Talk:Keith Locke/Mediation

message: This is the mediation page for Keith Locke#Controversy
I'm Canadian-Bacon, the mediator for this case.
====What are we hoping to accomplish====
*A balanced Neutral Point of View
*An end to any incivility and tension
====Some ground rules====
*Please try to Assume Good Faith from all parties involved
*Please try to Remain Civil
*Please no Personal Attacks
====Involved Parties====
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Welcome

message: 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)
thread_title: Involved Parties

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ideal Situation

message: *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)
thread_title: Ideal situation [[User:Drstuey|Drstuey]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'm just trying to figure out if the other 3 editors think its resolved. Armon 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's happening?