Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Travelmite (talk | contribs) at 08:40, 23 March 2016 (→More about Kirby's opinions?: My comments returned to their correct context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian head of state dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian head of state dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Australia: Law / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance [REDACTED]

Australian head of state dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

"continuing debate" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a continuing debate. Every Australia Day and every Queen's Birthday there's the regular statements and media appearances from the Australian Republican Movement, monarchists, political leaders and a flurry on talkback radio and letters to the editor.

Every year this carries on. I guess we could source the continuing nature of the debate with a selection of the current crop and update the sources every few months? --Pete (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Restored by Travelmite (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

That seems to say that the question continues to be mentioned with partisan comment in the media from year to year. When was there a "debate" after, say, 1999? Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at these references. The first one is David Smith, the person listed in the bibliography of this article, with no comment taking it seriously. The only source of "debate" in the past simply depends on whether anyone is paying attention to Smith, who happened to work for the Governor-General and was famous on one day in 1975. None of the other references are not debating anything about the Head of State - at best just examples of inconsistent usage of the term. Smith is possibly still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance. How was he given the title "Sir", operating the links between the Queen and government, when when hundreds of more senior public servants did not? That's a question of public interest. Travelmite (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

About DS and his book: "Because of his reading of the Proclamation dissolving the Parliament from the steps of old Parliament House - with Gough Whitlam standing behind him ready for his memorable outburst - Sir David will forever be associated in people's minds with that event....One of the great services that Sir David provides - and there are many - is an understanding that November 11 was the culmination of a political and not a constitutional crisis." Qexigator (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's in his interest to write a book which minimises the power of the Queen. Maybe that's how he got the extra job in the UK? I'm not sure what special libraries exist that can't be posted here, but how can you be swayed by the fact he's charming? He probably charmed everyone like a politician. Travelmite (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Smith's opinions and attitude are neither here nor there. If you want to make your argument an attack on a person, that's your option, but it detracts from your argument in that I know that you also speak out of ignorance. When you say he is "still out there promoting his book, because that's all about his life, and his own view of his importance", it is quite clear that you have not read the book! He is charming, thoughtful, self-effacing, and kind in a way that few politicians are. I've met a few, and most are driven by personal ambition and a loose relationship with truthfulness. The libraries Smith uses include the library at Government House and the ANU law school. as well as others that are neither online nor open to the public. I would imagine that if he wanted to browse through the Queen's personal library, he would be welcome there as well.

Smith's contribution is not that he is pushing his views, but that he provides the historical background to the roles of the Governor-General and the monarchy. Turnbull is very good at this in his books as well, and we should be grateful for their scholarship and research. Of course, Turnbull is a politician, and his ambition has been front page news for decades, so perhaps some of us here wish to discount his opinions on that basis.

What I find interesting is that some here are convinced of the rightness of their opinions, even when there is no sound basis for them. The simple fact is that the position of Head of State is not mentioned at all in either the Constitution nor in any Australian legislation. The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory. The most distinguished High Court bench we ever had referred to the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" and there has been nothing as forthright from that direction ever since. It would be fabulous if the question were put now, but lacking that gravitas, where can we possibly find a definitive answer?

The Research Paper from the Parliamentary Library summarises the position very well. One thing that has changed since then is that the Governor-General now issues and receives diplomatic credentials in his own right, rather than as the Queen's representative. That has been described as the sine qua non role of a head of state. --Pete (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How to you justify, yet alone feel is relevant your words "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory". I have no problems with the words "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth". The research paper begins with the idea that it's assumed the Queen is Head of State. How do you know David Smith went to Government House Library or ANU Library? Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Because he says so in his book, in the preface where he acknowledges the assistance given by various people and institutions. I recommend it to all interested in the subject. My observation above – "The common law, as discovered by the High Court, is inconclusive and contradictory" – refers to the fact that the High Court, the ultimate source of interpretation of Australia's constitutional law, has given no definitive answer to the question. The 1907 decision, describing the Governor-General as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" is as close as they get. --Pete (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyedits

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

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

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

The actual title of the article may be the problem. If we're looking for a formal debate event, there is none. The proceedings at Old Parliament House in 1998 on the four models had very little to do with the identity of the head of state. I was there in the Press Gallery and it was almost entirely political. Most of the real discussion was carried out away from the chamber as delegate votes were canvassed and stitched up, especially by Malcolm Turnbull, who assembled a group of votes in support of his preferred model which was later put to the people at referendum.

The ongoing discussion continues as it always has, through the media and at community level, rather than any formal proceedings. This article documents the various views put forward from time to time. It is rare that a peaceful, stable nation is unsure or divided in its view on the identity of its own head of state, and that is the notability of the article. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue was raised in the course of the referendum campaign. The monarchist Michael Kirby commented: "Critics certainly raised many false issues... A similar distraction, in my view, was the argument that the Governor-General was actually the Head of State of Australia" ("The Australian Referendum on a Republic - Ten Lessons" - cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, p 1351). I don't think there's much of an ongoing dispute. Rather as I said above, various people erroneously call the GG the head of state, just as people call Sydney the capital of Australia, or Indonesia Australia's nearest neighbour. However, who argues the point (apart from here)?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a long list of varying opinions in the article, Jack. We can easily find definitive sources for the capital of Australia, or our nearest neighbour. But we cannot for the head of state. You say one thing, others say another. Respected though he is, Michael Kirby's view is just one of many. a pity, when on the High Court, he was not asked to provide a ruling on the matter. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

David's Smith view is just one view, against everyone with knowledge of the subject. Kirby is not just saying he has an opinion. Even as a monarchist, he called it a false issue. This is what we are dealing with here:- a "false issue". We can find definitive sources, because a King or Queen regnant of a country is always a Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just one view? His is one of many, all taken from reliable sources. As is Kirby's. Your confected argument that the monarch is always head of state is unsourced, let alone traced to anything definitive. You are welcome to your own personal opinion, but it has no place as a basis for our encyclopedia. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"A monarch is the sovereign head of state" according to Misplaced Pages, supported by the Oxford dictionary and most other dictionaries, in every language. It's not WP:NOP, it's not WP:SYNTH and it's not my personal opinion. It is part of this encyclopedia and a part of language. Your personal opinion, your WP:NOP and your WP:SYNTH is what we are discussing. Travelmite (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source. That's basic. See here:

Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. (It's boldfaced in the text, so we regard it as an important statement.)

A dictionary, even one as well-regarded as the OED, is a tertiary source. Incidentally, I'm not seeing any sort of unequivocal definition in the OED. The online versions leave a fair bit of room for interpretation. Be that as it may, dictionaries do not have the power to determine a nation's head of state. There is only one authority competent to make that determination, and it is the nation itself. For example, there is no dispute in New Zealand, because that nation's Constitution Act states it as fundamental law:

The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.

There is no corresponding statement in Australian law. If there were, there would be no diversity of opinion, such as this article documents. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no diversity of opinion. The Australian government says the Queen is Head of State, the GG is her representative on all it's primary documents. Travelmite (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the Constitution, of course… Or any other legislation… --Pete (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have checked www.austlii.edu.au. Several judgments from various courts, including the High Court full bench, refer to the Queen as the Head of State. The Supreme Court of Victoria says it most clearly. The parliament also passed "Succession to the Crown Bill (2013)" with an explanatory memorandum referring to the Queen as the Head of State. After searching austlii.edu.au for "Governor-General Head of State", I cannot find one contrary instance. It's simply untrue that the law is unclear on this question. Travelmite (talk)

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

"title of the article may be the problem"

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

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

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

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, pending further views which may be offered at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Who_is_Australia.27s_Head_of_state.3F Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up: I've opened up an Rfc at Misplaced Pages: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).

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia would be improved thus:

• Australian republic referendum, 1999, by adding a summarised version of all or part of AHOSD

Jack or others: What text is proposed, if AHOSD is deleted? Qexigator (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• maybe, Monarchy of Australia, by adding a summary version of a lesser part of AHOSD

See current version

• 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics ?

For "Head of state" see current version. .For "Governor-general" see

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 . 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.. 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, Misplaced Pages 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."

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)

Request for comment: How to deal with this article

This article was created in 2011 as an expansion of a section in the Government of Australia article. It has been much discussed and modified in that time, but has remained essentially stable for several years. Summarising the lede:

• the term head of state does not appear in the Australian constitution (or any other law)
• there is a disagreement among Australians centred on the question of whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state
• the 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.

Two new editors have raised questions about the validity of the article, and several options have emerged. How should we proceed?

1. The article is rubbish. The Queen is the Australian head of state and any statements to the contrary are errors or misunderstandings. The article should be removed entirely.
2. The article is mostly rubbish. A few prominent Australians and sections of the media claim the Governor-General is the head of state, but this is a fringe theory. The article should be merged into other articles.
3. The article is well sourced and describes the situation accurately. It is notable because few (if any) other nations dispute the identity of their head of state. It should be retained and improved.

--Pete (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Preferred option: 1, 2, or 3

• 4 - As this RfC largely duplicates this RfC started almost six hours earlier, it seems unhelpful at this juncture. As the editor who started this RfC was aware of the existing discussion at WP:VPM, this seems like a bit of an end run maneuver to me. In any case, we certainly don't need both RfCs simultaneously. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't actually aware of GoodDay's effort. I took some time to draft this one, following on from Qexigator's work above, and summarising the options presented in recent discussion. When I got it just right, I hit the "save page" button. Only then did I read about GoodDay's RfC. However, similar though they might seem, this one isn't about canvassing the opinions of editors about who they think is the head of state. Do we vote on it? What's the actual purpose in building an encyclopaedia? This is about how we deal with an article which cites the opinions of those who are not editors. I think there is ample evidence of a debate in Australian society about the identity of the head of state, and if we substitute the views of prominent Australians with our own, then that is original research. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop painting the other Rfc as though it were somehow illegitimate. If the community reaches a decision after presenting & going over the sources, we shall all respect that decision. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course. You acted with good intent and a pure heart. I will always respect that. The timing was unfortunate, perhaps, but we both sought the opinions of a wider circle of editors than the few here. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2: Of those 3, proceed with The article is mostly rubbish. A few prominent Australians and sections of the media claim the Governor-General is the head of state , but this is a fringe theory. The article should be merged into other articles. Mandrusa's comment above and Pete's reply noted. Qexigator (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Later comment: As said below, 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, then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there. Qexigator (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Later comment: I concur with Kerry below (21:36, 14 March ). Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The content of the current version is unmergeable.

• Option 3, in respect of the present version as of 15:46, 15 March , and with a view to further improvements mentioned below: "Trim lead", and change article title to "Australia's head of state" Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Option 4. If GoodDay's RfC endorses the Queen as head of state, then Option 2. If RfC endorses the view of Pete and others that the issue is undecided, then Option 3.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Deletion not sure that I agree with the wording in "Option 1" where is says that the article is rubbish etc is perhaps a bit of a pov problem considering the effort that has gone in to it, but essential this issue can be covered with a sentence in the Government of Australia article and doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As in current version? Qexigator (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. A lot of work has gone into the article. I myself spent hours in researching legal sources. And I'm only a Johnny Come Lately. The article is not rubbish. But it is, I think, rather like an essay, not a encyclopedic article. The implicit conclusion of this "essay" is that the issue is undecided (which is Pete's position). Most of us would endorse the statements of George Winterton, George Williams etc that the Queen is the head of state. But Misplaced Pages is not a place for personal essays. If someone thinks this article is valuable, they can make a personal copy of it. The argument for deletion or merging is not that the article is rubbish, but the article does not belong here. This is not a site for personal essays, nor are the Talk pages debating forums. I say that without directing criticism at any particular editor, and with full recognition that it could be used to criticise me. That is why this article cannot be reformed: it must be destroyed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Pete's position is the governor-general somehow has a role and accordant powers uniquely his own and apart from being the monarch's representative. This article at least was an essay (if it isn't still) trying to give credence to that opinion.

That's not to say the article doesn't now, after it's been worked over by a fair few editors, have some valuable information in it. However, it's probably possible to distill it down and add it to Monarchy of Australia, rather like what's been done at Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be the Governor-General's opinion, rather than mine:

In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers.

What constitutional powers are being referred to here? --Pete (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggested (see next) that two views are possible. The G-G's website (whoever wrote it and G-G Cosgrove, at any rate, is no lawyer) prefers the first; for the reason given, I prefer the second. I could expand, which would require discussion of a list, but let's not get sidetracked on this. Wikiain (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary, and may actually be mistaken, to suppose that the G-G is the monarch's "representative" and also possesses powers separately from that. It seems at least more economical, and I think correct, to say that the G-G (and likewise a Governor) is the monarch's "representative" in all respects, sometimes so specified and sometimes not, and that "representative" here does not mean "agent". More exactly: the monarch cannot instruct the G-G how to exercise any power. This was established imperially in the 1920s, when the issue was put in the form of whether (the monarch as advised by) the British government could instruct a dominion governor - beginning at least with the Imperial Conference of 1926, the answer was no. Source: Herbert Vere Evatt, The King and His Dominion Governors (1936, 2nd edn 1967), esp p 192. So perhaps we can just focus on whether the G-G as monarchical "representative" (in that sense) is or is not the head of state. Wikiain (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the Governor-General was the monarch's representative in 1901 was a polite way of saying that the Governor-General was the representative of the British Government, the Queen being the head of the Privy Council. This representation ceased with the Statute of Westminster, when a British High Commissioner was appointed to Canberra. In his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic, Malcolm Turnbull explained that, at Federation, the "Governor-General acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government". When the job of representing the British Government ceased, did the role of the Queen somehow expand to fill this space, or did it then pass to being the representative of the Australian Government, as Turnbull then states? --Pete (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Representing the Queen and representing the British government was a "chameleon" situation, to use Twomey's excellent metaphor. Certainly the role of representing the British government has vanished (along with the effective emptying of ss 59 and 60). The word "representative" in the Constitution (ss 2, 61 and 68) still refers explicitly and solely to the Queen (and cp assent "in the Queen's name", s 58). The Queen's role has not expanded. But I don't see it as necessary or useful to try to see the G-G as "representative" of the Australian government - for one thing, the G-G would then be a "representative" in two, possibly conflicting capacities. There is also, some say (such as Ninian Stephen), a symbolic role in which the G-G might be said to "represent" the nation to itself, as a national conscience (e.g. G-G Deane on Indigenous peoples, against the Howard government).

What we have, I think - and I'll say this with more general reference - is mostly a muddle, resulting from Australia's failure to replace a constitution that was designed for a colony. Wikiain (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Or a set of colonies. Replacing or updating the Constitution is a difficult task. Most Prime Ministers who have tried it have been shot down in the act. What we mostly have now is a constitution that is interpreted by the High Court to suit changing circumstances. We no longer have an Inter-State Commission, for example, despite the Constitution explicitly saying there will be one. Coping with the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act hasn't bent the document, even though the relationship with the UK has changed radically.

Sir Ninian Stephen said, "I believe, the more important role of the President, as of the Governor-General, is that of representing the nation to itself." He is not the first or last Governor-General to say this is the most important role. That's what a head of state does, and that's something that the Queen cannot possibly do - represent Australia and Australians. Despite what the Constitution says, things have changed since 1901. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. --Pete (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it could do with being referenced but I dont think it needs any more, certainly not a separate article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 5. The article should be retained under the current title. The subject matter of the article is notable, and seeking to merge it into other articles would not allow us to do justice to it. (It may or may not be well sourced, it may or may not be NPOV, and like all articles it could & should be improved.) A somewhat sucky set of options offered in the RfC. Not helpful. I note that IMO the dispute has minimal bearing on the question raised in the other RfC where it would appear reasonable to accept the oz government as the de jure RS in our specification of the HoS ... and note that this RfC is distinct from the other RfC and asks a different question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If can review the situation. All articles on[REDACTED] mentioning Australia's Head of State do little more than link to this article, suggesting a continuous ongoing debate, by the government, academics and everywhere else. According to Misplaced Pages Australia's Head of State is unknown. It's been setup in this fashion by one editor - Pete, and this has been going on for +10 years. Following the sourcing policies, every other editor seems very clear what the real arrangement is. The options of the RfC on this page have been setup by Pete, for reasons unknown. It's acknowledged sofar that David Smith wrote a book arguing that the GG is Head of State, and the idea was used by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy during republican debates. That average people can get confused, I argued that Misplaced Pages should assist them, rather than for example explaining a 1997 govt phonebook. Regarding notability, one book is a book, and we already have articles about republican debates. Outside that context we draw blank, although Pete disagrees. Unless you can help Pete prove notability beyond that context, WP:CFORK says to treat a subject within the one article. The primary concern remains to let Misplaced Pages state who Australia's Head of State is, and to follow the guidelines. We are trying to achieve a consensus on that first, so that the proposals for this article have an agreed foundation. Travelmite (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, Misplaced Pages articles mentioning Australia's Head of State, where at most a brief statement in main text or as footnote would or does suffice:

• Government of Australia.
• Governor-General of Australia.
• List of people who have opened the Olympic Games
• Monarchy of Australia. Could the existing short paragraph be trimmed? It is: Australian law does not define who is Australia's head of state. It is generally assumed to be the Queen, since the governor-general and the state governors are defined as her "representatives". However, since the governor-general performs almost all national regal functions, the governor-general is occasionally referred to as or claimed to be at least the de facto head of state.
• Australian Constitutional Convention 1998.

Qexigator (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2. I agree with Option 2, with Qexigator's deletions. Actually, there never was much of a debate, apart from brief sparring between Smith and Mason, and it is now spent. Of the leading textbooks on Australian constitutional law, Blackshield & Williams (2014, pp 1343-4) mention it only in passing and Winterton (2014, so far as I can see) not at all. While it might be objected that this is to be expected from republicans, both books assiduously cover real debates. The passage that Quex quotes just now from Monarchy of Australia seems ok up to the end, where it might read instead "occasionally referred to as the head of state in political and media discussion". Maybe something from the present article might be added as a reference there - I'd include Smith's argument in the category "political", if it is thought to be still worth mentioning. Wikiain (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Revised wording done at Monarchy of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2. On reflection, and further review of the discussions here & at WT:WikiProject Politics, it would be better for the contents of this article to be distilled (reduced & relocated) to other articles; suggest an article concerning the Australian Republic debate c. 1999 might be best for the majority. Additionally, we should definitely not maintain the facade that there is an an actual debate or dispute through use of misleading footnotes throughout the encyclopedia.Option 6. Retain article (possibly retitle); clearly document the fringe theory that the Sovereign is not the Head of State (assuming demonstrable notability). - Ryk72 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC); amended - Ryk72 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment:: We don't need any more "options". I think the options are fairly simple in practice. I say this as someone who went through the 4th wall. Sure, air your opinions, but don't overcomplicate stuff. I think we're all on the same (Talk) page.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack Upland, I think the issue is in part that the RfC combines at least three questions - the quality of the article; the level of acceptance of the "dispute"; and what action should be taken - which are only loosely tied. I do concur that we are more or less on the same page, at lest w.r.t. the middle question. - Ryk72 13:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Retain - Discussion here and elsewhere shows consensus that the Australian head of state is that person or office recognised as such by the Australian national government, as opposed to any other body such as the United Nations or the media. This is distinct from the fact that there has been an ongoing debate (or dispute or public discussion) on the matter since shortly after Federation, becoming most visible at the time of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and the 1999 republic referendum. It is ongoing, resurfacing every Australia Day, when questions of national identity such as the date, the flag, the monarchy etc. become topics of wide discussion. This article uses reliable sources to document the dispute, using NPOV. The article has been stable for years with many editors contributing via detailed discussion. If Prime Ministers, Governors-General, academics, political groups, and the media state that the Governor-General is the head of state, the dispute is not WP:FRINGE. So long as the article makes it clear what the official government view is, there is no problem with describing and sourcing the long history of alternate views. It is a valid resource for those seeking information on the topic.-- Pete (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question Is there a source for the Australian head of state is that person or office recognised as such by the Australian national government? Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm looking at editor consensus on GoodDay's RfC here. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true. The government (via Attorney General's Dept) prints an official "Constitution" document with an explanatory statement. This explanation by the Solicitor-General says Australia is a constitutional monarchy and the monarch is Head of State . This article uses sources out of context, that are not expert opinion and at no point use sources describe a debate. It is an essay trying to convince the reader that nobody knows who the HoS is. It says the PM is erratic using false information. It says the community is divided without any justification. It falsely finds contradictions with imminent people who are still living. It plagerises the work of David Smith. Some of the arguments, such as about the Queen's website are not just original research, they make no sense - apparently, even the Queen is a player in this debate! I get the sense there is a system to ensure this strange point of view is widely read, such that even an article on opening the Olympic Games says there is a HoS debate in Australia, and leads a reader to this essay. Believe it or not, I think that just about breaks every pillar of Misplaced Pages's main policies. Travelmite (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Any attempts to go against the results of the other Rfc (which is well sourced), which we're yet to hear from. Would likely be viewed by the community as disruptive behaviour. I hope we all keep this in mind. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Pete's counter-RfC is written to say "new editors think this article is rubbish" and plays into a stereotype against new editors, that they don't know policies or sourcing. Travelmite (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3. No one has demonstrated why the article is rubbish, or how WP:FRINGE applies here. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I've seen enough at the WP:POLITICS Rfc. This article needs to be broken up. Having looked through the sources & the posts? this Head of state Dispute has been blown out of proportions. This article is a mountain made out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Retain under the current title The RfC at WP:POLITICS is a good example of ongoing debate and this article seems well sourced and generally well written, so I see no grounds for deleting it. I'm at a loss trying to understand how anyone could think PROD was appropriate, as PROD is only applicable to uncontroversial deletions. Renaming the article to "Australian head of state" would be problematic at best, as that would seem to indicate the article is about the actual head of state and not the conflict as to who the head of state really is. That being the case, the article is best left here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The question Anyone for PROD? was answered in the negative, clearing the way for discussion to continue without it. Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

1. The Constitution. Commonwealth of Australia (Attorney-General‘s Department). 2012. p. vi. ISBN 9781921730207.

Closing time

It is time to close and move on. Qexigator (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus as per WP:CLOSE. One contributor has made his choice conditional on another RfC, for example. An early close would negate his contribution. As the instigator of the RfC, I think we should allow more time and more outside contributors. Some discussion here seems overly personal, and it would be good to minimise that effect, by having more impartial eyes on the topic. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been noted that, when, on this page, the commenter who had been the originator, and now is proponent for retaining, the AHOSD article, set up this Rfc s/he himself chose to attribute (twice) the adjective "rubbish" to that article,, which, so far as I can see, had not been used by other participants before nor since. We may now note that on another page s/he has , in a roundabout way, accepted the proposition that the various opinions and polemics which have occurred locally were based on the fact that the Queen has been and continues to be officially and formally acknowledged as head of state there, as she is in other Commonwealth realms. (The unavoidable inference from the same commenter's responses ), evidently considered to be the most cogent points for retaining the AHOSD article.) Let us proceed to the question about the proposed "Redirect" below, and complete the merging of anything in AHOSD considered worth saving. 07:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't think the article is rubbish, I don't agree with that other RfC, and I resent your attempt to cram words into my mouth. I'm not seeing consensus for any change to this long-standing well-sourced article. Apart from improvement, which is always welcome. --Pete (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As you're creator of this article, it's understandable that you're anxious to retain it. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That's beside the point here. Qex is wrong wrong wrong in portraying me as holding opinions I do not. I am disappointed in his behaviour. --Pete (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's your 10+ years of persistently going against presenting the Monarch as Australia's head of state, that creates that impression. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Qex has misrepresented my view. I'm correcting him. Don't you set the record straight when misrepresented? In your preferred sport of cricket, for example, if the umpire makes an error, you call out to set him straight. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. --Pete (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That'll have to be between you & Qexigator. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement Qex. It's time for this article to be merged & re-directed, as proposed. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Just your opinion, GoodDay. Looking at the responses to the RfC (as opposed to the copious discussion from a couple of editors holding minority views) it is clear that there is no consensus for your preference. --Pete (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand your persistence on this topic, as well as your refusal to accept that you're wrong. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My view is that there is a division of opinion, and this is well documented in the article. WP:NPOV requires that we do not choose sides, though some have made their feelings plain on the matter for many years, and prefer that only their opinion be heard. On this note, even though I disagree with Mies on many things, he has worked with me to get this article compliant with wikipolicy, and I respect that. --Pete (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're suggesting that only you are adhering to NPoV. This strikes me as quite arrogant on your part. Also, I understand why you're anxious to keep this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had just made it plain that Mies was also following NPOV, as are many others here. I am not under any illusion that I am the sole follower of policy. That's ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I realize your determination concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you see it as I do. I've met many of the people involved in Australian republican and constitutional debate. It is something I've followed with keen interest for over twenty years. With all respect, GoodDay, your contributions on this topic have been remarkably shallow. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I don't think you've ever come up with a source, for example. I doubt you see this topic with the same clarity as Mies or myself or a few other contributors. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We're just going in circles here. My wish is that 'someday', you'll realize what the problem truly is. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning sources, it's been brought to my attention (both here & at WP:POLITICS) that you've mis-presented sources in your edits. May we have an explanation for this? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

News to me. Specifics? --Pete (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you & Travelmite, have something to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you can't just make such bizarre accusations and leave them hanging. I haven't misrepresented any source, and if you think I have, please explain yourself. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my wording above. Let me re-state, it's been brought to my attention that you may have mis-presented sources here & at WP:POLITICS, in your edits. That's how I'm understanding Travelmite's posts, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, your surmise turns out to be incorrect. I haven't misrepresented any sources. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This article misrepresented prime ministers, governors-general and legal academics, both in the sourcing, the body and the summary. In this talk page, there are misquotes which after being checked are not from who Pete says they are from. Travelmite (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Skyring/Pete thinks the article is rubbish, we can all see that my words were correct "when the originator, and now proponent for retaining, the AHOSD article, set up this Rfc s/he himself chose to attribute (twice) the adjective "rubbish" to that article which, so far as I can see, had not been used by other participants before nor since." S/he seems to have misread what was written, and got upset about it. I note that it is not said that I was mistaken about others not having used it. We can also see that there is a strong consensus against retaining the article, now that it has been given a more thorough scrutiny than before. Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A "strong" consensus now? I know we don't count votes, but you do realise that there were four editors arguing in favour of retention, and four against? In any case, we will need an uninvolved admin to close this. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirm, strong npov and informed consensus against retaining the article. Qexigator (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are working this out, Qex, but I'm not seeing consensus yet. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Qex, again you are wrong. I worded options that seemed to characterise the various points of view expressed by others. There is no consensus, let alone a strong one, for anything except improving the article, which multiple editors have proposed and no voices raised against. I suggest we work on improving this article, as well as others. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm contribution has been like a defence lawyer or devils advocate, but has not engaged with the material, the complaints and the policy breaches. That seems to be the pattern. At some point, he will begin to understand that he was duped, into defending the indefensible and the pointless. It's so pointless. The only reason this is not cleaned up for years, is because its so pointless. Once StAnselm engages with the issues, we shall see what happens. He will either say it's wrong to misquote people, or he will say something else. Travelmite (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay's RfC has overwhelmingly endorsed the position that the Queen is the head of state. I think there is consensus here for merging this article to Monarchy of Australia. I think it would also be worthwhile mentioning this "distraction" in the referendum article...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How are you seeing consensus? A minority of opinion sides with you. Please be more specific. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, Jack Upland. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are only 3 "votes" for retention. How can that be a majority???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Present position

There are currently at least 4 for retain not merge: Kerry, Qexigator, Pete, StAnselm. Qexigator (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish an administrator would come along & close this Rfc. IMHO, the timing of its opening & the wording of the 3 options were unfortunate. But, I reckon it's a bit too late for that, now. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

David Smith and Zelman Cowen: To my mind the most notable information to emerge from Pete's contributions is the connection between Zelman Cowen and Isaac Isaacs, "Australian judge and politician who served as the 3rd Chief Justice of Australia and the 9th, and first Australian-born, Governor-General." To construct a stand-alone article around that would involve too much SYN and OR, but it would have to make the negative point that this Isaacs was no relation of the Viceroy of India (1921–25),Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading. While David Smith mentioned Isaacs in the News Weekly article, January 8, 2005, on "Australia's Constitution: The Governor-General is our head of state", that is too tenuous a piece of information upon which to erect the article here in question. Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what was the information? I don't see it in the article. Why does Rufus Isaacs need a mention if he is unconnected?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In such an imagined biographical article about Isaacs and Zelman, Rufus would be mentioned because he is not connected, though his career had something in common, in the politics of England and as Viceroy of India: they were not brothers or cousins. Think of it as tangential obiter dictum and double negative. " 'It happened curiously that I was the biographer of Australia's first Jewish, and first locally-born governor-general Sir Isaac Isaacs. I met him very briefly, very passingly in his old age, when he was presenting some prizes.' He described the meeting in his memoirs: 'I talked briefly with him, if 'talk' be the appropriate word to describe what took place in an encounter between an awe-struck boy and an eminence who the boy viewed as a colossus.' Despite his own later 'eminence', it is clear that Sir Zelman, to this day, remains somewhat 'awe-struck' by Sir Isaacs. Sir Zelman’s biography of Sir Isaacs was published in 1967. He referred to Sir Isaacs a number of times during the interview, seemingly trying to confirm your correspondent knew who he was and understood his importance in Australia’s history. It is a sign of a great man, that despite his own personal achievements and accolades - and there have been many- he still has time to admire the greats who have come before him.", cited 23:15, 15 February 2016 I am thankful to have been supplied with this charming information in the course of an otherwise overlong and increasingly tedious discussion. Small mercies, Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Big question is - Is this article's existence, virtually making a mountain out of a possible molehill? Something for us all to think about. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

When David Smith started with this notion, some in ACM Australians for Constitutional Monarchy thought this was a good tactic to use against republican call for patriotism. They sponsored Smith to write a book. As far as I remember, Republican slogans were unchanged, and monarchists outside ACM felt it was inappropriate tactic. Based on the fact Pete/Skyring was arguing in 2005 Australia was a "Crowned Republic" (a book of David Flint) my guess is he went to ACM meetings and picked these ideas there, but didn't distinguish the political dimensions. Just like the loyal Japanese soldier on the deserted island, he kept fighting. But we don't want Misplaced Pages to be seen as anti-ACM either. Was it mentioned in the parliamentary "NO" case for the republic? Not sure, but if so, that could increase it's notability. I suggest we should follow WP:FRINGE, but unlike pseudoscience, we must never feel Smith challenge to prevailing assumptions was dishonorable. Not wanting to sway the referendum, the government (quietly, without debate) later made clear who was Head of State via websites, the PEO and the Solicitor-General's introduction to the official print to the Constitution. The only thing we know with certainty, without our own research, is that David Smith did the book. Travelmite (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a version of that information, or some of it, would improve the David Smith (public servant) bio, if properly sourced, of course. Qexigator (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2016 (UT

I think it should definitely be mentioned in the 1999 referendum article. I don't know why we are arguing on that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No objections, here :) GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

JU: You could go ahead with that anyway.Talk:Australian republic referendum, 1999#Is this information to be added? --Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Naomi Levin, Insight into Sir Zelman Cowen, Jewish News website, October 14, 2009

Review of the 3 opening options

For some reason, the 3 presented options appear to be written up, as though #3 is good & #1 & #2 are bad. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Pistol Pete favours Option 3.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that improve the article wasn't an option. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a given - unless an article is GA or FA, it needs work. More than happy to see articles improved! --Pete (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The questions seemed quite biased written in favour of retention, to me. But anyways, the Rfc goes on. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The options are essentially (1) delete, (2) merge, (3) keep and improve. It's not that complicated.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Does not merge the article into another entail delete + redirect? As I see it there is a clear consensus for that in preference to other options. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And that would imply that there should be a deletion discussion. (And if there is a merge discussion, the article should be tagged accordingly.) It seems that the a some procedural issues here. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain the "procedural problem" as you see it, and your proposed solution. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that RfCs are not meant/designed for merge/delete discussions. The solution would be to nominate the article for deletion via WP:AFD. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone for PROD?

In view of above, it appears that any participant may now proceed by PROD. Qexigator (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In fairness, I would consider that the RfC, above, should close first. - Ryk72 10:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fairness to whom? and if not now, when? Qexigator (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

+ Partial review of recent discussion:

• Search of court judgments on austlii show courts always refer to the Queen as Head of State (16:29, 23 February )
• David Smith's article (12:02, 22 February )
• "rubbish" (10:27, 22 February)
• Possible RM: 5 points for merging (10:06, 15 February 2016)
• Kirby summed it up well (18:16, 14 February)
• How this article is used (13:39, 13 February)

Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of fairness to the process rather than to an individual or group of editors. I am happy if editors wish to PROD, but I, personally, would seek an RFC (req for closure) first. - Ryk72 12:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify for PROD as the deletion is contested. I think it would be better as a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, what would be the next step for merge? Qexigator (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we would follow Misplaced Pages guidelines...--Jack Upland (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think a separate discussion should be created for a merge, per Misplaced Pages:Merging; place {{merge|Monarchy of Australia|discuss=Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Formal merger proposal|date=March 2016}} at the top of this article. StAnselm (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Prod, Afd, whatever is the best route. This article never should've been created, to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So, GoodDay, as a longstanding and experienced User (over 10 years), "one of the most active Wikipedians of all time", with edits to the article dating back to 2011 and RfC sponsor, perhaps you will take a lead in this? Qexigator (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after 10+yrs of being on this project. I still ain't savy enough, when it comes to setting up Prods or AFDs. I find the instructions there, too confusing. PS: Considering that I've been opposed to this article's existence for so long? 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. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced the merger discussion as per Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We've gone from possible Afd, to possible prodding, to possible split/merger, to possible retaining with wholesale changes. Wowsers, I'm getting sea sick ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't vex yourself GD. The usual remedy is to go below and lie down until it is all over, leaving the captain and crew to carry on with the necessary seamanship. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Approaching closure

Looking at the guidelines for ending RfCs, there are four paths:

• The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly).

As the proposer, I am not seeing any consensus of community response. I shall not withdraw it.

• It may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. (For this to succeed, however, the RfC must be ended first, since most dispute resolution forums and processes will not accept a case while a RfC is pending.)

This may be an option. Clearly there is a strong division of opinion, and contributions are continuing. The RfC has become long and convoluted. A fresh start with more structure and discipline could help find a solution accepted by all.

• The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time.

I'm not seeing any agreement along these lines.

• It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor.

It would be a bold editor who could read through all the arguments above and find any clear consensus. Almost any close would be controversial.

"The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I'm seeing some partisan canvassing going on, directing other editors here, and of course contributions are still being made. It may be wise to continue on while progress is being made, at least until the point where editors are repeating the same arguments time and again.

"The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Misplaced Pages policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details." Counting !votes, we see ten responses:

Delete: 1

Retain: 3

Merge: 4

Unclear: 2

There is no majority position. Of those favouring Merge, one editor has apparently indicated withdrawal on personal grounds, and another is a sham account being used for disruption, which is being dealt with elsewhere.

In any case, closure should be consistent with policy. There are seven !votes favouring retention of the material in some form, and the merge discussion going on elsewhere seems to go against policy by proposing this one article be merged with five others!

For retention, this article clearly meets the General notability guideline:

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. No contributor disputes this.

At this stage, the RfC is in a No consensus position. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to allow all participants to decide collectively, if there's a consensus or not :) It's best that the article creator, not be making sweeping declarations about the Rfc-in-question. We wouldn't want the article creator to be erroneously seen as trying to influence the outcome :) GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. We certainly do not allow the "participants to decide collectively". We ask an uninvolved editor (preferably an admin) to determine whether there's a consensus or not. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And we'll all do our best, to not try to influence whoever that closer will be. Particularly with 'case closed' style comments :) GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You think the closer will ignore arguments made here? Whoever the closer is, will have to evaluate all contributions. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the closer will evaluate all contributions. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though sources are going to be checked over. Any declaration that this article meets GNG, might be premature :) GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am in no doubt that the article has multiple reliable etc. sources. More have come up in discussion here. There is no problem. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Time will tell, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Having checked over the RFC Survey:
Option #1 - 1 support
Option #2 - 5 supports (possible change to 4)
Option #3 - 3 supports (possible change to 4)

Am I correct here? Note, I didn't include Mandruss' vote, as he didn't actually choose among the 3 options, but rather protested the opening of the Rfc itself. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've gone ahead & opened up a new Rfc. It presents the 3 options in a more neutral worded way. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked out well. In a section about closing this RfC, you ignored that and commenced a new one. Geez.

I think consensus was never at deletion, has moved away from merging and is at "retain and improve". The title may be a problem, but what we have seems to work better than any alternatives proposed. --Pete (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

At least I'm willing to admit it, when I make a mistake. Anyways, later this week I'll nominate the article for deletion. If the result is 'keep'? then we can move to an RM. This is what should've been done weeks ago. A step-by-step process. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Although you are well within your rights to nominate the article for deletion, it's probably a better idea to let the still open RfC be closed and for other discussions to end. There is obvious support for the article to be retained, and opening another RfC before the first closed caused enough problems. Surely you've learnt from that mistake? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 17 March 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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,

• Government of Australia
• Monarchy of Australia,

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)

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)

Stimulating discussion

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

• Constitution of Australia
• Monarchy of Australia
• David Smith (public servant)

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

Merger proposal

Note: The Rfc above with "merger" as one of 3 options was opened on 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I'd recommend merging to Australian republic referendum, 1999, as this so called 'dispute' seems to have been mostly drummed up during that referendum. PS: It should be made clear on Misplaced Pages, that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer a bit of both. I've amended the tags. Monarchy of Australia should state that the Queen is the head of state, but note that some monarchists dissent from this. (Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy still argue the GG is.) Then the referendum article should note the argument that arose in the 1990s. Pete gave a good summary recently of the events that ensued after Keating's speech...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright :) GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Monarchy" article, as previously discussed, and prepared for. Meantime, there is nothing to stop adding also to referendum article and the Monarchy article, to satisfy the "bit of both". Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - But if the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March, then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite, given that, if the topic deserves no more than that, it does deserve as much. Qexigator (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: There are now 4, at least, for Retain, including... Qexigator (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The content of the current version is unmergeable, and the proposal should be abandoned as unviable. Qexigator (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Follow policy. This article is not going to be deleted - along with years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material - without going through a proper WP:AfD.
• Qexigator's attempt above to PROD this, knowing there is previously stated support for retention is disruptive.
• The RfC - of which this discussion is part - remains under way, and any attempt to initiate merging or deletion should be set aside until after closure. There is currently no consensus for any of the three options, which indicates the retention of the status quo. As one editor has agreed to withdraw , and another is currently blocked, there is not even a majority of nose counts for merging.
• Considering the appalling behaviour touched upon below, this entire campaign is headed for higher and broader discussion. In particular, I would be highlighting the incendiary and disruptive behaviour of one particular WP:SPA.
• I suggest that disruption cease right now, and we discuss ways to improve the article with an eye to working together to produce a better encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Qexigator, based on my limited experience, I think it is advisable to avoid editing on this issue until this merger proposal is resolved. As Skyring has said, people have put a lot of work in, and it would be better to incorporate their work in some shape or form in other articles. In any case, as I have said, given my experience of the AfD process, it is highly unlikely that a deletion proposal would succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, merging sounds like a sneaky way of getting rid of the article by other means. The PROD idea was an appalling one, and I can only assume its advocates do not understand how the PROD process works. (I would, of course, have deprodded it as soon as I saw it.) My suggestion regarding for merging was for those who wanted a merge, and as an alternative to merging being part of an RfC discussion. It sounds like the merger discussion should be postponed - it can be withdrawn and closed now, without prejudice to a future proposal, especially after the RfC is closed. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

I don't think I was being "sneaky" in proposing the merger, as I have discussed the issues openly. The problem is that there is overwhelming consensus that the Queen is the head of state. This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. The counterclaim that the GG is HoS is a fringe theory, that is dismissed by leading constitutional scholars, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the RfC recently initiated by GoodDay. What I would suggest is a section in Monarchy of Australia that describes the Queen as head of state, and notes the Smith/Flint dissenting view. Also I would suggest an addition to the referendum article which describes how the issue played out in that debate. That would give the issue due weight. I suggest we let this merger proposal take its course.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So why do you think it would be kept at AfD? Anyway, the point you raise is the essential one: This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. That's probably true, but there is no reason why it needs to be thus; if the consensus is that the Queen really is the Head of State, then the obvious thing to do would be to rewrite this article to reflect that. (Actually, I think it needs to be rewritten along these lines anyway, to reflect the fact that this is the majority opinion, even if we don't commit ourselves in wiki voice.) But this is not a reason for merging (or, for that matter, deletion). In fact, if this really is a fringe view, as you claim, the section you suggest would possibly be undue weight in the Monarchy of Australia article. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to my reference to sneakiness, I know you did this in good faith, but proposing a merger because you think an article would survive AfD does run rather close to gaming the system. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never pushed strongly for deletion. In fact, I have added a fair amount material to the article, mainly in the scholarly sources. I do think the Monarchy article should say the monarch is head of state. That isn't undue weight. And this isn't about gaming the system; it's about operating by consensus. I don't think we'll get a consensus for deletion, but we are possibly approaching a consensus on a merger. I think you are misunderstanding this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It would (possibly) be undue weight if the dispute was explained - but only if the minority view is deemed to be fringe. But if all the Monarchy article says is that the Queen is the Head of State, that's not a merge at all; it's a redirect. Anyway, once again I ask: why don't you think we'd get a consensus for deletion? StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: I don't think we'd get a consensus for deletion simply based on my limited experience. I think a likely outcome would be that uninvolved editors propose a merger instead. Hence, let's not waste time discussing deletion. In any case, thinking about it, I am less inclined to support deletion. The claim that the GG is the head of state is likely to raised again, so it would be worthwhile stating that the Queen is the head of state in the Monarchy article, with some of the key sources that we have assembled, rather than having this debate revisited in a few years time, and editors having to start from scratch. I would envisage a section called "Head of state" which featured most of the information from this article in a condensed form, and noted the opposing view. I would also envisage an expansion of the referendum article to describe how the republicans used slogans such as "Make a mate the head of state", and how the monarchists countered this by saying we already had an Australian head of state in the form of the governor-general... I think that could fairly be called a merger, not a deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If this article ceases to exist, it's a deletion. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this article. It's about a dispute, and there are many articles about disputes here. For example:

• Macedonia naming dispute
• Sea of Japan naming dispute
• Investiture Controversy
• South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute
• Derry/Londonderry name dispute

Getting rid of one of these articles does not eliminate the dispute. Rewriting an article so it favours one side or the other goes against NPOV. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

All of the disputes above have significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources; describing them as genuine disputes. The subject of this article would not appear to have the same. - Ryk72 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Noting the above, all can form opinions for themselves about whether or not P/S's attempt to deflect adverse comment or proposals, defend a position and gain sympathy, by charging others with disruption, is a further effort to retain the indefensible. But either way a participant may feel saddened that an editor would, at this stage, feel moved to do that. Also noted: the distaste for PROD expressed and various propoals on the way to proceed from here. I concur with JU's remark: this isn't about gaming the system. Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

+ P/S's protest above that the whole content being merged would result in the loss of "years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material" is simple nonsense if, as I have understood it, talk page archives are retained and remain accessible (although not in fact part of Misplaced Pages's articles as such), and no "excellent sources" will be lost inasmuch as all encyclopedic content and sources will be moved to one or more places more suited to them. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The article clearly passes WP:GNG - there is significant coverage in reliable sources, both books and other publications. For purposes of notability, it is irrelevant whether it is a fringe theory or not. As well as the two proposed merge targets, this topic is also relevant to the Governor-General of Australia and David Smith (public servant) articles. It is therefore better to consolidate the information in one article, to avoid undue weight in other articles. Also, this issue is no mere subset of any of the other articles - it is not, for example, merely an issue that was discussed in 1999. Finally, it is not clear under which of the reasons to merge this is proposed; it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria. Rather, from what I can tell from the above discussion, the main reason driving the merge is "I don't like it." StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed (as previously conceded by P/S) and at the same time rewritten as a whole, on the assumption that the topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and by way of conveniently consolidating information now elsewhere. The effect would be a new article, and redirect from the current title. I do not see that "the main reason driving the merge is I don't like it ", and consider that remark implies some lack of good faith on the part of others, who may have shown that they prefer articles to be suitably encyclopedic, before and after SA joined the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a "keep" argument. Articles are changed and moved all the time; this is usually quite sharply distinguished from redirecting to an existing article. (Of course, a formal move proposal would also need to be made; do you have a particular title in mind?) Finally, it's no good just saying that one wants articles to be "suitably encyclopedic"; no doubt we all want that. (And "unencyclopedic" is another argument to avoid.) StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

SA: sounds like a "keep" argument: is my understanding of your proposal (stated above) what you are proposing? suitably encyclopedic: Perhaps if you review the discussions you will see that some participants consider the present version more a personal opinion essay, fine on a blog or magazine, but not encyclopedically suited to Misplaced Pages, but they too have been proceeding in a collaborative manner so far as has been permitted by others. Experience can tell us that it is usually better not to judge others too hastily on such points, especially when coming into an already advanced stage of a discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

But "personal opinion essay" is not in itself a reason to delete; rather, we rewrite it to comply with NPOV, etc. In fact, I don't think anyone has actually produced a reason for merging. This may be due in part to the wording of the RfC, which encouraged those who thought the article was "rubbish" to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway" was not an option. Anyway, it would be helpful in this thread for the merge !voters to repeat / summarise their arguments rather than just saying "as above". StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It was P/S who introduced the word "rubbish", so are we to infer that s/he was leading us to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway". I note that you have not yet answered the question in my last previous comment: is my understanding of your proposal (as I rephrased it above) what you are proposing? And are you able to let me have a straight answer to the Question below: that could help clarify what you are actually proposing. Mere argumentation is not so helpful. Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How could the question below be for me? I'm not proposing the merger! I saw it, of course, and I was looking forward to reading the answer myself. Anyway, are you saying that when you said "I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed... and at the same time rewritten as a whole" - you were checking to see whether we had the same goal in mind? We do, I think, although I can't off-hand think of a better title: Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State sounds a bit clunky. I'm not convinced the current title is particularly POV. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question - If the content of the article is merged as proposed, will the result be that all that will remain will be its title and redirect? Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Retain and Improve. Qexigator, when you refer to me as "s/he" above, it made me wonder if you come from a culture where "Peter" is not a masculine name? And I've also noticed that when you ascribe some opinion to me, it is invariably wrong, inviting me to respond to set you straight, thereby FingTT. I don't think the article is rubbish; as I've said many times now it is well-sourced, notable, and long-standing. The article is not some view of David Smith. He is barely mentioned. It is an examination of the range of views expressed over many years by prominent Australians. Obviously some insist the Queen is the head of state, but there are enough who view the Governor-General as such to lift this beyond a fringe view. What it is not is an attempt to answer the question, or to sway readers one way or another. Miesianiacal and I have worked together to ensure that it is scrupulously NPOV. It should be kept, not sneakily merged or redirected to something of marginal relevance. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Qexigator: I would envisage 1 or 2 paragraphs in the Monarchy and the 1999 referendum articles based on the material assembled here. Note also that Australian head of state redirects here.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to the articles-in-question. This article reads like personal essay, based on sources that are interpreted to lend strong support David Smith's proposition that the GG is Head of State, and suggests an inconsistency in the regular understanding of Australian government, that is unsupportable by any aspect of Misplaced Pages policy or (as we have seen from many sources from legal scholars) the law itself. It has core problems with undue weight, original research and taking David Smith's work without acknowledgement. It fits the definition of a POV content fork WP:CFORK which is not permitted under Misplaced Pages's policy, as follows: "All POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies". Regarding the sources, there's no documentation of actual public disputation, except we are told by some sources it came up from time-to-time during the republican debate. So it can fit inside the relevant article of the republican debate. The issue has been shown to be not notable, in that it's rarely mentioned, given the vast number of books on the topic of the constitution and Australia's government. Those rare mentions always talk about it in context of the republican debate, which is why editors are responsibly including that in the merge proposal. There is no concern that information will be lost as even the least important source has been found an place, in according with Misplaced Pages policy and in the spirit of accommodating all editors views. Over the past 10 years, there are more words about this within Misplaced Pages that is recorded in all other media combined, which means Misplaced Pages is now feeding off itself in creating new original content, like a chain-reaction. With a merge, I hope that the structural bias created by this article can ensure any further content disputes within Misplaced Pages can be easily resolved based on reliable sources. Travelmite (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

These are reasons for improving the article, not for merging. The normal procedure for essays to to tag them for improvement (Template:Essay-like) and remove the personal opinions and feelings. Any POV or OR problems can be dealt with through normal editing (though it may need a lot of work). Hence, it does not have to be a POVFORK - it could be a legitimate content fork. If all the reliably sourced information from this article was placed into Monarchy of Australia, the latter article would become a lot longer - so much so, that the information on this subject could be legitimately removed to its own article. That is content forking, but not POV forking; it is completely acceptable. Really, it all comes down to notability, and there is definitely significant coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources; that is all that is needed to pass WP:GNG. (Even if there is no documentation in the article of "actual public disputation", it is present in the sources I have cited.) StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This article merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let it go. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The structure of SA's argument is to break the many issues into isolated issues, as though a broken tricycle just needs a new wheels, new seat, new brakes, new chain and straightened frame. So, I stand by looking at the article as a whole, as it is written, and as it is linked throughout Misplaced Pages. I am commenting on the actual article, not a hypothetical article, with hypothetical sources and hypothetical tags. The "Essay-like" template is not applicable. If it's agreed that the article has POV, and its a content fork, then it's a POV content fork and that's against policy. The procedure to follow is to delete. Note these points have already been refuted repeatedly many times over. I think it's going to be sufficient now to just comment that these points have been refuted many times over. Travelmite (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the most important argument - that the subject passes WP:GNG - has not been refuted, or even addressed. Now, regarding POV forks, I am certainly not conceding that this is one, and I note that WP:POVFORK says, "it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." In any case, if the article is re-written to comply with WP:NPOV then it is obviously no longer a POV fork. So your argument does not hold up - in saying "The procedure to follow is to delete," you have basically gone back to asserting that it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm raises an important question here, and I concur that it is appropriate to address it. Which of the sources used in this article are reliable, independent, secondary sources? Which provide significant coverage? In faith, while we have 84 sources, I am not seeing many which meet these criteria. I am also not seeing many sources which indicate that this whateveritis rises to the level of a genuine dispute. If any other editor agrees that this should be discussed, I will open a new section, below. - Ryk72 23:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

But to be fair, it's not just the ones in the article, but also the six I cited above. In any case, we only need two to pass GNG. As for "dispute", that is not essential to the notability of the topic, which is probably more the GG=HoS theory, anyway. (And even if it isn't quite the topic that is being discussed, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State" is an acceptable outcome.) StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It was actually reviewing the six sources cited above that raised the question in my mind as to whether the topic is notable as a dispute or as a theory; so I agree that we should absolutely consider those sources (and any others which might be proposed). It will take some time to go through the 90-odd sources, but I will try to have a rough draft in the next day or so - probably as a table inside a collapsed section. I also concur that, assuming demonstrable notability, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State or similar" is not an unacceptable outcome from my perspective, provided that it also involves a removal of the current proliferation of footnotes & caveats in other articles. - Ryk72 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm says only two are needed to pass GNG, but this is not the case as Misplaced Pages couldn't include an article for every theory (source 1) that was refuted once or twice (source 2 or 3). The article is not even achieved this level of neutrality. Regardless, there is not a fixed number of sources required, since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not constitute multiple works, as in this case the authors are relying on the same source (Smith), and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by one author (Smith) is normally counted as one source. The lack of sufficient sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in wider topics. I have no issue preserving the idea, but do it according to policy. Travelmite (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The use of footnotes and caveats is the issue that I have attempted (with limited success) to address at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Refining the question. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin. I would like to see more responses to the proposal. Unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of verbiage generated by a small group of editors (including me). So what do others think? Ask for closure or wait for more editors to give their input?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The verbiage is an embarassment to any newcomer summoned by the merger tag at the tops of the articles. It is also unfair to burden a closing admin with it, now that the other RfC has closed with unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen, as the discussion clearly shows. The proposed merger should be suspended while participants are resolving any outstanding points about text and sources, or policy wrangles about notability, and maybe allowed to lapse altogether. At this stage my position is as above: If the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March, then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite. If the tags remain, let there be a Note at the top of the section that the proposal is currently suspended and may lapse in 14 days. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You have only confirmed to me that we need outside input.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack: For what outside input do you feel a need? Are you hoping for a ruling in favour of your proposed merger? Surely, enough "verbiage" is enough. Qexigator (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Merger

• Bizarre. I'm seeing various editors in this section and the RfC above propose merges with various different articles:
  • Australian republic referendum, 1999
  • Governor-General of Australia
  • Monarchy of Australia
  • Government of Australia
  • David Smith (public servant)

The fact that there is a diversity of opinion indicates two things:

1. Merging one article into several is not following the intent of WP:MERGE which envisions the reverse procedure, of merging two or more articles into one.
2. If only one merge target is selected, then which one? The dispute predates the republic referendum and continues to this day - seventeen years on. Clearly this topic extends beyond the 1999 referendum. Other articles: Queen, Governor-General, Government, etc. all have merit for being the best merger target, because this issue touches upon them all. So which one?

It is simple common sense to keep this significant article and wikilink to it from all others, rather than have the same material forked to several different articles --Pete (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging an article into multiple articles, isn't a new concept. PS - As you're the creator of this article? we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You astonish me. If it is commonplace, then perhaps you could provide an appropriate example which may inform our discussion? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MERGE. I have proposed Australian republic referendum, 1999 and Monarchy of Australia, others favour the Monarchy article. This has been appropriately signposted on both the articles concerned. And Ryk72, I agree you have raised an important point above regarding sources. This is something I have been trying to elucidate for the past year.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My reading of WP:MERGE is that merging one article into several is not policy, and in any case, this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline to remain as a standalone article, as it has for many years. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting, isn't it? There's absolutely no provision for (and/or thought that anyone would want) this sort of merge. And the reason is simple: a merge always finishes up with a redirect. What article would this one redirect to when everything is done? I fear the merge advocates have not properly thought this part through. StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And GoodDay, this discussion would be a lot better if you would respond to Pete's questionsto (like his request for an example of this ever happening before) instead of making snarky comments like "we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it." StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned somewhere else in these discussions. Best we all keep our wits about us & control our emotions. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's true that WP:MERGE discusses the merging of two articles into a third article, but not the merging of one article into two other articles. But there seems no reason what I have suggested couldn't happen. The consensus seems to be to redirect to Monarchy of Australia, not that the phrase "Australian head of state dispute" is commonly used. It doesn't seem to matter whether you split this article's content (in a merger) between the Monarchy article and the referendum article, or if you merge this to the Monarchy article, and improve the referendum article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If the plan is to redirect to Monarchy in the end, then that should be the move request. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeing any consensus of opinion, even in that minority favouring a merge in the RfC above. It's like the man in a hurry who mounted his horse and galloped off in all directions. Merge here, merge there, merge everywhere. How on earth is that policy? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sofar, 4 support a merge to Monarchy in Australia. 2 do not. All 4 support the same proposal merging to Monarchy in Australia, with changes in other articles. I've separated this comment out, to make it clear how other editors can post their say Travelmite (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no - two editors (including yourself) explicitly !voted to merge to both articles. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I voted once for Jack Upland's proposal, using a form of words that specify exactly that. I really admire the fairness and patience that Goodday, Jack, Qex, Wikiain, Ryk, Moxy and several others have shown. Not once, have they resorted to any tricks or non-policy activity. Honest and calm, they are consistently showing good faith, beyond what what is expected. They are always ready with sound arguments. If there was the remotest possibility of them being incorrect in the smallest way over these weeks, every opportunity has been allowed for it to be exposed. But it has not happened. Bravo! Bravo! Travelmite (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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." The article outlines the debate - or dispute - an gives a condensed history with examples.

• Peter Hartcher in The Sydney Morning Herald calls now ex-Governor-General Quentin Bryce "Australia's first female head of state, a girl from the Queensland bush who became a brilliant lawyer and human rights advocate…"

• The Parliamentary Library in 1995 issued a research paper 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.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's greatest strengths, both in providing information and encouraging collegiate editing.

This article is notable within Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 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, 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 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In the survey on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages article. I'm happy to see this fringe theory aired, just like Misplaced Pages 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.", 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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, 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 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 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. .
• Redirect "Australian head of state dispute" to that article.
• Redirect "Australian head of state" to ....?

Attention was called above to the redirect from Australian head of state to this article. The editing history of the redirect page runs from January 2011 to January 2013. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, which show the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state? should be treated as disrupting Misplaced Pages 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: ... 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, as proposed at 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Request for comment: How to deal with this article II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

By all means, add the 'new' option :) GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Survey

• Oppose 1 (delete)
• +Oppose 2 - given that in the present version of the article "difference of opinion" has replaced "dispute", and links to Monarchy as main article, the AHOSD article is no longer irremediable, and the topic deserves its own article.
• +Support 3 - If the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March, leaving open the usual process of improving articles, in respect of sources, copyedits, links, etc. (added 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC) :) The top of this page mentions that the article is rated C Class, so that Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australia/Assessment.

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

It's up to you, of course. But, I think just posting your 'support' preference, would be less confusing ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's up to me: that is my response, to clarify the position beyond the sort of muddling that has beset the previous discussions and I see GD's comment as intrusive and meddlesome. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Qexigator. I shall strike my above observation. It wasn't my intent to upset you. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Geez, Qex. Was that all that was bothering you? I indicated much, much earlier that "dispute" was not something I was wedded to, and we could find better wording. "Difference of opinion" is fine - it states the case nicely. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And are you about to reveal that you have favoured merge all along?! Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My view on both matters remains unchanged. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Options 2 (split the article up & merge parts into one article or many articles) & 1 (delete article), in that order of preference. The existence of this article, merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

merely? Could that be an allusion to the death in 1702 of one of the Queen's predecessors, William III, attributed to an equestrian encounter with a molehill. Anyhow, molehills rate a stand alone article, and one of them can be as fateful as any mountain. More seriously, can you explain for us your reasons for concluding that the present version of the article "makes a mountain out of a molehill"? Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. This doesn't change, just because some people are convinced that the Governor-General is head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Kerry below, that comment was well off the point, and failed to notice that the article is not even asserting that there is a dispute. The article is based on the fact that the monarch is the acknowledged head of state (per recently closed Rfc), but helpfully reports a certain aspect of 20-21c. political opinion in one of the federal countries of the Commonwealth realms, in a way that is informative for Australians as well as others, neatly summed up in the lead:

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

Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC) updated Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me, the fate of this article. PS - If all the other participants come to an agreement on which road to take? I'll follow along:) GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

+Come to think of it, some of the comments favouring merge (present commenter claims exception) have been "over-reactive, ... where a person makes too much of a minor issue", which the said article gives as the prosaic meaning of the idiom. Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible "over-reactions" would likely stem from an emotional attachment to the article-in-question. I don't over-react & therefore I've no emotional attachments. Likewise, I'm but only 'one' grain of sand on the beach of Misplaced Pages. The fate of this article, isn't entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 - merge as previously discussed. This article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, and cherry-picks sources. The identification of the Queen as the head of state has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a Rfc. This is indeed a mountain made out of a molehill.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Retain. But reword the lede para to say it is a difference of opinion among some Australians. There are clearly sources to show that some people dispute this matter, but, unless someone can find the sources, I don't think there is any evidence that this dispute is a mainstream issue (unlike monarchy-vs-republic which is a mainstream issue). Since I believe it is a small dispute and not a mainstream one, I don't think it should be merged into Monarchy or the Referendum articles as that would be "undue weight" in those articles. But I think it reasonable, in pursuit of NPOV, to have a sentence or two with link to this article at some suitable point in those articles e.g. in the final para of Head of State section of the Monarchy article, where the topic is already discussed. This article can then explore the dispute as thoroughly as it wishes (without concerns of undue weight but, of course, putting both sides of the dispute). Kerry (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Close this discussion as redundant and unhelpful. Regardless of the wording of the previous RfC, this RfC should not have been opened while the previous one was opened and had progressed so far. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, StAnselm. I've shut this Rfc down, as it really shouldn't have been opened to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

IMHO, I should've nominated this article for deletion (via Afd) weeks ago. If that Afd would've failed? then we all would've went onto the next steps :( GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Trim lead

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

Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch. The Australian constitution does not mention the term head of state, and a number of writers, most notably David Smith, have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. Some others and some publications in Australia have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state.

The difference of opinion has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.

Overlaid on the present version:

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

The issue difference of opinion has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.

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

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

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

Head of state of Australia

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

Australia's Head of state of Australia.

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

Since the Australian head of state is the monarch, one could easily argue that Australia's head of state should be a re-direct to Monarchy of Australia. Of course, whatever the rest of you decide on this matter (assuming the article is kept), I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

At least one good reason for resolving as above and not merge and redirect is that the content of this article on this aspect of the topic, which is little or not as pronounced in Elizabeth's other realms, would clutter other articles. It's a question of presenting information for the convenience of readers, not ideological preferences. Qexigator (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Things are going a tad too fast, here. AFAIK, nothing has been decided yet, concerning the article's existence. Perhaps it's best for me to allow you & the others to handle the details :) GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There already is a redirect article called "Australian head of state", and it redirects to this article. Infact, it looks like it was created, only so it can redirect to this article. Travelmite (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the results at WP:Politics. That re-direct should be changed to point to the Australian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Travelmite, see above "Rewrite and redirect" and here, but if the proposed new title "Australia's head of state" is adopted for this article, the existing redirect would change with it. The article is first of all about the head of state of Australia, namely unequivocally the monarch, not the incidental dispute or difference of opinion among some Australians. You will have seen that the article itself links to Monarchy of Australia as the Main article, and the lead also links there: "...current official sources use the description of the Queen, as monarch". Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was the original title of this article. I would prefer "Australian" rather than "Australia's". StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SA, I've no wish to agonise, antagonise or quibble with anyone about this, or get into a molehill-mountain claim or counter-claim, but can you give us some reason for your preference? I am treading delicately here, but it may help to settle my mind about it.

The problem, as I see it, is that "Australian" seems to be letting Wikivoice lean towards the "mate for head of state" slogan, while "Australia's" is open, and allows for the Queen of Australia or a matey governor-general, so to speak, to be regarded as h-o-s Australia. Qexigator (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean - I was thinking purely in stylistic terms. What about Head of state of Australia? StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, that also would be best as a 'redirect' to Monarchy of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SA: Yes, that seems better, and I will change above. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Head of state discussion or Head of state debate, would be best, with the article itself expanded to include other countries like Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That certainly would make for a very different article, and another discussion would need to be have as to whether there should be such a content fork from Head of state. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

GD: Neither of those will do: "debate" is as much a misnomer here as "dispute", and so also would be "discussion". Look again at the opening paragraph: Head of state is a description used in official sources for the monarch... a number of writers... have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. Some ... have also referred to the governor-general as the head of state. Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We must try to avoid a title, which would erroneously suggest that the monarch isn't head of state. The proposed titles (except for mine) should be re-directed to the Australian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

+ GD: Perhaps you had not noticed that there is a section on "Comparison with other Commonwealth realms" and Canada is given a special mention. But the issues in the two Commonwealth realm federations are not the same, and an attempt to discuss both at greater length in one article would at best be a SYNful exercise. Qexigator (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We must remember that the Australian monarch 'is' the Australian head of state, when proposing a new article title. PS: I should've nominated this article for deletion weeks ago. If the result had been 'keep'? we then would've went to the next steps. Had it been 'delete'? well, we know the answer to that :) GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As I have indicated repeatedly, the people who didn't think the article should exist, should really have nominated it for deletion. It's not too late, of course. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll nominate the article for deletion, later this week. There can only be 'two' possible outcomes. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need a formal RM, if there are no objections in the next day or so. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

AN RM, might be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts - we should wait until the merge discussion is closed. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier. I'm involved on this title thing, with the assumption that the article is being kept. But you're correct. Perhaps we're moving too fast & should wait until the 'merge proposal discussion' has concluded. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SA: Noted, but please see below (about GD's error). I will go ahead, as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not. Qexigator (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Above, StAnselm said Well, I don't think we need a formal RM, if there are no objections in the next day or so, yet the page has now been moved, less than 12 hours later, when there is still an open RfC present. You might note that it was only earlier today that I provided an argument for not moving the page and there are others who oppose a move. The page should not be moved until there is consensus. If that requires a formal RM, then so be it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Aussie: Your undo may have been too hasty, and unintentionally disruptive to the ongoing discussion. After noting your remark "As someone who has come into this discussion only recently, I find this page to be all over the place", I repeated certain parts of the discussion to date, including a comment from Kerry of Queensland, which a newcomer might have missed, and then mentioned that I was going ahead as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not. Given that "dispute" is not in the article, to keep that title looks unhelpful to say the least. Perhaps you will reconsider. As before said, it's a question of presenting information for the convenience of readers, not ideological preferences. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

+ commonsense? Qexigator (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving an article in the middle of a discussion to a title that is both problematic and opposed by other editors is what is disruptive, which is why I reverted the move. There was simply no consensus for it and I agree with both StAnselm and GoodDay in their posts just below this. "Australia's head of state", "Australian head of state", "Head of state of Australia", etc. should all go to the same place and Monarchy of Australia seems the appropriate target.

then mentioned that I was going ahead as a step to resolving the ongoing discussion about merge or not - That you may have done that does not justify the action. I don't understand why certain people here seem intent on doing things immediately - Misplaced Pages is not working to a dealine. Just let things progress at a natural pace and wait for consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

(ec) The RfC certainly didn't address this point; in any case, all the possible titles discussed in this section ("Australia's head of state", "Australian head of state", "Head of state of Australia", etc.) should all go to the same place. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The monarch is head of state & therefore those titles should be re-directed to the Monarchy article. Anyways, I've contacted the administrator who closed the WP:POLITICS Rfc. Let's wait & see if he interprets the results as including 're-directs'. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A request

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

As someone who has come into this discussion only recently, I find this page to be all over the place. The edit history shows a number of changes made to posts well after they've been replied to, which makes it hard for anyone like me to be able to really work out what is going on. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This article should never have been created. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend is talking about this talk page, not the article. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I am. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

GD, who has admitted being in error in opening Rfc II, now and again makes comments which seem to be so wide of the mark as to be intrusive and meddlesome (possibly tending to disruptive in Wikispeak). In my view, and agf-ing, the request to suspend the article title discussion, until it's decided on whether or not the article itself will be kept intact or split up & merged into other articles may be one of these. The title is no longer suited to the article as it is now written, and is now the article's most contentious aspect. Any further input to the discussion on this page would make better sense if the title were changed as proposed, and its continued stand alone existence considered afresh after "dispute" has finally been expunged. I will repeat my above comment (of 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

"The verbiage is an embarassment to any newcomer summoned by the merger tag at the tops of the articles. It is also unfair to burden a closing admin with it, now that other RfC has closed with unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen, as the discussion clearly shows. The proposed merger should be suspended while participants are resolving any outstanding points about text and sources, or policy wrangles about notability, and maybe allowed to lapse altogether. At this stage my position is as above: If the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March, then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite. If the tags remain, let there be a Note at the top of the section that the proposal is currently suspended and may lapse in 14 days."

Meantime, one of the best comments so far was Kerry Raymond's (21:37, 14 March) , which I repeat in case a newcomer misses it:

• " Retain. But reword the lede para to say it is a difference of opinion among some Australians. There are clearly sources to show that some people dispute this matter, but, unless someone can find the sources, I don't think there is any evidence that this dispute is a mainstream issue (unlike monarchy-vs-republic which is a mainstream issue). Since I believe it is a small dispute and not a mainstream one, I don't think it should be merged into Monarchy or the Referendum articles as that would be "undue weight" in those articles. But I think it reasonable, in pursuit of NPOV, to have a sentence or two with link to this article at some suitable point in those articles e.g. in the final para of Head of State section of the Monarchy article, where the topic is already discussed. This article can then explore the dispute as thoroughly as it wishes (without concerns of undue weight but, of course, putting both sides of the dispute). "

Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's do this one-step-at-a-time, which is what should've happened weeks ago. Later this week, I'll open an Afd on this article. If it passes as keep? then I'll open an RM on this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To resolve: rename, retain, redirect

We now have

• Australian head of state redirects to Monarchy of Australia
• Head of state of Australia redirects to Monarchy of Australia
• Australian head of state dispute which mentions a " difference of opinion" but no dispute.

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

The problem, is coming up with a title that doesn't in anyway promote the We don't know minority PoV. We need a title-nominee, for a possible RM. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are obviously two views.

1. Queen
2. Governor-General

Each view has well-sourced adherents. Trying to avoid mentioning one view or the other is like trying to remove NPOV from Misplaced Pages. --Pete (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarify - What are you suggesting for an article title? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You first, friend. Why do you want NPOV to not apply to this article? --Pete (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Each view has well-sourced adherents" - Proven incorrect (see above). Travelmite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Skyring, I presume you prefer the current title? GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Each view has well-sourced adherents - Indeed they do and this is the problem with the dispute. There is even a parliamentary research note on this that states "This issue is predicated on an assumption that the Australian Head of State is the Queen. The Constitution can be used to argue either proposition". The Queen has repeatedly referred applications to her requesting intervention for all manner of things back to the GG, stating that she doesn't wish to involve herself in local issues. The only powers that she will exercise today are to appoint or remove the GG, which is usually just rubber-stamping the PM's recommendation. Nobody in the higher levels of government argues that the GG is actually the HoS, but they do acknowledge that he is the one who does the actual job, and this and the ambiguity in the constitution is why they are almost unanimously supporting the formal appointment of an Australian HoS. Until that happens, the dispute continues so the current title is actually appropriate, although "Australian head of state discussion" or something similar would be acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉)

Aussie, your summary of the situation in the higher levels of government shows that there is not a dispute, but an understandable desire for change. I don't see anyone on this page doubting current practice or aspirations as you have described. A dispute implies identifiable parties on one side, and others on at least one other side, about who is officially recognised as HoS. Perhaps "Australian head of state discussion" is nearer the mark, and maybe the nearest we are likely to get, editorially speaking. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The people in the higher levels of government are an extremely tiny minority in the population. To their credit, they are just getting on with the job (or think they are - having spoken to a few.....) and leave that part of the issue to others. Constitutional experts, especially the lawyers, are at odds and who is the head of state is an ongoing issue. It's always a good debate topic. So no, the fact that a small group of people don't debate it doesn't mean the dispute is not there. A dispute doesn't have to be page 1 news every day to be a dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the criterion for a dispute is not that it be page 1 news every day. Some major disputes may be little known to the public, or not frequently reported. So you seem to accept that there is not a defined dispute with identified parties, but in fact various individual persons, some more notable and prominent than others, expressing various opinions such as the article reports: an ongoing, intermittent public discourse, or let us say "discussion", sometimes in the form of a public lecture and sometimes in a book or other written RS. Again, I do not see anyone here in doubt about that. And of course, depending on the audience, almost anything can be treated as a good debate topic: such as monarchy-vs-republic mentioned by Kerry Raymond, but the fact that Australia continues to be a constitutional monarchy not a republic is not disputed. Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If AussieLegend could confine themselves to the polices of Misplaced Pages, it would be appreciated. All of these issues have been discussed earlier. StAnselm has tried to find something more for weeks, and sofar there is the book and lectures by David Smith and four paragraphs in some other books. There is no significance to the issue to reach an article level. This article is the result of a Misplaced Pages dispute, not a real dispute. Until recently, Misplaced Pages presented a view against the basic understanding of the Australian constitutional system, defying all the reliable sources. If the guidelines were followed this article would not being created, and it would be put into other articles as per the policy. The guidelines are there to stop Misplaced Pages being used for ulterior purposes. These guidelines include content forking, original research, fringe theory and notability:

• Don't bypass the need to get consensus. "WP:POVFORKs generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view."
• No original research in an article. WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."
• Don't promote a fringe theory. Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories "A Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."
• Don't create articles for non-notable discussions. Misplaced Pages:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

Without these rules Misplaced Pages would be open to all sorts of political games. To have a debate about HoS, there are many other websites where this can be done. Go to the ABC Drum website and you'll see many minor disputes, that are far more important than this. Look at the following issues: Gonsky Review, Senate Voting Reforms, Koala is not a Bear, GST on Books or Tampons, Mining Tax Debate, Locally build submarines, and discover whether these far more notable disputes (with identifiable parties) get their own page? If this page deserves to exist, then it would have twenty or more reliable explanations as to why the Queen is HoS, and David Smith saying otherwise. A total waste of effort, and against the policy of the system. (I am really busy right now, so apologies for any delay in response.) Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeing nothing in that comment as contributing to resolving the points now in issue here, we are left to surmise why this article happens to be the one picked on to vent such a waste of heat. Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If AussieLegend could confine themselves to the polices of Misplaced Pages - And exactly what policies would those be? I'm all eyes. I'm only new here remember. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll try quickly to answer both. I've changed my answer above to dot point the policies. An article that breaks every second rule in Misplaced Pages, and the only defense of it makes assertions, rather following some sort of objective standard. Notability: Are there any actual debates in the media/parliament/public forums with experts? Original research: Is there someone (outside Misplaced Pages) documenting the debate as a neutral viewpoint? Fringe Theory:- Have we not agreed that expert opinion has consistent uniform conclusion? My contribution is propose following the policies. Unfortunately, I cannot debate this now, but I have written in detail over the previous weeks. If I am overlooking the stage of discussion, that may be possible because I've been so busy, even though I wrote a lot earlier. Travelmite (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Only one of those things is a policy. The others are not even close. Perhaps you should read WP:BOLD, as it answers a lot of what you seem to be railing against, but I would appreciate your expert opinion on how I have not confined myself to Misplaced Pages's policies. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

To help this along, I've added the quoted section and the page above. All these points have been raised in the above discussion. Comments opposed have usually been assertions. If you'd like an example, you appear to have cited the Queens response to the Speaker of the House during the 1975 Whitlam dismissal. If so, there are no secondary sources connecting the Queen's response, with this discussion. If David Smith wrote something, then you may cite Smith. You also cited a parliamentary research paper, which does not indicate any dispute occurring. You'll probably find every possible reference to this dispute on this page already, repeated several times. Travelmite (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Looking through the edit histories of related articles, as well as the talk page of the article creator, I don't see any evidence that this article was a POVFORK.

you appear to have cited the Queens response to the Speaker of the House during the 1975 Whitlam dismissal - What I said were my own words, based on general knowledge. If I have said what the Queen said, then I suppose that gives my words some extra credibility - great minds think alike and all that.

If David Smith wrote something, then you may cite Smith. - I don't need to cite anyone in a discussion. I only need to do so if I want to add something to the article and so far, my only edits have been cleanup in accordance with our policies and guidelines.

You also cited a parliamentary research paper, which does not indicate any dispute occurring. It does, however, support the fact that there is a level of ambiguity in the constitution and this was used in the "discussion" preceding the 1999 referendum.

This article certainly does not represent a fringe theory and I'd remind Travelmite that notability is not temporary. The debate about the HoS was in just about every news report in every medium every day in the lead-up to the 1999 referendum. It was clearly a notable topic and is still supported by sources, many of which are in the National Library of Australia in the collection related to the referendum, which wouldn't have been such a big deal if this was a fringe theory. I assume the parliamentary library information on this has been transferred to the National Library by now but it's all still somewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Just follow WP:AfD. But it seems unlikely to succeed if a merge can't...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's too much trouble to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

More about Kirby's opinions?

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

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

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

The interesting thing about Kirby's position is that he previously complained about a "republic by stealth" with the GG being called the head of state, only to find, in the lead-up to the referendum, his fellow monarchists using this line.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Jack, would you say that the article, with links, just about covers that without overdoing it? Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I find the article's existence problematic, as already stated.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On observing your contributions here over some time, would it be fair to say that you dislike this article's existence because you disagree with the opinion that does not match your own? You have vehemently rejected that opinion several times in discussion, so it seems pretty clear to me. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the Queen is the head of state. Which raises the question: what "opinion" are you referring to? What opinion does this article put?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the question I asked. I'm happy to respect your personal opinion on the identity of the head of state, but could you say what is it about this article itself that you are opposed to? --Pete (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer your question if you tell me what is "that opinion" you were referring to.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two opinions being expressed:

1. Queen is head of state (your opinion, as expressed above: "I think the Queen is the head of state.")

2. Governor-General is head of state (the alternative view)

On observing your contributions here over some time, would it be fair to say that you dislike this article's existence because you disagree with the opinion that the Governor-General is the head of state? You have vehemently rejected that opinion several times in discussion, so it seems pretty clear to me. --Pete (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the vast majority of informed opinion and the vast majority of Wikipedians. The problem with this article is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no objection to the Smith/Flint argument being mentioned briefly in another article, but not having an article that is designed to showcase this theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Vast majority of either of those? It could be that a goodly number, enough to take from such a supposed vastness, of those who think about it, would see the position as Kerry Raymond does above, and see the article's existence as acceptable, and in its present version, deserving the attention of all interested in a npov report about the topic of the difference of opinion that has developed in Australia, whether or not it is more muted just now than it has been. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My sources for that comment are (a) George Winterton's statement quoted previously ("great preponderance of informed commentary"); (b) the recent RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, and neither of those rebut my comment above. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack, you're going against policy here. Looking at WP:FRINGE, the claim that the Governor-General is head of state does not meet the criteria set out there. It is well-sourced, notable, expressed by a great many prominent people. Secondly, even if it did meet WP:FRINGE, having an article on the topic is fine. We have articles on all manner of fringe theories. So your claims above hold no water. Perhaps your objections are more personal than that? As noted, you've expressed constant disapproval of the topic, and it looks like a case of WP:JDLI and a breach of WP:NPOV to me. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Feeding the troll

Yes, I know we're not supposed to feed the troll, but…

"Completely and repeatedly debunked". Repeat the same lie often enough and it becomes truth, eh? As we can see from the article, we have sources for Prime Ministers, Governors-General, leading politicians, constitutional scholars, the High Court, and mainstream media stating that the Governor-General is the head of state. These are prominent Australians making the claim that Travelmite says is debunked. He is demonstrably wrong.

"Personal comments about Jack". No, these are observations about Jack Upland's lack of compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Jack talks about giving undue weight to a fringe theory. He is wrong, because the view that the Governor-General is the head of state is reliably-sourced to mainstream media outlets of the Sydney Morning Herald or ABC level, as well as books, memoirs, and high-level primary sources. It is notable in its own right, simply because we have so many reliable sources. It's not a fringe view. A minority view, certainly, and we treat it with appropriate weight, by limiting it to this main article and not treating the view as a mainstream position.

Jack appears to be inserting his personal views into Misplaced Pages by attempting to remove - by deleting this article or merging it into others - any contrary position. That is a breach of WP:NPOV, a core pillar of Misplaced Pages.

"how to untangle this mess". There is no mess. This is an article which has been worked on by many editors over many years. It is rated as C-class, meaning that it needs work, but isn't bad. Any "mess" is found on this talk page, which has been deliberately trolled by Travelmite to cause disruption.

There has been some offline discussion about this account. The word "troublemaker" was used, and I think that if disruption continues, it is time to take it further. As a look at the edit history of this page shows, the amount of discussion has risen sharply since Travelmite's first contribution here in late January. Arid and fruitless discussion, most of it. None of the proposals to delete or merge this article have gained any consensus.

Travelmite's contribution history shows that before late January, he was a sparse and infrequent editor. Nothing of substance, and no interest in Australian constitutional matters. He is pretty much a single-purpose account now, and it is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see revision history statistics for this page , which show I am in 5th position for page contributions. Travelmite (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

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

Speaking of WP:POINT, that's why you made the edit without discussion. You do the same thing with Mies - make an edit that is certain to be reverted, and then complain when it happens. And what about WP:BRD? Now, please discuss the content, and why you feel you need to make a statement in the lede that is not made in the body, nor is it supported. You may refer to discussion and consensus here, if you please. --Pete (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The others can decide for themselves, as to what future course of action should be taken (if necessary) concerning the Australian head of state topic. I'm removing this article from my watchlist, as you've tried my patients for the last time. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The results of the RfC at WP:POLITICS must be applied here. Travelmite (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

"an Australian peculiarity" (per Kirby)

All things reconsidered, which of the following is more suited to the article as a non-contentious and npov title , given that (as above said) "dispute" is not in the article, and the differences of opinion or practice in Australia about calling the governor-general "head of state" in a way that deviates from usage in other Commonwealth realms?

• Australian head of state difference of opinion
• Australian head of state discussion.

Qexigator (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing either as a better title than the one which has worked well for years. "Dispute" covers both a difference of opinion and the discussion around that. Every year, there's some public discussion, usually via press releases and comment on editorial pages, but nothing to match the level of interest during the republic referendum, including the Constitutional Convention. A "debate" implies some level of formality rarely reached. --Pete (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Some comments about article's neutrality

While I have been busy this week, I overlooked some comments, to understand your reasoning why you are proposing this solution. Clearly, some editors have arrived thinking that where there's smoke (>80 sources), there must be fire (an actual debate) and have opposed merging it, even though most of those sources already exist in the other articles. The right thing to do is to be flexible. I genuinely have been unable to see how this article could be made neutral, including the title. In my opinion, reason ACM supported it, was to create a bit of confusion in the republican debate. That being said, the crux of Smith's argumment is that he skips over the basic definition of Head of State, and assumes a Head of State must do certain things and/or be formally assigned that role in its written constitution. Once Head of State is defined (Winterton put it as the "apex" in the constitution), any republican vs monarchist debate where this is raised, moved past it very quickly to substantive issues. Still yet to see any evidence of actual debate about HoS in it's own right and I think we agree there is misleading content, given the Queen is Head of State. So in the spirt of being practical (ending our suffering), I will propose some ideas for a name change that may be supportable. Travelmite (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Travelmite, in my view the present version is npov, and what remains to be done is to remove "dispute" from the title of the article, which to judge from the latest comment, Travelmite may not have read. Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have certainly made the article less objectionable. If we can find some common ground, then perhaps we can get a consensus. At the moment, the article is mostly about the unorthodox view. It does not explain much about the official / orthodox view. So I propose using the word "conjecture", "alternative view", "alternate explanation" in place of dispute for the article title. There are three issues bouncing around in the article that are combined in a way to promote Smith's view point. These are:

• That the function of the governor-general is legitimately explained by saying "de facto"/"constitutional"/"virtual"/"practical" head of state, and these qualifiers have significance as Winterton (Quadrant, 2004) points out. In the Constitutional Law textbooks, this is perfectly clear.
• Other writers (such as newspapers, biographies) are simply taking short cuts. They mean to say the official exercising the Head of State power, or just the highest Australian officeholder. They are not intending to make any pronouncements about the constitution.
• Then there are the statements by Smith and some in Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), who are deliberately trying to convince the public that the Governor-General is Head of State. This article falls into this category.

You have made some improvements, but look at how the Monarchist League are treated. Surely that is POV. What about Rudd being erratic? That's heavily partisan. Who are the inconsistent Prime Ministers, scholars and governors-general? Who are the inconsistent Canadians? These are all POV terms. Who added the original research - a list of constitutions without Head of State, only provided here to prove a point that it's not relevant? It's also original research to link 4 newspaper articles using Queen as HoS, and 4 using GG as HoS. That's not a valid survey. It could be 4 to 400 in a proper survey. What about the problematic "Dusevic" article: that says the Queen and GG are in a "title-fight", why overlook the main topic and sensationalist nature of the source? It's just a headline grab. I presume that the Queen did go ahead and make her speech at the UN as Head of State of 16 countries. These are just some areas of concern.

What then would you propose this article be about? I am interested in finding common ground. Is it about Smith's theory? Is it about Pete's theory (re Jack's comment)? Is it about how Australian politicians, scholars and writers cannot understand their own system of government? Is it about disagreement between the ACM vs Monarchist League vs republicans? Is it about how the average person thinks the GG is just a servant of the Queen? I believe that you do understand my concerns. Travelmite (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for Travelmite to clutter the page with this sort of argumentation. Is he currently blocked from making bona fide, constructive, non-disruptive edits? I repeat, the article reads pretty well to me, is informative, but like any other is not closed to further improvement. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Who knows what a person can be blocked for, or reverted for. GoodDay was reverted for saying the Queen was Head of State. Should I waste hours of effort to be reverted? Having looked at the history, anyone who alters the David Smith line of this article is reverted, either immediately or a few days later. The Queen's website is described as vacillating. I'll make basic changes at least be truthful about the sources, and we will see how that goes. Travelmite (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So, all edits got a blanket revert by an anonymous editor. This included identifying dead links, and specifying who the sources are. Travelmite (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Now two blanket reverts of all my edits, first from 87.103.14.40, second from user 120.21.147.122. Travelmite (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

IP unexplained reverts such this and this are needlessly disruptive. I see no reason to doubt that the reverted edits were made in good faith on the editor's part, and if a bona fide contibutor considers any of them should be removed or tweaked, let the edsum explain in the usual way. If there is further IP activity of this kind, it may be necessary to apply semi-protection. Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've peaked in earlier today & thus requested semi-protection for this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for saving this work. What happens now? Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It would help if the lead was clarified to show that the monarch is head of state, which I attempted to do. However, it's quite frustrating when that clarification keeps getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Travelmite, consider Kerry's remarks below. Secondly, if you feel an irresistible desire to make more changes it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there. Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have taken Kerry's remarks into consideration. Whether seen by 10 people or 10000, the article made and continues to make unjustified criticisms against reputable people, and reputable organisations, for example (sources 49-51), on what basis is Misplaced Pages criticising the Queen's writers for "vacillating"? Why should Misplaced Pages describe a living person as erratic? These issues of policy have been raised previously. You earlier said, I could make reasonable edits, which absolutely should be the case. My first attempt to edit was 28 Jan. All reverted. This is my second attempt, which I even predicted would be reverted. I found 3 deadlinks and a misquote. I added key details and one source (the Supreme Court). All discussed, here or at the WP:POLITICS page. For that I was reverted by 3 different IP addresses and called a "nuisance". At least it was undone, but surely "move on" is a counterproductive response to online name-calling? Travelmite (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of all proportion ...

I note that we are discussing an article with about 42K bytes, which has a talk page of 260K bytes plus 6 archives. And to put the importance of the article into some perspective, it is worth considering the number of pageviews the article gets. In Dec-Jan (when nobody was editing the article), it received 0-3 pageviews a day. Since end of January, when edits to the page and its talk page soared, it reached as high as 450 pageviews a day, presumably due to the edit activities, the arguments on talk and the various people being drawn into the dispute by the various Requests for This and That. So it seems we have an article that the readership of Misplaced Pages isn't very interested in (0-3 pageviews a day), which is currently consuming a massive amount of time of the contributors to Misplaced Pages. Frankly, that effort could be put to a lot better use elsewhere. Maybe we should all just take it off our watchlists and move on ... Kerry (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Kerry, I hope you will continue to keep an eye on this, in case another storm blows up, when a calming influence would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good to get some eyes looking at the thing from a bit further away. I mentioned something similar earlier.

The source of the problem is easy to find. With this edit, an account which had previously done nothing for a year but shuffle some text around in random articles, suddenly became a WP:SPA dedicated to disruption in this article and related. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• C-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• C-Class Australian law articles
• Mid-importance Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australian law articles
• C-Class Australian politics articles
• Mid-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles