Talk:Mark Latham

message: {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)
replies: text: Done. Borofkin 23:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Latham Diaries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion polls 

message: The following reference has been archived: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10465231%255E7583,00.html (about the 2001 Children Overboard Affair).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)
replies: text: August 17, 2004 - don't ask me how, but its right  (search engine caches and here)--ZayZayEM 01:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers mate... I didn't think to check Google cache. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference query. 

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to all the bit about the election debate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Pancreatitis]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bloody boxes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Biography box

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is he still an ALP member? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate article for the book? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why Google when you can wiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Latham public lecture at Melbourne Uni

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hawke comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dirt Unit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hyperlink, please? Andjam 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nothing convincing. The second are more likely scare quotes rather than a citation. Andjam 12:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Un-Australian? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some things that could do with citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spanish government 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ease the squeeze

message: 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)
thread_title: Minor Clean-up

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After resignation from parliament 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Latham.Howard.04.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "heavily" defeated

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Labortragedybiography.jpg

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2013 federal election

message: 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) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adjective describing Milo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: I think the Star Observer is a RS.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth including Latham's comments in the article?