Talk:Mark Aldridge

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jeromi Mikhael talk 02:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• ... that a civil case between Mark Aldridge and a shop owner established that a person can be liable for the defamatory comments of others on their social media posts? Source: https://www.marinolaw.com.au/defamation-say-pay/ "In a recent decision concerning defamation, namely Johnston v Aldridge [2018] SADC 68 (“Johnston”), the District Court of South Australia has found that a person can be liable for defamation as a consequence of other users’ comments on a post. The Court in that matter found that a person who makes a post which subsequently attracts defamatory comments can be liable for the defamatory imputations arising from comments as a “secondary publisher”."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeffrey Epstein client list

TarnishedPath^talk 12:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC).

• Clearly long enough, and moved to mainspace just within the window. QPQ is done. Hook is cited: I think we need to clarify the jurisdiction in any sort of hook like this, since that legal outcome only applies in South Australia. The article is fully cited: some of the sources are local news or otherwise not great quality, but I think they're fine for the weight they hold. Earwig flags a few passages, but these are direct quotations.

As a subjective matter under the criteria, I think the organisation could use some work -- we have 15 L3 subheadings to his "political career" (more than Barack Obama has), but most are only a sentence or two -- it would be much clearer to bundle them together. Similarly, the infobox isn't doing much, using only the "known for" parameter: it should probably either be filled out or removed. I think we also need to say something explicit about his political ideology. Less important for DYK, but there are a couple of oddities in the citation formatting, and use of contracted ("didn't") and bowlderised ("a**holes") forms which aren't compatible with the Wikipedia MoS. It would be advantageous to clear those up before the article hits the front page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist:, I've removed all of the sub-headings in the political career section, I've removed the infobox and I've remove the 'didn't' and 'a**holes' (The citations didn't support the statement anyway). Are we good to go? TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Almost forgot that you requested an alt hook.

ALT1 ... that in a civil case between Mark Aldridge and a shop owner the District Court of South Australia found that a person can be liable for the defamatory comments of others on their social media posts? Source: https://www.marinolaw.com.au/defamation-say-pay/ "In a recent decision concerning defamation, namely Johnston v Aldridge [2018] SADC 68 (“Johnston”), the District Court of South Australia has found that a person can be liable for defamation as a consequence of other users’ comments on a post. The Court in that matter found that a person who makes a post which subsequently attracts defamatory comments can be liable for the defamatory imputations arising from comments as a “secondary publisher”."

TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Given the TSI/verification question-mark, I'd like to do a check through for that later: in the meantime, I noticed the sentence Aldridge was one of the organisers of the August 2025 March For Australia rally in Adelaide, which was "hijacked" by Neo-Nazi's. Apart from the rogue apostrophe, we've got scare quotes: who said "hijacked"? They should be attributed inline: the sourcing here is important as it's a BLP. Alt hook is fine; it's just under the 200 prose character maximum. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: see Special:Diff/1317851484/1317857728 where @Andykusama: has removed the "hijacked" bit. Cheers Andy. I was thinking of doing it myself given that there are later sources where Aldridge states that he knew that the neo-nazis were involved before the protest. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: were there any other issues with the article or the hook which needed addressing? TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to spotcheck but it seems like a lot of major sources are behind various levels of paywall. Would you mind giving me the original text to support:

• He ran as an independent for the Legislative Council in the 2010 South Australian state election, during which time he was arrested. Aldridge subsequently ran a campaign to have the election results overturned and a new election held, during which he collecting more than a thousand statements and dispositions, and was featured by Channel 7's Today Tonight (note 2)
• He suggested that the Nick Xenophon Team candidate may not be a real candidate because he was not present on the campaign trail, before it was revealed that the candidate had been diagnosed with bowel cancer and was forced to have a major operation, chemotherapy and radiotherapy (note 9)
• I did manage to check Aldridge was arrested again during the campaign, and stated that he did not know why he was arrested: I'm not sure that's quite stated in the source. The closest we have is a quote from him saying "I’m not really sure what this is about, and the timing didn’t seem very appropriate ... I’ll definitely be taking action against the police for putting me in custody for no reason.". That could well be read as saying that he didn't know why the police chose to arrest him for whatever rationale it was, not that he didn't know a reason behind the arrest. Would advise cutting the "and stated" part.
• Likewise, However, he resigned from the party several days before the election due the party's mass SMS marketing campaign, which he considered a breach of privacy: this does not check from the cited source, which says that his discontent with the SMS issue was one factor among many. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I've edited the part concerning the 2010 South Australian election to remove "during which time he was arrested". Regarding quotes from the source in support:

Independent candidate for the Upper House, Mark Aldridge, has become a lightning rod for widespread public dissatisfaction about the controversial March 20 South Australian election and has petitioned the Court of Disputed Returns to hold a new election. The first hearing of this petition has been set for today.

and

Meanwhile, out of the spotlight, Mark Aldridge has been collecting more than a thousand statements and depositions from disgruntled and disenfranchised voters who say they did not receive their democratic rights at the March 20 election. At the same time, he is building a grassroots campaign to get the March 20 election result overturned and a new election held.

and

A few days after the election, Channel 7’s Today Tonight program did a feature on Mark Aldridge and this “dirty election”. After that, the stream of complaints became a flood as hundreds of voters contacted Aldridge to gripe about their unhappy experiences on polling day. He called for their complaints in writing and started collating the many emails and online complaints he had received. After that, statutory declarations started pouring in. In the end, he had collated over 260 pages and almost 1700 written complaints.

Regarding reference 9, I can't access the reference either unfortunately.

Regarding your third dot point, I've adjusted the sentence to read Aldridge was arrested during the campaign, but stated "I’m not really sure what this is about".

Per your fourth dot point, I've adjusted the sentence to read However, he resigned from the party several days before the election, in part due the party's mass SMS marketing campaign, which he considered a breach of privacy.

Please let me know if you have any further concerns. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist:

@TarnishedPath:

regarding note/ref 9 (Adelaide Now) the source states: "Mr Aldridge, who is running against NXT’s Craig Bossie in the northeastern suburbs seat of Makin, sent an email saying Mr Bossie might not even be a “real” candidate.

Unfortunately for Mr Aldridge, Mr Bossie’s been quiet on the campaign trail after being diagnosed with bowel cancer and was forced to have a major operation, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Mr Bossie said he is “very much alive and breathing” after the surprise diagnosis."

regarding leaving the Trumpet of Patriots party, the 7News story described the SMS as "the final straw" but I think "in part due to" works fine anyway.

Andykusama (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

All looks good -- thank you for the sources and adjustments there. Approved for ALT1. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)