Talk:List of political controversies in Australia

message: 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)
replies: text: The list is incomplete - please feel free to add missing entries.  --Rj 07:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: various earlier comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  IMHO WP:RECENT is a secondary add-on to the lack of noteability. Timeshift (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: what is the definition of events which should falls into this list

message: 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)
replies: text: Look up the meaning of 'impartial' you imbecile. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impartial
Timbracks13 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't personally attack me. Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You removed longstanding material on the Lee Rhiannon page hypocrite. I stand by my statements above. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a Liberal scandal and addition of a Labor scandal 

message: This page should only only list those “controversies” that have articles. If the individual article’s themselves are not warranted, then it is a matter for individual AFDs, and the list page in question is simply a list of what’s on wikipedia and is inherently objective. 
I think we all know that attempting to balance the number of lib and lab scandals is BS, as is trying to weight different scandals. The other question is how to define a controversy. That’s a very slippery topic. It might be better to stick to scandals as something illegal or unethical – that does not include perceived incompetence, which opens the floodgates to anything.
Suggesting red links are removed immediately. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprising that such reasonable comment ceased some six years ago. Since then, there have been listed several items which are not the subject of WP articles, or are unverified or relatively trivial. Eg, I propose removing "Rattnergate", "CFA's UFU takeover", and "Sussan Ley entitlements controversy". Compared to AWB, the Dismissal and even Eddie Obeid, these are not big deals. Nor are the acerbic trivial comments of Belinda Neal which had mere momentary effects. And where is the justification for whatever was said or done by Trish Draper in 2004? Bjenks (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: I have thinking about this since it was listed for deletion, I think that one issue is how the table is formatted and with it potential for abuse of political ideologies, and creation of BLP concerns.
current table; 
Controversy "name"	Date	People involved
I suggest that it becomes
Controversy "name"                                 	Date           	what happened                                                                                                         	outcome
Rum Rebellion                                      	1808           	Successful armed rebellion taking over the NSW Government                                                             	Deposition and arrest of NSW Governor with a new Governor appointed 1810, Imposition of martial law, Withdrawal and disbandment of NSW Corps in disgrace.
2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis	2017 until 2018	Elected Parliamentarians ineligible under Section 44(i) as having allegiance to a foreign power via citizenship rights	The High Court ruled 8 Senators and 7 MP's ineligible. The Senators all elected in 2016 were replaced by a countback of votes, by elections were held for the 7 seats with eligible candidates, all but one of the 7 MP being relected.
This then helps to define which articles that can be included with a criteria that its about where parliament and the public are impacted by both the event and the outcome. Utegate would be borderline with the Tony replacing Malcolm as opposition leader which could be said lead to the long term leadership tussles but that would need a reliable source first.   Gnangarra 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  table format 

message: IIRC the original criteria for inclusion was that an article existed on the controversy. Many of the "controversies" included from recent years are clearly trivial and should be deleted. I'm not sure what the purpose of grouping by government is, as controversies are not limited to the incumbent government. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree slightly, and would suggest that if there is a dedicated section in an article for the controversy to include it (rather than only controversies with their own page), but I am open to be convinced otherwise. As to the breakup, the table was getting a bit large, but with the above qualifications having the breakdown of pre-federation, one table for federal, and one for each state.Playlet (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria / recentism