Talk:Mark Latham

First former federal opposition leader in a state parliament

I just put in that Latham is the first former federal opposition leader to be elected to a state parliament as I thought it was worth putting in.

In fact Latham isn't even the first former federal opposition leader to be suggested or speculated for a state parliament.

Alexander Downer was speculated for SA state politics in order to become the State Liberal leader and ultimately becoming Premier but none of that eventuated.

After losing the Opposition Leadership to Tony Abbott and then announcing his retirement, Malcolm Turnbull was suggested for NSW state politics in order to replace Barry O'Farrell as State Liberal leader and become Premier at the 2011 election before Turnbull changed his mind and stayed in federal politics.

Of course if he hadn't changed his mind, Turnbull would not have become Prime Minister in 2015.

Even before becoming federal Liberal leader for the first time, Turnbull was accidentally included in an opinion poll of preferred NSW Premier and showed him to be more popular than O'Farrell. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have just reverted your addition because it was unsourced. If you learnt this fact from a reliable source, you can re-add it, citing that source. If it is your own personal research that tells you this, sorry, we can't include it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept that reasoning because if you are familiar with Australian politics then you would not have any trouble accepting this.

Former Opposition Leaders, in particular the ones who did not become Prime Minister, have mostly tended to retire from public life when their time in Federal Parliament has come to an end.

Evidently politics hasn't gone from Latham when he walked away from federal Parliament in 2005 and leading to his election to the NSW Upper House.

On finding a source I don't think anyone has thought of Latham having the distinction of being a former federal opposition leader in a state parliament.

The other other option, which I am not willing to do, is to detail what each Opposition Leader has done after the end of their Opposition Leaderships.

If I were to do that you would understand that apart from Latham, none of them have entered state politics. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"I don't accept that reasoning..." It's not reasoning. It's Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. And please don't Edit war over this. It can lead to you being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And regarding your comment, "...I don't think anyone has thought of Latham having the distinction...", please read the policy at WP:NOR which prohibits "ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and, "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". I know it's frustrating at times, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth including Latham's comments in the article?

I've removed a redacted version of Latham's tweet to Sydney MP Alex Greenwich, but it's since been added back so I'm adding this to the talk page. To be blunt, Latham's tweet (which reads, uncensored, "Disgusting? How does that compare with sticking your dick up a bloke's arse and covering it with shit?”) to me, provides very little encyclopaedic value given how excessively descriptive it is, and while Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, that does not mean that all material, regardless of potential offence, should be included. I don't see the value of quoting Latham's comments directly here, especially given almost no Australian media outlet has published them in full. In the meantime, however, if it is to be quoted, I think they should be quoted in full, so I've removed the redactions on the article. But I've created this as I'm unsure if Latham's comments are worth including, as I think an explanation would suffice rather than a direct quote. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

These are the man's actual words, and people have a right to know what he said. His words have been quoted in some Australian media. His words have created a major stir, and represent a major faux pas in his career. I think you have made the words even more explicit than the source (which you have no right to do) in order to provoke redaction, and this is NOT appreciated. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should quote his actual words. There no point hinting at what he might have said, and I think it's against Wikipedia policy to censor comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't go further than the source, IMO. If you can find a more explicit source, fine. Even the UK's Daily Mail is following the asterisk convention. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke redaction, I just think it's silly that we publish a redacted version on Wikipedia rather than the full version/no version. We know what he said, either we put it on or we don't. At a guess, news media hasn't published it because Latham's comments are overly pornographic/explicit and the purpose can be served by alluding to it rather than publishing it outright. I think that'd be a good approach to take here, but if people have a right to know what he said, why don't we just actually write what he said? LivelyRatification (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also just to be clear, my intent in putting the full quote on there was not to try and get the whole quote removed -- I started this discussion because I wasn't sure if it should be included, but I changed the quote because the redactions shouldn't be included on Wikipedia given WP:NOTCENSORED. Not going to touch it now given the active discussion, but that was the reasoning. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please always keep in mind that WP is a tertiary source. We can infer what he said from the bleeped quote in the reliable source, but it is WP:OR to decide what those words actually are and include them. We are absolutely not allowed to create content from whole cloth. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

screenshot seems to be in the Star Observer, and a quick google search reproduces it pretty quickly. i get what you mean about the requirement for reliable sources in an on-wiki sense, but it's hardly "creat[ing] content from whole cloth" to infer the extremely obvious meaning in "sticking your d*** up a bloke's a*** and covering it with s***", unless i'm misunderstanding what you're referring to LivelyRatification (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that source added to article. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just being a stickler for doing things the right way. Any inference is OR. I am happy with the new source although I'm not sure it will withstand a trip to the RS noticeboard. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the Star Observer is a RS.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

I have merged Latham's political positions into the article. He has been in three different parties and held multiple political offices, so it makes no sense to list his political position as if he has never changed his mind. Also, it is hard to tell the story of him as a politician without writing about the political positions he took. Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Apprehended violence order

Should we include the application for an AVO since it's been withrawn? Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No. I think this is easily covered by BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Re-election to Legislative Council in Infobox

The infobox implies he is not in parliament any more. I'd fix it but I don't know how it should be set out. Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread it. My mistake.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)