Talk:Mark Latham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy Mark Latham appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2005.
Flag Mark Latham is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

Contents

[edit] Latham Diaries

{split} The section of this feature "The Latham Diaries" should be separated into a distinct article on wiki for the book.

"On 6 July he called a press conference and denounced the government for maintaining what he called a "dirt unit," which he said was gathering personal material about him, including details of his failed first marriage. The government denied that any such unit existed, but most observers believe that Liberal Party researchers have accumulated more potentially embarrassing material about Latham, which will be used during the election campaign."

The last sentence has been truncated at "but most observers"...

Rather than removing the entire thing, how about change "but most observers" to "but some observers"?

Makes sense to me. So I have trouble seeing what the issue was with that sentence - of course the Liberals are going to want to release embarrasing material about Latham. They've said as much themselves. Lacrimosus 23:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Done. Borofkin 23:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion polls

I have edited the bit which said by Mid-August he was ahead in all published opinion polls; in the Westpoll released on 9 August it was revealed Latham's support in Western Australia had fallen to below Simon Creane's levels - and that if an election was held at the time of polling, he would lose Western Australia's 3 most marginal Labor seats. - Mark 08:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are three national opinion polls, Newspoll, Morgan and Saulwick. Labor was well ahead in each of these in their last public poll. Regional polls don't count. Adam 08:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. So long as it doesn't say "in every published poll" because that clearly is not the case. - Mark 14:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss the polls in more detail is at Australian legislative election, 2004. Adam 14:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Information in the article

What does it mean by there is too much information for an article of this size? that doesn't make any sense. If information needs to be put into the article, then put it in! Maybe it can be somewhat reduced in size, but there's a difference between butchering the information and copy-editting it. I'm reverting and hopefully we can fix this in discussion. I'm certainly open to ideas, but not if it makes the information misleading. The other problem I have with the edit Adam Carr made was because it does not properly attribute the research efforts of Margaret Simons, where I got this information from. Bad, very bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Any material added to articles needs to be at a level of detail proportionate to the rest of the article. Otherwise, someone could add 5,000 words about what Latham did in primary school. Are the details of the affairs of Liverpool Council in the 1990s really more important than Latham's parliamentary career? In any case the material was not very well written.
  • Encyclopaedia articles are not supposed to contain references. The article can be referenced at the end as a "Further reading."

Adam 09:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's totally incorrect. When I added this information, I disclosed fully where I got it from. I didn't get it from the original sources, I got this from a secondary source - Simons work. Wikipedia does require references - after all, why else did they include the [1] type references for weblinks? Also - Latham's record in the council is very important to understanding him as a leader and to see what his past financial track record was like. Your revert is basically POV, btw. Incidently, you're the one who did a copy edit that wasn't entirely accurate and can be construed as misleading. As you once said to me: please check your facts before editting. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Adam might also like to read Wikipedia:Cite sources a bit more carefully:
"In the text of an article, cite references parenthetically as "(Author-Last-Name, Year)". If necessary, add chapters ("chap. 3") or pages ("p. 15" or "pp. 12–23") after the year (+ comma), e.g. if the information is hard to find in a large book. When a reference is used as a noun, put the year in parentheses, e.g. "Milton (1653) says..." For two authors, use (Author1 & Author2, year); for more authors, use (Author1 et al., Year). Note that such in-text citations are often unnecessary, unless there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic."
and
"If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite."
Wikipedia does require references. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles most certainly should contain references, IMHO, since otherwise the veracity of the information can in no way be ascertained, and you just end up with a bunch of weasel words. As far as the council stint goes, its very appearance in the journal article indicates that it's of some relevance to Latham's current political career (and the Liberal party certainly seems to think so too . . .), so we are obliged to at least give it some mention. The council business isn't *more* important, but the article as a whole could really do with more details on Latham's writings and political philosophy, and, related to this, his background. As TBSDY says, the article itself makes interesting reading. Lacrimosus 11:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My take is that the stuff on the debt-servicing ratio is a little technical and overly fine-grained for the article, seeing the attack on his council record has not been sustained through the campaign. --Robert Merkel 12:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can see your point, but Latham's track record on finances was under attack by Howard, and will more than likely remain under attack as the election starts hotting up. We should try to accurately characterise the Liverpool council arguments. This information (contrary to what Adam Carr believes) is actually pretty important and really needs to be included. I'm willing to come to a compromise, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adam's version contains more than enough detail, IMO. The current version is far too detailed and far less readable. We're not trying to write a detailed analysis of every piece of political cut and thrust in an article that summarises Latham's career. --Robert Merkel 23:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But there's more to Latham than just his career - his writings and his ideas should also be included. I don't think we're at risk of truncating the description of his parliamentary career, since it will only be added to in future - the council period is relevant info as well, particularly because it seems to have been something of a formative stage for him. Precise wordings can be varied, but something should remain. Lacrimosus 02:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've tried to reedit Adam Carr's copy edit. Looks like it might be OK now. I totally agree that this article is woefully lacking on his books. They're quite significant to any understanding of Latham. I'll try and incorporate info as I find it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The only reason the affairs of Liverpool Council ten years ago are relevant is that they are now being used against Latham in the campaign. That should of course be stated, and a brief summary of the facts of the matter given. But the details are of no intrinsic importance to this article.
  • Why aren't they intrinsically important? what exactly does that mean? important to what? Information on Latham's term as mayor is important, and the more info that we get the better, IMO. Sure, I don't want to add crap, but your statement that it's only relevant because they are now being used against Latham in an election campaign is ridiculous. It'll still be relevant even if Latham resigns from politics and they stop attacking him as he'd be out of public office! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • On the referencing, your text already identifies the author and source of the facts you are giving. It doesn't need an additional reference in parentheses (which is not a proper academic citation anyway, since it doesn't give a journal number or an exact date).
  • So noted. See my edit in the history. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • On encyclopaedia referencing, I acknowledge the policy quoted above, although I disagree with it. Since Wikipedia has a policy against "original research," it must therefore be based on secondary sources. If I cited every secondary source I used when writing articles, the articles would be twice as long. Encyclopaedia articles are understood to be condensations of other people's work, and should not require referencing unless a matter is disputed. Adam 04:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • But how do we then do fact checking of edits made? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • With hindsight it is increasingly clear that minutiae related to Liverpool Council is a distraction. The Wikipedia policy should be to try to take the long view. A lot of things become hot issues in election campaigns but are discarded along with the old newspapers which feverishly dissected them.--Jack Upland 08:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. The Margaret Simons piece remains quite an important insight into the mind and dealings of Latham. I would look very askance at any attempt to pare down the Liverpool Council part of his history - such a thing will be quite important indeed if this article is to take the long view. Following the media in a faddish focus on whatever particular obscenity Latham has called Beazley this week would date the article much more severely. Slac speak up! 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference query.

The following reference has been archived: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10465231%255E7583,00.html (about the 2001 Children Overboard Affair). It was written by Patrick Weller and the title was "Truth Liews in Murky Waters" but I have no further details. Could someone tell me what date the article was written? It was in the Australian. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 17, 2004 - don't ask me how, but its right (search engine caches and here)--ZayZayEM 01:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cheers mate... I didn't think to check Google cache. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BJAODN

I added that last edit to WP:BJAODN - too funny (and true) to resist--ZayZayEM 09:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References

All references are now in the references section of this article now. Finally did it! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam removed them! [1] What the heck? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have readded the reference section and updated three addittional references. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to all the bit about the election debate?

Can anyone tell my why this was removed? The relevant section was:

A televised election debate occurred on September 12, with Howard against Latham. Channel Nine, the televisor, provided a "worm" as part of the post-debate analysis (Nine was requested not to show the worm during the screening of the event - Channel Seven had planned to telecast the debate with a worm, but later backed down), showing a win to Latham by 67 percent, to Howard's 33 percent. The outcome of the debate may not be significant — in the previous election, an identical post-debate outcome occurred with Kim Beazley against Howard, and Beazley subsequently lost the next election. The effect of the win was not significant - Howard winning a fourth term as Prime Minister - possibly given the fact that it was held four weeks before the election and that more Australians preferred to watch a musical head to head on Australian Idol [2].

Surely this information shouldn't have been removed? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've added some of this information to the Australian legislative election, 2004. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Details about the debate belong in the election article, not a Latham biographical article. Adam 05:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So I worked out. A quick note in the edit history might have been nice though. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I did write a note, but it got lost in an edit conflict. Adam 06:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pancreatitis

While I will defend the right of anyone to an opinion, and me to my own, I wonder that the recurrence of illness has been downplayed in the article by the removal of much of my material from 13:17 16 Jan 05, especially as it seems to have been precipitous in him leaving the leadership and the parliament. (I not having a go, Adam.) From a NPOV perspective, I suggest that some now needs to go back, at least when the dust settles a little. Peter Ellis 06:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody boxes

Why must we have more bloody boxes? Unless someone can give a good justification for this box, which contains no information which is not already in the article, and is very ugly, I am going to delete it. Adam 12:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is appalingly ugly. It should either be removed or radically redesigned. Lacrimosus 05:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Very ugly. Don't bring it back.--ZayZayEM 10:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the status of the two photos which someone has added? Both have clearly been lifted from Australian media websites. They are thus in breach of copyright. Attaching a "fair use under US copyright law" label doesn't alter this. Australia is not part of the US and The Age will certainly object to its photos being used in this way. Adam 05:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Age did indeed object when i enquired with them about the photos "mrjimbo" uploaded - removing the photo's now. PMA 06:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Most of the references are now redundant and can be deleted. References are really only needed when something controversial is said in an article. References to simple matters of public record are not needed. Adam 13:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. That is totally incorrect, we need references. Though we can take out references when they are no longer used, we must reference information when we refer to data. Your understanding of referencing is, to be honest, totally incorrect. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Also, you did not discuss the reason you removed my references, which I spent quite a bit of time and effort in. What gives you the right to camp on this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed them because they are ugly and unnecessary. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a high school essay. If I write "Mark Latham is an alien," that needs to be referenced because it is a controversial statement for which evidence needs to be provided. If I write "Mark Latham resigned today," that does not need to be referenced because it is a simple statement of public record. I don't know what "camping in this article" means. I have the same right to edit as anyone else. Adam 11:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that references serve a useful purpose for events that are reasonably current - since they allow interested readers to find out further information. This ability to stay updated is a good way to take advantage of the Wiki format's flexibility. Lacrimosus 05:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This assumes that Wikipedia readers are complete idiots. If they want to learn more about Mark Latham, they can google him, they can look at a newspaper website or they can follow any of the links provided at the end of the article. They don't need a mass of links embedded in the text. Adam 10:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, this assumes that you don't understand Wikipedia:Cite sources. All information must be referenced, even if you don't like it. Also, an encyclopedia article must be fully referenced because all information (even the "obvious" stuff) must come from a source. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is a source, or at least it's supposed to be. Go and look at any other encyclopaedia - no footnoting, only some bibliographical references at the end of the article, if that. That's because readers trust that what they read in the Britannica or Funk & Wagnalls is true. If you argue that Wikipedia articles cannot be believed unless every statement of fact in them is referenced to an external source, then you are admitting that Wikipedia has no credibility and is not in fact an encyclopaedia. If you think that, why bother writing for it? Adam 02:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest that the lack of individual references in Britannica etc. is due to lack of space more than anything. But Wikipedia is not paper. sjorford:// 09:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you're dead wrong. The absence of footnoting in serious encyclopaedias is a matter of policy. Adam 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I'd just like to point out to Adam that the photo he has contributed to Wikipedia (Image:Ac.marklatham.jpg) is now licensed under the GFDL. This means that anyone can make any modification to the image. So the edit summary "Why has my image been fucked around with like this?" Is totally inappropriate and I'd advise that he watch what he writes in his edit summaries. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biography box

We've previously had discussions about boxes for articles on Australian leaders; the consensus seems to have been that they are unnecessary and ugly. I don't mind this particular box, but given that it will likely be removed anyway by others, I'm taking it out. We should probably sort it out here before putting any sort of picture box in the article. Slac speak up! 00:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is he still an ALP member?

With Latham making headlines recently commentators have been saying he is attacking his "old party". Does that mean he no longer a member of the party since he has been compared to Billy Hughes. --The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:54 (UTC)

He won't be much longer if I've got any say. Adam 29 June 2005 01:13 (UTC)

In the Enough Rope interview just screened, he stated that he was still a member of the party. Extension 14:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt we can take anything he says at his word, but anyway. All we can do is mention the press source that says he's not a membera and then reference his claim that he is. Slac speak up! 20:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I could not find the press source in quite an extensive search. I have left a message on the talk page for the anon IP who inserted the statement. I feel the assertion must not be reinserted until we have a source other than an anon editor.--AYArktos 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems Latham remains a member of the party: [3] --AYArktos 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for the book?

Given the amount of publicity that the Latham Diaries have generated, does anyone else think we should have a separate article for the book? Or should we just include the details within the main article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.91.195 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2005 (AEST).

I do not believe it is necessary to break out an article at this stage - writing a separate section within this article on the book should be sufficient. It will become apparent if a separate article is needed.--AYArktos 08:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Google when you can wiki

In response to the question in the most recent edit summary (which in fact did not revert my deletion of the external link to an interview by Latham) - we have a link to the Enough Rope transcript - the most important recent interview. Latham has given many interviews in his time and I do not believe the external links section needs to be comprehensive. Only noteworthy interviews should be linked, those that for example alter materially public perception, I don't believe the nominated link did that.--User:AYArktos | Talk 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Latham public lecture at Melbourne Uni

I found the section on Latham's public lecture at Melbourne Uni to be fascinating and entirely consistent with what Latham's current viewpoint (seems to be/)is. However, given the high profile of this article (eg. Enough Rope website provided it as their Latham biography) I'm ultra cautious when it comes to sourcing POV's etc. Do we have any external printed source for the lecture? Because if we don't, good as the material is, I'm afraid it will have to be removed. Slac speak up! 13:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Added a link on this section to the official publicity page for the lecture, which now contains a full transcript plus a link to a PDF [4]. An audio version and more is also online [5] but that looks like an evolving diary and Latham won't remain at the top, so I didn't link it. Tale 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hawke comments

Maybe worth adding something about what Hawke said in the final part of last night's 7.30 Report interview [6]. I'm too short of time sorry. The media picked up on it today [7]. It's interesting because even Wikipedia has used a photo of Hawke and Latham together, and it now seems Hawke was not the Latham backer he appeared to be. Tale 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hawke was only a Latham backer in the sense that he wanted Labor to win the election. Both of the challenges Latham was involved in, Hawke publicly and unequivocally backed Beazley. Slac speak up! 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not at all uncommon for political enemies to pose in photos together; Latham and Beazley were in innumerable pics for example. Slac speak up! 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the general response to Latham's actions since losing the leadership of the ALB needs to be stated, not just the comments by Hawke. --RaiderAspect 13:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Leave how is. Hawke is 2 faced, he just wanted to be seen as being right all along. He knows how to stab someone in the back very well, without being seen to be holding the knife

[edit] Dirt Unit

I'm not up to it right now but Crikey has an interesting discussion on the 'dirt unit' and the behaviour of the media regarding a non-existant sex-tape, "Latham and the dirt wars". Some of it could be pretty relevant in light of some of the issues that have come out of the Diaries. 203.51.35.216 16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Tom

[edit] Un-Australian?

Prime Minister Howard accused Latham of a "cut and run" approach and of taking an "un-Australian" position.

I'd be surprised if he actually used the word "un-Australian". He may have said stuff that some may argue are to the same effect, but Howard should not be wrongly accused of using in 2004 a word many regard as offensive. Andjam 03:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only person around at that time who heard Howard use that very phrase. It was only a year ago, after all. Slac speak up! 10:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hyperlink, please? Andjam 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Attribution (but no direct quote) from The Age. ("a policy strongly criticised by Mr Howard as un-Australian") Also, a BBC report from around the same time cites Howard as saying this in an radio interview. Extension 12:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Nothing convincing. The second are more likely scare quotes rather than a citation. Andjam 12:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I've found the interview cited; it contains the phrase "it’s not the Australian way not to stay the distance" as a direct reference to Latham's 'troops home by Christmas' policy. Howard's too politically experienced to use a negatively loaded buzzword like "un-Australian", but he's certainly happy to skate close to the edge. Also, you'd have to ask the original author of the sentence above whether that's a direct quote from Howard or whether he's following the example of the BBC article, which sounds more like a citation than the text in this page does. Extension 00:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some things that could do with citations

There's a couple of things that could do with citations:

However, Latham was uncharacteristically calm in the face of these attacks, surprising many members of the press.

Sounds like an opinion, and

Latham's commitment to withdraw from Iraq caused a sharp drop in Labor's lead, but following the revelations of prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison, however, Labor's lead increased again,

sounds like original research.

I get the impression that some wikipedians have a rather low opinion on John Howard, given that

From March to August Latham's position in the opinion polls gradually declined, leading to renewed speculation that Howard would call an election.

was in the featured article version. Were youse guys thinking that he'd decide not to call an election? (I fixed it by changing "election" to "early election") Andjam 01:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish government

The term 'pro-American' government (I assume it refers to Anzar's government) is an oversimplification. The opposition wasn't anti-American or supported the adversary of America, it just had a different policy on sending troops to Iraq. Kransky Kransky 07:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ease the squeeze

The following was in a speedy tagged article that is now a redirect to here. It does not appear notable enough for it's own article but might fit in here CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC) '''''Ease the squeeze''''' was a political slogan created by [[Mark Latham]], former [[Australian House of Representatives]] [[Division of Werriwa|Member for Werriwa]], leader of the [[Australian Labor Party]] and [[leader of the opposition]]. It was intended to describe the intention of Labor Party [[fiscal policy]] to reduce the economic pressure upon [[Australia]]n citizens, to reduce or ease the pressure and expense of daily living. It was aimed at the economically focused 'aspirational voter'.

[edit] Minor Clean-up

I just wanted to clean the article up a bit so that it flows a little better, and I also changed/removed a few statements that may not belong in an encyclopaedic article.

-Firstly I wrote that Latham chose to resign, instead of being "forced" to. I definitely think he was on the verge of being booted out, but there's nothing to suggest he wanted to stay.

-Some of the quotes from Bernie Lagan's book appeared in the section on The Latham Diaries. So, I just corrected that.

-Regarding his first lecture, there was a sentence that a question time following the lecture revealed idealism was still strong among youth - or words to that effect. The citation makes no mention of this so I took it out. Feel free to put it back if you've got the citation.

-Finally regarding the incident with the Channel 7 cameraman. I remember the news footage and I think almost ran over seems a bit extreme. I can remember the cameraman retreating several feet from his original position, but even if he hadn't Latham's car would have missed him. In actual fact there was a good metre or so of distance between them. We all know Latham's intention was to scare the poor bloke, but nevertheless 'almost ran over' doesn't accurately portray the incident. I elliot 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Just updated final sentence since release of book.Hopesrise 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladder of opportunity article

Does the phrase need its own article? Or shall we ease the squeeze by merging it? Andjam 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After resignation from parliament

I have a concern that this section is unbalanced - it paints a portrait of a violent and unstable recluse. Is that entirely fair only citing these incidents so comprehensively? It leaves the article ending with a definite flavour bias against Mark Latham. Miles Gillham 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMark_Latham_101e.html"