Talk:Head of state/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Delegation

The first two paragraphs of the "Delegation" section are unsourced, and in my opinion quite misleading. The Australian Governor-General is in no way a delegate or agent of the Queen. This was made plain at Federation by the leading constitutional scholars (Quick and Garran), and explicit in 1984 when Queen Victoria's Instructions to the Governor-General were withdrawn on advice from the Hawke government. The Queen is unable to issue orders to the Australian Governor-General, who exercises his key powers in his own authority. --Pete (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Australian monarch is the Head of State, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m not gonna open up that can of worms again. But I think one can safely say, from merely protocol (not constitutional law) point of view, that any Commonwealth GG acts a delegate, for and on behalf of the absentee Queen (irrespective of the nature of constitutional authority each GG derives).RicJac (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has long been flagged as having few sources, and I note a "citation needed" tmplate in this particular section for at least a year. The material is unsourced, and has been flagged that way, and I intend to remove anything without a source. The situation in Australia is unique within the remnants of the British Empire. Informed opinion has not found any delegation. Australia is not ruled out of Buckingham Palace. There are no sources stating that the Queen instructs the Governor-General, she does not delegate any major powers to him or her, and the few minor powers (such as the power to appoint deputies) which have been delegated wwithin the Letters-Patent cannot be used as a basis to imply some sort of blanket statement. We can speak of popular notions, I suppose, but again we would need both a source and a rewording to make it plain. --Pete (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the Australian monarch, Skyring. Get you facts straight. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting the Australian Constitution: "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." This seems pretty clear to me to say that the Queen hold the top card, and if the Constitution is not a valid source I don't know what is. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but see Australian head of state dispute for more on this. --Pete (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why this constant push to have Australia treated differently from the other Commonwealth realms continues, is beyond me. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RS?

I'm regarding the removal of well-sourced content as vandalism, but I've asked for more eyes here. --Pete (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:VANDAL. Removing material one considers to be inaccurate and unsourced is not vandalism, and accusing editors of vandalism in this case is a personal attack. TFD (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article can not be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanna point out. Nothing has been settled at the RSN board, yet. Therefore, Skyring's restoration of his PoV edits are premature. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not one editor out of the five participants there - including you - has suggested deletion. The advice given by two editors and supported by you is to add a source. I have done this with a comprehensive overview from Australia's national daily. Two editors do not think a source is required as the linked article is adequately sourced. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so determined to promote on Wikipedia, the dispute-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to point out that Skyring 'may have' breached WP:3RR, with possibly 7-reverts over a span of roughly 2 days. An editor with better ability, may wish to look into that. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pete has rejected 3RR before. None of the listed exceptions appear to apply here Pete. Djapa Owen (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Roles of British governors, governors-general etc.

My understanding is that British colonial governors were not installed so much as the personal agent of the monarch, but as the representative of the British Government. They took their orders from the Colonial Office, not Buckingham Palace. Trying to squeeze their descendants, particularly in Australia, into the job as the Queen's hand in Canberra, is a big step. It ignores what they really do in their everyday jobs, where the Queen is not at the other end of the telephone directing their daily activities. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Claiming otherwise is pro-monarchist revionsism and shows a lack of understanding of the subject at hand. RicJac (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Longest head of state

Who is going to be the next longest head of state once Ghadafi is out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.134.78 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ghadafi is the third-longest-serving. See List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

-Also; Gadaffi was not the formal Libyan Head of State in 2011, and had not been for some years.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Longest serving Head of the state is King Rama IX in Thailand. He is reigning for 1946 to present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.161.20.238 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Confused...

What is the title for a sub-national official such as Governors of states of India and Lieutenant governor (Canada)? Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

President of the United States

We don't need to pipe-link President of the United States as President of the United States of America, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW: The photo has an error, if it's describing heads of state in 1889. Chester Arthur was US President from 1881 to 1885. Grover Cleveland (1885 to 1889) or Benjamin Harrison (1889 to 1893), should be the US President in that photo. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Powers to remove ministers

In 1975 the Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the then Prime Minister, the late Gough Whitlam, in resolving a crisis over Supply (funding the budget). He did so using executive powers specifically given to him. Powers that were not available to the monarch, either in their own right, or through instruction. This was made clear after the event: The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Accordingly I have removed the words "or their representative" from the following: Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders in Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.)

Kerr acted by virtue of his office and not as the monarch's representative. Either the example must go, or the wording changed to reflect the reality. --Pete (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Australia isn't different from the other 14 Commonwealth realms which have a governor general. I fail to understand the attempts to promote it otherwise. Anyways, I'll now let others weigh in on this topic, as you & I will never come to an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that each Commonwealth realm has a different constitution, it logically follows that Australia's constitutional arrangements are different to those of (say) Canada. If you think they are identical, then you are fooling yourself. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for others to comment. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just common sense. Different nations, different constitutions - they can't possibly be identical. If you can't accept this, it's hardly worth discussing more complex subjects. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Myself & Skyring will never resolve this dispute on our own. Input from others is welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: per WP:BRD, I've re-added Skyring's removal, which seemed to suggest that the Australian governor-general was Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Skyring has added nothing, but has undone a mistaken and unwarranted edit, which disregarded the specific example of Australia there stated, in a longstanding part of the text.[1] --Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed up. Meant to say he deleted & I then I re-added :) GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the governor-general asked the Queen for advice and she refused to provide it. It is original research to conclude from this incident that the Queen had no power to remove the prime minister. However it would be unlikely because she is supposed to act on his advice at all times as was ironically the governor-general. You really need a source that connects the dots, rather than do it yourself.

Incidentally, the Queen is not strictly speaking head of state. The Queen is the state. Hence prosecutions in republics take the form, "The State vs.", in most monarchies they take the from "The Queen vs."

TFD (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD, your interpretation is at odds with the actuality. If you have a source saying Kerr asked the Queen for advice, could you please provide it? Likewise, if you have a source stating that the Queen may appoint or dismiss Australian ministers, could you please put it forward for examination?

Looking here, we see that In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. The notion that the Governor-General is merely the agent or delegate of the monarch is a popular one but incorrect. Perhaps we can look to the Walt Disney model of absolute monarchy as the source for this view? --Pete (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the deletion seems to promote the PoV that the Australian governor-general is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple views on the matter. I suggest you read our article on the topic. You will then be better informed. --Pete (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of this & the linking article you've mentioned & it only confuses me all the more, as to why you're promoting the GG as HoS. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both views are commonplace, expressed at all levels, as noted in the article, which I suggest you read. Under WP:NPOV we cannot promote one view above the other if both are widely held. Our own views are unimportant. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, there's no consensus for your deletion. Also, I'm confounded by your refusal to respect WP:BRD. I think it's best for me to step away from this discussion, as it can only lead to trouble for myself. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to your the PoV that the Australian governor-general is Australia's head of state.. That's not my position at all. I would be as uncomfortable with Wikipedia taking that position as I am with the unvarnished assertion that the Queen is the head of state. I haven't yet found a source that puts the matter to rest either way, but I see various views within the community. That's every community. The public, government officials, lawyers, academics, journalists. At all levels. NPOV requires that we give both views a run here. --Pete (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not your head of state dispute, then it's your football/soccer dispute. Why can't you Aussies ever come to an agreement among yourselves ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Au moins nos panneux est seulement dans seule langue, copain... It is desire and attachment that cause the trouble. These are only things in our heads creating conflict, nothing solid or real, so that's a blessing, I guess. --Pete (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Compromise: "...head of state or representative (see Australian head of state dispute)...", since there's no dispute about there being a dispute in Australia over its HoS's identity. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A clumsy and unhelpful wording, in my view. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made it less clumsy now, buy showing it as The Dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are essentially reverting to the same position. Adding a link doesn't resolve the matter. If you can come up with a phrasing that is both accurate and helpful, that would be good, but your wording doesn't really change the POV being challenged. On this matter the Australian Governor-General acts in his own right and not as a representative. The Queen cannot appoint or dismiss Australian ministers, and if you have a source stating otherwise, please provide it. --Pete (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reject that proposal, too.

This is just Pete/Skyring's hoary old (and entirely POV) argument that the Governor-General of Australia is not the representative of the Queen of Australia. Regardless, the statement "Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems... may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances" doesn't even say anything specifically about the Governor-General of Australia, let alone that the Governor-General of Australia is the Queen of Australia's representative. The wording of the statement is deliberately general. There's nothing wrong with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The compromise proposal is my second choice. It was meant to appease one of the editors. Anyways, I'm gonna step back now & allow you & others to have your inputs. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon, Mies, but I have never said that the Governor-General is not the representative of the Queen. My position is that the job is larger than this, as noted on the Governor-General's own website: In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. One of which is the appointment of ministers, as noted in s64. --Pete (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view, Pete's wording usually expresses the actuality more accurately than those who contend for some thing else. But, per some comments above, the present version, which reads Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems ... may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances[2], is equally consistent with the Australian position, whether or not, for all or only occasional purposes, the GG is or acts as "Head of State", a proposition which has an article of its own. Can we not let it rest there? Qexigator (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My objection is to the implication that Kerr acted as an agent of the monarch in 1975. He didn't. He used his own powers without any advice or direction from London. --Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Kerr acted by virtue of his office and not as the monarch's representative..."

There's zero implication Kerr acted "as an agent" of the monarch. In addition to what I already said above, the example of Kerr in the article doesn't say anything about whether he acted as a head of state or a representative thereof. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Zero implication? That's not how I see it. In any case the example is now ambiguous. Pick one which is clear-cut. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove the implication you say is there is there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As I say, find an example which is not problematic or ambiguous. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The one that's been there for more than five years; the one you removed (again). If you say again it is problematic, you'll be told again to prove it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See discussion above. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on you (Skyring) to get a consensus for your deletion. So far, you haven't got that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that you see WP:BRD as only working in one direction, GoodDay. And you should accept that discussion to find consensus might take longer than half an hour and involve more than three editors. --Pete (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

He's reading BRD right. You're bold, you get reverted, you discuss. You were the bold one making the change to more than five year old text. You got reverted. Therefore, you stop reverting and discuss. It's pretty simple.

Rather than discuss--in this case, prove the implication you say is there is there--you're reverting in the article and obfuscating here. This isn't new for you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Australia a special case, among the Commonwealth realms?

Does the Australian monarch have reserved powers? Is the Australian monarch able to fire the Australian government? Again the question isn't Would?, but rather Could?. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Queen does not have that power. The exercise of the executive power is assigned directly to the Governor-General (s61). This is distinct from the equivalent section (s9) in the Canadian Constitution. Other powers are specified and assigned directly. The Queen is given the specific power to appoint the Governor-General (s2), which the Governor-General may not exercise, because it is not assigned to him. Other powers are specifically assigned throughout the Constitution, such as the power to appoint ministers. This is distinct from other realms, where powers are conferred by letters-patent. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the Australian governor-general the monarch's representative? GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let the discussion get bogged down in these matters that aren't even relevant. As I've already said, the sentence Pete/Skyring found/finds contentious doesn't say or even imply what he says it does. That's the crux of the matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So why are you so vehemently opposed to removing either the Australian example or the word "representative"? You cannot bear not to have both included, as shown by your edit-warring. It is obviously something important to you. I don't mind losing one or the other, and I am happy to have a different example, where there is no possibility of confusion. But you demand both. It is a logical conclusion that you see a strong connection between both. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FFS. One more time: Because there's nothing wrong with either the word "representative" in the sentence (in Canada the governor general certainly is the Queen's representative, duh) or the Australian example being used. Nowhere in either the sentence or the example that illustrates it is there a statement, implicit or otherwise, about whether the Governor-General is a head of state or the representative of one! I shouldn't have to repeat myself again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just answer the question, Mies. It's obviously something you feel strongly about. Why not have a different example of the use of powers - the King-Byng-thing, for example? --Pete (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to amend that last statement of mine: I won't repeat myself again. Not to you, anyway. You got from me what you asked for. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for evasion and obfuscation, Mies. You have shown a strong desire to link the two concepts, even edit-warring over the point. If there is no connection or implication, as you contend, then why bother? Why not accept a different example, or as Qexigator suggests, make the wording explicit to avoid any ambiguity? We're here to educate readers, not confuse and bamboozle them. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the Australian governor-general the monarch's representative? Up to a point. At Federation, saying that the Governor-General was the Queen's representative was a polite way of saying that the Governor-General was the representative of Her Majesty's Government. After the Balfour Declaration, that ceased to be the case and a British High Commissioner was appointed to perform the job previously carried out by the Governor-General. As noted in that link, In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers.. So the answer is, yes, but only a little bit. --Pete (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you opposing the addition of representative & ignoring BRD, aswell? GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was initiated and continues to this moment. My point, as noted above in "Powers to remove ministers" is that the Australian Governor-General exercises that particular power in his or her own right, and not as a delegate or agent of the Queen, as implied by the use of the word "representative". Not every Wikipedia reader is aware of the precise constitutional situation, and it is commonplace to see the word "representative" in those terms. --Pete (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree with you, concerning inclusion/exclusion. The term representative should remain. Furthermore, it shouldn't be deleted upon article-protection being lifted, unless you've a consensus for such a deletion by then. So put your revert button away, until you get that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD. GoodDay is obviously asking why you didn't start discussion after your bold edit was reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did. We were discussing the matter three weeks ago and continued to do so before your arrival, with input from another editor. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You initiated a change on November 11, which I reverted. When you reverted my revert, you were then in the wrong, see? Today, I restore the original and again you reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because I don't respect your depth of constitutional knowledge, and admitting that isn't something I'm proud of. Yes, you are right on BRD, and I was in the wrong on procedure. And while I'm being frank with myself, you behaved the most admirably out of the three of us, because you were at least willing to try alternate wordings. --Pete (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting your error concerning BRD :) GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

After the lock

As I see it, there is reason to oppose using the Australian example unless worded for the GG having acted in his own capacity as such and not as the Queen's representative, thus: ...unexpected circumstances (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr in his own capacity as the Governor-General.) -- Qexigator (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the reason? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentence contruction. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning away from using an Australian amendment, in this article. Being nitpicky, isn't always a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sentence construction" is the "reason to oppose using the Australian example unless worded for the GG having acted in his own capacity as such and not the Queen's representative"? Sorry, I don't follow. What's the reason to oppose the sentence and illustrating example as is? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, to keep it simple: a person who has followed the discussion so far who compares the one version of the sentence with the other should be able to see the difference, and that difference is the reason. That was "as I see it", but not using an Australian example, per above, may be the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference isn't the matter under discussion.

Let me put this as simply as I can: What's wrong with the sentence and illustrating example as is (or was before Pete/Skyring's edits)? It certainly isn't any claim, implied or otherwise, the Governor-General of Australia is "an agent" of the Queen of Australia. It isn't any claim, implied or otherwise that Kerr acted on instruction from the Queen in 1975. So, what is it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of a Talk page is to improve an article, not to debate points arising from any editor's opinions, it would be simpler still if you (and others) would say if you find the version proposed above acceptable. Alternatively, is there another example to use instead, or is any example needed? Qexigator (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, there is no reason, as I thought. If we could all just accept that fact, we wouldn't need to have this argument at all.

I don't approve of the proposal. It introduces reduncancies. What is (was) there is perfectly fine. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I must decline your proposal, Qexigator. We should stick with the version of using representative & exclude the Australia example. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. The King-Byng Thing is an excellent example, given its significance to Commonwealth constitutional history. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but, gee, Byng was representative both of the head of state and the British government and wouldn't we have to clarify that Byng wasn't acting as an agent of the British government and that King asked Byng to seek direction from it, but Byng declined, as he regarded the matter as one for the governor general only? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't cast it in those terms - nor would anyone else, I suggest - but if it bothers you, choose another example. My concern is that incorrect inferences could be drawn from the current wording by those who are uninformed on the subject - our target audience, given that we are an encyclopaedia. Keep it straightforward. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You're all about clearly spelling out by what authority governors-general act and what they represent, aren't you? Incorrect inferences could be drawn by those who are uninformed on the subject, after all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing only one out of four contributors in favour of keeping the previous wording unchanged. I'm seeing dropping or changing the example as more popular than removing "representative". --Pete (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for above responses, and proposal for pic: only one[3] seems to be available. If possible, and it is, the article should let the point be clear to the reader, and for that reason I see Pete as having explained the position in the discussion on this page, without resort to BRD scoring or "onus" claims, which are better left behind. I see no reason to cast an "Aussie" or any other slur on anyone contributing here. Qexigator (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 22:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It may not matter, but please note the two above comments (23:30) were posted simultaneously, each without prior sight of the other. Usually an edit conflict message would have intervened. Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Aussie was used in a light-hearted manner. It wasn't meant as a slur, by this Canuck ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the article should let the point be clear to the reader, and for that reason I see Pete as having explained the position in the discussion on this page"? "The position"? He hasn't even clearly articulated his own position.

First, he objected to the words "or their representative", the removal of which not only discounted all the other Commonwealth realm governors-general, but also left the example of the Australian governor-general illustrating the words "[s]ome Commonwealth parliamentary systems... may give a head of state [emphasis mine] additional powers in unexpected circumstances", thereby pushing the POV that the Governor-General of Australia is a head of state. Yet, he denies that's what he did.

Then he objected to Kerr being used as the example of a head of state or representative of one using the reserve powers. But, he hasn't explained why. Was Kerr neither a head of state nor the representative of one? Or is it Pete/Skyring's unfounded POV that the governor-general sometimes is the Queen's representative and sometimes is this other, unnamed "thing"?

Even if it were a matter of some reader maybe assuming Kerr was following the Queen's orders or had to seek her approval: Firstly, it doesn't really matter to this page or to the short and very general statement about reserve powers in the Commonwealth realms. The wording as it was certainly wasn't inaccurate or misleading. Secondly, even if another example were to be used (for no reason), Pete/Skyring's "concern" would have to similarly apply (as I pointed out above in response to his suggested use of the King-Byng Affair).

This is all just another Pete/Skyring clusterfuck; his usual wikilawyering, obfuscating, tendential, hypocritical nonsense.

If WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD aren't going to be enforced (which is pretty bloody sad), then the only way to end this is to either a) word the example thusly: "such as when Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr unilaterally" or "singularly dismissed Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam", or remove the example and replace it with nothing (which doesn't seem to better the article at all). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mies. Through all that noise and clamour it seems you now propose "...may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances, such as when Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr unilaterally / singularly dismissed Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam ". But I don't see either the word "unilaterally" or "singularly" clarifies the point for the reader, whether familiar or not with constitutional niceties affecting the monarch, governors-general, or sovereign state theory or practice. Better said would be: such as when Sir John Kerr, acting in his own capacity as governor-general, dismissed Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam ". Qexigator (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It clarifies the point just fine. Oh, unless the definition of "the point" has changed again.

"Acting in his own capacity" is tautological. He can't have acted in any capacity but his own. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that comment makes the point for me, but maybe some explanation will help. Supposing it to be " tautological" may show why there has been a difficulty. A person who is an appointed office-holder, such as a gg, has more than one capacity: his own as a person (normally including capacity to enter into contracts or to vote at elections, unless disqualified by virtue of the office); the capacities vested in him as representative of another (in the case of a gg, the monarch), therefore not "his own"; any capacity he may have in right of the office, not as representative of another, and to make the distinction where it suits the context, the latter may be said to be "his own" (by virtue of the office, understood). Now, as I understand it, that has been the point all along, and remains so. Many people are aware, without needing to be told, that the Queen has a number of capacities, as monarch of several realms, as Head of the Commonwealth, as a person able to own private property distinct from property held in right of the Crown or in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, to name some. Ordinary, plain citizens have powers of their own but may also have powers not in their own right but as trustees, or company directors, or personal representatives of a deceased person, and so on and on. The terms may vary, but something of the kind exists in all jurisdictions on the face of the globe, from New Zealand to Hawaii, not excluding the realms of Australia or Canada. Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

+Perhaps I should add that this is not a distinction without a difference. While the edit point is little more than a tweak, and the information it seeks to clarify may seem to some a nuance of small if any significance, commenters may be able to agree that in a constitutional system the question at issue could mark the difference between legitimacy and coup d'etat, as can be seen in the course of the development of UK and former colonies and dominions, and the Commonwealth realms and republics, not to mention other countries with other histories. That could be one reason why the point may be felt as contentious, and sometimes hotly debated, not only here but among politicians and academics, sometimes to the bemusement of others. Qexigator (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian constitution may make the Governor-General of Australia the only person allowed to exercise certain executive powers, but, the Governor-General of Australia is always the Australian monarch's representative. Thus, if "the point" is what you say it is, this whole argument has been about whether to make an edit based on someone's unfounded POV, which makes it a total waste of time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Like Elizabeth is always her father's daughter and heir and the crowned head of UK, whether in any particular case she excercises powers as monarch of another realm, or in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Normandy or Lord of Mann or is acting as Head of the Commonwealth? Then we might as well extend that to include acts done by constitutional "representatives" such as governors-general, irrespective of whether any such act is authorised or formally attributable to the monarch? So that to mention the governor-general and not the Queen is almost always unnecessary verbiage? Compare with private law, where the same individual person may be both a beneficiary under a will and a personal representative of the deceased testator, and a trustee of a distinct part of the estate as well, but it may be necessary to state in which of those capacities s/he is acting. Given that the point (as I understand it) is that, in the specific crisis, the GG was somehow unexpectedly acting otherwise than representing the Queen of Australia, which is not an irrational or meaningless proposition, it would be as well to let the wording be (as above-written): ...such as when Sir John Kerr, acting in his own capacity as governor-general, dismissed Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam ". The matter has been discussed and argued back and forth, which suggests the lack of something which conclusively shows he considered himself to be acting in his capacity as the Queen's representative or not as her representative. Qexigator (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I will say this once again: The Governor-General of Australia is always the Queen's representative. The constitution says this. When Kerr dismissed Whitlam, he exercised powers that only he could exercise, but did so as the Queen's representative, which is what the governor-general is. The governor-general is not sometimes the Queen's representative and sometimes not. To say the governor-general is ever anything other than the Queen's representative or ever exercises powers that aren't constitutionally belonging to the Queen is to repeat a disproved POV.

Again: the capacity in which Kerr acted was no one's but his.

If this is going to continue past this point, I suggest (though, I know from past experience it's unlikely to happen) the first step of dispute resolution be taken. We're only going to repeat ourselves from here on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this view that "the Governor-General of Australia is always the Queen's representative", Mies? (Emphasis mine.) That sounds like original research to me. The Governor-General's own page states that his role is more than that: In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. A reasonable person would interpret "In addition to..." as meaning "more than". So who is right, Mies, you or the person actually holding the office? --Pete (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DR --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing Mies's failure to address Pete's comment and question, which is to the point, and claiming it as a "disproved POV", looks like artificially creating a "dispute" for the sake of resorting to a "resolution" procedure to bolster an entrenched and unreasoned pov. Let the discussion be settled by addressing the point at issue here. As I have explained above, it is nuanced but not too difficult for reasonably informed editors to resolve in the cause of improving the npov encyclopedic content of the article. Qexigator (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see below "Corrective edit to clarify Queen's action? Second thoughts". I am proposing that the whole paragraph be removed. If acceptable, that would let the matter be settled and the discussion closed. Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't follow the link I provided to where his POV was disproved. When you see I (and others) have already been through a very lengthy argument over this same matter, you'll understand why I won't let it begin all over again; there's no failure on my part; please don't be so presumptuous. You'll also see this isn't the first time he's tried injecting his opinion into Wikipedia as though it were fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, which I followed. I had considered what I found there before making above reply. I am aware that he is held in odium by some, whose comments in my view are seldom as pertinent as his, but that is no good reason for letting their past rancour influence mine or others' input here. If you were to read my comments with care you would see that it is not I that am "presumptuous". I note that you continue not to address the points put in my reasoned comments, but merely repeat comments beside the point, with a surprising but revealing degree of irritation. But that no longer matters if the paragraph is removed, as it should be, and that is the better way to let this bone of contention go. Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you read it. But, the point wasn't to see how some people feel about Pete/Skyring; it was to observe that this opinion of his, which you seem to have bought, has been disproved already (at at least one other location than that one, actually). It is presumptuous to say I failed; to assume I didn't address Pete/Skyring's cherry-picked website quote because I couldn't. I made it pretty clear I am deliberately not going to rehash the same (long, tedious) argument with him again; doing so is just repetitious and blocking progress here. I've dealt with your comments, either above or elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You may have "dealt with" my earlier comments to your own satisfaction, but not to mine, and if you suppose I have - to use your word - "bought" Pete's opinion, you are mistaken. But there is no need to pursue any of that. My position (admittedly, belated) is as stated above and below: removing the paragraph will improve the article, and that is a better way of letting the discussion be closed. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Again, if no solution is reached by then, it would be most helpful if nobody here makes any changes to the article once the protection expires. I think we can all agree, an edit war would be bad for the article & participating editors. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean restore it to the way it was for over five years until a consensus is reached on whether or not to change it and, if to change it, how, right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep it simple

There comes a point when pushing the Aussie HoS dispute across articles (this article included) grows tiresome & one wonders if we've crossed that line yet. PS- Should we next (for example) put an image of the Australian governor general into the section-in-question? I think not. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Given it alot of thought, over these last few hours. I'm just fed up with it. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest sleeping on it. Refreshing to the mind. Your subconscious may throw up a brilliant and intuitive solution in the process. Good night! --Pete (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on you, to provide a compromise. You got to get a consensus for what you want. So far, you haven't got that & until you do, your edits on the subject will likely continue to be reverted, per BRD. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my level of attachment to any particular outcome. However, it's good to see the issues being examined calmly and thoughtfully. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)