This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit removed Category:Australian politicians convicted of crimes with the explanation that his offences were not crimes. I'm not sure exactly what the distinction is between criminal and other contempt of court,nor how to tell now which one he might have been penalised for. The News Manual includes

TO SUMMARISE:

Journalists run five main risks of committing a criminal contempt:

• Publishing matter likely to prejudice a fair trial
• Interfering with the course of justice
• Scandalising the court
• Refusing to name a source of information
• Photography or electronic recording within the court precincts

Hinch seems to have done the first two, and reports say he was "convicted" of contempt. If these were not crimes, then perhaps the section heading "Criminal convictions" should be changed to something else, and the section explain why they were not crimes, despite being found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to imprisonment or home detention. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The offences were crimes.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 18:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Aged 72 at the time, Hinch is the oldest federal parliamentarian ever to be elected for the first time.

This statement is included in the lead and in the body of the article. I removed it from the lead because I didn't think it was significant because it simply reflects increased longevity. People are living longer, and doing more things later in life. Hinch is one of them. No doubt there will soon be a new MP that is even older. And this will continue until longevity stops increasing. Wyatt Roy is different because his case has nothing to do with longevity. With youth there is a lower limit, in this case 18, and Roy was meaningful younger than everyone before him. Hinch is not meaningful older. People are just living longer. He is one of them. Also, the convoluted nature of the "record" makes it not notable. He is not the oldest parliamentarian.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I reinserted it, because "It isn't the absolute age or whether or not that's particularly old, it's that he was older than anyone else in 116 years to be elected for the first time; same deal for Wyatt Roy being the youngest, whatever his actual age may have been". I think that's significant enough for the lede. Should someone aged 75 or 80 get elected for the very first time, that would become the new record, and Hinch's article would be amended accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it's a matter of when not if.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't know that, but that's actually beside the point. It will always be a matter of interest who the youngest and oldest senators and members ever elected are at any given point in time. Records progressively change and are updated; this is true in all fields of human activity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)