Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Section 116 of the Australian Constitution/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [1].

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming back for another shot after I withdrew an FAC a few months ago. The article is about a provision of the Australian Constitution that sets boundaries beyond which the federal government isn't allowed to interfere with religion. The provision has an interesting history, although it has barely been litigated. As the article says, the courts have interpreted it narrowly and no law has ever been struck down under the provision. The article is not particularly long, largely as a consequence of the provision's limited history and commentary. But all major reliable sources are consulted and, where appropriate, used.

The article has been through a very helpful peer review since the last FAC. I hope the article has also benefited from some significant editing (including copyediting) that I've performed after a few months of "strategic distance" from it. Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1c/2c review: Good ~~Mostly good, 3 fixits, one generalised fixit.~~ No dois/pmids to check, so they're good too. Good sourcing basis (HQRS, except on public commentary, which is sourced to appropriate broadsheets). Haven't spot checked. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes: "Blackshield & Williams 2010" ; "Glass & Booker 2009" don't link to the Cited Academic Texts. Refname problem?
  - Fixed - it was a refname problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- pp. remember to replace hyphens " - " with n-dash " – " regarding "Williams 2002, pp. 35-36"
  - Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited Academic Texts: I simply do not believe that so many articles on the same topic in academic law journals begin and end on page 207. Check your pages fields, and include the page spans / first page of cited text.
  - Believe it or not, they're all correct except for one. The Bailey cite was an error caused by the inadvertent duplication of fields from another cite. I've fixed that up now and checked all the cited texts to ensure that there wasn't any other duplication. McLeish and Cumbrae-Stewart both start on page 207 and the Clarke, Keyzer and Stellios cites are mostly page 1207. I've also now added end pages to each of the journal sources -- previously they only had starting pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much for picking these up. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's pretty amazing coincidence anyway! Good work. Its clean now! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Lede

" colonial Constitutional Conventions," Perhaps a better adjective would be "intercolonial" or "pre-Federation", using Federation as an excuse to link any article we may have on the 1901 merger of the colonies.

Done.

You may be downplaying "state aid" as an issue. Certainly it was a major issue in the 1960s and may have kept the Coalition in power an extra decade. Anything the High Court might have said on Section 116 at the time would not have been trivial. Some mention of this in the article would be a plus, though I won't press you on it.

The High Court didn't consider section 116 at all during that long period of Coalition government. None of the secondary sources mention any cases and my own case database searches don't reveal any. I suspect lawyers laid off section 116 as it would have been a very expensive and speculative punt after the Jehovah's Witnesses case and under the Latham, Dixon and Barwick courts. Pannam wrote in 1963 that the section was considered a useless historical oddity, perhaps capturing the mood of the profession at the time.

Some comments

Text

"Constitution". I agree on the capitalisation when you are talking about a specific document. But when you are talking about the states' documents, that should probably be lower case. In addition, I think that when you are not formally speaking of the "States of Australia", you should make "states" lower case. I notice that sometimes you do speak of the "six states" of Australia. Perhaps you have a capitalisation rationale I'm not seeing. I should add that "Constitutional Conventions", in the next section, surely should be lower case.

Done. Please let me know if I've erred here.

"referendums" I personally have no objection to the word, but some nitpicker's gonna nail you on "referenda". Just saying.

I tossed and turned on this one!

Origins

Surely there are articles on the individual conventions to link to?

The wikilink is tricky. There are no individual articles, only our general article on Federation of Australia. There's no clear section of that article to link to for the conventions generally: the article categorises them into the "early" and "late" conventions. I could make a specific section link to the 1891 convention but not the more important 1897 and 1898 conventions, so I'm thinking it would be best not to. Federation of Australia is now wiki-linked in the lead where the conventions are first mentioned. I'd be grateful for any other suggestions.

Structurally, I'm not happy with this section. There are times when you can begin with a statement, and "flash back" to show how you get there, but you've got to wrap it up in the same paragraph. Starting from 1.1.1901, you go back into the past, but you take two paragraphs to get back to 1901. I would eliminate or move the first sentence.

I've re-arranged the section to (hopefully) give it a strict chronological sequence.

Judicial consideration

"A difficult task faced by courts is to determine whether a belief is a "religion" and therefore protected by Section 116." This sentence tries to do to much. Perhaps "An initial test considered by courts applying Section 116 is whether a belief seeking constitutional protection is a "religion". In application, this test can be difficult to apply."

I've just dropped the "difficult" part. On reflection, it could raise questions. Surely some judges don't find it difficult :) I can't express it well without venturing too far from the source. I've amended the first sentence along the lines you suggested although used "threshold" rather than "initial".

Aren't members of the High Court "justices"? See Lionel Murphy for an example. I would not call them "judges". This occurs in several sections.

Done.

In Church of the New Faith, if any of the individual judgments is considered to be binding authority (as we would say here in the States), that is, precedent entitled to stare decisis, it might be wise to say so. It is hard to discern whose opinion carried the day.

Unfortunately there is usually no discernible ratio in any of the cases on any of the relevant points of law. For example, the majority in Church of the New Faith was split on what constitutes a religion. I understand Australian judges are much more prepared than US judges to write their own judgements, even when in the majority, which makes it difficult for ratios to form.

The whole "showed signs of softening thing bugs me a bit. As far as I can see, only one justice ever showed signs of softening. The 1943 case seems entirely consistent with the earlier one.

Done. On reflection, I agree. A number of the sources actually ignore Higgins' 1929 comments altogether and jump straight from Krygger to 1943.

Commentary

"the Commonwealth would not in any case have the power under" perhaps instead, "the Commonwealth had not been given the legislative power under". It at least gives some sense of what Section 51 is to those who do not care to click.

Done. Thanks, that's much better.

"About 60 years later, " This sounds sloppy. I'd mention a year.

Done.

"Arthur Glass claim". Avoid word claim, which carries implicit disbelief.

Done. I've changed "claim" to "say" if I may be permitted to use such a simple word. ;)

Referendums

I would mention that it was referred to as the "Fourteen Powers" referendum. Was there any connection between the 1943 High Court decision and the 1944 proposal?

Done There are a few places it could be put, so let me know if you have any alternative suggestions. I haven't seen any source that draws a connection between 1943 and 1944: the 1943 case had nothing to do with what the 1944 referendum proposed.

"as part of one of four questions" Maybe rephrase.

Done.

Will look at it again when this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --Pres N 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support No further objections. Good luck! Hope you do Section 57 next, that would be fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've actually been thinking of sections 53-56, which I'm very familiar with, but section 57 would be a much more interesting read. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Disclosure: I carried out a detailed peer review, during which my comments and suggestions were dealt with constructively. One point I made led to the removal of an irrelevant image; it would in my view be permissable to add a generic image of the Australian parliament building to set off the lead. This is however only a suggestion. I am satisfied that as it stands the article satisfies the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton. I'll have a tool around in my sandbox over the next few days/weeks to see if I can come up with something that will make the lead prettier. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hbhiggins.jpg needs better sourcing information. Who took this image and when? Where and when was it first published? If it was taken before 1955, but not published until after that date, it may not be in the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Issues fixed, photo moved to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an initial point: I'm more than happy to just dump the photo if there's any doubt about it. It's nice but far from necessary. It certainly wouldn't copyrighted in Australia: Higgins died in 1929, and any photograph taken (not published) in Australia before 1955 is free (subsection 33(6) of the Copyright Act), so long as it was free before the US free-trade agreement started in 2005. As it entered the public domain in Australia well before 1996, it would seem to be ok in the US as well. But, all of my above comments assume the photo was taken in Australia as asserted by its uploader. That assumption may not be safe enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I've managed to find where it came from. It's held by the National Library of Australia, and was taken by J.H. Newman, who died in 1913. The photograph is marked "Sydney". I've added that info to the file description page. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for fixing! Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I found this much more interesting than expected. I can't comment on the content, since I'm Brit non-lawyer, but the text seems fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.