Talk:Mark Latham

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)

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 federal election, 2004. Adam 14:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

Adam 09:25, 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."


 * 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 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&#8211;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)

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)

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

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 &mdash; 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.

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 federal 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)

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)
 * I agree, that information is important. From memory it was a turning point in the 2004 campaign. He obviously came back too soon after such an illness and, although he made a valiant effort, he was not the same performer, he was screaming, and the polls reflected that. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Number of kids is incorrect. should be 3.

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: --AYArktos 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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 . An audio version and more is also online 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)

Hawke comments
Maybe worth adding something about what Hawke said in the final part of last night's 7.30 Report interview. I'm too short of time sorry. The media picked up on it today. 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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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 Australian citizens, to reduce or ease the pressure and expense of daily living. It was aimed at the economically focused 'aspirational voter'.

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)

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

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)

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)


 * Well, as far as the outside world is concerned, he has become a recluse. He makes very few public appearances, and he generally only hits the news when he goes to court.  You might say this negative view of him is a creation of the media - but it's perfectly natural that they would report a court appearance but decline to report him mowing his lawn or doing his family's shopping.  If he did something positive worth reporting, that would help to redress the balance.  It's in his hands.  But I really don't think he gives a damn anymore what anyone thinks of him.  The Latham Diaries showed his true colours - he hated his colleagues even when he was publicly supporting them.  (I'd better stop before this becomes a rant).  JackofOz 05:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Latham.Howard.04.jpg
Image:Latham.Howard.04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

as i have said before, why has it taken all of HALF a year for this to be a issue? i have edited it, i cannot see any reason why its not acceptable now. (PAuLw1985 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

"heavily" defeated
For those who keep adding the word "heavily", I suggest you look at federal elections gone by through the years, available on wikipedia. The coalition's 52.7% of the two party preferred vote (meaning 47.3% for Labor) is not a heavy victory/defeat. Timeshift 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much irrelevant. Two-party preferred is a largely useless statistic. Since the Australian electoral system depends on the number of seats held by a party, it is completely possible for a party to even have a majority of the two-party preferred vote and still be completely devastated in an election. If, for example, the Foo party holds a large majority in a few divisions but the Bar party has a tiny majority in a large number of of divisions, you can easily have a situation where you have a two party preferred vote of, say, Foo 70% vs Bar 30% - yet the result is still a landslide defeat for the Foo party. Johno (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Only five elections have occurred since 1949 where the winning side did not gain a majority of the 2pp vote, ranging from 49.90 to 49.02, the latter in 1998 where there was only a difference of several seats. If we look at the 2pp for 2004, it swung less than 2 percent. Only a net 5 seats went to Labor. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that if the result of the election is decoupled from two-party preferred at all (which is demonstrably true, since there have been no less than five elections where the two-party preferred winner still failed to achieve a majority), then two-party preferred is only useful as an indicative measure for making gross predictions of the likely outcome of an election. Once the election has been counted, the only indicator that matters is the number of representative divisions won.  So by that argument Latham lost heavily, especially since he was at a point in the political cycle where conventionally an opposition makes gains.   Johno (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Five out of 24 elections since 1949 have been less than one percent in achieving a 2pp majority. The rest got a majority. 2PP over seats indicates how strong a swing is. If party A wins 60 seats all by 0.01%, and party B wins 40 seats all by 40%, you have all the fun in the world saying party A won convincingly. We're using single not multimember constituencies, which means representation is not as proportionate. Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heavily defeated IMO is Labor 2006 in SA or 2005 in NT or 2002 in Vic, Liberal 1993 in SA or 1993 in WA or 1992 in Vic. I think WP:WEASEL is the relevant guideline here. Orderinchaos 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Labortragedybiography.jpg
Image:Labortragedybiography.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

2010 Election appearance?
I thought Mark Latham appearance and pretty dramatic disruption, as a reporter for channel 9 in the 2010 election would get a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.106.244 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There've been 2 such events now. Is there a Category:Serial pests? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Latham's advice for the ALP
So there's an edit war going on in the "Essay for The Monthly" section, where the insertion of the following material appears to be problematic: "Latham's suggested solution is that Labor again champions great causes, rather than being the focus-group directed party that it currently is. He suggests that action on climate change would be one such great cause, if the Gillard Government has the courage for it."

Further reverts should be avoided, there's no reason we can't have this out here. I share Timeshift's concerns about the neutrality of this passage, and I'm not sure we need to go into too much detail about his advice for the ALP in The Monthly. That said, I'm not entirely opposed to this material being included in some form, perhaps it could be incorporated into the section more naturally. Thoughts? -- Lear's Fool 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It comes down to relevance. It's not relevant. It's also not encyclopedic... "rather than being the focus-group directed party that it currently is" and "if the Gillard Government has the courage for it" are clearly no go. I still don't think it's relevant, but to solve the POV it should read for example "Latham accuses Labor of being focus-group driven and of no longer championing great causes". Anyone who advocates the former is clearly reading from the Liberal 101 handbook, and if they aren't being dishonest and truly believe it's neutral, well that's even worse. Should we be putting every Latham muttering on the ALP on this page? We should include what is relevant but clearly the controversial addition is not. Note that I didn't remove the whole contribution, just the irrelevant bit (the bit quoted above). I should also note that the onus of WP:CONSENSUS falls on those who are seeking a departure from the status quo. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me ask some questions as an outsider with nearly no knowledge of the subject: How often does Latham author articles of this type? Has this particular opinion article been discussed by other sources?  Is there some reason to consider this article particularly important?  The answers to these questions should help us whether this belongs, and, if it does, how much to include.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that the content in question should be included, because it is a succint summation of what Latham is arguing in his essay. It is not POV because those are Latham's views. Given that he is now a journalist/commentator, his views are also particularly relevant, especially his views on the ALP, since these are the views which attract the most attention. In response to the argument that the onus lies with those seeking a departure from the status quo, it was my original edit which was amended by having the last part taken out. Therefore, the onus would lie on those who have supported the last amendment.  Apollo1986 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (Aust time)
 * However, you didn't answer any of my questions. Let me explain why I asked: if Latham writes this type of article all the time, then there is no logical reason to include any significant (and probably not any) info about this.  Many politicians write regularly in newspaper columns or editorials, and they certainly appear on TV very often.  Our job is not to try to catalog every single thing they said--such a task would be highly unencyclopedic.  I'm trying to understand whether or not this particular editorial is some how special enough to deserve inclusion in this article.  I don't think that it's POV to include, but I do think that the rationale for inclusion can't just be "well, he said it, so it goes in". 09:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Latham had never contributed to The Monthly before. It was a serious peice of a few thousand words, and (I think) the most important thing Latham has said in a long time. Apart from his columns in the Financial Review, he has not written any recent peices. The column certainly was considered notable by the ALP, as it provoked a strong internal concerning its direction. Furthermore, you say that "Many politicians write regularly in newspaper columns or editorials", but Latham is an ex-politician who has retained his prominence in the news because of his views since. That is what is most notable about his post-political life. (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (Aust time)
 * In that case, I'm inclined to agree with you that the info should be in the article in some form. I do also agree with Lear's Fool, though, that the most recent form it was in is not the appropriate way of phrasing the info.  The very end of the suggestion, especially ("if they have the courage for it") is especially problematic--such language would only be acceptable in a direct quote, as appearing in an indirect quote makes it unclear exactly how much is Latham's opinion and how much is the opinion of Wikipedia interpreting the "suggestion." Any suggestions for a compromise wording? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have amended the section. Let me know if you are happy with it. (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2011 (Aust time)
 * The section appears to be at least 4 times longer than it should. My feeling is this issue deserves 2 sentences, max.  We definitely don't want such a long quote--this all gives undue prominence to one piece of writing he's done in his career.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A possible suggestion: could we combine all 4 "publishing" parts (Biography, Diary, Conga Line, and ALP Essay) into a single section and shrink it all down? The Diary already has its own separate page, so a single paragraph should suffice (for example, we definitely don't need to discuss the bidding war here). Conga Line doesn't even really deserve a mention, since all the line does is assert the publishing date; inclusion in the Further Reading section (which, as a side note, I think should be separated into a Bibliography and other reading section) is sufficient. This logically groups the "authorial" aspect of Latham's post-political life, and should help us manage the length of all of the parts. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that what you propose is actually a good idea. It seems reasonable to distinguish between events in his life and his writings, and might make the article easier to read because of better structure. (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2011 (Aust time)

Recently added "controversy"
Because this is negative information in a BLP, there is a strong burden on the person adding the information to demonstrate not only that it is well sourced (which it was), but that it has lasting importance for the subject of the article. That is, are some random remarks made by a politician in one interview of enough importance that they form a fundamental part of his biography, such that readers a year, five years, or a hundred years later should know about them? My gut feeling on those particular remarks is that they are not, and that they were added merely because they made the news recently. I can't imagine that these will be a lasting part of Latham's legacy, any more than the many hundreds of thousands of other things he's said (good or bad, smart or not smart) over the course of his past and future career. Remember, we're not a newspaper, and we're not just to cover something just because it can be verified. Otherwise, we'd include a paragraph or more on every interview Latham ever gave.

So, I guess that the first thing that would help establish whether or not it is important enough to meet WP:DUE is this--is the issue still being covered in the news now? Has it been picked up by an secondary or tertiary sources--that is, are large summaries of the election season focusing in on this particular interview as somehow having a large impact on the campaign? We need some evidence from sources that this is an issue of lasting importance. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Care to explain how it's negative info? It's what he said, it's not negative. It was clearly not a slip of the tongue, he discussed the matter for a while. The man is known for such outspoken and controversial comments, they deserve a place here. He's done it before, and is bound to do so again. I fail to see how you are the authority on events of "lasting importance". You don't even live in the country. If you did, you would know that Tony Abbott's sex appeal comment and the responses by others have been in the media for days. It is not up to you decide this—if in 3 years time nothing is said of it again, sure maybe take it out but at this stage it is noteworthy, covered widely in the media, and deserves a place in the article considering the controversy caused. Even the "shock jock" radio presenter was outraged by what he was saying, and these guys say what they want no matter how controversial.


 * I appreciate that you have come to the subject as an outsider, but unless you live in Australia is is probably hard for you to get a sense of what went on. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add that the comment was made 3 weeks ago, and is still being talked about (even internationally as the sources show). These articles are all from the past 3 days:, , , and on the News.com.au "federal election 2013" page today the "pollie translator" has Latham's comment, "Tony Abbott had beer goggles on" translated to "“I’m ugly on the outside AND the inside, so I can say stuff like this.” This contains memorbale quotes from the election campaign. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is exactly when you've gone wrong: "if in 3 years time nothing is said of it again, sure maybe take it out but at this stage it is noteworthy, covered widely in the media, and deserves a place in the article considering the controversy caused." If this were a claim about a thing, or a business, then you might possibly be correct (you wouldn't, as WP:NPOV still applies, but you'd have a stronger leg to stand on), but WP:BLP always always always says that we err on the side of caution. Now, I'm willing to discuss this, but I'm about off to bed, so I'll have to do it tomorrow--I want to read the sources you've provided, and they might well change my mind. But you cannot keep the material in until you get consensus given that policy objections have been raised. If we can't agree and no one else jumps in, we'll seek a Third Opinion. And there are other forms of dispute resolution we can pursue. But the default must be to keep it own. No harm can possibly be done to Wikipedia by keeping it out temporarily, but direct, real harm can be done to a living individual if we over emphasize things that are not of due importance in their biography. This is the very bedrock of WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edits are becoming disruptive. I will take things further if you continue with this nonsense. This is not a scandal, just a comment the man made. WP:BLP—this is not an allegation or something negative about the man—no—just a quotation. Stop being pedantic! You have provided no sources, until you do back off as you don't have a leg to stand on (I've provided plenty). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you doing this? Why? WP:BLP is clear, and it's so clear that there's actual an exception to WP:3RR that says I can remove this as many times as necessary (I'm not going to invoke that exception, but it is there). I never said this was a scandal, but it is clearly negative info. It's contentious, because I hold that inclusion obviously violates WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. Thus, it must stay out until there is a consensus to include. And really, it's this last part that is most troublesome: the rule on Wikipedia always, in every circumstance, is that when new information is added, and other users object, that it always stays out until there is consensus to include. Please stop edit warring. And I don't know what you're talking about in terms of me providing sources--how can I provide sources to state that something isn't important enough to include. Will you please just leave this out of the article until such time as I can read all of your extra sources and figure out which noticeboard to take this to? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN, in the thread WP:BLPN; feel free to comment there. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I've added a NPOV tag to this article. In numerous places it gives undue weight to unflattering events. In many cases the article goes out of its way to provide details that dominate the article and unduly weight the text towards a negative view of the subject. Our job is to summarize reliable sources not squeeze out every detail from every source and add quotes and drama. I'd be happy to go through each section on the talk page and discuss the appropriate weighting of information if needed. We can start first with the section on 2013 election (see below)-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say that the so called "unflattering events" are there because Latham is always about causing controversy. When he is in the news, its either to criticise the Labor Party's internal culture or for saying something controversial. I personally found the sex appeal comment quite funny, and don't see it as a negative on his character (although it was a comment out of the ordinary). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is strictly your opinion, OSX. And even if it were true, (that he's all about causing controversy), you can't override WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to represent every minute point he makes. Even if he were saying positive things, we wouldn't record the random sayings he makes, especially as he's no longer in office. A biographical article is not a collection of random times a person has been interviewed. Given the fact that this specific quotation appeared in a variety of "best of" lines from this election, there's probably good reason to keep something in. But the rest of the article is just awash in random, one-off things that, sure, made the news on that particular day (maybe even that particular week), but are not of enduring importance to justify inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 federal election
This section should be distilled to a single sentence IMO. There are 4 sources listed. The content in most of the sources is shorter than the text in this article. Something is wrong there IMO. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've cut down the section. One sentence is too short if you want to include context for the quote (which is necessary as Abbott made controversy first). The quote was taken by me from the video on the SMH page. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (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.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mark Latham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060309114020/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,17879894-2,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17879894-2,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Mark Latham. 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 tag to http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/australia/6273863/league-is-the-game-they-play-in-heaven.thtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331235827/http://www.unimelb.edu.au/speeches/transcripts/78latham20050927.doc to https://www.unimelb.edu.au/speeches/transcripts/78latham20050927.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017154646/http://www.news.com.au:80/features/federal-election/mark-latham-comes-out-swinging-at-veteran-journalist-laurie-oakes/story-e6frfllr-1225903210311 to http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/mark-latham-comes-out-swinging-at-veteran-journalist-laurie-oakes/story-e6frfllr-1225903210311
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201105200/http://crikey.com.au:80/politics/2004/07/09-0004.html to http://crikey.com.au/politics/2004/07/09-0004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122065602/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,15174749-421,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15174749-421,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mark Latham. 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/20080721003616/http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85305-6.html to http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85305-6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904064132/http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/publicity/lathamlecture.html to http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/publicity/lathamlecture.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C17879894-2%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/mark-latham-comes-out-swinging-at-veteran-journalist-laurie-oakes/story-e6frfllr-1225903210311
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051201105200/http://crikey.com.au:80/politics/2004/07/09-0004.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051122065602/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,15174749-421,00.html

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) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Latham. 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/20080829003608/http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/E5D0425446FA0C07CA256BDE0016BE7C to http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/E5D0425446FA0C07CA256BDE0016BE7C
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612015221/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A26 to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A26

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) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Latham. 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/20120306032335/http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/7944020/latham-at-large to http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/7944020/latham-at-large
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612015221/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A26 to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A26

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) 10:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Adjective describing Milo
People keep POV altering an adjective describing Milo. If you can't play nicely with this adjective I'm putting it on top of the wardrobe until you all learn to behave. His attendance at this event is not particularly revealing or noteworthy in any case and I'd happily support anyone who wants to just remove the entire statement. Edaham (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Latham. 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/20110612015221/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE:26 to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE:26

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) 12:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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 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)