Talk:Keith Locke/Mediation

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

Welcome[edit]

This is the mediation page for Keith Locke#Controversy

I'm Canadian-Bacon, the mediator for this case.

What are we hoping to accomplish[edit]

Some ground rules[edit]

Involved Parties[edit]

Would anyone interested in taking part please sign their name below this post. Thanks. Canadian-Bacon t c e 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Situation[edit]

Ok, if anyone else wants to join in later, I don't see a problem with it, unless any of you object to that?

Anyways that being said, I think the next thing we need to do is write down what each of us think would be in an ideal version of the controversy section. Not written out in full, but just the main points so we can hopefully come to agreement on what should be included and what shouldn't, wording can be figured out later.

Remember, it's not my job to say that one version is wrong or right, I'm here to help everyone come to an agreement, not force them to agree. Canadian-Bacon t c e 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment That's everyone who's currently working on the page. I will object to the participation of Mostlyharmless however. He has pushed Drstuey to launch this process putatively. If that's not Drstuey's intention, I'd appreciate some clarification. Armon 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, if we don't want anyone else involved that's no problem. And the goal here is not to punish anyone or say anyone is at fault, the goal is to help write a good article. Canadian-Bacon t c e 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal situation Drstuey[edit]

  • Locke has been repeatedly attacked by political oppponents, often in the form of interruptions while he was while speaking in the House, calling him a "Pol Pot Sympathiser".
  • A copy of his 1975 article supporting the Khymer Rouge revolution was tabled in the House as evidence of this position.
  • He was given leave to make a statement, in it he explained that he made a mistake, he initially thought that the Khymer Rouge would be better than the regime they replaced, but once John Pilger exposed what was happening, he changed his mind and began campaigning against the Khymer Rouge.
  • He explained that he was never a supporter of Pol Pot because he was never heard of when Locke wrote his article and was only heard of after Locke had hjeard of the killing fields
  • He also pointed out that many of the MPs who called him a "Pol Pot Sympathiser" were members of the circa 1980 government who supported (or at least didn't withdraw support) recognising the Khymer Rouge as the proper government of Cambodia, even years after the killing fields.
  • Many of those MPs continued to interrupt Locke with Pol Pot catcalls in the house, on occasion Locke has managed to get the Speaker to make them apologise.

OK, so that is far too long winded, and it is getting a bit original research in there, but basically what I want to see, is when it is mentioned that Locke has been repeatedly called a Pol Pot symphasiser, that is is made clear that this is only because of a 1975 article (pre-killing fields) and that he changed his position post killing fields and that he be given a chance to explain in his own words why he took the position in the 1975 article. This is only fair as a WP:Living persons bio whether you say it is political spin or whitewashing or not. - Drstuey 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal situation Armon[edit]

Sorry again for the delay.

I'm not wedded to any particular wording, but I do think that we're going to have NPOV issues if we write it according to Locke's POV. IMO a WP article should be informative as well as NPOV, therefore we need to clearly state his critics POV as well. Locke, as a public figure, has been challenged on his record for being a far-left ideologue. If another MP had been on record as being far-right, we'd expect to see similar criticism. I consider it problematic from a NPOV standpoint to side on the Green Party version of Locke, which is understandably PR, and which seeks to minimise his controverisal positions, in the same way as writing the article according to a hit piece would be. To me, NPOV would be somewhere in the middle. Armon 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand what you are saying, for this article to be NPOV, it requires the collective collaboration of all our subjective viewpoints to converge on something objective over time. Our subjectivity depends on our prior political beliefs. I am going to state that I have no political affiliations, I am not a leftie, nor a rightie. You mention that it is not NPOV to use the information source Green Party version of Locke, I disagree, even though it is PR, editors should not be copying it out verbatim, they should be taking what cannot be disputed, facts such as his age, background etc and summarizing them into the article. Likewise, for the blog you have identified which comes from the opposite extreme there will be *some* information from that biased source that is relevant to the article. --Zven 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I don't think we're in disagreement at all, I just haven't made myself clear. I have no problem whatsoever with using the GP version to establish facts, but I think we should be scrubbing it of POV because it is also a biased source.
To clarify an additional point. I agree that acknowledge one's own POV is extremely important. As editors, I think we should always be aware of our own fallibility vis-à-vis NPOV. What we're not supposed to be doing is inserting POV into an article and hoping that other's POV edits will balance it out in the end. I'm not saying that you were suggesting this, but it's a common mistake on WP. See Jimbo's comment regarding another debate I was involved in. All of our edits are supposed to be NPOV. (To be fair to Elizmr, Jimbo disputed her interpretation of policy, not her edits) Armon 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Current Version[edit]

Ok no problem with the delay, so that being said, we need to figure out how the current version of the article, is different from what you feel it should ideally be(Informative, but remaining NPOV) on a point by point.

I've pasted the current revision below, I encourage someone to edit it in the sandbox below to exactly how they feel it should be to abide by all policies. If it gets edited against what you think is best, instead of just reverting it, leave a comment below in the discussion so that we can try to reach a consensus on how to deal with each issue one at a time. Please remember to keep all comments civil, and assume that the other editor is working in Good Faith. Hopefully we can reach a compromise and leave the article with a more static version and end this peacefully. Canadian-Bacon t c e 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question do you mean edit the text below directly or post alt version(s) below it? Armon 07:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Revision[edit]

His political enemies have referred to him during question period as "Pol Pot" or "the Honourable Member for Cambodia" due to supportive articles he wrote about the Khmer Rouge regime and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which were tabled in the house.[1] 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". [2].

During the 2005 election he contested the Epsom electorate in Auckland and at a public meeting he promised to run through the streets of Epsom naked if the electorate was won by ACT New Zealand's leader Rodney Hide. Hide won the seat. "I'll do it. I have to," Locke was reported as saying. "I was so confident, but I have turned out to be wrong and I have got to do it." [3] Locke's promise made headlines in media around the world. [4] On Sunday 25 September 2005 Locke walked down Broadway (a main shopping street in Newmarket, Auckland) wearing shoes, socks, a G-string, and body paint which the New Zealand Herald described as "almost naked". [5]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Parliamentary Debate: Terrorist Attacks---Retaliation against Afghanistan, New Zealand Hansard, September 18, 2001
  2. ^ People in glass houses should not throw (Pol) Pots, Keith Locke, 22nd June 2005
  3. ^ Locke really regretting nude run promise, Claire Harvey, New Zealand Herald, 19.09.05
  4. ^ Editor's insight Nevil Gibson
  5. ^ Locke learns the art of losing gracefully Claire Trevett, NZ Herald, 26.09.05


Discussion[edit]

Naked[edit]

The situation with his campaign promise and subsequent walk down Broadway is that he made an exceedingly foolish promise, believing that his opponent had no chance of winning the seat. This calls into question his judgement, and he should rightly be criticised for it. Having been wrong, he then took what seems to me to be a good-faith action in making his walk. To criticise him for wearing a G-string (which he was requested to wear by the local business association) is to miss the point entirely. He made a stupid promise, but he then fulfilled it as far as was reasonable. Does anyone think he should have done anything different given that the promise had been made?-gadfium 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He could have done several things. He could have a) bit the bullet and actually run naked. He could have b) admitted he'd made a foolish bet and ask Rodney Hide to let him off the hook. If RH wouldn't let him off, then c) do a "modified" version of the run according to what he and RH negotiated. If RH was intransigent and he was unwilling to do a), then d) don't do it, explain that it was a ridiculous bet he shouldn't have made, and take the heat for not doing it. In my opinion, these would be "good faith", or reasonable ways of dealing with having made a stupid bet. Instead, he walked down the street in what many people (in Europe anyway) consider swimwear, painted up as a Green Party billboard, (who weren't actually party to the bet, but hey, it's a photo-op) and then claimed to have fulfilled the bet anyway. If the bet had been "I'll walk down the street nearly naked", it's unlikely that it would have got world-wide coverage in the first place. Yes, it brings into question his judgement, but it also brings into question his integrity because he tried to pull a fast one. Armon 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been a stupid bet, and he may not have handled it in the best way possible, but our interpretation of things and our interpretation of his integrety or morales is not what we're trying to put forward. Our idea is to include verifiable information, that contributes to the article. If an News Source states something, than it is verifiable, but it is still subject to their POV. What we have to figure out in this case is if adding the New Zealand Herald's opinion really contributes to the article. Canadian-Bacon t c e 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the unlikely option e) He knowing recognised before hand that he could use the avenue he took to gain publicity while talking himself up with I'll walk down the street naked. Rodney Hide is unlikely to have given him any wriggle room. This is really pushing a subjective WP:POV that he did not stick to his promise of being absolutely naked e.g. 'he tried to pull a fast one'. I suggest we let the article reader decide without providing obvious WP:POV. I would expect any politician in the same predicament to do a similar action if they were to actually do a walk of shame. No one in the public eye is going to prance down Broadway completely naked (excluding student association representatives or similar). Do you also consider his clothing as swimwear? I suggest someone finds out if it was a g-string or actually speedos. As for the bodypaint (which is not clothing) it is obvious that it was riding on the back of other body paint exhibits around that time (e.g. Demi Moore), and was an attempt to camouflage his near-naked body (the photo outfit would be a humorous addition to the camouflage article by the way). I suggest something is added about the bodypaint referencing the camouflage article. I believe that my addition of near-naked is completely valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Locke&diff=75656551&oldid=75608731). User:Armon , you are removing content which is in effect causing other versions (by other editors) to appear to read poorly, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Locke&diff=75949326&oldid=75934106. Basically in the controversies section, as it is a section stub, I would prefer content to be added then culled at the end, but this has not been the case recently, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Locke&diff=75209501&oldid=75209184 --Zven 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Calvin Klein g-string, you can tell from the photos of his painted bum. Drstuey 02:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that any of my response to Gadfium's question be included in the article. I only threw that out to illustrate a different POV. I've backed off the word "Instead" or "Instead of naked" as inappropriate POV, but likewise, I object to replacing it with a different POV. Let's just state the facts. Otherwise, I think that in order to maintain NPOV, we'd need to present the different reactions to his walk and then we end up with a bloated section and undue weight issues.
Zven, I though we had agreement re: the tazers. Sorry if you feel we didn't. Armon 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok, I just felt at the time it was hasty to remove content . On the biased blog like campaign against taser site there are multiple summaries of other independent news sources over time in which Keith Locke has been making comment about tasers and their use. If this continues to attract media headlines then maybe the linkout can be put in the Political viewpoints stub. This is his viewpoint after all --Zven 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree completely, except I don't agree that saying "near-naked" is PoV, I think it is a fact. - Drstuey 02:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's your opinion. If you insist on some "clarifying" language, then "not naked" is the only factual phrase. He was wearing a g-string and "camouflage". Armon 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are still other alternatives that could better describe his attire, ideas from Nudity (partial and analogous) include partially-naked, half-naked (although based on surface area it is more than half-naked) etc --Zven 13:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Zven, this argument has gone far beyond ridiculous. I don't want to now engage in a discussion regarding "surface area" or whether body paint/camouflage constitutes a "covering" because it's irrelevant, and WP:OR and/or WP:SELF anyway. Canadian-Bacon observed that "What we have to figure out in this case is if adding the New Zealand Herald's opinion really contributes to the article." I assert it contributes nothing except a POV, the reader is fully capable of making up their own mind if they think it's "close enough", and that it's easily avoided by simply stating the indisputable fact that: On Sunday 25 September 2005 Locke walked down Broadway (a main shopping street in Newmarket, Auckland) wearing shoes, socks, a G-string, and body paint. Period. Armon 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, as we can all assess the near-naked appearance and body paint coverage in the photos [1] ourselves. I was just suggesting alternatives in this discussion section as I would always rather see articles expand with meaningful content. --Zven 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is Zven's re-write:
On Sunday 25 September 2005 Locke walked near-naked down Broadway (a main shopping street in Newmarket, Auckland) wearing shoes, socks, a G-string, and body paint[9]. The paint camouflaged Locke's skin by depicting a suit and tie from the neck down.
Anybody have any objections to this? If not, let's move on. Armon 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if we have consensus on the naked issue(feel free to correct if I'm wrong) then yes, what is the next part of the article with disagreementCanadian-Bacon t c e 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening?[edit]

So what's going on? Are things settled? I saw that Canadian-Bacon is going to close this soon, and I'm going on wikibreak soon so what do we do now? The original request wasn't actually about the "naked" stuff, but about the Pol Pot/ Afghanistan issue so how's the current version? Armon 12:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only noted that it may be closing soon because of weeks of no activity, seems as if things died down to me. If there's still something unresolved though we should take a look at it. Canadian-Bacon t c e 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just trying to figure out if the other 3 editors think its resolved. Armon 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my question too, I'm really not sure if everyone is happy or just left. Canadian-Bacon t c e 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Locke/Mediation&oldid=1136265109"