Talk:Administrative Appeals Tribunal

message: Put back the text, sources quoted case references which can be followed if you wish. Any case/legislation commentary will *always* be *editorialized* if not you would end up with a list of cases and statutes which means nothing. 
I removed a large block of text that consisted of editorializing and speculation and which lacked sources.  Editors are reminded of our neutral point of view, our requirement for sources and our proscription on original research.  Each of these by itself is sufficient reason to remove editorializing such as that which was present here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now placed a  tag on top, because the meat of the article has now been gutted, and requires replacing. enochlau (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not the one who has been advocating the content's removal. Check the page's history and annoy the other users who have been removing it recently instead if you care so much about the text. enochlau (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text 

message: What is ADR, referred to near the end of the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.237.190 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "alternative dispute resolution". The article should spell it out so I've changed it here.  Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADR? 

message: Merge of Refugee Review Tribunal and Migration Review Tribunal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal#Origins was challenged. 
Proposing above merges because, both articles are likely to remain perma stubbed as there is no scope for expansion in future since older tribunals were amalgamated to AAT. Per WP:DUP#3 
 - hako9 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, for having to unscramble the mess. Off-topic but my intent for merging is that it leads to less fragmentation and less of a wiki rabbit hole experience. I'd be surprised if the tribunals didn't have 36k/53k cases in its 2 decades of operation, but those journal sources clearly have notewothy content and references to landmark judgements. I'd have liked separate sub-sections viz., RRT and MRT, within Origins section of AAT article and then a WP:SPLIT into respective articles when they get large. But I agree that there's scope for a lot of expansion, so I can't justify a merge now. You may have guessed I am out of my depth regarding Australian laws. I'll keep this open for now, close/remove tags in a few days, in case someone would like to comment.  - hako9 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's me that should apologise not you - I wasn't intending to refer to you, but rather trying to communicate my frustration has arisen from other instances. There is a long history in Australia of specialist courts and tribunals being established and then abolished & there's a great quote from the former Chief Justice Robert French, "The tide went in, the tide went out".Federal Circuit Court – History Repeats Itself The problem with these articles is that they don't lead you anywhere, let alone down an interesting rabbit hole. I'll try & find some time over the next month or so to get the articles at least to a start stage, so that it includes a structure and references that give readers some basic info & editors some points to expand on. --Find bruce (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Refugee Review Tribunal]] and [[Migration Review Tribunal]] into [[Administrative Appeals Tribunal#Origins]] 

message: Remove Mikeala Cash from AG role.
Update with new information. 103.154.155.252 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update new AG details