Talk:South Australia–Victoria border dispute

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: South Australia / Victoria / Law Mid‑importance

	Australia portal South Australia–Victoria border dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Copyediting[edit]

I've done a run through wikifying and copyediting this article. Should the Lord Stanley in para 2 be disambiguated to Edward Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby or Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby? --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question-I dont know-one would have to check the british civle service lists,and check which one had a suitable career. Eric A. Warbuton 04:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second one became Lord Stanley in 1844, the year in question, according to his article. The first was still alive and had been a politician, too. I lean towards Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby, but am not 100% certain. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this matter-arcane but important. Have just checked this page Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby--and your right. Mystery solved Thanks again. Eric A. Warbuton 05:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity[edit]

"This led to the proclaimed border on the ground being at least two miles and 19 chains (3.6 km) to the west of reality." Does this mean that Smalley and Todd's line gave more territory to Victoria? "This 'Disputed Territory' as it was termed contained over 500 square miles (1295 km²) of which 47% had already by 1849 been sold freehold or leased out by the Victorian Government." Why was this a problem? Had the remaining 53% been sold freehold or leased out by the South Australian Government? - Diceman 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see your point-possibly a victorian POV operates. However two different land tenure regimes existed- freehold versus long term tenure. In the end it was about political control of land grants. The land around Mt Gambier is relativley high quality with high rainfall. So Melbourne wanted to hold onto as much of it as possible. Feel free to reword if you want. An entry on the differing land tenures and freehold would be very useful. What do you think? Eric A. Warbuton 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused about who got more land and what was specifically disputed by the South Australian Government. - Diceman 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

In the first paragraph, the article states "In 1914, after a successful appeal to the Privy Council a sum of £215,000 was awarded to the state of South Australia and the legal dispute was ended." but then in the last paragraphs, the article states "In 1914, it resorted to an appeal to the Privy Council which unanimously ruled in favour of Victoria." Which is it? 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Bob