User talk:Safes007

Welcome!

Hello, Safes007! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! paul2520 💬 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your revisions to Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

Hello there. Thanks for your work on this article, which has improved it in a number of respects. However, I have restored the references to the doctrine of terra nullius. There is no doubt that the court rejected the doctrine as applicable to NSW at the time of British settlement. Please see the Mabo Case per Brennan (Mason and McHugh agreeing) at pars. 41, 42, 46 and 63; and per Deane and Gaudron at pars. 55 and 56. (That is, a majority of 5 explicitly rejected terra nullius.) See also Brennan's summary of the case here https://staging.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/brennanj/brennanj_canada.htm. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a paragraph or something on Terra Nullius, because I think the justices use the term in different ways. Deane and Gaudron JJ use it as meaning "unoccupied or uninhabited for the purposes of the law" (at 103), but doesn't describe it as a larger legal doctrine. Brennan J rejects the "enlarged notion of terra nullius" rejecting Indigenous land rights based on the idea that Indigenous peoples are "too low on the social scale". Then there's its use as a principle in international law (not domestic law).

The text book I've been using to try and update the page says "Mabo (No 2) was hailed by the media as the rejection of the concept of terra nullius , and certainly Brennan J and Deane and Gaudron JJ 26 suggested such a conclusion ... In the result, the High Court rejected neither the concept of terra nullius nor the conclusion that Australia was a territory acquired by settlement rather than conquest. The court took aim at a ‘concept of straw’ that lacked relevance and substance in the context of native title. The real question before the court, and the question the court decided, was whether or not native title was part of the common law of a settled territory such as Australia. Every other relevant jurisdiction held that it was, and the High Court determined that Australia was no different. Whether or not a region was terra nullius or ‘settled’ was never considered to be a bar to native title in Australia or elsewhere." (Native Title in Australia, Richard Bartlett, pp 25-26, ISBN 0409350923)

My understanding from this is that the court didn't reject the idea of terra nullius as a international doctrine, but terra nullius as a defence that Indigenous peoples had no pre-existing land rights domestically. The fact that the head note doesn't mention something like 'the doctrine of terra nullius does not apply to Australia', also seems to suggests that this wasn't 'rejected' by the court.

I am not an expert however and this is just my understanding from one textbook, so possible I am misunderstanding. Safes007 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree that we need a sentence or two on what terra nullius is, and I also agree that there is a lot of media and public confusion about the meaning of the term. However, I think the point Barlett is making is that the HCA didn't reject the concept of terra nullius per se, but rejected the idea that Australia was terra nullius at the time of British settlement. The problem is, as Bartlett points out, that Brennan, Deane and Gaudron do explicitly say in their judgments that the concept of terra nullius is to be rejected. And Brennan in his later speech in Canada reiterates that Mabo 2 rejected the concept of terra nullius. What the heck do they mean by this? After all, terra nullius still exists as a concept of international law, and the HCA can't simply abolish it. Another problem is that the concept of terra nullius seems to have evolved several meanings:

1) Terra nullius in international law. (A territory not under the sovereignty of a state.)

2) The extended concept of terra nullius. (A territory inhabited by indigenous peoples who don't have a system of laws and property recognised by colonising powers).

3) The English common law doctrine of "desert and uncultivated lands" which may be peacefully settled by the British.

I might have a think about it and see if I can come up with a form of words which we can put into all the articles which mention terra nullius. If you have the time I wil run the words past you and see what you think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to cover some of the confusion of the meaning of terra nullius, while also making a larger argument about the social context of the decision http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/1996/1.html. There are some other sources I'll be able to access in the next week too in the library, so I'll try to synthesise those. If you turn on your ability to receive messages from other users, I can send you the full page from Bartlett about terra nullius too if you think that would be helpful. Safes007 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to the link to the Ritter article, which I haven't previously read, but which I've seen referenced in other articles. I think it does clarify the different meanings of terra nullius, but I don't think his foucauldian analysis helps in understanding the background for the Mabo decision. I found this Stuart Banner article more useful: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30042845. Yes, please send the page from Bartlett. I have enable emails from my wikipedia account. Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I found it difficult to draft some concise words which captured the different approaches to terra nullius expressed in the Mabo 2 judgments. I have tried to keep it general to avoid bogging the article down in unnecessary detail. Any suggested additions or changes would be welcome. I suggest this be added as a sub-heading under the judgment heading.

"Various members of the court discussed the international law doctrine of terra nullius (no one's land), meaning uninhabited or inhabited territory which is not under the jurisdiction of a state, and which can be acquired by a state through occupation. The court also discussed the analogous common law doctrine that "desert and uncultivated land", which includes land "without settled inhabitants or settled law", can be acquired by Britain by settlement, and that the laws of England are transmitted at settlement. A majority of the court rejected the notion that the doctrine of terra nullius precluded the common law recognition of traditional Indigenous rights and interests in land at the time of the British settlement of New South Wales." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, you should add that. I haven't had time to look up more sources, so if I find anything else I'll mention it on the talk page or just add it directly. Safes007 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

On 14 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Australian Government's infobox

Howdy. Seeing as you've changed the infobox at Australian Government (a change I'm not disputing), will you be making the same changes to the infoboxes in the government pages of the Australian states? Get'em all consistent. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I plan to, but any assistance would be appreciated. Safes007 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll let you handle it. At the moment I'm considering doing the same changes at Government of Canada & the ten provincial government pages. I'm seeking a consensus for it at WP:CANADA, as I would like to see the UK, AUS, CAN & NZ brought into consistency. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

All good. Safes007 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Took me awhile, but I completed adopting the "government executive" format, at the Australian state government pages. Also adopted the format to the infobox at the Canadian government page & the infoboxes at the Canadian provincial government pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Safes007 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I had to undo the changes, three editors have objected on the basis I've did them wrong. One of the objectors, doesn't seem willing to talk about it. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Which pages? Safes007 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Victoria State Government

2) Government of South Australia

3) Tasmanian Government

4) Queensland Government

5) Government of Western Australia

6) Government of New South Wales.

GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your notification as well Safes007 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

Hello

I cut some of your added material because it reads as if you are advocating one side of a dispute by giving far too much weight to one side and using non-neutral language (eg Connor "argues" but Mason "explains"). A greater concern is the significance you place on this particular exchange given that there were hundreds of articles about the decision and terra nullius by eminent scholars in legal, political and historical journals. If you are interested in expanding this I would suggest a separate section on Controversy. If you are interested in the debate over Terra Nullius in Australia perhaps a separate article would be required to do it justice. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I placed greater significance on this article as it is Justice Mason himself explaining what the focus and reasoning of the judgment is, which I think is quite significant as I can't think of other High Court judges explaining the court's reasoning after a final judgment. I also thought it was a good idea to provide detail because the article is paywalled and inaccessible otherwise. Also, I wouldn't characterise terra nullius as a minor point as I think the popular understanding of Mabo puts terra nullius at the centre of the decision (e.g. AIATSIS explainer, ABC explainer and Conversation explainer) and because of all of the misinformation that arose in the Voice debate and in the past that suggested native title would cause people to lose their homes. That misunderstanding I think is easier to get to if you think Mabo is about the overturning of broad conceptions of sovereignty or some fundamental assumption that the British made rather than merely being about the recognition of pre-colonial land interests where they had not yet been interferred with.

Would you be happy if I added the section back and changed some of the language (e.g. explained vs argued) to be more neutral and/or edited it to be shorter? At the end of the day I don't really mind the changes you made, but would like to add a bit more back. Safes007 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify and to express myself more clearly, I agree that the minor debate with a random author saying the decision is wrong isn't that important. The thing I think is relevant is what Mason said to explain the judgment; I just mentioned the book to put his remarks in context. Safes007 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. On relection, it might be better then to cut the sentence: "Responding to these criticisms, Mason explained that the crux of the decision was the recognition of property rights under common law and that terra nullius, sovereignty and international law were not the main focus of the court." And instead start with: 'Responding to these criticisms, Mason stated, "what the British thought about its international law grounds for establishing sovereignty over Australia, for annexing Australia, is beside the point" with the decision actually concerned with answering the question, "does the common law (as applied in the Australian colonies) exclude altogether the rights of the indigenous people so that forever the rights they formerly had are excluded?"'

That is the crux of the matter. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Safes007 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see a new editor on these subjects

I'm enjoying your contributions. I like the way you picked up on the State Governors describing themselves as local heads of state. It used to be just Queensland claiming the monarch was the state's head of state but for some reason South Australia changed its position a few months back.

I think a lot of people are wedded to the literal translation of terra nullius as nobody's land, and imagining it as meaning there was nobody there. A simplistic but popular view but as Cook and every other explorer described the local residents it doesn't stack up.

I'm not sure why Infosheet 20 was linked to the archived version. It seems to be live. --Pete (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

See RFC

Let's keep in mind, what the governor-general & the state governors may think they are? doesn't make them so. They may consider themselves "Kermit the Frog", bu that doesn't make them "Kermit the Frog". GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Good to see that my pet wikistalker is still active. I'm interested in facts, not opinions, on this matter. Wikipedia is not yet in the position of being able to decide the identity of a nation's head of state, but I know Jimbo is working on this.

The best that can be said, lacking any definitive legal definition, is that opinion is divided. Over the past century or so Australia has steadily moved away from the monarchy toward indigenous power structures as various conventions, instructions, laws (and interpretations) have changed, mostly without any change in the actual words of the Constitution. Read that document and you would be forgiven for thinking that the late Queen still runs the show.

But, as you never quote anything beyond the Constitution and your own interpretation, GD, it's hard to see you as providing much value to the ongoing public conversation. Personally I see it as something significant that various vice-regal websites refer to anybody other than the monarch as HoS. That wasn't there ten years ago. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, do behave yourself. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be on the article talk page (if anywhere) rather than on my talk page. Safes007 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you're not being mislead, Safes007. But, which article talk page would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, let's remember there was an RFC concerning the state governors (in 2021), with the result being 'the monarch' is head of state, not the governors. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: was the RFC closer. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia article and Terra Nullius

Hello there

A have a problem with your rewrite of the recent edit about Terra Nullius by another editor. You wrote:

No consideration was given by the British to the rights of Indigenous inhabitants to the land and no treaty was ever signed.

The problem is that the British did consider the land rights of Indigenous people, for example in the charter of the South Australia company. True, there is no explicit reference to Aboriginal lands rights in the instructions to Phillip, but the land rights issue is something which was considered over 200 years, not just in 1788. Also, the statement that no treaty was signed with Indigenous peoples implies that one ought to have been signed or at least that this was the norm. These are all hotly debated issues, but the likelihood is that the local Aboriginal tribes would not have understood what a treaty was and that no one in these tribes had the authority to sign a treaty anyway. (See Flood (2019)). My view is that the issue is too complex to be given one sentence in a general article about Australia. If we are to include a sentence, it doesn't really belong in the section about the establishment of the colony. It could belong in the section about colonial expansion or somewhere about current political issues. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think something needs to be in the sentence about the establishment of the colony as it was the first interaction between Indigenous and British people.

Otherwise, the points you make are valid and I'll try and think of better way of phrasing it. Safes007 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I have some further concerns/suggestions.

Treaties and Aboriginal legal rights

It is still unclear whether we are only talking about the period 1788-1808 (the period this section covers) or the entire colonial period. Also, the wording isn't accurate because the British did enter into formal agreements with some Aboriginal tribes and leaders (although they didn't sign any treaty) and they did have regard to possible legal rights they might have. Right up to 1837 there was a debate as to whether the Aboriginal tribes were British subjects and subject to English law. In a general article like this it is also important to make the wording as concise as possible without sacrificing accuracy. On reflection, I agree that it was significant that no treaties were signed, but the reasons for this are best left to the main articles on Australian history. So if we want to mention treaties and formal agreements and legal rights, I suggest we write:

"The British did not sign treaties with the Aboriginal peoples and did not recognise native title to their land until 1992."

I also suggest we change "The colonists also brought diseases such as smallpox, contributing to a huge Indigenous population decline for 150 years" to "The colonists also brought new diseases which was the main cause of a large fall in the Aboriginal population over 150 years." There is a debate about whether the colonists caused the smallpox epidemic or whether it originated with Makassar fishermen or the French. There's no doubt they brought diseases such as influenza, tuberculosis and syphilis though.

So I suggest we write: "The British did not sign treaties with the Aboriginal peoples and did not recognise native title to land until 1992. The colonists also brought new diseases which was the main cause of a large fall in the Aboriginal population over 150 years." I also suggest we put this as the first sentence in the section on Colonial Expansion, because it is more relevant to the discussion of the expansion of European settlement throughout Australia.

Mabo and Indigenous sovereignty

Current

The [Mabo] judgment did not make any findings on sovereignty, finding that the topic was non-justiciable, however campaigns for the recognition of Australian Indigenous sovereignty continue to the present day.

Suggested change:

Delete. The cited source is an opinion piece by one Indigenous lawyer/activist. It does not mention Mabo and in any case the Mabo judgement and the campaign for Indigenous sovereignty are independent of each other. This reads like a political statement shoehorned into a general article about Australia. True, some Indigenous activists advocate Indigenous sovereignty but many others do not and it isn't clear why one current political campaign should be highlighted in the history section of the article. If we want to add a statement about historically significant Indigenous political campaigns I would have thought that land rights, reconciliation, a truth telling commission and some sort of voice to state and federal parliaments have had a higher profile than Indigenous sovereignty.

Republic referendum

Suggest we return to the previous wording which is accurate and more concise. I understand that you wish to emphasise that it was a particular proposal that was rejected and that there was a preceding debate about various models, but this is a summary article and the nuances are best explained in the main article on the 1999 referendum. Specifically, "failed to pass" are weasel words and it is always a specific proposal that is either accepted or rejected in a referendum. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

All those changes sound reasonable and an improvement. The only one I'm not sure about is the republic suggestion, as I still dislike the comparison with the Australia Act. How about: "In 1999, 55% of voters rejected abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic in a constitutional referendum." I'm not married to this specific phrasing though, just as long as it doesn't appear that the referendum was the natural conclusion of the Aus acts. Safes007 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording. Would you mind making the changes? Just so I don't inadvertently break the three revert rule. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have made these changes now. I changed some of the wording in parts, but just change it if you have issues. Safes007 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

DanCherek (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia article skilled migration

Hello there I reverted your recent addition of the definition of skilled migration because it didn't really clarify things and explanations of the migration categories should be left to detailed articles on the topic. In a high level article of this kind it's enough to say that there is a skilled migration stream and that that makes up the bulk of the immigration program. (By the way, age, English language proficiency and years of relevant work experience are also criteria for skilled migration.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Australia article States and Territories

Hello there,

You reverted by recent edit on state legislative powers which stated:

"The states are permitted to make laws on matters not specified as exclusive to the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution. The states and the Commonwealth (Australian) parliament also have concurrent powers on some topics listed in the constitution. Commonwealth laws, however, prevail over those of the states where they are inconsistent."

You replaced this with:

The states have plenary (unlimited by subject) legislative power, whereas the federal parliament may legislate only on topics listed in the constitution. Commonwealth laws, however, prevail over those of the states where inconsistent.

The problem I have with this is that the theory that states have plenary powers is disputed. It is also unnecessary to introduce the concept which requires a parenthetical explanation and a link to be understood by the general reader. There is plenty of evidence that the states to not have legislative powers unlimited by subject. The constitution s 107 states expressly that the states do not have powers that are "exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth." (See Pike [2023 edition] 30.30 and 30.100 also 11.20 where Pike states that the powers of the states are those authorised by ss 106 and 107 of the constitution.) So I think it is important to state that the states have powers to make laws except in areas where the constitution grants exclusive power to the Cth. Would you agree to:

"The states may make laws on matters not specified in the Australian constitution as exclusive to the Commonwealth. The states and the Commonwealth also have concurrent powers on some topics listed in the constitution. Commonwealth laws, however, prevail over those of the states where they are inconsistent." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any dispute about the states having plenary powers as compared to the Commonwealth with their listed powers. The generalist textbooks I have access to take it as a given. The sentence is explaining how the states differ from the Commonwealth, as they don't need a head of power to legislate on a topic. There are some minor exclusive powers vested in the Commonwealth under s 52 ( the capital and the public service) and s 90 (duties of excise), but I don't think these are important enough to mention in this article and I think your version gives them too much importance. Far more significant is the ability of Commonwealth law to prevail over state law.

Also I don't understand your reference to sections 106 to 107. I don't see how the fact that states derive their authority from these sections changes whether their powers are plenary or listed. Safes007 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

1) As a matter of logic, how can you have plenary powers, unlimited by subject, if you don't have power to make laws in those subjects exclusively vested in the Cth?

2) You say you don't understand my reference to sections 106 and 107. Yet I stated that s 107 states expressly that the states do not have powers that are "exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth." I also stated the reference, See Pike [2023 edition] 30.30 and 30.100. This is a general textbook on constitutional law that you yourself added.

3) There are are number of exclusive powers of the commonwealth where the states can't make valid laws, including customs and excise and raising defence forces. Do you really think these aren't important?

4) Please read the sections of Pike I have cited and you will see that he argues against the idea that the states have plenary powers unlimited by the constitution.

This is a high level article and there is no room to get into legalistic arguments about whether the states have unlimited plenary powers. The matter is disputed and best avoided by simply stating that the states have powers to make laws in subjects that aren't the exlusive preserve of the Cth. Are you willing to come up with agreed wording on this? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was using the word plenary to mean that the states don't have to look to a head of power to support a proposed law (unlike the Commonwealth) not that they have unlimited powers. I'd still like to make that comparison, so would this work?:

"Unlike the states, the Commonwealth may only make laws on topics listed in the Constitution. Some of these powers are granted exclusively to the Commonwealth, however where both the states and the Commonwealth have legislated on a concurrent power, Commonwealth law prevails." Safes007 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That's better, but given that the section is about the states, I think it is even better to make the states the subject of the sentence. How about, "The states have a general power to make laws except in the few areas where the constitution grants the Commonwealth exclusive powers. The Commonwealth can only make laws on topics listed in the constitution but its laws prevail over those of the states to the extent of any inconsistency." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good Safes007 (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

His Majesty's Government...etc

Hello there

I see you have added this uncommon and antiquated usage to the article. I don't think this was the official name of the government but was rather a formalistic preamble. The official name of the government, as stated in the constitution, is given in the following sentences of the cited act. The new content is also based on 2 primary sources and therefore is original research. I suggest you revert it unless you can find some reliable secondary sources which state that this was once the official name of the Australian government. Also the final sentence of this section states: "In other contexts, the term "government" refers to all public agencies that exercise the power of the State, whether legislative, executive or judicial." The source is a 1901 commentary on the constitution. A more recent source needs to be found to support the statement. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that it is an official name of the government, just that it used to be used. That's why I placed it after 'federal government' which is also an unofficial name. It's a minor point that I added as a compromise to avoid a fight over adding the name to the lead. But, you are probably right that it is too prominent, so I moved it to a footnote in the section on the Crown. Also the fact that a source is primary doesn't make it original research, as the source directly supports the claim that the term has been used to refer to the government in a limited number of historical circumstances. Safes007 (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem is that it is still an outdated usage and the footnote should reflect that. The wording should be changed to something like "His Majesty's government was occasionally used in the past". Unless you can find more recent examples under QEII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Consistency

Hi. In your reversion of this edit you ignore the fact that not one but two inconsistently spelled sources are cited. I disagree with your arbitrary choice of the capitalised version which is also inconsistent with the spelling 'reconciliation' earlier in the same paragraph. Bjenks (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PMC, the capitalisation used by a quoted source should be retained from the original in order that they be faithfully reproduced. There are two sources, but the actual quote comes from the SBS article. The phrase "very clear that Reconciliation is dead" does not appear in the Saturday paper article. Safes007 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Consistency (II)

Although WP:BRD is on my side. I've restored your changes at Parliament of Tasmania & Parliament of Western Australia, so others will better understand what we're discussiong at the Australian noticeboard. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Safes007 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)