Talk:Bryan Pape

This article is atrocious
This article either needs a proper rewrite or a deletion. Its not even up to the "stub status, its just a couple of sentences vomited into the first paragraph then a "Note" at the end that appears to be an unsourced opinion with no easy tie to the rest. Its really bad and needs to be either rewritten or put to the sword 121.45.254.104 (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
This article should not be speedily deleted. I have simply put up the links as this man has created headline news in virtually every Australian newspaper this morning and therefore this article should be written in collaboration:

see:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/high-court-challenge-jeopardises-900-bonus-20090318-925y.html

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/high-court-challenge-jeopardises-900-bonus-20090319-92fl.html

etc

as well as the above references. Thanks E.3 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Speedy removed.  Please use the sandbox next time. – PranksterTurtle (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PROD Comment
This will be a tough call - does the notability come from the man or the case? Here's the Reuter's story from today, and the article is heavy on references to subject. gScholar seems to indicate that subject has a long history with this sort of thing in Australia, leading me to believe the current case is because of him, not necessarily the other way around. Has some gBook hits, and one of those is his being cited by another author (granted, about half of the gBook hits are for other Bryan Papes).

Another source seems incapable of separating the man from the case.

74.69.39.11 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability definitely comes from the man, as cited in The Age article, he has been attempting to lodge a high court case himself defending state's rights, but has been unable to because he did not have standing. Because he is a recipient of the $900 cash bonus payments that would be paid to each working Australian earning below $100000, he now has standing and has therefore lodged and will argue the case himself. The ramifications of a judgment in his favour are enormous, effecting these $900 payment which will be paid to 10.4 million Australians, and has been dominating Australian news for some weeks. E.3 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't necessarily disagree with you, just putting some of my findings out there. I see the tag was removed as I was writing that, just decided to leave it....74.69.39.11 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone remove the opinions on this page?
The 3rd reference does not support the opinions that Pape is a fervent and longtime supporter of federalism. The whole article is poorly written, for that matter. Nino137.111.47.209 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Election 2010
He is standing in the 2010 election. Worthwhile adding details or linking to his election pages? Or would it be considered too promotional?

He is currently a bit of person of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.92.240 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bryan Pape. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823075453/http://www.une.edu.au:80/law/staff/ to http://www.une.edu.au/law/staff/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002145754/http://blog.une.edu.au/theprofessions/2009/04/30/bryan-pape-senior-law-lecturer-challenges-the-high-court/ to http://blog.une.edu.au/theprofessions/2009/04/30/bryan-pape-senior-law-lecturer-challenges-the-high-court/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)