Talk:Wik Peoples v Queensland

A fact from Wik Peoples v Queensland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,636 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the longest debate in the Australian Senate was over laws to change the Wik decision?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Australia: Queensland / Law / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Wik Peoples v Queensland 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What'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 Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious section

I've pulled this out for now. It had some vandalism (by the original author), but even with that removed, it still has issues and I'm not sure how to clean it up.

"In 1788, Australia’s east coast became Crown Land, land claimed in the name of the English monarch. Officials justified this with the claim that Australia was terra nullius - Latin for land belonging to no-one - which justified acquisition by British occupation without treat or payment. This effectively denied acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians had a previous occupation and connection to the land."

I'm not sure what "treat or payment" is meant to mean (treaty), the Terra Nullius article would seem to imply that the name came after British settlement (so was it really a "justification for officials" at the time?), etc. It probably makes sense to have a paragraph here providing some background, though. Maybe something out of the Mabo No. 2 article? 2403:5808:2:0:68B2:E0AC:AB7C:C97 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Who are Martin and Horrigan?

References for Martin and Horrigan are now fixed. Assize (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]