Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 17

Survey: Australia's head of state

See Constitution of Australia current version (20 February). This could be more definite if responses here so advise or propose. Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) update Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Current version (23 February). Qexigator (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II - Re the preceding comment, I'm not much interested in what "viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media" have to say about it for our purposes. They have opinions, perhaps some of them even convincing opinions, but we're looking for fact. For now, and this may change as a result of current political debate, the Australian government clearly says the Queen is their head of state.. Note gov.au in the URL. Until they say differently, that's what Wikipedia should show. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II followed by Sir Peter Cosgrove, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia according to United Nations Heads of States. Wykx (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unclear When those stating that the Governor-General is the head of state include Prime Ministers, a Governor-General, and the United Nations, it is evidence of a division of opinion. The UN document gives the full title of the Australian Head of State as "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia", while the Queen is listed in brackets. Contrast this with the entry for the United Kingdom, where the Queen alone is listed. The Australian head of state dispute article is well sourced and discusses the various opinions. The Australian Parliament has issued a research paper briefly stating the situation. I might add that User:GoodDay is well aware of the article, and that Wikipedia does not determine the identity of heads of state. Yet. --Pete (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to those august persons and that august body, Prime Ministers, Governors-General, and the United Nations do not determine the head of state of sovereign nations. The opinions of Prime Ministers, particularly, may show nothing more than it was politically expedient for them to so opine. The Australian Constitution is clear - the highest office holder is the Queen - consequently she is the head of state. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not clear; the Constitution doesn't mention a "head of state". StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the Constitution is clear that the Queen is the highest office holder in the Australian legislature, and is also clear that the Governor-General is subordinate to her. A head of state is the highest office holder in a sovereign state. In Australia, this, by virtue of being the highest office holder, is the Queen.
The US Constitution, likewise, does not mention a "head of state"; but there is no ambiguity that it is, as the highest office holder, the President. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the Queen is the highest office holder. Where does it say that? It says that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, to be sure, but the nature of that representation is limited and does not define the Governor-General's role, powers, and functions, as assigned in the Constitution and since developed along with the nation. It is also a very diminished representation since the days of Federation, when the Governor-General represented the British Government, and saying he was the Queen's representative was merely a polite way of saying that he was the agent of British Imperial power. Nor is the Governor-General subordinate in any way to the Queen. He is not her agent or deputy, he does not take orders from her, nor is he obliged to report to her. As demonstrated in 1975. --Pete (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I do not believe that a reasonable person could read the Australian Constitution (particularly, sections 1-4 & 58-61) and not conclude that the Governor-General is subordinate to the Queen. The Governor-General is clearly the Queen's lieutenant and representative, and performs their functions by virtue of power which is vested in and flows from the Queen. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider that the Constitution assigns various powers - including s61, which vests the "executive power" in the Queen. Consider s128 which describes how the Constitution is to be changed through popular referendum. There is no mechanism whereby the Parliament and/or the Queen can change the Constitution. So powers flow from the people, because only the people may add, amend or remove these constitutional powers, and through them (eg. s51) all powers exercised by any officer of the Commonwealth.

So, despite s2, which appears to give the Governor-General only those powers which the Queen may be pleased to assign to him, he already has a range of powers assigned directly in the Constitution. These are mostly the important powers, such as proroguing parliament, holding elections, appointing ministers and so on, none of which are given to the Queen. The powers mentioned in s2 are very minor, such as the power to appoint deputies, and these are assigned in the Letters-Patent.

As an aside, the Letters-Patent state, "WHEREAS, by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, certain powers, functions and authorities are vested in a Governor-General appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". So even the Queen recognises that some constitutional powers are vested in the Governor-General, and your implied statement that all powers are vested in the Queen is incorrect. Although these powers are not listed in the L-P, they are clearly those assigned to the Governor-General in the Constitution. What else could they be?

The Governor-General does not take instruction from the Queen. This was settled in 1984, and you will note the Letters-Patent state, "We revoke the Letters Patent dated 29 October 1900, as amended, and Our Instructions to the Governor-General dated 29 October 1900, as amended." The document itself is the amended Letters-Patent, but no new Instructions were ever issued. (The old ones may be found here.) Some more information may be found here:

On July 9, 1900, Queen Victoria assented to the British Act of Parliament that brought the Australian Constitution into being. On October 29, 1900, Queen Victoria signed letters patent relating to the office of governor-general and issued royal instructions to the Governor-General. In 1901 two of Australia’s constitutional scholars who had been involved in the drafting of our Constitution, Andrew Inglis Clark and William Harrison Moore, described Queen Victoria’s letters patent and royal instructions as superfluous and even of doubtful legality, on the grounds that the governor-general’s position and authority stemmed from the Australian Constitution and that not even the sovereign could purport to re-create the office or direct the incumbent in the performance of his constitutional duties. Clark and Moore went on to point out that the Australian Constitution was unique in that it gave to our governor-general powers and functions not given to any other governor or governor-general in the British Empire. Unfortunately, British ministers advising Queen Victoria had failed to appreciate the unique features of the Australian Constitution, and Australian ministers failed to appreciate the significance of the letters patent and the instruction which Queen Victoria had issued to the Governor-General. It was not until 1984 that these errors were corrected. In 1916, during a Canadian case before the Privy Council, and again in 1922, during an Australian case before the Privy Council, Lord Haldane, the Lord Chancellor, noted that section 61 of the Australian Constitution had put the sovereign in the position of having parted, so far as the Commonwealth of Australia was concerned, with every shadow of active intervention in Australian affairs and, unlike the case of Canada, handing them over to the governor-general.

(Apologies for the big slab of text. it is more readable at the source given above.) The Governor-General is the Queen's representative, not her delagate or agent. And that is not the entirety of the role. As we see here, "in addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers."

So that's why, using official sources, a reasonable person may reasonably conclude that the Governor-General is not the Queen's agent taking instructions, and is more than her representative, exercising the Queen's own powers on her behalf.

I might also suggest that a layman's interpretation of the Constitution will be faulty, and should be guided by learned commentary, such as may be found in constitutional textbooks. Otherwise, one might read the Constitution and conclude that there is no Prime Minister, but there is an Inter-State Commission. In fact, the reverse is true. One might also imagine that the Constitution gives a right to trial by jury in s80, but in fact no such right exists. Only prosecutions "on indictment" confer this right, and as Parliament may legislate to make any offence a summary proceeding, this supposed Constitutional right may be side-stepped if government desires it.

A reasonable person might read the Constitution in isolation, and imagine that all manner of things are black and white fact. But we have moved on since 1900, and a wise person would inform themselves before declaring something to be so. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The wall of text above is so riddled with fallacious argument that it is difficult to know where to begin to respond. The first paragraph contains an equivocation - that the Constitution might only be amended following a referendum is not congruent to "power flows from the people", and it is a nonsense to suggest that it is so. This is followed by several herrings of a most ruddy complexion, none of which relate to the question at hand. The substance of the argument, as in much of David Smith's work, begs the question that the head of state is a person who exercises particular powers or performs particular functions. Unfortunately for Smith, and for those aligned to this view, there does not appear to be support for this assumption; absent this, the hypothesis fails to hold water. That the final two paragraphs above contain appeal to authority & ad hominem accusations of ignorance (characteristically & notably described at WP:OWN) is as disappointing as it is unconvincing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of the accuracy of Pete's comment in point of facts which can be attributed to RS, in my view the comment as a whole amounts to OR and/or SYN, and is not helpfully contributing to the matter here under discussion concerning proposed editing. Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That's my point: personal interpretation of a primary source dating to the Nineteenth Century, ignoring subsequent legislation, High Court decisions and contemporary commentary is OR. What use is it to a reader to find that an article consists of an editor saying, "Well, I personally think the Constitution means this"? --Pete (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, that is exactly what is occurring, but the shoe is on the other foot. We are being subjected to one editor's personal interpretation of the Constitution et al as being inconclusive as to the matter of "head of state". It is not, and outside politically motivated fringe theorists, it is not so regarded. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II as per all government sources* including PEO, DFAT & Attorney General, Queen's website, GG's direct statements, all academic texts, school textbooks, and the definition of Head of State, and definition of a monarch, and how all constitutional monarchies function. The GG represents Head of State, and mostly acts as Head of State, and this is the source of some minor confusion from time to time. Pete's research paper has a disclaimer saying views "are not to be attributed to the Department of the Parliamentary Library". The official "Constitution" overview from Attorney General's Dept says the monarch is Head of State ^[1] Travelmite (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II - who is represented by the Governor-General, whom acts as the Head-of-State of Australia for whomever is the rightful claimant to the English Throne. This may very well change under the Republi-*cough* Liberal's Malcolm Turnbull, unlike a certain ex-party leader. So while the Governor-General is – for all intents and legal purposes – the person "running" Australia, they are not the de jure nor de facto Head of State. The Governor-General is Elizabeth II's Representative. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II. Statements that the Governor-General is the head of state emanate from two sources. The first is by people who refer to the Governor-General as such because the Governor-General acts for the Queen as "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth" pursuant to section 2 of the Constitution, and exercises the executive power that is vested in the Queen under section 61. Sections 2 and 61 establish beyond any doubt that it is the Queen who is the supreme holder of executive power in Australia and thus she who is the head of state. Thus when the UN etc refer to the Governor-General as head of state they are considering the "de facto", and not the "de jure", position. The second source of this argument is by fringe monarchists who make the argument to deligitimise the republican line that "We need an Australian head of state". This argument is invariably made by people without legal qualifications (like David Smith). Mainstream legal scholars and jurists, both republican and monarchist (like Michael Kirby) consistently and correctly argue that the Queen is the Head of State. The text of the Constitution provides for no other conclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not just monarchists. Malcolm Turnbull (prime minister since 2015), a republican, said in 1991 that,"the truth is that the monarchy survives here not because most Australians accept we should have a foreign head of state, but because most Australians do not regard the Queen as our Head of State at all."^[2] In his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic, Turnbull explained that, at Federation, the "Governor-General acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government", the latter being the Queen in her Privy Council of the United Kingdom.^[3]

You might find, on investigation, that the executive power mentioned in s61 is not the supreme power one might imagine from a casual reading. Professor George Winterton's book remains the only in depth examination. Briefly, the executive power consists of what remains of the ancient royal prerogative, as well as the power to perform necessary actions related to the office, the Constitution and the nation. No express head of power existed, for example, to spend public funds on celebrating the Bicentenary, but the executive power was found to be elastic enough to encompass this. However, it does not include powers otherwise assigned within the Constitution, such as the power to appoint ministers, used by Sir John Kerr in 1975. But read up on it for yourself.

Smith's book "Head of State" is also well worth reading. Whether one agrees with his premise or not, he goes into the historical background of the office. The material on King George V and James Scullin makes for interesting reading. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• • It is blatantly false to say "This argument is invariably made by people without legal qualifications (like David Smith)"; it is also made by David Flint, who certainly does have legal qualifications. Not to mention Colin Howard and Owen Hughes. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II as she is monarch of Australia, as I explain below.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II as the monarch. Obviously she is represented by the Governor-General who fulfils the duties in her absence, but that does not make them head of state. Number 57 10:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II. As far as I can see, while this may (or not) have been contested polemically among Australians, it is not seriously doubted by well-informed opinion anywhere, whatever may have been said or written by or about David Smith or Zelman Cowen or others. No need to go side-tracking or rabbit-holing. Qexigator (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II, who is the Queen of Australia. Her lieutenant is just that, a placeholder. RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia is the head of state as I've shown below. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• HM Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia - The Constitution of Australia does not omit to mention the "Head of state" it simply uses the perfectly good words "the Queen" to describe her. I note that the US Constitution also omits to mention a "Head of State", and uses the perfectly good words "the President". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC) amended - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC); amended - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unclear. I have just come to this discussion from List of people who have opened the Olympic Games, wondering why User:GoodDay and User:Qexigator were removing the link to Australian head of state dispute without discussion. It is clear from the article that there is a diversity of both opinion and references. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the matter is fixed in time. Deane opened the Sydney Olympics in 2000: on what basis can we say that he was not regarded as the head of state at that point. The fact that the debate has died down and references on government websites have changed does not mean we should apply the consensus (if that's what it is) retrospectively. Remember, in this context the debate is not whether we can say the Queen is the head of state; it's whether we can say the GG is not the head of state. StAnselm (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

While I am sure it is not the intent, much of the reasoning above appears to be an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. I also note, with great respect to that body, that the IOC does not determine the head of state of sovereign nations. While it is true that the head of state usually opens the Olympics, they have been represented by delegates on 9 occasions (not counting Sydney 2000); this would not, therefore appear to be an unusual occurrence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How is this an argument from ignorance? There is plenty of evidence of a dispute, and there has been plenty of evidence offered within the dispute that the GG is HoS in some sense. In regards to the IOC, it certainly dord not determine Australia's "head of state" - as David Flint argued, "the IOC rules cannot be taken to refer to a particular Australian office, as there is no mention of a head of state in the Australian constitution". StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is only an argument from ignorance in a limited respect. The Queen has never opened the Olympics in Australia, but that does not mean that Prince Phillip in 1956, or Sir William Deane in 2000 is the head of state. If there is ignorance involved, it is that many here are arguing from a position of ignorance, basing their firm beliefs on the very shaky ground of a few websites and the Constitution, largely unchanged since 1900. Reading learned commentary and a study of developments in this area would go a great way in informing the debate, and I thank those who have put forward sources for both views. --Pete (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We can easily agree the opening of the Olympic Games is not decisive, because it was Prince Phillip who did it in 1956. Yet Pete calls the Governor-General, Solicitor-General and Chief Justice ignorant, but takes a chapter on how the 1997 government telephone book was ordered as "learned commentary". Regarding websites, the australia.gov.au website is not "shaky". Austlii is not "shaky". Comlaw.gov.au is not "shaky". The Attorney-General's Dept overview to the official Constitution AGPS print is not shaky. Let's be clear that when someone says the "Queen is Head of State" they can use any neutral reliable source (govt publication or legal textbook) to confirm it. Travelmite (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia is the head of state. Just need to explain ..something like "As a constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth II no longer rules the country directly. The power to govern is vested in the Crown, but is entrusted to the government to be exercise on behalf of the people. The Governor General represents the Queen, however acts on the advice of the Prime Minister."^[4] -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC) A long thread appeared under this answer. It shown below:
• Use a clarified "Elizabeth II", per Moxy above. It's actually misleading to the reader to suggest that QEII is the HoS in anything but an honorary sense, but it would be technically incorrect to deny her the title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II Much as republicans don't like it, few credible sources or constitutional experts consider anyone other than the Queen the head of state. The UN and the Australian Government are of the same view. AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that the UN lists the Governor-General as the Australian head of state, your opinion seems rather contradictory. Please explain. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What document is that? AusLondonder (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, AusLondonder, the internal UN document is to guide the UN secretariat in protocal matters, and not determinative of the constitutional position of the monarch or any other person of a Commonwealth realm. As said by another commenter below For the UN doc, the Queen is listed first, then GG underneath, fully consistent with all other commonwealth monarchies, including NZ where Queen is HoS in constitution. (22:49, 15 February). Qexigator (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Unclear. 'Head of state' is not an official designation in Australia, so there is simply no answer to the question. I'm sure plenty of evidence could be presented to suggest it was the Queen or the GG, but then there's also plenty of evidence that the official language is English. And just as Wikipedia doesn't assert Australia's official language is English, nor should it asset who Australia's head of state is. Mqst north (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Head of State is not an official designation in many (most?) nations of the world, and certainly not in most nations of which Elizabeth II is the monarch (see below). Head of State is a catch-all collective term - seeking to describe both monarchs and presidents of republics - it is not unusual, therefore, for constitutions to not explicitly mention a head of state; they have the perfectly valid the King/Queen or the President instead. I would respectfully suggest that official language is a false equivalency - while Australia does not document an official language, there are multiple government sources which document the Queen as head of state (see elsewhere on this page). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II - after having read over the arguments & the sources, these past few weeks. It's obvious, that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. Furthermore, it's also obvious that the so called dispute is merely a molehill that's been made into a mountain, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Inasmuch as Australia actually has a head of state, it is the reigning monarch, presently Elizabeth II. There are those who take contrary views and argue that the GG or PM are the effective heads of state, however these views are considered unorthodox. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

Continuation of discussion under Moxy

Moxy quoted Singleton G. "As a constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth II no longer rules the country directly. The power to govern is vested in the Crown, but is entrusted to the government to be exercise on behalf of the people. The Governor General represents the Queen, however acts on the advice of the Prime Minister."

• • This will come as news to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who was removed from office by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, using his own powers without reference to the Queen. --Pete (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point ..but thats about how power is vested..not about who is officially head of state. Plus since 1986 and 88 things have changed a bit.^[5]--Moxy (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
      • A few people are referring to powers "vested" in the Queen, but are omitting the rest of the clause: "is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative". David Smith argues that this means "the Queen, even when present in Australia, cannot exercise in person the powers and functions which are specifically assigned by the Constitution to the governor-general." StAnselm (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
        • That retired civil servant's untested hypothesis, published in 2011 on a publisher's blog, and promoted in his 2005 memoir, is unlikely to be seen exaclty as a persuasive authority by those not already, or still eager to be, converted. Qexigator (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
          • See also his SMH opinion piece published a few weeks ago, mentioned below. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Smith has no hypothesis. He merely notes that the Governor-General has often been described as the head of state and gives references to the various statements made by others, which oddly enough have increased in visibility and frequency since Federation, exactly in line with the diminishing role of the Queen in Australian affairs.

He describes the history of this period since Federation in terms of the roles of monarch, Governor-General, and Parliament. For example, the impact of the Statute of Westminster, which had a vast impact on the relationship between the UK and Australia, without a word of the Constitution being changed to reflect this. The dilemma faced by King George V in appointing a Governor-General (Sir Isaac Isaacs) that he had no personal wish to appoint is especially illuminating. The monarch ceased to have any personal power at that point.

Smith goes into some detail on the powers mentioned in the Constitution. Most of these powers are given directly to the Governor-General, and cannot therefore be part of those powers assigned by the Queen in s2 (because the Queen cannot alter the Constitution, and cannot withdraw or amend or add to the Governor-General's constitutional powers) nor are they part of the executive power of s61 which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General, because that power is the remnants of the royal prerogative and whatever "extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."

Powers such as proroguing Parliament and appointing ministers were once part of the ancient prerogative but have been expressly assigned by the Constitution. They belong to the Governor-General, and not the Queen. Those who imagine that "the executive power" means "every executive action" are giving the words far more weight than may be found in any text.

Smith's book states what is already known and sourced. He does not bring anything new to the table, except a vehicle to present the facts, the sources and the history in one place. Very few here, I suggest, have troubled to research this area apart from reading a few sections of the Constitution, unchanged since 1900, let alone the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act and Sue vs Hill, all significant advances in Australia's constitutional development.

If there are those here ignorant of progress since 1900, then they should inform themselves. Australia, the monarch, and the Governor-General have all changed since Federation, but you would not know it from merely reading the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Prerogative powers are handled likewise by all Commonwealth constitutional monarchies. I have already pointed out that you should mention Smith's contribution, rather than insert it as your own original research. Also can you stop wasting disk space by calling other editors ignorant. Travelmite (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can call it merely Smith's hypothesis. It is, in fact, Maurice Byers' view, which is quoted on the official GG website, where it is cited to Smith's 2005 book, Head of State. Smith's book is also listed in the "further reading" section. This is the key thing, so I am going to put it in bold: according to the Australian Constitution, the Queen cannot lawfully issue instructions to the Governor-General. StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This long out-of-context discussion may be an issue for the survey process. Please comment in the comment section. Travelmite (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• About Smith....I dont see any mention of his overall position here.. ..so lets quote him = "The truth is that Australia has two Heads of State. The Queen is our symbolic Head of State, the Govenor-General is our constitutional Head of State." - " The truth is that Australia simply has two Heads of State, each with separate and different powers. "source -- Moxy (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: Australia's head of state

• Comment - I prefer having the rest of the wiki-community taking a gander at this topic. Neither myself or Pete (aka Skyring), will be the judge of what is & isn't acceptable :) GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I never have any problem with getting more eyes on a discussion. I hope that you agree that discussion is best when it is an informed discussion? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Informed discussion, is in the eyes of the beholders. The beholders in this case? the rest of the wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Individuals saying things does not make them true, no matter who they are. That's why democracies have legislative bodies. As a sovereign nation, Australia (the Australian government in this case) decides who their head-of-state is, and the UN is entitled to their opinion. The UN does not constitute a world government that decides these things, as far as I know. If the Australian Constitution does not address the question, we look for the next best official source, and, until you produce something better, that is the government's website. Discuss the debate and controversy all you like in article prose, but any wiki voice (infoboxes, etc.) should agree with the Australian government's current official position. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

For the UN doc, the Queen is listed first, then GG underneath, fully consistent with all other commonwealth monarchies, including NZ where Queen is HoS in constitution. Travelmite (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that. My point is that the UN is beside the point, whether they happen to support my position or not. To bring them and all this other stuff into it only muddies the water and enables extended meaningless debate on the question. Until the Australian legislature passes a bill, a resolution, or something else official, wiki voice stays with the current official position, full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment — I think this is a question of law, and the opinions of legal scholars and the like are relevant. They are secondary sources, which assist us to interpret the primary sources (which includes government websites and the Constitution). I would refer anyone interested to this passage, excerpted from the Australian head of state dispute page. All the references have been checked by me, and relevant quotations are provided on the Talk page of that article:

Former governor-general and Liberal politician Paul Hasluck stated in 1979 that Australia's monarch is the country's head of state and the Governor-General is her or his representative.^[6] The same view has been expressed by former governor-general and legal scholar Zelman Cowen.^[7][8] This position has been supported by many constitutional scholars, including Harrison Moore, George Winterton, and George Williams.^{[9][10][11][12][13]} Furthermore, George Winterton argued that, because the Governor-General only functions on a federal level, with Governors playing corresponding parts in the States, the Governor-General could not be the head of state for the nation as a whole.^[14]

Indeed, that's the intended logic of the Electoral Commission factsheet (cited by Pete) listing state governors, as the heads of those states. Travelmite (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion that the Governor-General is the head of state arises from either (a) a common mistake (just as it is often said Sydney is Australia's capital or that Indonesia is Australia's nearest neighbour), or (b) an argument concocted to derail the republican referendum of 1999, an argument that was described by leading monarchist and former High Court judge, Michael Kirby, as a "false issue" and a "distraction". The Queen is the head of state. Case closed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps a question of mixed law and fact, but anyhow, the UN internal protocol document mentioned above is equivocal and cannot be, nor purports to be, determinative of the internal political or constitutional arrangements and the position of the Queen and a governor-general. It would be misleading to pretend otherwise, in law or fact. Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is clear that opinions vary. The Commonwealth has at various times in the past, referred to the Governor-General as head of state. I think that the mere fact that there is a difference of opinion at the highest levels is notable. At the very least, it is a matter of WP:NPOV. What weight do we give to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd describing the Governor-General as head of state? Do we just ignore him? what weight do we give to ex-Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowan describing his personal highlight from the past 90 years as "undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state"? There are scores of similar statements from reliable sources. do we just say that these prominent Australians must be wrong because we know better? Neutral point of view isn't about finding one viewpoint we like. It is about giving due weight to various views. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, when commenting on the encyclopedic value of the whole or part(s) of the article, it is not being said ... that these prominent Australians must be wrong because we know better? whether or not any individual has that as a private opinion. Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki voice deals with facts, not opinions. Australia's current official position is clear. We don't change the wiki voice statement that Texas is a U.S. state because there is a lot of discussion about secession. As I've said, discuss the debate in prose, but leave infoboxes and other wiki voice alone until the legislature makes a change official. Weight to give to the various viewpoints in the debate is outside the scope of this RfC and should not be discussed here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not really their opinions. Pete's carefully selected quoting is actually from writer on an online newspaper. That's was not Rudd's opinion, but a media release about an African trip, later clarified. Jack and I already explained not to make these leaps of faith. Always check Pete's sources. Travelmite (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Again we enable a line of discussion that is beside the point. Focus. (Of course, if you disagree that the legislature is the only thing pertinent here, carry on. But I feel this is yet another case of bikeshed overthink, a lot like the Hillary Clinton title controversy. We do love to argue, and all issues must be made as complicated as possible. Our minds need the exercise.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but Rudd or Cowen or anyone else should not be misrepresented. WP:BLPSOURCES applies on talkpages. Travelmite (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I think there may be some confusion here. This RfC arose out of discussion at Australian head of state dispute, where GoodDay has been contributing for many years. Nobody is attempting to say in wikivoice that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state. That would be ridiculous. That article merely documents the dispute, showing that there is a difference of opinion. Looking at your example of Texas, it is currently a State of the USA, and nobody disputes that. But this was not always the case, and we have an article on the American Civil War, which describes that particular public debate. Catalonia is indisputably a part of Spain, but we have several articles on Catalan independence which provide information on the various points of view in the dispute without attempting to choose a winner. Catalonia is part of Spain, no doubt about it, but, well, people disagree as to whether it should be, and we provide a well-sourced article on this notable disagreement. Thankfully the head of state debate in Australia is generally conducted by press release rather than bombs and bullets. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is attempting to say in wikivoice that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state. - Is anyone objecting to saying in wiki voice that the Queen is the head of state (per the government's current official position)? If so, I think I understand the situation well enough. If not, what are we debating here? If someone is saying we should not discuss the controversy in article prose, they are clearly wrong about that; that's so obvious that I didn't consider the possibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of Catalonia: "Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain." Unequivocal, unqualified, wiki voice. Value of the Country field of the infobox: Spain. Unequivocal, unqualified, wiki voice. I think that's choosing a winner as you call it. I call it stating what's official in wiki voice and covering the controversy in prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously Catalan is a region in Spain, and equally obviously, Catalan independence examines the points of view on independence, without giving any preference to those arguing for independence or those wishing to remain a part of Spain. Both sides are examined, as per WP:NPOV. The situation at Australian head of state dispute is analogous; the opinions and arguments are presented without prejudice. --Pete (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You have not answered the questions I asked two posts above, at 04:27, 16 February 2016 (you didn't even acknowledge that post). They are not rhetorical questions. Your arguments are making no sense to me, and I would like to clarify what is being discussed and decided here.
As I've clearly said multiple times, I have no problem with discussing the controversy "without prejudice" as long as we continue to say in wiki voice that the Queen is the head of state until the legislature alters Australia's official position. To paraphrase what I'm saying, "Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state and the question is the subject of controversy, etc., etc." And show her as HOS in any infobox where HOS normally appears. If you can agree to that, I don't see why we can't close this RfC right now as an unfortunate misunderstanding. If you can't, the RfC will run its course and you will lose, a large waste of time. Or someone will request early closure at WP:ANRFC based on !voting to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has been going on for 10-12 years. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages of the same arguments, endlessly going on with different people. If we can break this cycle, then from a human perspective, Pete/Skyring may be no longer be losing. Travelmite (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Travelmite: Meaning the RfC should run its course regardless? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's let User:GoodDay work that out. He is on good terms with all parties. I'm suggesting that we do our best to show patience. Another week won't make a lot of difference. Travelmite (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the community should decide if this Rfc has given a definitive answer or if it should continue on for more input. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

From the Australian government web-site http://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works : Australia's formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state.

From the Governor-General's web-site http://www.gg.gov.au/governor-generals : The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Queen and issues a Proclamation assuming office.

The Governor-General’s appointment is at The Queen’s pleasure, that is, without a term being specified. In practice, however, there is an expectation that appointments will be for around five years, subject on occasion, to some extension.

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in The Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in The Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by The Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel...*

In other words, the Constitution does not describe the Governor-General’s power, it prescribes it

It is clear that both the Australian Government and the Governor-General agree that the Queen is the undisputed head of state --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bill Reid, could you kindly place this last line in the survey section above. Travelmite (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the quote you gave does not show that the "the Queen is the undisputed head of state": it is the GG, and only the GG who exercises the "original executive power" vested in the Queen. Not the Queen herself. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears community has decided or will (from what I've seen) decide that it's alright to present the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state (due to the reliable sources provided & reviewed), across Australian head of state related articles. Am I correct about this observation? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think it was up to the Wikipedia community (and especially not a segment of it) to decide what the truth is. I was also under the impression Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Content is decided by reliable sources. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask the rest of the community. The ball is in their hands. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The community has already been asked about policy. That's why the policies are there. They were created by the community. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the community, as to how to proceed. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You've missed the point again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I commend GoodDay for his fidelity and understanding of the site policies. Travelmite (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: That may be jumping the gun a bit, as I interpret Travelmite's comments above. But I don't suppose it would hurt to propose a close statement for use when, and if, this closes the way we think it will. If the RfC is to be of any benefit, its result needs to be clear. I'd start with something like: "Wikipedia should show the Queen as Australia's head of state until the Australian legislature passes something official to the contrary. This includes, but is not limited to, any infobox where head of state is normally shown. The controversy should be presented without prejudice, subject to WP:WEIGHT, clearly framed as controversy. Weight to be given to various sides of the debate is not addressed by this close." ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me, but rather the community. At least, the community is more aware of the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for beiing unclear, I wasn't suggesting that it's up to you. I am proposing a close statement, for clarity, for discussion by anyone who wishes to comment on it. That would include you. This proposed close statement obviously would not be binding on the closer, simply our perception of the consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if you & the rest here, give a closing statement on this Rfc. My question was Who's Australia's HoS? & the community via reliable sources appears (for the moment) to be collectively answering with Elizabeth II. PS - Again though, IMHO, the community should decide on how long this Rfc should go :) GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. You started the RfC, but you're completely abstaining otherwise. I hadn't noticed that you didn't even !vote. But an agreement on a proposed close statement would help tremendously, so I'd welcome any participation in that from anyone. Simply answering the basic question of who is head of state would still leave a lot of room for dispute about how to apply that to Wikipedia articles. I'm hoping to prevent that dispute by being more specific. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Awareness of the topic itself, by a larger part of the community, may be beneficial to the related articles. On a personal note (and if it were up to me?) I'd allow for showing the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state, with a footnote - pointing to the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I could support that. If it were up to me! But it's not, hey I'm just one editor among thousands. Just wanted to be crystal clear about the fact that I don't own the place. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just a grain of sand on the beach of Wikipedia, aswell :) GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so. There is only one dissent advice Unclear stating that there is a local representant of the Head of State for Australia, which I don't think contradicts others opinions. Wykx (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this RfC should run its course. It is useful as a gauge of opinions of editors, and establishing consensus. I see no reason to rush to a close while comments are still being made. If people want reliable sources, I refer them to my comment above.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The idea that the GG is HoS is certainly not a fringe view, at least it wasn't c. 1999. According to Paul Kelly (who strongly rejects the idea), John Howard "represented a tide of conservative opinion keen to suppress this constitutional reality". I'm surprised this isn't cited in the Australian head of state dispute article. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment: That quotation confirms that there was no actual dispute, and that the article is misleadingly unencyclopedic and its title is publicising a false issue. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no actual dispute"? Clearly, there are/were some in Australia who believe the GG is the HoS (in some sense) and some who do not. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you getting at? There are/were some in the United States who believe that Barack Obama, shouldn't be the US President. There are/were some in the United States who believe that Al Gore was the rightful 43rd US President. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You've mentioned Obama before and that is simply a false analogy. It is a question of legal interpretation, not who should be the head of state. (Not interpreting the Constitution, for the term does not appear there, but international policies. So when the IOC or the UN or anyone else asks Australia's "head of state" to do something, a decision has to be made about who does it, and on what basis.) Once again, we are not talking about a fringe view - we are talking about a previous government's policy. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, the Australian monarch IS the Australia's head of state. IMHO (though I'd leave it to others), future attempts to suppress (via edits or reverts) this on Wikipedia, could be view as obstructionist behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we wait for this RfC to close, shall we? StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume we're in agreement, we shall all respect & abide by the Rfc result. No matter what that result is. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, that does that mean, exactly? What potential edits would you envisage being made if the result of the RfC was "Elizabeth"? That is, what is wrong with the status quo in the various articles mentioned? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If this Rfc results in favour of the monarch. It doesn't mean that I'll suddenly start going from article to article, inserting wherever possible the Australian monarch. I'm a gnome editor & so I roam around the 'pedia via the random route. We hope, a disagreement isn't going to flair up every time somebody makes such an edit to an article. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not always the case…

Just for interest, I present three photographs of the Commonwealth Government Directory from March 1997. Not that this is the view of the current government, but this is a question that does not have as obvious an answer as some imagine. David Smith refers to the various editions of the CGD here. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It has an answer. Is the writer trying to debate the constitutional system; or are they explaining the order of entries in a telephone book? Did you notice that "honours and bravery decoration" is a likely mistake. I guess they meant the "Honours Secretariat" or whatever it was then called. Have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, especially the parts about creator/author. This guideline would exclude relying on the words of someone working on a telephone book, to unintentionally decide the status of the Queen of Australia. Expert sources should be used to provide the answer. You can use David Smith's book as a source (because he would be considered an expert) but you cannot assert David Smith's analysis of the directory, as your own analysis (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism). Furthermore, the secondary source trumps the primary source. To follow the policy, you'd need to assert something like "Smith found telephone directories to show that the GG was considered to be HoS". Travelmite (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why I asked the big question

For over 10-years Pete has been 'virtually' the only individual who's been consistently pushing the PoV that Australians haven't decided on who their Head of state is. I was always under the impression that the Monarch was Australia's head of state. Since Pete is Australian & I'm not, I began wondering if maybe he was onto something, since he's at ground level & I'm not. After all, I assume an Australian would know more about this matter, then a Canadian :). Perhaps it's true, that Australia is split 50/50 over this topic. Perhaps the Australian gov't is split 50/50 over this topic. Perhaps this dispute existed since 1901 & that's why the Australian Constitution doesn't mention who's HoS. Perhaps, just perhaps, this David Smith fellow has a strong influence on Australians, that we non-Australians don't appreciate or understand & so when he declares the Governor-General is head of state, then it must be so. Anyways, that's why I came here & opened this Rfc. I wanted to know, "Who's the head of state". I'll fully accept & support any attempts to revert/delete/hide any edits that show or suggest the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state, if it's proven true that Australian monarch is not the head of state & that there's no "clear cut" proof of who is Australia's head of state. Otherwise, such information shouldn't be reverted/deleted/hidden from articles related to this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

TBH, this looks like the classic single editor POV push that tends to happen on issues of politics or nationality. The consensus in the above RFC is very clear, and hopefully this will prevent him continuing with this drive. Number 57 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First, the World Wide Web gives us more than enough information on this question, which puts everyone who has Internet access "at ground level" for Wikipedia's purposes. Second, it's possible (and not uncommon) for an editor to be too close to a subject.
I find it astonishing that it took us 10 years to reach this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Australia, I would say there is confusion about this point. But as I have said, people in Australia routinely say that Indonesia is "our nearest neighbour". It is also an opinion that some people hold. I have heard someone in a seminar on constitutional law assert that the governor-general is head of state. This opinion mostly stems from the republic debate from the 1990s. As Pete has said, during the course of the campaign, republicans used a rather silly line about having a "mate" as head of state, and the monarchists countered by saying that the governor-general is the head of state, and hence Australia has routinely had Australian heads of state for many years. Of course, neither line was endorsed by every partisan on both sides, and the argument that the governor-general is the head of state has been repudiated by many monarchists, including Michael Kirby. I think it is political reality around the world that people will adopt political positions for partisan reasons that they would not endorse objectively — for example, saying that George W Bush was the best man to lead the USA. But, of course, this shouldn't translate into a Wikipedia article. I think it should be mentioned in the article on the 1999 republic referendum.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also as an Aussie (for BrEng and AmEng speakers; an Australian), and I agree with Jack that there is confusion around this point. My old (both chronologically and age) history teach summed it up the best by saying "[The Commonwealth Monarch and Australian Governor-General] are both Heads of State for Australia. One is the de jure [in law] HoS, the other is the de facto [in practice]- by actually do the hard yards. Now go flip a coin to find out who is the legal HoS."

In other words; Elizabeth II is the Head of State for Australia in legalese. The Governor-General is a de facto Head of State for Australia by actually 'presiding over' Parliament and "holding court". Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were the case, that we're just having a casual chat about old high school teachers. In my view and some others above, we have one viewpoint resisting efforts to reach consensus about who is Australia's Head of State, and I pay respect to the dozens of editors have spent thousands of hours, and written hundreds of pages with patience over 10 or more years. I am sad this issue was repeatedly arbitrated and that it's possible many left this project in frustration. After weeks discussion, we all are cognisant of the distinction between "de jure" and "de facto" roles. I've understood early comments to mean that as some people are unsure, they should be able to come to Wikipedia for assistance based on authoritative sources. Mentioning your history teachers adhoc comment "flip a coin" is somewhat incongruous. Could you please either omit or clarify, with a view to helping us reach a consensus about content; or to otherwise help us follow Wikipeida policies better and more fairly? Travelmite (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Beyond reasonable doubt: E II

By now it must be clear to all here (beyond reasonable doubt) that, for the purposes of creating, naming and editing articles in the npov, encyclopedic, Wikipedia way, Australia's head of state is Elizabeth II. At the same time, it is acceptable to mention (where relevant), properly citing RS, that in Australia some Australian's have written, or have been reported to have said, that Elizabeth II is not HoS, but instead it is the governor-general who is head of state. Wikipedia articles currently mentioning Australia's head of state:

• Australian Constitutional Convention 1998
• Australian head of state dispute
• Constitution of Australia
• Government of Australia
• Governor-General of Australia
• List of people who have opened the Olympic Games
• Monarchy of Australia.

Qexigator (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Constitution_of_Australia
• Turnbull Ministry (but not earlier ministries)
• List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government#cite_note-EIIR-3
• Category:Heads of state of Australia (Talk page is interesting!)
• Governor-general
• Simple English: Govt of Australia
• OurSay
• YourLastRight.com ... added by Travelmite (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself.

• How Government Works

Full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Above are the articles that will need to be reviewed and updated. Travelmite (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has gone through this process previously, and more severely, but it just caused more edits in more articles with a hook, to lend maximise credence to David Smith's theory. I think it's important to hear from the "Unclear" editor. Has he been treated fairly? How is it possible these editors are all unjustified in giving a clear, direct answer? Will he respect the impartiality of Australia's most distinguished jurists and scholars, including Michael Kirby? Looking forward to full consensus, co-operation and putting all this behind us. Travelmite (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Having gone over this Rfc's statements & reliable sources (and keeping in mind that it's still running), it does appear that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. Also, it seems that it's being suggested, that pushing the We don't know and/or Governor-General is head of state arguments & edits? is a breach of WP:NPOV & possibly agenda pushing. For example: I think it can be sourced that a large number of Americans are convinced that Barack Obama was born in Kenya & thus should never have become the 44th US President. Likewise, I believe it can be sourced that a large number of Americans are convinced that Al Gore should've become the 43rd US President & not George W. Bush. But, in those American cases, we don't go OTT with those PoVs. So, in this Australian case, are we going OTT with pushing 'We don't know' and/or 'Governor-General is head of state'? Meanwhile, the Rfc continues on. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The American examples have many books and articles written about the topic, including neutral analysis. I'd compare the "Head of State Debate" essay to having essay-like articles on "Women playing AFL debate" or the "Senate ballot paper debate" (to take two current examples from ABC Drum opinion site ). These would be WP:CFORK for Women's AFL and Electoral system of Australia. Travelmite (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression, that the results of this Rfc (if it's monarch) will probably be ignored & the article-to-article disagreements will continue :( GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I started saying five days ago. Unless the close is more specific than the basic question, I think you're right, and that's why I've been trying to get a more specific consensus, with zero traction. I'm about ready to take my leave here, as I'm merely wasting space. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you suggestion. Also, nobody has been posting that the Governor-General is head of state, therefore further proof that this so called 'head of state dispute' was blown out of proportions across the articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? A number of editors have said that the GG is the HoS in some sense - or at least that there is a significant position that says he is the de facto HoS or "effective" HoS (John Howard's term). StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

About 13 or 14 editors have clearly pointed out that the Monarch is head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But on what basis? Most of those are not arguments, and consensus is not based on counting votes. The fact that we all believe that God exists (say) does not believe we can make that statement in WP voice. It think most of the editors who are voting above have missed the point about this (presumably minority) opinion. Perhaps the RfC should have been "Does Australia have a Head of State?" or "Does Australia have more than one Head of State?" StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Australian head of state IS the monarch, going by what I've read. IMHO, any further attempts (though good intentioned) to push or maintain the "We don't know" argument across the articles (from now on), is being obstructionist. I'd rather that such future activity be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much what you or I believe about who the HoS is, the issue is what do we say in WP voice. And my argument is that there is enough of a minority opinion that the GG is the HoS in some sense that neutrality demands us not to deny that in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with what you or I believe. Again, it's been verified that the Australian monarch IS Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But on what basis? On the basis of the Australian government's current official position, clearly demonstrated and repeated ad nauseam et infinitum. You can't call that a non-argument and expect to be taken seriously, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's not an argument for using WP voice, especially if the policy was different twenty years ago. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that yourself & Skyring/Pete will object to this Rfc's closure - based on the monarch is head of state? I'd recommend that you follow his lead & head over to the NPoV Noticeboard. If/when you both do? be sure to notifies everyone who've posted in the above survey. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, SA, that invites the question: ill-informed or muddled? The fact that there was no dispute has been discussed at length. Have you not yet noticed that we are attempting to resolve the content and future of Australian head of state dispute? Perhaps you would consider the discussion with some care if you wish to help with pertinent comment. Qexigator (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks. The "future" of the Australian head of state dispute article is a separate RfC, and has no direct bearing on this discussion. There certainly was a dispute in 1999, even if there is no dispute today. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments are directed to the content of others' comments. No one who has looked into the question more than casually need be unaware of the connection, and to fail to understand that we are attempting to resolve the content and future of Australian head of state dispute would be simply naive or possibly bordering on the perverse, which we may assume SA and others would wish to avoid. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, the Queen has always been Head of State. By definition, a monarch is Head of State. There is infact an Australian high court judgement that discusses that. There has been no change of policy. You are looking to Wikipedia to be informed, and Wikipedia has failed to provide accurate information. Travelmite (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the High Court judgement, please? It is this very "definition" that is the subject of debate. Australia has a Monarch, certainly, but the Australian Constitution does not explicitly talk about a Head of State, though the constitutions of many other Commonwealth countries do. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are two from the High Court . The context is the shared Head of State of all the Commonwealth countries, including Australia. More clearer is this judgement from the Supreme Court of Victoria . These sentences would make no sense if they were vague or referred to the Governor-General or Governor, or if they referred to only foreign Heads of State. Travelmite (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the Victorian one is clearly indicating the Queen as the HoS; the High Court ones are less clear. StAnselm (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SA for your above comments, which are good examples of their kind. For example: one opines about the very "definition" that is the subject of debate, but the Talk pages about this have put beyond reasonable doubt the absence of public debate about the definition as distinct from some obvious partisan polemics about change and occasional academic discussion. It seems comments such as those are proceeding on a false premise, and do little but perpetuate the unencyclopedic confusion (for commenters as well as other readers) in the content and title of the article in question, and others such as the footnote in (of all unsuitable places) List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Qexigator (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Counting noses does not dispel reasonable doubt. Nor does listening to opinions vehemently expressed. The fact that high officers in Australian executive government have declared that the Governor-General is the head of state and that he is routinely referred to as such in reliable media sources such as the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald etc. proves that there is a dispute and it continues to this day. --Pete (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Most or all participating commenters will be aware that repetition of opinion, however respectfully expressed, does not outdo the reasoned concurrence shown here, which is beyond reasonable doubt. Qexigator (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure

If this isn't WP:SNOW, then it's certainly appears to be. Also, one of the "We don't know" supporters, appears to be hinting that he'll ignore this Rfc's result & continue pushing/maintaining "We don't know" type edits & reverting "Monarch is head of state" type edits. Ps -web Would the editor-in-question confirm/deny or clarify his future actions 'here', please? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I of course came late to the discussion, but I haven't seen a lot of people presenting or responding to arguments here. Most of the responses in the survey are simple votes. StAnselm (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on you & Skyring/Pete, to persuade the others that there's as big a dispute, as you both seem to be pushing. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. If I present good arguments and nobody responds, then the consensus cannot go against me. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, you're pushing a minority leaning toward fringe pov. This could be seen (from now on) on the articles, as obstructionist behaviour on your part. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point about minority POV. Unless it is fringe, it should be treated as a valid option, and we should not contradict it in WP voice. Worldwide, atheism is a minority (but not fringe) position - but we cannot make statements that contradict atheism in WP voice. This discussion is not about the beliefs/opinions of the editors, it is about what we write in WP articles, and regardless of what I believe personally about the Australian HoS, the fact that we have this mixed tradition (both with government statements and expert opinion) means that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not make up its mind one way or the other. That is precisely what neutrality is all about. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:WEIGHT. At the moment, yourself (and Skyring) were or are trying to push the "We don't know" edits, even though it's been shown (in the survey) that Elizabeht II Is Australia's head of state. Now, if you both want to continue doing so on Wikipedia? that's both your choice. The community will have to decide for itself, if you're both being disruptive or not. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The survey has showed no such thing. It has showed, perhaps, that a majority of WP editors believe that the Queen is Australia's HoS. But let's talk about undue weight, because that was the issue that brought me here from List of people who have opened the Olympic Games - it was my opinion that the majority position should hold in the text (by having Deane's name in italics as someone who is not head of state) and allude to the minority position in a footnote. That strikes me as precisely the way to deal with issues of weight. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The survey shows that the sources provided verifies the monarch as head of state. This should be reflected across related articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been very clearly shown that the Australian government's current official position is that the Queen is their head of state. That fact is not in dispute, and wiki voice should reflect that official position. The controversy can and should be discussed separately. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to concede that is the official position now; it was not the official position in 1999. For the List of people who have opened the Olympic Games, the current position is fairly irrelevant, since it is specifically talking about an event in 2000. And since when did wiki voice have to reflect official positions? That has never been our policy. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete mentioned something about going to an NPOV noticeboard. It's a route you both could take, following the closure of this Rfc. But of course, that's up to you both. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It has always been our policy to use reliable sources for wiki voice, and to present opinion as opinion. The legislature decides the head of state, not public opinion, not academics, not individual politicians. Government documents are reliable sources for the legislature's position. If you feel the need to say that the official position was something else in the past, fine. Do it in prose, not in infoboxes, and use the past tense. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it has never been legislated - as far as legislation goes, Australia does not have a HoS. The "official position" reflected in websites, etc. is an interpretation. If I can use an American analogy, perhaps saying "the Queen is Australia's Head of State" is like saying "to be President you must be born in the United States". It's by far the majority position, but it's never been tested in court, since the U.S. Constitution uses the vaguer phrase "natural born citizen". As much as possible, of course, we should use precise phrases, and refer to Elziabeth as the Monarch rather than the Head of State. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If it would put an end to this interminable conflict, I would support using Monarch instead. The choice between the two terms in Wikipedia articles matters not to anyone except (1) a few editors and (2) readers who see Wikipedia as an authoritative source of "truth". That's an incorrect view of Wikipedia, it ignores our continuous exhortations to the contrary, it's their problem, and it's not something we should cater to as Wikipedia editors. This is massive overthink. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But this is exactly what we have already and has stood for years! See the infobox for Australia. There is no conflict, beyond what has been confected recently. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"The legislature decides the head of state, not public opinion". Only if they actually put it into law, surely? Otherwise it's just what a bunch of webmasters say, and really, we're looking at pretty low-level sources here. --Pete (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To assert that that content is determined by webmasters is beyond absurd. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You was never a webmaster, obviously. --Pete (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And you "was" apparently a webmaster working for a national government and choosing what to say about things like their head of state, all on your own initiative. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If you say so. My point is this: unattributed text on a public service website is not the best source for fundamental questions of national identity. Do we have the Constitution, the High Court, any Commonwealth legislation at all, identifying the Queen as head of state? We do not. Do we have any government minister making such a statement? We do not. Do we have the Queen saying that she is head of state? We do not. Do we have the Governor-General saying that the Queen is head of state? We do not. You would think, if the matter were as cut and dried as some here imagine, that we'd have at least one solid source. But no… --Pete (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer is yes. The GG, the High Court, Explanatory Memoranda passed by the parliament, the official introduction to the Constitution by the solicitor-general all use "Head of State" to refer only to the Monarch, just as they use other legal words and terms. To answer "no" just shows the bias we have a duty to eradicate. Travelmite (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before. I'm going to go along with whatever the result of this Rfc turns out to be. If the result is Elizabeth II is head of state? then I'll be editing along those lines. If the result is We don't know who the head of state is? then I'll be editing along those lines. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

But why does it have to be either/or? Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, why can't we refer to Elizabeth has HoS in the main text, and then have a footnote referring to the minority opinion? StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've no problem with a footnote, if it's in the form of the one at List of current heads of state and government, which covers all 15 commonwealth realm GGs. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What? You don't? So what is this discussion about? Because this is precisely my position: to make reference via a footnote to the discussion/dissent on the issue. The footnote in that article ("opinion differs") is fine. Anyway, it also raises the question - is it the same with other countries? It's strange that no-one has mentioned Canada in this discussion; the Governor General of Canada article says "it had been observed that, for some decades, staff at Rideau Hall and various government departments in Ottawa had been pushing to present the governor general as head of state, part of a wider Liberal policy on the monarchy..." See also this news article. Personally, I would be wholly in favour of an article on Canadian head of state dispute as representing a notable topic. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See also the Monarchy of Canada article: "the sovereign is regarded by official government sources,[32][122][123][124] judges,[125] constitutional scholars,[103][126] and pollsters as the head of state,[127] while the governor general and lieutenant governors are all only representatives of, and thus equally subordinate to, that figure.[128] Some governors general, their staff, government publications,[103] and constitutional scholars like Edward McWhinney and C. E. S. Franks have,[129][130] however, referred to the position of governor general as that of Canada's head of state,[131][132] though sometimes qualifying the assertion with de facto or effective..." Without knowing much about Canadian politics, it seems a similar situation: a clear majority opinion, a minority (but not fringe) opinion, and certainly something that could be called a "dispute". StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have a discussion about the Canadian head of state? I suggest you take it to Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada, Canada, Government of Canada, etc etc. I don't know how far your argument would go, on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently this page is being used for centralised discussion. So, let me ask you: would you object to the creation of such an article? Would you nominate it for deletion? StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose the creation of such an article. The Canadian monarch is Canada's head of state. Even if there's possibly some Canadians who think it's the Governor General or the Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But looking at the sources, it's much more than "some Canadians": it seems to be (or have been) the policy of a major political party. It's not exactly like "some Canadians believe the earth is flat". StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you, if you want to create such an article. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it were deleted or made into a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm is incorrect about legislation. The Australian Parliament passed a bill about the succession to the Crown, and the explanatory memorandum referred to the Queen as Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah hah. Yet another Monarch is head of state source. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I wasn't aware of that. This article seems to indicate that EM don't count as "legislation" per se, however. In any case, it is clearly the opinion of the current government/parliament - previous ones have had a different interpretation of the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The article (and the Acts Interpretation Act) says explanatory memorandum absolutely count to explain the legislation and can be used by the courts. Your comment "previous ones have had a different interpretation" is not only untrue, it's not possible. S61 of the constitution vests power in the Queen. No government, parliament or court would pass or handle the law in a way that deliberately overturns the structure of the constitution. Travelmite (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You say it's not possible, but it's been done. The Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act of 1976 says, "For the purposes of this Act, the definition of internationally protected person in paragraph 1 of article 1 of the Convention has effect as if the reference in that definition to a Head of State included, in relation to Australia, the Governor-General." StAnselm (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is not possible for a reasonable person to read that section and come to the conclusion that it overturns the structure of the constitution. I would suggest, rather, that it shows recognition that the Governor-General is not the Head of State, and legislates to extend a benefit or protection which would be due to the Head of State to also cover the Governor-General. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, of course not. It doesn't overturn the structure of the constitution, because the constitution is not structured in terms of a "head of state". StAnselm (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that of the constitutions of nations of which Elizabeth II is the monarch, a strict and vast majority do not include the term "head of state". This does not, however, mean that those constitutions do not define a head of state; they define the Queen as the highest office holder within their respective nations - which is the definition of a head of state. With respect, the argument that because the term is not included no head of state is defined is sophistry and bunk. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia aside, where is this definition found? The Queen is not defined as the highest office holder in the Constitution, I might add. Nor anywhere else in Australian law. The sine qua non of a head of state is that of issuing and receiving diplomatic credentials. For a long time such letters were addressed to the Queen and accepted by the Governor-General on her behalf, but those days are gone. These letters are now addressed to the Governor-General, and received by him in his own right. The Queen is not mentioned at all. --Pete (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing with sine qua non, they're sine qua non right up until the day that they're something that I get someone else to do. There is no definition of "head of state" which includes issuing and receiving diplomatic credentials are a required function (or the exercising of any power as a required function). There are definitions, published in several reliable sources, which categorically define a "head of state" as the highest office holder within that state; none of which require the exercise of particular powers. the person who holds the highest position in a national government; the ​official ​leader of a ​country, often someone who has few or no ​real ​political ​powers - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

One website. And what makes you think that the Queen holds the highest position in the national government? She cannot appoint or remove the Prime Minister. She cannot prorogue Parliament, she cannot do any number of actions which are traditionally the preserve of the monarch - they have been expressly signed over to the Governor-General. Moreover, under the Royal Powers Act 1953, she occasionally acts as the delegate of the Governor-General. I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as you think. --Pete (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

One is one more than none, which is the number of definitions supporting the "GG as HoS" fringe theory - there are no definitions of "head of state" which suggest that any of the functions or powers listed above are required for a head of state.
The Queen is not unique in being a head of state absent one or more of these powers; this is a state shared with the acknowledged heads of state of Japan, Sweden and other nations - not least that it is shared with the acknowledged heads of state of Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, the Bahamas, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
The Royal Powers Act 1953 does not provide for the Queen to act as the delegate of the Governor-General, it states At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen.; to suggest that this implies delegation of power is obtuse; to suggest this while also suggesting that the Constitution does not support that the Governor-General is sub-ordinate to the Queen is misleading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Obtuse? If an officer allows another to exercise their power, that is delegation. The Queen does not have many powers, that is true, and there are many powerless, figurehead, monarchs. However, the Governor-General's powers are more wider than those given to the Queen, so there is less of the figurehead about his role. The events of 1975 made plain where power lay. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We may see the above comment, and others, as suggesting that P/S must have run out of any viable points to continue with the defense of the AHOSD article, which s/he started in 2011, confirming that it is time to close. Maybe sad, but certainly so. Qexigator (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doubly so to suggest that the Royal Powers Act is a delegation of powers, but the Constitution, which clearly vests executive power in the Queen is not. And also ultimately a distracting side issue - there is no definition of "head of state" which is based on holding of certain powers - it is immaterial whether the Queen or the Governor-General exercises more or particular powers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Pete, for another source, obviously confirming, as already known beyond reasonable doubt, that the governor-general, who is bound by his oath of office and, by the constitution, represents the Queen who has appointed him, makes no pretense to be head of state, any more than would a Chief of Protocol. Perhaps there are more such sources to be drawn from the barrel? No amount of kite-flying or posturing by others alters the simple fact. Qexigator (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if one has the notion that representing the Queen is all that the Governor-General does, then nobody could possibly see him as the head of state. Hard to understand how David Smith could see the office otherwise, let alone an occupant. Perhaps there is something in the water at Government House, extending to the G-G's own website. When that states, "In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers", what on earth could he mean? --Pete (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You should read the book. He doesn't present his own ideas at all. He has assembled the statements of others claiming that the Governor-General is head of state. It is a useful book of sources and a guide to the history of the job. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So you've read his books & I believe, you mentioned that you attended his lectures. Have you also met this man? GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer we go along with what has worked very well for years. We list the Queen as monarch, and we list the Governor-General as Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't worked well all along. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: With all this talk about closure, those who feel the discussion has finished should post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Three Points.

1. Many contributors here are operating from a position of limited knowledge. At the very least, read the sources found in Australian head of state dispute.
2. Some contributors are trying to present their opinion as "the one truth", ignoring any contrary opinions. This is the very antithesis of NPOV. We do not present just one opinion when there are more than one. Those who argue for their view to prevail over all others do not understand or accept how Wikipedia operates.
3. Some here are making thinly disguised personal attacks on others and are, I suggest, using this discussion as a vehicle for personal animosities. This does not assist collegiate or impartial deliberation. --Pete (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to your 3 points. With all due respect, Skyring. You're bordering on insulting the intelligence of others & coming across as quite arrogant, by continuing to claim that only you are adhering to NPoV. Please stop doing that. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, GoodDay. This is not in my mind at all. I'm puzzled as to how you could see it this way. --Pete (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have posted this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs)

Great that Pete retracted his complaints about other editors. Rightly so! Regarding the rest, the sources in that article both say and explain that the Head of State is the Queen. The other sources are a plagiarism of the ideas of David Smith, against Wikipedia policy. References to Smith's work, can only be inserted with attribution, and I've already discussed where this needs to happen. Pete has constantly argued that this is a real debate, but cannot name the two parties to that debate. The bureaucrat doing the sorting the telephone book, was not debating Chief Justice Michael Kirby. Pete says that he is merely unclear who the Head of State is, so this is an example of limited knowledge. He is not presenting a contrary position to former Governors-General, who say the Queen is Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have posted this discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Someone made the reference to "academic texts" and textbooks, but when I look at the most recent one, I see that the debate is still notable and significant:

• Helen Irving, Five Things to Know About the Australian Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 86 : "Did this make [Deane] Head of State, or was he only representing the Head of State? According to some, he was both."
• Peter John Boyce, The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Federation Press, 2008) has a very interesting discussion on p. 29, where he notes that the Buckingham Palace website was "mysteriously amended" halfway through the Australian republican campaign.

On the other hand, for fairness I should include:

• Bede Harris, A New Constitution for Australia (Routledge, 2013), p. 245, "The suggestion by some elements within the monarchist camp that the Governor-General is Head of State was regrettable, because such a statement is explicable only as a manifestation of either profound ignorance or outright dishonesty."

StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one:

George Williams, "Sifting the Ashes," in Constitutional Politics: The Republic Referendum and the Future (University of Queensland Press, 2002) p. 138: "The suggestion that the Governor-General is head of state is factually incorrect. It was, however, very effective. It created doubt as to why the referendum was being held in the first place." StAnselm (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this (I had to go to a meeting straight after I posted it) this seems to be a classic example of reliable sources differing. Per WP:YESPOV, we "describe dispute, but not engage in them". Also, we "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" but we "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". StAnselm (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• And one more: Just to make it clear that this issue has not gone away, the Sydney Morning Herald published a piece just a few weeks ago (3 February 2016): "The Governor-General is Australia's head of State". StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

An article by David Smith. We already know David Smith. Travelmite (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may, this article is a comment. And what it says is only: "officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General"; everything is in this "officiating" that nobody contests but officiating is not being. Wykx (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that's only one of his arguments, but I've been wondering about it too (and decided not to present it as an argument here). The 1907 calls the State Governor the "officiating Constitutional Head of the State". Anyway, the purpose of the link is to show (a) it's still a live issue, and (b) one on which reliable sources reflect a diversity of opinions. That is why we ought not to decide one way or the other regarding the way we express things in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's lively... as an opinion... but facts are clear since the article quotes EII as the Sovereign. Wykx (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course Elizabeth is the Sovereign. But that's not exactly the same as being the Head of State. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please try to change the first sentence of Monarch then. Wykx (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And regarding the article being a "Comment", at the very least it shows that the view is not WP:FRINGE; SMH would not, for example, publish an opinion piece on the earth being flat. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

One side is a reliable source (the government and basic legal textbooks) which states something as a fact. The other side is attempting to make counter-arguments in the republican debate. One side is neutral and the authority, the other side is trying to argue in a referendum. Please read everything above, to help avoid going over this in circles. Editors already agree that there is no problem to mention this in the context of the republican debate. Outside the republican debate, it is against the policies of Wikipedia as follows:

• Avoid stating facts as opinions
• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia"
• Original research: primary documents are interpreted as evidence of a dispute, when they are simple errors or explanations taken out of context. For example editors agree that the GG acts/represents as Head of State, but this is in the context of representing the Queen.
• Plagiarism: The material on the page is an extension of David Smith's book and some of his articles, but not credited as such. Editors have no issue with presenting David Smith's contribution fairly. You omitted the next line in Helen Irving's book. She is doing no more than giving David Smith fair expression and names him as the source of this alternative viewpoint. That would be consistent with Wikipedia policies, and I've suggested that Pete could put Smiths arguments strongly on the David Smith page, with little risk of violating policy or plagiarism.
• It is certainly a fringe theory - you've implied that a Wikipedia article on a debate is evidence of the debate. No evidence found of academics bothering to debate David Smith very much, apart from some saying it's ridiculous (as you quoted above. We've previously quoted Michael Kirby (a monarchist) as saying it was a "false issue."
• Inconsistency. The general articles covering Commonwealth constitutional monarchies should not present Australia as an exception.
• Notability. Editors agree it is notable enough to mention, but not deserving full article. The linkages to this article suggests a scheme to promote a point of view to at least a 50-50 proposition (undue weight WP:UNDUE)
• ArbCom decision - the Arbitration Committee previously stopped a user from editing government articles for one year, for promoting viewpoints such as this. ArbCom does not dispute content, but editors can be disruptive and far too persistent. ArbCom said "Wikipedia is not a soapbox".

Are we here to help people or confuse them? You seriously suggested going to the Canada page to obfuscate that. Why? The "some people" are David Smith and a few allies at Australian's for Constitutional monarchy. Surely we can be encyclopedia, fair to Smith and ACM, without presenting Australia (or Canada) as a ridiculous mess. What is your intent here, because I encourage you to work towards a consensus.

Travelmite (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere has SA presented good arguments but such points as s/he has offered have been decisively rebutted. Qexigator (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The key issue is whether this is a fringe theory: if it is, then we say can state that E II is (sole) HoS as a fact (in WP voice). If it's not, then we need to qualify the "fact", by a footnote in an article, or some other way. The Helen Irving quote (even if she does go on to mention Smith) makes it very clear that this is not fringe. (And although Smith is the most prominent advocate of the position, there are certainly others, such as David Flint). The inconsistency argument presented above is a poor one; as I have indicated, it might just mean that there could/should be a similar article about the Canadian situation (though Smith argues that the two situations are very different). The Australian head of state dispute is most certainly notable - just the four references I have provided show that there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is precisely what notability is. As for the location within the republican debate, the fact that SMH published an opinion piece this month shows that it's ongoing (presumably because the republican debate in Australia will be revived sooner or later - and maybe that was the Herald's intention). Finally, it is this very WP policy of WP:NPOV that demands that we give due weight to this minority view. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but not in a way that cherry-picks sources. Hence, I favour a merger.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is a separate RfC on that. But there is no reason why sources need to be cherry-picked. For example, I would be strongly in favour of including the Harris and Williams quotes in that article. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree you have four sources of "debate", nor is that sufficient to justify an article. These sources say to incorrectly put the GG as HoS is regrettable and dishonest (a lie?). Please don't assume intentions of reputable people like Helen Irving - she is not telling us anything about article-level notability. Even U.S. presidential debates do not get their own articles. Do you understand the reasons for prohibiting forking? You cannot use Wikipedia to host a debate, or to promote an idea. Merging the article into Monarchy allows David Smith's perspective to be included as a paragraph. In the Republicanism article it can be mentioned that monarchists raised doubts about whatever and so on. All the issues are I raised are important. Don't confuse having a full article, with having fair content. Sofar, you are an "unclear" person who doesn't know who the Head of State is, even though the sources you post say who that person is. How can there be two passionate champions for "I don't know" writing here? Your position is inexplicable. Not merely an I don't know, but a full article about "I don't know" to persuade people to not know. Utterly inexplicable. Travelmite (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you recognise Helen Irving as a reliable source; what she says certainly indicates both article-level notability as well as the necessity of including the view as a reasonable minority opinion (ie not fringe). I don't quite know what you mean by "You cannot use Wikipedia to host a debate"; we are describing a debate that has been going on for some time, and is described in multiple reliable sources. As regards me being "unclear", it doesn't matter much what my personal views are; I have provided sources saying that the Queen is definitely the (only) HoS, as well as sources that say "Perhaps we do [have two Heads of State], or perhaps we have none" (Helen Irving). That is precisely why I !voted "unclear" above. Once again, reliable sources are disagreeing on the issue (on two fronts, it seems: whether the GG is HoS, and whether it is really an "issue"). Finally, I don't think you can say that three of the sources I posted say the minority view is "regrettable and dishonest"; Boyce merely says that it was "difficult to sustain". StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are exaggerating Helen Irving's comment. If she presents a view from David Smith, she does not say she supports it. She wrote a book to interest the general public in the constitution and that section is how it may impact something like the Olympic Games. The "perhaps we have none" comment is not designed to be a serious thesis, just thought-provoking. She asks hundreds of open questions - that's what Irving's book is about. Also it's not me saying "regrettable and dishonest", that's taken from Bede Harris that you posted above: "[it] was regrettable, because such a statement is explicable only as a manifestation of either profound ignorance or outright dishonesty." I am sure you can argue "I don't know", but you have not found a reference which is independent of David Smith? We have been waiting weeks for something to suggest this alternate theory is more than David Smith and his audience. You remain a passionate champion of "I don't know", but the real reason you don't know is because Wikipedia policies are being broken.23:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Travelmite (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to say that it is because of Wikipedia that I don't know. In fact, the "I don't know" in this context means Wikipedia cannot commit itself to a position because there is a diversity of opinion in reliable sources. I don't know about this "waiting for weeks", thing; in any case, David Flint's The Cane Toad Republic (Wakefield Press, 1999) is another source that immediately comes to mind (e.g. p. 87; in the foreword, Christopher Pearson calls the GG the "Constitutional Head of State", p. viii). Finally, my comment about "regrettable" was in response to you saying there were three sources which said something like that: I only count two (Harris and Williams). StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

David Flint has supported Smith to promote this theory via ACM. We understand that. You cannot separate them, and it's fair to note ACM should be a considered a political group to oppose ARM (another political group) - the republican debate. On the other hand there are are many neutral sources which try to explain in different ways how section 61 works, where the GG exercises the functions of the Head of State, so there is no issue with calling the GG a "constitutional Head of State", "de facto Head of State" or similar expressions as some scholars do. There is no disagreement about that. Travelmite (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand multiple voices in favour, if you're going to count all in favour as one voice anyway. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Travelmite (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Constitutions

I've seen this mentioned many times, that the Australian Constitution doesn't have the words "head of state" in it & therefore it's a reason for not presenting the Queen as Australia's head of state.
I was wondering. Are there any other countries who's Constitutions don't have the words head of state written in them? GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As near as I can tell from a quick "find" on the constitutions of various nations. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Phrase "head of state" not used in constitution

• Antigua and Barbuda QE2
• Barbados QE2
• Belize QE2
• Canada QE2 - uses "the Queen"
• France - uses "the President" per these translations
• Germany - uses "the President" per this translation
• Grenada QE2
• Jamaica QE2
• Saint Kitts and Nevis QE2
• Saint Lucia QE2
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines QE2
• The Bahamas QE2
• Tonga - uses "the King"
• United States of America - uses "the President" instead

Phrase "head of state" used in constitution

• Fiji - refers to the President
• New Zealand QE2 - refers to the Queen
• Papua New Guinea QE2 - refers to the Queen
• Samoa - refers to O le Ao o le Malo, elected
• Solomon Islands QE2 - refers to the Queen
• Tuvalu QE2 - refers to the Queen
• Zimbabwe - refers to the President

NOTES: QE2 = Elizabeth II is monarch of these states;

added by Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC); updated Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC); updated Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All along, one of the editors was pushing that because the Australian Constitution didn't have the words head of state in it? we couldn't say who was Australia's head of state. Does that same individual, suggest that the above mentioned 12 countries also means, we can't say who their head of state is on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you've already said you would be in favour of deleting a similar article on the Canadian situation, so perhaps other editors are restricted in making things "consistent". In any case, we follow reliable secondary sources. If there was a debate in the Bahamas about whether the Governor-General of the Bahamas was the Head of State, or whether they had a Head of State - then yes, that would probably be deserving of an article. If no such debate exists, then it wouldn't be, obviously. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

For years, one of the editors was pushing the Constitution as a big reason for not showing the Queen as head of state, concerning it lacked the exact wording. It appears to me, as though the other editors here, are finding more & more holes in the "We don't know" positions. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And looking further at the Bahamas, the overwhelming majority of sources say the HoS is the Queen, except for this source, which says "the governor-general is the "constitutional head of state". StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Australian Constitution argument has been discredited. Unless, yourself & Skyring/Pete wish to begin 'head of state' discussions about those 12 mentioned (and any other) countries head of state status. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC

Anyway, it is easy to argue that the Australian situation is unique in this regard: "The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel..." StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Australia is not unique. Other Constitutions don't mention 'head of state'. Now, best you concentrate on the others, as we're only going to go in circles here. :) GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unique in the sense that no other Constitution phrases the relationship the way Australia's Constitution does, with "executive power... exercisable by the Governor-General". (In the Bahamian Constitution, it merely says the GG is "Her Majesty's representative in The Bahamas".) StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, other Constitutions don't have 'head of state' in writing. You'll have to convince others of your argument. We're just gonna go in circles here :) GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finding more and more holes in the "QE2 is the sole HoS" argument. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We shall have to wait & see how this Rfc concludes. At the moment 14 editors disagree with your & Skyring/Pete's position on content & sources. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing we weigh arguments rather than count votes. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Will shall have to wait & see, how things turn out. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryk72, that may be one of the most helpful contributions so far to the current discussion. Given that, of the countries listed, 14 are Commonwealth realms, of which head of state is not used in the constitution of 10, but is used in the other 4 (and Australia and UK unlisted), this could be mentioned in Head of state#Governors-general (Commonwealth realms), and sure enough there it is, and that would suffice, except for the forking link to the article here in question, promoting the notion of "dispute" among Australians, which, as remarked above, is factually non-existent, the various opinions and polemics which have occurred locally all being based on the fact that the Queen has been and continues to be officially and formally acknowledged as head of state there, as she is in other Commonwealth realms. As I understand it most commenters here see that as beyond reasonable doubt, and consider that the stand alone article should be no more than a redirect. Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Qex, but I can't quite see how you can claim that there is no dispute, when clearly there is a division of opinion amongst prominent Australians and various sectors of the community. If the media can not only call the Governor-General head of state with no hint of irony but state that there is a convention to do so, then the matter is not cut and dried. We're not talking suburban papers here, but national dailies and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Not just once or twice, but time and time again, continuing on year after year. This is WP:IDHT at its finest.

The fact that no Australian law identifies the head of state means that there is no definitive answer. It doesn't mean that countries where the term is not used in the constitution have no head of state. That is pure nonsense, and easily disproven. The UK and USA, for example. There is no question there. What it means for Australia is that the position of head of state is divided. The Queen appears on the coins, diplomatic credentials are addressed to the Governor-General, the Queen is first on the precedence list, the Governor-General holds the powers of the head of state in his own right. Some refer to the Queen as the de jure or ceremonial head of state, others refer to the Governor-General as the de facto or effective head of state. It is not cut and dried. --Pete (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeating in that comment and others, a synthetic, argumentative and personal viewpoint which, we can surmise, is now sufficiently understood by participants in this discussion, does not refute the indisputable fact that the Queen has been and continues to be officially and formally acknowledged as head of state in Australia, as she is in other Commonwealth realms, nor does asserting that others don't get the point. The position is clear, and it includes acknowledging that there have been some Australians whose polemics may have muddied the waters, maybe in good faith (presumably such as David Smith), resulting in some persons becoming muddled, but it is not enclycopedic to let an article be used to promote such muddle. Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the fact that the Queen is officially recognised as head of state in Australia. That's a given. The interesting part is that this is not consistent official practice, and that the Governor-General is often referred to as head of state. I might accept minor muddling (as you put it), but when the people who are apparently confused includes Prime Ministers, Governors-General, academics, the media and political groups, this is not minor. It's a thing, it's ongoing, it's commonplace at all levels. --Pete (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for That's a given. The rest is insufficient for a stand alone article, whose present content, if worth retaining, is mostly in other articles or would be better placed there, unforked. Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just knocking down your strawman, Qex. You've been a heavy contributor to the article since January 2013. What makes you think that years of coöperative editing of a well-sourced and balanced article is now worthless? --Pete (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you ask: the course of more recent discussions speaks for itself, and the above use of the irrelevant term "strawman", and, among other things, your introduction into the discussion of "rubbish". In my view, at this stage co-operative editng acknowledges that the article should be deleted as has been proposed. My edits in January 2013 (concerning UN list) took most of the information at face value, which more recently has been subject to diligent scrutiny by better informed editors. Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it has been a very collaborative process, in which Pete has played a considerable role. However, the result of that scrutiny and debate is the conclusion that, in the words of George Winterton, the "great preponderance of informed commentary" describes the Queen as head of state. As do the Wikipedians who have commented here. I think it is important to preserve this conclusion in the Monarchy of Australia article, so that the diligent quest for the truth is not in vain, and that future generations of Wikipedians do not waste their time going over the same barren ground.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, Jack. Does Winterton say. "Everyone thinks it"? He does not. If everyone thought the same thing, there would be no division, no dispute, no article. The article describes that very division of opinion that Winterton accepts, but you do not. For the past twenty years there has been a public debate. Maybe your mind is made up, but every Australia Day, every Queen's Birthday, every Anzac Day, we get the same media coverage about questions of national identity, and this is one of them. --Pete (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the difference of opinion should be noted, but it shouldn't have its own article. Merge!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? This is an encyclopaedia, after all. We don't describe what should and should not be. We describe things as they are. It's not as if we're short of space for articles, anyway. If we have an article on Llullaillaco National Park, we've got space to cover a dispute on a matter of national identity, surely? --Pete (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Refining the question

In order to achieve consensus, it may be a good idea to work out what we hope to achieve with this RfC. That is, if (following the majority) the result is "Queen Elizabeth", what will that mean for articles? User:GoodDay says "I'd allow for showing the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state, with a footnote - pointing to the dispute" while User:SMcCandlish says "It's actually misleading to the reader to suggest that QEII is the HoS in anything but an honorary sense, but it would be technically incorrect to deny her the title." So, here are four questions to think about:

1. Should we say that Elizabeth is HoS "in WP voice", in a list or infobox?
2. If we list Elizabeth as HoS "in WP voice", do we clarify it with a footnote or explanatory sentence?
3. If we have a clarifying statement, do we use words like "opinion", "debate", "dispute" or "unclear"?
4. If we have a clarifying statement, do we link to the Australian head of state dispute article? (**Y / N & or Merge)

For the record, my vote is Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes: all four being currently the case at List of current heads of state and government. StAnselm (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

**Note for Q4: that respondents could answer Yes, No &/or Merge (to combine any useful details in AHOSD with existing articles) Travelmite (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• All four, but only as appropriate. We shouldn't use terms about opinions and debates unless RS indicate we should. And the level of inclarity and of difference of opinion about the matter is not consistent from Commonwealth nation to Commonwealth nation. So, obviously #4 would be crucial in this particular case, but we need not go make such a corresponding article for the British Virgin Islands if there's no big national debate about the issue there. Such an article might be warranted for Canada, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (or not, given the exact nature of the debates in those places). Case-by-case basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Y, Y, N, N/Merge explained as follows: 1 Yes; because govt and law decides that. 2. Yes (in the honorary sense) and always with an equal explanatory sentence saying the GG exercises that power. Calling GG "Constitutional/De facto Head of State" is still neutral. I have no problem with even saying there is an alternative view "GG is HoS" in a government-level article, providing only the willing supporters are referenced - Smith, Flint and ACM if that's desired, but excluding Sir Zelman Cowen, Kevin Rudd, Helen Irving, the Monarchist League or someone's history teacher; 3. NO: the "debate" element is a subset of Republicanism in Australia, so it can be inserted there. In response to republicans wanting an "Australian Head of State", and monarchists say an independent GG already satisfies that requirement plus a basic why/why not. To go into the details about David Smith's argument, Smith's biopage will support that in a positive and unrestricted manner.4. N/Merge Links should happen automatically to the relevant articles. No need for a separate debate article, which would be misleading (as per Qexigator below). This question does not consider the main complaint, because it assumes it should exist. Travelmite (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2016
• 1....Elizabeth is HoS "in WP voice", in a list or infobox? Y, unequivocally. There is no encyclopedic information to the contrary. The Queen has been and continues to be officially and formally acknowledged as head of state in Australia, as she is in other Commonwealth realms: see comment above 09:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2....clarify it with a footnote or explanatory sentence? N - in any particular case, if any, that should be in the article: what few words could cover the facts sufficiently in a common template footnote?

3....use words like "opinion", "debate", "dispute" or "unclear"? See answer to 1. and 2. above.

4....link to the Australian head of state dispute article? N, the discussions have shown the article is misleading and irremediable, in its title and content. Merge? See Talk:Australian republic referendum, 1999#Is this information to be added?

Qexigator (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Y,N,N,N
  

1) Not just lists & infoboxes, but in article content aswell. I've seen enough in this Rfc (posts/reliable sources), to convince me that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. IMHO, any future persistent attempts to hide this reality or distort it & thus confuse our readers? should be viewed as disruptive behaviour.

2) Was originally ok with a footnote, but no longer. Australia isn't a special case & so shouldn't be treated as such.

3) This so called HoS dispute, has been unintentionally blown out of proportions over the years. This Rfc has convinced me that the Australian head of state dispute, is nothing more then a molehill. Also, the 'no head of state written in the Constitution' excuse, has been debunked.

4) The Australian HoS dispute article has been proven to be unreliable. Also, a Wikipedia article should not be used as a 'link' to push a PoV across other articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• 1. N - We currently show the Queen as Monarch or Queen as at Australia and List of current heads of state and government. This is accurate and neutral, and has worked to minimise disruption for many years. She is undoubtedly head of state in the UK, where she has a real role in executive government. In Australia, not so much. She is an Englishwoman, a remote figurehead, definitely not "one of us".
  

2. Y - The Australian Constitution gives the Governor-General most head of state powers in his own right, rather than as an agent or deputy. Even when not formally acknowledged, he performs the role. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis resulting in the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam demonstrated that ultimate executive power lies with the Governor-General, not the Queen.

3. Y - The Queen is not regarded as head of state by many, including Prime Ministers and Governors-General. Mainstream media regularly identifies the Governor-General as head of state. It is a confusing situation, and we need to do our best to make things clear for the reader. NPOV requires that we do not take sides in an argument, hence the long-standing consensus to use neutral and accurate language as per question 1 above.

4. Y - The dispute has existed for many decades, the long-standing article lays out the positions and is well-sourced with statements from prominent Australians. We supply information for our readers, not fob them off with simplistic or misleading answers. --Pete (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm misunderstanding newspaper report, and Pete's latest edits

StAnselm has misunderstood a newspaper report and used this to critique my capacity to assess reliable sources. He misunderstood an editorial by Tom Dusevic imagining a "The title fight pitting the two female leaders" as being a strict record of a transcript. David Smith himself reports that it was a press release: . There is a exchange in Parliament House, where Senator Donaldson is reading from the press release . While Kevin Rudd must take responsibility for every word in press release (Dusevic quoted properly), in practice he has a team to do it. The error was probably unnoticed until the GG trip's became an issue before Senate Estimates. The PM's office made a clarification, clearly indicating it was a error. I notice that Dusevic editorial was today chosen as the source worth quoting , even though the majority of sources and this long content discussion show there is no such convention. Maybe Dusevic got his information from Wikipedia? Pete also changed the article to say only international media refer to the Queen as Head of State , knowing that this could not not true and easily disproved . This is the sort of poor writing, original research and biased sourcing that makes this article an essay, defying Wikipedia policies. Now, we will see if StAnselm will accept the new information or not. Travelmite (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Travelmite for that painstaking rebuttal of an instance of an apparent tendency shown by two participants here to misrepresent or misunderstand (agf) certain sources, and in consequence mislead or muddle others. Qexigator (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

While Pete has a ten year history (and genuinely thinks he is being neutral), I am not jumping to that conclusion about StAnselm. Maybe he feels that Pete is being steamrolled? I think it's a good thing, because there can't be any question that Pete is being treated fairly. It's like he's been given a court-appointed defence lawyer! Travelmite (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

pro bono or cui bono? Anyhow, self-appointed, not Crown appointed: Australia is conspicuously absent from Wasting police time. Cheers all! Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I get my own special section! But what's the "new information", exactly? I never suggested it wasn't a press release; I noted that The Australian quoted the words directly. It doesn't matter that it was an editorial column. But once again I ask, Where did you get the idea that it was "clarified later as an embarrassing mistake"? Not in the Senate transcript, surely, where we have this delightful exchange:

Senator RONALDSON —Amidst all this confusion, can you clarify from the perspective of the Office of the Secretary of the Governor-General, who is the head of state of Australia? Is it Ms Bryce or Queen Elizabeth?

Mr Brady —Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Australia.

StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the whole. Senator Ronaldson concludes: "It seems remarkable that the Prime Minister’s office could have got it so wrong, doesn’t it?" so the committee transcript presents that idea, and it was presented to embarrass the PM's office. Travelmite (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you meant it was clarified by the PM's office. Well, as far as I can see, it wasn't "clarified" at all (Mr Brady dodges the question). There may have been an attempt to embarrass the PM's office, but as I far as I can see there is no evidence that they were embarrassed. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr Brady is the secretary for the GG. The PM's spokesperson made a clear, intentional statement to the journalist (from The Australian) to make their view directly understood. The distinction you make between attempted embarrassment and felt embarrassment is irrelevant. Please note that this section has two parts: (1) a detailed information about a mistake by the PM's office, that was clarified, but where a position contrary to that clarification is presented in Wikipedia as representing the views of Kevin Rudd (2) a comment about an edit deleting that domestic media refer the Queen as Australia's Head of State, even though they do. I strongly recommend you consider Wikipedia policy in your next answer. Travelmite (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, which "clear, intentional statement" are you talking about? Do you mean the one a year later, in February 2010? In any case, those sort of edits to the Australian head of state dispute are not particularly relevant to this RfC; they should be discussed on the article talk page. I for one am reluctant to put time and effort into editing the article until the RfCs are concluded, for it is possible that all my work will vanish in a redirect. But the position I have always maintained is that the article can and should be improved; after this discussion is concluded, if the article still exists, I will be more than happy to work on it. Anyway, back to Rudd, it is very important (per WP:BLP, among other things) that we don't represent Rudd as believing the GG is HoS, nor should we imply that he is confused on the subject. It is, however, appropriate to mention the two statements (from 2009 and 2010) as reflecting the diversity of statements that have been made on the subject. As I indicated above, the most significant thing in the newspaper article is the suggestion that "the local convention has been to recognise that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state". And that is probably the real resolution to the different Rudd statements: not that he was wrong the first time (I don't think anyone has admitted that), but that he (or at least his speechwriter) was using "head of state" in a more informal sense, following the "local convention". StAnselm (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, the idea that there is no "local convention", but that the writer got the idea from Wikipedia is slightly more than ludicrous. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

They either got the idea from Wikipedia, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy or David Smith. If we look at the purpose of the journalist, they are trying add a bit of sensationalism to the idea the Queen spoke at the UN in the name of Australia and her other realms, allegedly without consultation. Travelmite (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of quibbling amply demonstrates that the article Australian head of state dispute is making a mountain out of a molehill. It isn't worthy of its own article. Merge to Monarchy of Australia and Australian republic referendum, 1999!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary. If The Australian says "the local convention has been to recognise that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state" then that's not some drunk drivelling in a bar, that's not some retired public servant peddling his pet theory, that's Australia's national daily newspaper making a statement. We have a long list of prominent Australians stepping up to say the same thing. Maybe it's not a mountain, but it's not something to sweep under the carpet, neither. --Pete (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers don't talk. The opinion being provided is that of Tom Dusevic; while I am certain that Dusevic is a respected commentator, I am as yet unconvinced that we should represent his opinion as fact. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Two points here. First, a journalist felt comfortable enough to make the statement. Second, the editor felt comfortable enough to publish it. We're not talking about finding some absolute source of authority, just showing that there actually is a counter-view within the Australian community. That's why I responded "Unclear". It's a matter of opinion rather than law. --Pete (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that article has to be merged into other articles, as it's making a mountain out of a proven molehill. PS - It's understandable that the creator of that article, would be trying to stop that process. A parent generally fights to hold onto its child. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just shown above, that the dispute is notable and non-trivial. As for "ownership", I've created dozens of articles and I don't care what happens to them so long as process is followed. Incidentally, GoodDay, why did you base your RfC here, rather than WP:WikiProject Australia, where the article is rated as "Mid-importance", or on WP:WikiProject Australian Politics or WP:WikiProject Australian law? These wikiprojects are listed at the top of the article's talk page, and one might assume that an RfC bearing on an article supported by all three might at least be mentioned there, rather than here where few regulars would have much knowledge of Australian affairs. --Pete (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting for you to bring up the term "ownership", in relation to the aforementioned article. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your indirect suggestion, that the rest of us (particularly, possible non-Australians) are virtual idiots about this entire topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Australian-ness of editors is possibly significant in this discussion - in interests of disclosure I should say that I, too, am Australian. So is it just a co-incidence that we have the Australians on one side of the dispute, and the non-Australians on the other? StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The question of nationality of editors is as much a genetic fallacy as it is an ad hominem; and, given the anonymous or pseudonymous nature of contribution to Wikipedia, it is impossible for us to "bloody say who's a bloody Australian, mate". The assertion that all Australians involved are of one mind is almost certain to be as inaccurate as it is irrelevant. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of being informed. One does not gain information about a society from one's DNA. Let's just say it's that local knowledge, that allows residents to spot tourists. When one reads the Australian papers, watches Australian TV, learns Australian history in school, and all the rest of it, one has a leg up on those who don't. And, of course, the boot is on the other foot when visiting a foreign land. So, I'm wondering why GoodDay chose to raise his RfC here, rather than on a more relevant page. Perhaps he was trying to minimise the number of informed responses? --Pete (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The question of venue is one best raised on that editor's User Talk page, rather than here, where is might be misconstrued as pissing in the bore. The notion that one needs to be resident in a nation, and have captured the zeitgeist, in some sort of "it's Mabo; it's the vibe" fashion, to be able to review & interpret sources, and opine is quaint, at best - it is certainly not a response to the cogent arguments which have been made. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I raised it here, because I felt this venue was a neutral place to do so. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would never say that anyone was an idiot, GoodDay. Ease your mind on this point. There is no suggestion, indirect, virtual or otherwise. But uninformed, certainly. There is a world of difference between stupid and ignorant. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem, whether by reference to idiocy or ignorance, is not a counter-argument. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignorance of a subject is a powerful reason not to write an encyclopaedic article about it, wouldn't you say? --Pete (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say a number of things, including:- i) we are not here to write an encyclopedic article, but to edit, based on information found in reliable sources; ii) those sources are available to all editors; iii) an assertion of ignorance is not a demonstration of ignorance; iv) no such demonstration has been made - simply repeated assertions - seemingly based on editors holding a different opinion; v ) assertions of ignorance are an ad hominem; vi) repeated assertions of ignorance are disruptive, and should stop. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Other WikiProject & a Noticeboard contacted

Skyring/Pete has contacted WP:Australian politics & WP:Australian Wikipedian's notice board. This in itself is alright. However, his requests at those 2 places, aren't worded neutrally. Others here, may want to review this. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear which editors are Australian or not. Being Australian, I'm concerned that kids may be reading these articles and getting confused, perhaps even getting wrong answers in their high school tests. Travelmite (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In case there was any doubt, there is a lawyer from Perth who's comments are worth reading at WP:Australian Wikipedian's notice board. I've encouraged their input. Travelmite (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

As the editor who opened this Rfc. I've put in a request here for an administrator to review & close. It's just about 30 days & there doesn't seem to be any 'new' editor input. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you remove it again? Anyway, I think both RfCs and the move request need to closed together. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I remove 'what' again? GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The request for closure. This edit confused me, because it looked like you had posted a request and then removed it again. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I placed the request in the wrong sub-section & so I had to correct it. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

References