Talk:Tame Iti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


This article seems to have slight POV Brian | (Talk) 07:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

At present seems to me to have slight "nice one Tame" POV in the opening sections and even slighter "please grow up Mr Iti" POV in the firearms charges section...don't think the overall effect is unreasonable.Winstonwolfe 05:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

Tame Iti undoubtedly satisfies the definition of Terrorist - despite the New Zealand media attempting to label him as a toy activist due to Political correctness. --Amazonien 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Iti has been convicted of no "terrorist" activities.-gadfium 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he has not yet caused any harm to the civillian population does not disqualify him from the recognition criteria of Terrorist. Police have gathered evidence of their planned activities for a year now. --Amazonien 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Using such strong emotional terms is controversial on Wikipedia. See for example Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists. There also is no clear evidence at this point that Iti has engaged in any terrorist acts. I'd say he clearly does not come under the existing criteria for Category:Terrorists.-gadfium 23:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing something. A group of people are arrested possessing firearms and bombs and they're called activists. Ridiculous.
A person is an activist if they go to protest marches, arrange rallies, sign petitions or work for social justice through other non-violent means.
Activists are the life-blood of a democracy and should be encouraged and cherished, but as soon as they take up a weapon to unleash weapon, there is only a word to describe them: Terrorist.
Thos involved may be regarded by some as the pillars of the community who have worked tirelessly "for their people". Sounds nice until you realise that Osama Bin Laden is probably considered by many to be the pillar of his community too.
No doubt in court we will hear how practising to set off napalm bombs was not the fault of these 'activists' but the fault of a repressive Pakeha society that needed to be taught the error of their ways.
Pardon me if I stick to the old cliche: no matter what your ideology, the ends do not justify the means. Those bent on violence are terrorists, not activists.--Amazonien 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP. At present, none of the sources in the article call Iti a terrorist. You will need to link to some reputable people - such as Howard Broad - saying they consider him a terrorist, and of course he won't do that, since it's before the courts.-gadfium 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, you said a group of people were arrested possessing ... bombs. I haven't seen that in the news. There was a suggestion that someone had tested a napalm bomb. How can you conclude that such a suggestion, which didn't name anyone in connection with that device, and which didn't say anyone was arrested with such a device, is grounds to call a specific individual a terrorist?-gadfium 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Gadfium is quite correct. Terrorist becomes an easy label. At present Iti may be a radical race activist, he may be an armed petty crook, he may be prone to grandiose theatrical stunts and he may be, in the view of many Kiwis, a bit of a prat, but as the lack of charges under the appropriate legislation go to show, there is no evidence presently in the public arena to justify the over used emotive label terrorist. Winstonwolfe 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)