Talk:Australian Military Court

A fact from Australian Military Court appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Australian Military Court was declared constitutionally invalid after a sailor accused of "teabagging" a superior officer challenged its validity in the High Court of Australia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/August.

Wikipedia

Australia: Law / Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Military Court 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).
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (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.

Military history: South Pacific Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Specifics from case

Mindful of WP:BLP, I would be a little less specific in the details relating the teabagging case. I would consider removing the name of the alleged offender and the specifics of the alleged assault. This information is not necessary to make the point, or relevant to the high court decision and could be removed without lessening the encyclopedic value of the article. I am aware the information is available elsewhere but newspapers etc. have a different criteria for publishing than we do. Thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I take your point, and I agree the article would probably not be any the less for reference to "a former RAN sailor" rather than naming the alleged offender as the article is focused on the AMC not the court case or the event. The only reason I would prefer the details of the "teabagging" case to stay is because of the hook in my WP:DYK nomination! Seriously, however, the same rationale applies, I agree. --Canley (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]