Talk:Keith Locke

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:  -too bad we can't purge those pesky comments though. Armon 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe not, I heard they do on Queen street though -at least occasionally. Armon 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I have no intention of providing product placement, only in linking to articles of relevance. --Zven 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I removed it and "near naked". "a slight positive spin" is actually a reason to remove it. Armon 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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  said both 'near-naked' and 'almost naked' why can't we use them? - Drstuey 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Almost naked

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Did you look in Hansard? Took me about 30 seconds to find it.  - Drstuey 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Afghanistan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My apologies, I assumed the ref only dealt with Elsie Locke.-gadfium 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Aaron Bhatnagar redlinks -is that a no? Armon 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe a search for "Maire Leadbeater" finds more hits. That is correct spelling. Drstuey 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents cruft 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522004404/http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/intelligence-and-security-committee-act-repeal-bill to http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/intelligence-and-security-committee-act-repeal-bill
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030115136/https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/keith-locke-s-valedictory-speech to https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/keith-locke-s-valedictory-speech
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705002021/https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/terrorism-suppression-bill-attacks-civil-liberties to https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/terrorism-suppression-bill-attacks-civil-liberties
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209032158/http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/sending-new-zealand-troops to https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/sending-new-zealand-troops
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223136/http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/speeches/000215kl-maiden.htm to http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/speeches/000215kl-maiden.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193202/https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/people-glass-houses-should-not-throw-pol-pots to https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/people-glass-houses-should-not-throw-pol-pots
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724120737/http://vdig.net/hansard/content.jsp?id=88622 to http://vdig.net/hansard/content.jsp?id=88622
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213731/http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=12943 to http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=12943
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified