Talk:Head of state/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Corrective edit to clarify Queen's action?

If the article is based on the supposition that Elizabeth, as Queen of Australia, has power to dismiss a prime minister of Australia, is that supposition well-founded, or is a corrective edit required? If the supposition is well-founded, who would be the person constitutionally responsible for advising the Queen in such a case: the G-G, the PM or some other person recognised by the Australian constitution? In the specific case of the Whitlam dismissal the only visible person who could be held responsible for the Queen's action, if such it was, would be the G-G. But if it was not the Queen's action, how could it have been valid, unless after the event it has been actually recognised and accepted by acquiescence, in the way that conventions of the constitution emerge and become accepted, practically de jure. Is it then universally acknowledged that the dismissal was the Queen's action performed by the G-G, or that it was not, and is there any source that conclusively resolves the doubt either way? Qexigator (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

+PS On second thoughts, the above leads me (belatedly) to see that the Kerr/Whitlam episode is too peripheral to the article topic to merit allusion to it by name or impliedly. It were better to remove the whole paragraph. In the context, it would be vacuous without an example, and there appears to be none in "Commonwealth parliamentary systems" as weighty as the example of Italy above it and of Belgium below it. Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds best to me. The original insertion was an OR effort by JTDIRL. --Pete (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Did either Kerr or Whitlam contact Buckingham Palace (where the Australian monarch was residing) to seek the Australian monarch's approval or veto of Whitlam's dismissal? If either did, would that not be recognition that the monarch would've had the final say on the matter, whether she would've intervened or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good question, of course, but relevant to this article only if RS available; and despite the extensive discussion on this page, from 2003, and more recently from 12 November[1], it seems to be too peripheral to the topic to be worth mentioning in the article, or discussing further here. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Short of some bombshell emerging, there's not going to be any RS for this. Not until the Queen's diary is published, and that will be decades. Whitlam didn't contact the Queen - he thought Kerr had to do what he told him. Kerr was in contact with the Queen, but we know very little of their congress. Kerr never said he asked advice or approval. He was well aware that he didn't need approval, he asked his fellow senior judges for their views in the days before he acted. --Pete (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was Kerr in contact with the Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mainly to keep her informed. Secondarily to work out a protocol if Whitlam should contact her to have Kerr dismissed, which Kerr was very anxious about. The protocol was to have any advice hand-delivered in writing, which would have given Kerr enough time to act. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In effect, the monarch had the final word on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Only on dismissing the Governor-General. That power is given directly to her in s1. The Governor-General alone is given the power to dismiss the Prime Minister (or any other minister) in s64. He doesn't need advice or instructions from the Queen to act on powers he already has. As was publicly made clear by the Queen after the event. --Pete (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I simply don't understand. Qexigator, I'm in agreement with you, the entire paragraph should be deleted. There's simply too much disambiguty in the Australian Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Could be we are making progress. The problem is not with the theory or practice of the constitution of Australia for and by Australians, including the Queen who knows more about it than most prime ministers of any country or commentators ever will; when there seems to be a problem it is often in the mind of a beholder. Qexigator (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pete OR effort by JTDIRL, namely Revision as of 23:34, 23 February 2003 Jtdirl?[2] That was a no less dubious version of the current one which its writer defended with vehemently misguided but flimsy support at Talk above ("...John Prescott has been the de facto British Prime Minister for the last couple of weeks..." !), when the article was building in the early days, and it has been allowed to hang in ever since. The discussion then seems to have revolved around party-political opinion or misreporting. We can now see that it is peripheral anyway and out of place in the present article, and should be gently allowed to retire. Qexigator (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. JTDIRL was pretty good on his niche material, but he'd go off the rails every now and then. He had marathon sleepless editing sessions or something, but at those times his work was very dubious. That was fine if he'd allow it to be corrected, but he had the view that anything he wrote was absolute truth and had to be defended to the death. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A proposed rewrite

It was the monarch's power exercised by the governor-general: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative",S.61 in this case, one of the powers only exercisable by the governor-general: "The Governor‑General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor‑General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor‑General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth."S.64

That's the codified part. Then there's the conventional aspect to the example: the exercise of that power without (or, in other, more common circumstances, with) ministerial or parliamentary direction.

Kerr acted (by convention) without direction from his ministers or parliament and (by statute) without direction from the Queen. Hence, I chose the words "unilaterially" and "singularly" as options. Why do we need to make it any more complicated than that? There's no way "he acted unilaterally" or "decided unilaterally" could be interpreted as "he acted on the Queen's orders".

Despite some people wanting to do so just to quit and get this over with, to delete the paragraph would be to diminish the article; it would leave its following paragraph without context; it would also remove the most contemporary (and a well known) example of a use of the reserve powers in a parliamentary system.

The two paragraphs can be combined and some detail added (I guess): "Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent (convention), Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances, such as when Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr in 1975 unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) exercised the reserve powers in dismissing Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills. Other examples from outside the Commonwealth include the decision by King Léopold III of the Belgians to surrender on behalf of his state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of his government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that his government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the above discussion; and seeing that this latest proposed rewrite (from Mies.) includes a brief explanation of how "unilateral" is being used there, which would make the text intelligible, and as such acceptable (it steers round a possibly awkward corner); and if that is adopted after the lock; then, would it not be better to move the Belgian example to follow the Italian, both in point of time sequence and because it would be followed by the class of cases (only one so far) of the description "Commonwealth parliamentary systems"? Qexigator (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problem. Mies's view that the specific power exercised by Kerr actually belonged to the Queen is OR. Kerr wasn't exercising the Queen's power - it was given to the Governor-General at Federation in the Constitution. Other Commonwealth Realms use Letters-Patent or similar to assign powers to representatives, and these may be withdrawn or amended by the monarch. The Australian Constitution cannot be altered in any way by the monarch. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be done. Though, I think there might need to be a rearrangement/rewrite of all of (at least) the last four paragraphs of that section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Another proposed rewrite

The present version (ie, without the example) reads: "Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances." This is unclear.

• Is it saying: only some do, but others do not?
• Is it saying that there are some Commonwealth republics in which the head of state has a "representative" of like status to a realm's governor-general?

Would it not be clearer to begin: Commonwealth parliamentary systems, whether realms or republics, combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give the head of state, or a governor-general in a Commonwealth realm, additional powers in unexpected circumstances ... (then let the example be added) ..., such as when Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr in 1975 unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) dismissed Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills." Qexigator (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we could use the King-Byng Affair. I don't think it's possible to write the paragraph to be clear as to what exactly is meant. I suggest dropping both "representative" and the example and finding some use of the reserve powers directly by a monarch or president, rather than trying to put the thing at one remove. If we can't find an example, then the concept is not worth including in an article aimed at contemporary use. --Pete (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe some do and some don't; some realms have very codified constitutions (Papua New Guinea, Belize, I think... This is off the top of my head). I don't know if there are any republics that use convention to give the president any reserve powers. It isn't, though, saying there are republics that have representatives akin to governors-general; it's a broad statement inclusive of the countries that have a governor-general.

Your proposal's mostly fine. It just omits the letters patent and orders in council that are part of constitutional law in some Commonwealth realms (Canada, Australia, and especially the UK). Also, it presumes all Commonwealth realms have a governor-general; the UK does not.

I've already said why the Kerr example is preferable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for those comments. We seem to be together in a desire to resolve this somehow. That may yet need a little "time for consideration". We have at least until the expiry of the lock to engage in cur. adv. vult., and can give ourselves some extension if need be, but let us hope not. I left out letters patent and orders in council for two reasons: these are subsumed in the general term "constitutional law"- which determines their use and validity, and includes any such document which has been inherited or received into any country's current constitution; secondly, mentioning them is unduly detailed for this context (and looks a bit too precious)- we do not (and would not) give similar detailed information about executive instruments of state in the other examples (edicts, decrees or whatever they may be). In any case, in a context of peace and war between nations (the kingdom of Belgium and the German reich in the early stages of a world wide armed conflict), what is the compulsion to mention an incident of internal politics in a single country, which is thoroughly discussed in more specific articles, and whose effect in that country or as a general principle for other Commonwealth realms is so uncertain? Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

However, if a Commonwealth example is to be used in the article, Canada's would seem to be more suitable, so that the proposed rewrite would be:

Commonwealth parliamentary systems, whether realms or republics, combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give the head of state additional powers in unexpected circumstances. An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, unexpectedly departing from constitutional convention by acting against the advice of the prime minister occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the prime minister's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election, and, before doing so, refused to refer the prime minister's request to the head of state. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."

The explanation would sit well in this place in the article between the Italian example of a 19c. constitutional convention in a country outside those which are directly in the British tradition and the 20c. Belgian example which followed the Canadian some years later. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As there's no dispute that I'm aware of over who Canada's HoS is, thus "...governor-general, representing the head of state,..." is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the rationale behind removing reference to letters patent and orders in council. However, I still hold that the King-Byng Affair is not a desirable replacement for the dismissal of Whitlam's cabinet. It's not as contemporary; it took place before the present structures of the Commonwealth realms had been developed; that is: when a governor-general represented the British government in a Dominion. That may be an example for a discussion on the past role of governors-general, but not for the use of the reserve powers by modern heads of state or their representatives. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Another version with Australian example, and Belgian 1990

Taking account of the above comments, the following is a version of the proposed rewrite, in context and including the Australian example, and putting "head of government" for "prime minister" to stress the principle of the particular Commonwealth examples in conecttion with the Italian above and the Belgian below:

For example, under the 1848 constitution of the Kingdom of Italy, the Statuto Albertino, the parliamentary approval to the government appointed by the King was customary, but not required by law. So, Italy had a de facto parliamentarian system, but a de jure "presidential" system.

Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent , Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances. <insert> An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the prime minister head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision." (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.) In the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis the governor-general exercised powers assigned to him by the constitution when dismissing the prime minister head of government, in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills.</insert>

Other examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than usual, either because of ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, include the decision by the King Léopold III of the Belgians, to surrender on behalf of the state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of his government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that his government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted in a referendum to allow him back on the throne, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated.) <insert>The Belgian constitutional crisis in 1990, when the the head of state refused to sign into law a bill permitting abortion, was resolved by the cabinet assuming the power to promulgate the law while he was treated as "unable to govern" for twenty-four hours. </insert>

Is this now acceptable?Qexigator (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"...or their representative", must be included in the paragraph, as the Australian governor-general is not Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So that version is acceptable if "or their representative" included? Qexigator (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why the compulsive "must"? From a reader's point of view, its is conceptually and grammatically surplus. If it is the case, it need not be stated, if not the case it is false. Qexigator (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want my support for the paragraph-in-question. By leaving out "representative", you create the impression that the governor-general is HoS. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? That looks more partisan than npov. In the first of the two specific cases, it is stated that the gg was "representing the head of state", which needs to be made clear (it was his reason for his letter to the king expressing the key point in such cases, that he acted according to his conscience, as did the king of the Belgians in 1940 and his successor in 1990, and, doubtless, the gg in 1975); in the contrasting case the text, while silent on that point (it need not be laboriously or pointedly expressed one way or the other), states that the gg was exercising powers assigned to him by the constitution, which needs to be explained either way. It is not for Wikipedia editors, whatever the head count of their private opinions, needlessly to essay determining such a point, in the absence of conclusive RS. The most convincing so far, as it happens, has been produced by Pete, and that has never, so far as I have seen, been rebutted. Admittedly, I may have missed something you have found. Have I? Qexigator (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If there has to be a choice? go with the Canadian example. TBH, Skyring & Mies are the individuals who'll need to come to an agreement on this topic. I'll go along with whatever they can compromise on. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would find the latest proposed version above acceptable if the Australian example were left out there. It has already been mentioned in the section "Appointment of senior officials". Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no problems with excluding the Australian example. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It can also be noted (as editors will be aware) that the uncertainties in official, scholarly and media sources described in "Australian head of state dispute" leave unclear to what extent or in what respects the matter is one of legal consequence or an attempt to use words in a way to influence party-political opinion, or, in the case of the monarch, in a deliberately non-partisan way. The formal or informal use of "sovereign" for the Queen's status is not necessarily identical with "head of state" in all contexts. In the absence of judicial ruling, and given that the constitution of the Australian Commonwealth has been so written that neither "head of state" nor "sovereign" is used,[3] neither of those sources can be cited as conclusive on the point. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian HoS dispute (real or imagined) is a giant headache, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Therefore, I'm content to throw it out of this article :) GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed version without Australian example

This proposal takes into account all comments so far:

Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent , Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances. <insert> An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."

Other examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than usual, either because of ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, include the decision by the King Léopold III of the Belgians, to surrender on behalf of the state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of his government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that his government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted in a referendum to allow him back on the throne, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated.) <insert>The Belgian constitutional crisis in 1990, when the the head of state refused to sign into law a bill permitting abortion, was resolved by the cabinet assuming the power to promulgate the law while he was treated as "unable to govern" for twenty-four hours. </insert>

Is this now acceptable? Qexigator (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable. Thanks for your research and good work. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.[4] --Qexigator (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We've yet to hear from Mies, however. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor who has been participating sometimes prefers to make no further comment, and while remaining free to do so, may not wish to give notice of discontinuance. Qexigator (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mies hasn't been around the 'pedia, since last Friday. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean you have seen no trace of him there, or what? And what has that to do with this page or the article? Perhaps he has decided to take a rest or attend to other activities? Did you know it is possible to keep an eye on Wikipedia while lurking, and to decide not to intervene? Qexigator (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that we wait until he returns to Wikipedia, via his contributions. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Relax, the lock has expired, there is no need to wait making the changes which have been openly arrived at in the discussion above. Mies. can come in any time he chooses. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the removal of "or their representative" eliminates all the governors-general currently in existence who may exercise the reserve powers of their respective crowns. I've explained above (at least twice now) why the King-Byng Affair is a poor example to use to illustrate this particular sentence. The quote of Byng's words doesn't seem to explain much, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no harm in looking at it afresh, undisturbed by past contentions which seem to create more heat than light. It is important to remember that the topic is not the comparison of past events involving governors-general in two major Commonwealth realms. Of the two examples in question, it seems to me the King-Byng one is certainly worth citing, because it allows mention of Byng's letter to the monarch, as in the present version, which may be news to ordinary readers and will help to let them undetrstand the matter of principle, not only in that case, but in the two Belgian cases, and generally in the wider context of "heads of state", such as Charles I and Cromwell, though that may be beyond many readers' ken or concern. I question whether in this article it is necessary even to mention the peculiarity of "governors-general currently in existence who may exercise the reserve powers of their respective crowns". The proper place for that is a full and sufficient explanation of the elusive concept in other articles, about Commonwealth realms and their constitutions. If pressed, I would accept: Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances. Perhaps that helps to emphasise a point for readers who might otherwise miss it, given that the other examples are about a king in person. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We should've operated without disturbance from contention because that past contention you refer to was based upon someone's pure fabrication and should never have been given any attention, let alone all the attention it got. Now we have text in the article that's inferior to the perfectly acceptable content that was there before. What am I to say needs to be done to improve it now other than take the older, less applicable King-Byng example out and put the more contemporary (and thus more relevant as an illustration, as it's free of colonial complications the section doesn't come close to dealing with) Kerr example back? But, why say that? The bully's enablers won't agree with that and outnumber me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the restoration you're mentioning, Mies. PS: Qex, my reason for accepting your King-Byng proposal, was because of the non-stop opposition by Skyring, who seemed determined to avoid having (what he believed) the Australian monarch appear as Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's not it at all. Both Queen and Governor-General are widely viewed here as HoS. My point is that the previous warning was misleading. The idea is to inform our readers, not puzzle them. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Either way, you're opposed to what you see as any suggestion (real or not) that the monarch is head of state in Australia. Anyways, it's the undisputed reason why I agreed to Qex's proposal, because otherwise, the filibustering would've continued indef. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not opposed to saying that the Queen is the Australian HoS. It's a widely held view. It's just not the only widely-held view. My own personal opinion - for what it's worth - is that nobody can say for sure. Well, the High Court could, but they haven't been asked yet. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I've already stated my position. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that my position isn't what you say it is. When someone says that I believe something I don't, I like to set the record straight. We all do this, I think. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The head of state thing is a ruse, GoodDay. Pete/Skyring's main beef is with the truth of the Governor-General of Australia being always the representative of the Australian monarch; there must be nothing that casts doubt on his fabricated POV that the governor-general is a part time viceroy and part time unnamed other thing that could or could not be considered a head of state.

He's been trying to cram the bullshit in all over Wikipedia; you'll recall the obnoxiously long debates at Talk:Australian head of state dispute and Talk:Governor-General of Australia. He's succeeded here because most people wanted neither to make him adhere to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS nor go through another round of his endless closed-minded, tendentious, obfuscating crap. He's cramming it back in at Governor-General of Australia. (And yet whinges about people being mean to him and calls for everyone else to "lift their game".) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not share Mies.'s opinion, however long it has been held, and have given ample reasons which an open mind (npov) could accept or in some way discuss in a reasoned manner. I do not accept that the present text is in any way inferior: "more contemporary" does not = more relevant. Please do not remove the King-Byng text in the current version, which remains relevant indefinitely as an historic precedent resonant beyond Canada or any part of the Commonwealth. What on earth is meant by "The bully's enablers"? I see no good reason for adamant refusal to acknowledge the cogency of Skyring's remarks. There is no need to reiterate, discuss or mention further here the debate about HoS in Australia. This article is about the constitutional theory and practice concerning heads of state world-wide, and, if there is any need to mention the Kerr-Whitlam episode, which I do not see as editorially necessary, there is no need to be other than non-committal about the HoS question which is thoroughly covered in its own article. Qexigator (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I said earlier you'd bought his argument. You retorted by saying you hadn't. Yet, now you're saying you have.

Whatever. I'll just assume you've not been dealing with Pete/Skyring's POV pushing as long as a couple of others here have. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not bought his argument. Please keep such remarks off the pages of Wikipedia. I am far from favourably impressed by the responses of some editors to his contributions. Qexigator (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to appear as though you've bought his argument, my suggestion is be careful about making comments like "I see no good reason for adamant refusal to acknowledge the cogency of Skyring's remarks." Ample reason to refuse the cogency of his remarks has been presented. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Editors should try not to overestimate the cogency of their own opinions whether compared with others or not, and if one has a longstanding quarrel with another editor, that should not burden a discussion where it lacks relevance. Qexigator (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

His POV-pushing doesn't lack relevance. It's the trigger for this whole waste of time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Restore to pre-November 11, 2014

Sorry Qex, but I've given it alot of thought & the pre-November 11, 2014 version is best for our readers. Recommend that version be restored. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with what we have now. It removes my objection to the previous wording and makes the same point. --Pete (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the pre-November 11, 2014 version must be restored. PS: You should take a break from pushing the Australian Head of state dispute. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We're having the Discussion part of BRD now. Seems to have had an effective result. We can all leave the matter now. Drop the stick, GoodDay. --Pete (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I intially went along with Qex's Canadian proposal, merely to shut you up. I realize now, that was not a good reason & therefore, I've reversed my support. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You ignored the R part back at the beginning. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for communicating again. Noted: 1_ GoodDay is now recommending restoration of "pre-November 11, 2014 version",[5] giving as reason that s/he has given it a lot of thought and, as at 17:58, 16 December, was of the opinion that version "is best for our readers". Then reveals an objection to Pete "pushing the Australian Head of state dispute", and the actual motive for accepting the present version was to shut Pete up. 2_Pete's opinion is that the present version removes his objection to the previous and "makes the same point". Then responds to GoodDay's personal remark: "Drop the stick, GoodDay". 3_Next, Mies. avers that Pete "ignored the R part back at the beginning." In reply: In my view there is no doubt that the present version is better than previous (for reasons above), and I am no partisan of Pete or any particular cause, other than joining in the cause of npov encyclopedic text. The objections to the present version are blatantly not addressing the merits of the revision, but, on the part of at least one objector, are driven by some visceral, personal, longstanding complaint or grievance against another editor, which is not likely to aid clear judgment, and some of the resulting comments have smirched this page and others. That is really sad, and GoodDay is not alone in making an attempt to smooth things over. I will now offer a further version, under a new section. Qexigator (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible revision of current version adding Australian example

Arising from above (see Talk:Head of state/Archive 2[6] and Talk:Head of state/Archive 3[7])[8], a drafting development is exhibited below. But please note, the article would be better off without the Australian example, which cannot be understood in a sentence or two (hence the link to the lengthy article on that topic) and, unlike King-Byng, or the personal quandaries of the two Kings of the Belgians (one as an active commander in chief of an army facing defeat in the field, the other a Roman Catholic with moral scruple), yields no definite motivation or principle, or "model", for others in the positions of head of state or representative, in Commonwealth realms or other countries: Kerr-Whitlam was essentially an acute episode of local Australian politics, and should be left for reporting in the specific articles, where it is already fully covered.

• (GoodDay's) version at 03:27, 12 November 2014[9]

...Italy... Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.) (...Belgians)

• Current version, at 12:41, 10 December 2014[10]

...Italy... Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give a head of state additional powers in unexpected circumstances. An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision." (...Belgians)

• Version showing change from earlier to current:

...Italy... Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law <insert>and</insert> unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.) <insert> An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."</insert> (...Belgians)

• Possible revision of current version adding Australian example

...Italy... Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give a head of state additional powers in unexpected circumstances. An example of a governor-general, representing the head of state, departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision." <insert>In the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis the governor-general exercised his powers under the constitution when dismissing the head of government, in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills. In a public statement he said that it was the only solution consistent with the constitution and with his oath of office and his responsibilities, authority and duty as governor-general. </insert> (...Belgians)

Can we settle for accepting the last of the above? Qexigator (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That draft is fine except I'd add a "t" after "tha". --Pete (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

done. Qexigator (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Return the pre-November 11, 2014 version. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem determined to have an input into this for reasons noted above which seem to have nothing to do with the topic. How about we both leave it alone? We restore Qex's version which seems to have some sort of consensus and he and Mies (and potentially others) can discuss the article without being distracted by whatever personal factors there might be between we two. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Leave it at Qex's latest version & stop reverting to your political PoV. You've been advised before, to stop pushing your agenda. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you see as "my agenda", GoodDay? As I'm seeing it, you're restoring the wording that caused all this trouble in the first place, for what looks to be some sort of personal reason. If the problematic wording is retained, then we're going to have problems. I'd like you to explain your precise objection to Qex's version, which is the result of a lot of discussion here and considerable research and thought. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the "...political PoV" & "...your agenda" wording. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no problem with Qex's latest version. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could answer the question(s), GoodDay, it would help us work out the problem. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no problem with Qex's latest version. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is, for the reasons I've noted below. Would it be accurate to say that your problem is that you disagree with me on grounds which you are unable or unwilling to articulate? --Pete (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no problems with Qex's latest version. You do. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. You made this change in which you said in the edit summary, "Monarch's representative. If you're going to put in the Australian situation, you must includ 'representative' in some form." Why, precisely? --Pete (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm in agreement with Qex's latest version. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So you have said. However, you are unable to explain why you made the change noted above. From things you have said here and elsewhere, I infer that it was to annoy me and commence an edit war. I'm inclined to view this as disruptive and to seek outside views on how to handle this. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, let well alone. For my part the later version[11] is better, if only because it is more tighlty written in fewer words, and a more polished version than the earlier. I see nothing that need be treated as contentious about it. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the latest version is better. Again, I don't understand Skyring's objection to "representative", other then he just doesn't like it. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My objection is as before. Kerr used his own powers to dismiss Whitlam. He wasn't acting as the Queen's agent or by direction, which is one interpretation that might be inferred. Qex's previous version, while containing a few more words, is more detailed, correctly pointing out that Byng acted as the monarch's representative. I have no objection to the use of representative here, because it is correct, and the text makes it clear what happened. I prefer the more accurate and unambiguous version, because we should not leave it to our readers to make assumptions. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in disagreement with your objections. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, may I reaffirm that my intent has been to take account of what has been said by Pete and others in the course of the discussion above about "representative", and I see no good and sufficient reason to object to letting that word appear as in my latest version, where it improves the style and does no harm to any pov. Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I too, agree with your latest version. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pete's and GoodDay's comments noted. My latest version, now current as at 21:35, 17 December 2014, puts beyond doubt that Kerr thought of himself as acting according to his oath of office and the constitution, and nothing more need be said about that there. Readers need no steer either way. If they desire more information (I suspect few will) the link is there, in the same way other links give immediate access to the details in all the other examples: Italy, King-Byng, the two Kings of the Belgians. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We now have two mentions of both King-Byng and Kerr-Whitlam. The long-standing wording here is neutral and non-problematic. The wording here is not. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your objection to the governor general being mentioned as the head of state's representative, is already well known. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your choice of wording is unfortunate. You know that there is are divided views on the matter. Mies and I have thrashed out a mutually acceptable version at Australian head of state dispute, which was no easy task for either of us. It went to DR, as I recall. I'm seeing your latest contribution as intentionally disruptive. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Qex's wording & I'm in agreement with him. We've yet to hear for Mies. PS- I'm feeling chilled by your 'disruption' accusation. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel upset, but from where I'm sitting, you made a change from a consensus version to one which became problematic. I asked you why you did this and you were unwilling to provide a reason. You appear to have inserted yourself here after John suggested I stay away and I made the commitment to do so, so long as you and Mies - the original aim of my request on John's talk page - likewise did so. At that point, we had consensus and an end to disruption on this particular article. I felt that we had progress. Your edits here and here seem designed to spark a response from me, causing you to complain on John's talk page here as soon as you noticed. My actions appear to be something you feel strongly enough about to question your continued presence on Wikipedia. This is a relatively minor point we're discussing here, but it's one that affects your Wikipedia presence???? You also seem to feel I have some agenda or political point, which you can't or won't articulate, thereby preventing me from attempting to sort that out. I don't want to bully or badger you, and I'd prefer you stick around, but if you could work with me here, it would help all of us. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)