Talk:Keith Locke

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

POV Bias[edit]

This article is biased against Locke; and more or less accuses him of hypocrisy! (unsigned comment by 219.89.178.220).

I'm not sure which part of the article you think accuses him of hypocrisy. Is it his stance on Afghanistan? The article could certainly do with more about his activity since becoming an MP. His being nominated backbencher of the year is worthy of a mention. Why don't you add more to the article to improve it, and change the wording where you think it needs it?-gadfium 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than get into an edit war we really need to discuss changes here and find some consensus. It is obvious that User:Armon thinks my edits are not NPoV and I think that his are likewise. - Drstuey 09:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost naked[edit]

First of all the naked thing. I think that it is not neutral or encyclopedic to state that Locke was not naked. If you can find a reputable source where someone said "he was not naked" then fine quote them. Otherwise can we please stick to the facts, i.e. say what he was wearing, and let the reader decide for themselves whether that constitutes naked or not. It is not as if I am including that language that seeks to convince people that he was naked! - Drstuey 09:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cited. What you're doing is inserting language which attempts to imply that there's some question as to whether he was "naked" according to the plain meaning of the word. (I love your latest claim the that naked is original research, BTW). LOL but, OK, if you'd like to add an additional sentence which states something like: "Green Party shills hailed Locke for 'keeping his promise' and felt able to do this because they ascribe a novel and unique meaning to the word "naked" -they opine that 'nakedness' begins once one is down to their undies and bodypaint." Hell I'll even give you a cite: [1] -too bad we can't purge those pesky comments though. Armon 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP policy is blogs are not a good enough source, and blog comments threads are presumably even less suitable - Drstuey 07:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mate, but I find your attitude unnecessarily aggressive and unnecessarily not assuming good faith. I'll try not to stoop to your level. OK ... I don't care about my wording using "wearing only" or "naked accept for". If that is what you can find PoV then by all means find another wording. That was just my attempt to be make a sentence that read well for the reader. I disagree that my wording is a green party shill that attempts to say "he was naked, honest". I am arguing for neutral language that just states what he was wearing and lets people make up their own mind whether that is naked. What I will never accept is your version "Instead of being naked" or "However he wasn't naked" I feel is intended to make people think that he showed bad faith by not being naked. I'm happy for you to use the wording "almost naked" which some commentators used. I'm not disagreeing with the naked bit. What I am disagreeing with is your insinuation that Locke said "I have to do it" and then "however he didn't" as if he didn't keep his promise. The Newmarket Business Association asked him to wear a g-string for gawds sake! And I stand by the fact that the "however" or "instead" bit IS original research in the sense that it is a theory of yours. - Drstuey 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, he was either naked or he wasn't. I wrote nothing about whether he kept his promise or not, so all you're doing is complaining about what his non-nakedness implies and then attempting to insert mitigating language in order push your POV. In any case, even though I still consider your "bias" and "OR" claims specious, I hope I've solved your problem by removing the "However, rather than being naked," and simply stating what he was wearing. Armon 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting that, I still think the sentence is not clear, because people walk down Newmarket wearing shoes socks and Calvin Clein g-strings every day. With clothes on top. Hence why I added "only" (i.e. not because I am trying to make it seem he was naked but because to just say wearing shoes and socks does not accurately say that he wasn't wearing something else). But lets leave that for now. - Drstuey 07:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, I heard they do on Queen street though -at least occasionally. Armon 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about near-naked (which refers to a body that is not completely exposed, see Naked). Perhaps a mention of the Newmarket Business Association requesting the g-string. Other alternatives, practically-naked... --Zven 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Near-naked has a slight positive spin on it too... I take this comment back its just fact --Zven 06:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we specify that it was a Calvin Klein G-string? Aren't we just providing product placement here? The original writeup didn't give a brand, that was added in this edit.-gadfium 08:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of providing product placement, only in linking to articles of relevance. --Zven 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in, but I don't care if anyone takes it out. I don't why I put it in now. Drstuey 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it and "near naked". "a slight positive spin" is actually a reason to remove it. Armon 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is rediculous near-naked is in the Naked article. Could you fully describe how you see it as positive spin please. All I am doing is putting term in place which is not a negative slant as you have tried to do earlier. Keith Locke walked down Broadway near-naked, not naked, not fully clothed --Zven 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely bamboozled. I fail to see how any sort of almost naked description is "spin". Are there any varients that you will except? "almost naked" "near naked" "naked except for" "wearing only". We think it needs something like this. The Herald article [2] said both 'near-naked' and 'almost naked' why can't we use them? - Drstuey 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three points. 1) near-naked is a matter of opinion, not fact. 2) WP readers are not martians so we don't need to "clarify" that people in NZ don't normally walk around in g-strings in public, or that "Locke walked down Broadway wearing shoes, socks, a G-string, and body paint" means that he might have been wearing paint and a g-string under his clothes. 3) If it is a "fact" that he was "nearly naked", then surely it's a "fact" that he "nearly kept his promise". You can't have it both ways. Armon 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Near-naked is fact not opinion. 2) Removing a word like near-naked is extremely pedantic to be removing in the article 3) Your pushing your WP:POV now. I am not arguing against the nearly kept his promise. --Zven 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if we could take this discussion to Talk:Keith_Locke/Mediationto keep it all in one place, and to avoid making this talk page overly long and cluttered. Canadian-Bacon t c e 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

Secondly, Afghanistan ... I have removed the PoV sentence about Afghanistan, because 1) there is no reference provided that Locke supported action against the Taliban in 2001, 2) there is no reference provided that he has offered no explanation about his views in 1980. The parliamentary debate reference given, while illuminating about the grammatical prowess of Locke's political enemies, does not reference either of those things so is in the wrong place. I have moved it to beside what it does reference, that old articles of Locke's were "tabled" in the house. - Drstuey 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)There is no reference provided that Locke supported action against the Taliban because it says he opposed it -see hansard. 2) So what was his explanation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980? He didn't dispute this in the house. If he made one, cite it. Armon 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I made a mistake with the opposition in 2001, you're correct, if you want you can add a bit saying he was opposed to the US attacks on Afghanistan in 2001, (but I question its relevance). However it is not NPoV to mention he was opposed to the US attacking in 2001 but in favour of the USSR invading in 1980 and to tie them together as if this is some sort of evidence of hypocrisy. You have to just state the facts and let the reader make their conclusion. And I stand by my second point. There is no proof that Locke never gave an explanation for his alleged support in 1980. The fact that he didn't offer an explanation in the referenced parliamentary debate (where such a thing was neither appropriate or even possible according to parliamentary rules) is not proof that he never offered an explanation. So I've removed the Afghanistan sentence again. - Drstuey 07:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His supposed hypocrisy is precisely what he was being pilloried in the house about. Again, we're not going to obscure the basis upon which he was criticised. Re-read NPOV. Armon 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Locke being pilloried is not what I get out of that Parliamentary debate when I read it - maybe this is because I can't understand the grammar of Peters or Prebble. I certainly don't want to obscure the basis on which he was criticised, but I want it to be fair, and saying "never offered an explanation" is not fair. This conversation is going nowhere so I think we need outside help to come to consensus. I've submitted a mediation request. - Drstuey 10:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use the word without prejudice, change "pilloried" to "hassled" if you like. As for the "never offered an explanation" bit, it's off the table. Further research leads me to believe that Peters IIRC, was blowing smoke -see here. The problem is, Locke's explanation is off a blog, and even worse, it's in the comments section. I couldn't find another cite. Armon 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look in Hansard? Took me about 30 seconds to find it. [3] - Drstuey 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I had. Thanks for the cite. OK now we have his explanation as well as his criticism of the 2001 Afghanistan War. Armon 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khymer Rouge[edit]

Finally, Khymer Rouge. Having thought about this, and looked back at the edit I did on 25th July, I am going to do exactly the same edit again. Because I feel it is completely justified as NPoV. The sentence I am replacing ascribes words to Locke that were not his. My version quotes his explanation for his earlier views, and therefore lets the reader make up their mind. As I said then, "1.Change mistakenly (a loaded term) to initially (which also makes clear that he changed his mind). 2.The reference says that the "adjunct" quote is from "many people" not Locke himself. Use his words". If you feel that this is "PoV whitewashing" Armon, perhaps you could argue why exactly? - Drstuey 10:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I consider the word "mistakenly" rather than "initially" to be giving the guy more the benefit of the doubt because it implies error -rather than more unsavoury alternatives. On the "many people" issue, true, that's what he said, but was obviously implying, in an extremely weaselly way, that this was a view shared by "many people" like himself. How else do we explain his "Socialist Action" article of April 25 1975, entitled Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity? However, if you'd rather we quote directly from that article, there's a copy in the Parliamentary Library. Your edit was whitewashing because it attempted to obscure precisely what he thought was "better". Armon 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, it was a direct quote from his own words of him attempting to explain why he wrote what he did. As a contributor to wikipedia I am completely justified in adding in quotes that I think are relevant. If you would like to add a quote from him that you think is relevant to Locke justifying himself, then go ahead. I just think that a single one is all that is necessary and I think the one I used was the most accurate summary of the reference as a whole - I can't see what is wrong with it. Your version is total reds under the bed nonsense and so PoV its not funny. It is expressly designed to make him look like some sort of blinkered communist who never thinks things through but just accepts the party line. He did not say that that is why he supported the Khemer Rouge revolution. And I can't believe you have the nerve to argue that "mistakenly" is NPoV - mistakenly is another original research theory of yours - it is giving a judgement on Locke's actions - it is not up to wikipedia to provide a judgement - wikipedia should just state the facts and let the reader make up their own mind whether Locke made a mistake or not. By your very words you show your agenda - of course wikipedia should give him the benefit of the doubt. That is the whole point of an encyclopedia - to be neutral and not make judgements on anyone. Initially is a completely neutral term. I could initially make a decision that some consider a mistake or I could initially make a decision that some consider to be correct. I think that initially is good because it makes clear that he changed his mind. - Drstuey 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whitewash is a form of censorship via omission in which errors or misdemeanors are deliberately concealed or downplayed. In politics, whitewash is sometimes used to describe a cover-up or a deliberate downplaying of a problem."
1)It's not "reds under the bed nonsense" if the guy is/was an avowed communist. This is not subject to serious dispute. 2) You're making a big deal out of my use of "mistakenly" when I've given you what I think are perfectly good, good-faith, reasons for compressing his argument thusly. He claims he never supported Pol Pot, if he appeared to in his Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity article, it's because he thought they were were Vietcong, which he did support. Again, there is no serious dispute of this. In any case, I've changed it to "initially". 3) Your edits rather than talk page discussion, show your agenda. Armon 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting initially. Yes I know what whitewashing is and I can follow wikipedia links. I do not think that using "Locke has claimed he initially supported the Khmer Rouge because he thought that the "new governments in Saigon and Phnom Penh would be better than the regimes they replaced" is an example of whitewashing, I think it is the most accurate half a sentence precis of his explanation speech. I expect I could quote more, but I thought that was the most user-friendly and accurate. On the other hand, you are putting words into Locke's mouth so your sentence is not suitable. As for weasely. Whether someone uses weasel words outside wikipedia is not a concern of wikipedia, where only the inclusion of weasel words in wikipedia articles is relevant (and the policy says avoid them in favour of direct quotes which is what I did. So, I put my version back again. - Drstuey 08:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is a politician engaging in obvious spin a reliable source? If you want to pretend that he wasn't including himself in "many people", fine, I'll rewrite it, but we're not going to obscure what the controversy is actually about. Armon 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is a speech that Locke gave in the House, so of course it is a good source. I don't think that my suggested quote obscures what the controversy is about. For NPoV both sides need to be given their viewpoints, so I feel that the reason that Locke himself gives for writing his article should be quoted, not some background context that Locke refers to in passing. This conversation is going nowhere so I think we need outside help to come to consensus. I've submitted a mediation request. - Drstuey 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A speech/document by a person is a perfectly valid source for what that person thinks. I'm not disputing that. My point is that we can easily and safely infer that he though the KR were "better" because of his Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity article. The issue is why he thought they were "better". Armon 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're verging into original research again - it is not WP's place to offer theories why someone did something, but to quote published refs on why someone did something. Meanwhile, there is a lot of interesting stuff in Hansard - try a search for Speaker: Locke, keyword: 'interruption' Speaker: Locke, keyword: 'Pol Pot' for a lot of interesting speeches. How about the time that Prebble was forced by the speaker to apologise for calling Locke a Pol Pot sympathiser? [4] or what about [5] - Drstuey 12:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see your point re: OR. Yes, we're not supposed to be making "inferences" from primary sources ourselves -bad choice of words. I'll also concede that the partial "many people" quote, if it's not shoe-horning on my part, it's too close anyway. My point is that Locke's support for the VC at the time is common knowledge -it's absurd to suggest that he was supporting some kind of right-wing takeover. Locke initially supported the KR. However, once in the KR were in power, it became clear that they were not an allied group to the VC, but Maoist and genocidal, which was a different sect of communism from his. This forms the crux of his explanation. Do you dispute any of this as factual?

As for the hansard links, the first looks like the speaker doing his job -good on him. If his opponents were a bit more clever, they'd have changed the catcall to "Khmer Rouge!" -then Locke wouldn't have that hair to split ;) I have a question about the other though. Is Locke's claim that the NZ gov of the day "supported" the KR nothing more that they recognised the regime at the UN? Is that it? They didn't send guns or anything? Armon 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't dispute that Locke initially supported the KR and that once they were in power that he withdrew his support and campaigned against them, but I don't accept that he did it for purely ideological reasons. I don't accept that he supported them because he thought they were Trotskyist (like he was) and then turned against them because he discovered they were Maoist. I think he supported them because they were revolutionaries overthrowing a oppressive right-wing regime and then turned against them when he discovered they were fanatical murderers. As for the claim that the government supported the KR, yes that is pretty much it, it was just about recognition at the UN, except that there was a concerted public campaign by activists, including Locke, for the government to withdraw that support, but the government of the day refused to do so. I don't think Locke is trying to make particularly a big thing out of the government "support" for the KR, he is just saying, "look all I did was write an article, you lot had a chance to make a difference - you could have made a stand but you chose not to do so, and so isn't what you did worse than what I did? Or even if it isn't worse, then don't you think it is hypocritical of you to call me a Pol Pot sympathiser? Do you really have a clean consience?" - Drstuey 09:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political viewpoints[edit]

This article needs more *major* issues he has been involved in, for example his support for Ahmed Zaoui etc, without getting into detail. Please list of any political achievements you consider significant here for inclusion into Political viewpoints. --Zven 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • opposing the War on terrorism and counter-terrorism and secret service legislation.
  • civil liberties watchdog
  • shed light on SAS operations in Afghanistan
  • human rights and electoral reform advocate for Asia-Pacific countries such as East Timor, Tibet, Tonga, West Papua.

Comments on political viewpoints[edit]

e.g. exposing use of SAS in Afganistan --Zven 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out "exposing" regarding the SAS issue because it presupposes that there was something "hidden" in the first place. See Hansard ref: Clark stated, "We are prepared to offer, obviously, diplomatic support, the ongoing intelligence support that we offer, and military support as we can, including, if necessary, the special forces." September 18, 2001. Armon 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is not just "opposition to". I note that the Herald citation says "exposing the Government's shoddy attempt to rewrite New Zealand's counter-terrorism laws in secret. He also shed light on SAS operations in Afghanistan, making a mockery of the Government's blanket "no comment". " That political review is a secondary source so it trumps your primary source. I've left it as "shed light" because you can't argue with that (even though it does not adequately describe what he publicised). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstuey (talk • contribs)
I hope you're not claiming that the sentence you quoted is an example of NPOV. Also, I think that you've got the primary/secondary source thing exactly backwards. Can you paste the link? Armon 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it is a NZ Herald article - you tell me whether it is NPoV or not! :-) You quote Helen Clark's words - that is a primary source. I quote a political editor's round-up - since that has involved some analysis and synthesis, it is surely a secondary source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions. - Drstuey 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It could easily be an opinion. But you still haven't provided the source. Armon 05:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Backbencher of the year article, the first ref in the article, which has been quoted on this talk page already. [6] On the subject of Backbencher of the Year, the title is a bit more important than the impression you get from the linked article. The Herald present the MP with a certificate. Ooooh! Drstuey 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Herald give him a certificate? When you said "it is a NZ Herald article" I though you were referring to a different one -missed you saying "the Herald citation" -sorry to have bugged you about the cite. Anyway, that Vernon Small article is clearly an opinion piece. You'll notice I changed it from "the Herald called him" to "Vernon Small called him". I was taught that you only call it a paper's position when it's a lead editorial that's either unsigned or signed collectively by "the editors". Armon 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasers - encyclopedic?[edit]

I disagree that Locke's opposition to Taser trials is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia. It is an example of some editors desire to always keep up to date with the news that they include every little last fact as it happens. A good encyclopedia article is good by what it leaves out as much as what it leaves in. I mean this time last year Locke was commenting on democratic reform in Tonga, New Zealand companies exporting technology to the US military with NZ government funding, the low level of the NZ government's overseas aid budget, a widespread culture of violence in the South Auckland Police, a New Zealander being court-martialled by the RAF for refusing to return to duty to Iraq and NZ SAS involvement in Afghanistan. Why is the taser trial of such importance that it deserves coverage - if all the other subjects that Locke has spoken out on in his 17 years as political spokeperson for a political party were covered in so much depth then the article would be a mile long with about a thousand references! - Drstuey 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The taser trial is most appropriate on New Zealand Police, and much more information can go there from the Police trial perspective . At least a brief on Keith Lockes page linking to the New Zealand Police is informative as long as the information sources of his motives are fairly substancial, and not just one passing comment. In this case I think you will find multiple statements over time. Having said that, I think only the most major subjects that Locke has spoken out in his career should be on his page, and ultimately his stance on Tasers may not qualify for that...--Zven 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drstuey -I don't think his stance on Tasers is noteworthy enough. Republicanism, yes, because he submitted a private members' bill. We can ideas from the Green party website bio on him where they've highlighted Vernon Small's comment:
"As a committed leftie, he has an agenda. But he kept his head as others got swept up with gung-ho backing of the so-called war on terrorism. Locke became the unofficial civil liberties watchdog, exposing the Government's shoddy attempt to rewrite New Zealand's counter-terrorism laws in secret. He also shed light on SAS operations in Afghanistan, making a mockery of the Government's blanket 'no comment'. Quite simply doing the job an Opposition MP should do."
So I guess his opposition to the "war on terrorism", "civil liberties watchdog", and "exposing SAS operations in Afghanistan" count. Armon 02:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will put material about tasers into New Zealand Police. this is a year long trial, it may become newsworthy enough for a brief and linkout if Keith Locke (speaking on behalf of the Green party) pursues this issue furthur --Zven 07:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Armon 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parents cruft[edit]

Drstuey OK seriously, if you're now going to dispute calling his parents "members" of the CPNZ as Mccarthyist and inject a bunch of cruft about them cleaning up rivers (presumably to change Locke's nappies from red to green), I'll have to point out three things: 1) this isn't an article on his parents, 2) you lost any credible claim to not engaging in whitewashing once you obscured the membership of the NZCP Christchurch branch chairman for decades, and, 3) perhaps it's time to recuse yourself from this article and be happy with the hagiography on www.greens.org.nz which you are no doubt familiar with. Armon 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Locke was already cited. Quote from obituary ref: "Jack Locke was, of course, a leading member of the Communist Party of New Zealand (now the Socialist Workers Organisation) since 1936. He was the Christchurch branch chairman for decades; he was the CPNZ’s candidate in several general elections during the 1950s and 60s. He told me that he intended to die a Communist, and he did so, in 1996." Armon 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I assumed the ref only dealt with Elsie Locke.-gadfium 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The river cleanup stuff is still a cherry-picked example though, intended to shoehorn his parents into being "environmentalists". The obituary has 3 subheadings for Elsie Locke's life, "Communist", "Peace Activist" and "Writer". The writer also states that: "She is gone but the Locke family (once described by Piggy Muldoon as the most "notorious Communist family in New Zealand") carries on her work." Hence, critics' charges that some "Greens" are re-branded unelectable "Reds". Armon 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your opinions. I added the cleaning up rivers part because it sheds light on the early family life of Locke - his parents lived in the Avon Loop for 50 years, Locke grew up there, so I thought it was relevant to include stuff about them being active in the community. I never thought the wording was great or finalised and you are welcome to improve it. I took out branch chairman part because I thought that it was an excessive level of detail about his parents in an article about Keith Locke. I'm not trying to hide the fact they were communists - I thought that changing members to activists was an adequate summary of the fact that they were prominent and active in the party. I do think that just saying someone was a member of the CP is not notable and reeks of McCarthyism. I've thought of a new wording: prominent members for many years I think this nicely summarises their involvement with CP and I hope you approve. Also I think it would be nice to include the quote from Muldoon in there because it is about the whole family rather than a single one of them. - Drstuey 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work -can't fault it. I thought about the Muldoon quote injecting criticism, but as I understand it (before my time in NZ) that could also be a badge of honour. "Prominent members" is factual but I just have to say I don't get how prominent members is less "McCarthyist" than just members but hey, if you're happy, I'm happy. Also, I wiki-linked his dad, I think they both merit articles (his mom more, though). As for his sister, I've never heard of her, doesn't mean she's non-notable of course, but is she? Armon 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it. Marie Leadbetter is a long term peace and social justice activist, notably campaigning on East Timor. She was an Auckland City councillor for a while before losing her seat in 2001 and unsuccessfully standing for ARC in 2004. - Drstuey 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stuck her full name in because I'd assumed her name was Marie Locke. -So is that a yes on notabilty? Armon 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course notability is a how long is a piece of string question. She's probably as notable as say Aaron Bhatnagar. - Drstuey 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Bhatnagar redlinks -is that a no? Armon 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Forget it, doesn't matter, OT. Armon 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said Marie Leadbetter was notable, but a Google search doesn't turn up much. I think perhaps she was really notable in the 1970s and 1980s, too early for the internet.-gadfium 08:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a search for "Maire Leadbeater" finds more hits. That is correct spelling. Drstuey 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi guys, I'm Canadian-Bacon from the Mediation Cabal and I'm hoping we can sort out an answer to the conflict behind this article.

To avoid cluttering up the talk page I'd like to move discussion about the Controversy section into Talk:Keith Locke/Mediation. Anyone who wants to take part in this is welcome. Canadian-Bacon t c e 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Keith Locke. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Locke&oldid=1219761110"