Talk:2007 New Zealand police raids

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reaction

message: 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)
thread_title: Caching of refs

message: 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)
thread_title: Anyone support the raids?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Revealing names 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map

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

message: The introduction of the article doesn't say what "terrorists" these are. The term "terrorist" is broad, since a terrorist can be anything; resistant, independentist, leftist, neo-nazi, islamic and whatnot. We need to read the article to understand that they are environmentalists. I think this should be specified in the intro, especially in our times when terrorist is often a synonym with Islamic extremists or whatever. Munin75 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section doesn't describe the targets of the raids as "terrorists", or anything else. It might be hard to summarise briefly, as I understand a mixed bag of people were targeted. The highest profile one is a Maori separatist, but anarchists and environmentalists were also targeted. --Avenue (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: An  tag was added back in May 2010: does any one know what needs updated? I'm in the UK so haven't been following NZ news that closely for a couple of years. If someone could let me know what needs updated I'd be OK with doing the updating... failing that, can we remove the tag? TFOWR 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, (possibly) answered my own question - the breakdown of the talks between Ngāi Tūhoe and the Crown over the Ureweras? I'll see what I can dig up. I also copy-edited for tense - a lot of the prose seemed to date to the immediate aftermath of the raids. TFOWR 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: Has anyone seen anything from a neutral source about reports that the Urewera 18 will not be tried before a jury? I've seen plenty from partisan sources (sample here:  ) but haven't been able to find references to this on the Stuff or NZ Herald web sites. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. I became aware of this through Idiot/Savant's blog at No Right Turn, and also saw Russell Brown's comments at Hard News, but nothing we can use as a source for the article.-gadfium 20:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: And just one day later, the Herald has an article: .-gadfium 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No jury trial 

message: The description of the initial raids basically refers only to the boarding of a school bus - which was not part of the raids.  Is nothing known about the actual raids?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that most of this material is still under suppression and is likely to remain so until it's raise in open court or there is a conviction. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raids 

message: Before anyone re-adds Police claims from the NZ Herald article in question as if they were reliably sourced fact they should note that the actual wording of the allegations in the article is "an object believed to be a Molotov cocktail". I do not consider this sufficient for a statement of fact to be made about the object itself in Wikipedia's voice. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that at least one of the judges in the recent appeal stated that the police acted with deliberate unlawfulness in this investigation. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police claims repeated by the NZ Herald 

message: According to the exerts shown on Maori TV recently,the terrorists planned to kill Bush by catapaulting a bus onto his head.The backup plan was to catapault a car onto his head.According to a report on the exerts the evidence was accompagnied by loud laughter from the lawyers and court officials present.I have not been able to find the origins of the clips that Maori Tv showed.Anyone help?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.198.245 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are similar comments in  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination target was George W Bush 

message: I'm not sure why the article was moved, they continue to be called "anti-terror raids" in the media, and that seems like a much better name for them. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the renaming was unnecessary, and should have been proposed rather than done unilaterally.-gadfium 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should have been discussed beforehand but I also see the point as per the edit summary that the current title (clumsy as it is) is more NPOV as the findings of the Court at present fall far short of anything I would consider terrorism - at least on the part of the defendants. I suggest that a neutral title like "2007 Urewera raids" or "2007 Te Urewera raids" would be more appropriate. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The raids were anti-terror raids and there is strong support in the sources across the board for that. I'd be surprised at anyone disputing their anti-terror nature. Whether the activities that were bought to a halt by the raids were terrorist activities is a completely seperate matter, on which there is a great deal of dispute. Since this article is on the raids not the activities, I see no problem with the original title, in particular since that's what they were called at the time in the mainstream press. For the duration of the recent trial they've been the  "Urewera raids" in the mainstream press, because all the alleged offending occurred there, but the raids were much more widespread than the Urewera. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming from  "2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids" 

message: It is not correct that "Williams ....would represent thirty members of Tuhoe in a class action against the police". Class actions are a peculiar procedure limited to US law, and unknown in NZ. Furthermore representing 30 people would not be a class-action under US law.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what the reference says. Do you have a reference to say otherwise? -- haminoon (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a class action