Talk:Exceptional circumstances

Lede

Pinging Rathfelder.

I've undone an edit to the lede, not because it was inaccurate but because I think the lede needs more work than just the removal of the first part. Neither the current version, nor the amended version is particularly accurate. It's true that drought funding remains the "most recognisable" use of the term (and the use of those powers) but the term remains in use (and more recently) in other countries and more recently in other contexts in Australia. So I'm not sure that a drought-focused lede accurately reflects the subject. But the lede could do with less... flannel... (well said) that it currently has.

Of late we've had issues with other edits linking to this article from other places where the term "exceptional circumstances" is referenced, including Torture. Those have all been resolved amicably, but I fear there are a few incorrect links out there still. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an article about "Exceptional circumstances" in general is very helpful. This article seems to me to be about an Australian idea and it should stick to that. There is a great deal of literature about Exceptional circumstances in other contexts, but it's better dealt with in the appropriate context.Rathfelder (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and I'm not sure "the term" (in general terms) would be notable if not tied to a specific thing for which it has received significant coverage. What I mean is that in the context of the Australian Government, the term (and the concept) is now being used in other ways, and more recently those haven't related to drought relief. While it can focus on Australian use, do you think it should include mention of the other (more recent) contexts in which it is used? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)