Talk:One Australia

Why is the page up for deletion?

Is there any reason given why this page should be deleted? It's well sourced, as far as I can see, and might be extended as well, but deleting this page seems like glossing over an important aspect of JH's time as PM. --Lord Chao (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently re-editing article to concentrate on the 1988 policies.Lester 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: I do believe

The Howard quote:"I do believe that if it is - in the eyes of some in the community...etc etc, is part of One Australia, as shown in references. Someone removed it, saying it's not referenced, so I restored it again.Lester 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rampant Original Research

Most of the references in this article do not even mention the "One Australia policy". This entire article a piece of synthesis. It reads like someone cut out a bunch of newspaper clippings and tried to attribute it to a policy called "One Australia policy". Only citations that actually mention the One Australia policy should be included.Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said in my previous post in the section above, the references mention the quote about Asian immigration as part of 'One Australia'. The intro statement about opposition to multiculturalism was also accurate, and the references did not mention "cultural assimilation", as the other editor changed it to.Lester 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference to "ordinary australians"

I removed a reference to an opinion piece in a Canadian paper, and the following comments are copied from my talk page discussing the removal. --rakkar (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rakkar. I noticed in the O.A.P article you deleted the commentary taken from this article in the Canadian National Post newspaper. I felt it was good to have some international perspective on the policy, which the Canadian newspaper quote provided. Was the paper's assertion that it was a popular policy an embarrassment to Australians? (I'm wondering if that was the problem.) Would it alleviate that if the line in the article said "Canada's National Post claimed that..." ? Thanks, Lester 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lester, I agree the article would definitely benefit from some more international perspectives. Racism/immigration/multiculturalism are fairly divisive issues in Australia. Some people are for it, some are against, and for the paper to say that the OAP was popular with "ordinary" Aussies is a bit unqualified.

By ordinary, I assume the paper refers to everyone who is not a left wing pinko greenie bleeding heart "elite". But many working class Australians who were born overseas probably wouldn't support it, many employers looking for cheap labour wouldn't support it, many "ordinary" urban working class european Australians who live in multicultural areas wouldn't support it.

I agree that some of the electorate supported the policy, just that it's NNPOV & bad journalism to claim that they are "ordinary" aussies. So, I feel that it should removed from the article, but international perspectives are definitely welcome. And even as a left wing pinko greenie bleeding heart "elite" australian =) I don't mind if they are supportive of this policy (which I dislike). --rakkar (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people initially wanted this article deleted, claiming the policy never existed, so if the subject gets coverage in the international press, then it demonstrates the notability of the topic. My take is that a sizable proportion of the Australian population thought the policy was a good thing (that does not mean I thought it was a good thing!), but probably cost Howard the leadership at the time. The Canadian National Post commentary (linked above) was generally a positive article about Howard, but its inclusion of the O.A.P in its history of Howard helps defend the article against those who would prefer the subject gets swept under the carpet. Cheers, Lester 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)