| Revision as of 15:07, 15 February 2016 editTravelmite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,509 edits →AfD continued and ArbCom← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:12, 15 February 2016 edit undoTravelmite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,509 edits →AfD continued and ArbComNext edit → | ||
| Line 314: | Line 314: | ||
| I've asked at ] an open ended question, which concerns this article. ] (]) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) | I've asked at ] an open ended question, which concerns this article. ] (]) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :I support what you are doing. There must be some civil way of avoiding a repeating cycle of attacks and bans. That would be madness. ] (]) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible RM == | == Possible RM == | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 15 February 2016
| 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. |
|
| 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: 2 months  |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 2 months |
 | Australia: Law / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance   | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.Larissa Behrendt
I wonder whether the quote from Behrendt serves any purpose. The article states, "For republicans, the issue has a symbolic element" and quotes Behrendt: "the symbolism would be more powerful if that position of head of state was not the Queen of England's representative but the president of Australia". She's implying that the GG as the head of state. This could just be sloppy phrasing, like "Queen of England". But, in any case, the issue of symbolic importance for her is the GG as the Queen's representative, not as head of state (which she apparently agrees with).--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia definition regarding Australia's 'Head of State'
Head of State
According to the Modern Reference Encyclopaedia Illustrated, published by the Melbourne Herald (1939s?): 'Governor General and Governors', p.1126.,
The titular head of the State is the Governor generally nominated by the Government of Great Britain, but once chosen in the case of Queensland within the State by the State Government. The head of the Commonwealth and the chief channel of communication with the imperial authorities is the Governor-General, whose chief official residence is at Canberra, the Federal Capital.
The head-of-state of each Australian State is the State Governor, and the head-of-state of Australia if the Governor-General.
Australia presently has numerous 'head-of-states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.187 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- If this is the same book http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/9904444?selectedversion=NBD10095641 it was published in 1939 (here published by the Adelaide Advertiser) and would appear to be a good source to use.Gazzster (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- This information is obviously out of date. And if I understand the quotation correctly, it does not use the term "head of state". The "head of the State" is different. What does the encyclopaedia say about the King? The crux of this dispute is that some say that it is the GG, not the monarch, who is "head of state". Any use of this source must address this if it is relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Out of date"? Is there an expiry date for information on Misplaced Pages? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- If someone could find the article, the reference sources for it would be useful.Gazzster (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would be a valid source to describe the situation in 1939. But I object to it being taken out of context, misquoted, and used in a contemporary debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- It could be used to illustrate the history of the debate perhaps, and this entry certainly covers that. And who says anyone is going to misquote it?Gazzster (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's already being misquoted: "head of the State" (i.e., Queensland etc) is different from "head of state" in the terms of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- It could be used to illustrate the history of the debate perhaps, and this entry certainly covers that. And who says anyone is going to misquote it?Gazzster (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would be a valid source to describe the situation in 1939. But I object to it being taken out of context, misquoted, and used in a contemporary debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- If someone could find the article, the reference sources for it would be useful.Gazzster (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Out of date"? Is there an expiry date for information on Misplaced Pages? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Monarchist POV article
I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians. It's based on one book by David Smith monarchist writing during the republican debate. It was seen as advantageous for monarchists, because the Republicans slogan was an "Australian as Head of State". As far as the Australian government, the Governor-General and the Queen, whenever they are asked: the Queen is Head of State. It's only because it's rather unimportant that some officials get confused about it. It's clear this article is original research. It's an attempt to extend the laundry list of unimportant things outlined in the David Smith's book. "Divided Community" in particular a nonsense heading. Travelmite (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The official government position is carefully whitewashed, because of unintended wording in an Electoral Commission of Australia and New Zealand factsheet about different election systems. I will write to them tomorrow to fix it. I am having a great deal of trouble editing this article, because it's full of POV material. The second paragraph says "The disagreement has continued for decades, usually, though not always ... ". This is just trying to edit nonsense. Travelmite (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
User Skyring has reverted these edits, claiming that I have not discussed them on the talk page. My concerns are reflected in the following previous discussion. Note that Skyring may appear as "Pete" in the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia It seems that there no point in continuing to edit here. That Government of Australia page now says "the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people", despite the objections of every other knowledgeable editor. Travelmite (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bold, Revert, Discuss applies here. Your edit was bold, which is not in itself a bad thing, but considering the amount of contentious attention this article has had over many years, making such large changes is going to be disruptive, and it's best to discuss these issues here before deciding on any fresh consensus. The article itself is not a monarchist/republican issue, it is about the varying identifications of the Australian head of state over the years. It is not a matter with a simple answer, although different editors may be convinced of their own definitive opinion . --Pete (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let others decide on whether there's a monarchist PoV slant to this article. Personally, I'd rather the article deleted & Elizabeth II shown as Australia's head of state (undisputed) throughout Misplaced Pages. But, it's not up to me. What is or will be? is out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I feel for you. Your name comes up in the histories repeatedly fighting for what's right for years. How many thousands of hours they've wasted of your life. You're a hero! Travelmite (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Travelmite, 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, but which two editors do you claim are "monarchist non-Australians" who have written it? I do not see, from a practical editing and encyclopedic npov that, in the context,--
- the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people, the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. Though in many respects the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, and exercises various constitutional powers in her name, they are also independently vested with many important powers by the Constitution
- --is other than an acceptable way of describing the factual position for readers. If you have more uptodate information or better sources, please discuss here. One thing is certain: "It is not a matter with a simple answer", as Pete remarks. Qexigator (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages system is allowing pet beliefs to get through. None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles. But the summaries makes a mountain out of few loosely worded statements. "Erratic" Kevin Rudd never made a definitive statement that the GG was Head of State, as his spokesperson made clear later. But our PM's are written up as "erratic", because they disagree with Skyring. The history shows past editors argued until Skyring was banned from Misplaced Pages. After the bad was lifted, he started this article. So I'm saying, that it does not matter. In putting this article together, there is defiance of the Misplaced Pages community. Readers should not have faith that this article can be corrected. What I can do is call the ECANZ to fix their factsheet. Travelmite (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, perhaps you could park your own opinions at the door? If you think that any position is clear, you are misinformed. Perhaps you could read back through the archives of this talk page, and perhaps you could remind yourself that we are reliant on sources. You may believe something strongly, but you cannot state your belief here. You must find someone else who stated it in a reliable source. Perhaps the article's title is confusing you? "Dispute" may be implying more conflict than is actually the case. But, as somebody who has met, listened to, and read the works of many of the various academics, historians, politicians and so on since the mid-90s, I can assure you that there are various positions, strongly and widely held. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree this article was written with a bias towards saying the Governor-General is the head of state. Legal experts are nearly unanimous in saying the Queen is the head of state, but this was ignored by the article until I edited it recently. Colin Howard, Owen Hughes, and Malcolm Turnbull were quoted selectively in order to support this distortion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Jack. This article doesn't attempt to find an answer to the question. It documents the positions, and it is clear that there is a diversity of opinion. You might like to rewrite the Religion article to downplay diversity and lean towards the one true god(s) as you see it. Let us know how you get on there, will ya? --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the only "god" round here is Pete Skyring. There isn't a diversity of opinion. As George Winterton said (quoted previously), "the great preponderance of informed commentary" says that the Queen is head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, Jack. You should tell my wife that. George Winterton's opinion is one of many diverse examples, all well sourced here. At least until people come along and remove the sources they don't like. --Pete (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was mistaken about two non-Australians. One is likely an Australian. Apologies for making that assumption. Travelmite (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, Jack. You should tell my wife that. George Winterton's opinion is one of many diverse examples, all well sourced here. At least until people come along and remove the sources they don't like. --Pete (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the only "god" round here is Pete Skyring. There isn't a diversity of opinion. As George Winterton said (quoted previously), "the great preponderance of informed commentary" says that the Queen is head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Jack, those edits improved the article. Qexigator (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Jack. This article doesn't attempt to find an answer to the question. It documents the positions, and it is clear that there is a diversity of opinion. You might like to rewrite the Religion article to downplay diversity and lean towards the one true god(s) as you see it. Let us know how you get on there, will ya? --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree this article was written with a bias towards saying the Governor-General is the head of state. Legal experts are nearly unanimous in saying the Queen is the head of state, but this was ignored by the article until I edited it recently. Colin Howard, Owen Hughes, and Malcolm Turnbull were quoted selectively in order to support this distortion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, perhaps you could park your own opinions at the door? If you think that any position is clear, you are misinformed. Perhaps you could read back through the archives of this talk page, and perhaps you could remind yourself that we are reliant on sources. You may believe something strongly, but you cannot state your belief here. You must find someone else who stated it in a reliable source. Perhaps the article's title is confusing you? "Dispute" may be implying more conflict than is actually the case. But, as somebody who has met, listened to, and read the works of many of the various academics, historians, politicians and so on since the mid-90s, I can assure you that there are various positions, strongly and widely held. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages system is allowing pet beliefs to get through. None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles. But the summaries makes a mountain out of few loosely worded statements. "Erratic" Kevin Rudd never made a definitive statement that the GG was Head of State, as his spokesperson made clear later. But our PM's are written up as "erratic", because they disagree with Skyring. The history shows past editors argued until Skyring was banned from Misplaced Pages. After the bad was lifted, he started this article. So I'm saying, that it does not matter. In putting this article together, there is defiance of the Misplaced Pages community. Readers should not have faith that this article can be corrected. What I can do is call the ECANZ to fix their factsheet. Travelmite (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Crown land?
Looking at this edit, I'm not seeing the relevance here. Crown land in Australia is land held by the public or the state, not land owned by the monarch whether as a person or an office. It is an error to imagine that "the Crown" is equivalent to "the monarch". --Pete (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The relevance is self-evident to persons knowledgable of the facts. The constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, "most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes"; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the facts of crown land. If you are arguing that the term has caused confusion, well, I tend to agree, but I think a source is needed. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would that be confusion before the legislation and judicial rulings of recent decades? Perhaps you are aware of some confusion about questions of land tenure, the Crown and common law, and the laws of nationality and citizenship and allegiance, from the first discoveries of the land now called Australia to the formation of the CoA, the institution of the office of governor-general, and on to the present day. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. Do you have a source linking crown land to the dispute on which this article is focused? --Pete (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Someone with the sort of input you have made could be expected to know about all that. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm not seeing any source for the argument you are putting. Find one, please. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Someone with the sort of input you have made could be expected to know about all that. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. Do you have a source linking crown land to the dispute on which this article is focused? --Pete (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would that be confusion before the legislation and judicial rulings of recent decades? Perhaps you are aware of some confusion about questions of land tenure, the Crown and common law, and the laws of nationality and citizenship and allegiance, from the first discoveries of the land now called Australia to the formation of the CoA, the institution of the office of governor-general, and on to the present day. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the facts of crown land. If you are arguing that the term has caused confusion, well, I tend to agree, but I think a source is needed. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
See edit. Discuss if you wish but do not idly block or bluster a perfectly acceptable clarifying edit. Qexigator (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Neither of those sources make any argument about the identity of the head of state. I'm struggling to find any relevance, even if I accept the argument you posit above. It is an argument made by you on a talk page, not by any reliable source. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Undisputed
Can it be that this is too well-known to be mentioned among statesmen, scholars and Dame Edna's country(wo)men, and at the same time taboo in polite and political society, and thus treated as unmentionable in the article? See also:
and, for menagerie:
- in popular wisdom, Kangaroo and the oral tradition, (one Just-so story among others, and Elephant in the room;
- and naturally or heraldically, Red kangaroo (dexter), Emu (sinister), Australian Piping Shrike, Black swan (naiant to the sinister);
- and naturally or emblematically koala, possum, num- and wom- bat, et al..
More seriously, anyone with an open mind and npov can peruse the legislation and court rulings of recent decades and see the states and Commonwealth, like other countries around the globe, attempting to reconcile colonial history with current affairs. It is self-evident that, in the lands and islands now denominated Australia, the continuity of the Crown, in the person of the reigning monarch of the states and the Commonwealth, from the first British settlements to the present day and the 20c. (and current) constitution, is inextricably and unavoidably connected with title to any part of the land. This remains unaffected by the "head of state" dispute, and while it may be well enough known among Australians, that is no good reason to keep the information from other readers, at least by footnote if not the main text. Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
+ Pete, for the avoidance of doubt, these links citing the Proclamation of Governor Bourke may be helpful to others who see this discussion, but are less knowledgeable about the Crown and root of title In Australia. This link] to an official NSW publication (2013) helps to explain the concept. Crown land is mentioned on page 5: A proclamation by Governor Bourke declared that the British Crown owned the entire land mass of Australia and that only the Crown could sell or distribute land. For the proclamation (1835) see, , . , . Students will not need to be reminded that traditional use of "crown" as a variant for the king or monarch (or the joint monarchs William and Mary) was confirmed and furthered by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769).
- Qexigator (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not seeing the words "head of state" anywhere in those sources. Perhaps you could helpfully guide my attention? --Pete (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Have you not yet noticed that the "head of state dispute" was not considered to have been an issue in connection with Aboriginal land rights and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown in respect of all or any part of Australia, and present day Crown lands administered by the governments of the states or Commonwealth.
- "51. By attributing to the Crown a radical title to all land within a territory over which the Crown has assumed sovereignty, the common law enabled the Crown, in exercise of its sovereign power, to grant an interest in land to be held of the Crown or to acquire land for the Crown's demesne. The notion of radical title enabled the Crown to become Paramount Lord of all who hold a tenure granted by the Crown and to become absolute beneficial owner of unalienated land required for the Crown's purposes. But it is not a corollary of the Crown's acquisition of a radical title to land in an occupied territory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of that land to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants. If the land were desert and uninhabited, truly a terra nullius, the Crown would take an absolute beneficial title (an allodial title) to the land...: there would be no other proprietor. But if the land were occupied by the indigenous inhabitants and their rights and interests in the land are recognized by the common law, the radical title which is acquired with the acquisition of sovereignty cannot itself be taken to confer an absolute beneficial title to the occupied land."
- The monarch, as Queen of Australia, remains "Lord paramount" etc., and in that respect is not even "represented" by the governor-general, or by a state governor. This may suggest to some that the "head of state dispute" is little more than contrived to the point of the near trivial, but that is not sufficient reason to exclude the information from the article, nor, in my view, to support the deletion of the artticle as a whole. Qexigator (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with Mabo. It was a good call by the HC. However, I'm still not seeing the words "head of state" in the quote above. You are trying to equate "Crown" (as in "crown land") with "Australian Head of State", it appears, and this is a very long bow to draw. You need someone else to make that connection in respect of Mabo (or any similar case), otherwise it is just a confected argument and thereby OR. --Pete (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Have you not yet noticed that the "head of state dispute" was not considered to have been an issue in connection with Aboriginal land rights and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown in respect of all or any part of Australia, and present day Crown lands administered by the governments of the states or Commonwealth.
- Thanks. I'm not seeing the words "head of state" anywhere in those sources. Perhaps you could helpfully guide my attention? --Pete (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning what is undisputed supports the existing content in the lead and Background. Given that
- Section 61 of the constitution states that "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." Section 2 provides that a governor-general shall represent the Queen in Australia. The governor-general is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister of Australia. ...The question of whether the Queen or the governor-general is Australia's head of state became a political one in the years prior to the Australian republic referendum in 1999 and remains one within the continuing debate around an Australian republic...(as in existing version),
it is pertinent to mention that the dispute does not extend to the issue in connection with native title in Australia and the sovereignty assumed for the Crown as "Lord paramount" in respect of all or any part of Australia, as determined in the "Mabo case". You (Pete) have shown your pov (attributing "sweet and romantic" and "cringing adoration" (17:39, 16 November 2015). The reality is, nonetheless, that, while the "head of state dispute" may have been a talking point among some academics and politicians for decades, it has had practically no impact on the federal constitution of Australia, or the practical conduct of government or parliamentary business, before or after the passing of the Australia Act 1986; but meantime, by contrast, the events leading up to and following the Mabo case (1992),, and the passing of the Native Title Act 1993, have had an important and lasting effect on the administration of Crown lands held in right of the Queen in every part of Australia. Please bear in mind that a purpose of an article such as this is to communicate not only to those who are locally familiar with such matters but to others, including those who have little or no prior knowledge of the state of things in Australia but are looking for npov information. Qexigator (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source making a connection between crown land and the dispute? Otherwise I intend to remove the original research. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Supports and clarifies existing content, unoriginal, and should not be removed as "original": The position of the monarch, the present Queen of Australia and its states, as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown", has not been part of the "head of state" dispute. Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Two points:
- If this has not been part of the "head of state" dispute, then why include it in this article? It seems contradictory. If we were to include everything that has not been part of the dispute in this article, then we would have all of Misplaced Pages in one article, and we would need a great many more section headings.
- The cite you give in Mabo notes that the notion of direct ownership by the Sovereign is a fiction, and that in Australia "the Crown" is "Lord Paramount". Equating "the Crown" with the office or person of the monarch is a questionable opinion. --Pete (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Supports and clarifies existing content, unoriginal, and should not be removed as "original": The position of the monarch, the present Queen of Australia and its states, as "Lord Paramount" in respect of the system of land tenure in Australia, including public land held in "right of the Crown", has not been part of the "head of state" dispute. Qexigator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Pete: Thank you for comments. Those points are sufficiently anticipated and answered above. There may be one or two equally important things you or others know of to be added, but probably not, and certainly not a hyperbolical multitude. The article is not the place to explain in detail, but you will know as well as any law student that the Lord Paramount concept, though abstruse if not arcane, provided a line of common law reasoning, and the historic Mabo decision (1992) was no mere whimsical fiction: it mobilised the government and legislature: 51. By attributing to the Crown a radical title to all land within a territory over which the Crown has assumed sovereignty, the common law enabled the Crown, in exercise of its sovereign power, to grant an interest in land to be held of the Crown or to acquire land for the Crown's demesne. The notion of radical title enabled the Crown to become Paramount Lord of all who hold a tenure granted by the Crown and to become absolute beneficial owner of unalienated land required for the Crown's purposes. But it is not a corollary of the Crown's acquisition of a radical title to land in an occupied territory that the Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of that land to the exclusion of the indigenous inhabitants.....63. It must be acknowledged that, to state the common law in this way involves the overruling of cases which have held the contrary. To maintain the authority of those cases would destroy the equality of all Australian citizens before the law. The common law of this country would perpetuate injustice if it were to continue to embrace the enlarged notion of terra nullius and to persist in characterizing the indigenous inhabitants of the Australian colonies as people too low in the scale of social organization to be acknowledged as possessing rights and interests in land....17. As has been seen, it must be accepted as settled law that the provisions of the common law which became applicable upon the establishment by settlement of the Colony of New South Wales included the system of land law which existed in England and that the consequence of that was that the radical title to all land in the new Colony vested in the Crown. If there were lands within the Colony in relation to which no pre-existing native interest existed, the radical title of the Crown carried with it a full and unfettered proprietary estate. Put differently, the radical title and the legal and beneficial estate were undivided and vested in the Crown. Thereafter, any claim by the Aboriginal inhabitants to such lands by reason of possession or occupation after the establishment of the Colony must be justified by ordinary common law principles or presumptions which apply and (at least theoretically) applied indifferently to both native inhabitants and Europeans (e.g. possessory title based on a presumed lost grant). 18. On the other hand, if there were lands within a settled Colony in relation to which there was some pre-existing native interest, the effect of an applicable assumption that that interest was respected and protected under the domestic law of the Colony would not be to preclude the vesting of radical title in the Crown. Let it rest. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that's not in dispute, but I'm dubious about relevance. Most Crown land in Australia, whether alienated or nor, is the property of the States, not the Commonwealth. This article is exclusively about the Commonwealth head of state, not the State heads of state (so to speak). --Pete (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pete, you and I and some others know that, including (we may surmise) the Queen, and present and past governors-general, governors, prime ministers, premiers and others involved in government and administration, but it does not hurt to remind those who may have forgotten or to round out the picture for those who as yet are less well informed (and note Archive 1, 12:18, 24 January 2011 ...the need for education, which of course is always a perennial desire on the part of students of the constitution). Let the links give the more detailed information, about the position of the monarch in respect, initially, of the states and their land, and later in respect of the federation and its land. The point is that while that involves issues of major importance, directly and indirectly affecting the rights of Australian citizens and of mining and other interests, it was not within the scope of the inconsequential public discussions, theories and speculative reasoning about the Queen's position as head of state in all and every part of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I really cannot see the relevance. We already have articles about Mabo and Native Title. There's no aspect of the head of state dispute that impacts on the topic of native title. The "Crown" of "Crown land" is not the monarch - nor the Governor-General - and in most cases it is not even the Commonwealth of Australia that owns/ed the Crown land in question. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but it's a chain of argument without any direct sourcing. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pete: I do not see why that short sentence bothers you so much. The reasoning is that of the High Court, which elsewhere you have commended as authoritative, and that is more than can be said for almost anything else in the article. Your opinion about the monarch's position in connection with Crown lands defies the known facts. Perhaps that is why the sentence is uncomfortable to your pov. Maybe we could look at this again when the other editorial disputes about the content of the article, currently under discussion, have been resolved. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I really cannot see the relevance. We already have articles about Mabo and Native Title. There's no aspect of the head of state dispute that impacts on the topic of native title. The "Crown" of "Crown land" is not the monarch - nor the Governor-General - and in most cases it is not even the Commonwealth of Australia that owns/ed the Crown land in question. I can kind of see where you are coming from, but it's a chain of argument without any direct sourcing. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pete, you and I and some others know that, including (we may surmise) the Queen, and present and past governors-general, governors, prime ministers, premiers and others involved in government and administration, but it does not hurt to remind those who may have forgotten or to round out the picture for those who as yet are less well informed (and note Archive 1, 12:18, 24 January 2011 ...the need for education, which of course is always a perennial desire on the part of students of the constitution). Let the links give the more detailed information, about the position of the monarch in respect, initially, of the states and their land, and later in respect of the federation and its land. The point is that while that involves issues of major importance, directly and indirectly affecting the rights of Australian citizens and of mining and other interests, it was not within the scope of the inconsequential public discussions, theories and speculative reasoning about the Queen's position as head of state in all and every part of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- ("Mabo case") HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51
- ("Mabo case") HCA 3, Brennan J. para.51
- Native Title Act 1993,
"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 stateAustralian head of state dispute is a disagreement among Australianscentrescentred 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source. That's basic. See here:
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
How this article is used
Essentially, this article is used as a wedge in every article touching the Head of State issue. The repeated words throughout wikipedia are: "There is an ongoing debate in Australia and, to a lesser extent, in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch, the governor-general, or both—can be considered the head of state". This article exists to justify a campaign across Misplaced Pages to treat Australia as an exception, and the only source is one controversial book from someone who stands to benefit from that. Yet, there is no ongoing debate and it has nothing to do with republicans vs monarchists - even monarchist.org.au says the Queen is Head of State. It's a false issue. Travelmite (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Broadly agree: ...no ongoing debate and it has nothing to do with republicans vs monarchists...a false issue" (per Kirby and D.Smith). As shown above and in discussion from Archive 1 onward, recurring attempts to rectify, in one way or another, have been deflected (eg, the "title of the article may be the problem... I was there in the Press Gallery ...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". Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Travelmite , I'm puzzled as to why you think that the only source is one book. There are 83 sources listed in addition to the book. They show that various members of the community from the Prime Minister down have all stated that the Governor-General is the head of state, as well as many upholding the more conventional view. The discussion is indeed ongoing, and I supplied sources in discussion above, dating to this month. Perhaps you could read the article, and check the sources, rather than doggedly maintain they don't exist? --Pete (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are not 83 sources showing a debate or dispute. Most of the sources have no bearing on it. A few sources clearly state the Queen is Head of State. Then there are some quotes out-of-context, that refer to the Governor-General (as the Queen's representative) doing Head of State stuff, because the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. Travelmite (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. You said above that the only source is one controversial book, and I thought maybe you had missed the 83 other sources. So we can agree that the article is well-sourced. Many of the sources are of prominent Australians expressing their opinion. Prime Ministers, a Governor-General, academics and political figures, countless journalists. Incidentally, that Governor-General's view is worth repeating here:
- Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state.
- Some of the sources, as you say, support the view that the Queen is the head of state, and others support the view that the Governor-General is the head of state. Two things are crystal clear: (a) there is a diversity of opinion and (b) there is no definitive statement to be found. We include among our sources several summarising the diverse views, such as the Research Paper titled Who is the Australian Head of State? from the Parliamentary Library, which gives equal space to both views. If there were any sort of irrefutable definition of Australia's head of state, then there would be no dispute. --Pete (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The research Paper makes no mention of a dispute, and says the opposite:- that people think the Queen is Head of State. Zelman is not discussing a dispute either. Travelmite (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. You said above that the only source is one controversial book, and I thought maybe you had missed the 83 other sources. So we can agree that the article is well-sourced. Many of the sources are of prominent Australians expressing their opinion. Prime Ministers, a Governor-General, academics and political figures, countless journalists. Incidentally, that Governor-General's view is worth repeating here:
- The research paper dates from 1995 and refers to the "current republic debate". I think it is undeniable that the issue was raised (as a "distraction" in Kirby's words) in the republic debate. To my mind, it is valid to mention this issue in the Australian republic referendum, 1999 article. As pointed out below (in AfD), the description of the GG has head of state was made by the journalist, not by Cowen. Cowen's considered view is that the Queen is head of state, expressed in the 2015 journal article by Donald Markwell, as documented here under "Scholarly Sources". This has been an ongoing issue with the article: tendentious editing and cherry-picking sources. Previously, Pete was continuously citing George Winterton to support his views. However, when I checked, I found that Winterton was clearly of the view that the Queen is head of state. Similarly, as documented in the archives, when I checked the citations of Malcolm Turnbull, Owen Hughes, and Colin Howard against the sources, I found that they were being selectively quoted to bolster the argument that the GG was head of state. Much of this article has been constructed by trawling through sources to find instances which support, or seem to support, this fringe theory, and ignoring the abundance of legal scholars and other reliable, authoritative sources which say the opposite. As pointed out several times, a lot of these instances are cases of sloppy phrasing, slips of the tongue, inconsistencies, or comments that in context are not very relevant to this issue. The only sustained arguments to support this issue have been put by David Smith and David Flint of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. They have been rejected by leading monarchist and former High Court judge, Michael Kirby, and by the Monarchist League.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hardly. The republic debate of the 1990s stemmed from Paul Keating's speech in Parliament on 7 June 1995. He made much use of the phrase "Australia’s Head of State should be an Australian". Then Opposition Leader John Howard made a speech in reply the following night when in relation to the matter of head of state, he described the careers of four Australian Governors-General. Sir David Smith's speech in the Senate Occasional Lecture series was given in November 1995, where he responded to Keating's speech and pointed out the errors in Keating's argument, by highlighting the Governor-General's head of state role. Keating gained some notoriety by claiming that the Australian Constitution was drafted in and imposed on Australia by the British Foreign Office, so his constitutional knowledge was worthy of correction from time to time. Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the "Yes" campaign in the subsequent referendum was centred around the slogan of "A Mate for Head of State", and the official Yes case contained sentences such as "As it stands today, no Australian, no matter how talented they are or how hard they work will ever be Australia’s Head of State." and "Becoming a Republic simply means having an Australian as Head of State instead of the Queen. It’s time to have our own Head of State."
- Far from being a fringe distraction, the identity of the head of state was a central issue of the campaign!
- Re "cherry-picking". Jack, I am sorry if you confuse Professor George Winterton's views on the executive power with his views on the Queen. Both are pertinent. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the Zelman Cowen interview mentioned, in which the journalist quoted him, saying, "Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state." The tone of the interview is overwhelmingly positive, if not fawning. It is beyond belief that the interviewer, knowing that not only Cowen but many of his friends and relatives would read the story, would deliberately and grossly misquote her highly-regarded subject. What possible advantage could be gained, compared to the downside of a devastating impact on one's journalistic career? --Pete (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed Travelmite, eventually this article will be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pete, your paragraph about Keating etc, just confirms my point. This issue arose in the lead-up to 1999 referendum. Thanks for documenting that. 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 should be included in referendum article because as you said it 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.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This article was originally part of another one, but was seen as a distraction from that. You want to reverse the process, perhaps?
- Pete, your paragraph about Keating etc, just confirms my point. This issue arose in the lead-up to 1999 referendum. Thanks for documenting that. 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 should be included in referendum article because as you said it 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.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- So you see this dispute as an important part of the defeat of the republic referendum. Well, that's okay then. --Pete (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think Kirby summed it up well in the extract I quoted. 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. As you demonstrated, 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). The problem with this page is that it generalises from that argument, and amalgmates it with instances where people have simply mistakenly said the GG is head of state.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
AfD?
I suspect an AfD wouldn't succeed, but having that debate seems to be a logical conclusion to many debates on this page. There doesn't seem any point in continuing endless arguments that draw into question the entire basis of this article. If it was deleted, any relevant, well-sourced opinions on the issue could be merged to articles about the republic referendum, the governor-general, or the monarchy of Australia. I'm prepared to start one, but what do other people think?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- As remarked above, "the point of this article" (per Pete (23:22, 24 January 2011)) is to document the fact that there is a disagreement in whom Australians see as head of state". Is the editing consistent with that? Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's a fringe theory, and this article puts the case for that theory. The evidence is alleged inconsistencies, plus reinterpreting the many powers given to the GG. David Smith assembles the theory in his book, and it became a minor-talking point for some monarchists during the 1998 republic debate. Outside that context, nobody took up the theory, and the government clarified it's position after the referendum was lost. It also fails to meet notability guidelines, as it was at best of short-term interest, a insignificant angle in one political event. Based on the history, Skyring will continue to advocate Smith's position indefinitely, long after we are frustrated to tears by it. Travelmite (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do not advocate Smith's position. Indeed, I disagree with many of his opinions. He is a staunch monarchist, after all, and I think it is high time we removed the monarch from our affairs. Nor am I of the opinion that the Governor-General is the head of state. What is clear is that Smith's view that the Governor-General is the head of state is one shared by many prominent Australians, and that there is thereby a diversity of opinion within the community. If major national and metropolitan news outlets such as the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian routinely describe the Governor-General as head of state (and also routinely describe the Queen likewise) then the dispute is hardly "fringe theory". It is mainstream. It is notable. --Pete (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, you cannot take the odd off-the-cuff phrase and contort that into an opinion or government policy - especially when if later asked about it they clarified back to the usual position. Only Smith says outright that GG is HoS. If you're not advocating Smith's position, then this article is original research. Travelmite (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. You seem not to have understood the article or read many of the sources, and your concluding statement is just plain bizarre. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, you cannot take the odd off-the-cuff phrase and contort that into an opinion or government policy - especially when if later asked about it they clarified back to the usual position. Only Smith says outright that GG is HoS. If you're not advocating Smith's position, then this article is original research. Travelmite (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do not advocate Smith's position. Indeed, I disagree with many of his opinions. He is a staunch monarchist, after all, and I think it is high time we removed the monarch from our affairs. Nor am I of the opinion that the Governor-General is the head of state. What is clear is that Smith's view that the Governor-General is the head of state is one shared by many prominent Australians, and that there is thereby a diversity of opinion within the community. If major national and metropolitan news outlets such as the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian routinely describe the Governor-General as head of state (and also routinely describe the Queen likewise) then the dispute is hardly "fringe theory". It is mainstream. It is notable. --Pete (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's a fringe theory, and this article puts the case for that theory. The evidence is alleged inconsistencies, plus reinterpreting the many powers given to the GG. David Smith assembles the theory in his book, and it became a minor-talking point for some monarchists during the 1998 republic debate. Outside that context, nobody took up the theory, and the government clarified it's position after the referendum was lost. It also fails to meet notability guidelines, as it was at best of short-term interest, a insignificant angle in one political event. Based on the history, Skyring will continue to advocate Smith's position indefinitely, long after we are frustrated to tears by it. Travelmite (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been opposed to the existance of this article, ever since it was created. So, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, that I would support this article's deletion. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your participation in previous efforts along those lines noted. I refer you to the information boxes heading this talk page. Based on the level of interest amongst the community of editors interested in Australian politics, I think is an AfD is unlikely to succeed, and that we'd be wasting time better spent on other endeavours. --Pete (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's best we allow others to decide, if they wish to hold an AfD or not. As I mentioned earlier, the fate of the article isn't up to me. It's up to the entire Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I must point out that above, Skyring presents GG Zelman Cowen talking of "his five years as Australia’s head of state" , but I've discovered it was a journalist who wrote that in a biographical piece. He presented it to us as the "Governor-General's view" yet within that article, Cowen is never even quoted saying "Head of State". Check for yourself. Upgrading a minor journalist's wordage to a governor-general's view is an unacceptable misrepresentation of source material. Another source error is "72. Canberra Times Editorial 1977" which actually points to a David Smith online article. How many other sources misrepresent in this fashion? Travelmite (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are wandering from the point at hand, but let me respond, please. The quote is: Asked about his personal highlight from the past 90 years, Sir Zelman told The AJN it was undoubtedly his five years as Australia’s head of state. I think we may safely assume that when a journalist says "Z told Y A" or "Z said B", he is reporting the statements of Z, not Y or any other person. Link 72 does indeed point to a paper by David Smith, but the reference is to the Canberra Times editorial of 8 December 1977, as per footnote 5 in that speech. Would you feel happier if we just used a newspaper cite to the print edition? I am sure that the paper in question is stored on microfiche in the National Library and may be checked as per any other print source. The benefit of pointing to the paper is that several quotes are gathered in one place from various media outlets. --Pete (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I must point out that above, Skyring presents GG Zelman Cowen talking of "his five years as Australia’s head of state" , but I've discovered it was a journalist who wrote that in a biographical piece. He presented it to us as the "Governor-General's view" yet within that article, Cowen is never even quoted saying "Head of State". Check for yourself. Upgrading a minor journalist's wordage to a governor-general's view is an unacceptable misrepresentation of source material. Another source error is "72. Canberra Times Editorial 1977" which actually points to a David Smith online article. How many other sources misrepresent in this fashion? Travelmite (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's best we allow others to decide, if they wish to hold an AfD or not. As I mentioned earlier, the fate of the article isn't up to me. It's up to the entire Wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. This answer can be used as argument for proceeding with a deletion Travelmite (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, I am for deleting the article, but not all the reasons have been explored. Not sure yet what parts could be salvaged. Travelmite (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would let the version now current (13:06, 13 February) stand, while open to further improvement in the ususal way Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you folks, as to whether or not the article remains or gets deleted. Furthermore, it's (I assume) up to you all 'collectively', as to what gets put in or taken out of the article. As long as no single editor has the final say, on any of these concerns? then that's cool :) GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- We work together, and as we see in this great enterprise, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Discussion has a way of uncovering the truth, if approached with good will and an open mind. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Be sure that none of you fall into WP:OWN territory. Such a pitfall can happen to those with the best of intentions. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation bias
This article has been stable for some years, despite a great deal of attention from various editors, some of whom might be regarded (by others, of course) as having fairly strong opinions. The subject and the sources were discussed at length, compromises were reached and while nobody got exactly what they wanted, wikiproces was followed and the article emerged as a useful resource of an interesting aspect of Australian political culture.
What I'm seeing over the past few days is a lot of talking, but not a great deal of communication, it seems. I'm putting this down to the phenomenon of confirmation bias, where a person is inclined to see evidence favouring their opinion in a favourable light and evidence opposing it in a negative fashion. This is manifest by descriptions of sources supporting one of the two views here as being "cases of sloppy phrasing, slips of the tongue, inconsistencies, or comments that in context are not very relevant to this issue". Of course the same person characterises sources supporting his own views as being definitive, irrefutable, unquestionable.
This is blinkered thinking. If a person makes a statement in a reliable source, it should be accepted as being accurate, unless there is some good reason to doubt it. Not liking what the person has to say is not a good reason.
The simple fact of the matter is that Australian law does not define the identity of the head of state. It is therefore a matter of opinion, and one may have solid reasons for believing the Queen is the head of state, and another might have equally good reasons for believing that the Governor-General is the head of state. The Parliamentary Library Research note referred to earlier puts the position in an even-handed fashion, and nothing much has changed in the twenty odd years since then.
If a public figure expresses an opinion, who are we to say that they are wrong? If there is no definitive answer, and trust me, the years of discussion over this issue here and in other articles would surely have uncovered a definitive source, then it is folly to say that one view or the other must be correct. It is like arguing over the best icecream flavour (Cherry Garcia, by the way). Personal opinions of editors have no part in a good encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since you raise the issue of bias, looking through the archive history, I noticed that you made a comment about having duties at the GG's House in Canberra. You specifically said "I've been out there a few times as part of my official duties" on 03:13, 22 January 2011 . When asked about those duties, it seems you overlooked the question. As you have raised the issue of bias, perhaps it is appropriate that you could you answer that question: what were your duties and for whom did you undertake them? Travelmite (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad you asked!My duties involved transport, and I performed them for the local taxi company. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)- Thanks for clearing that up. That's certainly not a problem. I have one question, which I am sure you can clear up just as easily, but I want to check first that I am asking as politely and respectfully as possible before I ask it, and I need to go out now. Travelmite (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is a legal question, and I think an article on the topic is a law journal is a more reliable source for Zelman Cowen's views than a profile in the Australian Jewish News. I think taking the contrary view is bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This article isn't about making a judgement. It is about providing information on the dispute. The fact that an ex-Governor-General referred to himself as having been head of state is not any definitive judgement on the question. It is evidence that there is a question and that various answers have been given. Some editors would probably like to turn the Religion article into one where a winner is proclaimed: theirs. I suggest editors treat all reliable sources as such, rather than attempt to bias the article to one side or another. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is a legal question, and I think an article on the topic is a law journal is a more reliable source for Zelman Cowen's views than a profile in the Australian Jewish News. I think taking the contrary view is bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite put my finger on it. But, over the years, I've found (through observation) that every time an edit was introduced to this article (by anyone), which directly or indirectly pointed towards the monarch being head of state? that edit would meet resistance. Now, am I paranoid? or is this situation constantly re-occurring on this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- As we can see, about half the article is people saying the Queen is head of state. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm seeing growing frustration from a few editors here, concerning this article's direction and purpose.GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
AfD continued and ArbCom
A summary of the AfD is that Jack Upland, GoodDay and myself support it being proposed for deletion. Pete and Qexigator support continuing the article, with Qex making some improvements in recent days. Arguments for it's retention are that:
- the term Head of State is continues to be used variously across media
- a dispute must exist because, there are alternative cases written
- written law does hold a definitive answer
- there is useful information and references in the article
- people have personal opinions/bias
- it has existed for a while
Arguments for it's removal (sofar) include:
- low notability
- the government has a clear position on this issue
- in most cases, it seems to be some confusion rather than dispute
- it's an extension of one author's POV - David Smith
- elements of original research
- incorrect use of source material
- the article is linked and summarised in other articles in a misleading fashion
- it's a fringe theory Travelmite (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems that there are Misplaced Pages Arbitration Rulings from 2005 which specifically deal with Skyring and his Head of State "dispute". If I understand correctly, after months and months of discussion, the Arbitration committee made unanimous decisions about how to proceed. This article is Misplaced Pages:Content_forking as Skyring began "the article with text lifted from Government of Australia" and in apparent violation of those rulings. I can't find anything to suggest that those lengthy deliberations on consensus are not still valid. I hope Skyring can explain. Also, I want to get some help on this. Travelmite (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: As said above, I would let the version current at 13:06, 13 February stand, while looking forward to further acceptable edits by others such as Travelmite and Jack Upland. Please do not suppose that I concur with points listed 1 to 6 as arguments for retention. I do not see points 1 to 8 as arguments for removal, unless supported by explicit, good and sufficient reasoning. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK and thanks. You are right that would need to be done. But am looking at the arbitration ruling. Not only has that work been extensively done, the ruling they made sets a precedent for us to follow. Travelmite (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Travelmite, are you in a position to explain how you see forking this article off from Government of Australia in 2011 violates a one year ArbCom ban imposed in 2005?
- I urge all editors here to contemplate my dismal behaviour over a decade ago - which I heartily regret - and regard it as an example of how not to proceed now. I especially raise the issue of wikistalking, and WP:OUTING, Travelmite. --Pete (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW - Your RL identity hasn't been revealed, therefore there's no case for outing. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno. His interest in my employment in the section above is a concern. His extensive trawling through my contributions likewise. I feel uncomfortable with a stranger sniffing through my dirty laundry of ten years ago, looking for dirt. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- My own Arbcom past, has been brought up 3 or 4 times in the last 12 months alone. You, myself & other such editors, will always face more scrutiny then others. It's a burden we must carry. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno. His interest in my employment in the section above is a concern. His extensive trawling through my contributions likewise. I feel uncomfortable with a stranger sniffing through my dirty laundry of ten years ago, looking for dirt. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW - Your RL identity hasn't been revealed, therefore there's no case for outing. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I urge all editors here to contemplate my dismal behaviour over a decade ago - which I heartily regret - and regard it as an example of how not to proceed now. I especially raise the issue of wikistalking, and WP:OUTING, Travelmite. --Pete (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please see the comment about an Arbitration Ruling above. Firstly, can we get an independent person to check the ruling and what it means? If it is applicable, then how do we proceed OR do I just pass it to an admin? Within that ruling it seems to agree with "Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General" Travelmite (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Travelmite. The ruling was in 2005. A one year ban was imposed, so commencing this article in 2011 is no breach. Adam Carr (who is no longer with us, alas) does not make decisions on who is a head of state. That is worked out at a higher level than Misplaced Pages. --Pete (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- At this stage, I'd rather get independent advice. Travelmite (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see much of a relevance of the ArbCom ruling (which does not reflect on content anyway) to this article, except to caution all editors that we should stick to what reliable sources report. Huon (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Travelmite's summary of pros and cons seems useful to me. I don't see the point of regurgitating arguments over and over. Most of those points have been made at great length, in great detail. If the cons are not arguments for deletion, they at least represent long-standing problems with the article that have been amply demonstrated. I would suggest that most of these problems are inherent in the article, and can't be eradicated by editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Huon for looking into this and I'll explain the relevance. I am asking about the ArbCom ruling where it is reflecting on content, noting the 2.1 Preliminary Decision was about "persistent original research injection". It has a major section called "4. Final Decision" which has 4 Parts: Principles, Findings of Fact, Remedies and Enforcement. Remedies and Enforcement is past. Specifically, I am asking about "4.2 Findings of Fact", and the notion of a consensus. Within "Finding of Fact", there is section 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.9 on the excessive extent of debate, and section 4.2.2.7 which says "Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General. Passed 6-0." This "finding of fact" is disputed by this article, and it has been removed from the original article on Government of Australia. Furthermore, there is a guideline called Misplaced Pages:Content_forking, specifically a POV fork, which seems to say an editor should not create a new article due to a consensus elsewhere that the subject is a POV. The consensus prior to the ArbCom ruling is on the talk page . I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it; or at least to avoid a lengthy repeat of a dispute, which appears to have been decided to some extent. Perhaps I need to ask the people who arbitrated too. Travelmite (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have asked 3 previous arbitrators to comment. Perhaps those of us involved should step back a few days. For the record, everyone has been civil here, so that's not an issue. Travelmite (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, this article disputes the finding of fact on Adam Carr's position? Somehow I doubt that the article discusses what Adam Carr thinks on the head of state. ArbCom did not decide that Adam Carr was right, and it does not adjudicate content disputes. Huon (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have asked 3 previous arbitrators to comment. Perhaps those of us involved should step back a few days. For the record, everyone has been civil here, so that's not an issue. Travelmite (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Huon for looking into this and I'll explain the relevance. I am asking about the ArbCom ruling where it is reflecting on content, noting the 2.1 Preliminary Decision was about "persistent original research injection". It has a major section called "4. Final Decision" which has 4 Parts: Principles, Findings of Fact, Remedies and Enforcement. Remedies and Enforcement is past. Specifically, I am asking about "4.2 Findings of Fact", and the notion of a consensus. Within "Finding of Fact", there is section 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.9 on the excessive extent of debate, and section 4.2.2.7 which says "Adam Carr's position is that the Queen (of Australia) is head of state, despite most duties and power having been delegated to the Governor-General. Passed 6-0." This "finding of fact" is disputed by this article, and it has been removed from the original article on Government of Australia. Furthermore, there is a guideline called Misplaced Pages:Content_forking, specifically a POV fork, which seems to say an editor should not create a new article due to a consensus elsewhere that the subject is a POV. The consensus prior to the ArbCom ruling is on the talk page . I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it; or at least to avoid a lengthy repeat of a dispute, which appears to have been decided to some extent. Perhaps I need to ask the people who arbitrated too. Travelmite (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am asking for help to understanding an ArbCom decision. Your answer begins with a question, as concludes as though I am presenting a theory, which you are being asked to make a decision about. The help I am asking for says "I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it" At this point, you're saying the "Finding of fact" section has no meaning, because Adam Carr is mentioned, as if saying US Roe vs Wade case affected only Roe. If you are not sure, that's okay. Travelmite (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The ArbCom decision describes both Adam Carr's and Skyring's (see 4.2.2.5) positions in the content dispute. It does not endorse either. As I said, ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes, and you cannot conclude from an ArbCom decision which side in a content dispute is right or wrong. Huon (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Your answer focuses on what you think I am concluding, and that is a trial-and-error method of working out what happened. I agree that it describes all positions, but only Skyring had restrictions, with four distinct reasons given: 1) general ban on governance articles - 12 months 2) bad faith - 2 months 3) personal attacks - 1 months 6) uncivil - warning. All your saying that Arbcom banned Skyring from editing governance articles, had nothing to do with his position and desire of other editors to reach and implement a consensus. Why would AbCom restrict someone for their equally-valid understanding of an subject? How is that just? Please try to avoid saying what it's not. Try to say what it is. Travelmite (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The ArbCom decision describes both Adam Carr's and Skyring's (see 4.2.2.5) positions in the content dispute. It does not endorse either. As I said, ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes, and you cannot conclude from an ArbCom decision which side in a content dispute is right or wrong. Huon (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am asking for help to understanding an ArbCom decision. Your answer begins with a question, as concludes as though I am presenting a theory, which you are being asked to make a decision about. The help I am asking for says "I am not asking for a summary decision, but to understand the meaning and currency of it" At this point, you're saying the "Finding of fact" section has no meaning, because Adam Carr is mentioned, as if saying US Roe vs Wade case affected only Roe. If you are not sure, that's okay. Travelmite (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've asked at Village Pump an open ended question, which concerns this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support what you are doing. There must be some civil way of avoiding a repeating cycle of attacks and bans. That would be madness. Travelmite (talk) 15:12, 15 February 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)
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
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
- maybe, Monarchy of Australia, by adding a summary version of a lesser part of AHOSD
- 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 ?
Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 15 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)
Categories:- 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