Talk:John Latham (judge)

Redirects

Hi, I was just wondering why you chose to move John Latham (Australian jurist) to John Latham (jurist). The reason I ask is that this has created some double redirects from John Latham (Australia) (the original location, and the one I prefer). --bainer 04:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation language should be as succinct as possible. (Australian jurist) is too much information....unless there was a (Canadian jurist) by the same name. John Latham (Australian) doesn't sound right...he is notable for being a Jurist, not for being Australian. Therefore, John Latham (jurist) is the most succinct and logical. Kingturtle 07:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. i'll go and fix the double redirects. Kingturtle 07:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I see this was discussed some time ago. I can't see why it is "(Australian jurist)". There is no other jurist with an article on Wikipedia named John Latham. It makes no sense to have it as "(Australian jurist)". I know precedent does not count for all that much on Wikipedia but the article for another High Court Justice, Alan Taylor, is at Alan Taylor (jurist). Shadow007 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Left out

What this article fails to mention that if Latham had not stood aside for Lyons he would have become Prime Minister. He sold out on himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 June 2005.

It's a bit more complex than that: Latham did not have the popular appeal Lyons did (or at least it was percieved by those who ran the party that he didn't). There was no guarantee that he would become Prime Minister: he had to face an election, and there was a real risk that he would either form a minority government, or not win at all. How much of this chance was, I cannot say: Scullin was in deep trouble, but a disarrayed Opposition, and a 'sympathy' vote for Scullin, might have scuttled the chances of a Conservative Victory. But again, Latham may well have done himself a disservice by moving Lyons' nomination for leader...

61.68.37.248 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently added: He was the first former Opposition Leader to become a Minister without having to serve as Prime Minister. I can't make any sense out if this statement and have removed it for the time being. I'm sure that there is an intention there to say something sensible, but I'm darned if I know what. Perhaps it could be re-phrased so that it has a plainer meaning. Tannin 28 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

The statement is self-evident meaning that of all the Opposition Leaders who did not become Prime Minister and aside from Joseph Cook who was Opposition Leader in 1908-09, a Minister in 1909-10 before becoming Prime Minister in 1913, he, Bill Hayden (I confess I have completely forgotten about him when I made that statement) and Alexander Downer became Ministers after their tenure as Opposition Leaders. I mean study the history of what I am saying before making your snap edits. In case it still isn't clear let's look at the former Opposition Leaders who did not become Prime Minister who wasn't a Minister afterwards. Mark Latham 2003-05. Resigned from Parliament in January 2005 without having been a Minister. Simon Crean 2001-03. Time will tell whether he would be a Minister again. John Hewson 1990-94. Resigned from Parliament in 1995 without having been a Minister. Andrew Peacock 1983-85, 1989-90. Would probably have become Foreign Minister in a Hewson Government but when that didn't happen resigned from Parliament in 1994.

Of course the list will go on with Snedden, Calwell, Evatt, Charlton and Tudor. --The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Diplomacy

First Minister is NOT the same as Ambassador.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Latham (judge). 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/20110411212720/http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/conferences/newcastle/lewis.htm to http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/conferences/newcastle/lewis.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Any objection to moving this to John Greig Latham? He was pretty notable as a politician as well. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

He is, but he's not particularly well known under his full name - and if you had to pick one, judge over politician for sure. Frickeg (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw this now, but I agree with Frickeg. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)