Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Overuse of primary sources

A quick reading, backed by a look at the reference list reveals an alarming reliance on primary sources, typically legal documents. I refer to WP:RS, which begins: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

It seems to me that a large percentage of this article is the opinions of Wikipedians interpreting primary sources and presenting their opinions as fact. They might be facts, but if they are then surely we can find some reliable secondary sources to draw upon? Otherwise we are relying on nothing more than some random Wikipedian interpreting constitutional documents.

I also not a number of "citation needed" notes, some dating back years.

My contention is that this article is largely synthesised by editors laying down things that they pull out of various documents, and then constructing an argument: joining dots that no third party has joined.

A lot of this article is based on reports about the doings of the British royals, for example, with no mention in the sources that they are the Australian royal family. If the sources don't talk about an Australian monarchy, then why the hell are we acting as if they are? We're just making stuff up, and that's not how Wikipedia works. Well, supposed to work. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article has been tagged "refimprove" since 2016, and the overuse of primary sources is part of that. And some of the citations are dubious. For example, the claim that "Australian constitutional law has provided since Federation in 1901 that the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch in Australia", is backed up by a reference to covering clause 2 of the Constitution, but clause 2 actually says, "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". Not very similar.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Reading further in WP:RS, one comes to WP:SCHOLARSHIP which begins: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." So primary sources are not wholly excluded; one just has to be careful with them as indicated.

WP:RS is a guideline, implementing the policy on verifiability, WP:V. That policy requires, as WP:RS says, "reliable, published sources", a condition that is well fulfilled by texts with force of law. But WP:RS as to primary sources has evidently been written without a thought for texts with force of law. What would happen if it were to be taken literally in Law articles appears in the essay WP:RSLAW, which seems to require, I think absurdly, that no text with force of law could appear in WP unless and until someone had published reliably upon it. It appears to me that there is a long-standing practice of citing texts with force of law in Law articles by way of implementing WP:V despite this oversight in WP:RS.

Within the space of that oversight is that to report a text with force of law will inevitably involve interpretation. Then I think one must endeavour to avoid an interpretation that is contentious or, if there be none, to report the dispute. That is, to conform to WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

In the example that you give, Jack, I believe that I stated uncontentiously the effect of covering clause 2. How it produces that effect, I think would take too long to explain in this article. I'll add a link to discussion of it, if there is any, in another article.

The idea that there is an "Australian royal family", P/S, is (to use an Australian expression) a furphy. There is a monarch of Australia and she has a family, but I don't think I've ever seen them referred to in that way. To refer to them in that way in WP would be distinctly OR. Wikiain (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: I can't find a discussion of covering clause 2 to link to (Constitution of Australia omits it), but have added "The effect of" to the ref. Wikiain (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's OK to cite the Constitution if you simply want to quote it, but it's not OK if you want to put forward an interpretation. We don't want barrack room lawyers inserting their own eccentric interpretations of the Constitution, legislation, or case law. If an interpretation is widely accepted, then it should be easy to find a secondary source. It is also hard for ordinary readers to verify facts when they are directed to sources that may be written in convoluted legalese and may be voluminous in length (like High Court judgments). There seems to be a pattern here, where Australian political articles, another example being the Prime Minister of Australia, are written as amateurish legal essays, relying on legal primary sources (if any), even though the topics are not purely legal. Regarding covering clause 2, I think it was simply explaining what happened when Queen Victoria died. My major problem with the statement that "Australian constitutional law has provided since Federation in 1901 that the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch in Australia" is, as explained before, is that it suggests that in 1901 the monarchy was transformed. I can't see that in the Constitution, I can't see that in covering clause 2, and I can't see that in any other source. I think this is a reason not to use interpretations of primary sources, because what appears uncontentious to one person is not uncontentious to others.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Jack, a legal text normally means what it or a similar text is authoritatively interpreted to mean. Sometimes the text will direct its own interpretation, as in the "Definitions" section of a modern statute. There are also Interpretation Acts, although they do not apply to a constitution. Otherwise, the reference is primarily to judicial interpretation. Judicial interpretation cannot be avoided, because it is authoritative; the text means what the highest judges have most recently said that it means. If there is no judicial interpretation because the text has never been litigated on or not in a high-ranking court, scholars will speculate what its judicial interpretation might be. This is all especially so with a constitution, whose text will often be in general terms that make sense only with extensive interpretation. Sometimes, indeed, a court may understand the framers to have intended that the judicial interpretation would change, perhaps with developing technology, as the High Court has done with "patents"—Constitution s 51(xviii). At other times, a court may divide fiercely over the very legitimacy of "progressive" interpretation—as the US Supreme Court has done. Occasionally, a text just doesn't have a judicially settled meaning—as with parts of Constitution s 44. This can easily happen in a common-law jurisdiction, where ordinary judicial practice is to decide an interpretation only as relevant to the case in hand, which might not involve a typical situation.

The expression "in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" is a good example. It is itself an interpretive provision. And it must itself be interpreted. What is "the United Kingdom" must be understood by reference to the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800. That isn't very difficult. But "in the sovereignty of" is antiquated language, whose meaning may have to be traced to old and even Tudor statutes. In those statutes, it refers to the reigning monarch. Another way to understand the phrase is that there is nothing else that it could refer to. It works out.

However, I agree that my expression "is also the monarch in Australia" might be read to suggest that a separate Australian monarchy was established in 1901, which it certainly was not—it has evolved since then. How about changing "has provided since Federation in 1901" to simply "provides"? Covering clause 2 doesn't actually say that, but I don't think anyone would disagree that this is actually its current effect.

I have a secondary source. Richard McGarvie states: "the Monarch of Australia ... is whoever is Monarch of the United Kingdom"—Democracy (1999), p 23. But I'm not keen to cite McGarvie here because, although that statement itself is uncontentious (nobody doubts that, as things stand, Australia will have a King Charles), he embeds it in a distinction between a "formal" head of state (the monarch) and an "operative" head of state (the G-G), which is very contentious. Wikiain (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this secondary source, Fenna at[1] helps to calrify? Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Or muddies? It may be a good approximation for introductory purposes in an undergraduate Politics course, but it ignores that the Gs and G-G are specified as the monarch's "representatives" and are appointed by the monarch. Wikiain (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable as being correct information not only for graduate students but also for anyone reading the article, and is sufficiently explained in the (now) linked articles and in the Head of state section. Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, its "comprising the British monarch" is wrong. QEII is HoS of Australia as monarch separately of Australia. Wikiain (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the article content, and the inline links, I see no problem. "Australia" = each of the states, formerly colonies, as well as the territory now comprised in the federated Commonwealth of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative head of state

I don't think this section belongs here. The issue is adequately covered by Alternative successions of the English and British crown.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeing it as extreme trivia, ironically inserted on Fifth of November, I have removed it. Qexigator (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not extreme trivia. The Alternative succession article doesn't mention Australia. This person is like minor celebrity, and major events in their life will be reported in the news. According to the Wikipedia article, the person also plays in their community, as also can be seen in this minor news [2], unlike the current monarch. Travelmite (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the other Monarchy of... articles have it? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That an Australian citizen could potentially be King of Australia is a unique happenstance. Travelmite (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the way the Commonwealth realms are set up, he could be potentially King of the United Kingdom, as well as King of Canada, King of New Zealand, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In agreement with Jack Upland, that this is covered at the Alternative successions of the English and British crown. This article should concentrate on what is, not what might've been. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Recommend moving the info to the Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun article. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that he lives in Australia is irrelevant to the question of succession.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

In view of comments on this page, reundone. The topic has had its own article Britain's Real Monarch from 2012, and is fully stated with line of descent in Alternative successions of the English and British crown#Descendants of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. Here, it is no better than trivia, or UNDUE. Qexigator (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite funny this called trivial, given what we usually must discuss. In the name of collegiality, I'll thank you for your opinion, and accept your decision to remove it :) Travelmite (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on terms

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

---

This article discusses the monarchy of Australia. Should this article use the term "monarch" or "head of state" to describe the monarch? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Responses

• Monarch (or "sovereign", "king", "queen", as appropriate.) These terms are unambiguous and undisputed. Australia is a monarchy, and there is no question about the identity of the monarch. However, there are differing views about the identity of the head of state. See Australian head of state dispute. The United Nations lists as head of state "His Excellency, Sir Peter Cosgrove, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia" in its list of heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers. (It also lists, though in brackets, Queen Elizabeth II). The entry for the United Kingdom lists the Queen alone. Clearly there is some high-level dispute about the term. In discussing the monarchy of Australia, using the term "monarch" or "sovereign" or (for a particular monarch) "King" or "Queen", is unambiguous and undisputed. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17#Who_is_Australia's_Head_of_state? answers this question fully and Australia has not altered it's constitutional arrangements since. Travelmite (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Both, as in current version[3]. As before stated (22:57, 2 March 2016, Who is Australia's Head of state? (Talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17), "the internal UN document is to guide the UN secretariat in protocal matters, and not determinative of the constitutional position of the monarch or any other person of a Commonwealth realm. As said by another commenter ... For the UN doc, the Queen is listed first, then GG underneath, fully consistent with all other commonwealth monarchies, including NZ where Queen is HoS in constitution." Qexigator (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• The Queen is Head of State. Also as per vote in 2005 [4]Travelmite (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• The Queen is Head of State. This was subject to a conclusive RfC in 2016, and well as voluminous debates. It should not be aired again. In this article, the Queen (and her predecessors) can be called Head of State as appropriate, and any other appropriate title.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The mere fact that there were "voluminous debates" tells us there is ongoing doubt. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

...or persistent and recurrring pov opposition to common sense and consensus, as also occurs with similar topics. Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that this issue has been discussed at length. There is no point in re-running the debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It' being reran because of Skrying's latest bold edits on the topic, which were contrary to the results of the 2016 rfc at WP:Politics & his refusal to abide by those results. The only other route, would've been having Skyring topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the case, even if you see it that way. My intention is to use the word monarch to describe the monarch in this "Monarchy of Australia" article. Because nobody disagrees that the Queen is the monarch - duh - but "head of state" is both unnecessary and disputed. If I wanted a wider application, I would have chosen a better venue, which even you would agree would be unlikely to succeed. This article needs a lot of work, and it would help if you would help find sources and stuff. I can't even see why you care. I understand that you consider the monarch to be head of state anyway, so more precise wording won't be a thrust in your side, now will it? --Pete (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your line is quite telling "I understand that you consider the monarch to be head of state anyway...", so apparently you don't? The problems is, you don't listen & refuse to listen. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I don't consider the Queen to be head of state. Nor do I consider the Governor-General to be head of state. The position is disputed and there are good arguments for both views. The term was not used when framing the Constitution, and we haven't had any law on the matter. What law we do have leans slightly to the Governor-General as HoS side, but is - obviously - hardly something that persuades the masses. I've been saying that I don't believe either is the undisputed head of state for many years, often in discussion with you, so if there's someone not listening, just take a look closer to home, friend. --Pete (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're attempting to merely down play or remove mention of Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state, despite many editors (with sources) telling you that she is head of state. A best your proposed edits are WP:Pointy & at worst WP:ADVOCATE based. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, see discussions at Commonwealth realm, United Kingdom & Deletion discussion at States headed by Elizabeth II for examples. All these discussion have a common thread in them. Downplay or remove mention of Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Queen is Head of State. I don't see the point in trying to overturn a previous RfC with such flimsical and questionable material. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about deciding who is head of state. It's about whether we use the term "monarch", which is unarguably correct, or the non-neutral "head of state", which has been disputed within the Australian community for many years, most notably during the republic referendum campaign. PM Rudd described the Governor-General as head of state when he sent her off to Africa, for example.[5] He later called the Queen the head of state, but the fact that there is confusion at high levels demonstrates the problem. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• A monarch is by definition the head of state. That's the entire point of the office of monarch. There is no need to use only one of these terms; the article can use terms like "the Queen," "monarch" or "head of state" interchangeably. And no, as long as Australia has a Queen she's the head of state, and the governor-general merely represents her. In that respect the office is somewhat similar to that of a vice president in a republic in which a president is head of state. --Tataral (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That might be your definition, but it should be obvious to you that many disagree, so that is a pretty pointless comment. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not "my" definition, it's the definition agreed upon by every single serious source, unlike the "alternative fact"-like preposterous idea that the monarch isn't the head of state. If a person isn't the head of state they aren't, by definition, a monarch either (although they might a non-ruling royal like Prince Edward, Duke of Kent). --Tataral (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Tataral, but what informs your thinking here? Eikipedia isn't a democracy, and informed opinions tend to have more impact. It's easily demonstrated that there is a dispute on the matter of head of state, and the intention of this RfC is to test whether we use the neutral and undisputably correct word "monarch" to describe the monarch, rather than the more loaded and disputed term "head of state". When you talk of "every single serious source", what sort of sources do you have? I've been looking into this topic for twenty years, and I can't find any definitive answer. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This idea that the monarch isn't the head of state being disputed is true in the same sense that climate change and evolution are disputed. They are disputed by some, and that can be documented, but they are not correct and they do not reflect reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? Unlike climate change and evolution, which can be shown by science to be true, the matter of who is the Australian head of state is a matter of opinion. If you have a definitive source, please present it. New Zealand, for example, defines the Queen as head of state in their Constitution, so there is no dispute there. Australia makes no similar statement. In Australian law, there is no such office or title as "head of state", and government sources have long highlighted and described the uncertainty. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. As explained by the article, Chapter I sets up the legislative branch of government, the Parliament of Australia, which consists of three constituent parts: The Sovereign (King or Queen).... There is no question that Australia is a monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the current Sovereign. The noun Sovereign means head of state. Head of state is merely another descriptive term for Sovereign (although the term Sovereign only tend to be used in monarchies). There is no requirement that the Constitution must use the exact phrase "head of state" for the Sovereign to be described as such by an encyclopedia. "Head of state" is a generic descriptive term used in political science. There is probably no country on earth that actually calls its head of state "head of state". Heads of state around the world hold very diverse offices and titles.

The key question here is: Does Elizabeth II bow or curtsy for the governor-general? That's what you are implying when claiming the governor-general is head of state (Sovereign) and not Elizabeth II. And the Constitution is very clear: No, she, not the governor-general, is the Sovereign. This whole discussion is based on fringe personal opinions and it's time to end this nonsense. Those who disagree with Elizabeth being Australia's head of state, also known as Sovereign, should use other venues for their activism. --Tataral (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the monarch is the monarch. But you haven't produced any definitive source. Just your own interpretation. Quoting the Constitution is a good start, but the word "sovereign" isn't found in it. Nor "head of state". As an aside, sovereignty is derived from the people in Australia, by virtue of s128. Nobody else, not even the monarch, may alter the Constitution, and the Constitution defines the fundamental powers of the state. The monarch may not add to, amend, or remove the constitutional powers of any constitutional office. Lacking any definitive source, it all comes down to opinion, and there is no question that opinion is divided. You personally may think the other side's position is a load of old rubbish, but the same situation applies for any similar question about football teams or icecream flavours or religious faiths. People hold differing opinions. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

People are entitled to hold "alternative" (WP:FRINGE) opinions, such as not believing in climate change or not believing Elizabeth II is the Sovereign, but that doesn't mean we should treat them as equally valid as the mainstream view. The idea that the Queen isn't head of state is not a recognised opinion, not even a minority opinion, among political scientists. Head of state is not an Australia-specific term or even a specific office, but merely a generic descriptive term in the English language (as used by English speakers around the world, the vast majority of whom aren't even Australians) used to describe the formally (in practice often ceremonially) highest-ranking office-holder of a country, namely monarchs in monarchies or typically presidents in republics. If the Queen isn't head of state, she has no role in the state at all, considering that she certainly isn't head of government. Arguing that Elizabeth isn't head of state of Australia is the same as arguing that she isn't the Queen and the same as arguing that she either ranks below her representative (the governor general), perhaps as the deputy of the governor-general, or that she is a private individual with no official role. It's a fringe opinion. The whole point and definition of the office of monarch is being head of state. Also, as a non-Australian I certainly know the name of Australia's head of state (Queen) and head of government (prime minister), but I don't know the name of a single governor-general and the office probably seems very obscure and insignificant to anyone not from Australia, being one of what used to be dozens of such representatives of the Queen around the world who clearly rank below her, not the other way round. --Tataral (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Monarch per neutrality, since which is head of state is disputed in reliable sources as I describe below. TFD (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Both terms Queens is the Monarch when not in the Country, and Head of State when in the country. Governor is Head of State when the queen isnt here or when travelling outside of Australia, if both the Queen and Governor were inCanada then the Governor would be Head of state for Australia, the Prime Minister is only recognised as head of government never head of state Gnangarra 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• "Teach the controversy", as they say. We should just say here's what official source X says, but non-official source Y says something different. This doesn't need to be some sort of proxy war between monarchists and republicans. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  We should not give both sides equal weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  We don't have to, to be accurate. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Both. HM Queen Elizabeth II, QoA, as monarch, is the head of state; and the article should reflect that. This position is clearly stated in official sources published by the Australian Government[6][7][8]. No contradictory official sources have been presented; and, consequently, those official sources are dispositive of the discussion. Viewpoints that the Governor General is the (unqualified) head of state are WP:FRINGE, and should not be given any weight. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Both — The Australian monarch is both the head of state and—well—the monarch of Australia. I'd like to note, though, that 'head of state' should be written in lowercase and not capitalised; it's not a proper noun. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Queen and head of state. It's factually correct. Listing both the queen and the PM as heads of state is misleading and we simply can't do it. What we can do is explain in the text and (if done concisely enough) in the infobox that .au also has a head of government, the PM. In short, do not lie to our readers to save space, to dumb-down the content, to push a political agenda, or for any other reason. This is not your blog. PS: We might have to mention the Governor General, too. Australia's national leadership stuff is even more complicated than that of Ireland (with both a PM and a President). — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Clarify please. Are you opposing having both 'monarch (i.e. sovereign)' & 'head of state' in the lead? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, just opposed to a) hiding that the queen is also the head of state, or b) mis-identifying the PM as the head of state. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 22:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The governor-general is not head of state, so we wouldn't have it in the intro as such. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Imho, they both should be in the article, as the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not without also mentioning the Australian head of state dispute. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a link to that article, which is fine. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that whilst I was crafting an RfC, you got one in a minute or so ahead. I think mine is better formatted, as I took the time to consult WP:RfC. But that's just my own opinion. :) --Pete (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

it's pretty much common sense and implied in the article. Don't see what the problem would be of mentioning it directly and leaving the link to the dispute article...... that is a very interesting read.--Moxy (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Both should be used as Elizabeth II is both the monarch & head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Both ....use head of state when implying government.--Moxy (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

But that's a disputed term. It's not as cut and dried as one might imagine. The UN certainly lists the Governor-General as Head of State.[9] --Pete (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

doesn't seem to be disputed.... just not quite understood...Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Today. Federation Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8.--Moxy (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: Head of state was in the article until today. It's been repeatedly deleted by Skyring who's chosen to ignore WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also an Rfc on this matter was held in 2016 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics (see Archive 17), which resulted (via arguments backed by sources) that Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we are having a new one, two years later, with new material and new inputs. You seem reluctant to acknowledge the current view of the United Nations on the subject. Can you reveal why? --Pete (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that 'one' new source trumps all other sources? You're putting the argument here (and at United Kingdom) in effect, that Elizabeth II is only the UK's head of state? but not any of the other 15 Commonwealth realms? That's a mighty big proposal for what would be many related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all! I'm merely saying that the matter is disputed. Clearly the United Nations has a different opinion to yours, and the question has been a matter of dispute and debate for decades. We are required to use a neutral point of view, not to choose one side of a dispute. That's pretty basic. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're not being neutral. You keep deleting head of state when it involves Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Because it's a disputed term. There's no dispute about using the term "monarch" or "sovereign", as has been the convention for many years here.

In this particular article, you already got a link to Australian head of state dispute (and article that you created, no less). GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the point. It's a real world dispute. WP:NPOV requires that we not take one side or another. Saying that the Queen is the monarch is terminology that is not in dispute. Saying in Wikivoice that she is the undisputed Australian head of state is against NPOV. Have you checked that UN source I listed? --Pete (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We two are not going to agree on your methods concerning this topic. Best to let others give their input. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

UN source has zero value here... what we are looking for is academic sources that go into detail about the situation. These are pretty hard to find outside the context of Australia internal literature.. That said we should mention that it has come up in the past. Not disputing that it's a minor point of contention but the UN source is useless .... let's do some searching for some real sources..--Moxy (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If the United Nations is unclear about the matter of the heads of state of the various commonwealth realms, then it is plainly a matter of real-world dispute. It seems that, like finding the one true god, this is a matter where there are various views. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The UN reference you posted say "(Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)"? Going to be honest with you after searching the past hour.... I'm surprised to see nothing but some editorials. You know of any academics that are writing about this....could you name some for us so we can switch them out.--Moxy (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Australian head of state dispute has a few references. Sir David Smith, private secretary to several Governors-General and more recently an academic at ANU wrote a book on the matter. In fact, it was Sir David speaking at one of the Senate Occasional Lecture series in 1994 which led to my interest in the subject. His conclusions seemed startling, but were backed up by excellent scholarship. His book is a treasure house of sources, prtesumably due to his privileged positions at Government House and ANU. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe you brought this up about David Smith, before, at the 2016 Rfc in WikiProject Politics. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• The UN document in no way contests the idea that the monarch is the head of state, which is why she is listed as such. It simply acknowledges the practical reality that the governor-general, the monarch's representative in Australia, carries out the day-to-day functions of the office on her behalf, which is the literal meaning of the term 'viceroy'. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The UN document explicitly names the Governors-General of the various Commonwealth realms as head of state. It doesn't give the opinion you provide, even as a footnote. If there was no dispute, they would give HM the same status as for the UK, surely? --Pete (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it puts the monarch's name first, but then goes on to note the practical reality, which is that the governors-general carry out the day-to-day duties of the 'head of state' on the monarch's behalf, which is relevant information in the context of the UN. It does not say anything about a dispute...nor would it. The UN does not comment on domestic constitutional disputes. The only purpose of this document is to inform UN representatives of who they should address letters to, and what titles/styles they should use when addressing members in the UN General Assembly, or for other official business. In such cases, one would, of course, be writing to the governor-general, not HM...because again, the governors-general are the ones who actually carry out the duties of the office, which is what a viceroy is. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the document, it puts the monarch's name in brackets, and names the Governor-General. It does not mention the matters you raise. You seem to be putting words in the mouth of the UN. I cannot speak for the other realms, but in Australia, the Governor-General appoints and receives ambassadors in his own right, not as a deputy, an agent, or a representative of HM. This has changed in recent years.[10] Formerly letters of credence were addressed to the Queen. This was the case in 2005, but changed shortly afterward, I recall. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered (from a NPV) that the UN (a foreign power/body) is simply wrong and trying to explain our system in an american way? Now that's looking at it from a NPV. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The document seems to deal with many different nations and their various arrangements in a practical manner. It is a product of the UN's protocol office, presumably intended to convey what sort of honours should be accorded for state visits, the correct names and titles and so on. I can't see why America should have an undue effect on wording or anything else. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the document lists the titles of the PM and MFA as 'His/Her Excellency' which is incorrect.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. That does seem odd. Looking at the document, it seems to list everybody who isn't royalty of some sort as His or Her Excellency. For example "His Excellency Mr. Donald J. Trump", which is not how I would describe him. I doubt that this an Americanism, or indeed technically incorrect. Perhaps "His Excellency" is a sort of general honorific? (ETA) As it happens, we have an article on this subject. See Excellency. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that you are making independent conclusions about the significance of events, which is something you cannot do on Wikipedia. You cite that diplomatic credentials are addressed to the governor-general, which is true, but then make the independent conclusion that this means that the governor-general is the head of state or that there is a dispute, which is a nonsense. The very website you used to support this conclusion says "Australia's Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that there are differing views. See Australian head of state dispute for more information. The dispute goes back decades. I find it fascinating that there is any question at all. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are 'differing' views...however, upon past examination of reliable sources, it was determined that the view that the monarch is the 'head of state' is the unquestionably dominant one, and that challenges to this view are notable for discussion in their own article, but not in any way equivalent in validity to the dominant view. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are being a tad misleading there. Nobody is saying in Wikivoice that the Governor-General is the head of state, and the point here is that describing the monarch as the monarch in an article titled "Monarchy of Australia" is sufficient. As an aside, just what is the article describing? The nation is the Commonwealth of Australia, not the Kingdom of Australia. If it's the doings of the various members of royalty in Australia, then they are rarely described as being members of an Australian royal family. HM has been occasionally called Queen of Australia in reliable sources, but I can't find any references to a preceding "King of Australia", and nobody talks about Australian princes and princesses. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The title 'Queen of Australia' was not formally introduced until 1973, so how could there have been a 'King of Australia'? Describing the monarch as the monarch is not sufficient...the purpose of this article is to define the role of the monarch in an Australian context, and to do that, it is necessary to establish her constitutional position as head of state. I really question your involvement in this topic area...you seem to have little or no background knowledge on the subject. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the discussion above about dates. Are you saying that there was no monarchy of Australia before 1973? --Pete (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm talking specifically about the title 'Queen of Australia', not about the monarchy. The title first came into being in secondary form in 1953, and was later elevated to primacy in the Australian context in 1973. Prior to the establishment of the title, Australia was ruled as a territory of the British Empire, even though it had had de facto independence from the time of the Balfour Declaration, and the resulting Statute of Westminster 1931. In other words, prior to the introduction of the 'Queen of Australia' title, she ruled Australia by virtue of her ruling the Britain, as Australia was subsidiary to Britain in terms of titles and style. The reason this was changed in 1953 was because it did not recognise the reality that Australia had been de facto independent from at least the time of the Balfour Declaration, if not before. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You say[11] that Australia, prior to Whitlam's introduction of the title "Queen of Australia" was ruled by the Queen as a territory of the British Empire? Really??? --Pete (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling you don't understand the Westminster model of government...I don't mean that she was an absolute monarch, or that she personally administered Australia. All I was saying is that, prior to the introduction of unique Australian and other Commonwealth titles, starting in 1953, the monarch's authority in what are now the Commonwealth realms derived from his/her position as monarch of Great Britain and Ireland (later Northern Ireland), rather than from independent titles in each country. The purpose of the change was to represent the de facto reality that the dominions had been self-ruling for years, and that the monarch's authority in those dominions was no longer derived from her position in Britain, but from those dominions themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I didn't think your claim that "… prior to the introduction of the 'Queen of Australia' title, she ruled Australia by virtue of her ruling the Britain …" was credible. I don't think that the monarch "rules" Australia or any other realm, so much as reigns. The position is symbolic and ceremonial, and the monarch at least in Australia has no independent power at all. Tne Queen could not, for example, dismiss an Australian Prime Minister or dissolve Parliament. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Sir David Smith, retired secretary to the Governor-General, republicans believe the Queen is head of state, while monarchists believe it is the governor-general.[12] He himself has argued that both are. I do not find it surprising that a term invented in the 1960a to provide equivalency between monarchs and presidents with no historical basis in English law should provide confusion when categorizing the unique nature of the roles of governor-general and monarch in the Commonwealth nations that have retained a non-resident monarchy. TFD (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

David Smith wrote in 2017 that "The governor-general is our head of state" [13] and he is the source of the dispute. Monarchist League of Australia say the Queen is Head of State using the following reasonable description: "Following appointment by the Queen, our sovereign head of state, the Governor-General, always an Australian, assumes that role as our effective head of state.", so no Smith doesn't represent monarchists. [14] Travelmite (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea that both are. That might even be able to be pinned down a little depending on the location of the monarch. For example, when in Australia, the monarch would be the "higher ranking" head of state. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Pushing for the deletion of Head of state from this article's intro, gives too much weight to the so called dispute & potentially smacks of censuring info. As for the WP:NPV complaint? we already got the Australian head of state dispute article linked in this article. I wonder if a footnote for the so-called HoS dispute were placed next to the term head of state, would that end the objections to its inclusion in the intro? GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed that it was pointed out that the Australian Constitution doesn't mention head of state in it. So what? The constitutions of many of the other commonwealth realms (including the UK & Canada) don't mention head of state either. If you go outside the realms, the United States's constitution doesn't mention head of state, as well. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

1. australia.gov.au, official website of the Australian government - How Government Works[15] Australia's formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state.
2. dfat.gov.au, official website of the Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade - Protocol Guidelines[16] - Australia's Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, executive power is exercised by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister is Head of Government.
3. legislation.gov.au, official website for Australian Register of Legislation - The Constitution: Overview (by the Attorney General's Department and Australian Gov't Solictor[17] - As well as being a federation, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Under this system of government, as the term suggests, the head of State of a country is a monarch whose functions are regulated by a constitution.

These would seem to reflect the "official" position. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Helpful resources

Websites

Here's a publication of the Australian Parliament which illuminates the context: Curiously ill-defined-the role of the head of state

And the United Nations list mentioned earlier: Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers for Foreign Affairs --Pete (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Education Office (https://www.peo.gov.au/teaching/parliamentary-lesson-plans/the-constitution-the-head-of-state.html) seems to disagree with you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is that there is a dispute over the matter. NPOV requires that we not choose one side or another. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV is. We take the side of mainstream, reliable sources. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight or equal validity to WP:FRINGE sources in some attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps you could explain how the sources I've provided - the United Nations and the Australian Parliament - are fringey? --Pete (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither source supports your conclusion. They're primary sources, and your interpretation of them is the definition of WP:OR. You need reliable secondary sources to do the interpretation for you, if you want to purport such a claim. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my conclusion is that there's a dispute. The Parliamentary source doesn't seem to be a primary source at all, but rather a product of the Parliamentary Research Office. It explicitly states the unclear nature of the head of state role. The UN source doesn't explicitly say who is or isn't head of state, but given that it names the Governor-General and puts the Queen in brackets - without noting anything about representatives or roles - I think it is safe to conclude that the UN doesn't see the matter quite so cut and dried as you do. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have no station to conclude anything at all. Find secondary sources. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Academic books

• Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Today. Federation Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8.

Saunders on that page (of an introductory textbook) refers to some “minor instances” (none of which come near to the monarchy) and concludes: “For the foreseeable future, more extensive use of international law in constitutional interpretation is likely to be inhibited by a combination of the content of the Constitution and the prevailing interpretive approach.” The prevailing interpretive approach, I can spell out, is that international law is not to be used to interpret the Constitution even in cases of ambiguity: Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) HCA; Blackshield and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th edn 2014), 885-896. Wikiain (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The leading textbook on Australian constitutional law, which is also in effect a treatise (and there is no current treatise as such), says: "The Queen, as represented in Australia by the Governor-General, is Australia's head of state.": Blackshield and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6th edn 2014), 2. Wikiain (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If so, then let that be cited in the article with page no. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a stack of academic sources for this point at the Australian head of state dispute article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

About that stack ...Peter John Boyce (2008). The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-86287-700-9.--Moxy (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blackshield and Williams is now cited in the article (with the page number I had given), I think providing balance to that para. Wikiain (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an excellent reference. My point is that the term is a matter of public debate and official uncertainty. If Prime Ministers can't be certain, then who can? --Pete (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You have raised the point since 2005. Intelligent, fair and patient contributors to multiple RfC have explained why that point is not relevant, and they were successful. They were bright, knowledgeable contributors who were very familiar with Australia politics and dedicated to the readers of this website. Travelmite (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

See also

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17#Who_is_Australia's_Head_of_state? for a conclusion about this. Travelmite (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, a related Rfc at Commonwealth realm & a related discussion at United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this is all getting a bit silly. The monarch is head of state. That monarch is QE2. She delegates her responsibilities to the GG, meaning he/she performs the duties of the monarch, making him/her in practice head of state, but technically not (the queen can sack him/her). The UN is in practice correct, but technically the UN is wrong (but the UN page does not pretend to be technically correct to the standard needed in a high court trial). I said on the UK page that when QE2 is in another realm she becomes head of state while she is there. that was not correct. She is always head of state wherever she is, and the GG's position does not change even if QE2 is in the country. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically speaking, QE2 is not the monarch. If the Queen delegates her responsibilities to the Governor-General, as you claim, perhaps you could point out the instrument of delegation? The Queen cannot, in point of fact, add or subtract or modify the Governor-General's powers in any way. They are given to the Governor-General by the Constitution, which may only be amended as per s128.[18] If you are aware of a way in which the Queen may unilaterally modify the powers of the Governor-General, I would be interested to hear it and to view a list of examples. --Pete (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

She, as monarch, has delegated her responsibilities by consenting to that act of parliament, ie the constitution. The GG serves at her pleasure, as noted in the constitution, copied below. The GG's powers are in the constitution, that the monarch has already consented to, but that is a different matter. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Section 2. So the instrument of assignment is the Constitution, which received Royal Assent in 1900. How do you imagine she might amend it? --Pete (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, I think you would find a consensus among Australian constitutional experts that the Constitution of Australia Act no longer derives authority from the UK Parliament or therefore from the Queen of the UK, but from adoption by the Australian people. The G-G is appointed and may be removed at HM's pleasure, but today that means as HM may be instructed by the PM of Australia, and likewise for any assignment of powers; but in any case HM cannot assign any powers that would conflict with the Constitution. Wikiain (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making. What I wrote concerns the queen of Australia. The queen of the UK has nothing to do with it, and certainly not the UK govt. The importance of the constitution is noted in the quotation, from the constitution itself, which confirms the monarch's supreme position. The queen acts on the PM's advice, yes, but she still acts, not the PM! If I have misinterpreted your post, please enlighten me. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The monarch doesn't have a supreme position. She cannot initiate any amendment of the Constitution. Just as in the UK, Parliament is sovereign, in Australia, it is the people who are the source of all power through their control over the fundamental document of the nation. In other words, powers do not derive from the Queen, except for those assigned by the Letters Patent, which are of minor importance regarding the appointment of administrators and deputies and so on. HM may, as provided by the Constitution, revoke these at her pleasure (though it is hard to imagine any circumstances in which the PM would advise her to do so). This point doesn't seem to be grasped by those who see the Queen as supreme, holding ultimate power, ruling Australia out of Buckingham Palace and so on. In reality, her role and powers are minor, and she comes first in any order of precedence by virtue of being head of the Commonwealth of Nations, the successor to the old Empire. --Pete (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In that part of the constitution, which is what we are talking about, her position is supreme. This has nothing to do with whether or not the monarch is below or above the constitution. We are talking about the appointment of the GG, and the process is clearly defined by the constitution, which places the monarch at the top of the steps to be taken, ie a supreme position. It is unfortunate that you keep referring back to the UK, which gives the impression that Australians are trying to grow up and to stand on their own two feet. Perhaps we should use the term monarchy rather than queen to remove any hint that we are talking about a real person. Better still would be to use the term 'monarch of Australia' to remove any assumption of a UK link. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Roger: To be clear, is it proposed to put monarch for Queen in the Head of State section like this: "The federal constitution provides that the Queen monarch is part of the Parliament and is empowered to appoint the Governor-General as her the monarch's representative, while the executive power of the Commonwealth which is vested in the Queen monarch is exercisable by the Governor-General as her the monarch's representative. The few functions which the Queen monarch does perform (such as appointing the Governor-General) are done on advice from the prime minister. " While current official sources use the description "head of state" for the Queen, in the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999, Sir David Smith proposed an alternative explanation, that Australia already has a head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen. While current official sources use the description "head of state" for the Queen, in the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999, Sir David Smith proposed an alternative explanation, that Australia already has a head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen." In my view that would be acceptable and resolve the point under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not it. I don't think there is any significant difference between the terms Queen, monarch, sovereign, or similar. My objection is to the lede, which currently reads, "The monarchy of Australia concerns the form of government in which a hereditary king or queen serves as the nation's sovereign and head of state."

Why, I ask, do we need the words "head of state"? There is no dispute about using the word sovereign - clearly the Queen is the sovereign, the monarch in the Australian monarchy - but community views are divided on who is head of state and reliable sources demonstrate this. It is not necessary, and it is contrary to NPOV. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the current discussion, I will go ahead with the above change from Queen to monarch in the Head of state section, which would be an improvement to that section. This neither requires retaining or removing "head of state" in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Done.[19] Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Are you not talking about s2: A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

How does anything but the most facile reading of those words make the monarch supreme? --Pete (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I like Quexigator's changes, which indeed do not affect the question of supremacy, and have added to the first note this explanation:

Section 2 refers to "the Queen" (at the time, Queen Victoria) and covering clause 2 requires that to be interpreted as referring eventually to whoever of her "heirs and successors" is "in the sovereignty", i.e. is the monarch, of the United Kingdom. Wikiain (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in past RfC discussions have found numerous sources to prove this, and all this confirmed repeatedly. I hope I can save Wikianin's time, by referring back to the past RfC. No need to rehash what has already been repeatedly demonstrated. Travelmite (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference to 2016 RfC was deleted from talk page

Please note that vital information by GoodDay as removed here: [20], specifically the reference to the previous 2016 RFC which is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17#Who_is_Australia's_Head_of_state?, and that RfC concluded with overwhelming support that "It is unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II". All editors advised to check the edit history, read the 2016 RfC and check all references. We need to note that this has been an ongoing source of friction for over a decade. See Archives 1 to 6 of Talk:Government_of_Australia/Archive_6#Vote_on_contents_of_Government_of_Australia

What is the correct response to the deletion of GoodDay's link to the RfC? Travelmite (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep @Travelmite:, looking at your 2005 link, it's been 13 years & counting, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Consistency among all the Commonwealth realms

I checked through all the Monarchy of... articles for each of the Commonwealth realms. Of the 16, six of them didn't have head of state in their intros & so today, I boldly added them. Now, I can't read people's minds, but my theory is that it was simply a detail that was overlooked for those aforementioned 'six' articles. Considering @Skyring:'s opposition to using 'head of state' in the intro of this article? I wouldn't object if he wished to expand this Rfc to include all 16 Monarchy of... articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's great contribution to Wikipedia, especially that we've had more than a decade of contributions from so many editors who have found a preponderance of sources showing that this is the right approach Travelmite (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible forum shopping & canvassing by Skyring/Pete

Skyring appears to be forum shopping on a number of article related to this Rfc, with a biased message of "..one term is undisputed, the other not so much.". GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

See the following

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
  

Note: that two of those articles, potentially would trend to toward 'deleting' head of state. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You have a hide! You've solicited input from articles with little or no Australian involvement. This RfC isn't about saying who is or isn't head of state. It's about whether to use the neutral and indisputably correct term monarch to refer to the monarch, or use a more controversial term. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The article does effect List of current heads of state and government & my message 'there' is neutral. The Rfc also effects Commonwealth realm & the discussion at United Kingdom, where again my message are 'neutral'. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a lot of Australian input there. How many with those on their watchlist would know about the very public debate on the head of state during the Australian republic referendum campaign? This is an article with a significant Australian theme, you must admit. Canvassing comments from those who don't know the topic isn't particularly useful if trying to build an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view. Again, this is about using the neutral and undisputed term "monarch" to describe the monarch. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing is leaving a biased message. My messages didn't describe either term as being undisputed or more disputed. Your messages did. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the point of the RfC, as expressed in the wording. You do understand how NPOV works, don't you? --Pete (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't. GoodDay (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Angry statements like "You have a hide!" and questioning GoodDay's fidelity are no defense. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

List of Monarchs timeline

Firstly, I am aware of the discussion above, but haven't read it all as, lets face it, I don't have a spare month to go through it haha & I've seen the changes on the article. I originally made the list of monarchs based on the 1901 date, I've since re done the list for the 1770 date.

No.	Portrait	Regnal name (Birth–Death) Royal dynasty	Reign over Australia		Full name	Consort
1		George III (1738–1820) House of Hanover	29 April 1770	29 January 1820	George William Frederick	Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
			Governors of New South Wales: Arthur Phillip, John Hunter, Philip King, William Bligh, Lachlan Macquarie
2		George IV (1762–1830) House of Hanover	29 January 1820	26 June 1830	George Augustus Frederick	Caroline of Brunswick
			Governors of New South Wales: Sir Thomas Brisbane, Sir Ralph Darling
3		William IV (1765–1837) House of Hanover	26 June 1830	20 June 1837	William Henry	Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
			Governor of New South Wales: Sir Richard Bourke Governor of Western Australia:Sir James Stirling Governor of South Australia:Sir John Hindmarsh
4		Victoria (1819–1901) House of Hanover	20 June 1837	22 January 1901	Alexandrina Victoria	Albert, Prince Consort
			Governors of New South Wales: Sir George Gipps, Sir Charles FitzRoy, Sir William Denison, Sir John Young, Somerset Lowry-Corry, 4th Earl Belmore, Sir Hercules Robinson, Lord Augustus Loftus, Charles Wynn-Carington, 3rd Baron Carrington, Victor Child Villiers, 7th Earl of Jersey, Sir Robert Duff, Henry Brand, 2nd Viscount Hampden, William Lygon, 7th Earl Beauchamp Governors of Western Australia:Sir James Stirling, John Hutt, Sir Andrew Clarke, Charles Fitzgerald, Sir Arthur Kennedy , John Hampton, Sir Benjamin Pine, Sir Frederick Weld, Sir William Robinson, Sir Harry Ord, Sir Frederick Broome, Sir Gerard Smith Governors of South Australia:George Gawler, Sir George Grey, Frederick Robe, Sir Henry Young, Sir Richard MacDonnell, Sir Dominick Daly, Sir James Fergusson, Sir Anthony Musgrave, Sir William Jervois, Sir William Robinson, Algernon Keith-Falconer, 9th Earl of Kintore, Sir Thomas Buxton, Hallam Tennyson, 2nd Baron Tennyson Governors of Victoria:Sir Charles Hotham, Sir Henry Barkly, Sir Charles Darling, John Manners-Sutton, 3rd Viscount Canterbury, Sir Sir George Bowen, George Phipps, 2nd Marquess of Normanby, Sir Henry Loch, John Hope, 7th Earl of Hopetoun, Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey Governors of Tasmania:Sir Henry Young, Sir Thomas Browne, Sir Charles Du Cane, Sir Frederick Weld, Sir John Lefroy, Sir George Strahan, Sir Robert Hamilton, Jenico Preston, 14th Viscount Gormanston Governors of Queensland:Sir George Bowen, Samuel Blackall, George Phipps, 2nd Marquess of Normanby, Sir William Cairns, Sir Arthur Kennedy, Sir Anthony Musgrave, Sir Henry Norman, Charles Cochrane-Baillie, 2nd Baron Lamington Governor-general: John Hope, 7th Earl of Hopetoun Prime minister: Edmund Barton
5		Edward VII (1841–1910) House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha	22 January 1901	6 May 1910	Albert Edward	Alexandra of Denmark
			Governors-general: John Hope, 7th Earl of Hopetoun, Hallam Tennyson, 2nd Baron Tennyson, Henry Northcote, 1st Baron Northcote, William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley Prime ministers: Sir Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid, Alfred Deakin, Andrew Fisher, Alfred Deakin
6		George V (1865–1936) House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until 1917 House of Windsor after 1917	6 May 1910	20 January 1936	George Frederick Ernest Albert	Mary of Teck
			Governors-general: William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley, Thomas Denman, 3rd Baron Denman, Sir Ronald Ferguson, Henry Forster, 1st Baron Forster, John Baird, 1st Baron Stonehaven. Sir Isaac Isaacs Prime ministers: Andrew Fisher, Joseph Cook, Andrew Fisher, Billy Hughes, Stanley Bruce, James Scullin, Joseph Lyons
7	File:Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg	Edward VIII (1894–1972) House of Windsor	20 January 1936	11 December 1936	Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David	none
			Governors-general: Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs, Alexander Hore-Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie Prime ministers: Joseph Lyons
8		George VI (1895–1952) House of Windsor	11 December 1936	6 February 1952	Albert Frederick Arthur George	Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
			Governors-general: Alexander Hore-Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Sir William McKell Prime ministers: Joseph Lyons, Sir Earle Page, Robert Menzies, Arthur Fadden, John Curtin, Frank Forde, Ben Chifley, Sir Robert Menzies
9	File:Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait Herbert James Gunn.jpg	Elizabeth II (1926–) House of Windsor	6 February 1952	Incumbent	Elizabeth Alexandra Mary	Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
			Governors-general: Sir William McKell, Sir William Slim, William Morrison, 1st Viscount Dunrossil, William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle, Richard Casey, Baron Casey, Sir Paul Hasluck, Sir John Kerr, Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir Ninian Stephen, William Hayden, Sir William Deane, Peter Hollingworth, Michael Jeffery, Dame Quentin Bryce, Sir Peter Cosgrove Prime ministers: Sir Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton, William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison

Thoughts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I recommend creating an article called List of Australian monarchs & add your proposal as the basis for the new article - See List of Canadian monarchs article :) GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a very useful list. There's so much history in that. You can see why Adelaide has a street called King William. Because it's relatively short it can easily fit here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

King William Street, Adelaide was named by the Street Naming Committee on 23 May 1837 after King William IV, the then reigning monarch, who died within a month. Qexigator (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There's also one in Sydney. As well as a King Edward Avenue, 4 King Edward Streets, 2 King George Streets, 7 King Georges Roads, 3 Queen Victoria Streets and (the best known of such) the Queen Victoria Building, as well a Queen Elizabeth Drive. Not to mention the central thoroughfare George Street (named after George III because, I've heard a very young museum attendant explain, "he was so popular") or parallel streets named after dukes. Oh, and there's the State of Victoria (whose capital has a Queen Victoria Market) as well as her very own state Queensland. As to mortality, Victoria died three weeks after Federation. This is of course vital information!! Wikiain (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Still recommend this be deleted from this article & used to create a new article called List of Australian monarchs. Anyways, it's not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait Herbert James Gunn.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

refimprove template March 2016

A "refimprove" maintenance template was added on 16 March 2016; I propose that it be removed. The number of references has not changed much (from 71 to 74 "notes" and still 11 "references"), nor the size of fhe bibliography (from 2 to 3). However, the references appear to have improved in quality. I don't see any part of the article that is under-referenced significantly, if at all, in view of encyclopedic purposes. Kindly indicate here your support or otherwise regarding removal. If you oppose at present, maybe you could add what you believe is missing and then support. Wikiain (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

...and so it continues

Here we go all over again. Promoting the dispute & thus breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Turnbull instance is WP:UNDUE. The section provides an overall summary, any single instance is undue. And this... [21] is not a reliable source. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull calls the Governor-General the head of state

Looking at this contribution it represents an extremely significant moment. It is one thing for someone like Kevin Rudd to call the Governor-General the head of state - as he did when he sent Bryce off to Africa to lobby on his behalf - but nobody ever claimed he knew his constitution.

Malcolm Turnbull, on the other hand…

The Australian Government, the Australian people were represented by our head of state, by the Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrave, who is the highest office holder in our nation.

— Malcolm Turnbull, Macquarie News

There is no Australian law stating that the Queen is head of state. Not even the Constitution says so. It is not a position defined in any way, there is no method of selection or appointment, and it seems that it is open to random officials, representatives, and even those most directly concerned to offer their various opinions.

Th current position - as it has been for some years - is that the Queen does not claim to be the Australian head of state. The Governor-General and five out of the six State Governors make this claim for themselves on behalf of the Commonwealth and every State except Queensland.

While nobody disputes that there is a Queen of each polity, that doesn't mean that she is the head of state, especially if her representative in each case claims that they are, for example:

The Governor is the Head of State of Western Australia and represents the people of Western Australia…

— Kim Beazley, Role of the (WA) Governor

This is a significant recent development. Obviously we need better sourcing than ACM's Facebook page. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We heard this all before & yes the bit about you having heard a speech from Mr Smith, etc etc etc. We've had RFCs that all went against what you're advocating for. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: this is exactly related to the preceding discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 43#RFC: Are Australian state governors, heads of state? =

Arguments have been passionate on both sides. Those in favour have pointed to the fact that the article subjects describe themselves as such on government websites. Those against have noted that their self-descriptions are not secondarily sourced and inconsistent with Commonwealth practices and what other nations in the Commonwealth realm have done for sub-national entities. There has also been concerns raised against "yes" about this being a advocacy move for the Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement. Based on my reading of this discussion, I find there to be consensus against referring to Australian governors as heads of state for their respective states (no). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Government protocols are very clear [22]Moxy- 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason the Australian constitution does not say who is the head of state may be because it is a concept that arose in the 1960s and has no status in law. It is an attempt to draw equivalence between presidents in republics and monarchs in monarchies. The "commonwealth realms" present a problem because they are monarchies where the head of state role is carried out by a regent. The Queen anyway at least in the UK ia not the head of state, she is the state. TFD (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)\

And in Australia the various Governor bods are saying that they are the head of state. I've uncovered a better source than ACM for the Turnbull quote. The Guardian seems to be a well-regarded reliable source, at least for news reports. --Pete (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on that, see Moxy's link, mentioned above. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian is better than ACM's Facebook page. But that still doesn't address the dueness aspects. Many people have made statements referring to The Australian Head of State, in various contexts & capacities. Why should this one passing mention, the context of which is Turnbull making excuses for not attending a function, be explicitly included in this section when no other single instance is? - Ryk72 ^talk 05:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm. Good point. I thought you knew who Malcolm Turnbull was. Seriously though, what sources do we have to support the claim that the Queen is head of state? Aren't they all going to be of exactly the same nature as Turnbull's claim here? What do you see as definitive? --Pete (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well aware of who Malcolm Turnbull is. But who he is doesn't address the question of inclusion; which is not based on who, but is determined as described as WP:NPOV - WP:DUE & WP:BALASP. With reference to those policies, why should this one passing mention, in the context of MT making excuses for not attending a function, and which has very little prominence in reliable sources, be included? With respect to the question of sources which support the Queen as head of state, I refer editors to the multiple previous discussions & RfCs on this matter, all of which have firmly established that Wikipedia should describe the Australian monarch as the head of state. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

To explain it another way, "politician makes politically expedient, but contradictory, statements" is not particularly surprising. It is not an extremely significant moment, nor is it literally a game-changer. It's entirely mundane. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a game changer in that it's a massive turnaround for Malcolm Turnbull, the leading republican spokesman fpor so long, very likely precipitationg the claims by the Governors etc that they rather than the Queen is head of state. That's something very new. But you aren't addressing the point I make. What's different about the sources used in thius article for us to say that the Queen is the head of state. Aren't we just picking and choosing one or two here and there, the very thing you decry above? I think that NPOV comes into play here, where we give different views appropriate coverage according to sources and notability. --Pete (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Find reliable sources which describe it as a "massive turnaround" and it might be due inclusion at either Malcolm Turnbull or that "dispute" article; but probably not here. Without sources, it's a lot of WP:OR. As for the point, no I'm not addressing it. It's been made before, and addressed before, in multiple previous discussions & RfCs on this matter; all of which reached the same consensus. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Turnbulls's comments are not a massive turnaround in Australian affairs but certainly in his own personal views expressed in public. Perhaps rather like Cheryl Kernot changing parties: inconsequential in the grand scheme but something of immense importance to her and its effect on others - such as the Democrats. You may not want to address the issue of sourcing for the "Queen as head of state" view expressed here, but the exact same problems exist in the sources for this article, so it looks like a copout to me. Ultimately it seems to come down to a couple of legal books. What do the authors of these texts say about the change of position expressed by the Governor-General and State Governors? It is a recent change, so I presume they are silent. --Pete (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. I don't. And merely asserting so is not an argument. But I am pleased to agree that Turnbull's passing comment is inconsequential in the grand scheme; therefore (absent secondary sources describing it as consequential in the context of the Monarchy of Australia) can be left out of this article. You may not want to address the issue of sourcing for the "Queen as head of state" view expressed here.... I do not wish to again address the same arguments; they have already been addressed multiple times by multiple editors on multiple occasions - each time reaching a consensus against those arguments. A tendentious reading at each and every passing mention is not an opportunity to continually re-open that discussion. What do the authors ... say about the change of position expressed by the Governor-General and State Governors? What reliable sources verify that there has been a conscious "change of position"? None. It's a tendentious interpretation; at times a misrepresentation of the sources. And, in regard to state governors, was the subject of a recent RfC, which closed with a clear consensus. It is a recent change, so I presume they are silent. Well, we can wait then. - Ryk72 ^talk 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing more than your opinion, increasingly firmly expressed, I note. The Governor-General says he's the head of state, so just who the hell are you to say he's not? --Pete (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness the governor-general didn't declare himself King of Australia, or President of Earth. He can declare himself Kermit the Frog if he wants. Doesn't change a thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Governor-General says he's the head of state. Not without qualification, he doesn't. But again, this was discussed previously, and a consensus reached. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties."[23]Yeah, not much qualification though, is it? Hurley made the wording change to saying that he was the formal head of state for NSW when he was governor there, a change retained by his successor.[24] Similar wording appeared on the Governor-General's website when Hurley was bumped up to Yarralumla; Cosgrove didn't have it. Of course, one might make the argument that this is something the webmaster(s) came up with, but given that every other viceregal occupant in Australia - bar Queensland - has similar wording on their websites, and they have all lasted at least a couple of yers without the respective occupant noticing and demanding the wording be changed I think a reasonable person would say that this is now the accepted state of play at this level and that it has the approval of the respective governments, governors, Governor-General, and the Queen. If any one of those entities disagreed with the wording on these websites, then it's reasonable to accept that a rogue webmaster would not prevail in subsequnt discussion. But your position is that we can take a vote on the matter and our opinion counts for more than the real-world officials at the very highest levels of government, at least on Wikipedia. Is that an accurate portrayal of your view? --Pete (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This argument was made previously, it was discussed, and a consensus reached at the RfC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 43#RFC: Are Australian state governors, heads of state?; which closed less than 2 months ago. Is that an accurate portrayal of your view? No, it's a Strawman. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that "we can take a vote on the matter and our opinion counts for more than the real-world officials at the very highest levels of government, at least on Wikipedia." And just quietly, but that RfC was on a different topic and closed because it was supposedly boosting an organisation which turns out to be a figment of someone's imagination. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No. It's a Strawman. The argument based on the websites of the various state governors was made in that RfC; we must assume that it was considered by the closer. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm summarising your position as being that we Wikipedia editors can come to a consensus as to who is the head of state, whether it be Australia or New South Wales. Isn't that precisely what an RfC is? --Pete (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For the third, and hopefully last, time: No. That is not an accurate summary of a position that I hold; not even with the qualification "at least on Wikipedia". - Ryk72 ^talk 00:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Skyring, if you didn't like the way that RFC was run or closed or how any of the others were ran & closed, etc etc? Then bring it up WP:AN or ANI & report every editor who argued that the Australian monarch is the head of state. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not particularly recent. Not particularly significant; in so far as, per WP:DUE & WP:BALASP, we measure significance by prominence in reliable sources. Even if there were coverage in reliable sources, inclusion of a single instance or incident in a summary section is undue, and the conclusion implied by inclusion is synthetic. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering, Moxy, who or what is The Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement you mention above? A figment of someone's imagination? --Pete (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

An RfC on the same issue. Peter Ormond 💬 07:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

An off the cuff remark is not significant. If Turnbull wrote an essay contradicting his earlier position, that could feature in the Dispute article. As other people have said, this has been discussed ad nauseum. Sydney doesn't become the capital of Australia just because a number of people say that it is. A peanut is not a nut. A koala is not bear. No matter how many comments you can cite that say otherwise, we go with authoritative sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well okay, Just what are our authoritave sources for saying the Queen is the head of state here? It seems that it comes down to a couple of law books both published before the recent changes. Does a professor really have the power to determine who a nation's head of state is, when the people actually doing the job hold a different view? --Pete (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the noteworthiness of Turnbull's statement must be established with secondary sources before it is included, just as it would be with any other expert. This is particularly true when someone is both an expert and a politician. TFD (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a drumbeat of increasingly significant people in Australian government saying the same thing. Prime Ministers, Governors, Governors-General. I agree that these are primary sources, but there is also an increasing tendency for news reports to say the same thing. We also have Sir David Smith's book on the subject - one that is superbly sourced - and my question is at what point does NPOV kick in? What criteria do we use? Surely it must depend upon sources? --Pete (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the real problem is what does "head of state" mean? If it means the highest ranking person mentioned in the constitution, then the Queen is head of state. If it means the person who carries out the same duties as a president in a republic, then the gg is head of state. Was Kamala Harris the U.S. head of state when she became acting president for six hours? Maybe the same person can use the term to mean different things depending on context. That's why we would need a reliable source to explain this. TFD (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So contradictory.... Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull told ABC TV on Tuesday that while few Australians support the monarchy, many – including himself – are fans of Queen Elizabeth. “She’s been an extraordinary head of state', and I think, frankly, in Australia, there are more Elizabethans than there are monarchists,” Turnbull said.-Moxy- 13:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the same person can use the term to mean different things depending on context. When we apply a concept used to compare sovereign states with kings and presidents to former colonies that for some reason have chosen to keep their colonial constitutions, how there be any possible confusion? I like it too that in the republican-monarchist debate in Canada, which admittedly barely exists, the two sides take opposite positions on the head of state debate from their counterparts in Australia. TFD (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a quote from a recent PM is not worthy of inclusion when a legal textbook is? Certainly it adds balance to an article that is fundamentally about a 'dispute'. The Guardian is a respectable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgitheanach12 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I put the stuff about Turnball's contradicting statements, into the Australian head of state dispute article. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think the real problem is what does "head of state" mean?" A remarkably slippery concept. The firmest grasp comes from diplomacy, where the protocol of who speaks for the nation, who represents the nation overseas, who receives foreign ambassadors is important. Realistically, that person is not the British monarch, who no longer claims that title in any case. Letters of Credence, the assurances that an ambassador speaks with the authority of their national government, are no longer addressed to or issued in the name of the monarch here. They are addressed to and issued by the Governor-General with no further qualification.[25] Again, one more step in the "republic by stealth" progress of Australia since Federation. --Pete (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This section is for discussion of whether we should include text relating to Turnbull's justifications for not attending the repatriation ceremony. It is not an opportunity to rehash old arguments about who should be considered Australia's head of state. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

New evidence, not old arguments, I suggest. Wikipedia isn't stuck with the days of the old Empire; we can move with the times, surely? --Pete (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The argument that "letters of credence" are a dispositive determinant is not new. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The government of Canada saw it differently: "These changes to diplomatic practice are intended to more accurately reflect the Governor General's discharge of all of the functions of the Head of State in respect of Canada's international relations, and to reflect Canada's status as a fully independent nation. The changes are in accordance with the constitutional position of The Queen and the Governor General, and do not in any sense alter the constitutional position of The Queen of Canada or the Constitution of Canada."[26]

For 90 minutes, Kamala Harris discharge of ALL of the functions of the Head of State. Was she therefore the head of state? What about the Regency era, when George III was ill and his son carried out ALL his political responsibilities?

TFD (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, please. I don't understand what you're posting about or what any of it has to do with this current discussion. A more proper place would be at the talkpage of the Head of state article. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I read it as a negation of some of the arguments put forward above; per Reductio ad absurdum. That "letters of credence" is not dispositive - explicitly contradicted by the Canadian Government; that "performs the functions" is not dispositive - clearly false in the scenarios described by TFD: Harris as acting President & Prince George (later Geo. IV) as Regent. I might open a separate section to explicitly discuss the Turnbull repatriation ceremony text. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to Pete, who wrote, "The firmest grasp comes from diplomacy, where the protocol of who speaks for the nation, who represents the nation overseas, who receives foreign ambassadors is important. Realistically, that person is not the British monarch, who no longer claims that title in any case. Letters of Credence, the assurances that an ambassador speaks with the authority of their national government, are no longer addressed to or issued in the name of the monarch here. They are addressed to and issued by the Governor-General with no further qualification. Again, one more step in the "republic by stealth" progress of Australia since Federation." [21:52, 24 November 2021] TFD (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's been some confusion with indentation. I think the main problem with the term "head of state" is that for most nations there is no confusion at all. The various British self-governing colines became Dominions, and then Realms, and the influence of the Imperial Government (represented by "the Queen") waned steadily. At Federation in 1901, there would have been no confusion. Australia was an integral part of the Empire. The Queen - Victoria, as per the Constitution - was at the top of the tree, Australians, along with New Zealanders, Rhodesians and so on generally regarded themselves as British subjects. In the 120 years since then Australia - and the other ex-Dominions - have gradually and naturally moved to independence. There were some significant legislative milestones such as the Statute of Westminster and Australia Acts but there have been few points where the tide turned back toward Britain; it has generally flowed in the direction of national identity. Few Australians - or Canadians or Jamaicans etc. - would see the very English Elizabeth II as someone who represented them on the world stage, which is one of the main functions of a head of state.

I think a lot of the difficulty here lies with those who see "head of state" as some sort of legal term and only one person does that job. True in most nations, but certainly not in Australia. Politicians, media, government bodies find themselves in a quandary as to who is in the job. Is it the person who actually does the job, which is the Governor-General, or the Queen, who is generally seen as being at the apex of the Australian tree? Terms such as de facto and de jure and effective and ceremonial and symbolic are bandied around depending on context. I don't think there has been a Prime Minister since Fraser who has not at one time or another called the Governor-General the head of state in some fashion.

I think it is pointless to try to say that the Queen or the Governor-General is the head of state. The term is not defined anywhere with a sufficient degree of accuracy, and certainly not in Australian law, nor has the High Court ever issued a definitive ruling. Whenever we try to hunt down a good source, it is no more than an opinion of someone who doesn't have sufficient authority to give it some sort of seal of legal approval. I think it is mischievous of those who try to portray me as pushing for the Governor-General to be declared by Wikipedia as the Australian head of state. I'm not. There is no good source, no authority, no law that I can point to and say, there is the definitive answer. My position is that there is confusion and division and discussion and dispute.

The "Letters of Credence" issue isn't an attempt to find a point of certainty. It is one more step in the path. Once these documents were issued and received in the name of the Queen. Now they are issued and received in the name of the Governor-General. This is one more grain of sand slipping through the hourglass. The Queen side of the glass may well have been full in 1901 but ever since then the sands have been running out for the British monarch. Those who see the Queen as reigning over Australia, undiminished in over a century, are surely fooling themselves. As are those who see the Governor-General's side of the glass as filled completely up.

The real question is not what I think about it, but how Wikipedia presents an accurate portrayal of the situation for our readers, those who come here seeking information. --Pete (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And now what sources say.....David Butler (18 June 1991). Surrogates for the Sovereign: Constitutional Heads of State in the Commonwealth. Springer. pp. 61–69. ISBN 978-1-349-11565-5. OCLC 1084443140.....- ...Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Australia Today. Federation Press. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8. OCLC 1112094596......-....Vernon Bogdanor (1995). The Monarchy and the Constitution. Clarendon Press. pp. 293–. ISBN 978-0-19-829334-7. OCLC 1109187193.... - ...John Warhurst; Malcolm Mackerras, eds. (2002). Constitutional Politics: The Republic Referendum and the Future. Univ. of Queensland Press. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-0-7022-3341-8. OCLC 1131566673.Moxy- 00:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

For all we know, Malcolm Turnbull was a Soviet agent. Cf Spycatcher.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Plus. The terminological and conceptual distinction between head of state and head of government is not entirely "scientific". Quote unquote. There have been interminable discussion about who is the head of state of the DPRK. See Kim Jong Un. Cf. King Wenceslauslessness.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Turnball to call the governor-general, emperor of the Universe. His statements are so powerful. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is all about what one person said. OK, a then-PM. We're taking note of him because he, unlike Rudd, is said to "know his Constitution". Yet, as we point out, the headship of the Australian state is not a constitutional matter - it's silent on the issue. So the fact that some commentator knows his Constitution should have no real bearing on this. When Rudd referred to Bryce as the HoS, we can be sure he did not personally write the media release or speech in which those words appeared. His office did so, possibly in conjunction with Government House. So his (claimed) personal lack of knowledge of the Constitution should carry no more or less weight than whatever Turnbull personally knows or doesn't know. We can't just cherry-pick the opinions that might bolster whatever case we're attached to, and ignore or downplay others. In any case, we as Wikipedia editors have no role in deciding any of this. It might one day come before the High Court, although I can't imagine what sort of case would cause this to occur. Until then, we'll have to be content with recording and reporting what significant players might have to say on the matter from time to time. I think most folk would be happy to say that the G-G is the HoS for virtually all practical purposes, but whether that makes him/her the actual, legal HoS is a different matter entirely. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

headship of the Australian state is not a constitutional matter - it's silent on the issue....Section 61 to 70 The Australian Constitution -Chapter II. The Executive Government......Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Australia Today. Federation Press. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8. OCLC 1112094596.Moxy- 13:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Saunders, but that's just my opinion agreeing with hers.

As I said, the Constitution contains no mention of the words "head of state". No, not even in the section you've linked. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the commonwealth realms 'don't' mention the word 'head of state', in their constitutions. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, the constitutions of 11 of the 15 Commonwealth realms (excluding now Barbados) do not include the phrase "head of state". Those that do are NZ, PNG, Solomon Islands & Tuvalu - each naming the Queen. A constitution does not need to use the exact phrase to define a head of state. But this has been mentioned before. Multiple times. But discussion of the Constitution's exact text here, without sources to show how it is relevant to improving the article text, is in the realm of WP:FORUM; as is much of the extended argumentum above. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

So few hold the position that they are named because the vast majority see between the lines. Peter John Boyce (2008). The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press. pp. 27–34. ISBN 978-1-86287-700-9. OCLC 1135268862..Moxy- 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible logged-out IP

IP 89.101.207.98 continues to re-add material 'without consensus', that editor Sgitheanach12 originally added. Personally, I suspect that the former is the latter logged-out. If he (IP) makes another attempt to re-add said material? I'll be reporting it to WP:AN. Checked out the history of both & the contrib history seems quite similar. Slow edit-warring to put in contentious material, isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

PS - I've been informed that the IP has been or is used by multiple editors. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

PPS - The IP has been traced to (don't laugh) the North Dublin Regional Drug & Alcohol Task Force. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

International and domestic aspects section's accuracy

At or near the top of the International and domestic aspects section. We've a sentence that reads

"...and its heads of state, comprising the Sovereign, the State Governors, and the Governor-General."

IMHO, that should be re-written, as the governor-general & the governors 'are not' heads of state. A re-writing would comply with the already mentioned (in preceding discussion) 2016 RFC & 2021 RFC, concerning Australia's head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Title of Charles III

The title section states: "The title of the monarch is Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.", with a reference to the Royal Style and Title Act 1973 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A00044)

Reading the act, a specific title is given in the Schedule, which took effect on the date of proclamation. This title is specific to Elizabeththe Second, and the act makes no mention of succession. Therefore at present Charles III has no Australian title, and will not do so until Parliament assents to a bill with a new title that can be proclaimed.

The change here has been premature. Tml au (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. There is currently no King of Australia. Jleonau (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Succession is automatic. He became King of Australia, the moment his mother died. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

True, however the style of the Monarch of Australia is defined by Act of Parliament in Australia. This has not yet been amended, so he has no offical style, other than King of Australia. The article is currently wrong. Tml au (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, the page is about the Australian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you even read what you write? There is a specific section in the article that makes a claim about the style of the King of Australia, and it is wrong, and points to a reference that applies to the prior Queen of Australia. Tml au (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, and this issue is specifically mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald today: "University of Sydney Professor Emerita Helen Irving said Australia would probably need a new Royal Styles and Titles Act, which declares a monarch as head of state. 'The current one is from 1973, and it refers to Queen Elizabeth the second, as the Queen of Australia and therefore doesn’t refer to her successors. We need a new Royal Styles and Titles Act for King Charles the third.'" --Canley (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as there's complaints about Jamaica as well? I might' as well open up an RFC on this whole matter, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty. It appears you're both claiming that the Australian throne is vacant. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue about Jamaica is entirely different. While the Jamaican constitution refers to "Her Majesty," prior law says that references to the Queen should be interpreted as referring to the King. The Titles Act however specifically says that should not apply. Common sense though tells us that the previous title will be kept until a new act is passed. Whether or not the king has an official title incidentally is irrelevant to whether or not he is the king. TFD (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, The accession of the new Sovereign is automatic. This is about the king's title in Australia (although note that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet FAQ linked there does say: "The King’s Royal style and title in Australia is ‘King Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth’." – maybe that could be used as a reference rather than the Act, which will be updated shortly and there's no reason it would be substantially different as confirmed by PMC). --Canley (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll figure it out. It's going to take awhile for all the dust to settle. After all, it's over 70 years between successions. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Date of Reign Commencement of Charles III

Does Charles III's reign start on 8 September as it did in the UK and as it currently has on the page, or 9 September in the Australian context, as the Monarch of Australia? The Queen died when it was 9 September in Canberra, the announcement was proclaimed at 3:30am AEST. Charles was never king when it was 8 September in Australia, The Monarch's official residence is Government House in Canberra, but does Buckingham Palace supersede it (in the Australian context)? It may not given that the Monarchy of the UK is a seperate realm to Australia. Maranello10 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We're using September 8, per UTC. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are "we" doing that? There is no consensus for that at all. For this article, Australian time should be used. It might be different if there was a variation between Australian time zones, but for these dates there is not. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in getting into any edit-wars with you. Therefore, I'll let others decide on which accession date to use for here & the monarchy pages of New Zealand, Tuvalu & Solomon Islands. I believe such a discussion is taking place at Charles III's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet on whether BST or Oceanic timezones are being used, but a related conversation is taking place at Talk:Charles III, so it is probably best that one plays out for now rather than replicating it here. Maranello10 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

May help, if the time zone were placed next to the date 'here', like it's done at Monarchy of New Zealand. Would stop IPs & others from constantly changing the accession date. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

St Anselm you are incorrect, she died before 4:30pm on 8 September which is 11:30pm AWST. The Governor General's official website states she died on 8 September. Are there any other official sources stating she died on the 9th? GeebaKhap (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Governor-General also stated he was called at 01:38 Adelaide Time announcing her death. "01". London has not yet confirmed an exact time. This would mean part of Australia was still in 8 September. 9 September would be inaccurate. Adding a note may be required if more editting occurs. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 12:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• The fact that it may have been 9 September in some or all of Australia when the queen died is, in my opinion, irrelevant. She didn't die here, she died in Scotland, and deaths are always dated as per the place of death and the time zone of that place at that moment. Over the years the Queen signed many, many documents in Buckingham Palace and elsewhere in the UK, pertaining to Australian affairs, but we never convert the time to Australian time or adjust the date. Whatever the date was where she signed them, that's the date for all purposes. Same for her death and Charles's accession. The Commonwealth Realms are spread over, maybe, 15 different time zones (3 in Australia alone), so we can't have a situation where the Queen's death is recorded as occurring at 15 different times over 2 days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm alright with either date (Sept 8 or 9), as I know there'll be constant back-and-forth editing on this topic. Unless someone begins a RFC for this page & the New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu & Solomon Islands monarchy pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the date of the Queen's death that is in dispute - it's the date of accession of the King of Australia. StAnselm (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up an RFC on that matter concerning the monarchy pages of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu & Solomon Islands. PS - The date of Elizabeth II's death, would be the same as the date of Charles III's accession, unless she would've died at midnight. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: The aforementioned RfC (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10#RFC: Which date did Charles III's reign begin, in Oceania?) was closed on November 3, the consensus and government sources favoured 8 September as the accession date. Maranello10 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)