Talk:List of political controversies in Australia/Archive 1

various earlier comments

No mention in here of the most famous scandal, the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975. Is there a reason the Dismissal is left out? 58.105.105.1 07:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The list is incomplete - please feel free to add missing entries. --Rj 07:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The AWB scandal needs to be added, and maybe the Kennett-Peacock phone call too (unsigned)

How about the alleged sweetheart deal between the Bracks Government and gaming corporations, mediated by former Labor parliamentarian David White?

what is the definition of events which should falls into this list

Would 2004 Palm Island death in custody qualify for this article? what is the criteria for what is a major political scandal? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a silly category. Some of these are true scandals, but I think many of them would be better termed "controversies". The word "Scandal" is by very nature POV, given that it means "A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society". You couldn't call the Tampa incident a "scandal" unless you were being heavily POV. Definitely a controversy but not a scandal. Id argue against "Children Overboard" being included either since once again, it is totally POV whether or not it "brought about disgrace etc". The same goes for things like the deportatiosn of Rau and Solon. Scandals? hardly. 70.189.213.149 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This page seriously needs a revamp and some clear criteria. As it stands, WP:BLP and WP:RECENT are major problems. Orderinchaos 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO WP:RECENT is a secondary add-on to the lack of noteability. Timeshift (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good definition needs to be added here, so that we can understand what needs to be added/omitted. Clearly, the sacking or resignation of a senior officer or minister of the Crown (and/or its prime/chief minister or premier) in any juristiction would certainly add some refinement on what is in and what is not. Jherschel (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RfD 2011-05-11

I think this is a WP:Category, not an article. --Surturz (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In my 4 years experience of wikipedia, I have seen such an opinion expressed often. The frequent response is usually:

• a) It is NOT an article, it is a list.
• b) The difference between a list and a category is well described (somewhere - when I re-locate it, I'll add the link).

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a Liberal scandal and addition of a Labor scandal

The user removed a Liberal scandal and added a Labor scandal. This is a clearly impartial edit. I reverted it but it was re-added, then again. Should we have both, one or the other, or neither? When is a "scandal" worthy of this page? Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Look up the meaning of 'impartial' you imbecile.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impartial Timbracks13 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me. Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. You just don't know what that word means. I suppose it is too big for you. Timbracks13 (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a senior admin has left a message for you on your talk page. I don't think it needs an elaboration. How about we use this talk page to discuss content rather than each other? It would be a lot more productive. Timeshift (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to you a number of times but each time an edit conflict stops me. It is frankly absurd to claim John Howard holding a fundriaser at his house is a bigger political scandal than a poorly managed, poorly designed program that cost lives and millions of dollars. That is yet another display of your incredible bias. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You decided to remove long-standing content without proper explanation. I'm not going to engage further with you, i'm going to take the advice of others and let others deal with you. Good evening. Timeshift (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed longstanding material on the Lee Rhiannon page hypocrite. I stand by my statements above. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - user perm blocked, sock. Timeshift (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)