Contents

Talk:Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 3, 2007, June 3, 2008, June 3, 2009, and June 3, 2010.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Queensland / Law / Indigenous peoples High‑importance Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Law C‑class High‑importance 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 C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Mabo decision embodied more than one legal action, however the same claim was being brought. It would be confusing for an encyclopedia to have two separate cases on Mabo, as to non legal people they are not going to understand the consequences. If the two cases can be properly merged, i.e not just 'copy and dump' text, but properly edited and expanded then we can begin to have a great Australian law section.

--Never29 01:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decisions were actually quite separate, considering they happened four years apart and were on quite different subjects (the application of the Racial Discrimination Act to governments as opposed to native title). I think all the redirects should point to No 2, since that is the case most people think of, but I still think they ought to be separate. Perhaps though Mabo should redirect to Eddie Mabo, for example, where both cases and all the other stuff going on at the same time can be discussed. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand bain's comments. "Legally" The two judgments were quite separate, but the "goal" for both cases was the same. In any legal encyclopedia they should be separate. But in terms of general knowledge, something about both articles does not sit right with me, and I am concerned that the lay person would not understand the meaning or significance of either. Hmmmm. Perhaps a project after my Phd. --Never29 05:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity should this article be called Mabo v Queensland No. 2?--Peta 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material under this heading has been copy/pasted from the internet and is likely a copyright violation. Also any info should be added to Eddie Mabo instead. --PullUpYourSocks 22:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio material from www.takver.com/history/ph_maboday.htm. Jpe|ob 03:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]