Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 9

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

Merger proposal

There is no consensus to merge to any one article. There are near a half-dozen potential merge targets suggested in this discussion, and it's mostly unclear where participants actually want this information merged. You can consider this a procedural close if you like with no prejudice against a more structured merge proposal that offers clear yes/no options. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:48, 13 April 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: The Rfc above with "merger" as one of 3 options was opened on 15 February 2016 (UTC), and see discussion at Archives 7 and 8.

Following on from the discussion above, I propose that this article be merged to Monarchy of Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend merging to Australian republic referendum, 1999, as this so called 'dispute' seems to have been mostly drummed up during that referendum. PS: It should be made clear on Wikipedia, that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer a bit of both. I've amended the tags. Monarchy of Australia should state that the Queen is the head of state, but note that some monarchists dissent from this. (Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy still argue the GG is.) Then the referendum article should note the argument that arose in the 1990s. Pete gave a good summary recently of the events that ensued after Keating's speech...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright :) GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Monarchy" article, as previously discussed, and prepared for. Meantime, there is nothing to stop adding also to referendum article and the Monarchy article, to satisfy the "bit of both". Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - But 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[1], 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, given that, if the topic deserves no more than that, it does deserve as much. Qexigator (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: There are now 4, at least, for Retain, including... Qexigator (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The content of the current version is unmergeable, and the proposal should be abandoned as unviable.[2] Qexigator (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow policy. This article is not going to be deleted - along with years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material - without going through a proper WP:AfD.
  • Qexigator's attempt above to PROD this, knowing there is previously stated support for retention is disruptive.
  • The RfC - of which this discussion is part - remains under way, and any attempt to initiate merging or deletion should be set aside until after closure. There is currently no consensus for any of the three options, which indicates the retention of the status quo. As one editor has agreed to withdraw , and another is currently blocked, there is not even a majority of nose counts for merging.
  • Considering the appalling behaviour touched upon below, this entire campaign is headed for higher and broader discussion. In particular, I would be highlighting the incendiary and disruptive behaviour of one particular WP:SPA.
  • I suggest that disruption cease right now, and we discuss ways to improve the article with an eye to working together to produce a better encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Qexigator, based on my limited experience, I think it is advisable to avoid editing on this issue until this merger proposal is resolved. As Skyring has said, people have put a lot of work in, and it would be better to incorporate their work in some shape or form in other articles. In any case, as I have said, given my experience of the AfD process, it is highly unlikely that a deletion proposal would succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, merging sounds like a sneaky way of getting rid of the article by other means. The PROD idea was an appalling one, and I can only assume its advocates do not understand how the PROD process works. (I would, of course, have deprodded it as soon as I saw it.) My suggestion regarding for merging was for those who wanted a merge, and as an alternative to merging being part of an RfC discussion. It sounds like the merger discussion should be postponed - it can be withdrawn and closed now, without prejudice to a future proposal, especially after the RfC is closed. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sensing that emotions are starting to get high, here. I know from personal experience, what can happen if discussions on this article spill over into places like AN, ANI or worst? Trust me folks, nobody wants to go to the worst. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I was being "sneaky" in proposing the merger, as I have discussed the issues openly. The problem is that there is overwhelming consensus that the Queen is the head of state. This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. The counterclaim that the GG is HoS is a fringe theory, that is dismissed by leading constitutional scholars, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the RfC recently initiated by GoodDay. What I would suggest is a section in Monarchy of Australia that describes the Queen as head of state, and notes the Smith/Flint dissenting view. Also I would suggest an addition to the referendum article which describes how the issue played out in that debate. That would give the issue due weight. I suggest we let this merger proposal take its course.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
So why do you think it would be kept at AfD? Anyway, the point you raise is the essential one: This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. That's probably true, but there is no reason why it needs to be thus; if the consensus is that the Queen really is the Head of State, then the obvious thing to do would be to rewrite this article to reflect that. (Actually, I think it needs to be rewritten along these lines anyway, to reflect the fact that this is the majority opinion, even if we don't commit ourselves in wiki voice.) But this is not a reason for merging (or, for that matter, deletion). In fact, if this really is a fringe view, as you claim, the section you suggest would possibly be undue weight in the Monarchy of Australia article. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
In regards to my reference to sneakiness, I know you did this in good faith, but proposing a merger because you think an article would survive AfD does run rather close to gaming the system. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've never pushed strongly for deletion. In fact, I have added a fair amount material to the article, mainly in the scholarly sources. I do think the Monarchy article should say the monarch is head of state. That isn't undue weight. And this isn't about gaming the system; it's about operating by consensus. I don't think we'll get a consensus for deletion, but we are possibly approaching a consensus on a merger. I think you are misunderstanding this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It would (possibly) be undue weight if the dispute was explained - but only if the minority view is deemed to be fringe. But if all the Monarchy article says is that the Queen is the Head of State, that's not a merge at all; it's a redirect. Anyway, once again I ask: why don't you think we'd get a consensus for deletion? StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Reply: I don't think we'd get a consensus for deletion simply based on my limited experience. I think a likely outcome would be that uninvolved editors propose a merger instead. Hence, let's not waste time discussing deletion. In any case, thinking about it, I am less inclined to support deletion. The claim that the GG is the head of state is likely to raised again, so it would be worthwhile stating that the Queen is the head of state in the Monarchy article, with some of the key sources that we have assembled, rather than having this debate revisited in a few years time, and editors having to start from scratch. I would envisage a section called "Head of state" which featured most of the information from this article in a condensed form, and noted the opposing view. I would also envisage an expansion of the referendum article to describe how the republicans used slogans such as "Make a mate the head of state", and how the monarchists countered this by saying we already had an Australian head of state in the form of the governor-general... I think that could fairly be called a merger, not a deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If this article ceases to exist, it's a deletion. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this article. It's about a dispute, and there are many articles about disputes here. For example:
Getting rid of one of these articles does not eliminate the dispute. Rewriting an article so it favours one side or the other goes against NPOV. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
All of the disputes above have significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources; describing them as genuine disputes. The subject of this article would not appear to have the same. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Noting the above, all can form opinions for themselves about whether or not P/S's attempt to deflect adverse comment or proposals, defend a position and gain sympathy, by charging others with disruption, is a further effort to retain the indefensible. But either way a participant may feel saddened that an editor would, at this stage, feel moved to do that. Also noted: the distaste for PROD expressed and various propoals on the way to proceed from here. I concur with JU's remark: this isn't about gaming the system. Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
+ P/S's protest above that the whole content being merged would result in the loss of "years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material" is simple nonsense if, as I have understood it, talk page archives are retained and remain accessible (although not in fact part of Wikipedia's articles as such), and no "excellent sources" will be lost inasmuch as all encyclopedic content and sources will be moved to one or more places more suited to them. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The article clearly passes WP:GNG - there is significant coverage in reliable sources, both books[3][4][5][6] and other publications.[7] [8] For purposes of notability, it is irrelevant whether it is a fringe theory or not. As well as the two proposed merge targets, this topic is also relevant to the Governor-General of Australia and David Smith (public servant) articles. It is therefore better to consolidate the information in one article, to avoid undue weight in other articles. Also, this issue is no mere subset of any of the other articles - it is not, for example, merely an issue that was discussed in 1999. Finally, it is not clear under which of the reasons to merge this is proposed; it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria. Rather, from what I can tell from the above discussion, the main reason driving the merge is "I don't like it." StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed (as previously conceded by P/S) and at the same time rewritten as a whole, on the assumption that the topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and by way of conveniently consolidating information now elsewhere. The effect would be a new article, and redirect from the current title. I do not see that "the main reason driving the merge is I don't like it ", and consider that remark implies some lack of good faith on the part of others, who may have shown that they prefer articles to be suitably encyclopedic, before and after SA joined the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like a "keep" argument. Articles are changed and moved all the time; this is usually quite sharply distinguished from redirecting to an existing article. (Of course, a formal move proposal would also need to be made; do you have a particular title in mind?) Finally, it's no good just saying that one wants articles to be "suitably encyclopedic"; no doubt we all want that. (And "unencyclopedic" is another argument to avoid.) StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
SA: sounds like a "keep" argument: is my understanding of your proposal (stated above) what you are proposing? suitably encyclopedic: Perhaps if you review the discussions you will see that some participants consider the present version more a personal opinion essay, fine on a blog or magazine, but not encyclopedically suited to Wikipedia, but they too have been proceeding in a collaborative manner so far as has been permitted by others. Experience can tell us that it is usually better not to judge others too hastily on such points, especially when coming into an already advanced stage of a discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But "personal opinion essay" is not in itself a reason to delete; rather, we rewrite it to comply with NPOV, etc. In fact, I don't think anyone has actually produced a reason for merging. This may be due in part to the wording of the RfC, which encouraged those who thought the article was "rubbish" to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway" was not an option. Anyway, it would be helpful in this thread for the merge !voters to repeat / summarise their arguments rather than just saying "as above". StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It was P/S who introduced the word "rubbish", so are we to infer that s/he was leading us to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway". I note that you have not yet answered the question in my last previous comment: is my understanding of your proposal (as I rephrased it above) what you are proposing? And are you able to let me have a straight answer to the Question below: that could help clarify what you are actually proposing. Mere argumentation is not so helpful. Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
How could the question below be for me? I'm not proposing the merger! I saw it, of course, and I was looking forward to reading the answer myself. Anyway, are you saying that when you said "I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed... and at the same time rewritten as a whole" - you were checking to see whether we had the same goal in mind? We do, I think, although I can't off-hand think of a better title: Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State sounds a bit clunky. I'm not convinced the current title is particularly POV. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - If the content of the article is merged as proposed, will the result be that all that will remain will be its title and redirect? Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain and Improve. Qexigator, when you refer to me as "s/he" above, it made me wonder if you come from a culture where "Peter" is not a masculine name? And I've also noticed that when you ascribe some opinion to me, it is invariably wrong, inviting me to respond to set you straight, thereby FingTT. I don't think the article is rubbish; as I've said many times now it is well-sourced, notable, and long-standing. The article is not some view of David Smith. He is barely mentioned. It is an examination of the range of views expressed over many years by prominent Australians. Obviously some insist the Queen is the head of state, but there are enough who view the Governor-General as such to lift this beyond a fringe view. What it is not is an attempt to answer the question, or to sway readers one way or another. Miesianiacal and I have worked together to ensure that it is scrupulously NPOV. It should be kept, not sneakily merged or redirected to something of marginal relevance. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Qexigator: I would envisage 1 or 2 paragraphs in the Monarchy and the 1999 referendum articles based on the material assembled here. Note also that Australian head of state redirects here.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to the articles-in-question. This article reads like personal essay, based on sources that are interpreted to lend strong support David Smith's proposition that the GG is Head of State, and suggests an inconsistency in the regular understanding of Australian government, that is unsupportable by any aspect of Wikipedia policy or (as we have seen from many sources from legal scholars) the law itself. It has core problems with undue weight, original research and taking David Smith's work without acknowledgement. It fits the definition of a POV content fork WP:CFORK which is not permitted under Wikipedia's policy, as follows: "All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies". Regarding the sources, there's no documentation of actual public disputation, except we are told by some sources it came up from time-to-time during the republican debate. So it can fit inside the relevant article of the republican debate. The issue has been shown to be not notable, in that it's rarely mentioned, given the vast number of books on the topic of the constitution and Australia's government. Those rare mentions always talk about it in context of the republican debate, which is why editors are responsibly including that in the merge proposal. There is no concern that information will be lost as even the least important source has been found an place, in according with Wikipedia policy and in the spirit of accommodating all editors views. Over the past 10 years, there are more words about this within Wikipedia that is recorded in all other media combined, which means Wikipedia is now feeding off itself in creating new original content, like a chain-reaction. With a merge, I hope that the structural bias created by this article can ensure any further content disputes within Wikipedia can be easily resolved based on reliable sources. Travelmite (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
These are reasons for improving the article, not for merging. The normal procedure for essays to to tag them for improvement (Template:Essay-like) and remove the personal opinions and feelings. Any POV or OR problems can be dealt with through normal editing (though it may need a lot of work). Hence, it does not have to be a POVFORK - it could be a legitimate content fork. If all the reliably sourced information from this article was placed into Monarchy of Australia, the latter article would become a lot longer - so much so, that the information on this subject could be legitimately removed to its own article. That is content forking, but not POV forking; it is completely acceptable. Really, it all comes down to notability, and there is definitely significant coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources; that is all that is needed to pass WP:GNG. (Even if there is no documentation in the article of "actual public disputation", it is present in the sources I have cited.) StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This article merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let it go. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The structure of SA's argument is to break the many issues into isolated issues, as though a broken tricycle just needs a new wheels, new seat, new brakes, new chain and straightened frame. So, I stand by looking at the article as a whole, as it is written, and as it is linked throughout Wikipedia. I am commenting on the actual article, not a hypothetical article, with hypothetical sources and hypothetical tags. The "Essay-like" template is not applicable. If it's agreed that the article has POV, and its a content fork, then it's a POV content fork and that's against policy. The procedure to follow is to delete. Note these points have already been refuted repeatedly many times over. I think it's going to be sufficient now to just comment that these points have been refuted many times over. Travelmite (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the most important argument - that the subject passes WP:GNG - has not been refuted, or even addressed. Now, regarding POV forks, I am certainly not conceding that this is one, and I note that WP:POVFORK says, "it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." In any case, if the article is re-written to comply with WP:NPOV then it is obviously no longer a POV fork. So your argument does not hold up - in saying "The procedure to follow is to delete," you have basically gone back to asserting that it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm raises an important question here, and I concur that it is appropriate to address it. Which of the sources used in this article are reliable, independent, secondary sources? Which provide significant coverage? In faith, while we have 84 sources, I am not seeing many which meet these criteria. I am also not seeing many sources which indicate that this whateveritis rises to the level of a genuine dispute. If any other editor agrees that this should be discussed, I will open a new section, below. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
But to be fair, it's not just the ones in the article, but also the six I cited above. In any case, we only need two to pass GNG. As for "dispute", that is not essential to the notability of the topic, which is probably more the GG=HoS theory, anyway. (And even if it isn't quite the topic that is being discussed, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State" is an acceptable outcome.) StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It was actually reviewing the six sources cited above that raised the question in my mind as to whether the topic is notable as a dispute or as a theory; so I agree that we should absolutely consider those sources (and any others which might be proposed). It will take some time to go through the 90-odd sources, but I will try to have a rough draft in the next day or so - probably as a table inside a collapsed section. I also concur that, assuming demonstrable notability, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State or similar" is not an unacceptable outcome from my perspective, provided that it also involves a removal of the current proliferation of footnotes & caveats in other articles. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm says only two are needed to pass GNG, but this is not the case as Wikipedia couldn't include an article for every theory (source 1) that was refuted once or twice (source 2 or 3). The article is not even achieved this level of neutrality. Regardless, there is not a fixed number of sources required, since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not constitute multiple works, as in this case the authors are relying on the same source (Smith), and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by one author (Smith) is normally counted as one source. The lack of sufficient sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in wider topics. I have no issue preserving the idea, but do it according to policy. Travelmite (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The use of footnotes and caveats is the issue that I have attempted (with limited success) to address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Refining the question. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, what's the current situation here? GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin. I would like to see more responses to the proposal. Unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of verbiage generated by a small group of editors (including me). So what do others think? Ask for closure or wait for more editors to give their input?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
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 the 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[9], 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. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You have only confirmed to me that we need outside input.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack: For what outside input do you feel a need? Are you hoping for a ruling in favour of your proposed merger? Surely, enough "verbiage" is enough. Qexigator (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge This article is nothing more than an WP:ESSAY and a WP:FRINGETHEORY. Absolutely no credible sources state that anyone other than the Queen is the Australian head of state. The fringe theory of a couple of monarchists seeking to increase public acceptance of an institution does not equate to a "dispute". This "dispute" can easily be covered in other articles. It is an embarrassment that an article of this length promoting such conspiracies has existed for so long. AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • What absolute tosh. This is a perfectly good article, in existence for many years, well-sourced, and notable. Have you actually read it? Or is it that you just don't agree with the views of others? Prime Ministers, Governors-General, ministers, the media and many more have all described the Governor-General as head of state. There is a demonstrable division of opinion, but *shrug* you just don't like it. --Pete (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't entirely ruled out an AFD on this article, AusLondonder. Merging is still an option, too. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - The RfC at WP:POLITICS is a good example of ongoing debate and this article seems well sourced and generally well written. The contents don't belong in any other article, so the article is best left here, as is. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Merger

The fact that there is a diversity of opinion indicates two things:
  1. Merging one article into several is not following the intent of WP:MERGE which envisions the reverse procedure, of merging two or more articles into one.
  2. If only one merge target is selected, then which one? The dispute predates the republic referendum and continues to this day - seventeen years on. Clearly this topic extends beyond the 1999 referendum. Other articles: Queen, Governor-General, Government, etc. all have merit for being the best merger target, because this issue touches upon them all. So which one?
It is simple common sense to keep this significant article and wikilink to it from all others, rather than have the same material forked to several different articles --Pete (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Merging an article into multiple articles, isn't a new concept. PS - As you're the creator of this article? we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You astonish me. If it is commonplace, then perhaps you could provide an appropriate example which may inform our discussion? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:MERGE. I have proposed Australian republic referendum, 1999 and Monarchy of Australia, others favour the Monarchy article. This has been appropriately signposted on both the articles concerned. And Ryk72, I agree you have raised an important point above regarding sources. This is something I have been trying to elucidate for the past year.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
My reading of WP:MERGE is that merging one article into several is not policy, and in any case, this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline to remain as a standalone article, as it has for many years. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting, isn't it? There's absolutely no provision for (and/or thought that anyone would want) this sort of merge. And the reason is simple: a merge always finishes up with a redirect. What article would this one redirect to when everything is done? I fear the merge advocates have not properly thought this part through. StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
And GoodDay, this discussion would be a lot better if you would respond to Pete's questionsto (like his request for an example of this ever happening before) instead of making snarky comments like "we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it." StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned somewhere else in these discussions. Best we all keep our wits about us & control our emotions. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's true that WP:MERGE discusses the merging of two articles into a third article, but not the merging of one article into two other articles. But there seems no reason what I have suggested couldn't happen. The consensus seems to be to redirect to Monarchy of Australia, not that the phrase "Australian head of state dispute" is commonly used. It doesn't seem to matter whether you split this article's content (in a merger) between the Monarchy article and the referendum article, or if you merge this to the Monarchy article, and improve the referendum article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If the plan is to redirect to Monarchy in the end, then that should be the move request. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm certainly not seeing any consensus of opinion, even in that minority favouring a merge in the RfC above. It's like the man in a hurry who mounted his horse and galloped off in all directions. Merge here, merge there, merge everywhere. How on earth is that policy? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sofar, 4 support a merge to Monarchy in Australia. 2 do not. All 4 support the same proposal merging to Monarchy in Australia, with changes in other articles. I've separated this comment out, to make it clear how other editors can post their say Travelmite (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no - two editors (including yourself) explicitly !voted to merge to both articles. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I voted once for Jack Upland's proposal, using a form of words that specify exactly that. I really admire the fairness and patience that Goodday, Jack, Qex, Wikiain, Ryk, Moxy and several others have shown. Not once, have they resorted to any tricks or non-policy activity. Honest and calm, they are consistently showing good faith, beyond what what is expected. They are always ready with sound arguments. If there was the remotest possibility of them being incorrect in the smallest way over these weeks, every opportunity has been allowed for it to be exposed. But it has not happened. Bravo! Bravo! Travelmite (talk) 17:07, 11 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian head of state dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian head of state dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Australia has numerous Australian Heads of State

The website of Governor Sir David Hurley notes that he is the Head of State of New South Wales. Quite so. Every State has a head of State, its State Governor. Accordingly, the Head of State of Australia is the Governor-General, the chief channel of communication with the Queen, who is a sovereign but not Head of State of Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.144 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

He is not Sir David Hurley. He has never been knighted.
Just asserting your opinion does not improve this article one jot. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The governor's website does say that he is "formal head of state":[10]. Maybe this belongs in the article...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, if anyone can work out what it means. Wikiain (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was probably misled in memory because I recall a website stating that the Governor is required to be addressed as "Sir" or as 'Governor'. Nonetheless, the wbsite of the NSW Head of State, the State's Governor is https://www.governor.nsw.gov.au/governor/role-of-the-governor/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.144 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

According to: ‘Governor-General and Governors’, The Modern Reference Encyclopaedia of Australia Illustrated, (1949), The Melbourne Herald, Melbourne, Victoria, p.1126: "The titular head of the State is the governor… The head of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is the Governor-General, whose chief residence is at Canberra, the Federal Capital." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.144 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Any man in a position senior to oneself can be addressed as "Sir", just as a senior woman can be called "Ma'am". It's a mark of common courtesy and respect. But that's not the same as implying they have "Sir" as a formal title. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous contributor: the Governor's website section has been found, as you might have noticed; and an encyclopaedia entry from 1949 is of no assistance. Please sign your posts. Wikiain (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is it of no assistance? The contributor has cited a quote and referenced it.Gazzster (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
We've discussed the encyclopedia before. The head of the State is obviously different from the head of state. What the Governor's website says is interesting because the idea of multiple heads of state was used by George Winterton as a reductio ad absurdum (as cited in the article). If there are people who claim this it would be worthwhile citing this in the article. But I think we need a better source than just a webpage. After all, it's possible for a government webpage to have an error.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Not being familiar with the text in question, I'm not arguing for it. I just wonder why, in an article treating of a disputed idea, any appropriately cited reference, carrying an element of authority (as an encyclopedia might be considered), can't be discussed.And if a webpage could be rejected because it might be erroneous, any webpage could be so rejected. But to be the devil's advocate, the Australian states are in a sense sovereign in their own right. So why shouldn't their governors be considered heads of state?Gazzster (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The point is the encyclopedia does not use the phrase "head of state". It says "head of the State", which is different. With regard to the website, it could be cited as a source, but I think with this page there is a history of cherry-picking slips and misstatements and presenting them as official positions. If this is the NSW government's position, there should be other confirmations of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
As to encyclopaedias: something is not a good source just because it is published and is called an encyclopaedia; it matters, especially, whether the article has been written by an expert on the topic. As to that particular encyclopaedia: an opinion in 1949 on Australian constitutional law is unreliable owing to its age; looking e.g. at the 1975 crisis, in 1949 most people would probably have taken Kerr's view of the G-G's powers, while today it is the other way around.
As to the NSW Governor's webpage (which I think to be a more important matter here), I would not place any weight on it for the present purpose—not least because I can't make sense of it. Perhaps the G should be distinguishing his position from that of the Premier, who is the NSW head of government. But, if that is the intention, it's a clumsy attempt. And it has no legal effect. I suggest we just leave it alone. Wikiain (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a disputed title, as Gazzster points out. Including material pertinent to both sides of the dispute conforms with NPOV. We should not follow Jack Upland's suggestion to remove anything contrary to his own view. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we stop now? Wikiain (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez. I thought this article was deleted months ago :( GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I made a few tweaks. Mainly, Australia isn't the only Commonwealth realm that doesn't use the term Head of State in its Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

But where's the source? Can you point to a reliable source actually saying this, or are you offering up a personal interpretation of primary sources, namely the constitutions of whatever unspecified nations you have in mind? --Pete (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
GoodDay, could you please remove your unsourced material? --Pete (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I refer you to reference 1, where we find a Parliamentary Research Note stating, "The expression 'Head of State' is not found in the Constitution. It is a term generally used as a convenient description of the person who is accorded the highest rank among the officers of government". That's a source we can use. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added 2 sources, one from Canada & one from Grenada. There's other Commonwealth realms that don't mention head of state in their constitutions. There's also countries outside the Commonwealth of Nations, that don't use head of state in their Constitutions either. It's not just an Australian thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but you need to provide sources stating what you claim. You can't just add in your own interpretation, even if you believe it to be true. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added sources. The constitutions of the aforementioned countries (Canada & Grenada). BTW - the United Kingdom doesn't have a written Constitution & therefore also doesn't have 'head of state' in writing in their constitution. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You've added links to constitutions. Those are primary sources. Furthermore, you haven't found any reliable sources stating that the term head of state isn't used in these documents. We have an authoritative source (given above) for Australia, but nothing for Canada and Grenada or any other nation. You can't synthesise sources; you need somebody saying it explicitly. Do you understand how that works? --Pete (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
One need only look over the Constitutions of those 2 realms & one will find that head of state is not used. The way the intro was previously, seemed to suggest that the Australian Constitution's failure to mention head of state was somehow unique & supporting suggestions that the monarch wasn't head of state. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that's synthesis and personal interpretation of primary documents, both practices heavily discouraged in Wikipedia. You need to find a secondary source that explicitly states what you claim. It doesn't matter if something is true or not, you need to find a source, unless it is something blatantly obvious, like the sky is blue or women are female. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I've provided sources that Australia is not the only Commonwealth realm whose Constitution doesn't mention 'head of state' in writing. Don't understand your eagerness to create the impression that Australia is unique in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't care about that last point. It's not important. I care about sourcing. For example, I could say that the constitution of Canada does not prohibit murder. I haven't checked, but I dare say that you know better than I and can confirm that this is a true statement. But nobody thinks it important enough to state it explicitly. Likewise your original research on the Canadian constitution. Please include a secondary source. We have one for Australia, but not for Canada or Grenada. Do you understand the point about no original research? --Pete (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to wait for others to chime in. Indeed, maybe they can help out here. Not interested in a back-and-forth long dispute with you. FWIW, you really should step back & let others edit this article. You created the article, but that doesn't make you its guardian. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you understand the point about no original research, GoodDay? I don't think you grasp this and it's kind of important in Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pete - you need to try and calm down and maybe have a read of WP:OWN. Your battleground behaviour concerning the Australian monarchy has been noticed by me and other editors. AusLondonder (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
We all own Wikipedia and sourcing requirements, surely? Do you see where GD has gone astray? If so, perhaps you could explain it. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australian head of state dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

State governors?

Honestly? the state governors are also called heads of state? Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


1.144.106.114 (talk) Yes. 'The Modern Reference Encyclopaedia', published in the 1930s by the Melbourne Herald, states that the head of sate of each state is the governor of that state, and that the head of state of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is the Governor-General. Whatever! —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


As in the early High Court decision, of course. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Removed it: this article is about HoS of the Commonwealth. Wikiain (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a genuine issue in the context of this page, which cites George Winterton on the issue. The Governors do represent the Queen on a state level; the GG does not. Hence, all the arguments that apply to the GG being HoS apply also to the Governors. Winterton intended this to be a reductio ad absurdum, but now it seems that some people are pushing this line, including the NSW Governor. Yes, it is absurd, but so is the whole "dispute".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The dispute is real enough. Its history and scope recorded over the past decades, and rising to significance during the republic thing. I imagine it will become a hot topic once more when the Queen moves on and the republicans attempt to seize the moment. Malcolm Turnbull may yet achieve lasting fame. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As you have noted above, Jack, the NSW Governor's website says "formal head of state". This might make sense if it referred to the Queen, but I can't make any sense of it as referring to the Governor (or if it were to be used about the Governor-General). The website later says: "The supreme executive authority in NSW is the Executive Council, consisting of the Ministers, presided over by the Governor. This is the formal, official arm of the Government ...". So maybe the website should be saying not "formal head of state" but "formal head of government". But we don't know who wrote the site and the present Governor is a soldier, not a lawyer. I really don't think that referring to it assists.
I would expect the legally best informed gubernatorial site (if not that of NSW) to be that of Victoria, which states:
The Governor of Victoria is appointed by the Queen, on the advice of the Premier, to act as her representative as Head of State in Victoria. Since the Australia Acts of 1986, it is the Governor, and not the Queen, who exercises all the powers of the Head of State, and he or she is not subject to the direction or supervision of the Monarch. Upon appointment, the Governor becomes a Viceroy.
One might characterise this, with sympathy, as a "good try". The phrase "as her representative as Head of State" is obscure; "exercises all the powers of the Head of State" is not quite right, because the Queen appoints and can dismiss a Governor, and can exercise any of the Governor's powers when personally present in the State (Australia Acts, s 7); and "becomes a Viceroy" doesn't really explain anything.
As to absurdity of the whole "dispute"—I'm right with you, sir. Referring to the Governors doesn't assist discussion about the Governor-General; extending the "dispute" about the Governor-General to the Governors merely extends the absurdity. Wikiain (talk)
I think we could safely excise any reference to State Governors as irrelevant here. They may be "Australian Heads of State" but nobody really cares. Nobody writes books or letters to the editor or holds public debates on that point. Not at all notable. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree; it is notable as Governors are viceregal as well.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister Keating named Governor-General as Head of State

During the first speech in which he proposed Australia becoming a republic (Parliamentary Debates, Vol. H. of R. 201, 7 June 1995, pp. 1434-41), Prime Minister Keating referred to the Governor-General as 'Head of State' of Australia.

I understand that when former Governor-General Quentin Bryce met the Queen Bryce was introduced as Head of State of Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.73 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What are you requesting? GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

```` I am requesting that you understand that the issue is about distancing Australians from Britain so that Australia can be merged with the 'Asia-Pacific' (Europe is the model', so that Australia can be dissolved into the Asia-Pacific and so that the usual billionaires can take tribute from the trade between a small number of large international regions (e.g. European region, American region, African region etc.) Do Australian unions want Australians to be earning Asia-Pacific wages? Do Australian want the same currency, wages, laws and conditions as in the Asia- Pacific region so that Australian billionaires can become Asia-Pacific Billionaires? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.106.114 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Keating said the opposite:[11]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute/Archive_9&oldid=1159249197"