User talk:Safes007

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^[1][2]. 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.^[3] 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.^[4]" 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.^[1][2]

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.^[3][4]"

I also suggest we change "The colonists also brought diseases such as smallpox, contributing to a huge Indigenous population decline for 150 years^[5]" to "The colonists also brought new diseases which was the main cause of a large fall in the Aboriginal population over 150 years.^[6]" 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.^[3][4] The colonists also brought new diseases which was the main cause of a large fall in the Aboriginal population over 150 years.^[6]" 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.^[7]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could you please help make a variant based on this coat of arms but removing the Hanoverian shield in the middle, as this type of coat of arms has been used in the past (as a variant) but there is currently no similar svg image on Wikimedia Commons. You can name the modified file Coat of Arms of United Kingdom (1837) and upload it independently. 2401:E180:8873:6376:EE7B:1CD3:2671:191C (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This coat of arms (1816-1837)The middle part after removing the coat of arms of Hanover

2401:E180:8873:6376:EE7B:1CD3:2671:191C (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, what are you hoping to use this variant for? I'm not sure what to add as the source. Safes007 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Chief Post Office - detail, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg

File:Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom on the National Museum of Singapore - 20100711-1.png 2401:E180:8873:6069:412:26C5:8A93:6240 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

For use by Wikipedia in other languages to display historical badges, I have a few pictures here, I wonder if they can be used as sources 2401:E180:8873:6069:412:26C5:8A93:6240 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ottawa - Rideau Hall.JPG

File:Kevin MacLeod in Canadian Senate Chamber 2009.jpg

File:St Margaret's church - Victorian royal arms - geograph.org.uk - 1602596.jpg

1882 2401:E180:8873:6069:412:26C5:8A93:6240 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:010 Rideau Hall, residència del Governador General del Canadà (Ottawa), escut i bandera.jpg 2401:E180:8861:5692:7EB8:70D0:46CE:C61E (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if these resources can be considered resources. I remember that when they created File:Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council) Tudor Crown and Gaelic Harp.svg, they adopted the method of uploading modified works. 2401:E180:8850:A672:105D:244C:FB2C:E0E (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See variant here Safes007 (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the image I want, but can you upload it to Wikimedia Commons? , upload in the same way as File:Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council) St. Edwards Crown and Gaelic Harp.svg 2401:E180:8863:2459:1443:3216:BAF9:A1C7 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded a work by Sodacon from WikiCommons with UploadWizard.

Change the file name to File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (1837).svg 2401:E180:8863:2459:1443:3216:BAF9:A1C7 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I just didn't notice that you have uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons. Can the currently uploaded file be renamed to the name I mentioned (? 2401:E180:8863:2459:1443:3216:BAF9:A1C7 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that dates these arms to that date specifically? Safes007 (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I only know that this kind of coat of arms must have appeared after 1837, but I can't be sure when he stopped using it.

That’s why I wanted to name this coat of arms (1837), which means it was the version that was launched in 1837. 2401:E180:8811:231A:999E:8116:C2F3:82CC (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The accession of Queen Victoria ended the personal union between the United Kingdom and Hanover, as Salic law prevented a woman from ascending the Hanoverian throne, and the inescutcheon of the arms of Hanover was removed.

This happened in 1837. 2401:E180:8811:231A:999E:8116:C2F3:82CC (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Royal Arms of United Kingdom (1816-1837).svg

File:Arms of the United Kingdom (since 1837).svg 2401:E180:8811:231A:999E:8116:C2F3:82CC (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

According to other archival descriptions, this coat of arms began to be used in 1837. The old version of the coat of arms was only used until 1837, and the new version of the coat of arms was used from 1837 onwards. 2401:E180:8810:FCAD:3CEF:305D:80C7:2CD4 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I made the request. Out of curiosity, where are you planning to use these arms? Safes007 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to use it on Wikipedia in other languages, in the article about Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. 2401:E180:8802:FF54:D483:AD5D:5DFB:6AD4 (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me make a Scottish variant in the same way as the previous coat of arms "Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1837)". After the variant is completed, upload it to "File:Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland (1837)".

Use this file to make changes

File:Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland (1816-1837).svg 2401:E180:88A1:AD55:2480:5562:63DC:7B91 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Howdy Safes007. An RFC was held in 2021, concerning the placement of "Head of the Commonwealth" in the infoboxes of British monarchs. Your changes went against the result of that RFC & thus the reason for them being reverted at George VI's & Charles III's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with RFC, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that RFC states up the top as the consensus "The consensus is to include 'Head of the Commonwealth' in the infobox, though not necessarily with the reign parameters." I don't see how my changes go against this. Safes007 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that you've opened a discussion at Charles III's talkpage. You'll have to see if you can get a consensus for the change you want to make. GoodDay (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Safes007

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles, and also facilitate some discussions. Came across your user profile from related changes to MOS:LEGAL since you may have made edits to Law related articles. Many WP users are not aware of MOS:LEGAL.

I am looking requesting inputs at WT:MOS/LEGAL to begin one more round of discussion to update Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Guidelines if the topic would interest you. Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look. Safes007 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You just undid my revision of Politics of Australia—specifically, I had changed the short description from "Political system of Australia" to "none". Your edit summary states that "The short description is needed to disambiguate". What does this need to be disambiguated from? — LucasBrown 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I hit enter too quickly. I meant to say the description is needed to disambiguate the page from politics in the colloquial sense (i.e. day to day parliamentary disputes, not including the Crown and the courts) versus the broader political structure of Australia. Also, I think the description shows that this is the page that talks about the institutions of the government; unlike for example the United States where it's the page United States Government that talks about the political structure of the federal government, whilst Politics of the United States talks about a broader history of political actions and various government and non-government institutions. Instead, for Australia the page Australian Government only refers to the executive branch of the federal government whilst Politics of Australia refers to all the institutions of the federal government. Safes007 (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I know you replaced the Coat of Arms of Australia with the seal of the High Court. I wanted to know what your thoughts are on moving the seal down to the gallery, as the seal is never used to visually represent the High Court, instead fulfilling the traditional purpose of a seal as an authentication device, and putting the Coat of Arms back into the infobox to mirror the other articles on the federal courts of Australia.

In brief, the Coat of Arms is more appropriate as justice is being administered in the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, so this is the universal symbol of the judiciary. Anyways, would love your thoughts before I make any changes. notadev (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, because the Commonwealth Coat of Arms represents the entirety of Australia, not the High Court. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the first image should be something that represents the page, to let readers know they have arrived at the right page. If the High Court and all the federal courts used the same coat of arms, it would be difficult to distinguish between them.

It's possible that another symbol of picture would be better than the seal for the reasons you have suggested however. I have also seen the monograph HCA over one another used by the court as a symbol. However, I decided to add the seal instead of the monograph as it includes the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, which is useful for the reasons you stated.

Happy to discuss further. Safes007 (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I would not ordinarily do this as it is near impossible to get someone to change their mind about anything, and at the same time I do not want to start an argument, so I won’t change anything, but I’d just like you to consider the following:

The seal looks pretty and is somewhat distinctive, however outside the US you rarely see seals be used to represent an entity, so I would say it is slightly unconventional to have it in the infobox. It is also of a lower quality than the SVG coat of arms of Australia, which is unsurprising as the only place you can find it online is the regulation which mandates the use of it.

I think you can use the manual and style for and against the use of the seal in the infobox, as it can be argued that it is representative of the Court (being the unique mark used to authenticate papers of the Court), but is possibly not as distinctive as the coat of arms due to its monotone and convoluted appearance.

Perhaps it is better to avoid using abstract imagery in the first place, and only have the image of the building, such as in Court of Appeal (England and Wales), especially as the High Court does not use this seal to represent itself outside of official papers (even there you are more likely to see the coat of arms).

To conclude I am personally not convinced that the seal is the best image to represent the Court, or convey to the reader that they have arrived on the correct page, and I could probably list a million other things if I wanted to but it is not of any relevance now.

I will leave this issue with you, and whichever editor stumbles upon this as well, to conclude what kind of image is ideal. Best of luck- notadev (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m definitely not wedded to that particular image and I am open to new suggestions. My main argument is against using the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, not for the seal particularly. I’d be happy to use a picture of the court or another suggestion. If I can figure out how to make an SVG version of the seal, that could be another option (but that’s a hypothetical atm). Safes007 (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me make a Scottish variant in the same way as the previous coat of arms "". After the variant is completed, upload it to "File:Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland (1837)".

Use this file to make changes

2401:E180:88B1:60BA:3165:FBF0:FCE3:B9C6 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The points to be modified are the same as those modified in the previous production of "Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1837)" 2401:E180:88B1:60BA:3165:FBF0:FCE3:B9C6 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should make a version of "Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland" using St Edward's Crown and Winged harp, just like "Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1837)" 2401:E180:88B1:60BA:3165:FBF0:FCE3:B9C6 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007can you create this version 2401:E180:8891:C381:60D1:16EA:E0F8:FE9F (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Majesty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ramathibodi and Ramesuan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Higgins.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello there

Very interesting and illuminating footnote. Thanks for looking that up. I might have already mentioned that during the constitutional conventions some conservatives opposed the term "Commonwealth" because it evoked Cromwell and republicanism! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's interesting. I also found some other sources that could be added somewhere, but I'm just sure if there's an appropriate page.

• La Nauze, JA, ‘The Name of the Commonwealth of Australia’ (1971) 15(57) Historical Studies 59
  • This is the main one I found that talks about how the name was chosen. I quite like the description of the word Commonwealth as "a noble word which will survive in Australia when its misapplication to the ghost of the deceased British Empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof has long since been abandoned".
• ‘A Veray and True Comyn Wele’ in Politics in Pitcairn and Other Essays (Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1947) 94
  • Which talks about that republican infighting in a quite funny way
• ‘Knighthoods Are Back in Favour’, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, 22 January 1976) 1
  • This says Fraser released a press release saying he would revert to using Commonwealth Government domestically, but keep using Australian Government internationally (which sounds like a very Fraser thing to do). I couldn't find any other source saying if he actually did so or whether Hawke made any formal reversion back to Australian Government.

• This also talks about the term a bit in the republic context.

Safes007 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello there

Could you have another look at this section? it reads like a university essay. I think we need to just describe the Australian executive without getting into a theoretical discussion of what executive power is. Also phrases like "one view is..." are weasel words.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I added a lot to that in the wake of debates around what the Executive is in relation to the Voice proposal. As what was in or out of "the Executive" was contested at that time, that's probably why it is more vague and less definitive. That being said, a better practical definition can and should be definitely be added now, while acknowledging there are debates on the margins. Safes007 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide? Moxy🍁 06:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Parliament of Victoira Logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Safes007: Can you start calling Wikipedia content articles, not pages. They are not pages and this isn't a book. They are articles. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, I know we've rubbed shoulders a little bit on here with me making changes to some of your edits, so I wanted to express my good will and thank you for your contributions. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

In correction of my edit summary, your additions expanding on the flag's adoption are a certain improvement. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries. Wikipedia is all about discussion and I would never be annoyed about that. Cheers. Safes007 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I raise this issue based on the idea of ​​using the same crown. I think the files, especially File:Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland (1837-1952).svg and File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (1901–1952).svg, should use the same version of the Tudor Crown. And I want to ask if you can help roll back the files I mentioned. 2401:E180:8841:29F2:7B05:820E:9360:1D0A (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I also hope you can help roll back these two files.

File:Royal Cypher of King Edward VIII.svg

File:Royal Cypher of King George VI.svg

I hope the version of Tudor Crown he uses is consistent with the other documents

File:Cypher of Edward VII.svg

File:Royal Cypher of King George V.svg 2401:E180:8841:29F2:7B05:820E:9360:1D0A (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there -- I've just noticed some edits you made to Story Bridge's lead in May. Unfortunately, I can't find several of the facts you added to the article's lead in the source you cited. Could you have another look? Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Which facts specifically? Taking a quick look, I can't see anything that isn't sourced. Safes007 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything about March 2025, it closing in 2045, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit: were you trying to cite the committee report PDF on that page instead? If so, you need to cite that directly with page numbers, although ideally we'd be using a secondary source. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Most governments around the world are set to "none" by avoid duplicating information that is already in the title. For example:

• Government of China
• New Zealand Government – Executive government of New Zealand
• Federal government of the United States

Absolutiva 09:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest adding short descriptions to those pages (or at least for NZ) for the reasons there is one on the Australian Government page. Each of those pages have a slightly different scope and so a short description is useful as the the name is not "fully self-explanatory". For instance, "federal government" in the American context refers to all three branches, while for NZ and Australia it's only the executive. Also "Australian Government" only refers to federal governance, which is not obvious from the name itself, unlike the page "Federal government of the United States". Safes007 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Remsense did intentionally blank short descriptions to Government of China, which is set to "none" two times ( ). Absolutiva 11:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Safes007's premise that some articles of this kind may benefit from short descriptions for straightforward reasons, i.e. that the article title alone isn't necessarily unambiguous for readers. Remsense 🌈 论 14:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, obviously to avoid any form of edit war, I see what you’re saying, but, the change is immediate. The ‘primary changes’ part states order to change and the uniform part discusses the timing. “Uniform insignia that includes the Royal Cypher or Crown may be updated over time, but this will occur as part of standard issue cycles.” is referring specifically to issued uniform items, meaning individuals will receive the updated insignia as part of the normal issue or reissue process. In practice, this means some personnel may still be issued previous stock for a time. When I worked in naval stores we had to use the ‘first in, first out’ mantra. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah right, that makes sense now. Safes007 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Also in relation to updated rank insignia, on the ADF ranks article, what does "TBU" mean for the naval ranks? Safes007 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Safes007, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Eileen Mayo proposed Australian coat of arms (1955).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Army Psychology Corps badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Corps of Staff Cadets badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Supreme Court of Queensland logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 06:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuremberg trials, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Volchkov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Safes007. In Monarchy of Australia I have reverted your latest change as "confusing even if correct". Actually, I don't think it is correct. In my view, there have never been distinct monarchies in the states, because legally the states are creations of the federal constitution. But it would be inappropriate to argue about that here.

My problems for the article are two:

1. That there may be state monarchies is only an isolated idea. It may have been seriously entertained in years past, since there are separate succession laws each state and even in the ACT, but I'm not aware of it being discussed recently by anyone but Twomey - and, to my recollection, she only suggests it as an explanation of those laws. More significantly, it was not an issue in the 1999 referendum. So, owing to its low importance, it requires very little space (if any) in the article—merely (at most) a mention that it exists, with a reference to Twomey where the arguments can be found.
2. If it were given more than a mention, the account of it could not be sufficiently brief—any attempt to provide a brief account for people unacquainted with the background could only be confusing.

Errantios (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that the issue wasn't an issue during the republic referendum. However, reading the previous paragraph again I don't think it's necessary to mention the republic referendum at all as this section is focused on how the independent Australian Crown emerged.

Because Australia is a federation, it is necessary to consider how the emergence of the separate Crown applied to the states. There is no dispute that the emergence of a separate Crown did not apply to the states and the UK Crown remained involved until the passage of the Australia Acts. This info should be included for completeness and to not have the earlier paragraph imply that the UK Crown was wholly uninvolved with Australia much earlier than in reality.

This then raises the question about what replaced the UK Crown at the state level following the passage of the Acts. This is subject to debate so we should mention both sides of the argument. Those arguing for a unified Crown include George Winterton (Winterton, George, ‘The Evolution of a Separate Australian Crown’ (1993) 19 Monash University Law Review 1, 5) and Michael Stokes (Stokes, Michael, ‘Are There Separate State Crowns?’ Sydney Law Review 127, 131). Those arguing against include Twomey (Source in the article and The Chameleon Crown, pg 262-275), Greg Craven (The Constitutional Minefield of Australian Republicanism) and possibly Malcolm Turnbull (An Australian Republic: The Options).

If the concept is confusing, this should lead to further clarification or at best the addition of further sources so readers can do their own research if they are confused.

Would you be happy if went back to the version I drafted and added in the references above so that readers could do their own research? Safes007 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've re-read most of those sources—except unfortunately for Twomey 2010, which I don't have a copy of. I'm still confused—as Twomey says in The Chameleon Crown, especially in Australia the issue went into what academics could see as a too-hard basket but officials, quite sensibly, as a don't-bother basket. The article, I think, needs to be in those terms. A significant part of that is the issue's absence from the 1999 referendum questions. If Twomey 2010 mentions the other sources, perhaps they needn't be mentioned for themselves. What do you think of this revision of your text?:

Despite the emergence of an Australian Crown at the federal level, prior to the Australian Acts in 1986 the states still nominally operated under the Crown of the United Kingdom. It has been academically debated whether the end of that relationship in 1986 led to a unified Australian crown or created, in addition to the federal crown, separate crowns for each state.^[1] However, the issue has not been considered to have practical importance and was not among the questions in the 1999 Australian republic referendum.

I'm still uncomfortable with your "under" and my "nominally", but you will surely appreciate the difficulty of being concise here. Errantios (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not correct that the states were only 'nominally' under the UK Crown, as seen most notably in the British Government's refusal to extend the term of Governor Colin Hannah in 1975 (Chameleon Crown). I think 'under' is appropriate considering this.

Also, the issue being absent from the text of the 1999 referendum question doesn't make it not an 'issue' overall. There were questions about what could happen if the referendum passed overall but only in some states and those states might wish to retain their links to the monarchy. There were also issues with Queensland with its entrenched provisions referring to the governor that may have required a further referendum.

I think it's simpler therefore to make the more general statement as the last sentence: "However, this distinction is of little practical importance while the states and the Commonwealth remain a monarchy recognising the same sovereign." Safes007 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Your memory of the 1999 referendum is better than mine. And maybe "academically" is too restrictive, especially if the referendum isn't going to be mentioned. I would simplify "remain a monarchy recognising" to "continue to recognise". Then there would be:

Despite the emergence of an Australian Crown at the federal level, prior to the Australian Acts in 1986 the states still operated under the Crown of the United Kingdom. It has been debated whether the end of that relationship in 1986 led to a unified Australian crown or created, in addition to the federal crown, separate crowns for each state.[1] However, this distinction is of little practical importance while the states and the Commonwealth continue to recognise the same sovereign. Errantios (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good Safes007 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Errantios (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Australian Federal Police logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)