Jump to content

Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Crown land?

Looking at this edit, I'm not seeing the relevance here. Crown land in Australia is land held by the public or the state, not land owned by the monarch whether as a person or an office. It is an error to imagine that "the Crown" is equivalent to "the monarch". --Pete (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is self-evident to persons knowledgable of the facts. The constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, "most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes"; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the facts of crown land. If you are arguing that the term has caused confusion, well, I tend to agree, but I think a source is needed. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Would that be confusion before the legislation and judicial rulings of recent decades? Perhaps you are aware of some confusion about questions of land tenure, the Crown and common law, and the laws of nationality and citizenship and allegiance, from the first discoveries of the land now called Australia to the formation of the CoA, the institution of the office of governor-general, and on to the present day. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. Do you have a source linking crown land to the dispute on which this article is focused? --Pete (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Someone with the sort of input you have made could be expected to know about all that. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not seeing any source for the argument you are putting. Find one, please. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

See edit[4]. Discuss if you wish but do not idly block or bluster a perfectly acceptable clarifying edit. Qexigator (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources make any argument about the identity of the head of state. I'm struggling to find any relevance, even if I accept the argument you posit above. It is an argument made by you on a talk page, not by any reliable source. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Undisputed

Edna's elephant

Not to be confused with or by Patterson's Potpourri aka P's pudding

Can it be that this is too well-known to be mentioned among statesmen, scholars and Dame Edna's country(wo)men, and at the same time taboo in polite and political society, and thus treated as unmentionable in the article? See also:

and, for menagerie:

Queen of Australia, sovereign and "Lord Paramount"

More seriously, anyone with an open mind and npov can peruse the legislation and court rulings of recent decades and see the states and Commonwealth, like other countries around the globe, attempting to reconcile colonial history with current affairs. It is self-evident that, in the lands and islands now denominated Australia, the continuity of the Crown, in the person of the reigning monarch of the states and the Commonwealth, from the first British settlements to the present day and the 20c. (and current) constitution, is inextricably and unavoidably connected with title to any part of the land. This remains unaffected by the "head of state" dispute, and while it may be well enough known among Australians, that is no good reason to keep the information from other readers, at least by footnote if not the main text. Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

+ Pete, for the avoidance of doubt, these links citing the Proclamation of Governor Bourke may be helpful to others who see this discussion, but are less knowledgeable about the Crown and root of title In Australia. This link[[5]] to an official NSW publication (2013) helps to explain the concept. Crown land is mentioned on page 5: A proclamation by Governor Bourke declared that the British Crown owned the entire land mass of Australia and that only the Crown could sell or distribute land. For the proclamation (1835) see[6], [7], [8]. [9], [10]. Students will not need to be reminded that traditional use of "crown" as a variant for the king or monarch (or the joint monarchs William and Mary) was confirmed and furthered by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). [11]

Qexigator (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not seeing the words "head of state" anywhere in those sources. Perhaps you could helpfully guide my attention? --Pete (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you not yet noticed that the "head of state dispute" was not considered to have been an issue in connection with Aboriginal land rights and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown in respect of all or any part of Australia, and present day Crown lands administered by the governments of the states or Commonwealth.
"51. By attributing to the Crown a radical title to all land within a territory over which the Crown has assumed sovereignty, the common law enabled the Crown, in exercise of its sovereign power, to grant an interest in land to be held of the Crown or to acquire land for the Crown's demesne. The notion of radical title enabled the Crown to become Paramount Lord of all who hold a tenure granted by the Crown and to become absolute beneficial owner of unalienated land required for the Crown's purposes. But it is not a corollary of the Crown's acquisition of a radical title to land in an occupied territory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of that land to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants. If the land were desert and uninhabited, truly a terra nullius, the Crown would take an absolute beneficial title (an allodial title) to the land...: there would be no other proprietor. But if the land were occupied by the indigenous inhabitants and their rights and interests in the land are recognized by the common law, the radical title which is acquired with the acquisition of sovereignty cannot itself be taken to confer an absolute beneficial title to the occupied land."[1]
The monarch, as Queen of Australia, remains "Lord paramount" etc., and in that respect is not even "represented" by the governor-general, or by a state governor. This may suggest to some that the "head of state dispute" is little more than contrived to the point of the near trivial, but that is not sufficient reason to exclude the information from the article, nor, in my view, to support the deletion of the artticle as a whole. Qexigator (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Mabo. It was a good call by the HC. However, I'm still not seeing the words "head of state" in the quote above. You are trying to equate "Crown" (as in "crown land") with "Australian Head of State", it appears, and this is a very long bow to draw. You need someone else to make that connection in respect of Mabo (or any similar case), otherwise it is just a confected argument and thereby OR. --Pete (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning what is undisputed supports the existing content in the lead and Background. Given that

Section 61 of the constitution states that "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." Section 2 provides that a governor-general shall represent the Queen in Australia. The governor-general is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister of Australia. ...The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999 and remains one within the continuing debate around an Australian republic...(as in existing version),

it is pertinent to mention that the dispute does not extend to the issue in connection with native title in Australia and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown as "Lord paramount" in respect of all or any part of Australia, as determined in the "Mabo case". You (Pete) have shown your pov (attributing "sweet and romantic" and "cringing adoration" (17:39, 16 November 2015). The reality is, nonetheless, that, while the "head of state dispute" may have been a talking point among some academics and politicians for decades, it has had practically no impact on the federal constitution of Australia, or the practical conduct of government or parliamentary business, before or after the passing of the Australia Act 1986; but meantime, by contrast, the events leading up to and following the Mabo case (1992),[12], and the passing of the Native Title Act 1993,[13] have had an important and lasting effect on the administration of Crown lands held in right of the Queen in every part of Australia. Please bear in mind that a purpose of an article such as this is to communicate not only to those who are locally familiar with such matters but to others, including those who have little or no prior knowledge of the state of things in Australia but are looking for npov information. Qexigator (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source making a connection between crown land and the dispute? Otherwise I intend to remove the original research. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Supports and clarifies existing content, unoriginal, and should not be removed as "original": The position of the monarch, the present Queen of Australia and its states, as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown",[2][3] has not been part of the "head of state" dispute. Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. If this has not been part of the "head of state" dispute, then why include it in this article? It seems contradictory. If we were to include everything that has not been part of the dispute in this article, then we would have all of Wikipedia in one article, and we would need a great many more section headings.
  2. The cite you give in Mabo notes that the notion of direct ownership by the Sovereign is a fiction, and that in Australia "the Crown" is "Lord Paramount". Equating "the Crown" with the office or person of the monarch is a questionable opinion. --Pete (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Pete: Thank you for comments. Those points are sufficiently anticipated and answered above. There may be one or two equally important things you or others know of to be added, but probably not, and certainly not a hyperbolical multitude. The article is not the place to explain in detail, but you will know as well as any law student that the Lord Paramount concept, though abstruse if not arcane, provided a line of common law reasoning, and the historic Mabo decision (1992) was no mere whimsical fiction: it mobilised the government and legislature: 51. By attributing to the Crown a radical title to all land within a territory over which the Crown has assumed sovereignty, the common law enabled the Crown, in exercise of its sovereign power, to grant an interest in land to be held of the Crown or to acquire land for the Crown's demesne. The notion of radical title enabled the Crown to become Paramount Lord of all who hold a tenure granted by the Crown and to become absolute beneficial owner of unalienated land required for the Crown's purposes. But it is not a corollary of the Crown's acquisition of a radical title to land in an occupied territory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of that land to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants.....63. It must be acknowledged that, to state the common law in this way involves the overruling of cases which have held the contrary. To maintain the authority of those cases would destroy the equality of all Australian citizens before the law. The common law of this country would perpetuate injustice if it were to continue to embrace the enlarged notion of terra nullius and to persist in characterizing the indigenous inhabitants of the Australian colonies as people too low in the scale of social organization to be acknowledged as possessing rights and interests in land....17. As has been seen, it must be accepted as settled law that the provisions of the common law which became applicable upon the establishment by settlement of the Colony of New South Wales included the system of land law which existed in England and that the consequence of that was that the radical title to all land in the new Colony vested in the Crown. If there were lands within the Colony in relation to which no pre-existing native interest existed, the radical title of the Crown carried with it a full and unfettered proprietary estate. Put differently, the radical title and the legal and beneficial estate were undivided and vested in the Crown. Thereafter, any claim by the Aboriginal inhabitants to such lands by reason of possession or occupation after the establishment of the Colony must be justified by ordinary common law principles or presumptions which apply and (at least theoretically) applied indifferently to both native inhabitants and Europeans (e.g. possessory title based on a presumed lost grant). 18. On the other hand, if there were lands within a settled Colony in relation to which there was some pre-existing native interest, the effect of an applicable assumption that that interest was respected and protected under the domestic law of the Colony would not be to preclude the vesting of radical title in the Crown. Let it rest. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's not in dispute, but I'm dubious about relevance. Most Crown land in Australia, whether alienated or nor, is the property of the States, not the Commonwealth. This article is exclusively about the Commonwealth head of state, not the State heads of state (so to speak). --Pete (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Pete, you and I and some others know that, including (we may surmise) the Queen, and present and past governors-general, governors, prime ministers, premiers and others involved in government and administration, but it does not hurt to remind those who may have forgotten or to round out the picture for those who as yet are less well informed (and note Archive 1, 12:18, 24 January 2011 ...the need for education, which of course is always a perennial desire on the part of students of the constitution). Let the links give the more detailed information, about the position of the monarch in respect, initially, of the states and their land, and later in respect of the federation and its land. The point is that while that involves issues of major importance, directly and indirectly affecting the rights of Australian citizens and of mining and other interests, it was not within the scope of the inconsequential public discussions, theories and speculative reasoning about the Queen's position as head of state in all and every part of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I really cannot see the relevance. We already have articles about Mabo and Native Title. There's no aspect of the head of state dispute that impacts on the topic of native title. The "Crown" of "Crown land" is not the monarch - nor the Governor-General - and in most cases it is not even the Commonwealth of Australia that owns/ed the Crown land in question. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but it's a chain of argument without any direct sourcing. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Pete: I do not see why that short sentence bothers you so much. The reasoning is that of the High Court, which elsewhere you have commended as authoritative, and that is more than can be said for almost anything else in the article. Your opinion about the monarch's position in connection with Crown lands defies the known facts. Perhaps that is why the sentence is uncomfortable to your pov. Maybe we could look at this again when the other editorial disputes about the content of the article, currently under discussion, have been resolved. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like an attempt to argue that one office or the other is head of state, rather than some statement actually made in the "dispute" or "debate". Furthermore, I can't see the words "head of state" anywhere in your argument, so it's WP:SYNTH. Mies spent a good deal of time knocking a lot of my contributions on the head as a violation of SYNTH, so I can't see why anybody else should have a free kick to insert what looks like original research. --Pete (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51[1]
  2. ^ ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51[2]
  3. ^ Native Title Act 1993,[3]

Possible RM

Assuming this article is going to be kept, I'll be opening an RM in the coming days - after the multiple discussion have cooled down. IMHO, this article's title should be moved to Australian head of state debate. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We might also look into considering changing this article to a redirect to Australian republic referendum, 1999, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Really, I would suggest a merger to the referendum article (and possibly also to the Monarchy in Australia article). The actual content could be summarised to one paragraph per article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be an even better route. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if there are irremediable defects in the article content, a change of title would do nothing to resolve the problem, and Jack Upland's suggestion would be nearer the mark. Looking again at the article with that in mind, it seems that the bulk of it is repeating information available in other articles in a way which provides cover for a quantity of OR or SYN, allegedly using cherry-picked sources. Or maybe I am missing something? Don't forget Constitution of Australia, where the 5 points listed below now appear[14], pending further views which may be offered at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Who_is_Australia.27s_Head_of_state.3F[15] Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up: I've opened up an Rfc at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics' talkpage, that may have a big effect on this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Summaries for proposed merges to other articles

Update note: the opening comments of this section have been superseded by the current version of the article (09:23, 18 March 2016)[16].

Jack Upland has suggested above that the article's actual content could be summarised to one paragraph for merger into Australian republic referendum, 1999 and possibly also Monarchy of Australia. The lead of the current version is a statement of its 5 main points, namely:

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

If I understand the proposal, it is that two articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia would be improved thus:

Jack or others: What text is proposed, if AHOSD is deleted? Qexigator (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
See current version[17]
  • the section "Comparison with other Commonwealth realms" would not be included in either summary
  • when done, the whole of AHOSD would be deleted.

If so,

1_would the proposed summary for the 1999 Referendum article cover all the 5 points above?
2_which point(s) would be summarised for the Monarchy article?
3_what, if any, would be the side-effects for other articles such as Head of state, with its section "Governors-general (Commonwealth realms)", or Governor-general (both within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics ?
For "Head of state" see current version.[18] .For "Governor-general" see[19]

Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC) update Qexigator (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

+ ...having regard, at the same time, to three articles, also within the scope of WikiProject Politics, namely,

  • Head of government which begins: Head of government is a generic term used for either the highest or second highest official in the executive branch of a sovereign state, a federated state, or a self-governing colony who often presides over a cabinet. The term "head of government" is often used differentiating it from the term "head of state", e.g. as in article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties...etc.
  • Parliamentary republic which begins A parliamentary republic is a type of republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government where the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (the parliament). ... Most have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government holding real power, much like constitutional monarchies.
  • Constitutional monarchy which begins: A constitutional monarchy... is a monarchy in which governing powers of the monarch are restricted by a onstitution... may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten.

Qexigator (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it was not discussed or debated at the Australian Constitutional Convention 1998. I am sure there'd be a link to the debate in this article if that happened. I remember David Smith wrote a book and then David Flint used it as a talking point for a while. The rest is just a bit of confusion from time to time. I think the point that the monarchists and academics want to stress is the Queen is Head of State in name only, with negligible power, and that the Governor-General acts as Head of State. Keep in mind, that I have written to the Electoral Council of Australia about that factsheet [20]. If that's changed, the whole Australian government is consistent. Travelmite (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Answer to your questions 1) This summary is not supported by the evidence, as per above comment. 2) Point out that fmrGGOS David Smith presents arguments for the GG is Head of State (I have no issue with that), and many academics note that the GG acts as Head of State, and that the GG is treated as a HoS when on overseas visits 3) In the broader articles, the idea that David Smith has this theory in Australia is not important enough to mention. Travelmite (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Head of Government misses the point by saying 1st or 2nd. A Head of Government is the highest political official or leader. In Australia, Prime Minister is 9th highest by precedence.[21]. Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
In terms of merging, I would think Pete's paragraph about Keating etc, represents the nub of what I would put into the the referendum article. (The Con-Con was only part of the republic debate, and highly criticised as a diversionary tactic.) Kirby's impartial analysis of the debate, which described the head of state issue as a distraction, would also be worth citing. The Monarchy of Australia article could have a paragraph saying that most legal scholars etc have described the monarch as the head of state and noting that some have described the governor-general as such, citing the sources given in this article. This would not be a matter of transferring slabs of text from this article to other articles, nor would it be a matter of allocating the issues raised in this article to those articles. It would be a matter of incorporating the information here into those articles in away that was relevant and appropriate to them. Whether you would describe this as a merger or as a deletion is a moot point.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite and Jack Upland: Then (subject, of course, to comment from others, if any) perhaps you will be going ahead and rectifying accordingly? Qexigator (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to be even-handed. I understand that we're collecting views of other editors at the RfC (request for comment) page, so to help avoid a dispute. Travelmite (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving on

Let us now proceed with merge and delete as proposed having regard to, Summaries for proposed merges to other articles above, and to:

"By now it must be clear to all here (beyond reasonable doubt) that, for the purposes of creating, naming and editing articles in the npov, encyclopedic, Wikipedia way, Australia's head of state is Elizabeth II. At the same time, it is acceptable to mention (where relevant), properly citing RS, that in Australia some Australian's have written, or have been reported to have said, that Elizabeth II is not HoS, but instead it is the governor-general who is head of state."[22]

Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Having gone over the results at the WP:POLITICS Rfc, I'm in agreement with you. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Final report of the Constitutional Commission 1988

I did not see any mention here of the Final report of the Constitutional Commission - Australian Government Publishing Service, - Parliamentary paper ; nos. 229 (v.1), 230 (v.2) of 1988.

Quote 117 " In the Commonwealth of Australia, the head of State is, and always has been, the person who, for the time being, is also the King or Queen of the United Kingdom though since 1953 that person has been separately styled and titled Queen of Australia. The Constitution does not refer to the Queen as the head of State. It is nevertheless proper to regard her as head of State because of the role in government the Constitution assigns her.
think it would be a good addition....what do others think? The report is cited/used at the Governor-General of Australia article. -- Moxy (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You should bring that source to the Rfc at WP:POLITICS. Anyways, this article is on the verge of being broken up, with parts of it heading to other articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting...should have read above about breakup. I did bring the source there Gwynneth Singleton; Don Aitkin; Brian Jinks (7 November 2012). Australian Politcal Institutions. Pearson Higher Education AU. pp. 65–. ISBN 978-1-4425-5949-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ....its why i came here to read this article... see if any mention of it is here. Never-the-less nice source for other articles that have this topic in it. -- Moxy (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the proposed "Redirect" be to Government of Australia, whence it came?

The above discussions suffice to show that the article should be removed, whether or not Australia's head of state is Elizabeth II, which has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?. The outcome of that RfC may have some relevance to certain other articles, but here, recent scrutiny has demonstrated that there is no dispute and no debate, such as the article purports to document. If there is anything here which needs to survive, it would be better placed in another article, such as Australian republic referendum, 1999, as proposed above. The current version of Monarchy of Australia#Personification of the state includes: Australian law does not define who is Australia's head of state. The governor-general and the state governors are defined as the monarch's "representatives".

The redirect should be to Government of Australia#Head of state. Qexigator (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support that. More latitude could be allowed in the David Smith (public servant) article to summarise his arguments that the GG is Head of State. No valid information would be lost. Travelmite (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, why not go ahead now with David Smith. Qexigator (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
done[23] Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any consensus for removal, Qex. A couple of editors (out of the many who have contributed here) telling each other the same things over and over does not equal consensus. --Pete (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no objections to the removal, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If there's to be a merge and redirect, I'd say it should be to Monarchy of Australia, not Government of Australia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Either is fine, with me. Even merge/redirect to both, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Mies, maybe Monarchy better than Government. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
To Monarchy or Government sounds good to me - whichever has the more suitable content. Wikiain (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep article, of course. The above discussions certainly don't show that the article should be removed. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering the continuing Rfc at WP:POLITICS & the comments/sources being presented there. I believe most (if not all) of this Australian head of state topic, should be moved to David Smith (public servant). It appears that in Australia, Smith has been the biggest pusher of the Governor-General is head of state argument. I'll leave that up to you folks, of course. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I remain in favour of a merger, as explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No probs there. But, perhaps the article title should be re-direct to David Smith :) GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If someone came across this article and wanted to know about the claims made, then it makes sense to redirect to Republicanism in Australia, which curiously just has a link to the article, so that would be a bit of work. On the other hand, as the Queen is Head of State, it would make sense to merge it with Monarchy of Australia, but that article falsely implies Australia does not have a Head of State -- even though Smith is #1 in the bibliography; bizarre! To merge there is a good idea after the article is updated to explain the way Head of State powers work, in that they're exercised by the GG. There are a lot of details in Government of Australia#Head of State and that chapter is salvageable with minimal work, but there's a lot of emphasis on the republican debate there, that belongs in Republicanism in Australia. David Smith bio page talks about his advocacy with no detail, so parts which form the original elements of his argument (such as the telephone books) could be put there. Yet, I perhaps it's not so ideal to redirect there, because I suspect David Flint put himself on the record too. In summary the fastest thing would be to redirect to Government of Australia#Head of State, but to the extent there was any doubt, it only as a small part of the republican debate, as StAnselm's sources have indicated. But I can see advantages and disadvantages. Travelmite (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no probs with re-directing to the Republicanism in Australia article. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
If there are so many possible redirect targets, it is even more evidence that the article should be kept. That is, it is relevant to several different articles, and it allows the relevant information to be concentrated in one spot. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not support proliferation of articles. Can you please and kindly pay attention to the issues that editors are raising, because ignoring them prevents consensus. The article is an POV essay, trying to taking advantage of but contrary to Wikipedia's goal of being encyclopedic. This particular essay appears to focus on the monarchy and government, and underplays that it is about David Smith's minuscule contribution the republican debate. The fact there's four items there is not a problem. It's just a question of the workload to fix this mess. Travelmite (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
But even if it is a POV essay, there is no reason why it must be thus. If this is the case, it can and should be rewritten to comply with NPOV. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
No, the main POV element lies in overstating the significance of Smith's view. His view just isn't sufficiently notable for a separate article (WP:GNG). Wikiain (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to...?

Of the two options,

would it be acceptable to settle for Monarchy? That would not exclude merging part of existing content into another article. Qexigator (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a little more work, but it's probably the right place for the information. Travelmite (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Monarchy of Australia would be the more appropriate article. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll go for Monarchy. Wikiain (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I would also choose Monarchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stimulating discussion

Now that the time has arrived for merge/delete/redirect let us note that the discussion as from, say, October 2015[24] has stimulated some revisions to certain other Australian articles:

  • Constitution of Australia[25]
  • Monarchy of Australia[26]
  • David Smith (public servant)[27]

Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal issues and disruption

Looking at this edit by GoodDay, I quote:

it may appear as though my intentions aren't pure, if I personally prodded or nominated for deletion. Yourself or somebody else, would be best suited to take the lead here. There's just too long a history between myself & the article creator, concerning this article & the Australian head of state topic."

I'm the article creator, having used material in Government of Australia to create a main article on this notable topic. The same editor above also has a longstanding history of disruption aimed at Miesianiacal, who is the other major contributor to this article. Mies and I rarely see eye to eye, but we have the advantage of knowing the subject well, and have worked together to produce a useful reference that is scrupulously NPOV.

There is account involved in recent discussion, which on examination has done very little besides attack Mies and myself. And has been blocked twice for these attacks. The assault on Mies was particularly savage, involving an attempted WP:OUTING and an attempt to link him with child abuse. Other editors have engaged in misrepresentation and personal attacks in recent discussion.

This is not how we work together to make a useful encyclopaedia. This attempt to delete a long-established and well-sourced article as a means to attack other editors is disruptive and despicable. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that I walk away from this article? Then I shall do so. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are just part of the story, GoodDay. This is bigger than you alone. --Pete (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a history of disruption against Miesianiacal. What exactly are you getting at? PS - I'm going to assume you're not trying to distract from the merge requests. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think Mies would disagree on the issue of disruption. When someone bans you from their talk page, that's not an indication of harmonious relations. As for AGF, your comments quoted above have tossed that assumption away. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I've no animosity towards either Mies or yourself. If the others here (for example) suddenly all agree with you, about keeping this article? then so be it. I'm not the boss here, never have been. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, Skyring/Pete. I don't exactly know what you're getting at. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what your remarks are attempting to achieve; in this forum, anyway. But, yes, I agree that GoodDay is a disruptive editor, in a passive and slow-burning way, behind a veneer of folksy friendliness, that permits him to skirt behavioural policies and guidelines and, thus, fly mostly under the radar of admins. Travelmite's disruptiveness, on the ohter hand, is blatantly obvious. Hence, he's now been blocked twice within a month or two. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, Miesianiacal is a disruptive editor, who tends to be aggressive with those who don't agree with him on issues close to his heart. I guess we all just have to live with each other, in the world of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
There is something that myself & Miesianiacal do have in common, though. Whether it be a regular discussion or an Rfc? We're both capable of letting go, when we see we're not able to get a consensus for what we propose. It's never easy to do that, but I've done it at one Rfc & Miesianiacal has done it at another Rfc. Hopefully Skyring, you'll be able to do the same :) GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I've made some changes to Government of Australia page, so please check if I've been fair. Travelmite (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No doubt your changes will likely be mass reverted, unfortunately. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

General notability guideline

According to WP:Notability, a topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

This article has existed since 2011, has been written and improved by multiple editors over that time, is comprehensively sourced and is of interest to several wikiprojects. It is rated as a C-class article of mid importance.

  • The Australian notes "The title fight -- pitting the two female leaders, the sovereign and her representative, head to head -- revives a debate that raged around the republic referendum more than a decade ago."[28] The article outlines the debate - or dispute - an gives a condensed history with examples.
  • The Parliamentary Library in 1995 issued a research paper[30] noting that there are two views and presenting points in support of each. "There is a view that the Australian Head of State is the Governor-General." and "There is a view that the Australian Head of State is the Queen," it states, noting that "The Constitution can be used to argue either proposition."

Numerous other sources document both sides of the argument. One of the earliest is The Modern Reference Encyclopaedia which notes, "The head-of-state of each Australian State is the State Governor, and the head-of-state of Australia if the Governor-General."

This article documents the dispute over whether the Governor-General or the monarch is the head of state. It is clearly notable through its many and diverse sources.

However, it is under siege from those who apparently doggedly hold the view that the Queen is the head of state - a political position in the 1999 referendum campaign which polarised many into extremist views - and can bear no contrary voice, no matter how prominent. The article quotes Prime Ministers and Governors-General, media, lawyers, academics, all reliably sourced in secondary documents. At least one book has been written on the topic, and that widely and impeccably sourced.

Wikipedia is built upon a neutral point of view, and has managed to provide reliable information on many controversial subjects – Climate change is one prominent contemporary example – without endorsing one view to the exclusion of a widely-held and reliably-sourced contrary position. This ability to present multiple sides of an argument is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths, both in providing information and encouraging collegiate editing.

This article is notable within Wikipedia's guidelines and the current campaign to remove is without policy basis. Those who wish to remove any mention of political views opposed to theirs, or worse, are acting out of personal antagonism to other editors, should question their continued participation in this project. --Pete (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is notable enough to be mentioned in the article on the republic referendum, which is the context in which that research paper of 1995 was issued. The Australian extract you cite also harks back to that debate. Therefore, I would merge part of this article to that one, which is currently threadbare. And as discussed above, you appear to be misquoting that encyclopedia. What we have here is a "distraction", in the words of Michael Kirby, which was raised in the course of the republic debate of the 1990s by some monarchists, most notably David Smith and David Flint. However, as George Winterton said, the "great preponderance of informed commentary" supports the Queen as head of state. Pete, you have quoted Winterton with approval in the past. Is he wrong about this? Muddying the waters by cherry-picking occasional slips of the tongue and sloppy phrasing does not make this "dispute" notable in its own right, or an undecided question. This amounts to claiming a termite mound is a higher mountain than Kosciuszko. The issue deserves a couple of paragraphs, not an entire article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
But this ignores the sources that discuss the issue without reference to the republic referendum - especially the Canadian ones that discuss the idea in a Canadian context, such as Jackson's The Crown and Canadian Federalism. Also, Irving mentions the referendum, but locates the issue in the opening of the Sydney Olympics. Finally, the 1995 research note is related to republican debates, but not the referendum (which is, of course, a narrower topic) - it was written well before the referendum was announced. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
With respect, by my reading, Jackson's The Crown and Canadian Federalism[31] clearly places the topic within the context of the Australian republican debate and within the context of David Smith's theory; For Sir David, Section 61 is the crucial text ... His frustration is evident that it took Aussies so long - until the 1980s and the republican debate - to realize this. I respectfully suggest that it is splitting hairs to differentiate Australian republican referendum and Australian republican debate in this instance - the central point remains, the HoS topic is not viewed as a wider dispute outside the republican context. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. There are other articles associated with the republican debate, such as Australian Constitutional Convention 1998. Even if this wholly related to the republican debate, it is clear that this article is not a subset of the referendum - or any other - article. That is one of the arguments for independent notability. (If there were such an article, it would be Republicanism in Australia, which strangely no-one has mentioned. Perhaps because it is obvious that this material would be undue weight for that article. Strangely, there is no Monarchism in Australia article.) StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In the context of the question "Where, if anywhere, should this information be merged?" I accept and agree that this is a valid differentiation. In the context of the question "Is this topic independently notable or only noteworthy as an aspect of a larger topic?", however, I maintain that the exact details of the larger topic are not material. I am happy to agree to disagree on this; as you noted below, there are more productive approaches available. I would support a larger treatment of the GG as HoS theory topic at Republicanism in Australia; regardless of a merge, delete or otherwise. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack, if you could address the General Notability Guideline instead of repeating points you have raised previously, that would help. This article documents the various views over the decades since Federation. It does not deal solely with the narrower time span of the republic referendum. The dispute continues to this day; the referendum is seventeen years in the past. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Original research, or taken from David Smith's book. It must be one or the other, because nothing in this article documents any sort of dispute outside Smith's argument for no republic. To be clear, we should be respectful about that contribution, but was not significant. It was not mentioned as one of the 10 reasons for "No" in the official "No" campaign. Travelmite (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand parts of the above post at 15:00, 9 March 2016. It appears to suggest that editors pushing for this article to be merged into other articles, are somehow being disruptive. If there's such behaviour/conduct concerns? it shouldn't be brought up here. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1995 note was published in the lead-up to the referendum in 1999. Perhaps Pete and I are the only ones who recall this. Keating kicked off the debate, but then lost the election in 1996. Howard then set up the Constitutional Convention and organised the referendum in 1999. I think I have addressed the notability guideline.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Reinforcing the point made by Jack Upland, directly above, is the first paragraph of the Parliamentary Library Research Note source[32], which states An important issue in the current republic debate has been whether Australia should have as a Head of State a person who is an Australian. It is clear that this document places the topic within the wider Australian republic debate. I note also that the source is clearly identified as a personal opinion piece, not an official view of the Parliamentary Library. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed Jack and Ryk! Also, Peter Hartcher's article is not about any Head of State dispute. There is no mention of anything akin to a dispute there. We know "Head of State" is occasionally used imprecisely. Maybe the next article will be the "Koala bear dispute" (just joking). It is telling that out of the three best shots of proving this "dispute" is notable, one has one sentence, the other admits that it's never been previously discussed, and one has no mention of a dispute at all! To me, that demonstrates the insignificance. We are now at the point where "Wikipedia Head of State dispute dispute" is a more lengthy and heated dispute, than "Head of State dispute". Travelmite (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just fail to understand why this is still such a hot topic here. The Australian Constitution is quite explicit that all MPs must take an oath of allegiance to the monarch; so does the G-G designate before taking office; as well as that so do all members of the armed forces. Newly naturalised citizens have to pledge allegiance to the Queen. At no point are allegiances pledged to the G-G. Please, where is the dispute? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as you (and many others, including me) are in no doubt that the monarch is the head of state, there are others who are equally convinced that the G-G is the head of state. Principally, Sir David Smith (who even wrote a book called "Head of State" with voluminous references setting out his case in great detail), and David Flint. No amount of argument would convince them of the rightness of the monarch case, and no amount of argument would convince those holding the monarch position of the rightness of the G-G case. Some people on both sides seem inclined to just wave away their opponents as if their views didn't matter, or attribute their views to ignorance or error; but reasonable people are happy to accept that contrary positions can be validly held, and are prepared to listen to serious arguments and deal with them appropriately. But so far, neither side has convinced the other, and there seems to be no one authority acceptable to all sides that will settle the matter definitively, once and for all. That is the dispute. Or stand-off. Or difference of opinion.
It's not like 7 learned High Court judges who sit in judgment on a case, and 4 have one view and the other 3 have the contrary view. In that case, the majority wins, case settled, discussion over. The 3 minority judges have to accept the outcome, no matter how sure they may continue to be privately that the majority position is erroneous. This is not like that. There is a dispute, and so far nobody has been able to resolve it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is very well put. Some on this page were questioning whether "dispute" was a valid word, and I think it is. To my mind, your summary shows why the topic is significant - and interesting! - enough for its own article. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a dispute: the "great preponderance of informed commentary" versus Smith and Flint. Wikipedia policy is that fringe theories like this don't get equal weight. Therefore, I think the Smith/Flint view should be mentioned in a sentence or so in the Monarchy article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, let's look at what WP:FRINGE actually says:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

Jack, even if we accept your contention that the notion is fringe (and that's a big ask, considering the many prominent Australians who have expressed it), it is perfectly fine in this "article about the idea", which meets the test of notability. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
As noted earlier, I would not be uncomfortable with an article which documents the "G-G as Australian Head of State theory"; an article about the idea exactly - unfortunately, this article, as written, is not that. By documenting that theory in the context of a dispute, this article: overplays the level of doubt as to the Australian head of State; overplays the level of acceptance of the theory; fails to adequately place the theory in the context of the wider republican debate; and generally fails to observe WP:NOR@WP:SYNTH & WP:NPOV@WP:GEVAL. I am happy to see the theory documented, fully, but this article ain't it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In other words, to use AfD terminology, the question is whether WP:TNT applies. But I don't think it is the usual WP practice to use it to that extent. Everything you mention could be easily dealt with in a couple of hours editing - i.e. a fraction of the time that people have spent debating here. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am largely in agreement with, and encouraged by, the comment above; and have created a Userspace Draft copy of the mainspace article at User:Ryk72/Australian Governor-General head of state theory. All interested editors are encouraged to have at it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking at your draft, it appears to use this article as a basis. What's the problem with improving this one, as I and numerous others have suggested? God forbid that any article should ever be regarded as so perfect that it could not stand improvement. Even GAs and FAs fall out of date and must be regularly modified. This article is a long way from such a standard.
Having said that, it appears you want to do away with NPOV and NOR. I note the following passage in your draft:

A number of other people and publications have also referred to the Governor-General as the head of state, either informally or erroneously.

How do you propose sourcing that "informally or erroneously" wording? --Pete (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
No prominent Australian has argued against the Queen being Head of State. This article tries to make you believe otherwise. Travelmite (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sir David Smith is a very prominent Australian. He was the Official Secretary to 5 governors-general, and a knight of the realm. It was he who read the proclamation dissolving Parliament on 11.11.75. I disagree with his position, but one cannot possibly say he is not a prominent Australian. David Flint is equally prominent. I've long wanted to actually read Smith's book Head of State, because I want to see exactly what his full arguments are, but it's out of print and my searches for a second-hand copy have been fruitless. (I guess that means that his arguments have swayed very few people; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not valid arguments.)-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully concur with JackofOz that David Smith is a prominent Australian; do not see that this, in itself, raises the theory above fringe. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
In the survey on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics‎ its not "Queen" vs "GG", but "Queen" vs "Unknown". The position of those agreeing with me is to state what the reliable sources say (govt and scholars), do include Smith as having an alternate point of view with some support in ACM, and apply all the Wikipedia policies accordingly. This article gives Smith's view a special platform to debate the standard view that you'd find in a court judgement, legal textbook or govt website. In the process, some senior figures are presented as inconsistent and erratic. Debating something here far more extensively than any reliable source (excluding Smith's book) is not Wikipedia's function. Lots of other places to do that, except that nobody would bother. Travelmite (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with what Ryk72 said. This is not an article about David Smith's theory. The way it is written, it gives equal weight to both sides. My investigations have found that the sources were cherry-picked in order to manufacture this false balance.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And with that in mind, if the consensus is to merge, I am inclined to start a new article about the theory. StAnselm (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I would support and assist in such an endeavour. (assuming demonstrable notability) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack, forget about David Smith. This isn't his "theory". Looking at the Parliamentary Library's paper here, it dates from before Smith was getting any traction, which came later as the republic push came to a climax and crashed out in 1999. It asks, "Who is Australia's Head of State", but pointedly does not answer that question.
I see this article as analogous to that paper, providing information on the question and the views expressed. That's what we do, you know, provide information.
My impression is that you don't want information about various views to be provided, even in an article specifically about the question. You'd rather nuke this article entirely, along with all the discussion, sources and so on, and then, as others are proposing above, have another article emerge on exactly the same subject, which would naturally have much of the same sources, same information, history etc. but with a different title. Is this roughly correct? --Pete (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that this was kicked off by Paul Keating's speech in 1995, as you describe in your post of 13 February above. Keating advocated an Australian head of state. The then Opposition Leader, John Howard, responded by talking about Governors-General. Michael Kirby later commented that describing the G-G as head of state was a "distraction" and added "Ultimately Howard stated accurately that the Governor-General was virtually the Head of State, performing as he does the functions common to that kind of office in other countries when the Queen is absent from Australia, which is most of the time" (cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory' p 1351). That Parliamentary Library paper therefore dates from that initial period. Smith then ran with the issue, and finally wrote a book. But a lot of people write books. Then, correct me if I'm wrong, Pete Skyring wrote an Wikipedia article. I'm happy to see this fringe theory aired, just like Wikipedia can have articles about UFOs, yowies, and youth employment, but not an article like this one which promotes the Skyring view that this is an undecided question. It appears to me that there are 3 views: (a) the informed consensus that the Queen is head of state; (b) the trumped-up case put forward by Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy in the context of the republic debate (Smith, Flint, but not Kirby); (c) the Skyring Thesis, which amalgamates (a) and (b), along with some sloppy phrasing and slips of the tongue to argue that this is an undecided question. If (b) is a fringe theory, (c) is even more fringe. The only current source for the Skyring Thesis is this article itself. Do I want to nuke it? No, I'm a partisan of the truth. I would like to see all the work that people have put into this article merged into other articles in a way that doesn't mislead the most important people – the readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Even if we accept all you say above as true, just how is this idea David Smith's? This isn't something he came up with, is it? --Pete (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue, Pete, is not whether Smith's opinion is original but whether it is currently notable. You have lost that argument: kindly acknowledge that merger is appropriate. Wikiain (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I accept Jack's summary. I've mostly assumed that the article follows Smith's argument, but in a disguised form. If it's a "Skyring Thesis", then that raises original research even more than notibility. Travelmite (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikiain, but we can leave Smith entirely out of the article and still have it abundantly sourced, as per WP:GNG, which you have not apparently read. The views of Malcolm Turnbull on this topic are that, "The truth is that the monarchy survives here not because most Australians accept we should have a foreign head of state, but because most Australians do not regard the Queen as our Head of State at all."[33], dating from 1991, well before Keating's republic initiative. Perhaps you'd like to talk about the "Turnbull Theory"? --Pete (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Pete, are you still trying to cherry-pick Turnbull to support your cause? The book Reluctant Republic (1993) Turnbull is unequivocal that the Queen is head of state, as previously quoted. He could have called the book the "Unconscious Monarchy". You and other editors have amply demonstrated in this article that there is confusion about the issue, including by academics who should know better. But confusion is not a dispute, as argued ad nauseum. There are many people who state that Indonesia is Australia's nearest neighbour, or that Sydney is the capital. As George Winterton states, "informed commentary" has no such confusion. However, it's true that Turnbull was campaigning for a republic before Keating's speech in 1995. This is the kind of information that would be useful in the referendum article. Contrary to the false assumptions by many editors, the campaign for constitutional change was a long one, as was one leading to the 1967 referendum on Aborigines. Keating managed to generate more attention than Turnbull, many of it detrimental, but after Keating was defeated in 1996, Turnbull led the charge to the ultimate defeat in 1999.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Have I stopped beating my wife, Jack? You're missing the point. Turnbull's statement that the Australian people didn't see the Queen as head of state is yet another well-sourced (if not well-formatted) example of a divergence of opinion. Sometimes the same person will change their minds over time, a perfectly natural thing to do. Of course there are endless divisions of opinion in the world, and sometimes there are demonstrably correct answers. What is the name of the nation between the North Sea, Belgium, and Germany? Holland or the Netherlands? Is homosexuality innate or learned? Is Donald Trump genuinely running for US President? What is the one true religion? Having articles discussing such disputes or arguments or divisions of opinion is fine in Wikipedia. We present the various views and arguments in a NPOV fashion. Anyone who thinks that every statement is demonstrably right or wrong is fooling themselves. Some questions have no correct answers. This article amply demonstrates the dispute using reliable sources over a long period of time, thereby satisfying the GNG for a stand-alone article. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think everyone else can see what Turnbull means, but perhaps it is best if StAnselm tries to explain whether, according to the above quote, is Turnbull expressing doubt about the Queen being officially the Head of State????? Dealing with months of "issues" like this, is ultimately what StAnselm is proposing in keeping the article. Travelmite (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I haven't mentioned Turnbull at all. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Which sources provide significant, reliable, independent coverage of this topic as a dispute? I have been reviewing the sources used in the article and those kindly provided by StAnselm, but am struggling to find anything which does not firmly place the topic as either an aspect of the Australian republic debate only or as a theory only. The failing is surely mine, but it would be helpful if editors asserting that WP:GNG is met would provide details of the supporting sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
See the sources used at the beginning of this chapter. We only need two. One for each side would be sufficient to mark that there is a division of opinion, and we have many more than that. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest that basing an article on sources which themselves present a claim as to the Australian Head of State would fail both the significant and independent aspects of WP:GNG; and that it would also be a WP:SYNTHesis. Sources which describe the Governor-General as head of state also do not in themselves evidence a dispute; far less do the evidence significant, independent coverage thereof. Of the sources at the beginning of this section: none provide a comprehensive coverage of the topic as a dispute. Tom Dusevic, in The Australian[34], evidences nothing more than a mistake on behalf of Kevin Rudd's office; later corrected. Peter Harcher, in the Sydney Morning Herald, may evidence nothing more than a desire of the author to include variety in the language in the article; there is certainly no coverage of a dispute. The Parliamentary Research Service Research Note presents the opinion of the author only; and both this and Dusevic, clearly position the "head of state" topic in the context of the wider Australian republic debate, not as an independent, wider topic of discussion, dispute or debate. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, the Dusevic article contains much more than that. It asserts that "the local convention has been to recognise that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state and that Elizabeth II is our sovereign." Not a dispute, in this case, but certainly a a suggestion of diversity of use in informal speech. Also, I think you're reading too much into the boilerplate disclaimer in the Research Note - in any case, it is primarily information, written to assist parliamentarians. 08:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I am fine with addressing it as a theory, and in providing sources I did not touch on whether it was a dispute per se. But why can't it be an aspect of the Australian republic debate? That is obviously the broader topic, of which even the referendum article is a part. Now, I was hoping you would make a table analysing/critiquing the sources I produced - it's not enough to say with an airy wave of the hand that they do not show independent significant coverage. Now, WP:GNG does not provide a whole lot of help in defining "significant" - it says that a whole book is obviously significant and that a single sentence obviously isn't. Most of the references devote a few pages to the topic. Having said that, this reference does indeed suggest that it is a dispute, and provides significant, reliable, and independent coverage thereof. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm, I do concur that it is insufficient to speak summarily of the sources; but also note that the onus is on those asserting notability to do more than simply assert that it is so. I too was hoping to have made a table analysing/critiquing the sources provided; agree that it is the appropriate course of action; and still intend to so do; but progress has been slow thus far. I now have a copy of The Crown and Canadian Federalism, so can review the whole of the coverage of the topic - I am likely to concur that it demonstrates notability of something, but not yet certain of what exactly.
W.r.t the question of the topic as an aspect of the Australian republic debate or an something independent, I see that it affects how we might view notability of the topic, and also how we might best document it - if not independent, it may be possible to cover the topic fully (and in context) at Republicanism in Australia#Independence and head of state and/or David Smith (public servant). Hopefully that makes some sort of sense; please let me know if not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Pete: two sources, one for each side, shows a "division of opinion" just as you say. By itself, however, that's not within coo-ee of notability.
St Anselm: your new reference, to a book by D. Michael Jackson, is "significant, reliable, and independent coverage"? The book's publisher describes him thus:
D. Michael Jackson was chief of protocol for the Government of Saskatchewan from 1980 to 2005, coordinated 10 royal tours for the province, and established the provincial honours program. Appointed Commander of the Royal Victorian Order by Queen Elizabeth II in 2005, he is a Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit and lives in Regina.
What he says (in the one page I can see) looks competent as to law, but it is far from "coverage" of the alleged Australian "dispute" (no mention of Mason, for one) and he is not exactly a scholarly or political notable. Wikiain (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do you call it "new"? It's listed in my original comment in the merge proposal. Anyway, I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting: are you saying (a) that it isn't reliable, (b) that it isn't independent, (c) that it doesn't provide significant coverage, or (d) that it doesn't indicate the issue is a "dispute"? StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite and redirect

In view of the above, the present position (as I understand it) is:

  • Adopt (a version of) the present proposed rewrite, as named or by some other name[35]. .
  • Redirect "Australian head of state dispute" to that article.
  • Redirect "Australian head of state" to ....?

Attention was called above[36] to the redirect[37] from Australian head of state to this article. The editing history of the redirect page runs from January 2011 to January 2013[38]. In December 2012 the redirect was nominated for deletion "because it's being used to promote the target article. Also, there's no Canadian head of state, British head of state, New Zealand head of state etc etc". Participants in the present discussion may find the reasons for "Keep" that redirect insufficient, and that the better outcome would have been to accept the proposal to let it be retargetted to Government of Australia#Head of state, because "The most important thing to consider is what topic the readers are likely to be looking for. If a reader types in Australian head of state surely they're more likely looking for a basic description of the role of head of state in Australia, not the political debate surrounding it. That section contains a hatnote to that article if they want to go that way..." That redirect has continued, and present commenters can see that it is redirecting to an article that is not about the "Australian head of state" as such, but about a so-called "dispute". If the redirect were more honestly free from the peculiar slant which the HOSD article presents, the lead would be saying something like: "The term head of state does not appear in the Australian constitution. It is conventionally acknowledged to be the Queen, since the governor-general and the state governors are defined as her "representatives". However, since the governor-general is given important constitutional powers, the governor-general is occasionally referred to as head of state in political and media discussion." Enough has now been contributed to this page for all to see that the reasoning of well-informed commenters with local knowledge (as well as that of others) sufficiently refutes the remarks advanced in defense by the originator of the present HOSD article. One contributor (who has told us he is Australian) expressed an inclination to start a new article "about the theory", given that Smith's espousal of the cause (David Smith (public servant)#Governor-general as head of state) is sufficiently notable, at least among Australians, and has made a revision to the proposed rewrite linked above. Qexigator (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Qex. As you will be aware, I generally share your frustration that this has gone on for so long. However, I think you would agree that it does not matter whether somebody identifies as Australian, only whether they know what they are talking about. There is the problem whether those of us who have such credentials should identify them. I do not want to do that, but I hope that I have shown it. One contributor, Pete, has demonstrated the opposite. Another, St Anselm, has offered nothing in particular nor very well. There seem to be two formal disputes about this article and in my view they have run out of sensible discussion: please, some Admin, how can they be put out of their misery? Wikiain (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The best place to get an administrator assistance, would be WP:AN, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, GoodDay. With your experience in such matters, and I having none, would you like to go that way? I appreciate that it could take time. My support, such as it could be, would be solid. Wikiain (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather that yourself or someone else go that route, if any of you think an administrator's participation is required here. A one-year involuntary vacation from Wikipedia (2013-14), makes me weary of contacting AN. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggest WP:AN/RFC (Request Formal Closure) over WP:AN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikiain, you say "However, I think you would agree that it does not matter whether somebody identifies as Australian, only whether they know what they are talking about." You then go on to imply that I do not. I doubt anyone here has been following this issue as long as I have. I have listened to and met many of the people used as sources. I was in the Press Gallery for the Constitutional Convention. I'm the only one here who possesses a copy of Sir David Smith's book "Head of State". There is nobody else here who has been attending lectures and academic gatherings on this subject for over twenty years. I doubt that any other editor here has met Professor George Winterton, let alone questioned him on this precise topic. I don't think I need out myself, but the approach most here seem to take is to give personal opinions on the Constitution, and use a google search to cherry pick out sources in support of their opinions. --Pete (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do not make incorrect assumptions about what other editors have done, who they met and their level of interest. If you have a qualification it could be relevant, although the assumption in Wikipedia seems to be that original research is not permitted, regardless of how well qualified. Anyway, the problems are there in the article for all to see. Travelmite (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+ I have surmised that at least most participants here will be aware that when engaged in editing or commenting on a Wikipedia article, or reading others' contributions to an article or Talk discussion, certain distinctions obtain, such as that between "ingenuous" and "disingenuous", or false inference and false implication, or ravelling and unravelling. Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Would others, like me, find the three bullet steps above acceptable? That is: 1_Adopt (a version of) the present proposed rewrite,[39] and retain it as re-named (or by some other name); 2_Redirect "Australian head of state dispute" to the proposed rewrite version of the article; 3_Redirect "Australian head of state" to Monarchy or Government of Australia, as above. Qexigator (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem with this article is that as it is improved, it falls apart. There are very few sources that show an actual dispute.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack: The now proposed rewrite version, as renamed,[40] together with the proposed redirects, would present the information inoffensively, with no mention of "dispute", and hang together well enough, and thus let the problem be resolved, would it not? Qexigator (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be pretty much the same thing as the existing article, with a different title and some serious sourcing issues. A retrograde step, surely? --Pete (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't support it either.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - While the userspace draft[41] is indeed based on this article as current at the time of creation of the draft (it was, in fact, a verbatim copy), it is not intended to remain so. On the basis that notability (per WP:GNG) is not necessarily demonstrable for the current dispute article topic, but that notability for a topic covering the material as a theory may be demonstrable, and in alignment with WP:BATHWATER, the intention is to attempt a documentation of the subject matter without losing the work which has been done previously.
As I envision it, the work would include, at least: revoicing the information presented to clearly place it in the context of a theory; attributing that theory's points and counterpoints to those who hold them; placing the whole in the wider Australian republic debate context (per the sources available); better aligning the presentation of the material with WP:NPOV, including WP:BALASPS.
I do not believe that it would be possible to make these, quite fundamental, changes to an article while in mainspace; and suggest that it would be better to have a worked, consensus version, which would be presented in an RfC to determine if it should replace the current version. The possibilities, of course, exist that the draft will not be demonstrably notable, or will not be preferred by the community.
Hopefully this makes the intent clearer. I am happy to answer any questions or address any concerns. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72: 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[42], then will it not suffice to check text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweak here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite? Does the topic deserve more than that, or less than that? Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet another attempt

Is this yet another attempt by the minority group out of the ten responses in the RfC above to presume some article-wide consensus that does not exist? Let me remind all that policy is what counts, and this long-standing article adequately meets WP:GNG as a standalone article. --Pete (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not an attempt by a minority group "to presume some article-wide consensus that does not exist" nor "yet another attempt". All can see for themselves the recurrent failure of the article's originator to address the points at issue intelligibly, if at all. Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Why, Qex, that sounds like a personal attack, and again a disrespect of policy. My contributions on this page are evidence enough of my addressing the points raised here. Ample evidence. Perhaps you would like to address the issue of WP:GNG raised earlier? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue of GNG has been well-addressed. At least 4 editors agree for the article to be merged. 1 editor defends the article as is and 1 editor (maybe 2) seeks to improve the article, maybe under a new title. Apparently, Pete says I'm not in the group of 4, even though I am. Again, it's something to confirm with StAnselm whether he agrees my support for Jack's proposal can be subsequently discounted in this fashion. Travelmite (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No, because the numbers are irrelevant. The closing admin will determine consensus, not count votes. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a minority position, and certainly not a consensus. Even amongst those favouring a merge, there is no unity of mind as to which of the several articles suggested would be appropriate. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Well Travelmite, the majority wish the article disbanded & its parts merged into other articles, so that's quite likely going to be the result :) GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet, even that is disputed? Even though it's obvious and clear that we support Jack's proposal, it's being presented as though we don't. The rules say that we must act in good faith and we have two summaries that are vastly different. I've concluded that of the 6 direct responses, 4 support a merge with no disagreement with the proposal. Pete/Skyring says it a "minority" because "there is no unity of mind" - whatever that means. This is similar to my complaints about with this article, that sources have been used to miscast the opinions of prominent people. This is how I've argued that Zelman Cowen, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull and others have been miscast by this article. I hope an admin can do a thorough job, but I'd like to get StAnselm's clear opinion, about whether it's permissible for Pete/Skyring to dispute my support for Jack's proposal (given that I obviously do support it) and what Wikipedia policy applies. Travelmite (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite see what I have to do with it. In any case, it is routine in evaluating consensus to discard the responses that are merely votes, which leaves you, in fact, as the sole supporter of the merge. StAnselm (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Every contributor has written many pages, backed by evidence, policy and reason, on why they support a merge. Is that statement something that can be disputed? Is this the very pattern, that has made the article so irredeemable? Travelmite (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Theoroetically, erroneously etc.

I've removed these words from the lede, pending sourcing. Please do not reinsert synthesis without a reliable source. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but we must bear in mind that the references do not need to be in the lead section. I added "erroneously" to the lead of the draft version, with a view to establishing it in the body of the text. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course. Still, sources need to be found, no matter where the words they support are placed. Do we actually have anyone who isn't a Wikipedia editor stating that this is a theory, and/or that Rudd, Zelman Cowen etc. etc. were mistaken? Sources for both need to be found before we can state this in Wikivoice.. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree "theoretical" not a good word in this context, and "erroneously" not suited here. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Update of related Rfc at WP:POLITICS

Be advised, the Rfc at WP:POLITICS (which might effect this article) has been closed in favour of the Australian monarch being presented on Wikipedia as Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good news! Well done on your RfC idea. Travelmite (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, from this time forward, any attempts to stop or discredit edits being made across Wikipedia, which show the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state? should be treated as disrupting Wikipedia to make or maintain a POV. Therefore, any editor (at their own discretion) may report such disruption to wherever they chose. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The link is here[43]: ... summary of the conclusions...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. Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

+ I have gone ahead with revising lead,[44] as proposed at[45] Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger

Is the merge to Monarchy proposal still alive? Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, it is. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I've put in a request to administrator Newyorkbrad, to see if he will monitor this article's talkpage. If it needs monitoring, of course :) GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute/Archive_6&oldid=1074609767"