Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Aldridge: Difference between revisions

Mark Aldridge

• … 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”.”

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. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)