Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Courts

The article claimed "The issue of Australia's head of state has been considered by courts in numerous decisions since federation in 1901." I've removed this as I find it problematic: if there have been numerous cases in which the courts have touched on the issue of Australia's head of state, why is there only one cited, the only one I've ever heard of? If there are indeed more, then they should be used as sources, and I'd see no problem with reinstating the above sentence, or some similar form of it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There are other cases, but due to OR problems I removed them. Once there's proper verifiable cases I'll re-add them. --LJ Holden 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be good; that little, one sentence paragraph needs fleshed out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we have an idea of what some of these cases might be?Gazzster (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

We seem to be having some difficulty with the lead. I won't say the version I wrote was perfect, but Mitch Ames' version made statements that either aren't known for sure or are known to be not true: For instance, has the debate arisen because it isn't said in law who the head of state is? The constitution hasn't said anything about a head of state since 1901, yet only in the last 20 or so years has there been a debate. Further, the governor-general and Queen aren't contending for the title; I doubt either cares; there's certainly no evidence they do. Rather, it's politicians, republicans, monarchists, legal scholars, and the media who are in contention with each other over the matter. I've thus returned it to my version. I don't see any issue with saying the dispute "seeks to decide..."; why would people be engaged in a dispute if not to find which party's right? Still, I changed it to "The dispute over who is Australia's head of state centres around the question of...", which I hope meets everyone's concerns. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

it is accurate, and therefore acceptable. It is not directly sourced, but the body of the article, with statements from both sides, makes it abundantly clear that there is a dispute and illustrates the nature. --Pete (talk)

Um, who said there wasn't a dispute? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose changing

... should be considered the country's head of state

to

... is the ... head of state

The latter is more succinct and (IMO) more accurate. Any comments or objections? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with proposed change. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. When writing the lead, I had "is the country's head of state" in there for a while, but changed it; that composition made it sound as though "head of state" is a discernable position to be occupied rather than what it is: simply a label. The head of state debate is a semantic one that has no bearing on the offices held by either the Queen or the governor-general.

Perhaps "should be regarded as the country's head of state" or "should be recognised as the country's head of state" could work better. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point on the distinction between an actual position and a label. Although for most people (ie those having the dispute), the question "who do you consider the head of state" is necessarily the same as "who is the head of state". For someone to give different answers to the two questions is tantamount to lying, or an admission that what they think/consider is wrong. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it quite like that, Mitch. Anyone who says "X is the Australian head of state" is asserting something that cannot be proven, and anyone who's done the slightest bit of research on the topic knows it cannot be proven. They're either ignorant, or lying, or are so ego-bound that they honestly believe something is so just because they say it is so. Take your pick. But "I consider X to be the Australian head of state" is perfectly fine. It is an expression of opinion or belief, and nobody can ever gainsay it. Half the edit wars we have on WP come from people claiming, usually in bold caps, something to be the incontrovertible truth simply because they believe it to be so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of wording like:

"[Official] sources ... some say the monarch is head of state, while others say it is the governor-general.

"...the government website states: "... monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore [is] Australia's Head of State."

Does all that text need updating? Are those sources incorrect? I do acknowledge your point on the distinction between a scientifically or legally provable fact and an opinion, but I believe that the dispute (the topic of the article) is about the fact, not the opinion. However, perhaps the article should explicitly state the possibility that there is no "provable" answer, and that the concept of head of state can only ever be an opinion? Ie that there are are least four sides to the dispute: The Queen is the HoS; the GG is the HoS; there is no HoS, but we consider the Queen to be HoS; there is no HoS, but we consider the GG to be HoS. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if the quoted text is actually what those sources assert, then we should quote them exactly (as an assertion, mind you, not as the truth). I'm not sure that the dispute is about the fact of who is the HoS, because there is no fact. If everyone agreed it was the Queen, or everyone agreed it was the GG, then that would be the fact and there would be no dispute. But until such time as it is codified in law or an official proclamation, there is only opinion. As I say, sometimes sources express opinion as if it were fact, but that doesn't make it fact. It's still all opinion. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, if there is no fact until someone makes an official pronouncement, I propose changing from:

... should be considered the country's head of state

to

... should be the ... head of state

Ie worded as a future/conditional fact, rather than a future/conditional opinion. Basically I don't like the use of the word "consider" in this context. The point of the debate is about who is - or (in the absence of a definite answer now) will be, if a decision is made - the HoS not about who we are going to think is the HoS. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another possible wording is "... the question of whether [the monarch or the GG] fulfils the role of ... head of state"? Mitch Ames (talk)

We seem to be going around in circles here, and I may have unintentionally stirred the pot as much as anyone. Currently, the lede opens with "The dispute over who is Australia's head of state centres around the question of whether the Australian monarch or the Governor-General of Australia should be considered the country's head of state". I have no objections to the last part being changed to "... is the country's head of state".

This article is about a dispute. The dispute is that one side is insisting the Queen is the HoS, and the other side is insisting the GG is the HoS. So that's the wording we should be using to describe the dispute. They are not saying that their preferred candidate should be considered the HoS, becase as as far as they're concerned, that candidate already is the HoS. Nor can we allow the players the luxury of a wikipedia-style Neutral Point of View that says nobody really knows the Truth, because that is not the position either side is taking. That is something that only we disinterested (but not uninterested) observers, commentators and editors can indulge in. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper synthesis?

Mies, you have tagged the statement However, some constitutional lawyers interpret the text differently, viewing the Governor-General as representing something other than the monarch's personal authority. as "improper synthesis?". Considering that the direct quotes from noted constitutional lawyers following the statement all say precisely that, I am puzzled as to how you view them. On the matter of representation, if you can dig up some good quotes to the effect that the literalist interpretation is the correct one, that would be helpful. --Pete (talk)

But they don't say precisely that. You said precisely that and then collected together a bunch of quotes you think support the claim. The problem is: not only does that make the claim synthesis, but it's only misrepresentations of the scholars' and politicians' views that support the synthesis.

At least this finally answers my earlier question about "the story" these quotes were gathered by you to tell. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Do you think Robert Garran ever made a statement that did not mean exactly what it said? He was the Commonwealth's first lawyer. He had a long and distinguished career. There is a suburb in Canberra named after him. And a college in the Australian National University. I do not think any of the lawyers I quoted - and these are very highly regarded people in Australian history - were saying anything other than what they genuinely believed. I did not choose snippets out of context, I did not twist their words. This is not something i dreamed up. These people are my sources. If you can find any sources of equivalent authority that give a contrary view I would be astonished. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You did twist their words, in the sense that you quoted them as affirmation of a claim you made. But, they don't say anything that backs your theory, and your theory certainly has no place in Wikipedia. Until it's published in a reliable source, that is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

These are reliable scholars, their words are clear and plain, I have given online sources where the statements I have selected may be read in context. Your view is simply wrong. You won't see it that way, of course, but the fact that you cannot come up with any good sources contradicting me should convince a reasonable person that you are in error. As you believe that I have somehow twisted the words of the respected constitutional lawyers I quote, you must have read statements by the same people that give a different view. i invite you to present them. I think I might be waiting a long time. You are wasting my time, and you are being disruptive. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your reading of the quotes is wrong. They do not support your theory. Your theory has no place in Wikipedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You can't present any contradictory sources and that puts the lid on that, so far as Wikipedia is concerned. You also talk about my "theory". What is your perception of this theory? Have I outlined it in a definitive fashion somewhere? Is it some unstated belief that you assume I hold? I would like some explanation, please. I am sure that if you state precisely what it is that you think I believe, I can either confirm your view or reject it, and either way we will have a clearer picture. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you disagree. That's of no importance, though. You made up a theory and have tried to back it with sources that don't say what you think they do. The only source that even comes close to affirming what you say about the relationship between the Queen and the governor-general is David Smith's. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you cannot give reliable sources for your opinion or articulate this mysterious "theory" you believe I hold, you are effectively doing no more than grumbling, and every person is entitled to that. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're asking for a reliable source that says your claim that the Governor-General represents something other than the monarch is synthesis? Surely you jest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No. And I am serious. I have provided a list of excellent sources stating precisely that: ...some constitutional lawyers interpret the [constitution] differently, viewing the Governor-General as representing something other than the monarch's personal authority. At this point we have arrived at a full circle and you have provided no additional material apart from your own view. If you want to go around again, you may do so, but you will do so alone. I have other things to do. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't. You provided, possibly, one. I don't need any source to support that observation other than the content of this article itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to read some good authorities on the Australian Constitution. It is quite pointless for you to argue from a position of ignorance - I know what the great men of Federation said and I know subsequent discussion. Clearly, if you believe that the Royal Powers Act covers constitutional powers, you are working in the dark and some illumination is required. I suggest the pre-eminent commentary, that of Quick and Garran. --Pete (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This personal comments would be very upsetting if the weren't so wrong - thus funny - Miesianiacal stature due to his "vast" and "comprehensive" knowledge on the monarchy is very well respected and widely acknowledged by the community. Would be best to try and win your argument with just the facts - pointing directly to sources that support the additions - thus trying to win a debate without resorting to playground tactics.Moxy (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mies may have a staggering reserves of knowledge, but in our happy little playground of Wikipedia, original research is banned and reliable sources must be found for every statement. --Pete (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have stagnated. Let's deal with it. Mies, I can see where you are coming from, but this is really important - it's the whole basis of the dispute. The literalist, naive, out of context view is a popular one: the Queen appoints the Governor-General, he is her representative, he exercises her powers. However, this is not the actuality. The Queen appoints the Governor-General, but only in a rubber-stamp fashion. The Australian Prime Minister selects him, advises the Queen to appoint him, and she has no option but to comply. There is generally some informal negotiation beforehand to ensure that nobody is embarrassed, but that's about as far as it goes. The James Scullin/King George V/Sir Isaac Isaacs affair sorted out where the power lies. The powers of the Governor-General, the important ones anyway, are given to the office in the Constitution, not by some royal warrant. They may be exercised in the Queen's name, some of them, but again, the powers are the Governor-General's alone. The Queen may not exercise them, nor instruct the Governor-General on their use. She could have been standing in Government House in Yarralumla beside Sir John Kerr and Gough Whitlam on 11 November 1975, and she could do nothing. Thirdly, the Governor-General is not the personal representative of the Queen. At Federation he was the representative of the British Government, and is now something else. A lovely description of the role is "representing the Australian people to themselves". I have provided good quotes from excellent sources for the above. Direct, relevant quotes from people who are the stars of constitutional knowledge.

The key point is that the literalist interpretation is not shared by academics and lawyers. This is why there is a dispute over who is seen as the head of state.

I think the article needs to inform the reader as to why there is a dispute, not just the fact that there is one. I don't want to do this in a way that is against Wikipedia's procedures, so I am sympathetic to Mies's concerns on this point, but when there is such a clear division of opinion, NPOV requires that both be presented. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're speaking of the Queen's reserve powers. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What reserve powers does the Queen have? Could you list them, please? --Pete (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At Reserve powers#Australia, concerning the 1953 Royal Powers Act. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not a widely held view amongst constitutional experts. It is not, therefore, a view which Wikipedia need give much attention to. --Pete (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is full of quotes unrelated to each other and/or to the subject of the article all being used to back some synthesised claims. Whatever's sourced should be moved to more apt locations, such as Governor General of Australia and/or Monarchy of Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you address the specific points, Mies? I understand you are vaguely unhappy, but it's hard to respond effectively on grumbles. Good point about adding to related sites. --Pete (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There's only two relevant points: 1) The section is full of quotes unrelated to each other and/or to the subject of the article. 2) These are being used to back some synthesised claims. They should be moved from here to more pertinent articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions on what is and is not relevant to this Australian debate, Mister Canada, are quite at odds with the reality. For example, you described the republican factor of the debate as "irrelevant", when it is the reason there is a debate. The literalist interpretation of the Constitution is the foundation of the naive view that because the Constitution describes the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in Section 2, that makes her the head of state. It is certainly one which has convinced GoodDay. Without this popular but naive reading, there would be no debate. The views of constitutional authorities would prevail. But the Constitution is available to the general public, it is written in refreshingly plain English, and everyman may declare their own opinion. But I have yet to find any good authority who follows this interpretation - apart from Sir Anthony Mason, whose stance was thoroughly debunked as being full of fantasy and invention. It is the views of constitutional scholars providing the ammunition for the monarchist position that the Queen is not the head of state and because we already have an Australian in that position there is no need to remove the Queen. It is a well-sourced view and helped seal the defeat of the 1999 republican referendum. But you do not see the republican movement as relevant, it seems.

We are in the business of providing information. This article is not some arid intellectual exercise. It is an explanation to those who come looking to Wikipedia for information on why some people call the Queen the head of state and some people say it is the Governor-General. We provide all valid points of view. You cannot dismiss the very pertinent opinions of some of the stars of Australian constitutional theory merely because they do not support your view. I have repeatedly asked you to find good authorities supporting your view and you have repeatedly failed. You have demonstrated excellent research skills here and elsewhere over a long wikicareer and yet you come up empty on this point. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my opinions seem to be at odds only with you. People's views on the head of state matter - Smith's, Turnbull's, Hughes', Howard's - are already there in the article, outside of your "Representative of the Queen?/Constitutonal interpretations" section, neatly summarlised. What's in the aforementioned section - the unsourced OR, the quotes unrelated to the article subject - is only there because you're trying to prove your own theory on the governor-general; it's just a carry on from what you started at Governor-General of Australia a couple of months ago: "I'm not out to score debating points here, merely to see if I'm correct or not in observing that representing the Queen is not the primary function of the Governor-General."[1] Wikipedia is not the place for that exercise. Enroll in university and write a doctorate on the subject, instead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The opinions of constitutional authorities - Mason being a notable exception - seem to be that the Governor-General does not represent the Queen personally as outlined in the naive view. He or she represents something else. Again, I note that you cannot come up with any good authorities to support your contrary opinion. I know you are a good researcher, so what am I to make of this failure? I make the obvious conclusion - your opinion is not well supported. When you fall back on personal attack instead of providing facts, you merely convince me that I am correct in my observations. Don't tell me I am wrong - show me! Show everyone. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The only different between Australia & Canada (for example), concerning what's written -vs- what's practiced, is Australians have been making a bigger deal out of it. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A bigger deal, including having a national vote on whether to remove the all mention of the Queen from the mechanisms of Australian government. Canada does not seem to have progressed as far. But, GoodDay, as Mies has come up empty on good sources, perhaps you can help him out? A few professors who stand behind your views? The vast resources of the net are at your disposal. Make Google your friend. I am happy to be persuaded by facts, but vague waffle, no matter how forcefully presented, does not convince me. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You kidding? The sooner Liz gets the boot, the better. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but so long as a suitable model emerges, I'm all for removing the Queen from even her symbolic role in Australian affairs. Most Australians, I think, would see it this way. --Pete (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, there's a very simple reason why you've never seen me put forward any good authorities in support of my opinion: I'm not trying to insert my opinion into the article; it's as irrelevant to page content as yours is. The point you're using your habit of deflection to evade is that presently the "Constitutional interpretations" section is full of a) unsubstantiated claims and b) material from multiple sources that has not only been combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, but has also been misinterpreted by you and is relevant neither to the conclusion you're trying to draw nor the article subject itself. Original research is not allowed and page content should stick to the subject; so, now that the sources that were once used in the synthesis but are relevant to the article have been moved to other sections of the page, the remainder of "Constitutional interpretations" that is properly sourced and isn't already covered in other articles will be moved to relevant articles, like Governor-General of Australia and Monarchy of Australia, as per policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies. You've been around here long enough to know how the system works. I don't agree with your view, nor does anyone else here. GoodDay, when specifically asked, seemed happy to let both sides stand. How about, as per policy, you find consensus before unilaterally removing pertinent and well-sourced information? I agree that neither my views nor yours have any place in Wikipedia, but I do not share your opinion that Garran, Inglis Clark, Turnbull and Winterton have no place here. --Pete (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not required to seek consensus before making any initial edit. Also, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. However, in doing so, you have, at least, acknowledged that your original research doesn't belong in Wikipedia; given that Garran and Winterton are here only to support your synthesis, they should be moved. Turnbull and Smith are already elsewhere in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What "original research" are you talking about? Could you be more specific, please? You alone seem to take strong offence to something, but I am not sure what exactly is irritating you. I cannot work with the vague unhappiness you project except to suggest that you inform yourself on the subject. If you can articulate something more precise, we can sort it out. As to your assumptions as to what I have supposedly acknowledged above, I reject them. You are deluding yourself. The remarks of Garran and others are included to demonstrate that the scholarly view differs from the naive. This is hardly surprising, when talking about matters of constitutional theory and law. It is not my astonishing discovery, revealed here for the first time. We can work on the wording to eliminate any misgivings you may feel. In fact, we must - if you cannot understand it, we can hardly expect the average reader to do so. I had thought it plain enough, but it seems I was mistaken.--Pete (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research. Let's start with this: "The difference between a literalist reading of the Constitution and a legal interpretation of the same document underpins the current debate"; followed by: "A literal reading gives the impression that the Queen holds the highest rank in the governmental structure of Australia and is therefore the head of state rather than her appointed representative, who merely executes the Queen's powers in her name"; and then "The opinions of constitutional scholars on the nature of the Governor-General's role differ from this view"; which all together is meant to support that other synthesised conclusion of yours: the governor-general is more than the Queen's representative. Working on the wording of original research is a waste of time; the OR shouldn't be there at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling us that Robert Garran, Malcolm Turnbull, George Winterton and so on are somehow mistaken? The quotes are in exact concord with the documents from which they have been taken, they are honest and true opinions of leading figures in constitutional scholarship, and they demonstrate very well that the literal interpretation is out of step with the legal view. I think it is important that both literal and learned interpretations be presented. WP:NPOV requires it. I've been looking at literalism in the Constitution, and even the scholarly view, as articulated by Winterton and Craven, is a very long way from the naive reading you seem to imagine is the only one Wikipedia should present here. Your carping is becoming tiresome, Mies. We are here to provide knowledge and understanding and enlightenment to our readers, not fill them full of ignorant drivel. You know how to do research, so I really cannot believe that you haven't checked the sources given and then looked for others to support a contrary view. Feel free to bump up the literalist interpretation you favour with good, authoritative sources. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having difficulty. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

External links - British monarchy

I've restored http://www.royal.gov.uk/ to the external links, with the correct title "Official website of the British monarchy". I think it is relevant because the British monarch is one of the two contenders for the position of head of state. If we're going to list the GG's site (and ARM's), it's only fair (and more importantly - neutral) that we list the Queen's as well. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The British monarch is not a "contender" for the title (not position) of head of state of Australia. Australia's an independent nation. The website is not "the Queen's", as though it were the website for all realms; it is the British monarchy website, specific to the UK. Canada has one for the Canadian monarchy, for example. We wouldn't add it because the Canadian monarch is a "contender" for the title of head of state of Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mies, you don't find all this "Queen of Canada", "Queen of Australia", "Queen of the UK" business a bit tedious? It's all rather notional. Besides, the constitution is specifically talking about the British Queen, not the Australian one. --Pete (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, from the very website we're arguing over: "The Queen's relationship to Australia is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom."[2] Also see R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association: "in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada", as cited in Sue v Hill,[3] which itself says "The result cannot be that, because the present sovereign has never been Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, the Australian Constitution miscarries for the reason, in Lord Reid's language, that 'the state of things on which its existence depended has ceased to exist'." This is the stuff of Commonwealth constitutional law 101, Pete/Skyring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So you do understand the problems caused by literalist readings! Could you explain this to GoodDay, maybe? Nevertheless, I feel that you have too many queens whizzing around between your ears, and they are all just the one person, really. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You do, then, understand that the British monarchy isn't related to Australia except through the shared person of the sovereign and, thus, the British monarchy external link isn't related to this article except as a reference for what the British monarchy website says about the Queen's role in Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There would be very few people in Australia who care about the Queen as much as you do. Out of all the members of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy I've met the only ones who come close are those who have had a long and close personal friendship with her. Sir David Smith springs to mind. Sir Robert Menzies had such a love. Maybe things are different in Canada. Maybe for you the Queen is the sun shining out of a dark republican sky. I don't know. I don't care. Very few Australians see things in this glowing light. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. Australians see the Queen as British, and her British website as extremely relevant to her views on Australia. There may be a "Queen of Australia" in law, but not in the minds of the people. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeeeaah... Well, as I said, the website already acts as a source for what it says. Beyond that, the rest of your statement is pure OR, which you know has no bearing on article content. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion. My Australian opinion. I see you as quite out of touch with the reality of the situation here. You seem to be trying to bash Australia into some monarchical paradigm that is just a castle on the air. The general public doesn't regard the Queen as being at all Australian, and I can't find any lawyers or constitutional academics who see her as having a significant role in Australian affairs. The only people at all passionate in the public debate are those pushing a political barrow in the republican context. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

She's the Monarch of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And of Canada and a bunch of other places. Big deal. These are paper crowns compared to the one she wears at home. And home is not Ottawa, nor Canberra, nor Wellington nor whatever the capital of Grenada is. --Pete (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the Commonwealth realms setup. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Wikipedia article? Or real life? I think Mies views the monarchy as having a far greater impact than is actually the case. Symbolic and ceremonial and a great source of interest for gossip columns looking at the younger members of the family, but as remote and powerless as the moon when it comes to the actual government of anywhere but the UK. But my knowledge of Canada is limited. Maybe the Queen is a big wheel there. About all she does in Australia is look stolidly right on the coinage. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you & Mies discuss that topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily replace the external link to the "Official website of the British monarchy" with a link to the "Official website of the Australian monarchy", if someone will be good enough to point out where the website is. Seriously though, according to our Monarchy of Australia article "The monarch of Australia is the same person as the monarch of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms within the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations" - and that monarch[y]'s official website is the one that I've listed. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, no. The website you've listed is the official website of the British monarchy. I don't know if there is one for the Australian monarchy or not. But, that's rather beside the point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the point, Mies? --Pete (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes http://www.royal.gov.uk/ is the official website is the British monarch, but it is also the website of the Australian monarch. (Just as Elizabeth II is Queen of Britain and Queen of Australia.) Consider this: according to Monarchy of Australia, the current Australian monarch is Elizabeth II. According to our Elizabeth II article, her official website is http://www.royal.gov.uk/ . Is one of our articles incorrect? If so, which one, and how should we correct it? If both articles are correct, is there a flaw in my deduction that the Australian monarch's website is http://www.royal.gov.uk/ ? If so, where is it? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if we changed the official website of the Australian monarch to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx ("Her Majesty The Queen") or http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/Australia.aspx ("Queen and Australia", which includes the text "Australia is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign")? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The ".gov.uk" part of the url indicates clearly that the website is under the auspices of the British government and the Australian government has nothing to do with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is Her Majesty's Government. And heaven forfend that we should deny the Queen her view when she is clearly wearing her golden jewel-encrusted British crown her views. She does not seem to have any views on the subject when wearing her wattle and daub Australian crown. After all, we let Canadians express their opinions here. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Under the section of the royal website, 'the Queen and the Commonwealth', there is a quite lengthy and thorough treatment of the Australian monarchy. So even though its called the website of the UK monarchy, it's relevant to Australia.Gazzster (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what the website is called is irrelevant, since all 16 commonwealth monarchies (and royal families) are exactly the same. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant to this page in that it mentions Australia and uses the term head of state in doing so. That fact is already covered in the article body. As a British government website, it warrants no further inclusion than that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was almost going to agree with you, Mies, but then I saw the announcement of the next New Zealand G-G: "The Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lieutenant General Jeremiah Mateparae as the next Governor-General of New Zealand". Not "The Queen of New Zealand", as she surely is in that capacity, but just "The Queen" - and this on the Official Website of the British Monarchy. It's as if the Queen of the UK is purporting to act in New Zealand matters. Very odd. The Queen of NZ should tell the Queen of the UK to shut up and mind her own business. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the 16 commonwealth monarchies identical? GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no. Although I'm not sure that "identical" is the word you're looking for. What's the point of your question? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though Queen of New Zealand wasn't mentioned, neither was Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's on the "Official Website of the British (= UK) Monarchy", yet everyone knows, the Queen most of all, that the British (= UK) Monarchy is a completely separate beast from the New Zealand Monarchy or any of the other 14 Monarchies she heads. The Queen of the UK takes her advice only from the UK Prime Minister. The Queen of NZ takes her advice only from the NZ Prime Minister. But the website of the British Monarchy is saying that "the Queen" (= the British Queen = the Queen of the UK) has accepted a recommendation from the Prime Minister of New Zealand in this New Zealand matter. On the face of it, that is contrary to constitutional convention and may well be an illegal breach of the Statute of Westminster. But IANAL. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I understand now. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You raise a good point, Jack. The website does, at times, seem to be used as a communication tool by the Queen in a pan-national context; publishing releases coming directly from her personal secretary and such. Yet, it's clearly maintained - and one thus assumes the content is overseen - by the British government. Maybe Mitch is right then to link directly to the Australia page on that site. I don't know just yet what one would call that, though. Just "Queen and Australia"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, in your response of 14:56, 13 March 2011, you neglected to answer my questions of 14:37, 13 March 2011 - thus ignoring my reasoning rather countering it logically. Let me re-phrase the questions, and answer them for you.

Is the Australian monarch one of the primary candidates for Australia's head of state? Yes

Is the current Australian monarch Elizabeth II? Yes.

Is Elizabeth II's official website http://www.royal.gov.uk/ ? Yes.

Ergo: what is the official website of the current Australian monarch? http://www.royal.gov.uk/

The fact that the website is hosted in the UK and has "British" written all over it does not invalid the fact that it is the official website of Elizabeth II, the current Australian monarch. Both she and her website might be based in the UK, and she might be a patriotic Brit, but she is still the Australian monarch, and that is still her website. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the external link to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Australia/Australia.aspx "Queen and Australia, from the official website of the British monarchy". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mitch, I'm not convinced. The current Australian monarch is not just any old Elizabeth II (of which there are 16), but specifically Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. The official website of Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom is http://www.royal.gov.uk/. We know this because it's headed "Official Website of the British Monarchy". Do any of the other 15 Elizabeth IIs have their own website? It doesn't appear so. Does this mean that they can all use the British Queen's website as if it were their own website, any time it suits them? Well, I guess the British Queen can do whatever she likes, including lending her website to her alter egos. But when these other Queen Elizabeth IIs use that website, they really ought to identify themselves properly, because it looks like they're pretending to be someone they're not. Or rather, it looks like they're pretending to wear a hat they do not own and cannot borrow. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, either. As I pointed out already, the Canadian government maintains a site for the monarchy of Canada. The British monarchy site also has a page for the Queen's role in Canada. I wonder which one Mich considers the official site, then? Regardless, we seem to have reached some kind of resolution to the matter, despite our differing views. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many websites the Queen of Canada has, because we're not talking about her. By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to explain where the flaw in my logic is when I deduce (in my posts of 14:33, 13 March 2011 and 11:33, 14 March 2011) that the Queen of Australia's website is http://www.royal.gov.uk (or a subpage thereof). A refutation of that logic would strengthen your argument considerably. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the number of sites the Queen of Canada has is indeed irrelevant. The question is: which one is her official one? The one hosted on .gov.uk, or the one hosted on .gc.ca? The answer to that question then relates to whether or not the .gov.uk British monarchy website is the official site of the Australian monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the question is What is the official website of the Queen of Australia? I believe I've answered that with a fairly logical chain of reasoning - a chain of reasoning that is yet to be refuted. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course my question is part of the pusuit for the answer to yours; but, you're evidently going to evade mine, which, besides my and Jack's already given points, indicates in itself that your chain of reasoning isn't as strong as you make out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I had to pick one, I would say that the .uk.gov site it the official one, because it is (presumably) controlled by the monarch (of multiple countries), whereas the .gc.ca site is controlled by the Canadian government (although one could argue that the Queen is part of the government). It's possible that they are both equally "official". I don't know. However even if if the .gc.ca site is the only official website, how does stop that the .uk.gov site being the official Australian site? I still assert that the Canadian monarch's official site is independent of the reasons for www.royal.gov.uk being the Australian monarch's site. Perhaps you'll be good enough to explain why you think my not answering your question indicates a weakness in my chain of reasoning? You might even point out that weakness. It's a fairly simple chain. Surely if it leads to the wrong answer someone should be able point out why. For the purposes of pointing out the flaw in my argument, feel free to pick any answer you like to your question about the official website of the Canadian monarch. I don't care which answer you pick, because the Canadian monarch does not form a part of, and thus has no bearing on my specific line of reasoning. It might be a part of your or others' reasoning - and that reasoning may be valid - but it's not part of mine. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The first line of Queen and Australia reads (with my emphasis added) "Australia is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign." and further down "The Queen's ... title in Australia is ... Queen of Australia ..." There's not doubt in my mind which of the 16 QEIIs the page is about. Likewise a subpage The Queen's role in Australia starts with "When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom". Another page Her Majesty The Queen says "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." It seems quite clear to me that the Queen of the UK is happy to share her website with the Queen of Australia (and her other alter-egos), and the Queen of Australia appears to to be openly declaring her identity. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just keep our link to that official website's Australian section? We've got no official website for the Australian monarch 'only'. So what's the big deal? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good grief Charlie Brown! How anal do we need to be. Lizzie's UK website has a lengthy treatment of the Australian monarchy. IT'S RELEVANT, REGARDLESS OF IT'S ORIGIN AND SO MAY BE REFERRED TO. Is Mioes really suggesting it has no value because it's not called the Official Website of the Australian monarchy? A little commonsense please.Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question about what I suggested is in the above discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The question was rhetorical. There IS no website for the 'Australian monarchy'. There IS a website for the Governor-general of Australia. But the official website for the UK monarchy DOES contain a treatment of the Australian monarchy. So that part of the website is RELEVANT and may be cited. It seems that your argument may be with the authors of the royal website, not editors who w3ish to use it. Gazzster (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said it mightn't be cited; review my comments, so far, and you'll find that to be true. The website is already cited in the article, and I'm not disputing it's presence there. I just didn't feel it needs to also be highlighted in the "External links" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a very personal and individual view on what should and shouldn't be highlighted, Mies. You do accept that others may differ, surely? --Pete (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated (in the edit comment) when I restored the link, "... , in the interest of neutrality. Yes it's linked elsewhere in the article, but so are some of the others [GG, ARM, ACM] listed here". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did the republic go?

Mies, could you please reinstate, and re-inflate the republican debate section? This is not a community discussion taking place around water coolers and barstools and barbecues because people just like to talk about the Queen and the Governor-General. The contemporary context is the debate over how, why and when Australia should become a formal republic, and it reached a head in the late 1990s and has simmered along ever since. It is important to recognise that David Flint, Malcolm Turnbull and so on are actively pursuing their own political agendas. I can understand how from a Canadian perspective, this aspect of the debate is unimportant, but to Australians, it is the framework in which the matter is discussed. Alternatively, if you don't understand the subject, leave it alone. --Pete (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

With the irrelevant material removed, the section was too small to warrant existence. The relevant material was thus absorbed into another section, per the MoS. Flint's and Turnbull's motivations are still made clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant? You astonish me. It is the very reason there is a debate over the head of state. It is the context. If the debate here is the hotdog, the republican debate is the bun. And the mustard and onions and the sizzle. In the world of your mind, the general population may see the arcane relationships of Governors-General and the myriad of Queens occupying Buckingham Palace as good topics to discuss around the barbie and the coffee table, but that is not the case. It is the republic that sets the tongues of the Australian public into motion, especially when we are lined up and asked to vote on first the Constitutional Convention and then the republic referendum. You were probably not in Australia at this time, Mies, but it was big news at the time and simmers along nicely ever since, with the republicans just waiting their time to pounce. If the Queen drops dead on Sunday, on Monday morning the Australian Republican Movement will be writing letters to the editor, cranking up their user base and lobbying the politicians to have another go. We will again be subjected to jingoistic television advertising and junk mail in our letterboxes. The last wave may not have reached you in Canada, Mies, but let me assure you, it made a big splash here. And you regard it as irrelevant. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a general feeling that the republic should not be promulgated until the death of the present Queen. That’s partly out of a sense of personal respect for her – which is a little misplaced, in my view, because she’s made it very clear the whole question is one for Australians alone to decide and she will accept whatever decision we make at any time, and she will regard us with the same affection no matter whether we’re her subjects or not. But there’s also a general community sense of “We thrashed this out at great length in the late 90s, so let’s just give it a break for a while, eh”. Until then, the republic issue is sort of playing a waiting game, but just because it does not currently figure in the headlines of major daily newspapers does not mean it’s a dead issue. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to be sure you've read what you're responding to before responding to it, Pete/Skyring; how many times now have you complained about something I never said?

Inconsistent use of the term "head of state" in Australia predates the republic debate that emerged in the mid 90s. The question of the republic is related to the head of state question, but the two are not codependant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1975 is the key date in Australia. The Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister. This caused a great deal of public debate. Prior to that, the topic was all but invisible. The republic issue is important and relevant. You may not see it this way from your Canadian perspective. --Pete (talk)

"Canadian perspective"? I don't understand that descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't get it either. In fact, I hardly get what Pete/Skyring's on about. His replies are to nothing I've said. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it Mies. That's for sure. The constitutional crisis of 1975 set this whole dispute in motion. Any Australian editor would know the significance. Again, if you don't understand the topic, either leave it alone or go inform yourself. --Pete (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a source to back up your assertion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a string of Wikipedia articles, all well sourced. You may begin with Republicanism in Australia. I direct your attention to the History section. Follow the links, read the sources, you will emerge at the end, perhaps no wiser, but certainly better informed. --Pete (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See the words, "all well sourced", above? I'm not going to take you through 1975 line by line. Trust me, it was an important moment in Australian constitutional history. Please don't waste our time with this sort of crap. If you don't know about the significance of 1975, read the Wikipedia articles. Read the sources. Read one of the many books on the subject. Kelly's is the best. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing the content of the article. If you wish to put into it the claim that the head of state debate exists only because the republic debate exists only beacuse of the 1975 dismissal, find the relevant sources from amongst those used on the "well sourced" articles and bring them here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is making such a claim. You are tilting at windmills. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, how about this: "[The republic debate] is the very reason there is a debate over the head of state... The constitutional crisis of 1975 set this whole dispute in motion." Source it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article is that from? You're not stupid, Mies. You are being disruptive. Quit it. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to have a complaint about something missing from the article. I take it from the preceeding that you no longer do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to cut you a lot of slack, Mies, and if you genuinely don't know how the constitutional crisis of 1975, the republican movement and the head of state dispute are connected, you have only to ask. Wikipedia has some good articles on the subject and there are some excellent external sources. But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion based on that and other comments that you are just playing games. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Queen

Nobody in Australia talks about "the Australian monarch". It is not a term in wide currency. Or even narrow currency. People talk about "the Queen". It is the Queen in the Constitution as well, and there is a general perception that the two Queens are the same person.

On that point, if this article talks about "the Queen", why is it that Mies hunts through and changes every mention of "the Governor-General" to "the governor-general". Why not likewise decapitalise the Queen? Mies, why are you so picketty in raising the glorious Queen high in the sky for all to adore in her myriad splendid titles, reigning over Canada, Australia, Grenada and London, her radiance never setting. Yet the poor old governor-general is lowered into the dust, merely the adoring acolyte of the awesome Queen. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic English grammar, Pete/Skyring: referring to a particular person by their title, one capitalises the title; referring to only an office, the title is not capitalised. Speaking of the position of queen in general: "the queen"; speaking of Elizabeth II in particular: "the Queen"; speaking of the position of governor-general in general: "governor-general"; speaking of Quentin Bryce in particular: "the Governor-General".

Oddly, though, it was you, after accusing me of royal fawning through capitalisation, that went and replaced my lower case "monarch" with the capitalised "Queen". Seems you're the one who favours the splendid titles of that glorious queen high in the sky! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you favour consistency, we may change all mentions of "the Queen" to "the monarch", unless we are specifically talking about Queen Elizabeth II. The Constitution capitalises both Queen (meaning Victoria and her successors of either gender) and Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, we have GoodDay replacing the webpage title of "Queen and Australia" in an external link with "Queen of Australia". The website is that of the Queen. When including an external link, we use the link's own title, just as we use the title of a newspaper article or book or movie when referring to it. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, if it's that big a deal, revert. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere, GoodDay, you very recently went to the trouble of letting readers know that Elizabeth II is not the "Queen of England" but the "Queen of the UK". That's a respect for detail you'd do well to practise generally. Please don't get defensive if you make a mistake and someone else notices it and corrects it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind having mistakes pointed out to me, even when I'm actually correct. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, you got me. I'll bite. How is it possible to make a mistake when you're "actually correct"? Or, how is it possible to be correct while making a mistake? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a joke. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would never have known. Very often in forums like these, where we don't have access to facial expressions, voice tones and other body language, it's necessary to spell out by use of a smiley face or whatever that some comment is meant to be read as a joke. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

International law.

The version RicJac amended claimed that the term "head of state" did not appear in Australian or international law. Due to the history of this phrasing, originally sourced from Government of Australia where it was inserted by Adam Carr in about 2004, it implicitly meant the Australian head of state, not any or every HoS. RicJac very correctly caught the ambiguity and pointed out that the term does in fact occur in international law. Hence my clarification to limit this article to just the Australian HoS. It would be wrong to limit the scope to just the Constitution as in RicJac's wording, because the point is that the term is not explicitly defined in any Australian law, not just the Constitution. For example, we could pass a "Head of State Definition Act", explicitly stating who occupies that position, and it would not be part of the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed what the "clarification" was (namely, the addition of one word). I've further elaborated, since there are other ways to say "Australian head of state", and they don't appear in Australian or international law, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not the most elegant of phrasing, but I think the meaning is clear. --Pete (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a modest suggestion for a re-phrase (without links):

The dispute over who is the head of state of the Commonwealth of Australia centres around the question of whether the Australian monarch or the Governor-General of Australia is to be regarded the as the head of state of the country; this problem is compounded by the fact that neither term the head of state and which public official holds that position in Australia is not explicitly defined in either Australian or international law.

It would be interesting to see which of the international conventions in which the term it actually does appear has been ratified by Australia, if for no other reason than to make this article more complete. The word "international law" should, as in my proposal above, be followed by a note listing which treaties (some, but not all, are listed in the HoS article) the term does appear in has been ratified by Australia. Also, shouldn't it also be fair to mention, which the sources suggest, that the claim of the GG as HoS has only been regulary and publicly advocated by ACM since the time of the republic refernendum? RicJac (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

On that last, no. I remember the first time I became aware of the constitutional background, at a Senate Occasional Lecture in 1994. It was made evident then that the Governor-General was widely described as the head of state. There are a great many media references, and of course the official Government Directory of that time listed the Governor-General as the Head of State. The debate became more politicised at the Constitutional Convention preceding the referendum, as a read of the Hansard for that event reveals. This was because the Australian Republican Movement gained most of its traction through the jarring image of the very British Queen being seen as Australia's representative to the world. If they agreed that the eminent Australians who had occupied the position since the 1960s, such as the very popular Sir William Deane, were actually the head of state, they would have lost their best selling point. In hindsight, after they were defeated in every State, they probably should have pushed the GG as HoS line, which would have highlighted the very minor role of the Queen and allowed her to be quietly excised in one of the minimalist models on offer.

But that's by the by. The fact is that there are two views within the Australian community, there is no definitive answer, and no, it's not just the ACM pushing a minority view. It's national newspapers, senior political leaders, ordinary people. It's a widely-held view and increasingly so. One day the Queen will be quietly removed from the Constitution and everybody will say well why didn't we do that years ago? --Pete (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the proposal

... whether the Australian monarch or the Governor-General of Australia is to be regarded the as the head of state of the country...

I presume the above is a straightforward correction of a trivial mistake.

... this problem is compounded by the fact that neither term the head of state and which public official holds that position in Australia is not explicitly defined in either Australian or international law.

The above bold text makes no sense. Should it be:

...neither the term the "head of state", and nor which public official holds that position in Australia is not explicitly defined ...

Or perhaps (simpler/better):

... the term "head of state", and which public official holds that position in Australia, are not explicitly defined ...

Either way, appropriate punctuation marks help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've added this in - Sir David Smith's book which deals with the Head of State question across several chapters, and Steven Spadijer's response, published last year. --LJ Holden 12:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You may remove it as soon as you please. It is self-published and has the same status of a private blog. It is irrelevant as a source. Quite apart from it being tripe. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the tripe bit. And about the removal, actually. I'm not saying I support Smith's thesis that the governor-general is the head of state. But he was the Official Secretary to five governors-general, he had an insight into the machinery of government that is basically unequalled, and his views on such matters surely carry as much weight as those of Barwick or anyone else. Sure, his book is self-published, but he has often espoused exactly the same views in opinion pieces in newspapers and in speeches and the like, so I don't think we're doing ourselves any favours by dismissing his writings out of hand. As this is an article primarily on a dispute, and less on the content of the opposing arguments, the principle of balance demands that the views of one of the main advocates, if not the main advocate, of one side of the issue not be hidden from view. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about Spadijer's book, portions of which have been published here and there. It is a poor response to Smith's book which is admirably sourced. I don't go along with everything Smith says, but he certainly knows his subject and acknowledges criticism and opposing views graciously. His hardback book is well-produced, comprehensively indexed and an extremely useful reference in this rather thin field. Spadijer, fulsomely praised by Lewis Holden, picks and chooses amongst trivia and complains he is not taken seriously in his opinions. Maybe the bits that have been published on a blog are the absolute worst sections and it is worth paying the $21+ to read the best bits, but I doubt it. It's rather like those reviews you see on Amazon where somebody has written and self-published what they think is the killer novel, but there are only two reviews, both rating it five stars and the second reviewer is the mother of the first, who is also the author. Using Wikipedia to aid in this sort of self-promotion is not what we are here to encourage. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enuf. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well. I'm not surprised Spadijer's book is rejected simply on the grounds that it is self-published and that it allegedly deals with trivia (not sure about the High Courts decisions on the issue being trivia, but I'll guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I would add that is probably because Sir David Smith's arguments are largely trivial and all seem to turn on a misinterpretation of single case. --LJ Holden 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you read Smith's book. His arguments are very broadly sourced, and the sources are generally very highly placed. The discussion between King George V and James Scullin over the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs is a case in point. Describing such a significant event in the history of the British Commonwealth as "trivial" demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject, rather than any useful commentary. Smith is certainly promoting a particular point of view, but his scholarship is very well founded indeed. --Pete (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read Sir David Smith's book, actually. I don't own a copy of it however - since you appear to, please add his sources to this article. That would certainly be more useful than removing other sources which disagree with your stance. --LJ Holden 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do own a copy, and I have met Sir David on a number of occasions. He is an exceedingly gracious, charming and self-effacing gentleman. He is quite partisan in his views and for that reason I do not like to use him as a source, no more than I would accept Gough Whitlam as an impartial observer of the events of 1975. However, I am not above mining the fruits of his excellent scholarship to lift his sources for my own use! --Pete (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've edited the sentence which seems to be causing problems for you for clarity. --LJ Holden 09:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure

Would this article be better served with a "Queen vs. GG" structure, rather than headings based on reference type? --Surturz (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about this article. It was suppose to house sources that prove there's a dispute. Yet, it seems to have developed into the dispute itself with fights over which sources can & can't be used. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not welded to any particular structure. However, the article is aimed more at demonstrating the existence and history of the subject, rather than attempting to find an answer to the question. Grouping the views of commentators by source highlights the variety of views within the community, ranging from prominent and highly-regarded public figures to anonymous journalists (such as in an editorial). --Pete (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thorpe v The Commonwealth

I've restored this case, as the transcript of proceedings is an actual verifiable source. --LJ Holden 08:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Found the transcript online, I've added this to the citation. --LJ Holden 09:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your recent edits are currently violating WP:OR, since you are using primary sources. Are there any reliable secondary sources noting the importance of those court cases? Broadsheet newspaper articles, text books, etc? --Surturz (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Where's the OR? The content in the article reflects what the souce says pretty directly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, it's trivia simply because no secondary source can be found. No reliable source, anyway. Besides, it was a comment, an interjection, one line in a lengthy and very diverse and confused proceedings. If Kirby had handed down a decision revolving around the statement, or better, the Full Bench had ruled on the specific question, that would be decisive. Kirby, much as I love him, often gave the minority ruling in cases. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not using the proper definition of "trivia". The sources used to support the material meet WP:RS. Your personal opinions on authors don't matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this is violates WP:OR. Obviously in all the cases cited the issue isn't at the forefront, that is true in every precedent, including the main one relied upon by Sir David Smith, R v Governor. As for secondary sources, I would look to the reason why this is in the OR policy: to "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". In the case of Thorpe v Commonwealth it's clear the issue is being directly discussed. It's hardly a novel interpretation of the transcript.--LJ Holden 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)--LJ Holden 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Kirby was one of the founders of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy apparently. I'm sure additional references can be found. Directly quoting one line of conversation from a court transcript might be okay I suppose if nothing else can be found, but I'd much rather see Kirby's considered opinion - an essay or the like. This is an article quality issue for me, not a WP:V issue. We should be presenting the best arguments of both sides of the debate using the best sources. --Surturz (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A comment by a judge that is irrelevant to the case before him, is not included in the judgment and has not been reported in secondary sources is insignificant and WP:WEIGHT requires its deletion. TFD (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A judge commenting on the subject of the head of state of Australia is directly relevant to this article and the source meets WP:RS. The opinion is balanced out by contrary ones; so, the material warrants inclusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. Judges talk about lots of things during trials - the Beatles, cricket, omnibuses, the weather. What they say is only significant if it is part of a judgment and resolves a legal issue and other courts cite it as a precedent. A judge repeating received opinion in an off the cuff comment during a trial is of no significance at all. It was not even significant to the case before him. It may be interesting that a monarchist judge disagrees with the monarchist line, but first we would have to establish that a reliable source has found it interesting. TFD (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We're not discussing the significance of the comment to the case but to this article. There's no policy or guideline that says we need a source to tell us whether or not a source is relevant to an article, let alone whether or not it's "interesting". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) we do actually, it is WP:WEIGHT, part of policy and pillar WP:NPOV. I honestly think you'd reach consensus sooner by finding better refs rather than arguing for this one. For example, I found this: essay by Kirby, if you look on the bottom of page eight it is pretty clear that he believes the Queen is the Head of State. --Surturz (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is no reference in the transcript to a dispute. Counsel for Thorpe said they were unaware of who was the head of state, they did not dispute it. TFD (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps a re-write is in order: referencing Kirby's essay, the fact that he is a prominent monarchist and then his comment in Thorpe v the Commonwealth. --LJ Holden 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed anything in the "official sources" section that relies on a primary source, such as the discussion and off-hand remarks in Thorpe. Miesianiacal has seen fit to revert, and I must now ask for his reasons in going against WP:RS. As noted above, remarks by judges, while discussing other matters, hold very little legal weight. If the matter of the head of state had ever been the subject of a High Court ruling, then it would surely have been referenced elsewhere, and we would have a secondary source - most likely several very good secondary sources. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS

A blanket deletion is not the only resolution. LJ suggested a rewrite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources are primary sources, unreferenced anywhere else. The comments are not rulings, they are off the cuff observations out of context. For example, the comment by Kirby in Thorpe came during a long discussion on the finances of the plaintiff and was totally unrelated. These are insignificant and certainly do not warrant the WP:WEIGHT the article lends them in its current form. Their inclusion is misleading, as the High Court has never ruled on the issue of head of state. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case Pete, then surely R v Governor ought to be removed? Which means a substantial limb of the supporters of the position that the Governor-General is head of State disappears... --LJ Holden 07:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the secondary source provided. There are many more available, with mentions in the mainstream media and relevant journals. None of your supposed "rulings" rate any media or scholarly discussion. They are trivia, buried in discussion of other matters, and none of them constitute any sort of decision. If they had been a High Court decision on this subject then this article would not exist. There would be no debate, no discussion, no argument. It would be settled decisively. As we see, this is not the case. --Pete (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pete, it's not claimed anywhere that there's a High Court ruling that directly addresses the issue of who the head of State is, nor are the precedents cited as if the issue was decided by the court. You seem intent on framing the citations as that, which is incorrect. As I've pointed out, to do so would also exclude the central precedent Sir David Smith relies on, R v Governor which would be ridiculous. --LJ Holden 09:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation is incorrect. I draw your attention to our sourcing policy, especially with regard to primary, seconday and tertiary sources. Using primary sources such as transcripts of court proceedings to advance your own personal opinion is unsupported by wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policy. It's interesting you've avoided explaining why R v Governor doesn't fall foul of the policy either - probably because the PoV you're pushing depends on it, and the other primary sources I've added don't. When it come to the policy, as I've said above the point of the policy is to stop misinterpretation of primary sources. I'm yet to see how the primary sources have been misinterpreted. I've re-written the first sentence so it's clear there are no decisions directly on the Head of State issue. --LJ Holden 20:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The "POV" I'm pushing is that there is a dispute within Australia as to who is considered to be the head of state. My own personal position is that there is no definitive source and the matter remains unresolved. We can use "R vs Governor of SA" because there are several secondary sources. Smith's book is one, but it has been raised elsewhere. The pertinent wording is included in a ruling by the High Court, giving it more prominence as a considered judgement than the comments during deliberations noted by court reporters, of which the Thorpe case is an excellent example. Performing any interpretation of primary sources is unsound, but I don't mind if we retain the references. Presumably they could be expanded to list mentions supporting the other view. --Pete (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rub: there is no interpretation, certainly no more than in R v Governor. I accept that we can cite what Sir David Smith and David Flint have said. However that doesn't mean other primary sources (critically, the ones that contradict their interpretations) have to be removed as you keep doing. As for Thorpe v The Commonwealth, the statement is cited as it was made by both parties and it's made clear to the reader that it was part of the proceedings, not the decision that followed it. --LJ Holden 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there are no secondary sources. Nobody has seen them as worthy of comment at all, let alone within the context of the head of state dispute. WP:WEIGHT applies here. --Pete (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't suit the POV of those who think the Governor-General is head of state, that's why they're not in this articles secondary sources - not because secondary sources don't exist. Had Steven published his paper on JSTOR we wouldn't be having this discussion, sadly he published it on Lulu so it can't be cited. In any cause, there isn't undue weight given to the primary sources (which are allowed). --LJ Holden 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons, there are no reliable secondary sources we can use for these mentions in proceedings. Presenting them at all gives undue weight, let alone describing them as High Court rulings. Nobody has deemed them worthy of comment. Apart from mentions in blogs and self-published books, and if you are looking for POV, then those mentions are prime examples of bias. I have raised the matter at WP:NPOVN, let us see what other editors think. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They are rulings of the High Court. They have been deemed worthy of comment - it's just that we can't use the secondary source (an academic paper). My blog posts on the paper aren't relevant as they haven't ever been cited.--LJ Holden 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)