Talk:Australian constitutional law

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of 
September 18, 
2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. 
This article is well written, but has problems with sources and citations. It actually contains only two inline citations and is incompatible with p.2(a-b) of good artilce criteria. The article even contains  tag in the References. 
In addition the artilce has a "Conclusion" section, which may be appropriate for a research artilce, but not for the encyclopedia (see WP:LAYOUT). So I decided to delist it boldly. Ruslik 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status reviewed &mdash; delisted

message: I think that the case "Dietrich v. The Queen" and the resulting interpretation of the constitution deserves a mention under implied rights. The case established that a lawyer is required for a fair trial and reaffirmed that a fair trial is an established right. This is an important right and (I believe) largely applied by courts as a means of ensuring legal aid funding for accused person's in dire straights (read: broke).
What do others think? The case did not establish that an accused has a right to a lawyer at public expense but it did in effect require that the accused be provided with one (quite a backwards way of putting things).
The Wikipedia article on the Dietrich Decision mentions "implied rights" in the opening paragraph and the relative lack of cases in this section of the article may warrant its inclusion, even if only for discussion purposes.
124.169.225.156 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietrich Decision 

message: This article has only 2 references. I think it also includes a lot of original research. It should eather be improved with rferences or removed.--Mnh123 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly looks that way - almost like this is an entire essay; the "Conclusion" section being a dead give-away.  I am also concerned about the way the article tries to reference itself (e.g. phrasing such as "in this article, blah blah").  I will try and cite what I can, and hopefully get some assistance with cleaning up the original research and style of prose.  Jwoodger (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Can't seem to find an article in Wikipedia on this case: Queensland Electricity Commission V. The Commonwealth (1985) 159 Clr 192. Hopefully, someone will create one. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.223 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queensland Electricity Commission V. The Commonwealth (1985) 159 Clr 192 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian constitutional law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/2000s/vol47/2001/1720-UPHOLDING_FRANCHISE%2C_ABR.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004014032/http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/top.htm to http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/top.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This bit - "Section 116 also protects the right of a person to have no religion by prohibiting the Commonwealth from "imposing any religious observance" - strikes me as a interpretation by an Wikipedia editor coloured by the modern day wide acceptance of atheism. In 1900, when the Constitution was written, atheists were unacceptable to say the least. I just don't think supporting atheists right to not believe in God was the intention in 1900. Remember how horribly "conchies" were treated in World War I? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What is in the article must be verifiable. The statement you are wanting to challenge is directly supported by a reliable source. You are entitled to have an opinion about whether that is correct, but to include that in the article you will need to find a reliable source. Find bruce (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query? 

message: has been attempting to remove a sentence on s116 also protecting people with no religion.   These were reverted by  The sentence was again removed by   which I have reverted. I have left a message on both talk pages inviting them to discuss the matter here. The original edit summary was  - none of these are valid criticism of the sentence - that freedom of religion extends to people with no religion is not out of place nor trivial - it is a close paraphrasing of a discussion of the purpose of the section & hardly trivia. The section is a short  summary of the effect of the section, not of the article on the section.  That the article on s 116 makes no mention of the religious observance aspect should be taken up in that article. --Find bruce (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 116 & people with no religion