Talk:Constitutional convention (Australia)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitutional convention (Australia) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Constitutional convention (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

The 1999 model was complex. Kerry Jones for the "no" case: If you vote yes to this question, you are really supporting complex constitutional change. Our 'no' case is supported by eminent constitutional lawyers from across Australia who consistently have stated and written that not only is it complex constitutional change, it is change that would weaken the working democracy here in Australia as we know it. Clearly this is a fundamentally flawed republic on offer, it is half-baked, it was hobbled and nobbled and cobbled together at the Constitutional Convention through the wheels and deals of the politicians. [1]

Judging by the results, the people agreed with Kerry Jones.

In point of fact, the referendum included far more amendments than any other proposed alteration. The complicated nomination and appointment process attracted particular criticism. Skyring 01:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and cannot be stated as a fact. I found the proposed changes perfectly simple, but that is my opinion, and I wouldn't insert it in the article. Adam 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's actually Kerry Jones' opinion. Skyring 01:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then state it as such. Adam 01:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did. See the quote? Skyring 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mean in the article, idiot. Adam 03:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charmed. I wanted to see what the reasoning was behind your edit. I don't particularly care that much. Skyring 03:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sick of your stupid word games and I now intend treating you as a malicious editor. So get used to it. Adam 04:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

There were several conventions which are completely absent from this record - most notably the 1976-1978 and 1983-1986 ones (the latter of which I understand may have been two separate ones), as well as others - I see evidence of one in 1962 also. Furthermore the coverage of some of those on here is rather non-neutral. Orderinchaos 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the sections so they correspond with the years the conventions were held. --LJ Holden 06:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've change the author of the 1891 draft constitution from Sir Samuel Griffiths to Andrew Inglis Clark on the basis that while Sam Griffiths did rework (badly) Clarks draft, as La Nauze points out of 128 sections of the final constitution 86 are visible in Clarks original draft "The draft of 1891 is the Constitution of 1900, not its father or grandfather." (See La Nauze, note 11 at 78.) Papafox —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:WEIGHT issues, we devote way more space to the recent convention than to those of the 1890s, which were far more important (IMHO), being responsible for federation and the effective creation of a new nation, as opposed to the 1998 convention which would have changed a few titles around. Two ways to go: more material on the 19th century conventions, or less on the 1998 event (which in any case has its own article). --Pete (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like both is good. The federation conventions need more, the missing ones Orderinchaos noted need adding, and the two unnecessary Howard quotes make the 1998 convention section very longwinded for the amount of information it contains. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitutional Convention (Australia). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]