendment bill, when the two are at best only tangentially related. There has been difficulty getting anyone to rebalance, (certainly I don't feel qualified to). However now that information about the plots is more widely known, perhaps someone could take the material available from e.g. [2] and use insert some balance in the article? Winstonwolfe 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is "genearally agreed" as there has been almost no discussion on the talk page about it, having the article include how the left reacted doesn't make the article itself left-wing (see Wikipedia:NPOV), remember it also includes the views of Chris Trotter (who calls himself left but is pro the raids) and NZ First who have been very supportive of the police. I make no secret that my personal politics are on the left, but I'm all for the article being balanced. However we should be carefull with publishing any of the leaked evidence as it may be contempt of court, if someone can dig up statements from the police, or groups or prominent individuals that supported the raids they should be included though. Lossenelin 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The material published by the Dominion Post consists of the most sensational snippets from a very large amount of evidence. If the potential for contempt of court disappears, we should link to them anyway, but a balancing view is needed too. In case the material is withdrawn from the stuff website, I've found cached copies at [3], [4] [5] and [6].-gadfium 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the "generally agreed" - couple of people said it, and no one contradicted them.
On this issue, if not any other I can think of, I find myself in the very worrying position of actually agreeing with Winston Peters, (if I start rambling about wine box conspiracies, please phone the nearest psychiatric crisis team for me). Although the media like to take the most controversial and extreme material, I do not know of any certain evidence that the Dominion post has done so in this case - is that specualtion? (granted probably correct speculation though, if what was printed is correct, edited lowlights or not, the evidence put forward is pretty damning). I believe the affadavit obtained by One Network News (which is not the one used in otaining warrants, but does come from the some what dubious source of 'a convicted fraudster') is not subject to any suppression order at the moment and seems to put much of the same material in the public arena. [7] I suspect though it is the same dodgy source used by Investigate magazine. I haven't seen the Christchurch Press material, but assume it was similar if not identical to the Dominion. Am laying odds on how long it takes a paper to make a Smith's Dream / Sleeping Dogs reference. :-) Winstonwolfe 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A Sleeping Dogs reference was made on Radio NZ's Mediawatch as early as October 21, they played the audio from the fake news broadcast and the host then said something like "watching the media this week you could be forgiven for believing C.K. Steads bleak vision had become true" (mp3) Lossenelin 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In the end, Wikipedia's hosted in America. Have seen in the past that disclosure of information where it isn't quite legally kosher in other countries tends not to lead to consequences, though I see how it could, potentially, make those of you with personally identifying data on your userpages subject to legal threats. Of course, it would be easier to consider the leaks if there was a full copy of the affidavit, say here. John Nevard 08:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

  • Would it be wise for me or someone else to do a map pinpointing the locations of the raids or just have a general map of NZ?? (♠Taifarious1♠) 08:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A map showing the location of the action would be very valuable. A general map of New Zealand is of limited value. Grimhim (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unbalanced

i too think this article is unbalanced. eg, there is no description of the rationale that fairfax cited when publishing the leaked documents, but only the opinion of some lawyer, that it was just to make more sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.3.84.124 (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What was their rational? (and a source for it) it should probably be added Lossenelin (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)