Talk:List of political controversies in Australia

Objectivity

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)

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)

table format

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)

Inclusion criteria / recentism

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)

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)