Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Request for comment: How to deal with this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was created in 2011 as an expansion of a section in the Government of Australia article. It has been much discussed and modified in that time, but has remained essentially stable for several years. Summarising the lede:

• the term head of state does not appear in the Australian constitution (or any other law)
• there is a disagreement among Australians centred on the question of whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state
• the disagreement has involved viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media
• the question was most prominently debated in the context of an Australian republic at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998
• it has recurrently been discussed in publications before and since.

Two new editors have raised questions about the validity of the article, and several options have emerged. How should we proceed?

1. The article is rubbish. The Queen is the Australian head of state and any statements to the contrary are errors or misunderstandings. The article should be removed entirely.
2. The article is mostly rubbish. A few prominent Australians and sections of the media claim the Governor-General is the head of state, but this is a fringe theory. The article should be merged into other articles.
3. The article is well sourced and describes the situation accurately. It is notable because few (if any) other nations dispute the identity of their head of state. It should be retained and improved.

--Pete (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Preferred option: 1, 2, or 3

• 4 - As this RfC largely duplicates this RfC started almost six hours earlier, it seems unhelpful at this juncture. As the editor who started this RfC was aware of the existing discussion at WP:VPM, this seems like a bit of an end run maneuver to me. In any case, we certainly don't need both RfCs simultaneously. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't actually aware of GoodDay's effort. I took some time to draft this one, following on from Qexigator's work above, and summarising the options presented in recent discussion. When I got it just right, I hit the "save page" button. Only then did I read about GoodDay's RfC. However, similar though they might seem, this one isn't about canvassing the opinions of editors about who they think is the head of state. Do we vote on it? What's the actual purpose in building an encyclopaedia? This is about how we deal with an article which cites the opinions of those who are not editors. I think there is ample evidence of a debate in Australian society about the identity of the head of state, and if we substitute the views of prominent Australians with our own, then that is original research. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop painting the other Rfc as though it were somehow illegitimate. If the community reaches a decision after presenting & going over the sources, we shall all respect that decision. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course. You acted with good intent and a pure heart. I will always respect that. The timing was unfortunate, perhaps, but we both sought the opinions of a wider circle of editors than the few here. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2: Of those 3, proceed with The article is mostly rubbish. A few prominent Australians and sections of the media claim the Governor-General is the head of state , but this is a fringe theory. The article should be merged into other articles. Mandrusa's comment above and Pete's reply noted. Qexigator (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Later comment: As said below, if the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March[2], then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there. Qexigator (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Later comment: I concur with Kerry below (21:36, 14 March ).[3] Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The content of the current version is unmergeable.[4]

• Option 3, in respect of the present version as of 15:46, 15 March [5], and with a view to further improvements mentioned below: "Trim lead"[6], and change article title to "Australia's head of state"[7] Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4. If GoodDay's RfC endorses the Queen as head of state, then Option 2. If RfC endorses the view of Pete and others that the issue is undecided, then Option 3.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Deletion not sure that I agree with the wording in "Option 1" where is says that the article is rubbish etc is perhaps a bit of a pov problem considering the effort that has gone in to it, but essential this issue can be covered with a sentence in the Government of Australia article and doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As in current version?[8] Qexigator (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. A lot of work has gone into the article. I myself spent hours in researching legal sources. And I'm only a Johnny Come Lately. The article is not rubbish. But it is, I think, rather like an essay, not a encyclopedic article. The implicit conclusion of this "essay" is that the issue is undecided (which is Pete's position). Most of us would endorse the statements of George Winterton, George Williams etc that the Queen is the head of state. But Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays. If someone thinks this article is valuable, they can make a personal copy of it. The argument for deletion or merging is not that the article is rubbish, but the article does not belong here. This is not a site for personal essays, nor are the Talk pages debating forums. I say that without directing criticism at any particular editor, and with full recognition that it could be used to criticise me. That is why this article cannot be reformed: it must be destroyed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Pete's position is the governor-general somehow has a role and accordant powers uniquely his own and apart from being the monarch's representative. This article at least was an essay (if it isn't still) trying to give credence to that opinion.

That's not to say the article doesn't now, after it's been worked over by a fair few editors, have some valuable information in it. However, it's probably possible to distill it down and add it to Monarchy of Australia, rather like what's been done at Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be the Governor-General's opinion, rather than mine:

In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers.[9]

What constitutional powers are being referred to here? --Pete (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggested (see next) that two views are possible. The G-G's website (whoever wrote it and G-G Cosgrove, at any rate, is no lawyer) prefers the first; for the reason given, I prefer the second. I could expand, which would require discussion of a list, but let's not get sidetracked on this. Wikiain (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary, and may actually be mistaken, to suppose that the G-G is the monarch's "representative" and also possesses powers separately from that. It seems at least more economical, and I think correct, to say that the G-G (and likewise a Governor) is the monarch's "representative" in all respects, sometimes so specified and sometimes not, and that "representative" here does not mean "agent". More exactly: the monarch cannot instruct the G-G how to exercise any power. This was established imperially in the 1920s, when the issue was put in the form of whether (the monarch as advised by) the British government could instruct a dominion governor - beginning at least with the Imperial Conference of 1926, the answer was no. Source: Herbert Vere Evatt, The King and His Dominion Governors (1936, 2nd edn 1967), esp p 192. So perhaps we can just focus on whether the G-G as monarchical "representative" (in that sense) is or is not the head of state. Wikiain (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the Governor-General was the monarch's representative in 1901 was a polite way of saying that the Governor-General was the representative of the British Government, the Queen being the head of the Privy Council. This representation ceased with the Statute of Westminster, when a British High Commissioner was appointed to Canberra. In his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic, Malcolm Turnbull explained that, at Federation, the "Governor-General acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government". When the job of representing the British Government ceased, did the role of the Queen somehow expand to fill this space, or did it then pass to being the representative of the Australian Government, as Turnbull then states? --Pete (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Representing the Queen and representing the British government was a "chameleon" situation, to use Twomey's excellent metaphor. Certainly the role of representing the British government has vanished (along with the effective emptying of ss 59 and 60). The word "representative" in the Constitution (ss 2, 61 and 68) still refers explicitly and solely to the Queen (and cp assent "in the Queen's name", s 58). The Queen's role has not expanded. But I don't see it as necessary or useful to try to see the G-G as "representative" of the Australian government - for one thing, the G-G would then be a "representative" in two, possibly conflicting capacities. There is also, some say (such as Ninian Stephen), a symbolic role in which the G-G might be said to "represent" the nation to itself, as a national conscience (e.g. G-G Deane on Indigenous peoples, against the Howard government).

What we have, I think - and I'll say this with more general reference - is mostly a muddle, resulting from Australia's failure to replace a constitution that was designed for a colony. Wikiain (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Or a set of colonies. Replacing or updating the Constitution is a difficult task. Most Prime Ministers who have tried it have been shot down in the act. What we mostly have now is a constitution that is interpreted by the High Court to suit changing circumstances. We no longer have an Inter-State Commission, for example, despite the Constitution explicitly saying there will be one. Coping with the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act hasn't bent the document, even though the relationship with the UK has changed radically.

Sir Ninian Stephen said, "I believe, the more important role of the President, as of the Governor-General, is that of representing the nation to itself."[10] He is not the first or last Governor-General to say this is the most important role. That's what a head of state does, and that's something that the Queen cannot possibly do - represent Australia and Australians. Despite what the Constitution says, things have changed since 1901. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. --Pete (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it could do with being referenced but I dont think it needs any more, certainly not a separate article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 5. The article should be retained under the current title. The subject matter of the article is notable, and seeking to merge it into other articles would not allow us to do justice to it. (It may or may not be well sourced, it may or may not be NPOV, and like all articles it could & should be improved.) A somewhat sucky set of options offered in the RfC. Not helpful. I note that IMO the dispute has minimal bearing on the question raised in the other RfC where it would appear reasonable to accept the oz government as the de jure RS in our specification of the HoS ... and note that this RfC is distinct from the other RfC and asks a different question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If can review the situation. All articles on wikipedia mentioning Australia's Head of State do little more than link to this article, suggesting a continuous ongoing debate, by the government, academics and everywhere else. According to Wikipedia Australia's Head of State is unknown. It's been setup in this fashion by one editor - Pete, and this has been going on for +10 years. Following the sourcing policies, every other editor seems very clear what the real arrangement is. The options of the RfC on this page have been setup by Pete, for reasons unknown. It's acknowledged sofar that David Smith wrote a book arguing that the GG is Head of State, and the idea was used by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy during republican debates. That average people can get confused, I argued that Wikipedia should assist them, rather than for example explaining a 1997 govt phonebook. Regarding notability, one book is a book, and we already have articles about republican debates. Outside that context we draw blank, although Pete disagrees. Unless you can help Pete prove notability beyond that context, WP:CFORK says to treat a subject within the one article. The primary concern remains to let Wikipedia state who Australia's Head of State is, and to follow the guidelines. We are trying to achieve a consensus on that first, so that the proposals for this article have an agreed foundation. Travelmite (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, Wikipedia articles mentioning Australia's Head of State, where at most a brief statement in main text or as footnote would or does suffice:

• Government of Australia.
• Governor-General of Australia.
• List of people who have opened the Olympic Games
• Monarchy of Australia. Could the existing short paragraph be trimmed? It is: Australian law does not define who is Australia's head of state. It is generally assumed to be the Queen, since the governor-general and the state governors are defined as her "representatives".[21] However, since the governor-general performs almost all national regal functions, the governor-general is occasionally referred to as or claimed to be at least the de facto head of state.
• Australian Constitutional Convention 1998.

Qexigator (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2. I agree with Option 2, with Qexigator's deletions. Actually, there never was much of a debate, apart from brief sparring between Smith and Mason, and it is now spent. Of the leading textbooks on Australian constitutional law, Blackshield & Williams (2014, pp 1343-4) mention it only in passing and Winterton (2014, so far as I can see) not at all. While it might be objected that this is to be expected from republicans, both books assiduously cover real debates. The passage that Quex quotes just now from Monarchy of Australia seems ok up to the end, where it might read instead "occasionally referred to as the head of state in political and media discussion". Maybe something from the present article might be added as a reference there - I'd include Smith's argument in the category "political", if it is thought to be still worth mentioning. Wikiain (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Revised wording done at Monarchy of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2. On reflection, and further review of the discussions here & at WT:WikiProject Politics, it would be better for the contents of this article to be distilled (reduced & relocated) to other articles; suggest an article concerning the Australian Republic debate c. 1999 might be best for the majority. Additionally, we should definitely not maintain the facade that there is an an actual debate or dispute through use of misleading footnotes throughout the encyclopedia.Option 6. Retain article (possibly retitle); clearly document the fringe theory that the Sovereign is not the Head of State (assuming demonstrable notability). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC); amended - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment:: We don't need any more "options". I think the options are fairly simple in practice. I say this as someone who went through the 4th wall. Sure, air your opinions, but don't overcomplicate stuff. I think we're all on the same (Talk) page.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack Upland, I think the issue is in part that the RfC combines at least three questions - the quality of the article; the level of acceptance of the "dispute"; and what action should be taken - which are only loosely tied. I do concur that we are more or less on the same page, at lest w.r.t. the middle question. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Retain - Discussion here and elsewhere shows consensus that the Australian head of state is that person or office recognised as such by the Australian national government, as opposed to any other body such as the United Nations or the media. This is distinct from the fact that there has been an ongoing debate (or dispute or public discussion) on the matter since shortly after Federation, becoming most visible at the time of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and the 1999 republic referendum. It is ongoing, resurfacing every Australia Day, when questions of national identity such as the date, the flag, the monarchy etc. become topics of wide discussion. This article uses reliable sources to document the dispute, using NPOV. The article has been stable for years with many editors contributing via detailed discussion. If Prime Ministers, Governors-General, academics, political groups, and the media state that the Governor-General is the head of state, the dispute is not WP:FRINGE. So long as the article makes it clear what the official government view is, there is no problem with describing and sourcing the long history of alternate views. It is a valid resource for those seeking information on the topic.-- Pete (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question Is there a source for the Australian head of state is that person or office recognised as such by the Australian national government? Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm looking at editor consensus on GoodDay's RfC here. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true. The government (via Attorney General's Dept) prints an official "Constitution" document with an explanatory statement. This explanation by the Solicitor-General says Australia is a constitutional monarchy and the monarch is Head of State . This article uses sources out of context, that are not expert opinion and at no point use sources describe a debate. It is an essay trying to convince the reader that nobody knows who the HoS is. It says the PM is erratic using false information. It says the community is divided without any justification. It falsely finds contradictions with imminent people who are still living. It plagerises the work of David Smith. Some of the arguments, such as about the Queen's website are not just original research, they make no sense - apparently, even the Queen is a player in this debate! I get the sense there is a system to ensure this strange point of view is widely read, such that even an article on opening the Olympic Games says there is a HoS debate in Australia, and leads a reader to this essay. Believe it or not, I think that just about breaks every pillar of Wikipedia's main policies. Travelmite (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Any attempts to go against the results of the other Rfc (which is well sourced), which we're yet to hear from. Would likely be viewed by the community as disruptive behaviour. I hope we all keep this in mind. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Pete's counter-RfC is written to say "new editors think this article is rubbish" and plays into a stereotype against new editors, that they don't know policies or sourcing. Travelmite (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3. No one has demonstrated why the article is rubbish, or how WP:FRINGE applies here. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I've seen enough at the WP:POLITICS Rfc. This article needs to be broken up. Having looked through the sources & the posts? this Head of state Dispute has been blown out of proportions. This article is a mountain made out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Retain under the current title The RfC at WP:POLITICS is a good example of ongoing debate and this article seems well sourced and generally well written, so I see no grounds for deleting it. I'm at a loss trying to understand how anyone could think PROD was appropriate, as PROD is only applicable to uncontroversial deletions. Renaming the article to "Australian head of state" would be problematic at best, as that would seem to indicate the article is about the actual head of state and not the conflict as to who the head of state really is. That being the case, the article is best left here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The question Anyone for PROD? was answered in the negative, clearing the way for discussion to continue without it. Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Closing time

It is time to close and move on. Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus as per WP:CLOSE. One contributor has made his choice conditional on another RfC, for example. An early close would negate his contribution. As the instigator of the RfC, I think we should allow more time and more outside contributors. Some discussion here seems overly personal, and it would be good to minimise that effect, by having more impartial eyes on the topic. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been noted that, when, on this page, the commenter who had been the originator, and now is proponent for retaining, the AHOSD article, set up this Rfc s/he himself chose to attribute (twice) the adjective "rubbish" to that article,[11], which, so far as I can see, had not been used by other participants before nor since. We may now note that on another page s/he has , in a roundabout way, accepted the proposition that the various opinions and polemics which have occurred locally were 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. (The unavoidable inference from the same commenter's responses [12]), evidently considered to be the most cogent points for retaining the AHOSD article.) Let us proceed to the question about the proposed "Redirect" below, and complete the merging of anything in AHOSD considered worth saving. 07:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't think the article is rubbish, I don't agree with that other RfC, and I resent your attempt to cram words into my mouth. I'm not seeing consensus for any change to this long-standing well-sourced article. Apart from improvement, which is always welcome. --Pete (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As you're creator of this article, it's understandable that you're anxious to retain it. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That's beside the point here. Qex is wrong wrong wrong in portraying me as holding opinions I do not. I am disappointed in his behaviour. --Pete (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your 10+ years of persistently going against presenting the Monarch as Australia's head of state, that creates that impression. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Qex has misrepresented my view. I'm correcting him. Don't you set the record straight when misrepresented? In your preferred sport of cricket, for example, if the umpire makes an error, you call out to set him straight. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. --Pete (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That'll have to be between you & Qexigator. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement Qex. It's time for this article to be merged & re-directed, as proposed. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Just your opinion, GoodDay. Looking at the responses to the RfC (as opposed to the copious discussion from a couple of editors holding minority views) it is clear that there is no consensus for your preference. --Pete (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand your persistence on this topic, as well as your refusal to accept that you're wrong. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My view is that there is a division of opinion, and this is well documented in the article. WP:NPOV requires that we do not choose sides, though some have made their feelings plain on the matter for many years, and prefer that only their opinion be heard. On this note, even though I disagree with Mies on many things, he has worked with me to get this article compliant with wikipolicy, and I respect that. --Pete (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're suggesting that only you are adhering to NPoV. This strikes me as quite arrogant on your part. Also, I understand why you're anxious to keep this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had just made it plain that Mies was also following NPOV, as are many others here. I am not under any illusion that I am the sole follower of policy. That's ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I realize your determination concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you see it as I do. I've met many of the people involved in Australian republican and constitutional debate. It is something I've followed with keen interest for over twenty years. With all respect, GoodDay, your contributions on this topic have been remarkably shallow. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I don't think you've ever come up with a source, for example. I doubt you see this topic with the same clarity as Mies or myself or a few other contributors. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We're just going in circles here. My wish is that 'someday', you'll realize what the problem truly is. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning sources, it's been brought to my attention (both here & at WP:POLITICS) that you've mis-presented sources in your edits. May we have an explanation for this? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

News to me. Specifics? --Pete (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you & Travelmite, have something to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you can't just make such bizarre accusations and leave them hanging. I haven't misrepresented any source, and if you think I have, please explain yourself. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my wording above. Let me re-state, it's been brought to my attention that you may have mis-presented sources here & at WP:POLITICS, in your edits. That's how I'm understanding Travelmite's posts, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, your surmise turns out to be incorrect. I haven't misrepresented any sources. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This article misrepresented prime ministers, governors-general and legal academics, both in the sourcing, the body and the summary. In this talk page, there are misquotes which after being checked are not from who Pete says they are from. Travelmite (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Skyring/Pete thinks the article is rubbish, we can all see that my words were correct "when the originator, and now proponent for retaining, the AHOSD article, set up this Rfc s/he himself chose to attribute (twice) the adjective "rubbish" to that article which, so far as I can see, had not been used by other participants before nor since." S/he seems to have misread what was written, and got upset about it. I note that it is not said that I was mistaken about others not having used it. We can also see that there is a strong consensus against retaining the article, now that it has been given a more thorough scrutiny than before. Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A "strong" consensus now? I know we don't count votes, but you do realise that there were four editors arguing in favour of retention, and four against? In any case, we will need an uninvolved admin to close this. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirm, strong npov and informed consensus against retaining the article. Qexigator (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are working this out, Qex, but I'm not seeing consensus yet. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Qex, again you are wrong. I worded options that seemed to characterise the various points of view expressed by others. There is no consensus, let alone a strong one, for anything except improving the article, which multiple editors have proposed and no voices raised against. I suggest we work on improving this article, as well as others. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm contribution has been like a defence lawyer or devils advocate, but has not engaged with the material, the complaints and the policy breaches. That seems to be the pattern. At some point, he will begin to understand that he was duped, into defending the indefensible and the pointless. It's so pointless. The only reason this is not cleaned up for years, is because its so pointless. Once StAnselm engages with the issues, we shall see what happens. He will either say it's wrong to misquote people, or he will say something else. Travelmite (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay's RfC has overwhelmingly endorsed the position that the Queen is the head of state. I think there is consensus here for merging this article to Monarchy of Australia. I think it would also be worthwhile mentioning this "distraction" in the referendum article...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How are you seeing consensus? A minority of opinion sides with you. Please be more specific. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, Jack Upland. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are only 3 "votes" for retention. How can that be a majority???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Present position

There are currently at least 4 for retain not merge: Kerry, Qexigator, Pete, StAnselm. Qexigator (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish an administrator would come along & close this Rfc. IMHO, the timing of its opening & the wording of the 3 options were unfortunate. But, I reckon it's a bit too late for that, now. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

David Smith and Zelman Cowen: To my mind the most notable information to emerge from Pete's contributions is the connection between Zelman Cowen and Isaac Isaacs, "Australian judge and politician who served as the 3rd Chief Justice of Australia and the 9th, and first Australian-born, Governor-General." To construct a stand-alone article around that would involve too much SYN and OR, but it would have to make the negative point that this Isaacs was no relation of the Viceroy of India (1921–25),Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading. While David Smith mentioned Isaacs in the News Weekly article, January 8, 2005, on "Australia's Constitution: The Governor-General is our head of state", that is too tenuous a piece of information upon which to erect the article here in question. Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what was the information? I don't see it in the article. Why does Rufus Isaacs need a mention if he is unconnected?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In such an imagined biographical article about Isaacs and Zelman, Rufus would be mentioned because he is not connected, though his career had something in common, in the politics of England and as Viceroy of India: they were not brothers or cousins. Think of it as tangential obiter dictum and double negative. " 'It happened curiously that I [Zelman] was the biographer of Australia's first Jewish, and first locally-born governor-general Sir Isaac Isaacs. I met him very briefly, very passingly in his old age, when he was presenting some prizes.' He described the meeting in his memoirs: 'I talked briefly with him, if 'talk' be the appropriate word to describe what took place in an encounter between an awe-struck boy and an eminence who the boy viewed as a colossus.' Despite his own later 'eminence', it is clear that Sir Zelman, to this day, remains somewhat 'awe-struck' by Sir Isaacs. Sir Zelman’s biography of Sir Isaacs was published in 1967. He referred to Sir Isaacs a number of times during the interview, seemingly trying to confirm your correspondent knew who he was and understood his importance in Australia’s history. It is a sign of a great man, that despite his own personal achievements and accolades - and there have been many- he still has time to admire the greats who have come before him.", cited 23:15, 15 February 2016[13] I am thankful to have been supplied with this charming information in the course of an otherwise overlong and increasingly tedious discussion. Small mercies, Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

[I would place that in the Cowen article and not mention Rufus.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)]

[But my imagined article would be an essay! Qexigator (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC) ]

The Big question is - Is this article's existence, virtually making a mountain out of a possible molehill? Something for us all to think about. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

When David Smith started with this notion, some in ACM Australians for Constitutional Monarchy thought this was a good tactic to use against republican call for patriotism. They sponsored Smith to write a book. As far as I remember, Republican slogans were unchanged, and monarchists outside ACM felt it was inappropriate tactic. Based on the fact Pete/Skyring was arguing in 2005 Australia was a "Crowned Republic" (a book of David Flint) my guess is he went to ACM meetings and picked these ideas there, but didn't distinguish the political dimensions. Just like the loyal Japanese soldier on the deserted island, he kept fighting. But we don't want Wikipedia to be seen as anti-ACM either. Was it mentioned in the parliamentary "NO" case for the republic? Not sure, but if so, that could increase it's notability. I suggest we should follow WP:FRINGE, but unlike pseudoscience, we must never feel Smith challenge to prevailing assumptions was dishonorable. Not wanting to sway the referendum, the government (quietly, without debate) later made clear who was Head of State via websites, the PEO and the Solicitor-General's introduction to the official print to the Constitution. The only thing we know with certainty, without our own research, is that David Smith did the book. Travelmite (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a version of that information, or some of it, would improve the David Smith (public servant) bio, if properly sourced, of course. Qexigator (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2016 (UT

I think it should definitely be mentioned in the 1999 referendum article. I don't know why we are arguing on that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No objections, here :) GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

JU: You could go ahead with that anyway.Talk:Australian republic referendum, 1999#Is this information to be added? --Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of the 3 opening options

For some reason, the 3 presented options appear to be written up, as though #3 is good & #1 & #2 are bad. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Pistol Pete favours Option 3.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that improve the article wasn't an option. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a given - unless an article is GA or FA, it needs work. More than happy to see articles improved! --Pete (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The questions seemed quite biased written in favour of retention, to me. But anyways, the Rfc goes on. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The options are essentially (1) delete, (2) merge, (3) keep and improve. It's not that complicated.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Does not merge the article into another entail delete + redirect? As I see it there is a clear consensus for that in preference to other options. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And that would imply that there should be a deletion discussion. (And if there is a merge discussion, the article should be tagged accordingly.) It seems that the a some procedural issues here. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain the "procedural problem" as you see it, and your proposed solution. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that RfCs are not meant/designed for merge/delete discussions. The solution would be to nominate the article for deletion via WP:AFD. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone for PROD?

In view of above, it appears that any participant may now proceed by PROD. Qexigator (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In fairness, I would consider that the RfC, above, should close first. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fairness to whom? and if not now, when? Qexigator (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

+ Partial review of recent discussion:

• Search of court judgments on austlii show courts always refer to the Queen as Head of State (16:29, 23 February )[14]
• David Smith's article (12:02, 22 February )[15]
• "rubbish" (10:27, 22 February)[16]
• Possible RM: 5 points for merging (10:06, 15 February 2016)[17]
• Kirby summed it up well (18:16, 14 February)[18]
• How this article is used (13:39, 13 February)[19]

Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of fairness to the process rather than to an individual or group of editors. I am happy if editors wish to PROD, but I, personally, would seek an RFC (req for closure) first. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify for PROD as the deletion is contested. I think it would be better as a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, what would be the next step for merge? Qexigator (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we would follow Wikipedia guidelines...--Jack Upland (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think a separate discussion should be created for a merge, per Wikipedia:Merging; place {{merge|Monarchy of Australia|discuss=Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Formal merger proposal|date=March 2016}} at the top of this article. StAnselm (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Prod, Afd, whatever is the best route. This article never should've been created, to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, GoodDay, as a longstanding and experienced User (over 10 years), "one of the most active Wikipedians of all time", with edits to the article dating back to 2011[20] and RfC sponsor,[21] perhaps you will take a lead in this? Qexigator (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after 10+yrs of being on this project. I still ain't savy enough, when it comes to setting up Prods or AFDs. I find the instructions there, too confusing. PS: Considering that I've been opposed to this article's existence for so long? it may appear as though my intentions aren't pure if I personally prodded or nominated for deletion. Yourself or somebody else, would be best suited to take the lead here. There's just too long a history between myself & the article creator, concerning this article & the Australian head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced the merger discussion as per Wikipedia guidelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We've gone from possible Afd, to possible prodding, to possible split/merger, to possible retaining with wholesale changes. Wowsers, I'm getting sea sick ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't vex yourself GD. The usual remedy is to go below and lie down until it is all over, leaving the captain and crew to carry on with the necessary seamanship. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Approaching closure

Looking at the guidelines for ending RfCs, there are four paths:

• The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly).

As the proposer, I am not seeing any consensus of community response. I shall not withdraw it.

• It may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. (For this to succeed, however, the RfC must be ended first, since most dispute resolution forums and processes will not accept a case while a RfC is pending.)

This may be an option. Clearly there is a strong division of opinion, and contributions are continuing. The RfC has become long and convoluted. A fresh start with more structure and discipline could help find a solution accepted by all.

• The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time.

I'm not seeing any agreement along these lines.

• It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor.

It would be a bold editor who could read through all the arguments above and find any clear consensus. Almost any close would be controversial.

"The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I'm seeing some partisan canvassing going on, directing other editors here, and of course contributions are still being made. It may be wise to continue on while progress is being made, at least until the point where editors are repeating the same arguments time and again.

"The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details." Counting !votes, we see ten responses:

Delete: 1

Retain: 3

Merge: 4

Unclear: 2

There is no majority position. Of those favouring Merge, one editor has apparently indicated withdrawal on personal grounds, and another is a sham account being used for disruption, which is being dealt with elsewhere.

In any case, closure should be consistent with policy. There are seven !votes favouring retention of the material in some form, and the merge discussion going on elsewhere seems to go against policy by proposing this one article be merged with five others!

For retention, this article clearly meets the General notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. No contributor disputes this.

At this stage, the RfC is in a No consensus position. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to allow all participants to decide collectively, if there's a consensus or not :) It's best that the article creator, not be making sweeping declarations about the Rfc-in-question. We wouldn't want the article creator to be erroneously seen as trying to influence the outcome :) GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. We certainly do not allow the "participants to decide collectively". We ask an uninvolved editor (preferably an admin) to determine whether there's a consensus or not. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And we'll all do our best, to not try to influence whoever that closer will be. Particularly with 'case closed' style comments :) GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You think the closer will ignore arguments made here? Whoever the closer is, will have to evaluate all contributions. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the closer will evaluate all contributions. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though sources are going to be checked over. Any declaration that this article meets GNG, might be premature :) GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am in no doubt that the article has multiple reliable etc. sources. More have come up in discussion here. There is no problem. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Time will tell, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Having checked over the RFC Survey:
Option #1 - 1 support
Option #2 - 5 supports (possible change to 4)
Option #3 - 3 supports (possible change to 4)

Am I correct here? Note, I didn't include Mandruss' vote, as he didn't actually choose among the 3 options, but rather protested the opening of the Rfc itself. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've gone ahead & opened up a new Rfc. It presents the 3 options in a more neutral worded way. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked out well. In a section about closing this RfC, you ignored that and commenced a new one. Geez.

I think consensus was never at deletion, has moved away from merging and is at "retain and improve". The title may be a problem, but what we have seems to work better than any alternatives proposed. --Pete (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

At least I'm willing to admit it, when I make a mistake. Anyways, later this week I'll nominate the article for deletion. If the result is 'keep'? then we can move to an RM. This is what should've been done weeks ago. A step-by-step process. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Although you are well within your rights to nominate the article for deletion, it's probably a better idea to let the still open RfC be closed and for other discussions to end. There is obvious support for the article to be retained, and opening another RfC before the first closed caused enough problems. Surely you've learnt from that mistake? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"an Australian peculiarity" (per Kirby)

All things reconsidered, which of the following is more suited to the article as a non-contentious and npov title , given that (as above said) "dispute" is not in the article, and the differences of opinion or practice in Australia about calling the governor-general "head of state" in a way that deviates from usage in other Commonwealth realms?

• Australian head of state difference of opinion
• Australian head of state discussion.

Qexigator (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing either as a better title than the one which has worked well for years. "Dispute" covers both a difference of opinion and the discussion around that. Every year, there's some public discussion, usually via press releases and comment on editorial pages, but nothing to match the level of interest during the republic referendum, including the Constitutional Convention. A "debate" implies some level of formality rarely reached. --Pete (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Some comments about article's neutrality

While I have been busy this week, I overlooked some comments, to understand your reasoning why you are proposing this solution. Clearly, some editors have arrived thinking that where there's smoke (>80 sources), there must be fire (an actual debate) and have opposed merging it, even though most of those sources already exist in the other articles. The right thing to do is to be flexible. I genuinely have been unable to see how this article could be made neutral, including the title. In my opinion, reason ACM supported it, was to create a bit of confusion in the republican debate. That being said, the crux of Smith's argumment is that he skips over the basic definition of Head of State, and assumes a Head of State must do certain things and/or be formally assigned that role in its written constitution. Once Head of State is defined (Winterton put it as the "apex" in the constitution), any republican vs monarchist debate where this is raised, moved past it very quickly to substantive issues. Still yet to see any evidence of actual debate about HoS in it's own right and I think we agree there is misleading content, given the Queen is Head of State. So in the spirt of being practical (ending our suffering), I will propose some ideas for a name change that may be supportable. Travelmite (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Travelmite, in my view the present version is npov, and what remains to be done is to remove "dispute" from the title of the article, which to judge from the latest comment, Travelmite may not have read.[22] Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have certainly made the article less objectionable. If we can find some common ground, then perhaps we can get a consensus. At the moment, the article is mostly about the unorthodox view. It does not explain much about the official / orthodox view. So I propose using the word "conjecture", "alternative view", "alternate explanation" in place of dispute for the article title. There are three issues bouncing around in the article that are combined in a way to promote Smith's view point. These are:

• That the function of the governor-general is legitimately explained by saying "de facto"/"constitutional"/"virtual"/"practical" head of state, and these qualifiers have significance as Winterton (Quadrant, 2004) points out. In the Constitutional Law textbooks, this is perfectly clear.
• Other writers (such as newspapers, biographies) are simply taking short cuts. They mean to say the official exercising the Head of State power, or just the highest Australian officeholder. They are not intending to make any pronouncements about the constitution.
• Then there are the statements by Smith and some in Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), who are deliberately trying to convince the public that the Governor-General is Head of State. This article falls into this category.

You have made some improvements, but look at how the Monarchist League are treated. Surely that is POV. What about Rudd being erratic? That's heavily partisan. Who are the inconsistent Prime Ministers, scholars and governors-general? Who are the inconsistent Canadians? These are all POV terms. Who added the original research - a list of constitutions without Head of State, only provided here to prove a point that it's not relevant? It's also original research to link 4 newspaper articles using Queen as HoS, and 4 using GG as HoS. That's not a valid survey. It could be 4 to 400 in a proper survey. What about the problematic "Dusevic" article: that says the Queen and GG are in a "title-fight", why overlook the main topic and sensationalist nature of the source? It's just a headline grab. I presume that the Queen did go ahead and make her speech at the UN as Head of State of 16 countries. These are just some areas of concern.

What then would you propose this article be about? I am interested in finding common ground. Is it about Smith's theory? Is it about Pete's theory (re Jack's comment)? Is it about how Australian politicians, scholars and writers cannot understand their own system of government? Is it about disagreement between the ACM vs Monarchist League vs republicans? Is it about how the average person thinks the GG is just a servant of the Queen? I believe that you do understand my concerns. Travelmite (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for Travelmite to clutter the page with this sort of argumentation. Is he currently blocked from making bona fide, constructive, non-disruptive edits? I repeat, the article reads pretty well to me, is informative, but like any other is not closed to further improvement. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Who knows what a person can be blocked for, or reverted for. GoodDay was reverted for saying the Queen was Head of State. Should I waste hours of effort to be reverted? Having looked at the history, anyone who alters the David Smith line of this article is reverted, either immediately or a few days later. The Queen's website is described as vacillating. I'll make basic changes at least be truthful about the sources, and we will see how that goes. Travelmite (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So, all edits got a blanket revert by an anonymous editor. This included identifying dead links, and specifying who the sources are. Travelmite (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Now two blanket reverts of all my edits, first from 87.103.14.40, second from user 120.21.147.122. Travelmite (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

IP unexplained reverts such this[23] and this[24] are needlessly disruptive. I see no reason to doubt that the reverted edits were made in good faith on the editor's part, and if a bona fide contibutor considers any of them should be removed or tweaked, let the edsum explain in the usual way. If there is further IP activity of this kind, it may be necessary to apply semi-protection.[25] Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've peaked in earlier today & thus requested semi-protection for this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for saving this work. What happens now? Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It would help if the lead was clarified to show that the monarch is head of state, which I attempted to do. However, it's quite frustrating when that clarification keeps getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Travelmite, consider Kerry's remarks below. Secondly, if you feel an irresistible desire to make more changes it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there. Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have taken Kerry's remarks into consideration. Whether seen by 10 people or 10000, the article made and continues to make unjustified criticisms against reputable people, and reputable organisations, for example (sources 49-51), on what basis is Wikipedia criticising the Queen's writers for "vacillating"? Why should Wikipedia describe a living person as erratic? These issues of policy have been raised previously. You earlier said, I could make reasonable edits, which absolutely should be the case. My first attempt to edit was 28 Jan. All reverted. This is my second attempt, which I even predicted would be reverted. I found 3 deadlinks and a misquote. I added key details and one source (the Supreme Court). All discussed, here or at the WP:POLITICS page. For that I was reverted by 3 different IP addresses and called a "nuisance". At least it was undone, but surely "move on" is a counterproductive response to online name-calling? Travelmite (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to report information and communicate succinctly. If RS show vacillation, let that be reported. It is not a criticism. A ship's compass vacillates with the ship's direction. "erratic": moving or behaving in a way that is not regular, certain, or expected: He drove in an erratic ​course down the road. She can be very erratic; one day she is friendly and the next she'll hardly speak to you.[26] I repeat: "There is no need for Travelmite to clutter the page with this sort of argumentation." If he feels an irresistible desire to make more change it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there." Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A new example comes to light. The article says: "Yet another calls the governor-general the "constitutional Head of State" and the Queen the "Head of State", based on this source [27] implying some sort of inconsistency. The actual quote is straightforward: "In carrying out all of these acts of state ceremonial, whether at Government House or in public, the Governor-General is fulfilling his/her duties as Australia's constitutional Head of State, in the absence of The Queen who is the Head of State." I propose altering the article to simply quote what is actually written. Travelmite (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Travelmite's proposal dsingenuous, or does it only seem so? Let us look at the context: "The most authoritative sources published by the government of Australia have used the term "head of state" to refer to the monarch, with some providing explanatory statements. This includes Government House, Parliament House, Public Service Commission, and the Departments of the Attorney General, Immigration and Citizenship and Foreign Affairs.....Yet another calls the governor-general the "constitutional Head of State" and the Queen the "Head of State". And let us look at this diff. [28] Qexigator (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I had marked the URLs as deadlinks, as per Wikipedia:Link_rot. As described below, some sort of automatic process "rescued" 3 dead links, by finding a copy of them on an archive site. So this is the first chance to review them. Travelmite (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference comparing Australia and Canada which says there is a similar or equal, except for the presumed triviality of it. I don't propose to write "equally trivial", but do propose to exclude any original research about it being "equal", whatever that means. Travelmite (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources would, I think support this rewording: "In Canada, some difference of opinion exists over whether the Queen of Canada or the Governor General of Canada should be considered the country's head of state; and there is some inconsistency among politicians, scholars, and the media in the application of the description to either individual." Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A significant improvement. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That wording may be ok for Canada, but to apply it to Australia would face the notability issue. And maybe we are not (yet???) in a position to compare the head of state question in Australia and Canada. Could that be done without OR? And then why only Australia and Canada, not any other of the Commonwealth realms? Methinks 'twd probably be wise to stay away from such comparisons. Wikiain (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's been improved, but it fails the notability test. All three sources for a Canadian "dispute" come from one journalist - Randy Boswell. So, it's just another beatup, like the ridiculous "title-fight" article from Tom Dusevic. How absurd that a GG would be politically challenging the Queen. Go ahead and make responsible changes, if needed. Travelmite (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Article title

In the spirit of compromise, I earlier suggested a number of article titles. There is very scant evidence of a dispute - parties arguing. These were Australian Head of State Alternative Views, Australian Head of State Conjecture. I can add Australian Head of State Use of Term, Australian Head of State Explanations and Other Definitions of Australian Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A dispute is defined as "a disagreement or argument". The current title reflects the former, though the latter is evident occasionally in media editorial pages. Some examples were given earlier. You'll need to gain consensus for a replacement for the title which has stood without any disagreement since 2011. --Pete (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The title should not be too awkward. The problem with "dispute" is that there is really no dispute on either side of the argument or discussion, which is based on the fact that the Queen is officially regarded as "head of state" with the governor-general as her representative, while occasionally official sources have made a slip which has been later corrected, and some specialist opinion proposes that the role in practise is in some way shared between them. Here are a few common synonyms:[29] conflict, controversy, debate, discussion; others listed include: bickering, friction, misunderstanding, wrangle, fuss, difference of opinion. Wiktionary [30] offers: "1.An argument or disagreement, a failure to agree. 2.Verbal controversy; contest by opposing argument or expression of opposing views or claims; controversial discussion; altercation; debate. 3.Contest; struggle; quarrel." Of those, the nearest to the article's content looks like "expression of opposing views or claims" - that is, views opposing the official position - but that would be too much of a mouthful for the title. In plainer language, and in some circumstances, that might be called a "wrangle" or "fuss" or "bickering", but an npov article ought not to characterise, say, David Smith or other eminent opinion-holders as merely wrangling or fussing or bickering. And, in everyday parlance, as remarked in another's comment above (05:31, 23 March), "Dispute" covers both a difference of opinion and the discussion around that. Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"…occasionally official sources have made a slip which has been later corrected…" I wouldn't put it that way, unless there is some sort of official retraction or acknowledgement. If we take that attitude, then who is to say that a given official source is not a slip which will later be corrected? I think it is the case that politicians and officials use different language at different times according to party policy. Often the government will put something a certain way, while the Opposition will characterise it in different terms. One person's misunderstanding is another's scandal. Expecting government sources to be always consistent and unchanging is asking a little much, I think. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Qex, I agree except if you find synonyms for dispute, you'll get other words for dispute. A dispute and difference of opinion are not the same thing. I agree not to use "wrangle", "fuss" ect, but then again I proposed neutral language. Travelmite (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite above may not have understood my comment: every one of the titles poposed is awkward, and none is better suited to the article than the present title. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Try Australian head of state discussion. BTW, if this article is kept? a Canadian version should be created, aswell. Something to think about, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

PS - I won't mind this article's existence, as long as it is not used as a vehicle to promote the "We don't know" argument across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On that note… --Pete (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of all proportion ...

I note that we are discussing an article with about 42K bytes, which has a talk page of 260K bytes plus 6 archives. And to put the importance of the article into some perspective, it is worth considering the number of pageviews the article gets. In Dec-Jan (when nobody was editing the article), it received 0-3 pageviews a day. Since end of January, when edits to the page and its talk page soared, it reached as high as 450 pageviews a day, presumably due to the edit activities, the arguments on talk and the various people being drawn into the dispute by the various Requests for This and That. So it seems we have an article that the readership of Wikipedia isn't very interested in (0-3 pageviews a day), which is currently consuming a massive amount of time of the contributors to Wikipedia. Frankly, that effort could be put to a lot better use elsewhere. Maybe we should all just take it off our watchlists and move on ... Kerry (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Kerry, I hope you will continue to keep an eye on this, in case another storm blows up, when a calming influence would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good to get some eyes looking at the thing from a bit further away. I mentioned something similar earlier.

The source of the problem is easy to find. With this edit, an account which had previously done nothing for a year but shuffle some text around in random articles, suddenly became a WP:SPA dedicated to disruption in this article and related. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best, if you would stop with the personal attacks here & take a long break from this article. Allow the others to try to save it, if that's possible. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, I thought you were going to step back from this article - at least, you were removing it from your watchlist. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it from my watchlist, but I'll continue to peek in. I do believe that's allowed. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason the talk page and its archives are so massive is that this page has functioned as a debating forum about a theoretical spinoff from the republican debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. BTW, I've put this article back on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been super busy, but the risk to a student, or time-wasting in a classroom has been mostly removed, thanks to your efforts over the last few months. Travelmite (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)