Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Trim lead

As I see it, the discussion has advanced far enough to let the lead be trimmed in a way which would more accurately express the article content, to read as follows, and I am inclined to go ahead, subject to comment:

Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch. The Australian constitution does not mention the term head of state, and a number of writers, most notably David Smith, have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. Some others and some publications in Australia have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state.
The difference of opinion has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.

Overlaid on the present version:

The Australian head of state dispute is a difference of opinion among some Australians about whether Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state. Although the The Australian constitution does not mention the term head of state, current official sources use the description of the Queen, as monarch. Nevertheless, and a number of writers, most notably David Smith, have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. A number of other people others and publications have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state.
The issue difference of opinion has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.

Qexigator (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this article ends up being kept. The trimmed down version clarifies in the lead that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. So yes, go forth & trim. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"continuing debate" ?

From the start in 2011 this article has been making vague use of the word "debate". In the current version, where is the source for "...and remains one within the continuing debate around an Australian republic"? Is it an ongoing, intermittent debate in parliament and/or where else (outside Wikipedia)? The various "Official" sources cited do not amount to "debate" of any kind. Which of the "Scholarly" or "Political" or "Media" sources are supposed to be participating in continuing debate? Qexigator (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are completely right. Travelmite (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Given that "the point of this article is to document the fact that there is a disagreement in whom Australians see as head of state" (per Pete (23:22, 24 January 2011)[1], the opening sentence will be improved if rectified to read:

The dispute over who is Australia's head of state Australian head of state dispute is a disagreement among Australians centres centred on...

Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

+ The article will also be improved by inserting after the sentence which begins "The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999..." as the next sentence:

Among arguments advanced in that campaign some were for retaining the office of governor-general as the monarch's (nominal) representative, and others were for a popularly elected head of state.

Qexigator (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a continuing debate. Every Australia Day and every Queen's Birthday there's the regular statements and media appearances from the Australian Republican Movement, monarchists, political leaders and a flurry on talkback radio and letters to the editor.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Every year this carries on. I guess we could source the continuing nature of the debate with a selection of the current crop and update the sources every few months? --Pete (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Restored by Travelmite (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC))
That seems to say that the question continues to be mentioned with partisan comment in the media from year to year. When was there a "debate" after, say, 1999? Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a look at these references. The first one is David Smith, the person listed in the bibliography of this article, with no comment taking it seriously. The only source of "debate" in the past simply depends on whether anyone is paying attention to Smith, who happened to work for the Governor-General and was famous on one day in 1975. None of the other references are not debating anything about the Head of State - at best just examples of inconsistent usage of the term. Smith is possibly still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance. How was he given the title "Sir", operating the links between the Queen and government, when when hundreds of more senior public servants did not? That's a question of public interest. Travelmite (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
About DS and his book: "Because of his reading of the Proclamation dissolving the Parliament from the steps of old Parliament House - with Gough Whitlam standing behind him ready for his memorable outburst - Sir David will forever be associated in people's minds with that event....One of the great services that Sir David provides - and there are many - is an understanding that November 11 was the culmination of a political and not a constitutional crisis."[9] Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, this article is basically an extention of David Smith's PoV. At the very least, the article appears to promote doubt about the monarch being head of state. Anyways, I'll leave that for others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think some of my contribution above has been misplaced, Qex. (Fixed Travelmite (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

Sir David Smith gained his knighthood - a British one - for personal service to the Queen. After his days as Official Secretary here were over, he went to the UK where he had some role in the royal household. I have met him a few times, and I would not characterise him as being one to give any importance to himself or his work. Indeed the first words I ever heard him speak, back in 1994, were self-deprecating.

One of the characteristics of his book, and of every public contribution he has made, has been the depth of research. He has made excellent use of some of the specialised libraries here in Canberra. I would not feel confident holding a position in opposition without having a matching base of research. I suggest that very few here, myself included, have as solid a backing as Smith.

The word "dispute" or "debate" is something we could improve upon. There is the occasional public debate, but more often the discussion is more in the abstract, through the various public contributions in the media. I have mentioned one above, describing a charity sleepout:

It was an interesting exercise, and really worthwhile – if uncomfortable. Most impressive was the G-G. The whole "only in Australia" thing can be overdone, I grant you, but there can be few countries in the world where the head of state would choose to sleep rough, just two kilometres from his usual luxurious digs.

The fact that journalists refer to the Governor-General as the head of state without any self-consciousness is proof enough that this is not an academic discussion.

It is a question more than a debate or a dispute, I think. --Pete (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's in his interest to write a book which minimises the power of the Queen. Maybe that's how he got the extra job in the UK? I'm not sure what special libraries exist that can't be posted here, but how can you be swayed by the fact he's charming? He probably charmed everyone like a politician. Travelmite (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Smith's opinions and attitude are neither here nor there. If you want to make your argument an attack on a person, that's your option, but it detracts from your argument in that I know that you also speak out of ignorance. When you say he is "still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance", it is quite clear that you have not read the book! He is charming, thoughtful, self-effacing, and kind in a way that few politicians are. I've met a few, and most are driven by personal ambition and a loose relationship with truthfulness. The libraries Smith uses include the library at Government House and the ANU law school. as well as others that are neither online nor open to the public. I would imagine that if he wanted to browse through the Queen's personal library, he would be welcome there as well.
Smith's contribution is not that he is pushing his views, but that he provides the historical background to the roles of the Governor-General and the monarchy. Turnbull is very good at this in his books as well, and we should be grateful for their scholarship and research. Of course, Turnbull is a politician, and his ambition has been front page news for decades, so perhaps some of us here wish to discount his opinions on that basis.
What I find interesting is that some here are convinced of the rightness of their opinions, even when there is no sound basis for them. The simple fact is that the position of Head of State is not mentioned at all in either the Constitution nor in any Australian legislation. The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory. The most distinguished High Court bench we ever had referred to the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" and there has been nothing as forthright from that direction ever since. It would be fabulous if the question were put now, but lacking that gravitas, where can we possibly find a definitive answer?
The Research Paper from the Parliamentary Library summarises the position very well. One thing that has changed since then is that the Governor-General now issues and receives diplomatic credentials in his own right, rather than as the Queen's representative.[10] That has been described as the sine qua non role of a head of state. --Pete (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
How to you justify, yet alone feel is relevant your words "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory". I have no problems with the words "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth". The research paper begins with the idea that it's assumed the Queen is Head of State. How do you know David Smith went to Government House Library or ANU Library? Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Because he says so in his book, in the preface where he acknowledges the assistance given by various people and institutions. I recommend it to all interested in the subject. My observation above – "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory" – refers to the fact that the High Court, the ultimate source of interpretation of Australia's constitutional law, has given no definitive answer to the question. The 1907 decision, describing the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" is as close as they get. --Pete (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyedits

In the body of the article "debate" occurs once, in "Background" with a citation to a Research Note of August 1995, which mentions neither "debate" nor "republic". It appears from the article Republicanism in Australia, linked in the lead, that the lead is referring, opaquely, to the debate at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998 about "four republican models". A little copyediting would clarify.

  • (the lead)The Australian head of state dispute 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 term head of state does not appear in the Australian constitution. The disagreement has involved viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media. The question was debated with reference to four republican models at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998, and has recurrently been discussed in publications since then.
  • (Background, 4th para.: rewrite first two sentences) The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999. (per Ireland's Note as cited) Among arguments advanced in that campaign some were for retaining the office of governor-general as the monarch's (nominal) representative, and others were for a popularly elected head of state. Republicans included in their campaign the idea that the Queen is head of state and not Australian and, as such, should be replaced with an Australian citizen; this was summed up in their slogan "a mate for head of state".<ref...> Opponents of the move...

Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual title of the article may be the problem. If we're looking for a formal debate event, there is none. The proceedings at Old Parliament House in 1998 on the four models had very little to do with the identity of the head of state. I was there in the Press Gallery and it was almost entirely political. Most of the real discussion was carried out away from the chamber as delegate votes were canvassed and stitched up, especially by Malcolm Turnbull, who assembled a group of votes in support of his preferred model which was later put to the people at referendum.
The ongoing discussion continues as it always has, through the media and at community level, rather than any formal proceedings. This article documents the various views put forward from time to time. It is rare that a peaceful, stable nation is unsure or divided in its view on the identity of its own head of state, and that is the notability of the article. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue was raised in the course of the referendum campaign. The monarchist Michael Kirby commented: "Critics certainly raised many false issues... A similar distraction, in my view, was the argument that the Governor-General was actually the Head of State of Australia" ("The Australian Referendum on a Republic - Ten Lessons" - cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, p 1351). I don't think there's much of an ongoing dispute. Rather as I said above, various people erroneously call the GG the head of state, just as people call Sydney the capital of Australia, or Indonesia Australia's nearest neighbour. However, who argues the point (apart from here)?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a long list of varying opinions in the article, Jack. We can easily find definitive sources for the capital of Australia, or our nearest neighbour. But we cannot for the head of state. You say one thing, others say another. Respected though he is, Michael Kirby's view is just one of many. a pity, when on the High Court, he was not asked to provide a ruling on the matter. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
David's Smith view is just one view, against everyone with knowledge of the subject. Kirby is not just saying he has an opinion. Even as a monarchist, he called it a false issue. This is what we are dealing with here:- a "false issue". We can find definitive sources, because a King or Queen regnant of a country is always a Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Just one view? His is one of many, all taken from reliable sources. As is Kirby's. Your confected argument that the monarch is always head of state is unsourced, let alone traced to anything definitive. You are welcome to your own personal opinion, but it has no place as a basis for our encyclopedia. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
"A monarch is the sovereign head of state" according to Wikipedia, supported by the Oxford dictionary and most other dictionaries, in every language. It's not WP:NOP, it's not WP:SYNTH and it's not my personal opinion. It is part of this encyclopedia and a part of language. Your personal opinion, your WP:NOP and your WP:SYNTH is what we are discussing. Travelmite (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. That's basic. See here:
Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. (It's boldfaced in the text, so we regard it as an important statement.)
A dictionary, even one as well-regarded as the OED, is a tertiary source. Incidentally, I'm not seeing any sort of unequivocal definition in the OED. The online versions leave a fair bit of room for interpretation. Be that as it may, dictionaries do not have the power to determine a nation's head of state. There is only one authority competent to make that determination, and it is the nation itself. For example, there is no dispute in New Zealand, because that nation's Constitution Act states it as fundamental law:
The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.
There is no corresponding statement in Australian law. If there were, there would be no diversity of opinion, such as this article documents. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no diversity of opinion. The Australian government says the Queen is Head of State, the GG is her representative on all it's primary documents. Travelmite (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the Constitution, of course… Or any other legislation… --Pete (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I have checked www.austlii.edu.au. Several judgments from various courts, including the High Court full bench, refer to the Queen as the Head of State. The Supreme Court of Victoria says it most clearly. The parliament also passed "Succession to the Crown Bill (2013)" with an explanatory memorandum referring to the Queen as the Head of State. After searching austlii.edu.au for "Governor-General Head of State", I cannot find one contrary instance. It's simply untrue that the law is unclear on this question. Travelmite (talk)

It's become quite obvious to me (in these last 2 or so weeks), that the so-called dispute, has been proven to be more of a molehill, then a mountain. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"title of the article may be the problem"

Pete: Given your comment above that The actual title of the article may be the problem, and given the lead and other content of the current version[11], would you see

Australia's Head of state of Australia (see section below)

as preferable or at least acceptable/ supportable/ tolerable/ bearable? Qexigator (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: How to deal with this article II

I shouldn't have opened this Rfc, while the other Rfc on the same topic, was still in progress. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Note: This no.II is a continuation of the Rfc discussion opened 15 February 2016 with an option to merge, later followed by the "Merger proposal" discussion opened on 3 March.

1) Shall we delete the article?
2) Shall we split the article up & merge its part into another article or a number of articles?
3) Shall we retain the article?

I've opened this Rfc, which offers the same 3 options. However now, these options have been presented in a neutrally worded style. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ryk is working adapting the article to continue under a new name. I think it's only fair to include that option. I suggest that we organise a two-stage questionnaire, in order to maximise understanding of peoples preferences. This would be as follows: (1) Do we retain the article? (2) If so, do we change the name? (3) If not, do we merge sourced info into other articles? Travelmite (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
By all means, add the 'new' option :) GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, the RfC above remains open, with no consensus apparent. In view of the above, why are you commencing a second RfC on exactly the same topic? Are you hoping for a different result with yet more discussion? Currently the length of discussion stands at seven times the length of the article itself, and this RfC adds even more. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the wording of the 3 options in the first Rfc, weren't neutral. Of course, the other participants may decide for themselves on this matter. To hope for something, would mean one is emotionally attached to the topic. I'm not emotionally attached & therefore, the result below (in the neutrally worded Rfc) will be acceptable. PS- BTW, I haven't a clue as to how it will all end. But, we can be grateful that there's no edit-warring going on :) GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Close - I've shut down this Rfc. We've enough traffic on this talkpage as is. The first Rfc has expired & I'm sure all will agree that there was no consensus for any of the 3 options. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose 1 (delete)
  • +Oppose 2 - given that in the present version of the article "difference of opinion" has replaced "dispute", and links to Monarchy as main article, the AHOSD article is no longer irremediable, and the topic deserves its own article.
  • +Support 3 - 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[12], leaving open the usual process of improving articles, in respect of sources, copyedits, links, etc. (added 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC) :) The top of this page mentions that the article is rated C Class, so that Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems per Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment.

Qexigator (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you, of course. But, I think just posting your 'support' preference, would be less confusing ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's up to me: that is my response, to clarify the position beyond the sort of muddling that has beset the previous discussions and I see GD's comment as intrusive and meddlesome. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, Qexigator. I shall strike my above observation. It wasn't my intent to upset you. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Geez, Qex. Was that all that was bothering you? I indicated much, much earlier that "dispute" was not something I was wedded to, and we could find better wording. "Difference of opinion" is fine - it states the case nicely. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
And are you about to reveal that you have favoured merge all along?! Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
My view on both matters remains unchanged. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Options 2 (split the article up & merge parts into one article or many articles) & 1 (delete article), in that order of preference. The existence of this article, merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
merely? Could that be an allusion to the death in 1702 of one of the Queen's predecessors, William III, attributed to an equestrian encounter with a molehill.[13] Anyhow, molehills rate a stand alone article, and one of them can be as fateful as any mountain. More seriously, can you explain for us your reasons for concluding that the present version of the article "makes a mountain out of a molehill"? Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. This doesn't change, just because some people are convinced that the Governor-General is head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlike Kerry below, that comment was well off the point, and failed to notice that the article is not even asserting that there is a dispute. The article is based on the fact that the monarch is the acknowledged head of state (per recently closed Rfc), but helpfully reports a certain aspect of 20-21c. political opinion in one of the federal countries of the Commonwealth realms, in a way that is informative for Australians as well as others, neatly summed up in the lead:
  • Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch.
  • The Australian constitution does not mention the term head of state,
  • ...and a number of writers, most notably David Smith, have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general.
  • A number of other people and publications have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state.
  • The issue has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.
Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC) updated Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not up to me, the fate of this article. PS - If all the other participants come to an agreement on which road to take? I'll follow along:) GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
+Come to think of it, some of the comments favouring merge (present commenter claims exception) have been "over-reactive, ... where a person makes too much of a minor issue", which the said article gives as the prosaic meaning of the idiom. Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Possible "over-reactions" would likely stem from an emotional attachment to the article-in-question. I don't over-react & therefore I've no emotional attachments. Likewise, I'm but only 'one' grain of sand on the beach of Wikipedia. The fate of this article, isn't entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - merge as previously discussed. This article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, and cherry-picks sources. The identification of the Queen as the head of state has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a Rfc. This is indeed a mountain made out of a molehill.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain. But reword the lede para to say it is a difference of opinion among some Australians. There are clearly sources to show that some people dispute this matter, but, unless someone can find the sources, I don't think there is any evidence that this dispute is a mainstream issue (unlike monarchy-vs-republic which is a mainstream issue). Since I believe it is a small dispute and not a mainstream one, I don't think it should be merged into Monarchy or the Referendum articles as that would be "undue weight" in those articles. But I think it reasonable, in pursuit of NPOV, to have a sentence or two with link to this article at some suitable point in those articles e.g. in the final para of Head of State section of the Monarchy article, where the topic is already discussed. This article can then explore the dispute as thoroughly as it wishes (without concerns of undue weight but, of course, putting both sides of the dispute). Kerry (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion as redundant and unhelpful. Regardless of the wording of the previous RfC, this RfC should not have been opened while the previous one was opened and had progressed so far. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
In agreement, StAnselm. I've shut this Rfc down, as it really shouldn't have been opened to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

So far, we've a 2/2 split, in this Rfc for options 2 & 3. The first Rfc has a 4/4 split for options 2, 3 & 1 in favour of option 1. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, I should've nominated this article for deletion (via Afd) weeks ago. If that Afd would've failed? then we all would've went onto the next steps :( GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 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.

Head of state of Australia

All things considered, the point has been reached to let "dispute" be dropped from the article title. The article reports differences of opinion or practice about calling the governor-general of Australia "head of state" in a way that deviates from usage in other Commonwealth realms. A non-contentious, npov title would be:

Australia's Head of state of Australia.

Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the Australian head of state is the monarch, one could easily argue that Australia's head of state should be a re-direct to Monarchy of Australia. Of course, whatever the rest of you decide on this matter (assuming the article is kept), I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
At least one good reason for resolving as above and not merge and redirect is that the content of this article on this aspect of the topic, which is little or not as pronounced in Elizabeth's other realms, would clutter other articles. It's a question of presenting information for the convenience of readers, not ideological preferences. Qexigator (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Things are going a tad too fast, here. AFAIK, nothing has been decided yet, concerning the article's existence. Perhaps it's best for me to allow you & the others to handle the details :) GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
There already is a redirect article called "Australian head of state", and it redirects to this article. Infact, it looks like it was created, only so it can redirect to this article. Travelmite (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Given the results at WP:Politics. That re-direct should be changed to point to the Australian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Travelmite, see above "Rewrite and redirect" and here[14], but if the proposed new title "Australia's head of state" is adopted for this article, the existing redirect would change with it. The article is first of all about the head of state of Australia, namely unequivocally the monarch, not the incidental dispute or difference of opinion among some Australians. You will have seen that the article itself links to Monarchy of Australia as the Main article, and the lead also links there: "...current official sources use the description of the Queen, as monarch". Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was the original title of this article. I would prefer "Australian" rather than "Australia's". StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
SA, I've no wish to agonise, antagonise or quibble with anyone about this, or get into a molehill-mountain claim or counter-claim, but can you give us some reason for your preference? I am treading delicately here, but it may help to settle my mind about it.
The problem, as I see it, is that "Australian" seems to be letting Wikivoice lean towards the "mate for head of state" slogan, while "Australia's" is open, and allows for the Queen of Australia or a matey governor-general, so to speak, to be regarded as h-o-s Australia. Qexigator (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean - I was thinking purely in stylistic terms. What about Head of state of Australia? StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, that also would be best as a 'redirect' to Monarchy of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
SA: Yes, that seems better, and I will change above. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Head of state discussion or Head of state debate, would be best, with the article itself expanded to include other countries like Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That certainly would make for a very different article, and another discussion would need to be have as to whether there should be such a content fork from Head of state. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
GD: Neither of those will do: "debate" is as much a misnomer here as "dispute", and so also would be "discussion". Look again at the opening paragraph: Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch... a number of writers... have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. Some ... have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state. Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We must try to avoid a title, which would erroneously suggest that the monarch isn't head of state. The proposed titles (except for mine) should be re-directed to the Australian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
+ GD: Perhaps you had not noticed that there is a section on "Comparison with other Commonwealth realms" and Canada is given a special mention. But the issues in the two Commonwealth realm federations are not the same, and an attempt to discuss both at greater length in one article would at best be a SYNful exercise. Qexigator (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We must remember that the Australian monarch 'is' the Australian head of state, when proposing a new article title. PS: I should've nominated this article for deletion weeks ago. If the result had been 'keep'? we then would've went to the next steps. Had it been 'delete'? well, we know the answer to that :) GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As I have indicated repeatedly, the people who didn't think the article should exist, should really have nominated it for deletion. It's not too late, of course. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll nominate the article for deletion, later this week. There can only be 'two' possible outcomes. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we need a formal RM, if there are no objections in the next day or so. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
AN RM, might be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, on second thoughts - we should wait until the merge discussion is closed. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier. I'm involved on this title thing, with the assumption that the article is being kept. But you're correct. Perhaps we're moving too fast & should wait until the 'merge proposal discussion' has concluded. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
SA: Noted, but please see below (about GD's error). I will go ahead, as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not. Qexigator (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Above, StAnselm said Well, I don't think we need a formal RM, if there are no objections in the next day or so, yet the page has now been moved, less than 12 hours later, when there is still an open RfC present. You might note that it was only earlier today that I provided an argument for not moving the page[15] and there are others who oppose a move. The page should not be moved until there is consensus. If that requires a formal RM, then so be it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Aussie: Your undo may have been too hasty, and unintentionally disruptive to the ongoing discussion. After noting your remark "As someone who has come into this discussion only recently, I find this page to be all over the place", I repeated certain parts of the discussion to date, including a comment from Kerry of Queensland, which a newcomer might have missed, and then mentioned that I was going ahead as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not. Given that "dispute" is not in the article, to keep that title looks unhelpful to say the least. Perhaps you will reconsider. As before said, it's a question of presenting information for the convenience of readers, not ideological preferences. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
+ commonsense?[16] Qexigator (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Moving an article in the middle of a discussion to a title that is both problematic and opposed by other editors is what is disruptive, which is why I reverted the move. There was simply no consensus for it and I agree with both StAnselm and GoodDay in their posts just below this. "Australia's head of state", "Australian head of state", "Head of state of Australia", etc. should all go to the same place and Monarchy of Australia seems the appropriate target.
then mentioned that I was going ahead as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not - That you may have done that does not justify the action. I don't understand why certain people here seem intent on doing things immediately - Wikipedia is not working to a dealine. Just let things progress at a natural pace and wait for consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've changed the Re-direct Australian head of state, from this article to Monarchy of Australia, per the related closed Rfc at WP:POLITICS. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC) PS: StAnselm please don't revert the change I made of that redirect. Otherwise you're merely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You seen the results at WP:POLITICS. The monarch is head of state. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The RfC certainly didn't address this point; in any case, all the possible titles discussed in this section ("Australia's head of state", "Australian head of state", "Head of state of Australia", etc.) should all go to the same place. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The monarch is head of state & therefore those titles should be re-directed to the Monarchy article. Anyways, I've contacted the administrator who closed the WP:POLITICS Rfc. Let's wait & see if he interprets the results as including 're-directs'. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A request

Could we suspend the article title discussion, until it's decided on whether or not the article itself will be kept intact or split up & merged into other articles? It might be good to start hatting some older discussions as well. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has come into this discussion only recently, I find this page to be all over the place. The edit history shows a number of changes made to posts well after they've been replied to, which makes it hard for anyone like me to be able to really work out what is going on. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This article should never have been created. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
AussieLegend is talking about this talk page, not the article. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I am. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
GD, who has admitted being in error in opening Rfc II, now and again makes comments which seem to be so wide of the mark as to be intrusive and meddlesome (possibly tending to disruptive in Wikispeak). In my view, and agf-ing, the request to suspend the article title discussion, until it's decided on whether or not the article itself will be kept intact or split up & merged into other articles may be one of these. The title is no longer suited to the article as it is now written, and is now the article's most contentious aspect. Any further input to the discussion on this page would make better sense if the title were changed as proposed, and its continued stand alone existence considered afresh after "dispute" has finally been expunged. I will repeat my above comment (of 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)) [17]
"The verbiage is an embarassment to any newcomer summoned by the merger tag at the tops of the articles. It is also unfair to burden a closing admin with it, now that [GD's] other RfC has closed with unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen, as the discussion clearly shows. The proposed merger should be suspended while participants are resolving any outstanding points about text and sources, or policy wrangles about notability, and maybe allowed to lapse altogether. At this stage my position is as above: 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[76], 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, without much more in the way of rewrite. If the tags remain, let there be a Note at the top of the section that the proposal is currently suspended and may lapse in 14 days."
Meantime, one of the best comments so far was Kerry Raymond's (21:37, 14 March) [18], which I repeat in case a newcomer misses it:
  • " Retain. But reword the lede para to say it is a difference of opinion among some Australians. There are clearly sources to show that some people dispute this matter, but, unless someone can find the sources, I don't think there is any evidence that this dispute is a mainstream issue (unlike monarchy-vs-republic which is a mainstream issue). Since I believe it is a small dispute and not a mainstream one, I don't think it should be merged into Monarchy or the Referendum articles as that would be "undue weight" in those articles. But I think it reasonable, in pursuit of NPOV, to have a sentence or two with link to this article at some suitable point in those articles e.g. in the final para of Head of State section of the Monarchy article, where the topic is already discussed. This article can then explore the dispute as thoroughly as it wishes (without concerns of undue weight but, of course, putting both sides of the dispute). "
Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's do this one-step-at-a-time, which is what should've happened weeks ago. Later this week, I'll open an Afd on this article. If it passes as keep? then I'll open an RM on this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To resolve: rename, retain, redirect

We now have

Having regard to the convenience of less informed Australian and other readers (students, their teachers, writers and all) and given that there is an informed preponderance on this page for retain, and for redirect to Monarchy of Australia, why let the article continue to have "dispute" in its title? Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem, is coming up with a title that doesn't in anyway promote the We don't know minority PoV. We need a title-nominee, for a possible RM. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There are obviously two views.
  1. Queen
  2. Governor-General
Each view has well-sourced adherents. Trying to avoid mentioning one view or the other is like trying to remove NPOV from Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Clarify - What are you suggesting for an article title? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You first, friend. Why do you want NPOV to not apply to this article? --Pete (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"Each view has well-sourced adherents" - Proven incorrect (see above). Travelmite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Skyring, I presume you prefer the current title? GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The provenance of the change from "Australian head of state" to "Australian head of state dispute" was a proposal 21 January 2011[21] by one of the participants in the current discussion. But latterly it has been clarified that "dispute" is a misnomer, and the topic is the difference of opinion among some Australians as reported in the article. Qexigator (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Each view has well-sourced adherents - Indeed they do and this is the problem with the dispute. There is even a parliamentary research note on this that states "This issue is predicated on an assumption that the Australian Head of State is the Queen. The Constitution can be used to argue either proposition".[22] The Queen has repeatedly referred applications to her requesting intervention for all manner of things back to the GG, stating that she doesn't wish to involve herself in local issues. The only powers that she will exercise today are to appoint or remove the GG, which is usually just rubber-stamping the PM's recommendation. Nobody in the higher levels of government argues that the GG is actually the HoS, but they do acknowledge that he is the one who does the actual job, and this and the ambiguity in the constitution is why they are almost unanimously supporting the formal appointment of an Australian HoS. Until that happens, the dispute continues so the current title is actually appropriate, although "Australian head of state discussion" or something similar would be acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉)
Aussie, your summary of the situation in the higher levels of government shows that there is not a dispute, but an understandable desire for change. I don't see anyone on this page doubting current practice or aspirations as you have described. A dispute implies identifiable parties on one side, and others on at least one other side, about who is officially recognised as HoS. Perhaps "Australian head of state discussion" is nearer the mark, and maybe the nearest we are likely to get, editorially speaking. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The people in the higher levels of government are an extremely tiny minority in the population. To their credit, they are just getting on with the job (or think they are - having spoken to a few.....) and leave that part of the issue to others. Constitutional experts, especially the lawyers, are at odds and who is the head of state is an ongoing issue. It's always a good debate topic. So no, the fact that a small group of people don't debate it doesn't mean the dispute is not there. A dispute doesn't have to be page 1 news every day to be a dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Certainly the criterion for a dispute is not that it be page 1 news every day. Some major disputes may be little known to the public, or not frequently reported. So you seem to accept that there is not a defined dispute with identified parties, but in fact various individual persons, some more notable and prominent than others, expressing various opinions such as the article reports: an ongoing, intermittent public discourse, or let us say "discussion", sometimes in the form of a public lecture and sometimes in a book or other written RS. Again, I do not see anyone here in doubt about that. And of course, depending on the audience, almost anything can be treated as a good debate topic: such as monarchy-vs-republic mentioned by Kerry Raymond, but the fact that Australia continues to be a constitutional monarchy not a republic is not disputed. Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
If AussieLegend could confine themselves to the polices of Wikipedia, it would be appreciated. All of these issues have been discussed earlier. StAnselm has tried to find something more for weeks, and sofar there is the book and lectures by David Smith and four paragraphs in some other books. There is no significance to the issue to reach an article level. This article is the result of a Wikipedia dispute, not a real dispute. Until recently, Wikipedia presented a view against the basic understanding of the Australian constitutional system, defying all the reliable sources. If the guidelines were followed this article would not being created, and it would be put into other articles as per the policy. The guidelines are there to stop Wikipedia being used for ulterior purposes. These guidelines include content forking, original research, fringe theory and notability:
  • Don't bypass the need to get consensus. "WP:POVFORKs generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view."
  • No original research in an article. WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."
  • Don't promote a fringe theory. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."
  • Don't create articles for non-notable discussions. Wikipedia:Notability "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. If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."
Without these rules Wikipedia would be open to all sorts of political games. To have a debate about HoS, there are many other websites where this can be done. Go to the ABC Drum website and you'll see many minor disputes, that are far more important than this. Look at the following issues: Gonsky Review, Senate Voting Reforms, Koala is not a Bear, GST on Books or Tampons, Mining Tax Debate, Locally build submarines, and discover whether these far more notable disputes (with identifiable parties) get their own page? If this page deserves to exist, then it would have twenty or more reliable explanations as to why the Queen is HoS, and David Smith saying otherwise. A total waste of effort, and against the policy of the system. (I am really busy right now, so apologies for any delay in response.) Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing nothing in that comment as contributing to resolving the points now in issue here, we are left to surmise why this article happens to be the one picked on to vent such a waste of heat. Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
If AussieLegend could confine themselves to the polices of Wikipedia - And exactly what policies would those be? I'm all eyes. I'm only new here remember. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll try quickly to answer both. I've changed my answer above to dot point the policies. An article that breaks every second rule in Wikipedia, and the only defense of it makes assertions, rather following some sort of objective standard. Notability: Are there any actual debates in the media/parliament/public forums with experts? Original research: Is there someone (outside Wikipedia) documenting the debate as a neutral viewpoint? Fringe Theory:- Have we not agreed that expert opinion has consistent uniform conclusion? My contribution is propose following the policies. Unfortunately, I cannot debate this now, but I have written in detail over the previous weeks. If I am overlooking the stage of discussion, that may be possible because I've been so busy, even though I wrote a lot earlier. Travelmite (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Only one of those things is a policy. The others are not even close. Perhaps you should read WP:BOLD, as it answers a lot of what you seem to be railing against, but I would appreciate your expert opinion on how I have not confined myself to Wikipedia's policies. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
To help this along, I've added the quoted section and the page above. All these points have been raised in the above discussion. Comments opposed have usually been assertions. If you'd like an example, you appear to have cited the Queens response to the Speaker of the House during the 1975 Whitlam dismissal. If so, there are no secondary sources connecting the Queen's response, with this discussion. If David Smith wrote something, then you may cite Smith. You also cited a parliamentary research paper, which does not indicate any dispute occurring. You'll probably find every possible reference to this dispute on this page already, repeated several times. Travelmite (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If the article began as a fork, which is not certain, it is not so now: as above said, its present content is unmergeable, and its main article is Monarchy of Australia. Content (sources etc): Travelmite was earlier (21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)) advised that the top of this page mentions that "the article is rated C Class, so that Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. per Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment", and since then the article has been considerably improved.[23] The difference of opinion/discussion reported in the article cannot be merely dismissed as fringe or non-notable: see Kerry above: "Since I believe it is a small dispute and not a mainstream one, I don't think it should be merged into Monarchy or the Referendum articles as that would be "undue weight" in those articles. But I think it reasonable, in pursuit of NPOV, to have a sentence or two with link to this article at some suitable point in those articles e.g. in the final para of Head of State section of the Monarchy article, where the topic is already discussed. This article can then explore the dispute as thoroughly as it wishes (without concerns of undue weight but, of course, putting both sides of the dispute)". Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the edit histories of related articles, as well as the talk page of the article creator, I don't see any evidence that this article was a POVFORK.
you appear to have cited the Queens response to the Speaker of the House during the 1975 Whitlam dismissal - What I said were my own words, based on general knowledge. If I have said what the Queen said, then I suppose that gives my words some extra credibility - great minds think alike and all that.
If David Smith wrote something, then you may cite Smith. - I don't need to cite anyone in a discussion. I only need to do so if I want to add something to the article and so far, my only edits have been cleanup in accordance with our policies and guidelines.
You also cited a parliamentary research paper, which does not indicate any dispute occurring. It does, however, support the fact that there is a level of ambiguity in the constitution and this was used in the "discussion" preceding the 1999 referendum.
This article certainly does not represent a fringe theory and I'd remind Travelmite that notability is not temporary. The debate about the HoS was in just about every news report in every medium every day in the lead-up to the 1999 referendum. It was clearly a notable topic and is still supported by sources, many of which are in the National Library of Australia in the collection related to the referendum, which wouldn't have been such a big deal if this was a fringe theory. I assume the parliamentary library information on this has been transferred to the National Library by now but it's all still somewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to nominate this article for deletion. But there's just one problem. I don't know how to set up a 'bleeping' AFD, hahahaha. If anyone else thinks this article should be deleted (via Afd or Prod?), go for it.

BTW: Assuming this article is going to be kept intact? I wouldn't object to the creation of a Canadian head of state dispute article, or any other ...head of state dispute article. PS: Whatever's decided for this article title ('dispute', 'discussion', 'debate', etc etc), could of course be used for proposed other articles. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just follow WP:AfD. But it seems unlikely to succeed if a merge can't...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It's too much trouble to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I restored the edits in the lead, that Skyring/Pete had reverted. Again, I wish he would stop trying to confuse readers about the identity of Australia's head of state. Such pointy actions are quite problematic on his part & merely obstructs progress. One gets the impression, that the results at the related Rfc at WP:POLITICS are being ignored. GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:POINT, that's why you made the edit without discussion. You do the same thing with Mies - make an edit that is certain to be reverted, and then complain when it happens. And what about WP:BRD? Now, please discuss the content, and why you feel you need to make a statement in the lede that is not made in the body, nor is it supported. You may refer to discussion and consensus here, if you please. --Pete (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The others can decide for themselves, as to what future course of action should be taken (if necessary) concerning the Australian head of state topic. I'm removing this article from my watchlist, as you've tried my patients for the last time. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The results of the RfC at WP:POLITICS must be applied here. Travelmite (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is now written in accord with Rfc. Please do not pretend otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

More about Kirby's opinions?

The "Scholarly sources" section reports Michael Kirby as a supporter of the view that the Queen is Australia's head of state, citing a lecture he gave in 1994. Given that the lead links to Australian republic referendum, 1999, which, in its "Aftermath" section reports that Kirby ascribed the failure of the republic referendum to ten factors, which are there summarised, and sourced to online link to his article (March 2000) "The Australian Republican Referendum 1999 - Ten Lessons", should any of the further information below about Kirby's opinions, pasted from Jack Upland's comments above, be included in the AHOSD article?

  • "... in the course of the referendum campaign the monarchist Michael Kirby commented: "... A similar distraction, in my view, was the argument that the Governor-General was actually the Head of State of Australia" ("The Australian Referendum on a Republic - Ten Lessons" - cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, p 1351) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "... in the lead-up to 1999 referendum...The republicans made much of the issue of an Australian being able to be head of state, including the infamous "Give an Australian the head job". David Smith and some other monarchists countered with the line that the GG was the head of state. This ... was a central issue of the campaign. The republicans appeal to nationalism was derailed, in part, by this "distraction" (to quote the monarchist Kirby) that some monarchists raised. 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "...Kirby summed it up well.... The republicans were divided about the model, and the monarchists brought up a number of "false issues", including this "distraction". Clearly, if there was a pre-existing intellectual dispute, the republicans were unaware of it. ... the republican campaign from Keating onwards took it for granted the Queen was head of state. Turnbull also in The Reluctant Republic put the same argument. Smith and Flint then counteracted. According to Kirby, Howard eventually admitted the Queen was head of state. I would say that this could be dealt with in a paragraph on the referendum page (which seems rather undeveloped). .18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC).

Qexigator (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The interesting thing about Kirby's position is that he previously complained about a "republic by stealth" with the GG being called the head of state, only to find, in the lead-up to the referendum, his fellow monarchists using this line.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Jack, would you say that the article, with links, just about covers that without overdoing it? Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I find the article's existence problematic, as already stated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
On observing your contributions here over some time, would it be fair to say that you dislike this article's existence because you disagree with the opinion that does not match your own? You have vehemently rejected that opinion several times in discussion, so it seems pretty clear to me. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the Queen is the head of state. Which raises the question: what "opinion" are you referring to? What opinion does this article put?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not the question I asked. I'm happy to respect your personal opinion on the identity of the head of state, but could you say what is it about this article itself that you are opposed to? --Pete (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll answer your question if you tell me what is "that opinion" you were referring to.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
There are two opinions being expressed:
1. Queen is head of state (your opinion, as expressed above: "I think the Queen is the head of state.")
2. Governor-General is head of state (the alternative view)
On observing your contributions here over some time, would it be fair to say that you dislike this article's existence because you disagree with the opinion that the Governor-General is the head of state? You have vehemently rejected that opinion several times in discussion, so it seems pretty clear to me. --Pete (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the vast majority of informed opinion and the vast majority of Wikipedians. The problem with this article is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no objection to the Smith/Flint argument being mentioned briefly in another article, but not having an article that is designed to showcase this theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Vast majority of either of those? It could be that a goodly number, enough to take from such a supposed vastness, of those who think about it, would see the position as Kerry Raymond does above, and see the article's existence as acceptable, and in its present version, deserving the attention of all interested in a npov report about the topic of the difference of opinion that has developed in Australia, whether or not it is more muted just now than it has been. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
My sources for that comment are (a) George Winterton's statement quoted previously ("great preponderance of informed commentary"); (b) the recent RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Jack, and neither of those rebut my comment above. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack, you're going against policy here. Looking at WP:FRINGE, the claim that the Governor-General is head of state does not meet the criteria set out there. It is well-sourced, notable, expressed by a great many prominent people. Secondly, even if it did meet WP:FRINGE, having an article on the topic is fine. We have articles on all manner of fringe theories. So your claims above hold no water. Perhaps your objections are more personal than that? As noted, you've expressed constant disapproval of the topic, and it looks like a case of WP:JDLI and a breach of WP:NPOV to me. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"A great many prominent people" -- Completely and repeatedly debunked, see comments above. Your personal comments about Jack are not only wrong, they are inverted. We should appreciate that both Jack, Qexigator, GoodDay, Ryk, myself and several others are supporters of NPOV. There is not any possibility they are acting out of personal opinion. I have great respect for their opinions about how to untangle this mess, and it seems the only debate between us is how to achieve it. Travelmite (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Feeding the troll

"A great many prominent people" -- Completely and repeatedly debunked, see comments above. Your personal comments about Jack are not only wrong, they are inverted. We should appreciate that both Jack, Qexigator, GoodDay, Ryk, myself and several others are supporters of NPOV. There is not any possibility they are acting out of personal opinion. I have great respect for their opinions about how to untangle this mess, and it seems the only debate between us is how to achieve it. Travelmite (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know we're not supposed to feed the troll, but…
"Completely and repeatedly debunked". Repeat the same lie often enough and it becomes truth, eh? As we can see from the article, we have sources for Prime Ministers, Governors-General, leading politicians, constitutional scholars, the High Court, and mainstream media stating that the Governor-General is the head of state. These are prominent Australians making the claim that Travelmite says is debunked. He is demonstrably wrong.
"Personal comments about Jack". No, these are observations about Jack Upland's lack of compliance with Wikipedia policy. Jack talks about giving undue weight to a fringe theory. He is wrong, because the view that the Governor-General is the head of state is reliably-sourced to mainstream media outlets of the Sydney Morning Herald or ABC level, as well as books, memoirs, and high-level primary sources. It is notable in its own right, simply because we have so many reliable sources. It's not a fringe view. A minority view, certainly, and we treat it with appropriate weight, by limiting it to this main article and not treating the view as a mainstream position.
Jack appears to be inserting his personal views into Wikipedia by attempting to remove - by deleting this article or merging it into others - any contrary position. That is a breach of WP:NPOV, a core pillar of Wikipedia.
"how to untangle this mess". There is no mess. This is an article which has been worked on by many editors over many years. It is rated as C-class, meaning that it needs work, but isn't bad. Any "mess" is found on this talk page, which has been deliberately trolled by Travelmite to cause disruption.
There has been some offline discussion about this account. The word "troublemaker" was used, and I think that if disruption continues, it is time to take it further. As a look at the edit history of this page shows, the amount of discussion has risen sharply since Travelmite's first contribution here in late January. Arid and fruitless discussion, most of it. None of the proposals to delete or merge this article have gained any consensus.
Travelmite's contribution history shows that before late January, he was a sparse and infrequent editor. Nothing of substance, and no interest in Australian constitutional matters. He is pretty much a single-purpose account now, and it is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see revision history statistics for this page [24], which show I am in 5th position for page contributions. Travelmite (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Red herring. A prime tool of the troll. Avoid responding to valid points, distract attention, hope nobody notices the evasion. A classic case. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Important improvements have been made to several articles, and the improvements should continue. Points raise have been followed through with a reasoned response, including sourcing. Some dead links have been fixed, so I will look at them next. Travelmite (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian head of state dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Many links are labeled "Government of Australia", "Parliament of Australia", and published by "Australian Government Publishing Service", when there are authors and different publishers. The research papers have a specific disclaimer. Note, that this has been mentioned previously. Travelmite (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute/Archive_7&oldid=1026616281"