Talk:Mark McGowan (Australian politician)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 2008
I don't understand why the Minister of Education text (fully referenced) was removedfrom the article. It is all commentary of his performance as minister of Education and the decisions that he has made while in the position of Minister of Education. Surely this would count as part of a biography of any person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.187.179 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your point - reading the whole article in context, it was rather clear that it had fallen victim to undue weight issues relating to his current role. This is meant to be a biography, and it's been highly controversial as we seem to have rival organised groups, one supporting and adding McGowancruft to the article, and another who seem solely dedicated to bagging his decision making in Education. He can be rightly commented upon when he is clearly acting as himself - the criticism of his activities in 2005, for instance, or his rather conservative statements about education to the media when he first entered the role. But much of what Ministers do has very little to do with their own opinions, views, etc and often has a lot more to do with government policy as a whole, binding Cabinet decisions and the circumstances of the times. If it makes news (as opposed to the West), then certainly, put it up for discussion. But the last thing we need is BLP issues created by a misunderstanding of why we're here and what we're trying to achieve. Orderinchaos 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How about the comments of his relating toward John D'Orazio? Surely they were in no way a part of any Cabinet decision and could be entered back into the article? Also if the WACOT remarks can stay in then surely the matters regarding the decision to send the SSTUWA before the IRC should be included as those were both decisions also made by the minister and not by the entire government? The comments were not bagging Mr McGowan in any way, the material hat I added was all on the public record, it directly involved Mr McGowan, they were all entirely factual and most importantly have an entirley Neutral Point of View. All of these matters have been covered by the West and the Australian newspapers as well as the ABC online edition (which were all referenced) It is possible that the pay dispute matters were an act of government but this was all handled under the reign of Mr McGowan as Minister of Ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.187.179 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

